Freddy Finkelstein's Blog: Dedicated to True Christianity and Confessional Unity in the Visible Church; to Conservative Morality, Free-Market Capitalism, and political Liberty in Society; and indebted to the collected wisdom of Western Civilization as it has, by the Hand of Providence, been empowered to derive, preserve and/or otherwise carry these ideas and teachings through the past two millennia, into the present, and, Lord willing, to project them into the future.
Foundational to the perspectives I maintain is my Christian Faith: though I am a wretched sinner, destitute of merit before a perfectly Righteous God, this same perfectly Loving God has given me the gift of Faith, by which I lay hold of and appropriate to myself the objective promises of His Word -- that through the perfect life, suffering and innocent death of His Son, Jesus Christ, I have been reconciled with God by His work, my sins are forgiven, and I bear the Name and perfect Righteousness of Jesus Christ before my Heavenly Father. I am Justifed, by God's Grace, alone, through the Faith He has given me, alone, as a result of the work of Jesus Christ, alone; and God's Word, alone, assures me of this. Thus, I am a Christian, of the Lutheran Confession.
I am also a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative. Partly personality, mostly the result of study and life experience, I know a little about many things, a lot about a few things, and strive to be a conscientious student in all things. I am not a crowd follower, having been weaned off the opinions of others at a young age. Thus I hold what opinions I do because I am convinced they are correct, and therefore worth having.
Full Funding of Ministerial Education and Missions It was reported on Wednesday that the Floor Committee on Finance had developed a Budget Option C, retaining full funding of both Missions and all four Ministerial Schools, and would be presenting that to the Convention, Thursday. I quote from an observer:
I am more than happy that the floor committee on finance kept the full funding of the four ministerial education schools and the full funding of world and home missions, both with some minor exceptions in both. The delegate of the finance committee with whom I was in contact agreed well in advance of the convention that the complete ministerial education and mission budget had to be retained to the exclusion of all else. Now I just hope it passes on Thursday.
Indeed, on Thursday morning, after hours of debate, the resolution to accept Option C, which sought, instead of Options A and B, to target cuts in administration, travel, and in areas that could be most easily replaced once funding became available, passed. One commenter in the budget debate stated it well (and I paraphrase): "If we lose MLS, have no illusions, we will never get it back again. The cost is too great." A prep-school is not easily replaced. The message sent by the Convention was clear: Let's have no more talk of closing schools.
Synod-wide Theological Study Given evidence of declining theological acumen among the laity, and an apparent growth in disunity in doctrine and practice as a result, the Ad Hoc Commission recommended a Synod-wide study of Theology, to address both Doctrine and Practice. The Ad Hoc floor committee presented a resolution to accept this recommendation, and it was passed by the Convention. This study will come directly from the Seminary to the congregations. Suggested studies over the next four years includes:
Efficacy of the Means of Grace (not methods)
Vocation, Church, and Ministry (i.e., everyone is not a minister in the context of the congregation, but are ministers in the context of Vocation)
Care of Souls (Church Discipline, dealing with error in the congregation)
The Sacramental Life (not just the Gospel in the Word, but the Gospel in the Sacraments)
As background, this resolution seems to follow from the January meeting of the CoP, to charge the Ad Hoc commission to study these issues, as follows:
5.D.03 Establishment of "non-traditional" ("new style") congregations. We feel that the underpinnings of this "non-traditional" type of worship cannot be ignored. We also feel that the issue is extremely complex and will take great care to be careful to walk the "narrow Lutheran road" between legalism and ignoring and failing to admonish where practices are contrary to or a danger to the principles of gospel proclamation and the efficacy of the means of grace. We move that an ad hoc committee be convened that can study and address this issue and produce a study document that can be shared with circuits and also congregations for study and careful evaluation of practices in worship, sacraments, outreach, organization, music selection, etc. Motion carried.
Board for Parish Services "restructuring" Also on Thursday, the Board for Parish Services was reduced from Board status to Council status, now reporting to the Council of Presidents (CoP). It is no longer an official area of ministry in WELS.
This is a good thing. The BPS had been a real and growing concern among Confessionals in WELS, as it had been staffed over the years principally by known Church Growth advocates, had designated itself as the Board having "primary responsibility for carrying out the goals of the Synod's Mission-Objectives-Vision Statement" (according to Manthey's Fifteen Years under the MOV), and in the execution of this responsibility, had, since the early 1990's, been associated with the dissemination of CGM materials directly to WELS congregations and had directly advised WELS congregations according to CGM principles. In addition, there is currently a strong connection between the former BPS Administrators and the controversial group "Church & Change".
Constitutionally and organizationally speaking, this resolution brought the functions of the former BPS under the jurisdiction of the District Presidents, who are responsible for Doctrine and Practice in their own districts, making the new Council of Parish Services accountable to the District Presidents for the materials and advice they disseminate to the congregations. In addition (as I understand it), this resolution strips authority from the CPS to issue Divine Calls to Administrators (consultants) who serve it, placing that responsibility where it belongs, with the CoP.
Perish Services has been totally decimated. Rather than a Board with an Administrator and a Chairman and decision making power, with many sub-boards and sub-administrators, Perish Services now consists of only 3 sub-administrators who report to the Conference of Presidents and are called by the CoP.
President Schroeder slapped them down for trying to go around his authority and destroyed them and their support of the CG movement. Now there's not much left of Perish Services, and what is left can't do a thing without the CoP knowing about it.
Indeed, the BPS advocates complained bitterly during deliberation, especially regarding the loss of power they would suffer by being made a Council, and changes were made to accommodate their reasonable and pragmatic appeals. But in the end, the intent of the Ad Hoc committee, which recommended elimination of BPS, was honored by the Convention.
President Schroeder Wallops the Church Growth Movement On Monday morning, setting the tone of the Convention, Synod President Mark Schroeder issued his report. The first 42 minutes, or so, were directed specifically at the Church Growth Movement (CGM) in our midst, along with Contemporary Worship (without naming these things or naming individuals), emphasizing Scripture and the Confessions, and of maintaining a unified Lutheran Identity under them. He delivers a blister-boiling spanking to advocates of CGM. IMHO, his report (at least the first 42 minutes) is well worth a congregational study. Rick, another WELS layman who maintains a blog called Light from Light, offers an excellent summary of SP Schroeder's address. So rather than duplicate his work, I'll send you to his blog (above), while providing the embedded video, below:
The text of President Schroeder's report can be downloaded, here.
Professor Brenner Continues the Walloping... If you enjoyed SP Schroeder's Report on Monday, you'll certainly enjoy Professor Brenner's Convention Essay, Christ's Love: The efficacy and power of the Means of Grace, that was given Tuesday morning (click this link to view his presentation). It was the first of two Convention Essays covering the Synod theme, Christ's Love, Our Calling. The undercurrent of this entire Convention, from the standpoint of its execution, very strongly seems to address the errors of CGM, which have been creeping in over the past three decades. Following Schroeder's rather direct walloping of CGM positions on Monday, Brenner continues this walloping in his Essay. Here are some brief summary notes:
The text of Professor Brenner's essay can be downloaded, here.
The Holy Spirit does not work immediately, but mediately, that is, through Means.
No one will be saved apart from the use of the external Word -- the Word spoken or read.
The preaching of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments are the only Means through which one can come to faith and remain in faith.
The Means are always and exclusively efficacious, even though the Holy Spirit may be resisted, whether we see evidence of their working or not. This is how God works, mediately. When God works immediately (i.e., Creation of the World), He cannot be resisted.
Sometimes the proclamation of God's Word leads to visible decline in numbers. Examples: Elijah's flight (he thought he was the only one left) and Jesus' abandonment by all but the Twelve as a result of his hard teaching. Sometimes the proclamation of the Word brings about dramatic increase. Example: Pentecost, and the Baptism of 3000 in one day. Faithfulness to the Word of God, and maintaining the centrality of the Means of Grace, not an increase in number, is the measure of success for Lutherans.
This gets us about halfway through the Essay. Thesis 8 of Brenner's Essay begins at about 44 min:
The Means of Grace cannot be made to be more effective by anything that we do (including outreach programs, contemporary worship, blah blah, etc.)
In a culture of American pragmatism, where Advertising, Marketing, and Business Models are seen to be the means to success, Christians are tempted to think that the Gospel is a product to sell, rather than a powerful message to be proclaimed. Sectarians confuse these methods with means.
"Does it work?" is not the question a Lutheran asks regarding methods.
The Means of Grace work supernaturally, but not magically. The Word must be correctly handled, the Sacraments rightly administered. This requires training.
Finally, after the Essay, from the Q&A section, at about 88min, listen particularly to the final two questions:
What do you say about selling a specific culture of the congregation in order get visitors, in order that they may hear the Word and benefit from the Means of Grace? Answer: Advertising to inform the community where you're located is one thing, other than that, we are not selling anything!
Likewise, the last question/statement by Rev. John Bucholz: When faithful Word and Sacrament congregations struggle to grow in the face of sectarian neighbors whose numbers seem to skyrocket, we are tempted to ask, "What are they doing?" Don't. The Means, and only the Means, are central.
Rev. Jonathan Schroeder raises even more Blisters... Finally, on Wednesday morning, Rev. Jonathan Schroeder, a known and vocal advocate of Confessional Worship in the WELS, presented his Essay: Our Calling: Christian Vocation and the Ministry of the Gospel. This was a fabulous essay, and I supply my copius notes, from the video presentation, below:
Calling is not about what we do, but about what God gives us.
Our Calling comes through Means
Lutherans rely on the Means of Grace in our Outreach and "Inreach" because the Word and Sacraments are the only tools that the Holy Spirit has given His Church to open the heart of man.
No program or method or personality can work faith in sinful man's heart. Only the Holy Spirit through the Gospel can do this.
The Call is Universal and Efficacious
Only the Call, which is issued only through His Means, induces a response [not methods].
Our Calling before the World (to be His Mask) -- the "Doctrine of Vocation":
(Summary) The false teaching of works-righteousness in the Roman Church taught that those who devote their lives to Good Works in the name of the Church are by definition closer to God. And those who do Good Works beyond those expected of every Christian must be even better. Sacred life was better life, in God's eyes, that Secular life. At the time of the Reformation, only Monks, Nuns, and Priests had "Vocation" or "Calling." The Roman Church taught falsely that their lives were more Godly and therefore more valuable.
[Note: We see this teaching at work today in the false ideas used to coerce "programs," or to compare individuals and congregations by "Outreach" or relative involvement: i.e., certainly, folks who give themselves to such service are more Godly...]
But this is not Lutheran. In returning the biblical Doctrine of Justification to the Church, the question of how man becomes righteous before God also changed the meaning of Vocation. Only the righteousness of Christ makes us righteous before God. Thus, being saved by Grace Alone, man's Vocation is a Calling to a life of Sanctification within his Divinely assigned sphere of life. There is no need to be dedicated to a life of Sacred Service before God in the Church (i.e., in modern Evangelical terms, no need to quit your job and start a Ministry in order to serve God better). As St. Paul says, "stay in the Calling in which you were called." All Vocations are equal in God's eyes. All are Priests. All have a Calling. All have been Called. All are Called to Good Works before the World in the context of Vocation, not to get to heaven, but because that is where they are going.
Questions regarding purpose and dignity (i.e., referring to "Purpose Driven" drivel) exist because of a lack of Calling (i.e., Vocation is not being taught, so the false teachings of "purpose-driven-ism" take its place). Life without God has no purpose (meaning that the man without God must go find purpose, and that those who are compelled to go find it, are not fully resting in His objective promises...). But with God, all of Life has purpose -- the same purpose.
Our Calling for the World (to be His Church):
The Church is a Chosen People, a body of Priests and Kings. The calling or purpose of the Church is to declare the praises of Him Who called them out of darkness into His wonderful light; that is, to Herald or to "publish abroad" the excellence of His achievements. God's intent is that through the Church His manifold wisdom should be made known unto the world.
The Church is the mouth of God (in distinction to individual Christians, who are the mask of God in their Vocation).
Through the Church and the Office of the Holy Ministry, God deigned to let humanity participate in His plan of Salvation.
Our Calling (or "purpose") as a Synod is no different than that of the Church:
To Keep the Word (pure) for the World To Share the Word with the World
-or-
to extend and conserve the True doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
We cannot do one at the expense of the other; we cannot do one and leave the other undone. We keep the Word that we might share it, we share the Word that others may join us in preserving it. They feed each other.
This gets us to about minute 56, where direct application to WELS really begins with the Muelhauser story:
Muelhauser had serious outreach credibility, having preached his way across Europe, suffered persecution, was imprisoned, and yet continued preaching, and was eventually sent to the New World in the name of the Gospel.
Such is, indeed, our heritage and part of our culture in WELS.
But this is not our priority: a motto of Outreach over everything misses the dual directives in the Church's Calling.
While Muelhauser certainly thought of himself as a Lutheran, he did not think of his Confession as binding on him or his Church (Lutheran CGM advocates seem to think the same thing). His fault is not that he prioritized that sharing of the Word, but that he did so at the expense of Doctrine. [Muelhauser was a Pietist, and a willing Unionist, who "saw the Confessions as nothing but paper fences"]. Bading and Hoenecke corrected this, subsequently leading the WELS into Confessionalism.
Early on, because of Muelhauser's unionism and heterodoxy, Bading approached the Missouri Synod regarding membership with them instead, but was encourage by them to stay in the WELS, to raise the standard of Doctrine and Practice in our Synod. This is exactly what happened, as our dedication to Confessionalism, under the eventual leadership of Bading and Hoenecke, rose to that of Missions. Under Bading, Koehler, and Rheim, the Northwestern Conference of our Synod was responsible for the establishment and growth of Confessionalism in our Synod [hence, the names "Northwestern College" and "Northwestern Lutheran." How interesting it is that these names were abandoned under the recent leadership of CGM advocates, in favor of names reflecting a "Muelhauserian Outreachiness"...].
Most significantly, this turn to Confessional Lutheranism meant that the Synod would cease unionistic practrices with the Reformed [while "Muelhauserian Outreachiness" would have us worship with Andy Stanley and join groups like the Willow Creek Association (Search page for Lutheran) or the PurposeDrivenChurch (choose WELS as Denomination)].
The reason we are a Confessional Lutheran Church Body is because our Calling as the Church of God is "to go and make disciples of all nations, by baptizing and teaching them to obey everything he has commanded us." Mission zeal for going does not give license to fail to teach.
The early Synod sought to establish Schools because they realized that as Confessional Lutherans they needed more than just workers for the harvest field, they needed Confessional Lutheran workers. A new commitment to being a Confessional Lutheran church led them to eventually abandon the German Mission Societies that provided workers, Gratis, for a system that would cost the Synod a great deal of money, but would provide the right kind for workers for the mission field.
The outside attacks calling attention to the motley character of the Synod's clergy in their practice gave emphasis to the project of establishing a ministerial education program. The Synod's growing commitment to the Confessions engendered a commitment to Ministerial Education. Confessional commitment means commitment to training Confessional Lutheran workers because our calling to both share the Word and keep the Word. They needed to be approved to rightly handle the Word of Truth.
The experience of "Going and Growing" (a recent CGM slogan in the WELS) taught our fathers the importance of a Ministerial Education system, that it was the best way to train those workers to fulfill both directives of the Church's Calling.
The Church that goes to the entire World but does not teach everything God has commanded us, fails Jesus' litmus test for discipleship, "If you hold to my teachings you are really my disciples." Mission zeal without sound doctrine is mission work that is slowly loosing hold of the one tool that opens hearts. No methods, no programs, no people skills can convert sinful man, only the Word of God. Mission zeal without doctrine is destined to falter.
Listen to comments from Rev. John Bucholz from Tempe, Arizona @~80:30: "I really appreciated your thought ...how does God deal with us by His Holy Spirit through the Gospel? He slays us ...One way or the other He's either going to kill me eternally in Hell, or He is going to kill me in Baptism and raise me a new creature... [addressing a misunderstanding or misapplication of Vocation, Bucholz continues] When I say to somebody in my congregation, 'I'd like you to serve the Lord by serving on Church Council,' or 'I would like you to serve the Lord by mowing the lawn at Church,' or 'getting involved in the ministry of setting up chairs,' what I have really expressed is a flawed understanding of Christian Vocation. And I think that we need to be very careful that we don't fall into the trap of thinking that doing something 'churchy' or doing something at the congregation is serving the Lord, or that doing evangelism is serving the Lord, when in fact the mother changing a child's diaper or putting food on the table, or a man who goes to work, and works nine-to-five [Ja! If only!] to bring home the bacon for his family -- all of those things are an expression of the Vocation that we have been given. I think that we need to strengthen and reinforce that."
Of major concern is the future of our Synod's ministerial education system. In addition to over 300 Lutheran Elementary Schools (LESes) and around 25 Area Lutheran High Schools (ALHSes) run by congregations throughout our Synod, the Synod proper runs two prep-schools (Michigan Lutheran Seminary (MLS) and Luther Preparatory School (LPS)), one ministerial college (Martin Luther College (MLC)), and one theological seminary (Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary (WLS)), solely for the purpose of training future called workers.
The WELS is the last Lutheran church body in America to support a prep-school and ministerial college system, and it is precisely this system which is in jeopardy. Current economic conditions, reportedly in combination with two decades of diverting funds away from ministerial education into missions (much of which seems to have been traced to optimistic spending according to principles of the Church Growth Movement), has left our current ministerial education system financially unsustainable. The immediate future of MLS will be decided at this years' convention.
But not unrelated to the immediate future of MLS is the near and long-term future of MLC, a significant proportion of whose student body comes from MLS, and thus of our Synod's future doctrinal integrity, stability, and unity, resulting from the loss of our prep-school(s) and possibly our ministerial college.
Some propose that our ALHSes can take up the slack, but this is ignorant in my opinion. Our ALHSes are mostly progressive/constructivist schools that prepare students for secular college and careers, which (by my limited observation and discussions) essentially rest on the pedagogical foundations of Dewey (Naturalism/Progressivism) and, in the case of modern epistemological learning theories, an ideological foundation rooted in Post-modernism (Constructivism). This follows the trend observed in schools of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS), which prior to WW II provided an exclusively Classical education to all students -- and this despite Dewey's "Educational Revolution" of the early 20th Century. Following WWII, however (and for as yet unexplored reasons, I gather), LCMS schools, and apparently following them, those of the WELS, slowly abandoned the Classical models that served Western Civilization and the Church for so long, until, by the mid-70's, Synod teachers were being prepared according to almost exclusively Progressivist models.
Today especially, the mission of the prep-schools is incongruent with the mission of the ALHSes, as is the sort of education required of a future pastor with respect to what is offered by the ALHSes. Confessional Lutheran Pastors require a Classical, not a Progressivist, education. While technically not classical schools, our prep-schools, with their emphasis on language and the Humanities, approach this ideal, which prepares future pastors from the foundation of Western Civilization, having itself found much of its life and longevity from the Church -- from two-and-a-half millenia of devotional creativity and intellectual excellence, compounded. Indeed, as intimated by C.P. Krauth (in Ch. IV of his Conservative Reformation), when he describes the church catholic as the outflowing of 2000 years of Christian faith and practice into the present, and as that which projects it into the future, the utter necessity of well-educated Pastors, fully trained in the Great Western Tradition (read, Classical Education), is fundamental and paramount; those without such rigorous training are not fit to be Pastors, because they are incapable of effective catholicity.
It is simply ridiculous, in my opinion, to presume that a Classical preparation can be provided in Progressivist schools, in the context of a "Pastor's Track;" more so is the notion that a prep-school education provided in two schools can be reproduced over 25 times in the ALHSes at a cost savings, while at the same time maintaining consistency and integrity. The substantial difference in Classical pedagogics, from those of modern Progressivism and Constructivism, makes the "shared areas of content" between schools separated by these educational paradigms impossible to reconcile -- both in terms of their curricular requirements as well as the the preparation and experience required of their teachers. The loss of the prep-schools, in my opinion, would, in this day and age of plummeting educational standards, be catastrophic.
The pragmatic financial concern related to our ministerial education system is accompanied by other financial concerns, such as the reduction of Synod staff, the recall of missionaries, and the defunding of mission congregations. The undercurrent to all of this, if I read it correctly, is realizing the damage wrought by ~30 years of influence from the Church Growth Movement in our Synod, and resulting concerns regarding the integrity of our Synod's unity in doctrine and practice.
In addition to the Convention Website, the convention can be viewed live, here. Also, an excellent overview of the issues can be found on Light from Light, a blog maintained by another WELS layman. In addition, Ichabod has been (and will continue to be?) hosting daily threads on the Convention, which I intend to follow, as time permits. If the Ichabod threads do not continue, at least read the documents he has collected under the "WELS 2009 Convention Packet" heading on the left column, especially those documents beginning with the "Koeplin Paper" through item six "About the Corky Koeplin Essay" for a broader and historical view of some of the issues being faced today.
If you are like me, a Lutheran layman who is tired of enduring the offenses
of anthropocentric worship practices,
of broad liturgical experimentation,
of a decaying Lutheran hymnody,
of ever loosening fellowship standards,
of the use of females in authoritative capacity, whether as lectors, or as "music/worship ministers," or used in any Representational capacity during the Divine Service, whether visibly placed in the chancel area, or elsewhere,
of pastors who abandon their pulpit and wander around waving their arms during the sermon, or who otherwise put on a show for their audience,
of weak preachers who are too timid to authoritatively preach Law & Gospel, and prefer instead to "give talks" or "share messages," as if to primary-school children (including the use of power-point presentations as "felt-boards and glitter" for adults, in display of the insufficiency of the spoken Word) ,
and generally,
of any execution of the Divine Service that is not purposefully calculated to represent the distinctiveness of our Lutheran Confession,
then you may be interested in the following service, which, in my business and vacation travels, I find myself making more and more use of:
This is a directory of Confessional Lutheran Congregations from various Lutheran church bodies throughout the world (including some WELS, ELS, LCMS and others), that have publicly committed themselves to Confessional worship practice -- namely, use of the Historic Liturgy (for an explanation of the Lutheran Liturgy, click here for Part 1 of a series of posts devoted to this topic). By being listed on this registry, these congregations have implicitly confessed what a growing number of us layman have come to recognize: unity in practice has evaporated to such a degree -- even among those Lutheran church bodies that claim strong doctrinal unity -- that a standard other than Synodical membership is required to predict a congregation's practice.
Such is true for myself, as well. As a member of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) -- a Lutheran church body which claims agreement in all matters of doctrine and practice (as Scripture and the Confessions enjoin us) -- I have found over the past couple years, particularly as my business travels have become much more extensive, that the Sunday morning drive to the local WELS congregation has become increasingly miserable, as, having no idea what to expect anymore, I anxiously wonder, With what form of innovation or offense will I be confronted this time? .
While being listed on this Directory, itself, does not cover all of the issues I list above (and there may be other issues), I am satisfied that, for those congregations which meet its criteria, there is a high likelihood that most other manners of offense will also be absent. Here is the criteria for being listed in this Directory (from their website):
• The congregation must be committed to the exclusive use of the Historic Liturgy of the Church, not an order of service unique to a Sunday or congregation. The order of service must have catholic flavor; that is, the congregation celebrates the Mass in accordance with Article 24 of the Augsburg Confession. This criterion is intended to exclude congregations which use what is commonly called a “contemporary service.” This directory is not intended to provide service times of “traditional” worship for congregations which use a variety of liturgies. If your congregation prints out the entire order of service from The Lutheran Hymnal or Lutheran Worship each week, this does not qualify as a disposable order of service. In my opinion, it may be a waste of time and paper, but it does not disqualify your congregation from being listed. A disposable order of service would be a special order of service provided by the synod or agency of the synod or one written by the pastor (or church musician). Also, “Creative Worship” would be a disposable order of service.
• The congregation must practice Closed Communion. On the debate whether the proper term is “closed” or “close”, refer to Rev. Dr. Francis Pieper. In his Christliche Dogmatik (St. Louis: Concordia, 1920), Dr. Pieper writes: “Auch die apostolische Kirche praktizierte nicht ‘open,’ sondern ‘closed’ Communion.” [The English words appeared in the midst of the German text.] In the English translation Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia, 1953), this sentence is rendered “Neither did the Apostolic Church practice ‘open’ communion (vol. 3, p. 381)”. The words “sondern ‘closed’” were left untranslated.
• The congregation must pass the “fussy-family test.” I want to be assured that, if my family attended any service at your congregation, at least the liturgy would be Lutheran so my family won’t give me grief for taking them there. This means real liturgy, Lutheran hymns, no “praise choruses,” no “song leaders,” and no women lectors or communion assistants.
Yes indeed, as I gain experience with the wide variety of worship that is available in my church body, I've come to appreciate the phrase disposable order of service (from bullet one, above).
Having grown up a charismatic, and having spent 30 years in the throes of false worship among Charismatics, Pentecostals and pop-church Evangelicals, the danger of their methods cannot be more clear to me. For myself, offense is not necessarily found in the single visit itself, or in one service that may be off-kilter, but in what these aberrations represent concerning the certain future of congregations which first grow accustomed to them and then habitually practice them, and in what this means for the individual souls of those who trustingly rely on failing Pastoral leadership, whose function it is to Shepherd, or guide and protect, their flock in the name of Christ. Their methods draw attention away from the efficacy of the Word alone, from the Holy Spirit's work through the Means of Grace, and, consistent with their theology, places increasing trust in man's work through which the Holy Spirit's work is thought to be augmented. Use of their methods leads to conflict between confession and practice, to confusion, to uncertainty, and in the end to disaster and ruin, as faith is taught by practice to turn inward and dwell on the subjective, rather than remain focused on the objective promises of Christ. This happens as the succession of practices, which incrementally and simultaneously remove the Marks of the Church from their centrality and deprive Christians of the Means of Grace, invariably do so in favor of anthropocentric priorities that are at the heart of the heterodox teachings from which these practices spring. As Walther so aptly states, "it is soul-murder." For my family, this means that as Priest of my home, I will not permit my children to be exposed to these practices, certainly not as if such practices are normative or acceptable from a Confessional standpoint, and will actively avoid congregations that engage in them.
1. Oh that I had a thousand voices To praise my God with thousand tongues! My heart, which in the Lord rejoices, Would then proclaim in grateful songs To all, wherever I might be, What great things God hath done for me.
2. O all ye powers that He implanted, Arise, and silence keep no more; Put forth the strength that He hath granted, Your noblest work is to adore. O soul and body, be ye meet With heartfelt praise your Lord to greet!
3. Ye forest leaves so green and tender, That dance for joy in summer air; Ye meadow grasses, bright and slender; Ye flowers so wondrous sweet and fair; Ye live to show His praise alone, With me now make His glory known.
4. All creatures that have breath and motion, That throng the earth, the sea, the sky, Now join me in my heart's devotion, Help me to raise His praises high, My utmost powers can ne'er aright Declare the wonders of His might.
5. Lord, I will tell, while I am living, Thy goodness forth with every breath And greet each morning with thanksgiving Until my heart is still in death; Yea, when at last my lips grow cold, Thy praise shall in my sighs be told.
6. O Father, deign Thou, I beseech Thee, To listen to my earthly lays; A nobler strain in heaven shall reach Thee, When I with angels hymn Thy praise And learn amid their choirs to sing Loud hallelujahs to my King.
The Lutheran Hymnal Hymn #30 from The Handbook to The Lutheran Hymnal Text: Ps. 126:3 Author: Johann Mentzer, 1704, cento Translated by: composite Titled: "O dass ich tausend Zungen haette" Composer: Johann B. Koenig, 1738 Tune: "O dass ich tausend"
As many of you may be aware, my family enjoys and seeks out the uplifting influence of the Fine Arts for their highly cultivated ability to carry and effectively communicate weighty themes. Musically, this means that we favor what is referred to as “Classical Music.”
Last week, I featured a collection from our favorite choir: Dresdner Keuzchor: Legendary recordings. Most of the recordings in that collection are from the Late Renaissance and Early Baroque periods, and fall in the Sacred genre. More importantly, seven of the ten disks in this collection were filled with recordings of music that was composed for use in the context of Lutheran Worship, and were recorded by a choir that regularly sings them in the context of worship. I also posted definitions of the various periods in Classical Music. If you are unfamiliar with these periods, a review may be helpful.
Anyway, this week, I am featuring a Sacred Choral piece from the Classical period: The Creation, by Franz Josef Haydn. Though his name sounds German, Haydn was an Austrian, a Roman Catholic, and a prolific composer in the era of the Enlightenment. Not known principally as a composer of the Sacred genre, he composed this work late in life – as if, it strikes me, he was trying to do something good for God before he died (perhaps he thought he could earn his way into heaven...). It is quite good. While this work was originally composed by Haydn in German, the late Robert Shaw, a highly respected conductor of seminal importance in the revival of choral repertoire in America, translated the work into English. This recording is considered to be a definitive English-language performance.
Perhaps you've noticed that I made use of the term “performance” in reference to a Sacred work. Why the word "performance" and not "worship?" This is a troubling fact that I wanted to point out. Its use is necessary because, even though the majority of works in the Sacred genre were intended for use in the context of the Divine Service, worshipers no longer sing them; rather, performers, obsessed with the genuine artistic quality and musical integrity of these Sacred choral works, are the ones who continue to sing them and to keep them alive – and even these secular performers are quick to admit how well these musical compositions complement their lyrical content. It is a sad fact, in my opinion, that we Christians need to take our lessons in this regard from such performers, many of whom may likely be unbelievers, rather than have the privilege of realizing it for ourselves in our own worship. Where has the excellence gone?
In relation to this, I mentioned above that this particular work was from the Classical period. Last week, I defined this period as that "which roughly corresponds with the period of the Enlightenment, and like the Enlightenment is a reaction against religious and emotional themes, and tends to be expressive of an intellectually inspired utopianism, particularly of human dominance over nature." So what is a "Sacred work" in a period that exists partially in reaction against religion?
First, unlike nearly all Sacred works of the Baroque and Renaissance periods, many sacred works of the Classical period were meant to present religious texts to secular audiences in the context of the concert hall, not the Divine Service. Many settings of the Mass were composed during this period for this purpose, and such is true in the case of Haydn's The Creation. This doesn't mean, however, that all such works were stripped of religious value and presented merely as art or entertainment – and this is certainly not the case in Haydn's work. The manuscript of this work is littered with notes to the musicians, ascribing all praise and glory to God and reminding them of Whom they represent as this piece is "performed"; and throughout the remainder of his life, Haydn was quick to point to this work as his testimony of God's work as he publicly gave credit to God on many occasions and endeavored to direct the attention of his audiences heavenward.
Second, while the texts of this work come directly from Genesis and Psalms, following the order of their presentation in the account of Creation from Book VII of Milton's Paradise Lost, the composition is measured in a way that does not deliberately excite religious sentiments. This is typical of Enlightenment perspectives which sought to divorce human sentiment from matters of truth – to wisely avoid subjective criteria in the assessment of the objective. Instead, the composition serves to accentuate the coherence of revealed religious truth with objective observations of Natural Law. The product of human emotion it generates results from the affirmation this manifest coherence produces.
Indeed, as an example of this, during the pre-concert lecture of a recent performance of this piece that Mrs. Finkelstein and I attended, the lecturer – a Roman Catholic priest and Professor of Music at a local Catholic University – emphasized Haydn's regard for and use of Natural Law in his composition of The Creation. In the Aria, Rolling in Foaming Billows, Haydn makes use one of the most powerful images of God conceived in the Enlightenment mind: that of an Intelligent Designer, of a "divine clockmaker," whose pendulum is the certain rhythms of the massive and mysterious ocean. Haydn found great comfort in this image – the testimony of God and of His creative dominion found in Nature – and creates the musical image of the surf rhythmically building and crashing against the shore.
Though we are divided on several vitally important points of doctrine (such as the Doctrine of Justification by Faith alone, and the authority of Scripture), we Lutherans do share with the Romans a recognition of the validity of Natural Law (derived from General Revelation). Though it is distinct from Divine Law (spoken in Special Revelation), Natural Law is cited in Scripture as that which leaves mankind without excuse regarding the existence of God and of His power and dominion over all creation:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things... (Rom. 1:18-23).
General Revelation, while sufficient to show the existence, power, and perfection of God, while sufficient to suggest that humans are sinners and are thus indebted to God, is insufficient to show the true depth of man's depravity and helplessness before a perfectly righteous Judge, and does not even begin to suggest the only certain remedy of our terminal condition before God: the Gospel of Jesus Christ – that Jesus Christ, as True Man and True God, lived perfectly under God's Law, and while deserving no punishment, yet took upon Himself the sin of mankind, paid the penalty of man's sin on the Cross, and by His resurrection now promises that through faith our sins are forgiven and that we bear His perfect righteousness before God. General Revelation does not communicate this. Rather, only Special Revelation, the revelation of God's full message to Man in the Holy Scriptures, communicates to us the reality of our desperate condition and the Good News of the Gospel.
While some would be quick (and quite correct) to point out that, true to Enlightenment ideals, the use of Natural Law can be used to affirm Christianity merely on the strength of human intellect (which makes Scripture the servant of human reason, rather than reason that of Scripture), I would suggest that works such as this can be, and ought to be, appreciated by true Christians not only on the basis of it's texts, not only on the superb artistic quality of its composition and performance, but specifically in the fact that it reverently affirms for those who hear it what the Scriptures say: that the God of Creation is real, that His Creation testifies of this fact, and that the Creation account found in Special Revelation is the account of this Creator, Whose Creation testifies of Him.
This article was compiled and edited by Rev. David Jay Webber of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS), and was published originally in 1992, in their theological journal, Lutheran Synod Quarterly. This online version includes an addendum that has since been included based on recent experience with the Ukrainian Lutheran Church, a Byzantine Rite church body that has Lutheranized the eastern Divine Liturgy and incorporated some elements of the Western Rite, as well.
I repeat from Bailing Water, with some minor revisions:
(a) It continues to be relevant and comprehensive, yet succinct. (b) It defends the liturgy rather than merely allow for it alongside other supposedly equal practices. (c) It identifies and emphasizes the importance of catholicity in our practice – use of the liturgy itself does not carry the Roman associations as the poorly catechized among us may accuse, rather it celebrates the continuity of a single apostolic church in a way that is impossible for modern forms to duplicate. Lutherans must be reminded that, though we are by no means Roman, we are catholic, and there is no shame in this. There is, however, great shame in sectarianism, and to adopt practices that overtly celebrate anti-catholic sentiment, such as the practices of modern pop-church Evangelicals, many of whom reject the Creeds and have never claimed, nor desire, association with the Church catholic. (d) It demonstrates that catholic liturgical practice both results from and maintains sound Orthodoxy. Popular alternatives do not function this way – they result from impatient dissatisfaction with Confessional restrictions, loosen Fellowship standards, make Orthodoxy a byword, and teach the theology of the sectarians. And (e) it includes four very useful appendices.
I would ask you to take a look at these appendices, especially Appendix II and III. Both of these appendicies contain quotes from Dr. C.F.W. Walther directly addressing the issue of adopting the worship forms of the American sects over against the wholesome and distinctive worship of Lutheranism. The pertinent quotes are as follows (and for the full context of Walther’s quote in Appendix III, which was taken from The True Visible Church, read the “Related to this Topic” section at the bottom of the article, Why Use the Historic Liturgy):
From Appendix II Church usages, excepting the case when confession of a divine truth is required, are indeed adiaphora. But they are nevertheless not without an import of their own. Congregations that adopt the church usages of the sects that surround them, will be apt to conform to their doctrines also, more easily and quickly than those that retain their Lutheran ceremonies. We should in Lutheran services, also when held in the English language, as much as possible use the old Lutheran forms, though they be said to be antiquated and not suiting this country. We will mention here the words of a pious Lutheran duchess, Elisabeth Magdalena of Brunswick-Lüneburg. Her court chaplain Prunner relates as follows: “Although her ladyship well knew that the ceremonies and purposes of this chapter (at which Prunner officiated) must have the appearance and repute of popery with some people, she still remembered the instructions which that dear and venerable man, Luther, had once given to her father concerning such ceremonies. I remember in particular that her ladyship several times told me that she did not desire at these present times to commence discontinuing any of those church usages, since she hoped that so long as such ceremonies continued, Calvinistic temerity would be held back from the public office of the church.” (C. F. W. Walther, The Controversy Concerning Predestination [translated by August Croll] [Concordia Publishing House, 1881], pp. 77-78.)
From Appendix III We refuse to be guided by those who are offended by our church customs. We adhere to them all the more firmly when someone wants to cause us to have a guilty conscience on account of them. ...It is a pity and dreadful cowardice when one sacrifices the good and ancient customs to please the deluded American sects, lest they accuse us of being papistic.
Indeed! Am I to be afraid of a Methodist, who perverts the saving Word, or be ashamed in the matter of my good cause, and not rather rejoice that the sects can tell by our ceremonies that I do not belong to them?
We are not insisting that there be unity of perception or feelings or of taste among all believing Christians, neither dare anyone demand that all be minded as he. Nevertheless it remains true that the Lutheran liturgy distinguishes Lutheran worship from the worship of other churches to such an extent that the latter look like lecture halls in which the hearers are merely addressed or instructed, while our churches are in truth houses of prayer in which the Christians serve God publicly before the world. (C. F. W. Walther, Essays for the Church, Vol. 1 [Concordia Publishing House, 1992], p. 194.)
The Lutheran way of worship has always been “out of style” in America. Our current struggle is nothing new. Lutherans of the 19th Century struggled with the impact of Charles Finney and the allure of the Anxious Bench. In those days, many Lutheran congregations cast an envious eye in the direction of the Revivalists, adopted the songbooks of the American sects, and experimented with alternative worship forms (for more information on this, re-read my recent post, More Quotes from Krauth...). In these two appendices, notice Walther’s leadership. He rejects the worship practices of the sectarians on three grounds:
(1) they teach the false doctrines of the sectarians, i.e., application of lex orandi, lex credendi, (2) their use compromises the distinctiveness and effectiveness of our public Confession, and, (3) their use constitutes overtures of Fellowship with the heterodox from whom such practices are borrowed.
The Old Norwegian Synod The Old Norwegian Synod addressed the issue of non-Lutheran worship practice as well. The following was found in one of its early hymnaries, We should teach our children to remain in the Lutheran Church instead of to sing themselves into some Reformed sect. This quote is taken from the article O Come, Let Us Worship! A Study in Lutheran Liturgy and Hymnody, a 1995 ELS Convention paper by Mark DeGarmeaux. The footnote accompanying this quote adds a thought from Matthew Lundquist, a Lutheran hymnologist:
Many American Lutheran churches do not sing Lutheran church hymns at all. How deplorable! We often attend Lutheran church services where not a single Lutheran church hymn or Lutheran chorale is sung. Here is a serious flaw in American Lutheran education and leadership. How about the hymn singing in our American Lutheran Sunday schools? Would it not be well to sing at least one Lutheran church hymn each Sunday? Or shall we permit Lutheran hymnody to die? Is great Lutheran hymnody a thing of the past? (Hymnological Studies, 1926)
A serious flaw in leadership. A serious flaw in catechesis. Indeed! And what courage it must have been for him to say so!
The first care, then, of all who work in the field of English Mission, pastors and laymen alike, ought ever to be that they steadfastly adhere to the biblical doctrine in all its parts. Lutheran hymns, Lutheran liturgies, Lutheran prayers, above all Lutheran sermons ought to be heard wherever our missionary work is carried on. True Lutheranism need not fear any criticism. It has stood the test of centuries, and no modern weapon of offense will subvert it. It is an impregnable fortress. Be not afraid, then, to show its beauties to all who come to hear. They expect to be treated to something new in our churches, and they ought not be disappointed. To follow the example set by sectarian clergymen, to sermonize on anything else rather than upon questions of doctrine, or to fill the hearers’ ears with weak generalizations and pasture them on fine, poetic language alone, would be worse than folly. To make a good impression, to effect some real, living good, solid meat must be offered, which alone can satisfy the soul’s desires. Emphasize doctrine, if you would accomplish your aim.Else why should we expend money and labor, only to do what others may do as well? (John Schaller, “Danger Ahead!”, Lutheran Witness, Vol. 10, No. 8 [Sept. 21, 1891], pp. 57-58)
What form of Leadership do we need today? In the past, strong Lutheran leaders have stepped forward to repudiate sectarian challenges. We need the same sort of leadership today, not the soft permissiveness that has brought us to the current crisis. Maybe I’m blind, deaf, or simply uninformed, but I’m not aware of any such leadership among us, at least none with the celebrity of Church Growth advocates. Recognizing none, I look back to the leaders of the past, to the form of leadership we need today on these issues, and quote a letter from C.F.W. Walther (from Appendix A of DeGarmeaux’s article, Sacramental Worship, Sacramental Preaching: Treasures of our Lutheran Church):
Honored Sir,
This morning I received your worthy letter, written on the 19th of the month. In your letter you ask for my opinion on whether it is advisable to introduce the singing of Methodist songs in a Lutheran Sunday School. May what follows serve as a helpful reply to your questions:
No, this is not advisable, rather very incorrect and pernicious.
1. Our church is so rich in hymns that you could justifiably state that if one were to introduce Methodist hymns in a Lutheran school this would be like carrying coals to Newcastle. The singing of such hymns would make the rich Lutheran Church into a beggar which is forced to beg from a miserable sect. Thirty or forty years ago a Lutheran preacher might well have been forgiven this. For at that time the Lutheran Church in our country was as poor as a beggar when it comes to song books for Lutheran children. A preacher scarcely knew where he might obtain such little hymn books. Now, however, since our church itself has everything it needs, it is unpardonable when a preacher of our church causes little ones to suffer the shame of eating a foreign bread.
2. A preacher of our church also has the holy duty to give souls entrusted to his care pure spiritual food, indeed, the very best which he can possibly obtain. In Methodist songs there is much which is false, and which contains spiritual poison for the soul. Therefore, it is soul-murder to set before children such poisonous food. If the preacher claims, that he allows only "correct" hymns to be sung, this does not excuse him. For, first of all, the true Lutheran spirit is found in none of them; second, our hymns are more powerful, more substantive, and more prosaic; third, those hymns which deal with the Holy Sacraments are completely in error; fourth, when these little sectarian hymnbooks come into the hands of our children, they openly read and sing false hymns.
3. A preacher who introduces Methodist hymns, let alone Methodist hymnals, raises the suspicion that he is no true Lutheran at heart, and that he believes one religion is as good as the other, and that he thus a unionistic-man, a mingler of religion and churches.
4. Through the introduction of Methodist hymn singing he also makes those children entrusted to his care of unionistic sentiment, and he himself leads them to leave the Lutheran Church and join the Methodists.
5. By the purchase of Methodist hymn books he subsidizes the false church and strengthens the Methodist fanatics in their horrible errors. For the Methodists will think, and quite correctly so, that if the Lutheran preachers did not regard our religion as good as, or indeed, even better than their own, they would not introduce Methodist hymn books in their Sunday schools, but rather would use Lutheran hymn books.
6. By introducing Methodist hymn books, the entire Lutheran congregation is given great offense, and the members of the same are lead to think that Methodists, the Albright people, and all such people have a better faith than we do.
This may be a sufficient answer regarding this dismal matter. May God keep you in the true and genuine Lutheran faith, and help you not to be misled from the same, either to the right or to the left.
Your unfamiliar, yet known friend, in the Lord Jesus Christ,
C. F. W. Walther St. Louis, Missouri January 23, 1883
the Bible states, “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not” (1 Cor. 10:23) The context of this statement is freedom in practice. As St. Paul demonstrates in this section, use of adiaphora ought to be thoughtfully calculated, as it otherwise stands to harm fellow Christians, damage the reputation of the Church, and interfere with Her work in the World. Likewise do the Lutheran Confessions indicate that the necessity of change in the rites of the Church, when and where it should arise, is predicated on that which is most edifying to the Church. This is never an indifferent question.
Last week, I posted Part 1 of this series, returning again to the bookLutheran Worship: History and Practice, and drawing from two essays in Chapter 2 entitled “Worship and the Community of Faith,” by Roger D. Pittelko, and “Liturgy and Evangelism,” by Kurt Marquart. In both of these essays, the authors address the popular abuse of the term “adiaphora” as it is employed by modern pop-church innovators with reference to Worship practice. In Part 1, I highlighted the oft-repeated quotations from the Book of Concord that seem to be favored by advocates of the Church Growth Movement (CGM) among Lutherans. I repeat them here (and I quote from my Reader's Edition of the Book of Concord):
...[W]e believe, teach, and confess that some ceremonies or Church practices are neither commanded nor forbidden in God's Word, but have been introduced for the sake of fitting and good order. Such rites are not in and of themselves divine worship (FC EP X [3]).
We believe, teach, and confess that the churches of God (in every land and at every time according to its circumstances) have the power to change worship ceremonies in a way that may be most useful and edifying to the churches of God (FC EP X [4]).
For the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree about the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. It is not necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies instituted by men, should be the same everywhere (AC VII [2-3]).
As pointed out last week, these quotations are often used in isolation from the rest of the Book of Concord to support the notion that in matters neither commanded nor forbidden in Scripture, that is, in matters of adiaphora, there is complete and unfettered freedom. In the case of Lutheran worship, where in FC EP X we learn that some aspects of its practice fit this category, these isolated statements are “often misunderstood as liturgical carte blanche, and cited in support of license and chaos” [Marquart, K. (1993). Liturgy and Evangelism. In F.L. Precht (Ed.), Lutheran Worship: History and Practice (pg. 62). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House]. I concluded by suggesting that the Lutheran Confessions have much more to say about worship than just “worship is adiaphora,” and promised to post more form them such that the favorite quotations of CGM advocates are given due balance.
Dignity and Reverence
One of the prime requirements of evangelical liturgical form is that it cultivate reverence... The Augsburg Confession itself states that “nothing contributes so much to the maintenance of dignity in public worship and the cultivation of reverence and devotion among the people as the proper observance of ceremonies in the churches” [AC XXI (6)]. And since “good order is very becoming in the church,” reasons the Apology, it “is therefore necessary” [AP XV (22)]. Slovenly irreverence must be called to repentance, lest priceless evangelical pearls be trampled underfoot by swine (Matt. 7:6).
Marquart, K. (1993). Liturgy and Evangelism. In F.L. Precht (Ed.), Lutheran Worship: History and Practice (pg. 63). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House
Expounding more on AP XV quoted by Marquart, above, the context states:
Although the Holy Fathers themselves had both rites and traditions, they did not maintain that these are useful or necessary for justification. They did not cloud over Christ's glory and office, but taught that we are justified by faith for Christ's sake, and not for the sake of these human services. The Fathers celebrated human rites for the body's benefit. For example, by such rites the people know what time they should gather so that, for the sake of example, all things might be done in order and properly in the churches (1 Cor. 14:40) and that the common people might receive a sort of training. Distinctions of times and the variety of rites help in reminding the common people. The Fathers maintained the rites for these reasons. We also conclude it is proper for these reasons to keep traditions... We cheerfully maintain the old traditions made in the Church for the sake of usefulness and peace...
Our enemies falsely accuse us of setting aside good ordinances and Church discipline... Among us many use the Lord's Supper every Lord's Day... The children sing Psalms in order that they may learn. The people also sing so that they may either learn or pray... From this condition of the churches it may be determined that we earnestly keep Church discipline, godly ceremonies, and good Church customs (AP XV [20-44]).
Indeed, even in the immediate context of one of the favorite CGM quotations from the Epitome, far above, “We believe, teach, and confess that the churches of God (in every land and at every time according to its circumstances) have the power to change worship ceremonies in a way that may be most useful and edifying to the churches of God” (FC EP X [4]), the Epitome goes on in the following paragraph to insist “Nevertheless, all frivolity and offense should be avoided in this matter” (FC EP X [5]). In the Solid Declaration, the Formula expounds on this:
When there are useless, foolish displays that are not profitable for good order, Christian discipline, or evangelical practice in the Church, these also are not genuine adiaphora, or matters of indifference. Regarding genuine adiaphora... such ceremonies, in and of themselves are not worship of God, nor any part of it. They must be properly distinguished from ceremonies that are. As it is written, “in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:9) (FC SD X [7-8]).
Again, the Confessions say, “some ceremonies and Church practices are [adiaphora]” (FC SD X [1], FC EP X [3]). From the Solid Declaration, above, we learn that those ceremonies which are adiaphora are not worship of God (in and of themselves), and that it is incumbent upon the Church to distinguish which ceremonies are and which are not. Those that are worship of God, are not adiaphora. Moreover, by quoting Scripture from Matt. 15:9 in reference to making such a distinction, the Confessions admit that worship practice teaches, and that holding up indifferent ceremonial practices as true worship is tantamount to false teaching. Yet, even in the case of these indifferent ceremonial practices, sanctified judgment is in order to assure that dignity and reverence prevails.
Practice Teaches, Practice Confesses In the quotations already cited, the idea that Practice teaches is interwoven into the substance of our Confession regarding Church practice: “that the common people might receive a sort of training” (AP XV [20]); “the children sing Psalms in order that they may learn,” and “the people also sing so that they may either learn or pray” (AP XV [40]). In addition, the Lutheran Confessions point our adversaries to our Practice as proof of our Confession, as stated above: “From this condition of the churches it may be determined that we earnestly keep Church discipline, godly ceremonies, and good Church customs” (AP XV [44]). But there is more.
In AC XXIV, the Confessions state directly, “For ceremonies are needed for this reason alone, that the uneducated be taught what they need to know about Christ” (3). This repeats the afore mentioned, that Practice teaches. Insofar as it teaches, it is not a matter of indifference – we are not free to teach falsely through Practice, and when we do teach, we are bound to make every effort to teach the whole counsel of God. The Historic Liturgy described in the series, Explanation of the Common Service, is an example of this.
Moreover, from this same reference in the Confessions, we see that Practice confesses. Leading to the above statement in par. 3, AC XXIV states, “Our churches are falsely accused of abolishing the Mass. The Mass is held among us and celebrated with the highest reverence. Nearly all the usual ceremonies are also preserved...” (1,2). From this reference we learn two things: (1) in the face of criticism, we not only assert our Confession, i.e., “Falsely are we accused...,” but (2)we point to our Practice as proof of our Confession, i.e., “The Mass is held... [and] nearly all the usual ceremonies are preserved.” Additionally, (3) we learn that inferring Confession from observance of Practice is legitimate, and that those whose Practice is confusing or offensive with respect to their Confession owe an explanation. But there is yet more...
The Formula of Concord goes into much greater detail on this issue:
Under the title and excuse of outward adiaphora, things are proposed that are in principle contrary to God's Word, although painted another color. These ceremonies are not to be regarded as adiaphora, in which one is free to do as he wants. They must be avoided as things prohibited by God. In a similar way, in such a situation ceremonies should not be regarded as genuine free adiaphora, or matters of indifference. This is because they show or pretend that our religion and that of the papists are not far apart in order to avoid persecution, or they pretend that the papist's ceremonies are not at least highly offensive to us. When ceremonies are intended for this purpose, and are required or received (as though through them contrary religions are reconciled and become one body), we cannot regard them as adiaphora. When returning to the papacy and departing from the Gospel's pure doctrine and true religion should happen or gradually follow from such ceremonies, we cannot regard them as adiaphora. (FC SD X [5]).
In this article, we learn that those otherwise indifferent practices which (a) are engaged for relief from “persecution,” (b) which appear to reconcile opposing Confessions, or (c) which may lead to a belief in false doctrine (because practice teaches) are to be regarded as prohibited by God. By way of example, the baptismal mode of immersion, though it is otherwise a perfectly legitimate mode of baptism, is rejected by Lutherans as prohibited by God on the basis of (b), above. By way of application, Lutheran congregations who, cowering in fear from the sentiment of their respective communities, or of their selective “target populations,” hide from their public Confession and confessional identity by removing the word “Lutheran” from their name, fall into category (a), above. Worrying what others may think and what manner of reprisal they may be forced to endure, they describe themselves as under "persecution." In these circumstances, they ought not hide their public declaration of confessional identity by removing the word "Lutheran" from their name, but should rather emphasize it all the more, and redouble their commitment to Confessional fidelity. The Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod (LCMS) has recognized the importance of this, having passed a Resolution in 1995 to require the identifier Lutheran in all congregation names (this was discussed here, by Rev. Klemet Preus (LCMS), as he debriefed fellow Confessional Lutherans regarding their defeat in the MNS District last month).
Likewise, the use of Contemporary worship practices developed by, and singularly associated with, the heterodox in American Evangelicalism, falls into the category (b), above; and because practice teaches, and especially because these practices were developed by the heterodox for the distinct purpose of teaching and reinforcing their false doctrines through the use of their worship practices, category (c) applies, as well. Indeed, the Formula of Concord immediately goes on from these statements in SD X to ascribe the labels “partnership” and “fellowship” to practices under these conditions, and quotes 2 Cor. 6:14-17, which concludes with the command, “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate.”
To the extent that worship practice teaches, it must be calculated to do so according to the whole council of God. To the extent that worship practice confesses, it must be calculated to do so in a way that boldly represents our distinctiveness from popular heterodoxy.
We reject none of the catholic ceremonies that can be practiced without sinning
During the Reformation era the iconoclasts tried to rid the church of all past worship practices and forms. In the face of that pressure the Lutheran Reformers followed a conservative liturgical principle... The Conclusion of the Augustana states it most clearly: “It may be understood that nothing has been received among us, in doctrine or in ceremonies, that is contrary to Scripture or to the church catholic [AC Conclusion (5)].”
Pittelko, R.D. (1993). Liturgy and Evangelism. In F.L. Precht (Ed.), Lutheran Worship: History and Practice (pg. 56). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House
Likewise do the Confessions state, “[o]ur churches teach that ceremonies ought to be observed that may be observed without sin. Also, ceremonies and other practices that are profitable for tranquility and good order in the Church (in particular, holy days, festivals, and the like) ought to be observed” (AC XV (1)).
In the face of all the jarring liturgical changes advocated by Lutheran CGM activists, the question is begged: which of the “indifferent” liturgical practices rejected by them is “sinful”? The answer is never “your liturgical practice is sinful,” but is bound up in the infuriating relativistic parlance of our postmodern culture, to wit: we respect that you do what you think is right for you, we demand that you respect what we think is right for us. In such answers we see that, for them, practice is above criticism and that adiaphora has become the basis of Confessional equivocation.
Liturgy is the Service of the Means of Grace
The word liturgy itself is a good conversation starter. It seems to be taken by many as a collective term for everything that is not important in [the divine service]... How different is the understanding of liturgy in article XXIV of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:
But let us talk about the term “liturgy.” It does not really mean a sacrifice but a public service. Thus it squares well with our position that a minister who consecrates shows forth the body and blood of Christ to the people, just as a minister who preaches shows forth the Gospel to the people, as Paul says (1 Cor. 4:1), “This is how one should regard us, as ministers of Christ and dispensers of the sacraments of God,” that is, of the Word and sacraments [LC I (72-74)].
Clearly, liturgy here is first of all theological content, not ritual form. In itself the word means simply and generically “public service” ...The Apology, however, uses the term liturgy in a more special sense here, [equating it] with what had come to be called the Mass in the Western Church of the Middle Ages. In other words, not any sort of service in general is meant, but quite concretely the rite of the Lord's Supper as the matrix and content of regular Gospel proclamation... The church, in this view, meets in solemn public assembly not to conduct pep rallies for worthy causes, or to boost a religious talk with publicity stunts, but to transact the awesome and life-giving “mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1)...
What is at stake here is the centrality of the Means of Grace. Consider the Augsburg Confession's unique ...concentration on the Gospel as the very essence of the public ministry: “To obtain such faith God instituted the office of the ministry... that is, provided the Gospel and the sacraments. Through these, as through means, he gives the Holy Spirit, who works faith, when and where He pleases, in those who hear the Gospel” [AC V(1,2)]... [T]he public ministry is there simply for ...the public service, the liturgy of Word and Sacrament...
Liturgy, then, is much more than forms and ceremonies, which are in themselves indifferent. It is first and foremost a firm theological content, namely, the holy Gospel and sacraments of God.
Marquart, K. (1993). Liturgy and Evangelism. In F.L. Precht (Ed.), Lutheran Worship: History and Practice (pp. 58 – 61). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House
“It's adiaphora” is far from the “End of discussion” Quite the contrary, labeling something as “adiaphora” is only the beginning of a very long and important discussion, as so many of the intertwining issues cross immediately over into matters of doctrine and confessional unity – which are not free at all. As pointed out in the series of blog posts, Lutheran Worship: History and Practice, significant theological, liturgical and historical acumen, not to mention Confessional fidelity, is required in these areas of sanctified judgment.
Yet, in order to elevate practice above the scrutiny of their Christian Brothers, many among Lutheran CGM advocates are quick to issue the preamable, “in and of itself...” to their insistence that “worship practice is a matter of indifference.” In answer, it must be forcefully maintained that “in and of itself” only applies in theoretical considerations, and not at all in practical considerations, since worship practice is never executed in situations that are isolated from all other issues, particularly from issues of catechesis and confession.
In the matter of sanctified judgment, advocates of the Church Growth Movement display little, and abdicate any position from which they might compellingly exercise judgment in the name of the Church: rejecting the compounded wisdom of 2000 years of New Testament Church practice, they rest in the vacuous security of their own prognostications and optimistically look forward to what their innovations will produce. Rather than exercise judgment from a foundation of excellence upon excellence, they confuse judgment with hopefulness. Neither wisdom nor judgment, this is foolishness manifested.
In the matter of Confessional fidelity, it is plain to see that elevating three isolated quotations from the Confessions as a characterization of our public confession regarding worship practice, in a way that advocates "unbounded freedom in practice," is more than mere oversight. It is disingenuous and misleading. The quotations above are but a sampling. The Book of Concord has much more to say on the subject.
Is there a degree of freedom in worship practice? Yes, there is. But it will be found that such freedom is bound by a host of decidedly non-trivial decisions which immediately involve deep issues of theology, confession and catechesis. To treat them as "indifferent" is to regard them as frivolous matters. Returning to Part 1 of this blog post, the Bible states, “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not” (1 Cor. 10:23) The context of this statement is freedom in practice. As St. Paul demonstrates in this section, use of adiaphora ought to be thoughtfully calculated, as it otherwise stands to harm fellow Christians, damage the reputation of the Church, and interfere with Her work in the World. Likewise do the Lutheran Confessions indicate that the necessity of change in the rites of the Church, when and where it should arise, is predicated on that which is most edifying to the Church. This is never an indifferent question.
The WELS is the last Lutheran church body in America to support a prep-school and ministerial college system, and it is precisely this system which is in jeopardy. Current economic conditions, reportedly in combination with two decades of diverting funds away from ministerial education into missions (much of which seems to have been traced to optimistic spending according to principles of the Church Growth Movement), has left our current ministerial education system financially unsustainable. The immediate future of MLS will be decided at this years' convention.
But not unrelated to the immediate future of MLS is the near and long-term future of MLC, a significant proportion of whose student body comes from MLS, and thus of our Synod's future doctrinal integrity, stability, and unity, resulting from the loss of our prep-school(s) and possibly our ministerial college.
First, unlike nearly all Sacred works of the 
