Type of service

[SPALATIN]

Which type of liturgy service do you prefer to attend? Also do you like the service printed out and inserted in your church bulletin or do you prefer to use the service in the hymnal?

I want some verbal responses as well here and not just a vote.

[Willy]

Help me out here. I never understood the title "Divine Service." I certainly realize that Divine means God. But why this title?

[ChiRho]

Help me out here. I never understood the title "Divine Service." I certainly realize that Divine means God. But why this title?


You should probably ask a Pastor.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[Phoebe]

By one and two, does that mean stting one or setting two? The ELCA has six settings between the two hymnals.

I like Communion, setting one, out of the hymnal. (Divine)

[SPALATIN]

Help me out here. I never understood the title "Divine Service." I certainly realize that Divine means God. But why this title?
Divine Service was given the name because it shows that the Divine serves us. THat is why we go to church to receive the forgiveness of sins on a weekly basis. He serves us. Did you think we went there just to praise him?

[KagomeShuko]

By one and two, does that mean stting one or setting two? The ELCA has six settings between the two hymnals.

I like Communion, setting one, out of the hymnal. (Divine)
Only six? Haha. . .more like at LEAST six. . .and they're coming out with a new hymnal.

We've got three hymnals already:
Lutheran Book of Worship
Hymnal Supplement (1992, I think. . .)
With One Voice

At my church, we'll use setting one and two in the LBW and then the service in the Hymnal Supplement, too. I almost called it "the red book" like we do at church!

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[LuxPerpetua]

I don't know the difference between the Divine Service 1 and 2 yet. I'm guessing one is more formal than the other???

I prefer a more formal liturgical service, but occasionally a contemporary service fits the bill, too. I usually like to go to whichever service is offering communion that Sunday, but in general I like my liturgy high. ;) I don't mind my service printed in the bulletin but I do prefer to hold a book. Not sure why, though.

[KagomeShuko]

I don't know the difference between the Divine Service 1 and 2 yet. I'm guessing one is more formal than the other???

I prefer a more formal liturgical service, but occasionally a contemporary service fits the bill, too. I usually like to go to whichever service is offering communion that Sunday, but in general I like my liturgy high. ;) I don't mind my service printed in the bulletin but I do prefer to hold a book. Not sure why, though.
We sometimes end up juggling books. We used to have the service printed in the bulletin, but it was just too much. Now, if all the hymns aren't out of the same book, we always have to switch! We also have lots of song inserts!

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[filosofer]

I don't know the difference between the Divine Service 1 and 2 yet. I'm guessing one is more formal than the other???

I prefer a more formal liturgical service, but occasionally a contemporary service fits the bill, too. I usually like to go to whichever service is offering communion that Sunday, but in general I like my liturgy high. ;) I don't mind my service printed in the bulletin but I do prefer to hold a book. Not sure why, though.

If you are referring to DSI and DSII in Lutheran Worship (1982), both are "formal" liturgical services. DS I is bascially page 15 from The Lutheran Hymnal (1941). DSII (has two settings) is probably most familiar because of the praise song "This is the feast of victory ..."

[filosofer]

Help me out here. I never understood the title "Divine Service." I certainly realize that Divine means God. But why this title?

In addition to what Scott noted, this comes from the German background where the word was Gottesdienst. "Worship in Lutheran theology is not just God centered - even Presbyterians/Evangelicals/Methodists, etc. would agree to that. But for them, worship is something we do.

However, for Lutherans worship is God-initiated. God comes to us through Word and Sacrament and we respond with praise, thanksgiving, and prayer. Thus, worship is a dialog between God and His people. That is why the direction the pastor faces during each part of the worship service helps us understand who is doing what. If the pastor faces the congregation, then God is speaking/acting toward the congregation. If the pastor faces the altar, then he joins the people in speaking/acting toward God.

Unfortunately, the contemporary services miss this crucial aspect of interplay between God and His people.

[ByzantineDixie]

I can't remember which one is Divine Service 1 and which one is 2 (I presume you are talking about Lutheran Worship and not LBW, right?). Our service is always printed out in the bulletin each week (yep, music and all) and we only use one of them. Our other church used the other one and I liked it a little better but neither one, music-wise, does much for me. I have heard far more musically intuitive and melodious liturgies elsewhere.

I like Matins pretty well but I don't believe it has provisions for the Lord's Supper and since we have the sacrament at every service (except Wednesday nights during Advent and Lent) we almost never sing it anymore.

I am anxious to see if the new hymnal does a better job with the music for the liturgy. I know the whole "its not about me" spiel...I know the whole "offer it up" spiel...but I don't think liturgical music has to be poor just so we can stoicly plow through it. In my estimation LW misses the mark as far as the music of the liturgy is concerned. I am not alone, several music profs at the university used to attend our congregation and they also were critical of LW's main liturgical services.

But hey, I go every Sunday and sing along and "offer it up" because "its not about me"! ;)

:hug: Rose

[ByzantineDixie]

I just caught filo's post...now I know which is which. We always use DSII, but I have a slight preference for DSI (and I never even saw a "red hymnal" before!) -----R

[KagomeShuko]

I just caught filo's post...now I know which is which. We always use DSII, but I have a slight preference for DSI (and I never even saw a "red hymnal" before!) -----R
I think LCA and MS both used what is now commonly called "The Old Red Book" in many congregations. I know we have them in my church and we also have one or two at my home - I know my mom was raised in a MS church and I'm not sure about my dad.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[filosofer]

I think LCA and MS both used what is now commonly called "The Old Red Book" in many congregations. I know we have them in my church and we also have one or two at my home - I know my mom was raised in a MS church and I'm not sure about my dad.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

Well, actually the "red hymnal" is often a reference to the Lutheran Service Book of 1958, used by predecessors of the LCA (1961) and ALC (1960).The Lutheran Hymnal (1941) came out with both red and blue covers, but was most often identified as the "blue hymnal". Of course, once Lutheran Worship (1982, LCMS) came out, it was really blue, so TLH became "The old hymnal"). LCA/ALC solved that problem in 1977 when they came out with Lutherna Book of Worship in GREEN!

So, if you are in an ELCA congregation, then the "red hymnal" refers to the 1958 LSB. IF you are in an LCMS congregation, the "red hymnal" refers to 1941 TLH.

[KagomeShuko]

Well, actually the "red hymnal" is often a reference to the Lutheran Service Book of 1958, used by predecessors of the LCA (1961) and ALC (1960).The Lutheran Hymnal (1941) came out with both red and blue covers, but was most often identified as the "blue hymnal". Of course, once Lutheran Worship (1982, LCMS) came out, it was really blue, so TLH became "The old hymnal"). LCA/ALC solved that problem in 1977 when they came out with Lutherna Book of Worship in GREEN!

So, if you are in an ELCA congregation, then the "red hymnal" refers to the 1958 LSB. IF you are in an LCMS congregation, the "red hymnal" refers to 1941 TLH.
Well, then mine must be the ELCA one. I think the ones we have at home and at the church are the same.

At my church, they have to be "The old red hymnals" because our "red book" (which is really marroon) is the Hymnal Supplement 1992.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Protoevangel]

You should probably ask a Pastor.

Pax Christi,

ChiRhoAccording to Willy, he is a pastor: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=8714446&postcount=39

[sculpturegirl]

I am still new enough to the church to not really know the difference. I like the litergy and love the way Lutherans take the Lord's Supper, where everyone comes to the front to receive the Bread from one loaf and the Wine from one cup. That is one of the things that drew me to the church. Plus, when the pastor handed me the bread he said, "Sarah, this is the body of Christ, given for you." I had only been to service once before and he knew my name. It is so moving to me to realize every week that Christ died for me specifically.

Anyhow, I usually go to the contemporary service, but I don't like how they use the method of intinction for communion as much- it feels so "on the fly."

My ideal would be good litergy with really great music-a blended service so to say. I can't sing a hymn worth beans, and I find the music generally dull. Our contemporary band is great and sometimes does really terrific Appalacian style music, which is so appropriate here in the foothills. Plus, I love Lutheran canticles and chants.

Lutherans are super!

[Protoevangel]

My ideal would be good litergy with really great music-a blended service so to say. Come to my church then! We have a very traditional liturgy, except for the music. That's why I really can't answer the question Scott asked.

Like you, I love the liturgy, but most of the music makes no sense to me. I would rather sit and read the words, without the music... Not that the music is terribly bad mind you, just that it seems so... nonmusical :scratch: .

[ByzantineDixie]

Oh, one other thing. I didn't vote for contemporary because I didn't know what was meant by contemporary here. I like the liturgy...and like when it is set to more contemporary music (like the worship service I did for my class which some of you have seen).

Our Wednesday evening service would be considered contemporary and I truly love that service, but it is far from a Hillsong like praise service. I surely prefer it to any of the services in LW but also recognize it for what it is...a Wednesday service. It would not work well for the Sunday worship setting.

So, my preference would be the liturgy set to some reasonably contemporary music--which for me also means no organ music. That being said...I guess I'll see if the vote thing will let me check that box off now.

Peace

Rose

[Zoomer]

My favorites are both divine services and our comtemporary service. Our comtemporary service still has a traditional liturgy with a few non-hymnal tunes. When we feel daring we use the piano instead of the organ .

[SPALATIN]

Thanks so far to all who have voted and given input. I decided to start this thread because we got off track on another thread talking about music. As to my preferences I am not a contemporary worship fan. That is using any contemporary music in any worship service. Mostly because most of the contemp songs have poor theological lyrics.

I would like to take the rest of this thread to discuss this issue further and let it be known that I am not here to bash the music just bring light to what I see in it. So please don't be too offended if one of your favorite songs is taken apart.

[ByzantineDixie]

Gee Scott, now I am gonna have to bring home a blue hymnal and play the point / counterpoint game with you! ;)

Just remember...there has always been contemporary music but only the best survive the ages. Sure there's a lot of junk written now but there are some excellent songs too. It will be those songs that live on...as in all the other ages before us, the lesser efforts will be lost to history as well they should be.

:) Rose

[SPALATIN]

Gee Scott, now I am gonna have to bring home a blue hymnal and play the point / counterpoint game with you! ;)

Just remember...there has always been contemporary music but only the best survive the ages. Sure there's a lot of junk written now but there are some excellent songs too. It will be those songs that live on...as in all the other ages before us, the lesser efforts will be lost to history as well they should be.

:) Rose
here is a link I would like you all (i'm sorry you're from the south now so Y'all) to read and then give your opinion on. Is this editorial too harsh or too soft or is it right on the money.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/leaders/newsletter/2004/cln40830.html (http://www.christianitytoday.com/leaders/newsletter/2004/cln40830.html)

[ByzantineDixie]

here is a link I would like you all (i'm sorry you're from the south now so Y'all) to read and then give your opinion on. Is this editorial too harsh or too soft or is it right on the money.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/leaders/newsletter/2004/cln40830.html (http://www.christianitytoday.com/leaders/newsletter/2004/cln40830.html)
While I think there is some merit to what is written...the whole "Jesus and me alone" worship approach is bothersome and caters well to the "what about me" baby boomer generations (of which I freely admit that is my selfish and self-centered generation)...I don't know what the author means by songs "of justice and compassion, of mission and hope, of God-love and neighbor-love, of the glory of a God who loves, not just me/me/me, but the whole world—red and yellow, black and white, as the old Sunday school song said." If the songs are social gospel songs then I don't know that we will have made progress....

Historically, hymns have been primarily "about us"...not in the way presented in the article but hymns were used as a way of teaching the people the doctrine of the church. How much easier is it to remember something if you have a tune attached to it? To this day I only know the Galatians 5:22 verse because of the children's song used in my kid's Lutheran school. "Oh the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, piece...." And realistically...the average guy in the pew didn't have a book to read until the last 10% of church history so doctrinal hymns served (and still serve) a very important purpose.

Check out the hymnal...there are some praise songs but the largest bulk of them deliver training on doctrine. Not that there is anything wrong with that but they hardly represent songs we sing to God. They are songs we sing to each other.

Sometimes though...when you are served so lavishly by the Jesus in worship you can't help but want to respond with a song of praise and thanksgiving. Even our liturgies offer those.

Other thoughts?

Rose

[Protoevangel]

I am not a contemporary worship fan. That is using any contemporary music in any worship service. Mostly because most of the contemp songs have poor theological lyrics. The highlighted words are what I think is interesting. It just seems to be bad logic. :confused:

I completely agree that contemporary songs that are contrary to Lutheran doctrine have no place in Lutheran worship.

Luckily, in my church, we have a good (but not perfect) track record of using songs that are appropriate. There are a few people, not on the "worship team" (terrible name, by the way) who review the songs before they are played.

[LuxPerpetua]

I hate the phrase "worship team" too. It seems like there has to be a better name that they could use. Our church also has a "worship team" for the contemporary service, and I feel that it's a bit silly watching 50 and 60 year olds playing keyboards and using an overhead projector for lyrics and such. Not my cup of tea. God bless 'em, though.

[Willy]

here is a link I would like you all (i'm sorry you're from the south now so Y'all) to read and then give your opinion on. Is this editorial too harsh or too soft or is it right on the money.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/leaders/newsletter/2004/cln40830.html (http://www.christianitytoday.com/leaders/newsletter/2004/cln40830.html)
I like this article. Much of American Christianity has become a market-driven reality. We are bowing down at the feet of consumerism. This is not to say, though, that there isn't a great need for so-called contemporary music and words. Many of the old-time hymns, while important to learn and sing, sometimes lack the ability to speak a poignant word to a contemporary culture. There is very good contemporary music and lyrics out there. Check out a song like "Beauty for Brokenness" out of Worship and Praise from Augsburg Fortress. This is no redundant, peppy song that is simply about us. The words are great, and the music relates to my contemporary ears. David Haas out of the Catholic tradition has written a lot of powerful music that speaks to the modern reality--both musically and lyrically. "Jesus, Savior, Pilot Me" just ain't going to do it for a lot of modern ears. And that's okay. No music style is eternal.

[Willy]

The highlighted words are what I think is interesting. It just seems to be bad logic. :confused:

I completely agree that contemporary songs that are contrary to Lutheran doctrine have no place in Lutheran worship.

Luckily, in my church, we have a good (but not perfect) track record of using songs that are appropriate. There are a few people, not on the "worship team" (terrible name, by the way) who review the songs before they are played.
Certainly we want songs that reflect theological depth. But there's no need to have the hymn police checking out the theological correctness of every song. "I'll Fly Away" reflects miserable theology (where am I flying to?), but its ability to speak to the deep struggles of the American musical and religious scene is remarkable. Theology comes out of human experience. We need to make sure that we don't belittle the human experience that has given us all kinds of theologically incorrect song lyrics. I can't stand "I Come to the Garden Alone." it reflects miserable theology. But when I know that a young woman who was being sexually abused by her step-father would go out to her garden and sing this song as a source of comfort for her after the abuse, I know that I have to give up my need for theological correctness.

[Protoevangel]

Certainly we want songs that reflect theological depth. But there's no need to have the hymn police checking out the theological correctness of every song. When the songs come from “the world” at large, I think there is every reason to question their validity for a Worship service.

"I'll Fly Away" reflects miserable theology (where am I flying to?), but its ability to speak to the deep struggles of the American musical and religious scene is remarkable. Then there are perfectly apropriate times and places for it to be played. Worship is not one of them.

Theology comes out of human experience. We need to make sure that we don't belittle the human experience that has given us all kinds of theologically incorrect song lyrics. No intention to belittle the human experience. But we also need to be very sure we do not elevate “human experience” too highly as well.

I can't stand "I Come to the Garden Alone." it reflects miserable theology. But when I know that a young woman who was being sexually abused by her step-father would go out to her garden and sing this song as a source of comfort for her after the abuse, I know that I have to give up my need for theological correctness. Once again, there is absolutely appropriate times and places for the listening and enjoying for songs such as these. But saying that you will give up theological correctness (in a Worship service, no less) because it comforts her, is synonymous with saying that the truth is not necessary if a lie will make someone feel better.

[KagomeShuko]

The highlighted words are what I think is interesting. It just seems to be bad logic. :confused:

I completely agree that contemporary songs that are contrary to Lutheran doctrine have no place in Lutheran worship.

Luckily, in my church, we have a good (but not perfect) track record of using songs that are appropriate. There are a few people, not on the "worship team" (terrible name, by the way) who review the songs before they are played.
I used to be the head of the Worship and Music committee before the Education spot was open, and I know that we always look at the lessons and try to find songs that reflect what are in the Bible lessons for that Sunday. It's a tedious process at times.

I like contemporary music for worship when it has good thelogogy. I like other Christian music, but just a praise music or things to keep my mind on God rather than other worldly things.

In fact, I love contemporary Christian music, but there are plenty of songs I'd never want to hear in a worship service.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[SPALATIN]

The highlighted words are what I think is interesting. It just seems to be bad logic. :confused:

I completely agree that contemporary songs that are contrary to Lutheran doctrine have no place in Lutheran worship.

Luckily, in my church, we have a good (but not perfect) track record of using songs that are appropriate. There are a few people, not on the "worship team" (terrible name, by the way) who review the songs before they are played.
What bothers me most about contermporary worship is the use of microphones for singing. It seems to put those with the microphone in the spotlight of the service and all eyes are on them instead of on Christ. I can understand the use for a solo but for someone who is supposed to be leading the congregation in song I feel the microphone is inappropriate.

I also agree that having a worship team is wrong. The Pastor should be leading the service and if there is music to be performed then the music department can do its part but they don't have to be a star baby to be in his show.

Certainly we want songs that reflect theological depth. But there's no need to have the hymn police checking out the theological correctness of every song. "I'll Fly Away" reflects miserable theology (where am I flying to?), but its ability to speak to the deep struggles of the American musical and religious scene is remarkable. Theology comes out of human experience. We need to make sure that we don't belittle the human experience that has given us all kinds of theologically incorrect song lyrics. I can't stand "I Come to the Garden Alone." it reflects miserable theology. But when I know that a young woman who was being sexually abused by her step-father would go out to her garden and sing this song as a source of comfort for her after the abuse, I know that I have to give up my need for theological correctness.
Willy,

if you are Pastor you are the hymn police and it is up to you to determine if a song or hymn is suitable for worship. You should not depend on laity to pick the music as they will likely not be looking for theology in the particular piece.

[Flipper]

What bothers me most about contermporary worship is the use of microphones for singing. It seems to put those with the microphone in the spotlight of the service and all eyes are on them instead of on Christ. I can understand the use for a solo but for someone who is supposed to be leading the congregation in song I feel the microphone is inappropriate.


We have a DCE who is the worship arts coordinator, but the Pastor has approval and veto power and he uses it.

We have the microphones and the praise team, but they are placed on either side of the front, leaving the true focus, the huge cross, not blocked from view, so the people are far from being the focus (Kim, they are pushed even further to the sides than when you came to visit). Also, very seldom are there "solos." We are more than encouraged to sing with them (the words are posted on two large screens). The sound is such that if we are all singing, we can't hear the praise team singing. It all kind of comes together and the sound is beautiful (where does it say to sing a joyful song unto the Lord).

[SPALATIN]

We have a DCE who is the worship arts coordinator, but the Pastor has approval and veto power and he uses it.

We have the microphones and the praise team, but they are placed on either side of the front, leaving the true focus, the huge cross, not blocked from view, so the people are far from being the focus (Kim, they are pushed even further to the sides than when you came to visit). Also, very seldom are there "solos." We are more than encouraged to sing with them (the words are posted on two large screens). The sound is such that if we are all singing, we can't hear the praise team singing. It all kind of comes together and the sound is beautiful (where does it say to sing a joyful song unto the Lord).
I would say that yours is the exception and not the rule.

[Willy]

What bothers me most about contermporary worship is the use of microphones for singing. It seems to put those with the microphone in the spotlight of the service and all eyes are on them instead of on Christ. I can understand the use for a solo but for someone who is supposed to be leading the congregation in song I feel the microphone is inappropriate.

I also agree that having a worship team is wrong. The Pastor should be leading the service and if there is music to be performed then the music department can do its part but they don't have to be a star baby to be in his show.


Willy,

if you are Pastor you are the hymn police and it is up to you to determine if a song or hymn is suitable for worship. You should not depend on laity to pick the music as they will likely not be looking for theology in the particular piece.
Once again, I have goofed. We hae a committee that chooses hymns. Certainly I have a lot to say in the picking of the hymns, and there are hymns I reluctantly go along with. (It just doesn't get any worse than "Onward Christian Soldiers" and "Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus," in my opinion. But it's not about me. These songs speak in a very poignant way to some people. I don't have a need to tell them that they can't ever be sung because I perceive them to be theologically flawed. We must come to grips with the fact that theology is a human enterprise. As much as I would like to believe otherwise, my theology is not absolute. Nor is the theology of the church absolute. It is God alone who is absolute. Such a realization brings a little humilty to my endeavors and to the endeavors of all religious expressions.

[SPALATIN]

Once again, I have goofed. We hae a committee that chooses hymns. Certainly I have a lot to say in the picking of the hymns, and there are hymns I reluctantly go along with. (It just doesn't get any worse than "Onward Christian Soldiers" and "Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus," in my opinion. But it's not about me. These songs speak in a very poignant way to some people. I don't have a need to tell them that they can't ever be sung because I perceive them to be theologically flawed. We must come to grips with the fact that theology is a human enterprise. As much as I would like to believe otherwise, my theology is not absolute. Nor is the theology of the church absolute. It is God alone who is absolute. Such a realization brings a little humilty to my endeavors and to the endeavors of all religious expressions.
Willy,

While these songs seem to speak to people it is still important to tell them why they are theologically flawed. If you don't teach them the truth how will they know. You can even say I don't like these hymns or songs and the reason that they are theologically flawed. If they want to sing them at home that is their business, but to not have them sung in church is your business. Theology is systematic and means "study of God's word." No one says it is absolute but there are absolutes within it.

Seems to me that you have fear in telling your congregants that they can't sing these songs because their flawed even though they grew up with them.
Don't be afraid to stand up for the truth. Jesus did it even though he was condemned for it. Let him give you the strength to stand up for what you believe and lead his sheep to truth in scripture.

[Willy]

Willy,

While these songs seem to speak to people it is still important to tell them why they are theologically flawed. If you don't teach them the truth how will they know. You can even say I don't like these hymns or songs and the reason that they are theologically flawed. If they want to sing them at home that is their business, but to not have them sung in church is your business. Theology is systematic and means "study of God's word." No one says it is absolute but there are absolutes within it.

Seems to me that you have fear in telling your congregants that they can't sing these songs because their flawed even though they grew up with them.
Don't be afraid to stand up for the truth. Jesus did it even though he was condemned for it. Let him give you the strength to stand up for what you believe and lead his sheep to truth in scripture.
You obviously have figured out the "truth" more fully than I have. Maybe someday I'll get there. But obviously I have a long way to go in my Christian journey. Some day I'll figure it out and will be able to tell people which songs they can sing and which they can't. I look forward to that day. There are many songs I'm ready to pitch.

[Zoomer]

Our contemporary service does not have microphones and I have never heard of the term "worship team". Our service has a more modernized liturgy with a few songs that are not in the hymnal like Brothers and Sisters in Christ, Shout to the Lord, Blessed Assurance etc. We only have it once a month, the 4th Sunday of the month. Now what bothers me is the unwillingness of some to embrace anything different than the regular liturgy. I overheard an older couple behind me telling another, that they weren't at church last week because they did not like the contemporary service. I think the whole purpose of church is being misunderstood. All of a sudden it is for our pleasure and benefit and not God's.

[ByzantineDixie]

Now what bothers me is the unwillingness of some to embrace anything different than the regular liturgy. I overheard an older couple behind me telling another, that they weren't at church last week because they did not like the contemporary service. I think the whole purpose of church is being misunderstood. All of a sudden it is for our pleasure and benefit and not God's.Zoomer, you have nailed it with this statement here. The primary complaint people have against contemporary worship is the "worship is not about our pleasure argument". Yet...when you really analyze the motives of those against contemporary worship...it all comes back to the same thing. They don't "like it"! :scratch: Contemporary worship is bundled into one lump and picked apart by various concerns and yet the acknowledgement that such worship can be done without violating any of those concerns never seems to surface...so I get the impression the folks who argue against it truly just don't like it and are unwilling to see that sound contemporary worship is even possible. Once all the real concerns are addressed (and they can be easily addressed) it all comes down to preference...and one person's preference is no more valid than the others.

I have experienced some incredible sound "liturgical" contemporary worship. I wish everyone who hated it could attend my brother's church and see it done right. And if high mass is your thing...go enjoy it. And receive the lavish gifts God brings to us in worship. But those that do prefer the traditional style of worship have not cornered the market on His grace. He can and does bring those same gifts in sound, "liturgical" contemporary worship as well.

I am enjoying this discussion.

Peace

Rose

[SPALATIN]

Our contemporary service does not have microphones and I have never heard of the term "worship team". Our service has a more modernized liturgy with a few songs that are not in the hymnal like Brothers and Sisters in Christ, Shout to the Lord, Blessed Assurance etc. We only have it once a month, the 4th Sunday of the month. Now what bothers me is the unwillingness of some to embrace anything different than the regular liturgy. I overheard an older couple behind me telling another, that they weren't at church last week because they did not like the contemporary service. I think the whole purpose of church is being misunderstood. All of a sudden it is for our pleasure and benefit and not God's.
Actually it is for our benefit and God's. I don't go to church to worship because God needs to hear it. I go to church to get forgiven and saved and receive the Word and Sacraments by which this is accomplished. God doesn't need us to worship him, but he wants us to put him first and trust in his will to make our lives better and easier. I rather prefer the church which has an early service for the traditional liturgy and if there is to be a contemporary service than it should be late service. That way those older people who don't like the contemporary and don't want to change to appease you or the other Baby boomers can still attend church every week.

I hold your Pastor responsible for not doing a traditional service for those who don't want to be part of the contemporary movement in your church. He should be ashamed of himself for that.

[ByzantineDixie]

Actually it is for our benefit and God's. I don't go to church to worship because God needs to hear it. I go to church to get forgiven and saved and receive the Word and Sacraments by which this is accomplished. God doesn't need us to worship him, but he wants us to put him first and trust in his will to make our lives better and easier. I rather prefer the church which has an early service for the traditional liturgy and if there is to be a contemporary service than it should be late service. That way those older people who don't like the contemporary and don't want to change to appease you or the other Baby boomers can still attend church every week.

I hold your Pastor responsible for not doing a traditional service for those who don't want to be part of the contemporary movement in your church. He should be ashamed of himself for that.
I agree with your statement regarding "benefit"...which is actually why I truncated the statement after "pleasure" in the body of my post but I have to ask you...do you hold my Pastor responsible for not doing a contemporary service for those who do not want to be part of the traditional service at my church? Should he also be ashamed? Or is this a one way street??? ;)

I'll try to drop in later tonight....

Peace

Rose

[SPALATIN]

Zoomer, you have nailed it with this statement here. The primary complaint people have against contemporary worship is the "worship is not about our pleasure argument". Yet...when you really analyze the motives of those against contemporary worship...it all comes back to the same thing. They don't "like it"! :scratch: Contemporary worship is bundled into one lump and picked apart by various concerns and yet the acknowledgement that such worship can be done without violating any of those concerns never seems to surface...so I get the impression the folks who argue against it truly just don't like it and are unwilling to see that sound contemporary worship is even possible. Once all the real concerns are addressed (and they can be easily addressed) it all comes down to preference...and one person's preference is no more valid than the others.

I have experienced some incredible sound "liturgical" contemporary worship. I wish everyone who hated it could attend my brother's church and see it done right. And if high mass is your thing...go enjoy it. And receive the lavish gifts God brings to us in worship. But those that do prefer the traditional style of worship have not cornered the market on His grace. He can and does bring those same gifts in sound, "liturgical" contemporary worship as well.

I am enjoying this discussion.

Peace

Rose
The point being here is that not everyone is going to like it and whether they make a sound complaint or not their needs are not being met if the church only has one service and it is contemporary.

There should be 2 services in that church to accomodate all the members.


Personally I find the contemporary service to lack substance. I don't care which church does it or how they do the service it just isn't very substantive. I have heard of some studies that reveal the Gen X crowd and younger to be drifting away from the so-called Contemporary worship service and going back to the high mass. the ones that want the CW are the Baby Boomers and since I am one I will be the first to condemn my generation for being the most selfish generation to come out of the 20th century. Most of the music is about "me" and My role in salvation.

I could go on but I won't bore any of you further with my rantings on this subject. I put a link on one of the posts earlier here and I suggest you read it and then comment.

[Zoomer]

We only have one service every Sunday since we are smaller church. The congregation voted to have the service at 10:15 so it was not too early or too late (to miss football ;)).
The first & third Sundays are communion with Divine II, the second is a blended service (still trying to figure out what that is), the fourth is contemporary, and the fifth we use TLH. I like all of the services, I do prefer the fifth Sunday since I was raised with TLH but the other ones I have come to like. To me picking and choosing a service based on ones own liking is the same as a parent not going to a childs sporting event because he hates the sport. It's putting your own happiness over anothers.

[KagomeShuko]

Every time I visit this thread, I can't help but think of Lost And Found's song Opener.

I went to my church on Sunday, just to hear good news, and I confess it's been years more or less, since I warmed these pews, but I'm looking for something stronger than my own life these days but the church of my childhood seems like the YMCA.

Every Sunday is just like the last, as if the church has no history and the people have no past. We just sing the songs we like to sing and preach about the news and think up some gimmicky thing to fill up the pews.

But I want palms on palm Sunday, I went Pentacost still to be red. I want to drink of the wine, and eat of the bread. They strive for attendence while I starve for trancendence, but I count amoung this body, both the living and the dead.

Weather it's guitars and amps, video screens and cordless mikes or incense and robes and copes and candlelight. Let's stop all this fighting about words and ways and let's talk about Jesus like in the good old days.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Admittedly, whichever way people worship all comes down to if they personally like it - traditional or contemporary, so everybody is greedy with what they personally want.

It should always be about God, but they lose sight of that.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Flipper]

Another thing it comes down to is that everyone learns at different levels and with different audio and visual aids. Everyone also has a different attention span. Yes, there is the Holy Spirit at work, but there is still a fair amount of brain processing involved too. I am a visual learner, and we use lots of visual aids in music and in the Message. That appeals to me, and it seems to sink in better that way. Others may not like it because it is too much stimulation to the senses, or because they prefer to be talked to instead of shown pictures. Some of it is selfishness, and personal likes/dislikes, some of it might be a person's preferential learning medium too.

[SPALATIN]

We only have one service every Sunday since we are smaller church. The congregation voted to have the service at 10:15 so it was not too early or too late (to miss football ;)).
The first & third Sundays are communion with Divine II, the second is a blended service (still trying to figure out what that is), the fourth is contemporary, and the fifth we use TLH. I like all of the services, I do prefer the fifth Sunday since I was raised with TLH but the other ones I have come to like. To me picking and choosing a service based on ones own liking is the same as a parent not going to a childs sporting event because he hates the sport. It's putting your own happiness over anothers.
However, if the service does not serve you it does not serve it's purpose. These older people felt that they have not been served in that format.
I tell you the truth and that is that if it were up to me my family would never go to a contemporary service ever. I don't feel that the service has enough substance in Word and Sacrament and I want my family to get the most from their worship.

It is too bad that your congregation is too small. Maybe the older couple could go to a different church on the Sunday that you do Contemp worship.

[ByzantineDixie]

I put a link on one of the posts earlier here and I suggest you read it and then comment.
First thing...I gave you some blessings because it creeped me out to see you have "666" blessings! ;)

Second thing...I did comment on the article in the link in this post (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=9287984&postcount=24)but I must not have addressed your issues of interest. Let me know what those are and I be happy to comment further.

I am a little shocked by your blanket statement saying contemporary worship lacks substance...I can't see where a liturgical service...using more contemporary liturgical music and songs and using piano, guitar and the like instead of the organ pulls the substance out of the service. :scratch: But by all means...if you hate it, don't subject your self to it. You don't have to. Fortunately, being in Minnesota...you have multiple options. Being a Lutheran in Georgia, however, means that I don't get the service of my preference. But that's OK. One of the things we first established in this thread...."its not about me." :)

Peace, my friend

Rose

[SPALATIN]

First thing...I gave you some blessings because it creeped me out to see you have "666" blessings! ;)

Second thing...I did comment on the article in the link in this post (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=9287984&postcount=24)but I must not have addressed your issues of interest. Let me know what those are and I be happy to comment further.

I am a little shocked by your blanket statement saying contemporary worship lacks substance...I can't see where a liturgical service...using more contemporary liturgical music and songs and using piano, guitar and the like instead of the organ pulls the substance out of the service. :scratch: But by all means...if you hate it, don't subject your self to it. You don't have to. Fortunately, being in Minnesota...you have multiple options. Being a Lutheran in Georgia, however, means that I don't get the service of my preference. But that's OK. One of the things we first established in this thread...."its not about me." :)

Peace, my friend

Rose
If you really look at that post again I did preface it by saying "I personally feel" by using this I was saying basically IMHO. I do feel that most Contemporary worship is lacking in substance. I used to love the music and the modernity of the service until I was shown by a few people how the music often is not theologically correct. There may be a few songs that are ok, but I feel that overall it is not for me.

On the other hand I do not say that it is wrong that people like it and if you are one who is blessed by it I am happy for you.

I am sorry that you felt I was putting you down for enjoying it. That was not my intent and I apologize. I realize that up here in Minnesota puts me in touch with more Lutheran opportunities, but there are actually less traditional confessional churches here. Besides with the situation I am in with my family I am going to have to compromise to a point and go to a few contemporary service.

I also apologize to anyone else who felt offended by my statement but I assure you that it is all my own personal opinion though there are some studies that back my opinion up. I realize that not everyone considers every study done to be truly valid.

[Protoevangel]

I am not a contemporary worship fan. That is using any contemporary music in any worship service. Mostly because most of the contemp songs have poor theological lyrics. What bothers me most about contermporary worship is the use of microphones for singing. It seems to put those with the microphone in the spotlight of the service and all eyes are on them instead of on Christ. I can understand the use for a solo but for someone who is supposed to be leading the congregation in song I feel the microphone is inappropriate.First you say “…any contemporary music…” “…any worship service...” “…because most of the contemp songs…”
Now the problem is microphones? They necessarily cause error?
Then you tell Flipper that she is in the “exception and not the rule”.
I don’t know where you have seen Lutheran contemporary services, but I have never seen a Lutheran contemporary band in front of the altar or cross, I have always seen them off to the side. Also, with very few exceptions, I have not heard a Lutheran contemporary band drown out the parishioners in volume.

All these things you bring up are important issues. But the manner you are using the arguments, as if contemporary music in a Lutheran Liturgy necessitates or causes these problems is specious and flawed.

Show me how the right teaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments are affected necessarily and specifically by using (well chosen) contemporary music in the liturgy, and I will join you on your crusade wholeheartedly and with a vengeance!




EDIT: I think this came out harsher than I meant it to. I am not intending to be unfriendly here Scott.

[Flipper]

I'm having a feeling that this is one of those subjects that will produce strong feelings no matter what side you are on. Like arguing that drinking is ok in moderation with a bunch of fundamentalists.

[KagomeShuko]

:wave:
Is that -

Like arguing that "drinking is ok in moderation with a bunch of fundamentalists."

or

Like arguing that "drinking is ok in moderation" with a bunch of fundamentalists."

Could take on two very different meanings! ;) Hee! :D Sorry, I'm just a bit silly tonight. We had a game night at church and we had fun! :P

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Protoevangel]

:wave:
Is that -
Like arguing that "drinking is ok in moderation with a bunch of fundamentalists."


or

Like arguing that "drinking is ok in moderation" with a bunch of fundamentalists.

Could take on two very different meanings! ;) Hee! :D Sorry, I'm just a bit silly tonight. We had a game night at church and we had fun! :P

Stein Auf!
BridgetNumber 1 is clearly a sin, as per 1 Corinthans 8.
Number 2is just plain fun! :D

[Protoevangel]

I'm having a feeling that this is one of those subjects that will produce strong feelings no matter what side you are on. Like arguing that drinking is ok in moderation with a bunch of fundamentalists.If you're worries about me, I am not offended at all. My answer to Scott above that was worded a little strong was just a bad choice of strategy. :doh: I wanted to show what I saw as weak arguments, and ended up tearing into the poor guy. That's ok, if he can survive some of the stuff at LutherQuest, this should be a piece of cake.

Huh Scott? :P
I love ya man! Never let anyone tell you otherwise!:hug:

[ByzantineDixie]

I want to echo Dan's sentiments...I surely do not take offense at anything posted here thus far. Nor have I meant to be offensive and apologize if I was so in any way. A little lively discussion kinda gets the blood circulating...and Dan's right, this ain't nothin' like the daggers and darts of LQ.

LQ ---> :mad:

CF ---> :hug:

;)

Show me how the right teaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments are affected necessarily and specifically by using (well chosen) contemporary music in the liturgy, and I will join you on your crusade wholeheartedly and with a vengeance!
:amen: I am right there with you, brother.

Unfortunately...time is at a premium tonight and I can't further the discussion. Scott, I hope you can get others to comment on the link you sent.

Until tomorrow...resting in His mercy and grace.

:hug: Rose

[Flipper]

If you're worries about me, I am not offended at all. My answer to Scott above that was worded a little strong was just a bad choice of strategy. :doh: I wanted to show what I saw as weak arguments, and ended up tearing into the poor guy. That's ok, if he can survive some of the stuff at LutherQuest, this should be a piece of cake.

Huh Scott? :P
I love ya man! Never let anyone tell you otherwise!:hug:
Oh no, Dan. I was just acknowledging that this seems to be a subject that some people have very strong feelings about. This isn't the first time I've heard Scott's arguments. A lot of good Lutherans left the church I go to for many of the reasons he's giving - a lot of people who get very angry if the subject is brought up.

An example. My husband's college roommate's father is a pastor at an LCMS church nearby. You should have seen the glare he gave us when he found out that we go to that horrible church with that rock music.

I highly respect Scott's and your opinions on this subject. I just think that because I didn't grow up Lutheran, I don't appreciate the arguments as much. Maybe if I grew up in a traditional Lutheran setting with strict liturgy and all that, my opinions would be different.

[KagomeShuko]

If you're worries about me, I am not offended at all. My answer to Scott above that was worded a little strong was just a bad choice of strategy. :doh: I wanted to show what I saw as weak arguments, and ended up tearing into the poor guy. That's ok, if he can survive some of the stuff at LutherQuest, this should be a piece of cake.

Huh Scott? :P
I love ya man! Never let anyone tell you otherwise!:hug:
Oooh. ..just reading what some of the people say on LutherQuest can get me going. .and I don't post there. . just ended up coming across it. . .when I was looking for Lost And Found information from others and wasn't happy with what I found in that topic or in others I ended up reading by some of those people. I'm glad there's TCCL!

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Protoevangel]

Oh no, Dan. I was just acknowledging that this seems to be a subject that some people have very strong feelings about. This isn't the first time I've heard Scott's arguments. A lot of good Lutherans left the church I go to for many of the reasons he's giving - a lot of people who get very angry if the subject is brought up.

An example. My husband's college roommate's father is a pastor at an LCMS church nearby. You should have seen the glare he gave us when he found out that we go to that horrible church with that rock music.

I highly respect Scott's and your opinions on this subject. I just think that because I didn't grow up Lutheran, I don't appreciate the arguments as much. Maybe if I grew up in a traditional Lutheran setting with strict liturgy and all that, my opinions would be different.Y'know, I sometimes wonder if that has something to do with it for me as well, but I doubt it, because I like the traditional service much more than my wife, who attended the Lutheran Church all of her life (actually, I think that's because she dosen't like to get up that early on Sunday morning! ;) ).

[Protoevangel]

Oooh. ..just reading what some of the people say on LutherQuest can get me going. .and I don't post there. . just ended up coming across it. . .when I was looking for Lost And Found information from others and wasn't happy with what I found in that topic or in others I ended up reading by some of those people. I'm glad there's TCCL!

Stein Auf!
BridgetI only go there when I am in the kind of mood to watch a good(?) slasher movie. Seeing them tear each other apart fills that need of blood and gore for me. After reading a thread or two there, I always have to give myself a huge helping of 1 Corinthians 13 to get the shakes to go away.

[Breetai]

Divine Service II: Setting I.

[KagomeShuko]

I only go there when I am in the kind of mood to watch a good(?) slasher movie. Seeing them tear each other apart fills that need of blood and gore for me. After reading a thread or two there, I always have to give myself a huge helping of 1 Corinthians 13 to get the shakes to go away.
yeah, quite like a good "slasher" movie. I looked there today for a certain post I had seen just for reference and I had to come back to TCCL to get back into the friendly Lutheran posts!

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[SPALATIN]

First you say “…any contemporary music…” “…any worship service...” “…because most of the contemp songs…”
Now the problem is microphones? They necessarily cause error?
Then you tell Flipper that she is in the “exception and not the rule”.
I don’t know where you have seen Lutheran contemporary services, but I have never seen a Lutheran contemporary band in front of the altar or cross, I have always seen them off to the side. Also, with very few exceptions, I have not heard a Lutheran contemporary band drown out the parishioners in volume.

All these things you bring up are important issues. But the manner you are using the arguments, as if contemporary music in a Lutheran Liturgy necessitates or causes these problems is specious and flawed.

Show me how the right teaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments are affected necessarily and specifically by using (well chosen) contemporary music in the liturgy, and I will join you on your crusade wholeheartedly and with a vengeance!




EDIT: I think this came out harsher than I meant it to. I am not intending to be unfriendly here Scott.
Actually the ELCA church I attended in Fridley, MN from 2000 to 2003 had their Contemporary service in the Gymnasium where they had built a stage for the "band" There was no cross and the liturgy was just music and a sermon and once a month they had communion. The music, which I enjoyed to a point was good and modern, but if I had to review the words they were mostly about me and how great it is that God is blessing me.

I am going to stop here on this topic because as a few others have noted it is a topic that can bring about some hard feelings. I didn't take your post harshly because I had read your apology before I read the actual post that you were sorry for being so harsh about.

If any of you ever get a chance to read Craig Parton's book "The Defense Never Rests, A Lawyer's quest for the Gospel" there is much there about American Evangelicalism and comparing it to the Lutheran Church. I think that it is a must read for many of us.

[ChiRho]

According to Willy, he is a pastor: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=8714446&postcount=39


Danhead,

That was kinda my point. A pretty strange question coming from someone who claims to be an ordained pastor, dont ya think?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[ChiRho]

When the songs come from “the world” at large, I think there is every reason to question their validity for a Worship service.

Then there are perfectly apropriate times and places for it to be played. Worship is not one of them.

No intention to belittle the human experience. But we also need to be very sure we do not elevate “human experience” too highly as well.

Once again, there is absolutely appropriate times and places for the listening and enjoying for songs such as these. But saying that you will give up theological correctness (in a Worship service, no less) because it comforts her, is synonymous with saying that the truth is not necessary if a lie will make someone feel better.


Way to go, Bro!

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[ChiRho]

"Contemporary" Service and music are not wrong because they are "contemporary", neither because they are not "traditional". (I hate most of these terms...it would take hours of tedious work just to form some sort of definition). "Contemporary" Services or music are wrong when they stand opposed to Holy Scripture and our Confessions.

Willy-
Your posts never fail to sound like fingernails scraping down a chalkboard. They really make me cringe at the thought of what Danhead is up against in the ELCA Church...and it appears we may be next!

Scott-
Microphones? Come on man! People in row 20 need to hear of their forgiveness just as much as the front pew-dwellers.



Under no circumstances should a band be assembled on the altar of God.


I wish I had more time to post...maybe later this afternoon. I do miss posting on this crazy site!

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[SPALATIN]

"Contemporary" Service and music are not wrong because they are "contemporary", neither because they are not "traditional". (I hate most of these terms...it would take hours of tedious work just to form some sort of definition). "Contemporary" Services or music are wrong when they stand opposed to Holy Scripture and our Confessions.

Willy-
Your posts never fail to sound like fingernails scraping down a chalkboard. They really make me cringe at the thought of what Danhead is up against in the ELCA Church...and it appears we may be next!

Scott-
Microphones? Come on man! People in row 20 need to hear of their forgiveness just as much as the front pew-dwellers.



Under no circumstances should a band be assembled on the altar of God.


I wish I had more time to post...maybe later this afternoon. I do miss posting on this crazy site!

Pax Christi,

ChiRho
ChiRho,

Most Lutheran churches are built nowadays with no more than 10 to maybe 15 rows out and usually a half-circle with the Altar at the front and center. Unless of course you go to a mega-church or hold church services in the same building that hockey games are played or if you belong to an old fashioned basilica shaped sanctuary.

I get your point on that but I definitely don't want them in the center under the cross which is what my experience has been so far. I grew up with the choir either in the rear of the church or up in the balcony if it had one.

If the choir is good than it needs only an omni directional microphone to pick up all the voices. I just don't see the need to have the same group of "worship leaders" at the front every week with plastic smiles leading me in song. I prefer to keep my head buried in the hymnal singing out loud a good Lutheran Hymn over "Shine Jesus Shine" if you know what I mean.

[filosofer]

If the choir is good than it needs only an omni directional microphone to pick up all the voices. I just don't see the need to have the same group of "worship leaders" at the front every week with plastic smiles leading me in song.
The "historic" place for the choir was between the gated area where the pastor led service and the main floor of the building where the congregants stood. (There are technical terms for each of these areas - I'll let ya'll look them up. :) )

I prefer to keep my head buried in the hymnal singing out loud a good Lutheran Hymn ...That's an oxymoron if I ever heard one! Singers know that you can't sing "loud" with your head down. Where's Lois when you need her firm hand on the shoulders and head to make you sing with your head upright! (Lois was the choir director/musician for 50 years at my home congregation).

[SPALATIN]

The "historic" place for the choir was between the gated area where the pastor led service and the main floor of the building where the congregants stood. (There are technical terms for each of these areas - I'll let ya'll look them up. :) )

That's an oxymoron if I ever heard one! Singers know that you can't sing "loud" with your head down. Where's Lois when you need her firm hand on the shoulders and head to make you sing with your head upright! (Lois was the choir director/musician for 50 years at my home congregation).

:D I have been called worse than Oxymoron in my life but please don't call me late for supper. Isn't there an Apse in the church floor model?

Of course there are some people who should have their head buried in the hymnal because they don't sing well. Good thing that God is tone deaf hey?

Filo,

What is your take on Contemp worship? Being that you are a ordained minister it would be good to read your thoughts and opinions on this with I am sure a good explanation.

[Willy]

Danhead,

That was kinda my point. A pretty strange question coming from someone who claims to be an ordained pastor, dont ya think?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho
Sorry I don't know your vocabulary. "Divine service" is something that Missouri Synod people have called their worship services. WE have never used that term. So I never knew why it was called that. Sorry. We in the church might want to be careful with our vocabulary. There are a whole lot of people who have no idea what we mean with the language we use. We should care deeply about that. Chi Ro, I am glad that I am like fingernails to your chalkboard. Somebody needs to provide a little irritation for such a well-defined world.

[SPALATIN]

Sorry I don't know your vocabulary. "Divine service" is something that Missouri Synod people have called their worship services. WE have never used that term. So I never knew why it was called that. Sorry. We in the church might want to be careful with our vocabulary. There are a whole lot of people who have no idea what we mean with the language we use. We should care deeply about that. Chi Ro, I am glad that I am like fingernails to your chalkboard. Somebody needs to provide a little irritation for such a well-defined world.
So in the Green LBW that the ALC published in 1978 has not got the Divine Service settings? I beg to differ. Maybe DanHead could look it up for us. I seem to remember that they had all of the settings and more because the LCMS came up with the Blue hymnal a couple of years later with minus a few things that they did not agree with in the ELCA's version.

So either you don't use the green colored hymnal or you are just ignorant of what is used. The Red hymnal had the Orders of worship rather than the Divine Service name.

Willy I think that he find it bothersome that you could be a pastor with some of the things you say. To me you are more like pink fingernail polish.

[KagomeShuko]

So in the Green LBW that the ALC published in 1978 has not got the Divine Service settings? I beg to differ. Maybe DanHead could look it up for us. I seem to remember that they had all of the settings and more because the LCMS came up with the Blue hymnal a couple of years later with minus a few things that they did not agree with in the ELCA's version.

So either you don't use the green colored hymnal or you are just ignorant of what is used. The Red hymnal had the Orders of worship rather than the Divine Service name.

Willy I think that he find it bothersome that you could be a pastor with some of the things you say. To me you are more like pink fingernail polish.
I do not remember any "divine service" in the LBW and I've been going to the same church since 1987. However. . .

I can provide the answers to the question very easily since I have an LBW of my own and just went and got it.

Here's the services it has:
Holy Communion, Setting One
Holy Communion, Setting Two
Holy Communion, Setting Three
Chorale Service of Holy Communion
Holy Baptism
Service of the Word
Morning Prayer (Matins)
Evening Prayer (Vespers)
Affirmation of Baptism
Marriage
Burial of the Dead

Okay, so I beg to differ for those of us who can't immediately look at an LBW :-P

There's definitely no "devine service."

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[SPALATIN]

I do not remember any "divine service" in the LBW and I've been going to the same church since 1987. However. . .

I can provide the answers to the question very easily since I have an LBW of my own and just went and got it.

Here's the services it has:
Holy Communion, Setting One
Holy Communion, Setting Two
Holy Communion, Setting Three
Chorale Service of Holy Communion
Holy Baptism
Service of the Word
Morning Prayer (Matins)
Evening Prayer (Vespers)
Affirmation of Baptism
Marriage
Burial of the Dead

Okay, so I beg to differ for those of us who can't immediately look at an LBW :-P

There's definitely no "devine service."

Stein Auf!
Bridget
So it looks like the LCMS retitled the services in line with the Gottesdienst understanding that God serves us through the liturgy. The Divine Services have 3 settings which either include or exclude Holy Communion. They have the Matins service and Vespers and the others mentioned as well.

I know the LCMS is preparing a new hymnal for 2007 called the Lutheran Service Book and they have put some previews on the LCMS.org website. They may still have it there to view.

[sculpturegirl]

I have never been to a Matins or Vespers at a Lutheran church. Are they only held certain times of the year?

Its funny that my beau, who grew up Lutheran, perfers the contemporary service, while I who grew up in a more independent evangelical way, perfer the more traditional. During a few of the traditional services we have a woman who does the chanting with an angelic voice (I LOVE the chants). Why don't they do that all the time?

I am new to the church, so I hope you don't mind all my little questions.!

[Willy]

So in the Green LBW that the ALC published in 1978 has not got the Divine Service settings? I beg to differ. Maybe DanHead could look it up for us. I seem to remember that they had all of the settings and more because the LCMS came up with the Blue hymnal a couple of years later with minus a few things that they did not agree with in the ELCA's version.

So either you don't use the green colored hymnal or you are just ignorant of what is used. The Red hymnal had the Orders of worship rather than the Divine Service name.

Willy I think that he find it bothersome that you could be a pastor with some of the things you say. To me you are more like pink fingernail polish.
Life is funny, isn't it? By the way, the "either/or" statement happens to be wrong. Maybe this could be a teaching moment. Life seldom fits the "either/or" categories that many of us create.

[Protoevangel]

Divine Service is a term not unknown to the ELCA, but it is not in common use. Divine Service is spoke of in the Defense of the Augsburg Confession. I generally would have expected a Pastor of the Lutheran church to understand the term and its usage, bit I would also suggest that this is a problem not with Willy, but with our seminaries.

[Protoevangel]

Danhead,

That was kinda my point. A pretty strange question coming from someone who claims to be an ordained pastor, dont ya think?

Pax Christi,

ChiRhoAt the time, I thought the question was peculiar too. Since you have been AWOL so long, I wasn't sure you were aware of (or remembered) that post.

[Protoevangel]

Way to go, Bro!

Pax Christi,

ChiRho:blush: Thank you, good sir!

[Protoevangel]

Actually the ELCA church I attended in Fridley, MN from 2000 to 2003 had their Contemporary service in the Gymnasium where they had built a stage for the "band" There was no cross and the liturgy was just music and a sermon and once a month they had communion. The music, which I enjoyed to a point was good and modern, but if I had to review the words they were mostly about me and how great it is that God is blessing me. Yea, there is no telling what some ELCA congregations will come up with.

However, I think it is a symptom of a problem that is separate and distinct from using (appropriate) contemporary musical styles.



I am going to stop here on this topic because as a few others have noted it is a topic that can bring about some hard feelings. I didn't take your post harshly because I had read your apology before I read the actual post that you were sorry for being so harsh about. Even if I promise to behave? :angel:



If any of you ever get a chance to read Craig Parton's book "The Defense Never Rests, A Lawyer's quest for the Gospel" there is much there about American Evangelicalism and comparing it to the Lutheran Church. I think that it is a must read for many of us.I have so much to read right now! I'll keep a look out for it, but maybe you could bring up some of his main points? If I promise to behave???



But is he equivoquates American Evangelicalism with the use of (appropriate) contemporary Christian music, I hope he carry's that burden of proof with the detail and care it deserves. Frankly, I have little hope that he could make a decent case without twisting logic and reason like lawyers are so akin to do.

[LuxPerpetua]

I'm curious about that book, too, Scott. Is it possible to do a quick summary of the major points? Not for debating purposes, but just to hear what the guy has to say?

Blessings!

Allison :crosself:

[ByzantineDixie]

I have never been to a Matins or Vespers at a Lutheran church. Are they only held certain times of the year? Vespers are for an evening service. Matins are for a morning service. We have sung the Matins service in our current church and in our church in Iowa for Sunday morning services...however, since our current congregation now celebrates the Lord's Supper at just about every service, we only use the Matins service when our pastor is out of town and no communion is offered.

Its funny that my beau, who grew up Lutheran, perfers the contemporary service, while I who grew up in a more independent evangelical way, perfer the more traditional. During a few of the traditional services we have a woman who does the chanting with an angelic voice (I LOVE the chants). Why don't they do that all the time? I grew up Roman Catholic. We sang the liturgy in Latin and the nuns taught us how to make hand motions to Gregorian chant. :sick: I think it was these experiences with "oppressive worship" that has made me such a combatant for more (appropriate and suitable) freedoms in worship. Some folks hold to such restrictive positions regarding worship, positions which are neither scripturally nor traditionally grounded. It's those restrictions I just feel compelled to challenge. Blame it on Sister Margaret Joseph! ;) (Although I recently read a quote from Luther which indicated he thought it would be good to worship in German, Latin, Hebrew and Greek on alternating Sundays--I suppose if the intent is to learn the language that would be one thing. But I was never encouraged to learn Latin as a child growing up in the RCC. I just was expected to mouth the words during the service. Accordingly...I consider this form of worship "oppressive".)

I am new to the church, so I hope you don't mind all my little questions.!We NEVER mind your questions! We value them as an opportunity to both explain what we understand and to learn from each other. PLEASE!!! Do not be shy! Ask away!

Peace

Rose

[SPALATIN]

Vespers are for an evening service. Matins are for a morning service. We have sung the Matins service in our current church and in our church in Iowa for Sunday morning services...however, since our current congregation now celebrates the Lord's Supper at just about every service, we only use the Matins service when our pastor is out of town and no communion is offered.

I grew up Roman Catholic. We sang the liturgy in Latin and the nuns taught us how to make hand motions to Gregorian chant. :sick: I think it was these experiences with "oppressive worship" that has made me such a combatant for more (appropriate and suitable) freedoms in worship. Some folks hold to such restrictive positions regarding worship, positions which are neither scripturally nor traditionally grounded. It's those restrictions I just feel compelled to challenge. Blame it on Sister Margaret Joseph! ;) (Although I recently read a quote from Luther which indicated he thought it would be good to worship in German, Latin, Hebrew and Greek on alternating Sundays--I suppose if the intent is to learn the language that would be one thing. But I was never encouraged to learn Latin as a child growing up in the RCC. I just was expected to mouth the words during the service. Accordingly...I consider this form of worship "oppressive".)

We NEVER mind your questions! We value them as an opportunity to both explain what we understand and to learn from each other. PLEASE!!! Do not be shy! Ask away!

Peace

Rose
Rose,

Some might even consider it open rebellion. Not a bad thing really, but it seems that you are rebelling against those who forced you to worship a certain way instead of helping you to understand what the different parts of the service were what they meant for us.


Whenever someone mentions a nuns name like that I always think of the Sister Act movies with Whoopi Goldberg. Every nun had the name "Mary" somewhere in her name.

[Rechtgläubig]

Whenever someone mentions a nuns name like that I always think of the Sister Act movies with Whoopi Goldberg. Every nun had the name "Mary" somewhere in her name.That's funny!

LOL! I usually think of "Sister Mary Elephant". :D

[ByzantineDixie]

Rose,

Some might even consider it open rebellion. Not a bad thing really, but it seems that you are rebelling against those who forced you to worship a certain way instead of helping you to understand what the different parts of the service were what they meant for us.

Moi? Rebellious??? ;) :D

I think you bring up a good point. It is important that folks understand the liturgy. Some folks argue for it from a position of familiarity and tradition rather than from an understanding of what the liturgy is, why the components are there, the history, the meaning, etc. I would think once people understand "why", the resistance from those against would tend to lessen and the reasoning from those in favor would become based on something more substantial.

How many churches spend time on this? I have been a Lutheran for 14 years and in that time have attended four Lutheran churches with bible studies every Sunday and often also during the week and I never learned about the value of the liturgy in those settings. I only learned about worship in my CHS studies. How did you learn about the "why" of the liturgy?

Peace

Rose

[SPALATIN]

I'm curious about that book, too, Scott. Is it possible to do a quick summary of the major points? Not for debating purposes, but just to hear what the guy has to say?

Blessings!

Allison :crosself:I would be glad to do it. I will either have to do it this weekend sometime or bring the book into work w/ me. I don't have it handy at the moment.

[SPALATIN]

Moi? Rebellious??? ;) :D

I think you bring up a good point. It is important that folks understand the liturgy. Some folks argue for it from a position of familiarity and tradition rather than from an understanding of what the liturgy is, why the components are there, the history, the meaning, etc. I would think once people understand "why", the resistance from those against would tend to lessen and the reasoning from those in favor would become based on something more substantial.

How many churches spend time on this? I have been a Lutheran for 14 years and in that time have attended four Lutheran churches with bible studies every Sunday and often also during the week and I never learned about the value of the liturgy in those settings. I only learned about worship in my CHS studies. How did you learn about the "why" of the liturgy?

Peace

Rose
I do believe that I was first introduced to it in Confirmation class when I was 12 or 13 yrs old. When I left and went American Evangelical for 15 years I had forgotten the meanings of the service, but was re-introduced to it through a supplement in back of Craig Parton's book.

[LuxPerpetua]

I've been reading "They Will See His Face" by Richard C. Eyer and it does a really good job at explaining the significance of the Divine Service. If you haven't checked it out, I HIGHLY recommend it. It has really helped me to appreciate the liturgy even more.

You know, after reading Rose's post, I think converts tend to rebel against the worship styles of the churches they grew up in. I grew up in an SBC church and as I got older they started substituting praise choruses for the standard hymns in worship, and I must admit, that now I really don't like contemporary services even in Lutheran churches. I love my liturgy. :liturgy: I agree with you, Rose, that I don't think change in worship styles is bad or wrong, and I just hope, as it seems like we all do, that this move toward contemporary can coincide with tradition and not replace it. Sometimes I am more moved by singing "Lord, I Lift Your Name on High" than "Holy, Holy, Holy Lord, God of power and might . . ." but sometimes the opposite is true. It's like the Almond Joy and Mounds commercials: "Sometimes I feel like a nut, sometimes I don't." I haven't seen any of our contemporary services at my LCMS church put forth bad theology or water down Law and Gospel, and I have yet to hear any praise choruses that exalt the self over praise for God. I think different worship styles are fine so long as Christ is at the center. It kind of reminds me of Paul's writing that cultural adaptation is fine so long as it is Christ who is preached (forgive me, but I really can't remember the Scriptural reference here, but it goes something like, "when I preached to the Jews, I did it as Jew, and to the Gentiles as a Gentile," although I probably completely botched that up). I don't really know why I am writing all of this, because it hasn't added anything to the discussion, but I do think it's helping me to clarify things in my own mind. Good thing, too, because so often it's cloudy there. ^_^

[filosofer]

Marva Dawn has a very interesting book, that has drawn the critical eye of ultra-right wingers as well as contemporary music fans. I don't agree with everything she has written, but she makes many good points.

Reaching Out without Dumbing Down

See also: A Royal “Waste” of Time

Here is an interview regarding her two books on worship:

http://www.eerdmans.com/dawninterview.htm[/url]

And then check out this paper:

[url="http://www.elca.org/postm.html"]Worship in PostModern Times (http://www.eerdmans.com/dawninterview.htm</a>)

[Willy]

Thanks for highlighting Marva Dawn's works. She has some very good things to say, even if a bit conservative and cotrolled at times. She is a very faithful woman, though.

[SPALATIN]

I've been reading "They Will See His Face" by Richard C. Eyer and it does a really good job at explaining the significance of the Divine Service. If you haven't checked it out, I HIGHLY recommend it. It has really helped me to appreciate the liturgy even more.

You know, after reading Rose's post, I think converts tend to rebel against the worship styles of the churches they grew up in. I grew up in an SBC church and as I got older they started substituting praise choruses for the standard hymns in worship, and I must admit, that now I really don't like contemporary services even in Lutheran churches. I love my liturgy. :liturgy: I agree with you, Rose, that I don't think change in worship styles is bad or wrong, and I just hope, as it seems like we all do, that this move toward contemporary can coincide with tradition and not replace it. Sometimes I am more moved by singing "Lord, I Lift Your Name on High" than "Holy, Holy, Holy Lord, God of power and might . . ." but sometimes the opposite is true. It's like the Almond Joy and Mounds commercials: "Sometimes I feel like a nut, sometimes I don't." I haven't seen any of our contemporary services at my LCMS church put forth bad theology or water down Law and Gospel, and I have yet to hear any praise choruses that exalt the self over praise for God. I think different worship styles are fine so long as Christ is at the center. It kind of reminds me of Paul's writing that cultural adaptation is fine so long as it is Christ who is preached (forgive me, but I really can't remember the Scriptural reference here, but it goes something like, "when I preached to the Jews, I did it as Jew, and to the Gentiles as a Gentile," although I probably completely botched that up). I don't really know why I am writing all of this, because it hasn't added anything to the discussion, but I do think it's helping me to clarify things in my own mind. Good thing, too, because so often it's cloudy there. ^_^

One thing I will say about the Contemp services in the LCMS is that they do use more liturgy and just substitut the music. I only had experience in on ELCA church and they jettisoned the liturgy for just Music and Sermon.

So if I mis-spoke before on your church being the exception rather than the rule I am sorry.

[SPALATIN]

Marva Dawn has a very interesting book, that has drawn the critical eye of ultra-right wingers as well as contemporary music fans. I don't agree with everything she has written, but she makes many good points.

Reaching Out without Dumbing Down

See also: A Royal “Waste” of Time

Here is an interview regarding her two books on worship:

Marva Dawn Interview (http://www.eerdmans.com/dawninterview.htm</a>)

And then check out this paper:

Worship in PostModern Times (http://www.elca.org/postm.html)
Hey filo,

the first link didn't work for me. Has anyone else had that problem?

[LuxPerpetua]

One thing I will say about the Contemp services in the LCMS is that they do use more liturgy and just substitut the music. I only had experience in on ELCA church and they jettisoned the liturgy for just Music and Sermon.

So if I mis-spoke before on your church being the exception rather than the rule I am sorry.

No hurt feelings here at all, Scott, so no need to apologize. :)

That first link didn't work for me either, so it's not just your 'puter.

[filosofer]

The link is fixed.:thumbsup:


That's what happens when an old codger starts trying to use his computer. :D

[KagomeShuko]

So it looks like the LCMS retitled the services in line with the Gottesdienst understanding that God serves us through the liturgy. The Divine Services have 3 settings which either include or exclude Holy Communion. They have the Matins service and Vespers and the others mentioned as well.

I know the LCMS is preparing a new hymnal for 2007 called the Lutheran Service Book and they have put some previews on the LCMS.org website. They may still have it there to view.
The ELCA is also preparing a new hymnal, but I don't know if it's on the website or not. I know they have some possible things available for church leaders because we're going over a few of the things on Wednesday nights so we won't be completely shocked if we change to the new hymnal in a few years.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[KagomeShuko]

One thing I will say about the Contemp services in the LCMS is that they do use more liturgy and just substitut the music. I only had experience in on ELCA church and they jettisoned the liturgy for just Music and Sermon.

So if I mis-spoke before on your church being the exception rather than the rule I am sorry.
At my church, the only time we really have any "contemporary" is if we have songs replaced. We still always follow the order of service.

The only other time I had something different was when I spent a week in Seguin at Texas Lutheran Univeristy (TLU) and we had worship constantly. The thing is, at a worship service, we followed the worship. The others times we were there, they were just praise services - times of fellowship and praising God. They had different names they gave these things, but I don't remember them now.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[KagomeShuko]

I have never been to a Matins or Vespers at a Lutheran church. Are they only held certain times of the year?

Its funny that my beau, who grew up Lutheran, perfers the contemporary service, while I who grew up in a more independent evangelical way, perfer the more traditional. During a few of the traditional services we have a woman who does the chanting with an angelic voice (I LOVE the chants). Why don't they do that all the time?

I am new to the church, so I hope you don't mind all my little questions.!
I've been to a Vespers service at my church. However, when we have an evening service, it usually ends up being a Taize service.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[KagomeShuko]

Moi? Rebellious??? ;) :D

I think you bring up a good point. It is important that folks understand the liturgy. Some folks argue for it from a position of familiarity and tradition rather than from an understanding of what the liturgy is, why the components are there, the history, the meaning, etc. I would think once people understand "why", the resistance from those against would tend to lessen and the reasoning from those in favor would become based on something more substantial.

How many churches spend time on this? I have been a Lutheran for 14 years and in that time have attended four Lutheran churches with bible studies every Sunday and often also during the week and I never learned about the value of the liturgy in those settings. I only learned about worship in my CHS studies. How did you learn about the "why" of the liturgy?

Peace

Rose
When I was an acolyte, we always had acolyte training and we had to learn the reasons why the candles were where they were and the reasons for the tradition of lighting them in that order. I'd eventually be the only one that came to acolyte training (others were supposed to come, but they didn't) and we learned about church seasons and what they meant - and I was just never good with the liturgical colors.

When I was in confirmation, we went over the Small Catechism and what that meant.

When the youth actually had permission to actually plan the full service, we sat down and learned what each part of the service meant and why it was needed. We could change all kinds of things as long as it fit each part of the service correctly.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[filosofer]

I think the most valuable part of Marva Dawn's book, Reaching Out, relates to living with the tension:

How to maintain continuity of faith expression for intergenerational worship, while at the same time incorporating the best of the newer music/hymns/songs.

I think that the contemporary approach often loses sight of the need for grandma Schmidt and her grandchildren to share in the expression of faith. Part of this relates to the oral cadence/rhythm of speaking/singing. Even something as simple as the Lord's Prayer can be written to incorporate both, while mdoernizing, and retain the cadence:

Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed by thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever and ever, Amen.

Our Father who is in heaven, hallowed by your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil. For yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever and ever, Amen.Note that only five words need to be changed to modernize it, yet grandma and Gertrude can still speak it together. I have experimented with this in congregations, and it works very well.

The contemporary worship expression often fails this continuity test, and that is something that is not easily regained. It takes education, patience, and a thorough knowledge of music, theology, history, and language. From my observations, 99% of those who put together contemporary services do not have the background/training, nor heart to accomplish this. And that is sad.

Even "worship committees" can be a step in the wrong direction, because even though there is more than one person involved, it essentially reduces to what a "collective group wants" rather than what an "individual wants". So if one person is not trained in this, what good is it to have 6 untrained people do the same thing?

Just some ramblings from an old codger...

[KagomeShuko]

I think the most valuable part of Marva Dawn's book, Reaching Out, relates to living with the tension:

How to maintain continuity of faith expression for intergenerational worship, while at the same time incorporating the best of the newer music/hymns/songs.

I think that the contemporary approach often loses sight of the need for grandma Schmidt and her grandchildren to share in the expression of faith. Part of this relates to the oral cadence/rhythm of speaking/singing. Even something as simple as the Lord's Prayer can be written to incorporate both, while mdoernizing, and retain the cadence:

Note that only five words need to be changed to modernize it, yet grandma and Gertrude can still speak it together. I have experimented with this in congregations, and it works very well.

The contemporary worship expression often fails this continuity test, and that is something that is not easily regained. It takes education, patience, and a thorough knowledge of music, theology, history, and language. From my observations, 99% of those who put together contemporary services do not have the background/training, nor heart to accomplish this. And that is sad.

Even "worship committees" can be a step in the wrong direction, because even though there is more than one person involved, it essentially reduces to what a "collective group wants" rather than what an "individual wants". So if one person is not trained in this, what good is it to have 6 untrained people do the same thing?

Just some ramblings from an old codger...
When we use the Hymnal Supplement, we say the more contemporary Lord's prayer, but I always end up saying the traditional. It works well when said together. However, as strange as it may seem, when I was a youth, all the youth seemed to prefer the traditional Lord's prayer.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Willy]

At my church, the only time we really have any "contemporary" is if we have songs replaced. We still always follow the order of service.

The only other time I had something different was when I spent a week in Seguin at Texas Lutheran Univeristy (TLU) and we had worship constantly. The thing is, at a worship service, we followed the worship. The others times we were there, they were just praise services - times of fellowship and praising God. They had different names they gave these things, but I don't remember them now.

Stein Auf!
Bridget
My humble opinion is that following the traditional order of the mass (service) is generally most helpful. Replacing portions of the liturgy with songs that resonate more fully with the ears of modern worshipers makes sense. We always follow the traditional order. I have been at places where that doesn't happen, and the service seems a little less full than it could be and sometimes a bit trucated. WE use a variety of resources, including Jay Beech's "One Body Alive," which is a "contemporary" setting of the traditional liturgy. In many ways, it is more liturgical than the so-called traditional (Lutheran Book of Worship) settings. I find the battle between the traditonalists and contemporary folks less than helpful. We have discovered in our place that people can actually learn and appreciate the fullness of the church's gifts, the fullness of the church's music resources. Why do we need to pit one against the other? Why not embrace the best (and even just the good) of all styles.

[SPALATIN]

My humble opinion is that following the traditional order of the mass (service) is generally most helpful. Replacing portions of the liturgy with songs that resonate more fully with the ears of modern worshipers makes sense. We always follow the traditional order. I have been at places where that doesn't happen, and the service seems a little less full than it could be and sometimes a bit trucated. WE use a variety of resources, including Jay Beech's "One Body Alive," which is a "contemporary" setting of the traditional liturgy. In many ways, it is more liturgical than the so-called traditional (Lutheran Book of Worship) settings. I find the battle between the traditonalists and contemporary folks less than helpful. We have discovered in our place that people can actually learn and appreciate the fullness of the church's gifts, the fullness of the church's music resources. Why do we need to pit one against the other? Why not embrace the best (and even just the good) of all styles.
Willy,

More than anything I am against the idea that a church for whatever reason dump its tradition whether it be the ancient or modern liturgy to appeal to the seeker. The Church Growth movement is by far the most dangerous group out there and they think that it is more important not to offend a would-be seeker by changing the liturgy or dumping it altogether. Willow Creek in Chicago is the worst offender here as is Joel Osteen of Houston.

If a church wants to incorporate more modern music I have no problem with that but when they start to water down the word of God to attract more people I get extremely frustrated. This movement asks that churches also remove symbols that offend namely the cross. When a church removes this symbol it no longer represents Christianity but the world.

[Willy]

Believe it or not, I am generally with you on this. The statement that the "Church Growth Movement is..the most dangerous movement out there" may be a bit of an overstatement. But still I agree with the majority of what you are saying. What I am opposed to is shallowness. And it comes in traditional and contemporary forms.

[SPALATIN]

Believe it or not, I am generally with you on this. The statement that the "Church Growth Movement is..the most dangerous movement out there" may be a bit of an overstatement. But still I agree with the majority of what you are saying. What I am opposed to is shallowness. And it comes in traditional and contemporary forms.
Maybe I should qualify it this way "Church Growth Movement is one of the most dangerous movements out there"

[sculpturegirl]

I have noticed that our contemporary service is truncated and they only read from the Gospels and leave out the 2 two lessons! grrrr I have often thought to go to both services to get the music from one and the litergy from the other. he he

Out of the blue question... I was baptized when I was 15, but have no "official" record of it. When I join the church officially, will they honor that baptism?

[Willy]

yes

[LuxPerpetua]

Was your baptism trinitarian? You should definitely speak with your new pastor about it, but if it was trinitarian then most likely it will be honored even without a record. I am in a very similar position, and I do not need to be rebaptized.

Oh, and I like to go to both services, too. We are trying to alternate and just go to which ever service is offering communion that week. ;)

[sculpturegirl]

Was your baptism trinitarian? You should definitely speak with your new pastor about it, but if it was trinitarian then most likely it will be honored even without a record. I am in a very similar position, and I do not need to be rebaptized.

Oh, and I like to go to both services, too. We are trying to alternate and just go to which ever service is offering communion that week. ;)
In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit!:amen:

PS, I accidently hit "Report" instead of "quote" I am sorry! I hope you aren't repremanded! :(

[filosofer]

There are several issues involved with understanding of worship and theology: the "what" of worship (content), the "how" of worship (structure/relationship), and the "when" of worship (continuity). A hymnal goes a long way toward establishing and maintaining all three. Note well, that worship poorly done (whether with a free-for-all or hymnal) is still poor worship. It is not the music that makes worship relevant. Of course, music is to be done well, no matter the style.

Having been around the block on this issue of worship over the past 10 years, I am finding more and more that there is something missing in worship that does not flow out of the Divine Service order. By that I mean that many can talk about the "feel good environment, the warm fellowship, and uplifting message" of a variety of worship experiences. But each phrase has left a hole from the perspective of Biblical worship. The framework of the service is vital to the sermon and vice versa.

I will give a couple of examples. There are tremendous theological implications by beginning worship with the words: "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." What is often done with this invocation is a subtle change: "We begin in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." In an "open" service (non-denominational) no difference is discerned; from a Biblical perspective, there is a great difference. The prepositional phrase that begins worship denotes that the one who baptized us is also the one who is already present; the invocation acknowledges that. By prefixing "we begin" changes the dynamic of who initiates worship and how worship takes place.

Likewise, at the end of the service, the Aaronic benediction (Numbers 6:24-26) was not originally an ending, but rather a promise that the God who called and formed the Israelites was now accompanying them on their journey. So also for the Christian, the benediction is not a conclusion, but the promise of the God who has baptized us, who has given us of His Word and Body and Blood, to accompany us and bless us as we continue to live for Him and in Him. A home-made benediction can break what seems to be monotony, but it also opens the door quickly to a watering down of an important theological statement.

One of the great tragedies is the current lack of continuity between generations of the Christian faith, not a "generation gap" as often portrayed, but a faith gap. Memory, continuity, and association are vital aspects of the expression of the Christian faith. When a 90 year old and a 5 year can confess the faith the same way (even if neither fully understands all the implications of what is spoken) together, there is an identity and a unity that is missing in the contemporary scene. I think of many who have that confession but who don't have their full mental capabilities, yet are united in a common expression of faith. I saw that when I would lead services in nursing homes; in one case a member (in Nebraska) with Alzheimer's actually "participated" by reciting the Lord's Prayer and Nicene Creed and the confession of sins, even though she normally only mumbled incoherently. I saw the same when I read (Gospel of John, chapter 14) to a person in a nursing home who was in a coma, and had not moved; yet when I continued reading, the person turned toward me and looked at me - until I finished.

Memorization Scripture passages from generation to generation is important as well.

Now, how does this relate to Bible translation and a hymnal? Well, the rhythm and pace of the translation makes a great difference in how the faith is orally expressed. That is, the rhythm of Psalm 23 as known in the KJV has been well acknowledged. If a translation wants to be faithful to the original language and be useful for the current generation, one key element of that is to try to maintain the same rhythm/pace. Let's take the Lord's Prayer as an example:

In the KJV/TLH version:
Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven; give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil. For Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever and ever. Amen.

In a contemporary version that retains the rhythm but updates the language:
Our Father who is in heaven, hallowed be Your name, Your kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven; give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever and ever. Amen.

Note that there are only five words changed - yet someone can pray the first, and another the second, and both will speak it together, as one.

So, the liturgy of the hymnal maintains the continuity of faith expression because it forces us to repeat that faith expression for our own sake and for the sake of our children's children. And while we may insist that confession of sins/absolution, or the Creeds, the benediction, etc., are important, we can easily lose sight of them and neglect them - even in the midst of "great worship" - usually meaning instrumentally and vocally well-done contemporary songs.


Help me understand how all the time, energy, money, and debate spent on all the minute details is helping His Kingdom. It also seems like 80% of what is in hymnals is never looked at, even by the congregations who do use them. I am not trying to challenge the heart and purpose of those working on it, just the impact of the final product. I would love to be convinced!

So, is what you are basically saying is that without the structure provide by the liturgy and standard prayers, that there is no direction for the worship service? And without that direction, important elements of worship can be overlooked or completely left out? And that the hymnal is the guide book for that structure?

I wouldn't go so far as to say "there is no direction" - rather that it has to become a weekly, intentional effort on the part of the pastor/worship leader/music leader to insure that all the elements of worship are included. Outside of the Lutheran Church there is little or nothing taught to pastors/worship leaders about what is Biblical worship, and all the elements involved in worshipping. Thus, it becomes easy for the pastor to not only preach on his hobby horse topic, but the worship life to be a single strand skewed/biased one particular way. How many "non-denominational" or charismatic congregations have you attended that consistently have the invocation, confession of sins/absolution of sins, public statement and spoken faith statements, and benedictions that capture what the Bible offers for each? Is a closing prayer the same as a benediction? Not Biblically, yet many non-denominational pastors make no distinction.

The structure of the historic liturgy (and it doesn't matter which hymnal/service we use) provides not only the guide but also the balance that is important in establishing and maintaining long term worship, worship that isn't looking for the latest and greatest song or the latest and great musician, etc.

And that the structure allows generations to worship together?

Well, consider how it is with your children: the recognition of, and familiarity with, the liturgy permits (stronger: encourages) them/her to worship with her grandparents that is not based on "style" of music, but on content, consistency, balance. The nurturing of faith isn't necessarily being able to sing the latest new song (which many may or may not know), but reciting the Creeds/Lord's Prayer/confessing sins etc. nurture the faith long after the song fades.

Does the structure not also allow a person to go through a worship service on auto-pilot where nothing said has any true meaning? Once things are memorized, is there not a tendency for the precise recitation of them, with the right flow and rhythm, to become more important than the content?

Yes, that can happen - but in my experience of all types of worshiping communities in the last 20 years, that is a problem with EVERY form of worship. It isn't the liturgy that causes the auto-pilot - it is the heart (and perhaps how the worship is lead in liturgical services) that is the problem. In a non-liturgical format, there is nothing to go back to except "what seemed to work last year." It is a problem of the contemporary becoming a tradition and rut.

Interesingly, even the most avant garde worship teams and churches fall into a ritual in worship, so that you know exactly what is going to happen every week.