The Greater Threat: Evangelicalism or Catholicism?

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

As Lutherans, due to our shared historical experience and its codification in the Book of Concord, we tend to think of Catholicism as our chief theological adversary.

And in some ways, this is true. The central gospel truth of justification by grace alone through faith alone is openly anathematized by the Catholic Church and its Tridentine heritage.

But in many ways, I see the threat of Catholicism, both as a theological and sociological phenomenon, as subbordinate to modern American evangelicalism.

By evangelicalism I of course to not mean the historic Protestant heritage of the gospel, euangelion. I mean the largely Pietist, Arminian, dispensationalist, Baptistic, and charismatic nexus of churchgoers that dominate nondenominational, megachurch, and Baptist segments of Christianity which grew out of nineteenth century revival movements and early twentieth century fundamentalism. It is represented by leaders such as Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Charles Colson.

Why do I think evangelicalism is the greater threat?

The Errors They Share

Because were Catholicism doctrinally rejects justification by grace alone, at least Catholicism (in Thomist Dominican and Molinist Jesuit theology) adheres to a compatiblism between predestination and free will, while evangelicals, on the other hand, believe in complete freedom of the will and its ability to choose belief in Christ.

Because where Catholicism doctrinally rejects justification through faith alone, evangelicalism does much the same in laying stress on such works as the sinner's prayer and open confessions of repentence.

Because where Catholicism promotes the eggregious idea of sanctification through a combination of faith and good works, evangelicalism, despite nominal adherence to the solas of the Reformation, does quite the same through the influence of the Pietists and their understanding of sanctification as coming through deeds
of Piety.

The Errors of Extremes

Because where Catholics practice Eucharistic adoration, evangelicals ignore the blessings of the sacrament and reject the presence of Christ.

Because where Catholics adhere strictly to the leadership of the episcopacy and the Roman pontiff, evangelicals idolize their local church leadership with no respect for Christian unity.

Where Catholics have found sacraments and sacrity in overabundance, evangelicals have lost all sense of sacred space (churches), sacred time (church calenders), and sacred encounters (rituals and sacraments).

Where Catholics refer the Christian departed to an excessive degree involving the prayer for souls in their fictitious purgatory, adherence to a supposedly infallible heritage, and intercessory prayer, evangelicals have entirely forgotten tradition and the unity of the church throughout the ages.

Errors Where Evangelicals Go Far Beyond the Pale

At this point it may merely seem that evangelicals are equally threatening as Catholics but they go far beyond.

The rejection of the real presence.

The withholding of baptism from infants.

The rejection of any divine action in baptism.

Millennialism.

Dispensationalism and the dividng of the people of God into two distinct Israelite and church groups.

The rapture.

Indeed, evangelicals have devolved to the point where you can press a regular evangelical churchgoer for a definition of the Trinity or the incarnation, and instead over something to the effect of "God in one being and three persons" or "Two natures forever linked in one person," you will get modalist, Arian, or docetist answers. And worst of all, they think these are orthodox answers.

I think my point is clear enough.

[Luther073082]

How about the ever greater threat of Satan?

Are we in competition with the devil or with other churchs?

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

How about the ever greater threat of Satan?

Are we in competition with the devil or with other churchs?
Of course, Satan. But the sad truth is that one of Satan's best weapons is deceptive and popularly appealing heresy within the church.

[Luther073082]

Of course, Satan. But the sad truth is that one of Satan's best weapons is deceptive and popularly appealing heresy within the church.

Or is Satan's best weapon the disunity within the body of Christ

I'm not Satan but it would seem to me a divide and conquer strategy would work far better then worrying about specific doctrines which all lead to Christ in the end.

I'm not saying I belive in their doctrines cause I don't. I absolutly disagree with their doctrines. But I don't consider them a threat to my doctrine, I do however consider Satan to be the greatest threat to Lutherans, Catholics and Evangelicals everwhere.

I just don't understand why we are sooo worried about the Catholics and the evangelicals who are christians and going to heaven but we seem to ignore the agnostics like my own parents who are damned straight to hell. (Yes it is a bit personal for me)

If your more worried about the Catholics then the poor damned souls who don't know Christ then really I don't know if have much in common.

[Jenna]

Doctrinal issues are very important, not because we like to just fuss at our brothers and sisters. If a person believes that they can work their way into heaven, that is a very big problem. It isn't that we don't care about unbelievers, but that we don't wish to lose the very people who are sitting in church each week either. There are some very well-meaning people who lose track of what God has done for them because they are so focused on what they *think* they have to do to be good enough to earn salvation.

[Luther073082]

Doctrinal issues are very important, not because we like to just fuss at our brothers and sisters. If a person believes that they can work their way into heaven, that is a very big problem. It isn't that we don't care about unbelievers, but that we don't wish to lose the very people who are sitting in church each week either. There are some very well-meaning people who lose track of what God has done for them because they are so focused on what they *think* they have to do to be good enough to earn salvation.

So they are out there trying to earn salvation because they think thats what they need to do. But they also belive in Jesus don't they? Yeah its a waste but so what, they they are forgetting that grace is the only thing that saves. God will forgive them for that.

Honestly would you rather have a doctrinally correct Lutheran church with just a few souls saved or a bunch of doctrinally incorrect churchs that save a bunch of souls.

They are saving souls are they not? They belive in Jesus do they not? Why worry?

As for me I'd happily all three Lutheran churches disolved, my parish burned to the ground and die upon the cross myself if it ment saving every soul in the world with their incorrect doctrines. I'd happy die on the cross just to save the souls of my family with any doctrine.

Salvation is salvation ladies and gentlemen, if that isn't more important to you then doctrines then I really don't have anything in common with you.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Or is Satan's best weapon the disunity within the body of Christ

I'm not Satan but it would seem to me a divide and conquer strategy would work far better then worrying about specific doctrines which all lead to Christ in the end.

I'm not saying I belive in their doctrines cause I don't. I absolutly disagree with their doctrines. But I don't consider them a threat to my doctrine, I do however consider Satan to be the greatest threat to Lutherans, Catholics and Evangelicals everwhere.

I just don't understand why we are sooo worried about the Catholics and the evangelicals who are christians and going to heaven but we seem to ignore the agnostics like my own parents who are damned straight to hell. (Yes it is a bit personal for me)

If your more worried about the Catholics then the poor damned souls who don't know Christ then really I don't know if have much in common.
They are the dividers, not I. They are the ones who broke away from the church catholic and proported to begin anew all Christianity using the Bible as some sort of heavenly blueprint. If you think I'm not concerned with Christianity unity, then you certainly don't know me. As many here will tell you, I'm very ecumenical.

And do I care about other souls? Of course. But I also care for integrity of the church. I can simultaneously thank God that evangelicals are used as tools to bring the elect into the fold, yet still mourn at the sorrows of their heresy, can I not?

[Luther073082]

They are the dividers, not I. They are the ones who broke away from the church catholic and proported to begin anew all Christianity using the Bible as some sort of heavenly blueprint. If you think I'm not concerned with Christianity unity, then you certainly don't know me. As many here will tell you, I'm very ecumenical.

And do I care about other souls? Of course. But I also care for integrity of the church. I can simultaneously thank God that evangelicals are used as tools to bring the elect into the fold, yet still mourn at the sorrows of their heresy, can I not?

But you are using the term "threat" as if they are something to be feared. Yes I am saddened that they lead people astray with their heresy. However their heresy still gets people into heaven and so I do not consider them anything to be feared or threatened by. If they are saving souls I want to be with them not against them.

Because with all the people who are falling to this secular world. With all the atheists out there turning what used to be a Christian population into atheism. With their HERESY of the world that gets people into hell, I feel far more threatened by them then by other church's heresy. Because their doctrine still contains the most important element of truth and that is Christ Jesus.

I used to be an atheist, and you have no idea what you are dealing with my friend. The atheists are winning and Satan has their back. That is the greatest threat to Lutheran orthodoxy that you will ever see. The Lutheran stronghold of Germany has fallen to a far more secular and sinful culture. Churchs falling left and right, people fearing Christians and the truth they bring and embracing the ways of the world and Satan.

And you are fearing the heresies that leads to heaven may over take the truth that leads to heaven? I think its time to stop considering other Christian's doctrines a threat and worry about the survival of the Christian church.

I do not fear and shall not ever fear anything which leads to Christ or heaven. Amen

[RayJGentry]

Ok, Luther073082, you're kind of doing the same thing in this thread that happened on your poll. The thread is about a poll. If you don't think either are a threat, then you should just say so and let it be...arguing about a technicality of him not including the "right option" isn't reaelly in the spirit of the thread...

[Luther073082]

Ok, Luther073082, you're kind of doing the same thing in this thread that happened on your poll. The thread is about a poll. If you don't think either are a threat, then you should just say so and let it be...arguing about a technicality of him not including the "right option" isn't reaelly in the spirit of the thread...

Ok you make a point, I still think the term threat was a bad choice of words. I would say something more like "which is more harmful to true doctrine" . . .

But I get the point of the poll now and I choose evangelicals. Clearly the greater threat because of how fast they grow.

My apologizes to all, especially the OP.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Ok you make a point, I still think the term threat was a bad choice of words. I would say something more like "which is more harmful to true doctrine" . . .

But I get the point of the poll now and I choose evangelicals. Clearly the greater threat because of how fast they grow.

My apologizes to all, especially the OP.
Don't worry about it. Sorry if my unfortunate choice of words set you off. It makes sense that you're a former atheist; I, for one, am a former evangelical. We all have our pasts, and they all affect how we read the world around us.

[PreachersWife2004]

I chose Catholicism. I think I'm the lone person thus far.

Catholicism is by far more in the media than any other religion. For this reason alone, I feel that it could be damaging to unbelievers, "new" Christians, those that are seeking answers and even "old" Christians.

I wonder how many people get turned off to God and Jesus because they hear some sordid story about a priest molesting little boys...I realize it's probably not ultimately fair to pick on the Catholic Church for this, as I'm sure it pains the vatican deeply that this goes one, but at the same time, you don't really hear about the evangelicals molesting kids. Embezzling money, maybe, but not hurting children.

Both have their problems, and both present threats to scriptural truth...but both also, as has been pointed out, do bring people to the Gospel.

[Luther073082]

I chose Catholicism. I think I'm the lone person thus far.

Catholicism is by far more in the media than any other religion. For this reason alone, I feel that it could be damaging to unbelievers, "new" Christians, those that are seeking answers and even "old" Christians.

I wonder how many people get turned off to God and Jesus because they hear some sordid story about a priest molesting little boys...I realize it's probably not ultimately fair to pick on the Catholic Church for this, as I'm sure it pains the vatican deeply that this goes one, but at the same time, you don't really hear about the evangelicals molesting kids. Embezzling money, maybe, but not hurting children.

Both have their problems, and both present threats to scriptural truth...but both also, as has been pointed out, do bring people to the Gospel.

Perhaps I'm unwise but I assume knowledge sometimes when perhaps there is ignorance but I tend to think most people know that the catholic church and the protestant church are not the same.

I tend to think they are actually more imploding then causing outside harm.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I chose Catholicism. I think I'm the lone person thus far.

Catholicism is by far more in the media than any other religion. For this reason alone, I feel that it could be damaging to unbelievers, "new" Christians, those that are seeking answers and even "old" Christians.

I wonder how many people get turned off to God and Jesus because they hear some sordid story about a priest molesting little boys...I realize it's probably not ultimately fair to pick on the Catholic Church for this, as I'm sure it pains the vatican deeply that this goes one, but at the same time, you don't really hear about the evangelicals molesting kids. Embezzling money, maybe, but not hurting children.

Both have their problems, and both present threats to scriptural truth...but both also, as has been pointed out, do bring people to the Gospel.
Actually just in the past year there was a pedestry scandal with an evangelical leader...

[KimLCMS]

I chose Catholicism. I think I'm the lone person thus far.

Catholicism is by far more in the media than any other religion. For this reason alone, I feel that it could be damaging to unbelievers, "new" Christians, those that are seeking answers and even "old" Christians.

I wonder how many people get turned off to God and Jesus because they hear some sordid story about a priest molesting little boys...I realize it's probably not ultimately fair to pick on the Catholic Church for this, as I'm sure it pains the vatican deeply that this goes one, but at the same time, you don't really hear about the evangelicals molesting kids. Embezzling money, maybe, but not hurting children.

Both have their problems, and both present threats to scriptural truth...but both also, as has been pointed out, do bring people to the Gospel.
Unfortunately pedophilia and other terrible acts are committed by Catholic and non-Catholic Christians. I've seen several stories on our local news.

[PreachersWife2004]

This is all true...unfortunately it is the RCC that has the greater reputation for it.

Of course one would hope that people could see the different between Catholicism and Protestantism, but even that doesn't mean they can separate the two. The main argument that I've heard is "how could a GOD let priests destroy little boys like that?" as though to say they want no part of a God that would "allow" that. Now, hopefully that would lead to more discussions about how God doesn't allow it, but sometimes their heart is hardened in that instance.

Even an implosion of the Catholic Church could be damaging to other Christians. Let's be realistic...what is the expected reaction of people when they hear that the church that claimed to be ONE TRUE CHURCH and was established by Christ himself has fallen? That would be quite a blow to efforts of spreading the good news. At least in my humble opinion!!

[Luther073082]

This is all true...unfortunately it is the RCC that has the greater reputation for it.

Of course one would hope that people could see the different between Catholicism and Protestantism, but even that doesn't mean they can separate the two. The main argument that I've heard is "how could a GOD let priests destroy little boys like that?" as though to say they want no part of a God that would "allow" that. Now, hopefully that would lead to more discussions about how God doesn't allow it, but sometimes their heart is hardened in that instance.

Even an implosion of the Catholic Church could be damaging to other Christians. Let's be realistic...what is the expected reaction of people when they hear that the church that claimed to be ONE TRUE CHURCH and was established by Christ himself has fallen? That would be quite a blow to efforts of spreading the good news. At least in my humble opinion!!

Yeah probably, but it would prove it wasn't God's ONE true church. . . Oh wait the bible already proves that.

[PreachersWife2004]

Yeah probably, but it would prove it wasn't God's ONE true church. . . Oh wait the bible already proves that.

Shhh! Don't tell them that...they'll suck you in with arguments that OUR bible is different from THEIR bible!!

[DaRev]

Getting back to the OP...

The threat of American Evangelicalism is very real in the Lutheran Church. With the "popularity" of contemporary worship and the plethora of false teaching that it brings in have done much more harm than anything from a Roman Catholic standpoint. The AE influence can (and in some places has) affect our theology to the point of it not even resembling Confessional Lutheranism.

[KEPLER]

In spite of all her faults, the Roman Church nevertheless does have the Word proclaimed in every service, and the Sacraments.

When I say "Word proclaimed", I am not necessarily referring to their homilies (sermons), but to the fact that their liturgy includes the unfettered reading of the Word: Old Testament, Epistle and Gospel.

I have been to many an evangelical service where any reading of the Word is obfuscated by the sermon.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

In spite of all her faults, the Roman Church nevertheless does have the Word proclaimed in every service, and the Sacraments.

When I say "Word proclaimed", I am not necessarily referring to their homilies (sermons), but to the fact that their liturgy includes the unfettered reading of the Word: Old Testament, Epistle and Gospel.

I have been to many an evangelical service where any reading of the Word is obfuscated by the sermon.
And even then, the sermon doesn't contain the preaching of the word, but a series of self-actualizing motivational perscriptions on Ten Steps to a Christian Portfolio or some such, sometimes tacitly supported with cherry-picked verses.

[Luther073082]

Getting back to the OP...

The threat of American Evangelicalism is very real in the Lutheran Church. With the "popularity" of contemporary worship and the plethora of false teaching that it brings in have done much more harm than anything from a Roman Catholic standpoint. The AE influence can (and in some places has) affect our theology to the point of it not even resembling Confessional Lutheranism.

The problem is there is no doctrine that I know of against contemporary worship. Personally I like a good mix of both contemporary and traditional worship.

The laity is rarely concered with doctrine, most of the CF community are at least above average in their concerns for doctrine and knowledge of the bible. However realistically I don't think the laity cares as much they would just rather go some place with a charasmatic pastor, nice people, and "fun" worship.

The evangelical doctrine doesn't make people feel any better or cause them to come in the doors more. Its rather the above that brings them in. However envangelical churchs often have a way of brainwashing their laity with false doctrines once they come in.

The Lutheran churchs with the truth in their doctrines however sit on their old traditional forms of worship, which are comfortable to those who have grown up in the Lutheran church or had a lot of similar experience (IE RCC) but not always the most *fun* thing to bring people into church and keep them in. A lot of people don't feel the spirit in traditional worship.

As one pastor so brilliantly communicated in one of his sermons, we are afraid to take a risk. However being afraid never got the early Christians anywhere. They where bold, risking and often losing earthly life and limb in order to bring the world to Christ. No one however is asking us to risk being stoned or be crucified. We do I think need to take risks with confidence that God will provide for us.

I belive we need to start in our hymns, I'm not saying we need to throw out the tradiational hymns but we need to stop using them over . . . and over . . . and over again. We need to insert some more fun songs. . . "Shine Jesus Shine", "Shout to the Lord" . . . the aging traditionalist crowd will look uncomfortable with looking *happy* in church (A celibration of God's gifts for us and praising him for them) I have seen their looks of horror on the occasion the pastor may use a song with energy, and I've seen them nearly have a heart attack on the rare occasions that the pastor might actually join with the youth in singing and clapping to an energetic song. However do we think that our new songs will suddenly make them get up and leave a church they have been going to for 30 years? Perhaps. .. that is the risk we take. But maybe we can help them become comfortable with it, my Pastor has been ordained for over 25 years and in his 50's and he still loves contemporary worship. Its not age its attitude.

However everyone knows that the youth are the future in the country and the church. The problem is the Lutheran church doesn't hold on to them. As I mentioned I go to a church which see's 400 people go to two services each Sunday. However amoung all those 400 people we have 4 (I missed one person earlier) people who are in their 20's (A group we should be courting). I am one, the youth pastor and his wife, and then the vicar (intern pastor). And my church is rather friendly and youth friendly. Those are the only people between the ages of 20 and 30 that attend service regularly. We let our youth go and they either run off to worldly ways which is actually the larger majority and bigger problem. Or they typically get into a contemporary church that teaches false doctrines.

Also I always think it would help if the laity understood scripture and doctrines better. Evangelicals bend scipture around false doctrines with relative ease. So why should it be so hard for us to teach true doctrines?

The problem with the declining Lutheran church is not our doctrines but the way we sell the doctrines. While we may be great theologians, we are horrible salesmen.

[Melethiel]

We're not supposed to be salesmen. We're supposed to teach the Word.
My church usually has 30-odd people of college age.

And I HATE "Shine Jesus Shine".

[Jenna]

Yeah, I'm with Mel on this one. I am a member of a church that has what you call "fun" worship, and it has actually done a lot to distract people from why we "do church". It all becomes about how I feel, what I want, what I am getting out of it. That is not the right focus. There is nothing wrong with having some more popular songs in worship, but I think that Mel hit it right on the head. Church is about coming together to teach/learn the Word, to praise the Lord, and to come together as a way of supporting the whole body. It's hard to do any of these things when people become distracted by "I". It's not that the music is bad, but how people use it- and where their focus is.

[filosofer]

My church usually has 30-odd people of college age.



What about those who are not odd? ^_^

Okay, okay, too many other distractions this morning.

=========

Back on topic...

So, if I am driving down the road, which ditch is worse to go into, the right or the left? It may depend on the circumstances. Either one could be deadly, or either could prove rough, but I can bring the car back on the road. Either one may occasionally dip down, meander in the field, and come back on the road. But neither is where I want to drive my car.

So, as a Christian who confesses the faith as a Lutheran, I see both RCC and AE as problems, but at different times, circumstances, and locations.



In Christ's love,
filo

[DaRev]

It has been proven that young people today are not into contemporary worship styles. The Southern Baptist Convention has recently undertaken a change in their worship style to keep their young people from leaving. Youth today are more attracted to more traditional worship styles. Go to any CW service, and the place is crawling with baby boomers, but not a whole lot of youth.

The problem with contemprary worship is that it's rootes lie in American Evangelicalism which teaches a works based type of fluff. This is reflected in the CW music that is currently available. About 95% of all contemporary worship music (and that's a conservative figure) is theologically corrupt.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The problem is there is no doctrine that I know of against contemporary worship. Personally I like a good mix of both contemporary and traditional worship.

The laity is rarely concered with doctrine, most of the CF community are at least above average in their concerns for doctrine and knowledge of the bible. However realistically I don't think the laity cares as much they would just rather go some place with a charasmatic pastor, nice people, and "fun" worship.

The evangelical doctrine doesn't make people feel any better or cause them to come in the doors more. Its rather the above that brings them in. However envangelical churchs often have a way of brainwashing their laity with false doctrines once they come in.

The Lutheran churchs with the truth in their doctrines however sit on their old traditional forms of worship, which are comfortable to those who have grown up in the Lutheran church or had a lot of similar experience (IE RCC) but not always the most *fun* thing to bring people into church and keep them in. A lot of people don't feel the spirit in traditional worship.

As one pastor so brilliantly communicated in one of his sermons, we are afraid to take a risk. However being afraid never got the early Christians anywhere. They where bold, risking and often losing earthly life and limb in order to bring the world to Christ. No one however is asking us to risk being stoned or be crucified. We do I think need to take risks with confidence that God will provide for us.

I belive we need to start in our hymns, I'm not saying we need to throw out the tradiational hymns but we need to stop using them over . . . and over . . . and over again. We need to insert some more fun songs. . . "Shine Jesus Shine", "Shout to the Lord" . . . the aging traditionalist crowd will look uncomfortable with looking *happy* in church (A celibration of God's gifts for us and praising him for them) I have seen their looks of horror on the occasion the pastor may use a song with energy, and I've seen them nearly have a heart attack on the rare occasions that the pastor might actually join with the youth in singing and clapping to an energetic song. However do we think that our new songs will suddenly make them get up and leave a church they have been going to for 30 years? Perhaps. .. that is the risk we take. But maybe we can help them become comfortable with it, my Pastor has been ordained for over 25 years and in his 50's and he still loves contemporary worship. Its not age its attitude.

However everyone knows that the youth are the future in the country and the church. The problem is the Lutheran church doesn't hold on to them. As I mentioned I go to a church which see's 400 people go to two services each Sunday. However amoung all those 400 people we have 4 (I missed one person earlier) people who are in their 20's (A group we should be courting). I am one, the youth pastor and his wife, and then the vicar (intern pastor). And my church is rather friendly and youth friendly. Those are the only people between the ages of 20 and 30 that attend service regularly. We let our youth go and they either run off to worldly ways which is actually the larger majority and bigger problem. Or they typically get into a contemporary church that teaches false doctrines.

Also I always think it would help if the laity understood scripture and doctrines better. Evangelicals bend scipture around false doctrines with relative ease. So why should it be so hard for us to teach true doctrines?

The problem with the declining Lutheran church is not our doctrines but the way we sell the doctrines. While we may be great theologians, we are horrible salesmen.
We don't hold services on Sunday to attract people.

We hold Sunday service to commemorate our Lord's victory over sin, death, and the devil in his resurrection through Word and Sacrament.

[BigNorsk]

The errors of Catholicism and what passes today for Evangelicalism are the same. Many so called Evangelicals have abandoned the Gospel and turned to the Law. They often don't realize it for they don't know the difference.

I think the whole thing has been sped up by Evangelical being a nice word and adopted by people who preach nothing but money, end times, and take over the government. Lord help us.

Marv

[PreachersWife2004]

When I went to the WELS Worship & Music convention two years ago, one of the biggest (and best) surprises was the results of one congregation's massive city survey. What it boiled down to was that "contemporary worship services" was the lowest response to what brings a person into church. The highest? Hearing the true word of God proclaimed.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

When I went to the WELS Worship & Music convention two years ago, one of the biggest (and best) surprises was the results of one congregation's massive city survey. What it boiled down to was that "contemporary worship services" was the lowest response to what brings a person into church. The highest? Hearing the true word of God proclaimed.
Yeah.

Contemporary worship music just isn't that good. If it's trying to emulate contemporary rock music, it's doing a really poor job. Besides, rock music isn't conducive to communal singing, anyway.

[Luther073082]

We don't hold services on Sunday to attract people.

We hold Sunday service to commemorate our Lord's victory over sin, death, and the devil in his resurrection through Word and Sacrament.

But we do have to attract people to the church and our Sunday services.

What is a commemoration (I'd prefer to celibrate it) without people there? We have to draw people.

As with contemporary worship, yes it attracts boomers but it I've havn't seen many young people attracted to traditional worship.

And I'm not talking about the Christian Rock genra, I was speaking about using a few songs with energy. Ever seen the purple "Worship and Praise" hymnals? Use a few more songs out of there and put away your green LBW's for a few minutes. Or at least use the blue With one voice hymals.

Changing from "A mighty fortress is our God" to something like "Shout to the Lord" or at least "Sancutary" would really help things. We don't have to comprimse the Eucharist . . .

And honestly I know this is near blasphamy for a lot of people, but encourage people to come dressed in whatever, have the pastors lose the collars and the robes for a few minutes. Bring in a few insterments that arn't organs. I mean maybe this idea would be best for a mid-week contemporary service or having one contemporary service and one traditional service. Play to a larger crowd.

[Melethiel]

Yeah.

Contemporary worship music just isn't that good. If it's trying to emulate contemporary rock music, it's doing a really poor job. Besides, rock music isn't conducive to communal singing, anyway.
And hymns are more musically interesting. You can harmonize to hymns, and do arrangements of them. Good luck trying to do that with contemporary songs.

[Melethiel]

But we do have to attract people to the church and our Sunday services.

What is a commemoration (I'd prefer to celibrate it) without people there? We have to draw people.

As with contemporary worship, yes it attracts boomers but it I've havn't seen many young people attracted to traditional worship.

And I'm not talking about the Christian Rock genra, I was speaking about using a few songs with energy. Ever seen the purple "Worship and Praise" hymnals? Use a few more songs out of there and put away your green LBW's for a few minutes. Or at least use the blue With one voice hymals.
There are some nice songs in WOV, but most of them are just blah - both theologically and musically. They're BORING. (And yes, my church uses them fairly often.) Oh, and Marty Haugen sucks. The majority of my friends agree with me.

You might be interested to know that at my church, on days when the campus group is allowed to pick the hymns, we have a much higher percentage of LBW hymns.

As a young person, I'll take high mass any day over contemporary hymns.

[Luther073082]

There are some nice songs in WOV, but most of them are just blah - both theologically and musically. They're BORING. (And yes, my church uses them fairly often.) Oh, and Marty Haugen sucks. The majority of my friends agree with me.

You might be interested to know that at my church, on days when the campus group is allowed to pick the hymns, we have a much higher percentage of LBW hymns.

As a young person, I'll take high mass any day over contemporary hymns.

When I was in college and we got to pick songs it was always from the Worship and Praise hymals that I belive is accepted by all three Lutheran churchs but few Lutherans have ever seen. My church has 1 copy, on campus we had hundreds.

[Melethiel]

When I was in college and we got to pick songs it was always from the Worship and Praise hymals that I belive is accepted by all three Lutheran churchs but few Lutherans have ever seen. My church has 1 copy, on campus we had hundreds.
I've never even heard of this "Worship and Praise" hymnal.
We actually have more traditional hymns now during an average service than when I started attending my church, because of pressure from the college students.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

But we do have to attract people to the church and our Sunday services.

What is a commemoration (I'd prefer to celibrate it) without people there? We have to draw people.

As with contemporary worship, yes it attracts boomers but it I've havn't seen many young people attracted to traditional worship.

And I'm not talking about the Christian Rock genra, I was speaking about using a few songs with energy. Ever seen the purple "Worship and Praise" hymnals? Use a few more songs out of there and put away your green LBW's for a few minutes. Or at least use the blue With one voice hymals.

Changing from "A mighty fortress is our God" to something like "Shout to the Lord" or at least "Sancutary" would really help things. We don't have to comprimse the Eucharist . . .

And honestly I know this is near blasphamy for a lot of people, but encourage people to come dressed in whatever, have the pastors lose the collars and the robes for a few minutes. Bring in a few insterments that arn't organs. I mean maybe this idea would be best for a mid-week contemporary service or having one contemporary service and one traditional service. Play to a larger crowd.
Yes, of course people need to be there. But what are they there to do?

If they're there to do anything but commemorate, proclaim, and apply the mighty deeds of God in the past by making them present through word and sacrament toward the goal of their future consumation, then they're not 'doing' church.

And contemporary praise music, as a whole, doesn't do that. It's engineered to emotionally hype an audience, not worship God in a congregation.

Modern American Christianity is so confused we can't tell the difference between our Sunday morning service and a tent revival. Indeed, that's what Sunday morning as become, by and large- not a covenant ceremony celebrating God's mighty deeds through Scripture and symbol, but a tent revival.

[filosofer]

But we do have to attract people to the church and our Sunday services.

What is a commemoration (I'd prefer to celibrate it) without people there? We have to draw people.


I think this is a fallacy that "reaching people" is worship-centered. It seems that this is a negative influence of the "evangelical" movement.

If we examine the book of Acts, it was not worship-centered outreach. Rather, people witnessed to Jesus Christ wherever they were. Worship was not evangelism but worship. Now, this is not an excuse not to make worship "user-friendly" in helping new believers (nothing to do with contemporary worship). However, even here in Catechism (adults and youth), I use the Law and Gospel diagram to explain worship and why we do what we do based on what we believe, teach, and confess. In other words evangelism takes place outside worship, and worship takes place in worship (yes, I know about our whole life is worship, but I am referring to Word and Sacrament worship). Those who respond to evangelism come to worship.



In Christ's love,
filo

[Luther073082]

Yes, of course people need to be there. But what are they there to do?

If they're there to do anything but commemorate, proclaim, and apply the mighty deeds of God in the past by making them present through word and sacrament toward the goal of their future consumation, then they're not 'doing' church.

And contemporary praise music, as a whole, doesn't do that. It's engineered to emotionally hype an audience, not worship God in a congregation.

Modern American Christianity is so confused we can't tell the difference between our Sunday morning service and a tent revival. Indeed, that's what Sunday morning as become, by and large- not a covenant ceremony celebrating God's mighty deeds through Scripture and symbol, but a tent revival.

How is praising God through a song with energy any different from praising God with the uneregetic songs.

And honestly I don't think 90% of them are there to praise God. When you sing Alleluah with the boring, uninterested tone of voice I hear out of most Lutherans, then its pretty obvious most of them are there because they feel obligated to be there.

I'm sure God would much rather have people who are happy to be there and praise them then people who are repeating words and hymns thinking about what they are doing after service.

I repeat my problem that a lot of Lutherans look obligated to be there and don't look happy to be in church at all. And the energy in the song makes people more energized themselves, it makes them happy and on fire for God. That allows them to receve the spirt AND celibrate God's gifts.

Frowning and repeating a mighty fortress is our God like its something you have to get overwith so you can go back to doing what you want to be doing is not worship or celibration. I'm not saying they all do that but you seem to treat the traditional songs as if they are the only acceptable way to worship God, and honestly how can you be so stiff?

God is a pretty big guy. . . being a pretty big guy means there are an unlimited number of ways to tell him we love him. And there are an unlimited number of ways to serve him. Lutherans are stuck in a traditional rut, they really are.

And don't misunderstand me, I don't want to be going to an evangelical church. I really don't want to listen to their heresies and would much rather sit through boring worship with correct doctrine then the other way around. But Lord we can have both.

If we examine the book of Acts, it was not worship-centered outreach. Rather, people witnessed to Jesus Christ wherever they were. Worship was not evangelism but worship. Now, this is not an excuse not to make worship "user-friendly" in helping new believers (nothing to do with contemporary worship). However, even here in Catechism (adults and youth), I use the Law and Gospel diagram to explain worship and why we do what we do based on what we believe, teach, and confess. In other words evangelism takes place outside worship, and worship takes place in worship (yes, I know about our whole life is worship, but I am referring to Word and Sacrament worship). Those who respond to evangelism come to worship.

And is it not possible that people get a better idea of who God is through worship?

If you act like the only way to worship God is through tradition then is not the impression we give to people that God only like songs that are 100 years old or more? If we see God in eachother, is not the impression we give of God that he is boring and desiring people to just repeat words and phrases.

Maybe I'm just missing the heresy or the harm in using a little more contemporary music but I just don't see a problem with it. God isn't going to smite us if we play a guitar at church. . . really we've tried it (twice). And God isn't going to get mad if we actually look happy at church.

[Melethiel]

Who says hymns can't be energetic? Most of them are. Especially the Mighty Fortress. At least, the way I play it is. :P
And you're confusing emotion caused by music with being "happy and on fire for God." First of all, what if I'm NOT happy that particular Sunday? Second of all, emotion cause by upbeat music is no more than that - emotion.

Note, I don't hate ALL contemporary hymns, as there are some good ones. I even like some spirituals (they're fun to harmonize to :D ).

[Luther073082]

Who says hymns can't be energetic? Most of them are. Especially the Mighty Fortress. At least, the way I play it is. :P
And you're confusing emotion caused by music with being "happy and on fire for God." First of all, what if I'm NOT happy that particular Sunday? Second of all, emotion cause by upbeat music is no more than that - emotion.

Note, I don't hate ALL contemporary hymns, as there are some good ones. I even like some spirituals (they're fun to harmonize to :D ).

Ok let me clairfy something. . .

I don't want this to be a bloody concert. And I do personally find some energy in "A mighty fortress is our God" but a lot of times its sung with such a downer energy. And I don't know maybe its just my church, they can be real nice and happy but man they rarely sing happy. They sing boring. . . and honestly I've gone to a lot of Lutheran churchs that are a lot worse. They sing like they are downright upset that there is a God.

If someone isn't happy they are never going to be happy at service. But honestly why not use some newer stuff and relate a little bit better. No rock songs, I don't like the Christian rock genera although I still havn't found any heresies in it either.

Having been a Lutheran for 3 years I can tell you my impression thus far has been. "Its always been this way, don't change it." The problem is less and less people are Lutheran. Thats a problem in all three churches. The solution. Change something! Try something new! I'm not saying give up or doctrines, the church must always be doctrinally pure BUT (As our church mission statement says) CULTURALLY RELEVANT.

[filosofer]

How is praising God through a song with energy any different from praising God with the uneregetic songs.

And honestly I don't think 90% of them are there to praise God. When you sing Alleluah with the boring, uninterested tone of voice I hear out of most Lutherans, then its pretty obvious most of them are there because they feel obligated to be there.

Having been around the block a little, I find that the problem with "boring, uninterested" is a reflection of their heart, rather than the worship content.

Pastors need to teach people the essence of Lutheran liturgy (not using the heavy attitude "You have to do it, because I know better"), but through teaching the reasons and well as the variations of worship patterns. I have a sermon that I preach on "The Liturgy of S(p)orts", in which I use the analogy of a basketball game. I have preached in several different congregations - and most people when they hear it the first time, respond "I didn't know that was why we did things this way!" And usually I preach it about every other year to remind and incorporate new people into this understanding.




I'm sure God would much rather have people who are happy to be there and praise them then people who are repeating words and hymns thinking about what they are doing after service.

I repeat my problem that a lot of Lutherans look obligated to be there and don't look happy to be in church at all. And the energy in the song makes people more energized themselves, it makes them happy and on fire for God. That allows them to receve the spirt AND celibrate God's gifts.



You are right, there are times to be happy as Christians. The benefit (and beauty) of the liturgical approach including the liturgical calendar, is that it focuses our attention on the basis and reason for being happy. The liturgical order forces us to deal with every aspect of our life, not just "being happy". For instance, the Confession at the beginning of worship is not there just for tradition. It is a reminder that coming into God's presence is based on his invitation, his calling, his desire for fellowship with us. As we look at ourselves from God's perspective in Confession, we discover that a "feeling of being happy" is illusionary. As we confess our sins, we come to grips with who we really are. But then the liturgy moves us along to the Absolution (forgiveness of sins); this too is God's Word to us, telling us the basis for forgiveness and the declaration that it is indeed true. What follows are the hymns of praise (and even contemporay praise choruses might fit here), because that is the (super)natural response of hearing that our have been forgiven.

Note that our "happiness" is not based on the emotional feeling of a particular hymn or praise song. That kind of happiness needs to be rejuvenated by mid afternoon or sooner. But true happiness is based on God's declaration to us of forgiveness, restoration, etc. That is what will get you through the happy AND sad times, regardless of circumstances.

I could go on - the Creed reminds us that we are part of God's holy people, from ages past and present.




Frowning and repeating a mighty fortress is our God like its something you have to get overwith so you can go back to doing what you want to be doing is not worship or celibration. I'm not saying they all do that but you seem to treat the traditional songs as if they are the only acceptable way to worship God, and honestly how can you be so stiff?

God is a pretty big guy. . . being a pretty big guy means there are an unlimited number of ways to tell him we love him. And there are an unlimited number of ways to serve him. Lutherans are stuck in a traditional rut, they really are.


If people were in that category (your 1st paragraph above), I would say they need a big kick in the rear-end. If a pastor claims that only the songs in a hymnal can ever be sung, then he needs a kick in the rear-end, as well. Is that blunt enough? The liturgical order of service is not an excuse for shoddy worship. Excellence in worship is demanded, whether traditional or contemporary.

I have led contemporary services (that would probably knock the socks of anyone on this Lutheran board) and traditional liturgical services. What is interesting is that CW tends to be much more ritualistic than traditional liturgical. I worked alongside a cutting edge (worship) charismatic church for 2-3 years (~1,200 worshiping every week). As I raised the issue of liturgical worship, of course, they responded with "our approach is much better because of spontaneity and joy of our services". So I had them test the view, writing down every week what went on during every worship service in their church. Over a period of months it dawned on them, that there services were much more rigid than any Lutheran liturgical service. It was an eye-opener for them.

You are right about God being big. Sadly, the CW approach makes our view of him smaller, not larger. CW wants to claim that only something written in the past 10-50 years and in a certain style is "right," or more often put "better". Most advocates of CW fail to realize that there are 2000 years worth of Scripturally sound songs, hymns, and praises to draw upon. The liturgical tradition incorporates all 2000 years worth of history, including the best of CW. And the criteria for judging acceptability is the same for hymns, spiritual songs, or CW.



If you act like the only way to worship God is through tradition then is not the impression we give to people that God only like songs that are 100 years old or more? If we see God in eachother, is not the impression we give of God that he is boring and desiring people to just repeat words and phrases.

The goal of worship is not to "see God in each other" but to be called into God's presence and worship him. We do that around Word and Sacrament.


Maybe I'm just missing the heresy or the harm in using a little more contemporary music but I just don't see a problem with it. God isn't going to smite us if we play a guitar at church. . . really we've tried it (twice). And God isn't going to get mad if we actually look happy at church.


I have been playing guitar in churches since before you were born, playing for a Gospel Quartet in worship service, weddings, etc. If I had my way, we would have a bluegrass style worship service!!

The heresy is not whether the music is contemporary. The heresy comes from the theology of what is proclaimed in some/many of the contemporary songs. But guess what? There are thousands of old hymns that are theologically suspect as well (and I could give you references to many of the most "popular" hymns that fall into this category). We don't sing those either. It is not a case of throwing out anything that is contemporary. Rather, we test, evaluate, sift, and use the best of all generations. But that takes work, commitment to excellence, and a theologically solid base by which to make those determinations.

In Christ's love,
filo

[KEPLER]

There are thousands of old hymns that are theologically suspect as well (and I could give you references to many of the most "popular" hymns that fall into this category).


Will Fanny Crosby please stand up?

[Luther073082]

Having been around the block a little, I find that the problem with "boring, uninterested" is a reflection of their heart, rather than the worship content.

Pastors need to teach people the essence of Lutheran liturgy (not using the heavy attitude "You have to do it, because I know better"), but through teaching the reasons and well as the variations of worship patterns. I have a sermon that I preach on "The Liturgy of S(p)orts", in which I use the analogy of a basketball game. I have preached in several different congregations - and most people when they hear it the first time, respond "I didn't know that was why we did things this way!" And usually I preach it about every other year to remind and incorporate new people into this understanding.

I fully understand what we do with most of the litergy and I'm not advocating changing the litergy or getting rid of it. In fact I'm suggesting that we change a few hymns to more contemporary songs and maybe include a CW service which a lot of Lutheran churchs don't have, including mine.


You are right, there are times to be happy as Christians. The benefit (and beauty) of the liturgical approach including the liturgical calendar, is that it focuses our attention on the basis and reason for being happy. The liturgical order forces us to deal with every aspect of our life, not just "being happy". For instance, the Confession at the beginning of worship is not there just for tradition. It is a reminder that coming into God's presence is based on his invitation, his calling, his desire for fellowship with us. As we look at ourselves from God's perspective in Confession, we discover that a "feeling of being happy" is illusionary. As we confess our sins, we come to grips with who we really are. But then the liturgy moves us along to the Absolution (forgiveness of sins); this too is God's Word to us, telling us the basis for forgiveness and the declaration that it is indeed true. What follows are the hymns of praise (and even contemporay praise choruses might fit here), because that is the (super)natural response of hearing that our have been forgiven.

I'm aware of what the order of confession means and is. However the energy of the service never increases from there.


Note that our "happiness" is not based on the emotional feeling of a particular hymn or praise song. That kind of happiness needs to be rejuvenated by mid afternoon or sooner. But true happiness is based on God's declaration to us of forgiveness, restoration, etc. That is what will get you through the happy AND sad times, regardless of circumstances.

I could go on - the Creed reminds us that we are part of God's holy people, from ages past and present.

Afternoon? We do just morning services . . oh well


If people were in that category (your 1st paragraph above), I would say they need a big kick in the rear-end. If a pastor claims that only the songs in a hymnal can ever be sung, then he needs a kick in the rear-end, as well. Is that blunt enough? The liturgical order of service is not an excuse for shoddy worship. Excellence in worship is demanded, whether traditional or contemporary.

They do need a big kick but when nothing changes they get caught up in the ritual and stop thinking. I'm fortunute that my church changes things just enough in the service that people are kept on their toes. But I've seen a lot of churchs where nothing changes . .. ever

I'll give you an example, one time I went to church and we had the order of baptism. In my church we repeat the apostle's creed along with the baptized's childs family (almost always an infant). But since we do it in response it is broken into three parts. Well once I was sitting in church and has has happened before its easy to forget the meaning. . . yes my fault but honestly the church is here for the body of christ not just for people to repeat the same stuff. But anyways after we got done with the main part I had totally forgotten that we where doing a baptism and just contined for a minute to finish the apostles creed with "I belive in the holy spirt. . ."

Repeating the same words loses meaning. . . the same 500 year old songs lose meaning too.


I have led contemporary services (that would probably knock the socks of anyone on this Lutheran board) and traditional liturgical services. What is interesting is that CW tends to be much more ritualistic than traditional liturgical. I worked alongside a cutting edge (worship) charismatic church for 2-3 years (~1,200 worshiping every week). As I raised the issue of liturgical worship, of course, they responded with "our approach is much better because of spontaneity and joy of our services". So I had them test the view, writing down every week what went on during every worship service in their church. Over a period of months it dawned on them, that there services were much more rigid than any Lutheran liturgical service. It was an eye-opener for them.

The order is often the same yes. But the difference is in contemporary services I've been to. . . the peole there get a chance to pray outloud. They hold hands they feel connected. The songs energize them and help them to feel spiritual. I'm sorry if you think that I'm feeling a false sense of spirituality in these songs but I certainly don't. I sing about God's love, his power, his majesty. . . but in a way that makes me want to move and to clap and to just be energetic.


You are right about God being big. Sadly, the CW approach makes our view of him smaller, not larger. CW wants to claim that only something written in the past 10-50 years and in a certain style is "right," or more often put "better". Most advocates of CW fail to realize that there are 2000 years worth of Scripturally sound songs, hymns, and praises to draw upon. The liturgical tradition incorporates all 2000 years worth of history, including the best of CW. And the criteria for judging acceptability is the same for hymns, spiritual songs, or CW.

And what is theologicall unsound about so many of these conporary songs anyways?

And I've never seen a litergical service that had any type of CW.


The goal of worship is not to "see God in each other" but to be called into God's presence and worship him. We do that around Word and Sacrament.

And as a community of belivers. . . I'm telling you a new beliver does not see God in the Word and the Sacrament because they do not know God yet. Comming to know God comes from both the Holy Spirit and the good direction of Christian brothers and sisters. In them is where someone can first see God.


I have been playing guitar in churches since before you were born, playing for a Gospel Quartet in worship service, weddings, etc. If I had my way, we would have a bluegrass style worship service!!

The heresy is not whether the music is contemporary. The heresy comes from the theology of what is proclaimed in some/many of the contemporary songs. But guess what? There are thousands of old hymns that are theologically suspect as well (and I could give you references to many of the most "popular" hymns that fall into this category). We don't sing those either. It is not a case of throwing out anything that is contemporary. Rather, we test, evaluate, sift, and use the best of all generations. But that takes work, commitment to excellence, and a theological solid base by which to make those determinations.

In Christ's love,
filo


Well first of all I'd like to see a famous song that is theologically unsound.

Secondly I don't see much of an attempt to incorporate contemporary music within litergical worship.

Third I've never seen a guitar in a Lutheran church unless it was for a CW service.

And my problem is we are being made culturally irrelavent. If you deny that you need to look at the decline in size of the Lutheran church. We don't have to give up doctrinal purity for cultural relavency either.

[Melethiel]

"Energetic" is overrated. I'd much prefer a fully chanted service, but that's just me. And most contemporary music just...sucks. It's unsingable...literally. But I'm a music major, I'm allowed to be snobbish about that. :P

My church has a "blended" service...half old hymns, half more contemporary hymns (usually from WOV). Organ and piano, although we're trying to get the harpsichord tuned. The church is not stagnating, but growing, and people are in fact asking for more of the old hymns.

[DaRev]

But we do have to attract people to the church and our Sunday services.

What is a commemoration (I'd prefer to celibrate it) without people there? We have to draw people.

As with contemporary worship, yes it attracts boomers but it I've havn't seen many young people attracted to traditional worship.

And I'm not talking about the Christian Rock genra, I was speaking about using a few songs with energy. Ever seen the purple "Worship and Praise" hymnals? Use a few more songs out of there and put away your green LBW's for a few minutes. Or at least use the blue With one voice hymals.

Changing from "A mighty fortress is our God" to something like "Shout to the Lord" or at least "Sancutary" would really help things. We don't have to comprimse the Eucharist . . .

And honestly I know this is near blasphamy for a lot of people, but encourage people to come dressed in whatever, have the pastors lose the collars and the robes for a few minutes. Bring in a few insterments that arn't organs. I mean maybe this idea would be best for a mid-week contemporary service or having one contemporary service and one traditional service. Play to a larger crowd.

Ya know, there are already churches that do what you are suggesting. They're called "non-denominational." All fluff, all emotion, no feeding, no theology, no sustenance.

Our church had a "contemporary" service when I first got here. Most everyone hated it. Practically no one attended, and those who did (basically out of convenience more than the style) hated it too. Needless to say, it didn't last long after my arrival.

[KEPLER]

Well first of all I'd like to see a famous song that is theologically unsound.

In the Garden
Charles Austin Miles

I come to the garden alone
While the dew is still on the roses
And the voice I hear, falling on my ear
The Son of God discloses

[heresy: Word of God being communicated absent the means of grace]

[oh1 here comes the refrain! everyone lift your beer mugs high....aaaaaaaaand...he walks...]

And He walks with me
And He talks with me
And He tells me I am His own
And the joy we share as we tarry there
None other has ever known

[blush]

He speaks and the sound of His voice
Is so sweet the birds hush their singing
And the melody that He gave to me
Within my heart is ringing

[so...erm...WHAT did he say?]

And He walks with me
And He talks with me
And He tells me I am His own
And the joy we share as we tarry there
None other has ever known

I'd stay in the garden with Him
'Tho the night around me be falling
But He bids me go; through the voice of woe
His voice to me is calling

[ah...parting is such sweet sorrow]

And He walks with me
And He talks with me
And He tells me I am His own
And the joy we share as we tarry there
None other has ever known

Secondly I don't see much of an attempt to incorporate contemporary music within litergical worship.
Please learn how to spell: liturgy, not litergy.

Third I've never seen a guitar in a Lutheran church unless it was for a CW service.
I saw one once. No one was playing it, but I saw it...

***tap tap***

Is this thing on?

And my problem is we are being made culturally irrelavent. If you deny that you need to look at the decline in size of the Lutheran church. We don't have to give up doctrinal purity for cultural relavency either.

Luther######, listen to what Mel and DaRev and others said: congregation sizes are growing in Churches that practice traditional worship.

Clearly, we do NOT need to mimic the culture in order to attract people.

[filosofer]

Repeating the same words loses meaning. . . the same 500 year old songs lose meaning too.


But that was the point in referencing this charismatic service, they repeated the same words over and over again. And in reality, I've never met a Lutheran who sang the same song 500 years. A former member died last week, she was 101. She could have sung the same song for 100 years. :)

(See the smilie, it means I'm teasing you!)




The order is often the same yes. But the difference is in contemporary services I've been to. . . the peole there get a chance to pray outloud. They hold hands they feel connected. The songs energize them and help them to feel spiritual. I'm sorry if you think that I'm feeling a false sense of spirituality in these songs but I certainly don't. I sing about God's love, his power, his majesty. . . but in a way that makes me want to move and to clap and to just be energetic.


But that is the problem, that only "feels good". I have been making hospital calls for many years, many of the people dying. Not once has anyone, even among those who faithfully attended the CW services, ever asked to sing a praise song from the contemporary service. Not once.

But I have had young, old, and in-between who received great comfort from hymns that have stood the test of theology and time. For them, lying in the hospital bed chased away any discussion of "energy" or 'feeling happy" or .... Rather they wanted to hear about what God had done for them in Christ. They wanted to hear that their sins were forgiven. They wanted to hear of the promises of God that this life is not the final scene, death is not the final answer.




And what is theologicall unsound about so many of these conporary songs anyways?

And I've never seen a litergical service that had any type of CW.



The focus is often on "me". Pay attention and see how many times the songs have "I" or "we" as the subject, repeatedly.

I have led many liturgical services that incorporated theologically sound CW songs.



And as a community of belivers. . . I'm telling you a new beliver does not see God in the Word and the Sacrament because they do not know God yet. Comming to know God comes from both the Holy Spirit and the good direction of Christian brothers and sisters. In them is where someone can first see God.

The inconsistency of your paragraph makes me wonder, not about you, but about your concern. Someone cannot be a "new believer" and yet "not know God".

Can you rephrase that?




Secondly I don't see much of an attempt to incorporate contemporary music within litergical worship.

It is done quite often. And when carefully thought out, it is seamless and beautiful.



Third I've never seen a guitar in a Lutheran church unless it was for a CW service.


I have been playing in liturgical services since the mid 1970's, and in other settings since the mid 1960's.



And my problem is we are being made culturally irrelavent. If you deny that you need to look at the decline in size of the Lutheran church. We don't have to give up doctrinal purity for cultural relavency either.

You raise a good point. But the issue has to be "what is the culture" and what is "culturally relevant"? One of the keys of the endurance of the Christian worship service is that it is beyond culture. Despite what many people might think/assume, the liturgical service is not uniquely German, nor even European. It incorporates aspects from many cultures, and therefore it is always culturally relevant, but never culturally bound.

Here is an insightful quote about "culture" and this discussion:


We have become conscious of the fact that in the course of some 15 centuries something like a Christian civilization has been created, and of the other fact that in our days this Christian civilization is at stake and its survivial is questioned... A new epoch has begun, in which the scholar, the artist, the seer, and the saint are replaced by the soldier, the engineer, and the man of political power; an epoch which is no more capable of producing real culture, but merely an outward technical civilization.

Emil Brunner


In Christ's love,
filo

[DaRev]

I wonder how "culturally irrelevent" that 2000+ year old Bible is that we read and preach from every week. :doh:

[filosofer]

Luther######, listen to what Mel and DaRev and others said: congregation sizes are growing in Churches that practice traditional worship.

Clearly, we do NOT need to mimic the culture in order to attract people.

At one congregation where I served as pastor, we were using TLH (1941 hymnal) and I played some on the guitar, and were in the top 1% of LCMS congregations in terms of percentage of growth - and not just numbers showing up. Worship went from 140 to 250, Bible class attendance went from 15 to 125. Almost all the growth was among people under the age of 35. And even today in that congregation, it is continuing to grow among the young people.

In Christ's love,
filo

[DaRev]

A couple of weeks ago we had a family (brother and 2 sisters) come and play guitar for our service. We followed the liturgy Divine Service 4 from LSB. The songs they played were chosen for their theological soundness. The service was very good. We didn't toss out the liturgy. I didn't lose the collar or the robes. And Law and Gospel was preached and the Sacrament administered. There is a way to incorporate more "contemporary" music into the liturgy to make it work.
The real problem, though, is that a vast majority of CW music is theologically void.

Also to note that the LSB hymnal also has a guitar edition so that accompaniment to the liturgy can be played as well.

[KEPLER]

A couple of weeks ago we had a family (brother and 2 sisters) come and play guitar for our service. We followed the liturgy Divine Service 4 from LSB. The songs they played were chosen for their theological soundness. The service was very good. We didn't toss out the liturgy. I didn't lose the collar or the robes. And Law and Gospel was preached and the Sacrament administered. There is a way to incorporate more "contemporary" music into the liturgy to make it work.
The real problem, though, is that a vast majority of CW music is theologically void.

Also to note that the LSB hymnal also has a guitar edition so that accompaniment to the liturgy can be played as well.
:thumbsup:

[Melethiel]

I have a systematic bias against guitars.
Organ is the way to go. ;)

[DaRev]

I have a systematic bias against guitars.
Organ is the way to go. ;)

That's understandable. I've heard you play. :thumbsup: Too bad you don't live in Pennsylvania. I'd have a job for you.

[Melethiel]

That's understandable. I've heard you play. :thumbsup: Too bad you don't live in Pennsylvania. I'd have a job for you.
I applied to two medical schools in Pennsylvania, but you're not near either of them. :P

[Luther073082]

In the Garden
Charles Austin Miles

I come to the garden alone
While the dew is still on the roses
And the voice I hear, falling on my ear
The Son of God discloses

[heresy: Word of God being communicated absent the means of grace]

The son of God is the means of grace! And one sentence is all you have, geez I thought at least the chorus might be heretical.


Please learn how to spell: liturgy, not litergy.

Who cares, this is a message board, I'm not going to take the time to worry about spelling. If I was turning in a paper I might consider using the spell checker. But I'm not.



Luther######, listen to what Mel and DaRev and others said: congregation sizes are growing in Churches that practice traditional worship.

Clearly, we do NOT need to mimic the culture in order to attract people.

Most congregations do practice traditional worship, and most congregations are declining. If its not the worship style its something else.

Also you say CW is popular with the Evangelical churchs but claim it doesn't work for us why?

And I'm not saying give up on traditional worship I'm saying we can blend the two or have one traditional service and one CW.

And filo I don't think an instance of someone dying is a good example. People like to feel comforted when they are dying not uplifted. Its hard to feel uplifted in those circumstances. But in ordinary worship people are not dying.

[filosofer]

And filo I don't think an instance of someone dying is a good example. People like to feel comforted when they are dying not uplifted. Its hard to feel uplifted in those circumstances. But in ordinary worship people are not dying.


I would disagree with you, based on my experience as a parishioner and as a pastor, it is in fact the very essence of worship. Worship is a foretaste of heaven (and yes, some Lutherans act as if it is a foretaste of the other place ;) ). The last two funerals I conducted caused many to wrestle with this reality of death and worship. One involved a 15 year who was instantly killed by a semi truck, and his father was driving beside him but only had a bruise on his forehead, while the boy's mother and girlfriend were in the car behind and watched the entire accident. The other was a daughter of our members who was brutally murdered. Deetails aren't important. But I can guarantee that the 600+ youth who were at the first funeral were moved mightily by the hymns/songs that were sung and the sermon that was preached (I led the worship, the uncle, also an LCMS pastor, preached the sermon).

This illustrates what I have tried to instill in pastors for years: there is an intimate connection between worship and everyday life. To segment worship from the every day aspects of the Christian life belittles both. What goes on in worship is the stuff by which we live. Likewise I emphasize in other contexts, as Christians (and especially so for pastors) we cannot present a disjointed view of life and ministry. Worship, Bible Study, catechesis, discipleship, Scripture memory, witnessing, evangelism, stewardship, etc. are all connected. It our gnostic culture that wants to have us believe that we can separate the physical from the spiritual, the emotional from the spiritual, etc., living in fragments that seemingly have no connection.

For Christians, every part of life is connected; there is continuity among all aspects of life. That is also why I stress using and developing Biblical translations that can and should be used in Bible study and worship, in private and family devotions, and the consistency improves everyone of these parts. The continuity of our faith is not limited to a slice of time (often only 1 hour) per week.

This brings to mind another critical part of worship - worship continuity,

1. vertical continuity with God (Word and Sacrament to us, prayers and hymns/songs to God) and

2. horizontal continuity (with those who have preceded us in the faith, with those who happen to be in the same spot, and with those around the world).

There is something about a shared faith that has that continuity so that my mother and my grandchildren can all confess, sing, and worship together, not based on the style choices of any individual, but brought together for that which transcends any style choices. This is not "just tradition", but a vital sharing in the very heart of what it means to be Christians who confess the faith as Lutherans. Thus, theologically sound hymns and songs and praise songs fit well within this context. Theologically weak or confusing hymns and songs and praise songs detract from this continuity.

In Christ's love,
filo

[RayJGentry]

Actually, every worship should be a focus on the death of ourselves so that Christ can live in us. I'm not saying this to be difficult, but when you worship and have proper Law/Grace in the preaching, scripture and liturgy...that's really all that the service is about...

[filosofer]

Actually, every worship should be a focus on the death of ourselves so that Christ can live in us. I'm not saying this to be difficult, but when you worship and have proper Law/Grace in the preaching, scripture and liturgy...that's really all that the service is about...

Well said! :amen: :amen: :amen:

In Christ's love,
filo

[BBAS 64]

As Lutherans, due to our shared historical experience and its codification in the Book of Concord, we tend to think of Catholicism as our chief theological adversary.

And in some ways, this is true. The central gospel truth of justification by grace alone through faith alone is openly anathematized by the Catholic Church and its Tridentine heritage.

But in many ways, I see the threat of Catholicism, both as a theological and sociological phenomenon, as subbordinate to modern American evangelicalism.

By evangelicalism I of course to not mean the historic Protestant heritage of the gospel, euangelion. I mean the largely Pietist, Arminian, dispensationalist, Baptistic, and charismatic nexus of churchgoers that dominate nondenominational, megachurch, and Baptist segments of Christianity which grew out of nineteenth century revival movements and early twentieth century fundamentalism. It is represented by leaders such as Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Charles Colson.

Why do I think evangelicalism is the greater threat?

The Errors They Share

Because were Catholicism doctrinally rejects justification by grace alone, at least Catholicism (in Thomist Dominican and Molinist Jesuit theology) adheres to a compatiblism between predestination and free will, while evangelicals, on the other hand, believe in complete freedom of the will and its ability to choose belief in Christ.

Because where Catholicism doctrinally rejects justification through faith alone, evangelicalism does much the same in laying stress on such works as the sinner's prayer and open confessions of repentence.

Because where Catholicism promotes the eggregious idea of sanctification through a combination of faith and good works, evangelicalism, despite nominal adherence to the solas of the Reformation, does quite the same through the influence of the Pietists and their understanding of sanctification as coming through deeds
of Piety.

The Errors of Extremes

Because where Catholics practice Eucharistic adoration, evangelicals ignore the blessings of the sacrament and reject the presence of Christ.

Because where Catholics adhere strictly to the leadership of the episcopacy and the Roman pontiff, evangelicals idolize their local church leadership with no respect for Christian unity.

Where Catholics have found sacraments and sacrity in overabundance, evangelicals have lost all sense of sacred space (churches), sacred time (church calenders), and sacred encounters (rituals and sacraments).

Where Catholics refer the Christian departed to an excessive degree involving the prayer for souls in their fictitious purgatory, adherence to a supposedly infallible heritage, and intercessory prayer, evangelicals have entirely forgotten tradition and the unity of the church throughout the ages.

Errors Where Evangelicals Go Far Beyond the Pale

At this point it may merely seem that evangelicals are equally threatening as Catholics but they go far beyond.

The rejection of the real presence.

The withholding of baptism from infants.

The rejection of any divine action in baptism.

Millennialism.

Dispensationalism and the dividng of the people of God into two distinct Israelite and church groups.

The rapture.

Indeed, evangelicals have devolved to the point where you can press a regular evangelical churchgoer for a definition of the Trinity or the incarnation, and instead over something to the effect of "God in one being and three persons" or "Two natures forever linked in one person," you will get modalist, Arian, or docetist answers. And worst of all, they think these are orthodox answers.

I think my point is clear enough.

Good Day, GratiaCorpusChristi

You seem to plant all people into 3 camps.

Lutheran
Roman
Evangelicals

Your definitions are quite wide.... to assume that all with in a group all belive the same.

Some Evan. are not Dispys, with hold infant baptism, Millennialist.

Some RC I know are Millennialism, just like Augustine was at one point of his life.

In Him,

Bill

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Good Day, GratiaCorpusChristi

You seem to plant all people into 3 camps.

Lutheran
Roman
Evangelicals

Your definitions are quite wide.... to assume that all with in a group all belive the same.

Some Evan. are not Dispys, with hold infant baptism, Millennialist.

Some RC I know are Millennialism, just like Augustine was at one point of his life.

In Him,

Bill
Not really. I perfectly well understand the distinctions between the many different Christian groups.

But I think as far as Lutherans are concerned, Catholicism has been our primary historical adversary, and I'm simply trying to state that this has changed in the past century and evangelicalism has taken its place.

And, of course, not all evangelicals are dispensationalists, and not all Catholics are amillennialists.

But as it stands right not, the average evangelical does not practice infant baptism (unless you count Reformed and Presbyterians, which I'm not and I think would be sociologically irresponsible), believes that salvation is effected by free choice of the will, is Pietist, and believes in a future secret rapture, a coming millennium, and that modern national Israel has some relevance toward the end of times. And also, millennialism is now officially condemned by the Catholic Church.

My definitions are quite sound.

[thereselittleflower]

In spite of all her faults, the Roman Church nevertheless does have the Word proclaimed in every service, and the Sacraments.

When I say "Word proclaimed", I am not necessarily referring to their homilies (sermons), but to the fact that their liturgy includes the unfettered reading of the Word: Old Testament, Epistle and Gospel.

I have been to many an evangelical service where any reading of the Word is obfuscated by the sermon.Hi Kepler, hey don't forget the Psalms between the Old Testament and the Epistle and Gospel. ;)


:wave:


.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I wonder how "culturally irrelevent" that 2000+ year old Bible is that we read and preach from every week. :doh:

Don't you see?? That's why we need The Message! ;)

[DaRev]

When I say "Word proclaimed", I am not necessarily referring to their homilies (sermons), but to the fact that their liturgy includes the unfettered reading of the Word: Old Testament, Epistle and Gospel.

Don't forget, though, that they also sometimes read from the apochrypha, which is not the "Word proclaimed".

[Jim47]

Truth be told, I don't see either of them as a true thread to Lutherans. If they fall into either trap then they never believed what God said in His Word to begin with.

[Jim47]

Hi Kepler, hey don't forget the Psalms between the Old Testament and the Epistle and Gospel. ;)


:wave:


.


Glad to see you posting here Therese, :) You are right, a church service wouldn't be complete without those. :preach:

[BBAS 64]

Not really. I perfectly well understand the distinctions between the many different Christian groups.

But I think as far as Lutherans are concerned, Catholicism has been our primary historical adversary, and I'm simply trying to state that this has changed in the past century and evangelicalism has taken its place.

And, of course, not all evangelicals are dispensationalists, and not all Catholics are amillennialists.

But as it stands right not, the average evangelical does not practice infant baptism (unless you count Reformed and Presbyterians, which I'm not and I think would be sociologically irresponsible), believes that salvation is effected by free choice of the will, is Pietist, and believes in a future secret rapture, a coming millennium, and that modern national Israel has some relevance toward the end of times. And also, millennialism is now officially condemned by the Catholic Church.

My definitions are quite sound.

Good Day,

I think all you have done here is partake in a fatal notion of historical relevance. Not one thing you set to be the the standard to define as the greater threat finds anyweight as being the issue that were addressed in the times of Martin Luther.

The main issue was and always will be how one is justified before a holy God, what the RC dennomination teaches now out side of the errors they proclaim when it comes to justification and the nature of the Gospel are simply secondary in nature.

I have seen Lutherans on this very board, who belive that free-will has some thing to do with ones salvation, in doing so completely dismiss the historical nature of the error they fall in to.

Moving the (historical) goal posts, will always breed a short sighted view of those things we as non RC hold dear.

For His glory alone!! :clap:

Bill

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Good Day,

I think all you have done here is partake in a fatal notion of historical relevance. Not one thing you set to be the the standard to define as the greater threat finds anyweight as being the issue that were addressed in the times of Martin Luther.

The main issue was and always will be how one is justified before a holy God, what the RC dennomination teaches now out side of the errors they proclaim when it comes to justification and the nature of the Gospel are simply secondary in nature.

I have seen Lutherans on this very board, who belive that free-will has some thing to do with ones salvation, in doing so completely dismiss the historical nature of the error they fall in to.

Moving the (historical) goal posts, will always breed a short sighted view of those things we as non RC hold dear.

For His glory alone!! :clap:

Bill
Actually, salvation by free will was addressed....

And if you don't think the sacraments matter to Luther, perhaps you should reread the Babylonian Captivity....

[Tetzel]

Whichever one claims that man can contribute to his own salvation.

[BBAS 64]

Actually, salvation by free will was addressed....

And if you don't think the sacraments matter to Luther, perhaps you should reread the Babylonian Captivity....

Good Day, GratiaCorpusChisti

I never thought that, nor have I even presented such a notion here.

It (sacraments) was not the the cause of the refromation.

Which doctrine is said (historically) to be the one one which the chuch lives or dies?

In Him,

Bill

[KEPLER]

HE LIVES!

(I mean Tetzel...not Jesus...we all know Jesus lives...)

[PreachersWife2004]

YAY! I'm not the only one anymore!

*whew*

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

YAY! I'm not the only one anymore!

*whew*
Don't be so quick to celebrate. The other person isn't Lutheran, or even Christian. Sorry.

[DaSeminarian]

YAY! I'm not the only one anymore!

*whew*

So you were the one until the other person voted. Now we all know.;)

[PreachersWife2004]

So you were the one until the other person voted. Now we all know.;)

I had actually posted earlier that I had chosen Catholicism and that I was the only one.

I guess my company isn't all that great, though. :sigh:

[Orion567]

Lutherans have already coped with the Catholic Church and the Book of Concord is documents that refutes the traditions and misconcepts of the Catholic Church. It is Evangelicalism that is Satans latest and greatest arsenal. It is within a Evangelical platform that Satan can divert the people from the Cross of Christ to a buffet of good works in a post-modern age. The concept of a creed is so alien within Evangelicalism that it is deeds that makes the Christian christian. It is now not what 'Christ did', but what 'You can do'. The finished work of the Cross of Christ is no longer a primary focus. It is about morals, 12 steps to a better You, the 10 commandents for better living. I contend that if Christ and Him crucified is not preached in the church any longer then Sunday becomes a wasted day and the Lord's day is nothing. May the Lord have mercy on our souls in the body of Christ if we forsake to preach the Gospel and understand sound doctrine in a day and time where truth is stranger than fiction.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Lutherans have already coped with the Catholic Church and the Book of Concord is documents that refutes the traditions and misconcepts of the Catholic Church. It is Evangelicalism that is Satans latest and greatest arsenal. It is within a Evangelical platform that Satan can divert the people from the Cross of Christ to a buffet of good works in a post-modern age. The concept of a creed is so alien within Evangelicalism that it is deeds that makes the Christian christian. It is now not what 'Christ did', but what 'You can do'. The finished work of the Cross of Christ is no longer a primary focus. It is about morals, 12 steps to a better You, the 10 commandents for better living. I contend that if Christ and Him crucified is not preached in the church any longer then Sunday becomes a wasted day and the Lord's day is nothing. May the Lord have mercy on our souls in the body of Christ if we forsake to preach the Gospel and understand sound doctrine in a day and time where truth is stranger than fiction.
Yes! Precisely.

I'm thinking about writing a parody book called 10 Steps to Get Jesus to Love You!

[PreachersWife2004]

Lutherans have already coped with the Catholic Church and the Book of Concord is documents that refutes the traditions and misconcepts of the Catholic Church. It is Evangelicalism that is Satans latest and greatest arsenal. It is within a Evangelical platform that Satan can divert the people from the Cross of Christ to a buffet of good works in a post-modern age. The concept of a creed is so alien within Evangelicalism that it is deeds that makes the Christian christian. It is now not what 'Christ did', but what 'You can do'. The finished work of the Cross of Christ is no longer a primary focus. It is about morals, 12 steps to a better You, the 10 commandents for better living. I contend that if Christ and Him crucified is not preached in the church any longer then Sunday becomes a wasted day and the Lord's day is nothing. May the Lord have mercy on our souls in the body of Christ if we forsake to preach the Gospel and understand sound doctrine in a day and time where truth is stranger than fiction.

Nicely put.

Can I change my vote? ;)