Fantasy Congregation Building!

[ctobola]

Hey All!

The thread in the LCMS/WELS group about adiophora got me thinking about how congregations operate. It strikes me that A LOT of what we do is adiophora. (pews, hymnals, call committees, seminaries, Sunday school, confirmation, "church" weddings, baptismal fonts, altars, stained glass, etc.) That doesn't mean it's bad, but it may keep us from thinking in new and creative ways about the Christian life, sharing the Gospel and living in Christian community.

Here's the question:
If you were to create a brand new congregational structure, what would it look like? There are no limitations on funds or involvement; but you should try to as little of the existing "religious" culture as possible. It may not violate the clear direction of Scripture or the Confessions.

How would you do it? Just curious...

-Cloy

[KagomeShuko]

Sounds like it'd be pretty empty :P

Nah, I'll think about this later when I actually have time. Insteresting, indeed!

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Protoevangel]

Hey All!

The thread in the LCMS/WELS group about adiophora got me thinking about how congregations operate. It strikes me that A LOT of what we do is adiophora. (pews, hymnals, call committees, seminaries, Sunday school, confirmation, "church" weddings, baptismal fonts, altars, stained glass, etc.) That doesn't mean it's bad, but it may keep us from thinking in new and creative ways about the Christian life, sharing the Gospel and living in Christian community.

Here's the question:
If you were to create a brand new congregational structure, what would it look like? There are no limitations on funds or involvement; but you should try to as little of the existing "religious" culture as possible. It may not violate the clear direction of Scripture or the Confessions.

How would you do it? Just curious...

-Cloy
Honestly, I don't believe in change for changes sake, so I wouldn't do it. In fact, I think the very question is unfortunate and reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of adiophora. If there were a clear reason to change something, that is fine. But something being adiophora is not reason enough to change things on a whim. If however, there were actual reasons that some things must be changed, I would have little problem making any of those changes that are indeed adiophora. That which is not adiophora, but essential, could not be compromised at any cost, however.

[RedneckAnglican]

I suppose a waterslide into a Baptismal fount is out of the question?...

coffee bar?...

book store?...

I see all of these "MEGA_Church" type things on TBN and the like and that sort of thing works for a lot of Christians, but is that what we want?...although my Church could use some extra land for maybe a playground type of thing for the kids or a real Youth room...that's all I can think of...

[SPALATIN]

I suppose a waterslide into a Baptismal fount is out of the question?...

coffee bar?...

book store?...

I see all of these "MEGA_Church" type things on TBN and the like and that sort of thing works for a lot of Christians, but is that what we want?...although my Church could use some extra land for maybe a playground type of thing for the kids or a real Youth room...that's all I can think of...

I kind of favor a WAVE pool myself.

[Melethiel]

All this talk about a "new" type of building makes me think of megachurches. Eesh.

I like Catholic/Orthodox cathedrals, myself. Especially the Orthodox ones. :P

[Protoevangel]

Hey, how about a gym?

Then we can sing: "Its fun to stay at the Y..M..C..A... In the E...L...C...A...A...A..."


Oh, by the way... Yes, that was indeed a joke, and not a slam on anyone. No need to have a tizzy fit or anything. But some peoples children....

[ctay]

I ike the old catholic and orthodox churches.

[ctobola]

Melthiel,

You bring up an interesting point. Why is that houses of worship often use design elements (spires, gothic architechture, etc.) from the Middle Ages? Is there something inherently "Christian" about that era?

Why not use a stone and mud house of the type that Joseph and Mary raised Jesus? Wouldn't that me more in keeping with our beliefs?

Just a thought. :)

-Cloy


All this talk about a "new" type of building makes me think of megachurches. Eesh.

I like Catholic/Orthodox cathedrals, myself. Especially the Orthodox ones. :P

[ctobola]

Goodness, Dan, you seem to be quite averse to change. :)

My suggestion was that we think about (not actually implement) other ways that a congregation could "look." Missionaries, refugees, the poor, those traveling, those affected by war and many others have to deal with these issues every day. (My own aunt and uncle had to deal with this under the Soviets in Czechoslovakia -- the miliary burned down their house of worship, but allowed them to keep a handful of hymnals; their pastor was "relocated" and so they called one of their own to serve that role.)

Are hymnals, pews, Sunday morning services, offering plates, a choir, an organ, or any of these trappings necessary for a congregation? Is it necessary to have a seminary trained fellow leading the bunch? It's probably a good idea, but it's not necessary. (If I recall right, the apostle Paul flunked out of seminary. ;) )

What if a small community of believers decides to buy a house instead of a worship building? Every Sunday evening they cook a meal together in the kitchen (while the kids played in the backyard) and then they got together in the livingroom to worship and celebrate the Lord's Supper? What if they did the Lord's Supper while they were sitting around the dinner table???? During the week, the use the bedrooms to house the poor and the homeless. The garage becomes a distribution point for the local food pantry and emergency clothing. Are they less of a congregation because they don't have a steeple?

There are lots of different ways to think about congregations, and as the world becomes more complex and cultures change, we will have to deal with those things more frequently. Maybe we'll be better able to deal with them if we start thinking about what is really essential now -- before we're faced with a situation where we we don't have time to think.

Just a thought. I'd love to hear what everyone else has to say.

In Christ, -Cloy



Honestly, I don't believe in change for changes sake, so I wouldn't do it. In fact, I think the very question is unfortunate and reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of adiophora. If there were a clear reason to change something, that is fine. But something being adiophora is not reason enough to change things on a whim. If however, there were actual reasons that some things must be changed, I would have little problem making any of those changes that are indeed adiophora. That which is not adiophora, but essential, could not be compromised at any cost, however.

[Lutherrunner]

I'm reminising, but I miss the old traditional white wood church with the big steeple that I grew up with in the midwest......and the nice old stained glass windows......all the fellowship meals were down in the basement and my Aunt Adeline was ALWAYS in the kitchen....I used to think she lived there.....

[KagomeShuko]

Thinking about this. . .okay, I admit to liking the aidiophora. . .however, wouldn't it ALL become aidiophora, really?

I've experienced "church" in many places. I've experienced church in church buildings. I've experienced church in fellowship halls. I've experienced church in friends' houses. I've experienced church outside in nature. I've experienced church in a camp cabin. I've experienced church in a dormitory.

However, given this - you should try to as little of the existing "religious" culture as possible - I'd still say it's be pretty empty. OKay, let's have a hard wood floor and chairs. People just bring their instruments to play music if there's any.

Yet, wouldn't it all become this aidiophora and if it's the trend, it'll be the common religious elements.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Melethiel]

I dunno. The medieval buildings are the most beautiful, and I tend to think that a house of worship should reflect a bit of heaven.

[Protoevangel]

Change != good?

Goodness, Dan, you seem to be quite averse to change. :)
No, I think you are misunderstanding my point.

(Change for changes sake or without proper solemn contemplation and need) != good


My suggestion was that we think about (not actually implement) other ways that a congregation could "look."
It was what I saw as a cavalier attitude about that change ("you should try to as little of the existing "religious" culture as possible.") that prompted my reply; this attitude itself is contrary to the Confessions. Now, I may have worded my reply a little stronger than necessary, it's just that I approach things differently. The attitude I see here, appears to me to be similar to: "let's see what all we can change and how far we can take it." While my position is, "Without a reasonable cause nothing should be changed. In order to cherish harmony, all old customs should be observed that can be observed without sin or without great inconvenience."


Missionaries, refugees, the poor, those traveling, those affected by war and many others have to deal with these issues every day. (My own aunt and uncle had to deal with this under the Soviets in Czechoslovakia -- the miliary burned down their house of worship, but allowed them to keep a handful of hymnals; their pastor was "relocated" and so they called one of their own to serve that role.)

Are hymnals, pews, Sunday morning services, offering plates, a choir, an organ, or any of these trappings necessary for a congregation? Is it necessary to have a seminary trained fellow leading the bunch? It's probably a good idea, but it's not necessary.
All of the above are perfectly valid reasons for differing ammounts of change. If the situation is extreme enough, everything, save the proper teaching of the Word and correct distribution of the Sacraments, can be changed. But when no clear and reasonable cause is present, the burden of proof is on the person wanting to change. On the other side of the coin, if the changes are being forced, then nothing is adiaphora.


(If I recall right, the apostle Paul flunked out of seminary. ;))
Heh! :D


What if a small community of believers decides to buy a house instead of a worship building? Every Sunday evening they cook a meal together in the kitchen (while the kids played in the backyard) and then they got together in the livingroom to worship and celebrate the Lord's Supper? What if they did the Lord's Supper while they were sitting around the dinner table???? During the week, the use the bedrooms to house the poor and the homeless. The garage becomes a distribution point for the local food pantry and emergency clothing. Are they less of a congregation because they don't have a steeple?
What should be changed for changes sake ("you should try to as little of the existing "religious" culture as possible") is a completely different question than the ontological value of the congregation, especially one who respects tradition as much as possible (without great inconvenience, of course).


There are lots of different ways to think about congregations, and as the world becomes more complex and cultures change, we will have to deal with those things more frequently. Maybe we'll be better able to deal with them if we start thinking about what is really essential now -- before we're faced with a situation where we we don't have time to think.
We don't change for changes sake, though. Certainly not with the attitude to "try to as little of the existing "religious" culture as possible." We implement only those changes as are indeed adiaphora, and only when and if necessary.

That's my take on it, anyway. :wave:

[ctobola]

I just spent a couple days with an old friend who is active in a conservative but non-traditional (or maybe "not 'high church'") Lutheran congregation.

I found it quite interesting that he is about to be ordained in his congregation to administer the Word and Sacraments. He's not a pastor in the formal seminary trained sense (although he did attend seminary for a couple years). The congregation has a full-time salaried pastor, but my friend will be leading worship for various settings including the Sunday morning services as needed. A number of individuals in this congregation serve in a similar role.

In short, the congregation took things up a notch -- the salaried pastor serves as a bishop and the pastors are volunteers. This is certainly consistent with the Confessions; and I think it moves us away from some of the structure that has carried over from the pre-Reformation days when priests were the only ones in a parish who were able to read Scripture.

There's a large ELCA congregation in Minneapolis that is doing this and I think it's terrific.

Anyone else run across similar situations?

-Cloy

[SPALATIN]

I just spent a couple days with an old friend who is active in a conservative but non-traditional (or maybe "not 'high church'") Lutheran congregation.

I found it quite interesting that he is about to be ordained in his congregation to administer the Word and Sacraments. He's not a pastor in the formal seminary trained sense (although he did attend seminary for a couple years). The congregation has a full-time salaried pastor, but my friend will be leading worship for various settings including the Sunday morning services as needed. A number of individuals in this congregation serve in a similar role.

In short, the congregation took things up a notch -- the salaried pastor serves as a bishop and the pastors are volunteers. This is certainly consistent with the Confessions; and I think it moves us away from some of the structure that has carried over from the pre-Reformation days when priests were the only ones in a parish who were able to read Scripture.

There's a large ELCA congregation in Minneapolis that is doing this and I think it's terrific.

Anyone else run across similar situations?

-Cloy

Of course you find it terrific. :sigh:

[ctobola]

What seems to be the problem with it, Scott? -Cloy

(Please give your answer in centimeters! ;))

Of course you find it terrific. :sigh:

[SPALATIN]

What seems to be the problem with it, Scott? -Cloy

(Please give your answer in centimeters! ;))

Besides that it goes against the Article XIV in the AC. (Will Roman numerals work).

AC Article XIV states: Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.


this situation does not sound like he is being called but rather is being appointed.

[ctobola]

The late Mike Yaconelli did remarkable things in Yreka, Calif., with his "church for people who don't like church." He broke all the rules and developed (with the Lord's help) a congregation that was vibrant, Christ-centered and strong witness of the power of the Gospel.

After some thought, here's my stab at a 21st century congregation -- one particuarly aimed at meeting the needs of unchurched families overwhelmed by disease of "businessness." I'd love to hear feedback or comments....

NAME: Bread of Life / Family of God Lutheran Congregation

MISSION: To build a close-knit community of Christ's followers that will be a light to the world, while drawing us into responsiblity and love for one another.

GOALS:
1. In a morally broken world, there is no need for more "morality." (Drug dealers and prostitutes know what they are doing is wrong.) There is a need for more community, in order to provide love, support, accountability, forgiveness and redemption. The community of faith should serve that role.
2. Family/community is integral to faith.
3. Food is integral to family/community.
4. Hospitality and charity are integral to Christian love. ("People will never hear the Gospel over the rumbling of their stomaches.")
5. The message of the Gospel speaks louder when actions go along with words.

PAID STAFF:
1. Bishop/Apostle - Oversees administration of Word and Sacraments.
2. Communicator/Organization Developer - Works to ensure messages and goals are on track, facilities and resources are available.
3. Gardener/Facilities Manager - Oversees grounds, gardens, vineyards, orchards. Coordinates volunteers in these areas.
4. Care Center Staff - Various staff to provide/oversee care for children and adults/seniors with needs.

VOLUNTEER STAFF:
1. Pastors - Congregation members trained to lead worship and officiate at marriages, funerals, baptisms, communion, preach the Word.
2. Secretarial - filing, mailing, etc.

FACILITIES/PROGRAMS:
Not the traditional "church" building -- this facility will provide space for the following programs in addition to regular worship...


Family Care - provides care/nurturing/education in a Christian setting for children while parents are working, and for senior adults with dementia (e.g., Alzheimers and other illness). I worked at a facility who did something similar and it was wonderful -- the stimulation of children was theraputic for the seniors and the children loved having more "grandparents" to read them books, hug them, etc. Some disable seniors may not be appropriate for this setting.
Family Meals - Regular meals (not just supper - breakfast and lunch too) are provided for the families when the pick up, drop off or see their children or senior adults. The meals will begin with a short worship service and communion, followed by a shared family meals.
Community Meals and Worship - (Volunteer) pastors, along with a small group of families/individuals, will take worship, communion and a fellowship meal to shut-ins (a la "Meals on Wheels"). These will also be provided in remote locations, to individuals in service or labor settings, or those in need (e.g., a group of migrant workers in the field) and anywhere else the congregation can share the love of Christ in a tangible way.
Nurturing Services - In addition to a large kitchen that provides meals/bread for #1 - #3, the kitchen facilites will provide meals for poor and homeless people.
Gardens/Vineyards/Orchards - These will provide food, juice, wine and even income for the congregations. Individuals can pay all/part of their daycare fees (which are a sliding/ability to pay scale) by working in the gardens/vineyards/orchards or doing related services (sorting/washing/packing fruit for sale). I recently came across a congregation on the West coast that seems to be supporting their financial needs (and having fellowship) by operating the orchard that surrounds their worship building.
Worship - Regular worship (e.g., Sunday morning, contemporary or traditional format) will be provided as needed; but the goal is to make worship a part of the everyday life of families by providing it in conjunction with meals, family time, outreach.
Okay, the idea isn't perfect -- but I think the concept is there. Families are busy trying to make their mortgage payment: the idea is to help them with childcare and food preparation while integrating their faith and worship into everyday life (i.e., meals), building stronger family ties and Christian fellowship, and being salt and light to the world.

I'd love to hear thoughts from others... and what somebody else's fantasy congregation might look like.

In Christ, -Cloy







No, I think you are misunderstanding my point.

(Change for changes sake or without proper solemn contemplation and need) != good

It was what I saw as a cavalier attitude about that change ("you should try to as little of the existing "religious" culture as possible.") that prompted my reply; this attitude itself is contrary to the Confessions. Now, I may have worded my reply a little stronger than necessary, it's just that I approach things differently. The attitude I see here, appears to me to be similar to: "let's see what all we can change and how far we can take it." While my position is, "Without a reasonable cause nothing should be changed. In order to cherish harmony, all old customs should be observed that can be observed without sin or without great inconvenience."



All of the above are perfectly valid reasons for differing ammounts of change. If the situation is extreme enough, everything, save the proper teaching of the Word and correct distribution of the Sacraments, can be changed. But when no clear and reasonable cause is present, the burden of proof is on the person wanting to change. On the other side of the coin, if the changes are being forced, then nothing is adiaphora.



Heh! :D



What should be changed for changes sake ("you should try to as little of the existing "religious" culture as possible") is a completely different question than the ontological value of the congregation, especially one who respects tradition as much as possible (without great inconvenience, of course).



We don't change for changes sake, though. Certainly not with the attitude to "try to as little of the existing "religious" culture as possible." We implement only those changes as are indeed adiaphora, and only when and if necessary.

That's my take on it, anyway. :wave:

[ctobola]

Scott,

My friend was working closely with the salaried pastor and the elders in his congregation to prepare for ordination. If I understood correctly, the congregation will also vote on his ordination. That sounds like a proper call to me.

If there are violations of Scripture or the Confessions that you can cite, I'd appreciate hearing about them.

However, I tend to think that most of the objections to this would be "we don't do it that way," rather than anything substative.

-Cloy


Besides that it goes against the Article XIV in the AC. (Will Roman numerals work).

AC Article XIV states: Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.


this situation does not sound like he is being called but rather is being appointed.

[ctobola]

Lutherrunner,

Those old buildings were great, weren't they?

The best wedding gift my wife and I received was one of the stained glass windows from the building where I grew up worshipping. (Unfortunately, it was torn down in the mid-70s due to structural problems.) It's still in storage after many years (and moves).

If anyone has ideas on how to mount an old (and somewhat fragile) stained glass window, I'd love to display/hang it in my home.

Excelsior! -Cloy


I'm reminising, but I miss the old traditional white wood church with the big steeple that I grew up with in the midwest......and the nice old stained glass windows......all the fellowship meals were down in the basement and my Aunt Adeline was ALWAYS in the kitchen....I used to think she lived there.....

[ctobola]

Dan,

Have you ever been asked, "If you were stranded alone on a desert island, what three objects would you want to have long?" (I recently heard a congregation member ask this question to a new pastor.)

Is the person who asks that question suggesting that you be stranded alone on a desert island? No.

Neither am I suggesting that we throw out our traditions. These are discussion points to begin talking about our values. They are providing a framework to "count it all loss" and consider how our lives fit with the message of Scripture (or whatever value system we buy into).

You say that I'm being cavalier about religious tradition, because I discussed life without it. Would you also say that the person who asks about being stranded on an island is being cavalier about human live, freedom, dignity and health? Was the person who asked the question of a pastor being disrespectful and suggesting that the pastor be standed on an island? No way.

You also note that this is contrary to the Confessions. I disagree. If I recall correctly, somewhere in his Table Talks Martin Luther notes that regardless of what we say, we should look at our own use of time and money to determine what we really value. He is proposing the same technique -- using new perspectives to gain accurate insight into ourselves and our lives.

Hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from.

In Christ, -Cloy



No, I think you are misunderstanding my point.

(Change for changes sake or without proper solemn contemplation and need) != good



It was what I saw as a cavalier attitude about that change ("you should try to as little of the existing "religious" culture as possible.") that prompted my reply; this attitude itself is contrary to the Confessions. Now, I may have worded my reply a little stronger than necessary, it's just that I approach things differently. The attitude I see here, appears to me to be similar to: "let's see what all we can change and how far we can take it." While my position is, "Without a reasonable cause nothing should be changed. In order to cherish harmony, all old customs should be observed that can be observed without sin or without great inconvenience."



All of the above are perfectly valid reasons for differing ammounts of change. If the situation is extreme enough, everything, save the proper teaching of the Word and correct distribution of the Sacraments, can be changed. But when no clear and reasonable cause is present, the burden of proof is on the person wanting to change. On the other side of the coin, if the changes are being forced, then nothing is adiaphora.



Heh! :D



What should be changed for changes sake ("you should try to as little of the existing "religious" culture as possible") is a completely different question than the ontological value of the congregation, especially one who respects tradition as much as possible (without great inconvenience, of course).



We don't change for changes sake, though. Certainly not with the attitude to "try to as little of the existing "religious" culture as possible." We implement only those changes as are indeed adiaphora, and only when and if necessary.

That's my take on it, anyway. :wave:

[Protoevangel]

Have you ever been asked, "If you were stranded alone on a desert island, what three objects would you want to have long?" (I recently heard a congregation member ask this question to a new pastor.)

Is the person who asks that question suggesting that you be stranded alone on a desert island? No.

<snip>

Would you also say that the person who asks about being stranded on an island is being cavalier about human live, freedom, dignity and health? Was the person who asked the question of a pastor being disrespectful and suggesting that the pastor be standed on an island? No way.
You confuse the issues here. If I were stranded on a desert island, that would most likely be against my will. Your original question was not in any way related to what one would do if they had no choice. You said, "If you were to create a brand new congregational structure, what would it look like? There are no limitations on funds or involvement; but you should try to as little of the existing "religious" culture as possible. It may not violate the clear direction of Scripture or the Confessions."

I already told you I would change anything that is Adiaphora, if the situation required it, but that doesn't seem to be enough for you.

Neither am I suggesting that we throw out our traditions. These are discussion points to begin talking about our values. They are providing a framework to "count it all loss" and consider how our lives fit with the message of Scripture (or whatever value system we buy into).
Then let's talk about those values instead of how we can redo anything and everything, just to be creative.

You say that I'm being cavalier about religious tradition, because I discussed life without it.
No, I said I saw the statement "you should try to as little of the existing "religious" culture as possible." as cavalier. That is not just "discuss[ing] life without [tradition]", that is going out of your way to push the boundaries; pure recalcitrancy.

You see, Cloy, like I said, I am not against changing ANYTHING that is Adiaphora (I already stated that - more than once). All I require is the need for the change before I make the change. I'm sorry that I answered your post honestly, I never meant to get you so worked up over my opinion and how I see the situation you presented.

If you want to ask me what would I do if I were stranded on a desert island, fine go ahead. The thing is, I don't really have an answer, every situation is different. Do I have a Bible, are there natives, am I alone, do I have tools and food supplies, etc. But like I said in the beginning, (considering the lack of motive to make the changes, except for whim, to be "creative", and for "Fantasy") I would not make any changes, except perhaps to re-introduce older traditions that have regretfully fallen away in the American Lutheran church for no reason other than for changes sake.

[Protoevangel]

You also note that this is contrary to the Confessions. I disagree. If I recall correctly, somewhere in his Table Talks Martin Luther notes that regardless of what we say, we should look at our own use of time and money to determine what we really value. He is proposing the same technique -- using new perspectives to gain accurate insight into ourselves and our lives.

I have already shown that you are not just talking about values, but about change for changes sake. This is absolutely counter to the confessions.

Article XV: Of Ecclesiastical Usages.

1] Of Usages in the Church they teach that those ought to be observed which may be observed without sin, and which are profitable unto tranquillity and good order in the Church, as particular holy days, festivals, and the like.

2] Nevertheless, concerning such things men are admonished that consciences are not to be burdened, as though such observance was necessary to salvation.

3] They are admonished also that human traditions instituted to propitiate God, to merit grace, and to make satisfaction for sins, are opposed to the Gospel and the doctrine of faith. Wherefore vows and traditions concerning meats and 4] days, etc., instituted to merit grace and to make satisfaction for sins, are useless and contrary to the Gospel.
Summary:
1] All traditions that can be kept without sin, should be kept.
2] No one should be led to believe that their Salvation is contengent upon the keeping of these traditions, however.
3] Furthermore, no one should be led to believe that they merit Grace by the obvservation of any traditions.

The only changes the confessions actively promote are removing the abuses that had crept into the church.

Church Rites, Commonly Called Adiaphora.

4] 2. We believe, teach, and confess that the congregation of God of every place and every time has the power, according to its circumstances, to change such ceremonies in such manner as may be most useful and edifying to the congregation of God.
Wow, does that mean we can change anything we want, anytime we want?

Church Rites, Commonly Called Adiaphora.

5] 3. Nevertheless, that herein all frivolity and offense should be avoided, and special care should be taken to exercise forbearance towards the weak in faith. 1 Cor. 8, 9; Rom. 14, 13.
We must take care in change. Like I said time and again, I do not mind change, as long as it is for a clear reason. In this way, we ensure no frivolity, and do no undue offence to anyone.

On the other hand, change just to "think... in new and creative ways", for Fantasy, and "try[ing] to [use] as little of the existing "religious" culture as possible", is indeed frivolity.

Change whatever Adiaphora as is necessary to preserve the proclomation of that which is not Adiaphora. Don't keep the traditions for Salvation or merit, but do it for those weaker than yourself in the faith. The very same reason you would make changes when necessary.

[SPALATIN]

I have already shown that you are not just talking about values, but about change for changes sake. This is absolutely counter to the confessions.


Summary:
1] All traditions that can be kept without sin, should be kept.
2] No one should be led to believe that their Salvation is contengent upon the keeping of these traditions, however.
3] Furthermore, no one should be led to believe that they merit Grace by the obvservation of any traditions.

The only changes the confessions actively promote are removing the abuses that had crept into the church.


Wow, does that mean we can change anything we want, anytime we want?


We must take care in change. Like I said time and again, I do not mind change, as long as it is for a clear reason. In this way, we ensure no frivolity, and do no undue offence to anyone.

On the other hand, change just to "think... in new and creative ways", for Fantasy, and "try[ing] to [use] as little of the existing "religious" culture as possible", is indeed frivolity.

Change whatever Adiaphora as is necessary to preserve the proclomation of that which is not Adiaphora. Don't keep the traditions for Salvation or merit, but do it for those weaker than yourself in the faith. The very same reason you would make changes when necessary.

Not only that, but change if done should be a slow process so that teaching my be used to prepare everyone for why change is necessary. Abrupt changes as regarding liturgy are never a good thing.

[ctobola]

Scott,

Still waiting to hear what is contrary to the Confessions or Scripture in the congregational model I described.

Clearly my friend has received the approval of the senior pastor, the elders, and his congregation. What is there to prohibit him from Preaching the Word or Administering the Sacraments?

-Cloy


Besides that it goes against the Article XIV in the AC.
...snip...Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.