|
Search this Blog:
Subscribe to Blog:
This blog sponsored by:
The views represented on this blog are not necessarily those of Higher Things, nor does Higher Things necessarily endorse them.
|
|
|
|
Posted At: 1:56am by Sandra Ostapowich
|
 Church
plans service featuring music of band U2
FROM STAFF REPORTS
Thursday, October 26, 2006
If you still haven't found what you're looking for, the music of U2 might
hold a clue during a unique service Sunday that incorporates the Irish rock
band's hits.
The U2Charist, named for the band and the Eucharist communion, weaves the
tunes of U2 amid the rituals of the service and corresponding slides.
Jeff Richardson, music minister at St. Michael and All Angels' Episcopal
Church, said the practice was started by an Episcopal priest in Maine who
noticed many of the band's lyrics carried biblical overtones.
"'See the bird with the leaf in her mouth; after the flood, all the
colors come out,' " Richardson quoted the song, "It's a Beautiful
Day." "That's definitely Noah."
The lyric is reminiscent of the Genesis account of Noah's ark, in which Noah
knew the flood was subsiding when a dove returned with an olive twig in her
beak.
Mixing the music and visuals for the 6 p.m. Sunday service last week,
Richardson said the two elements were blending uncannily well.
"It's really weird how pretty cool things intersperse with the reading
from the gospel," he said. "It just happened to fit almost
perfectly."
Richardson said the U2Charist is inspiring him to use other rock 'n' roll
music in spiritual ways.
"What I'd like to do is a rock-charist," he said, noting the
emotional power of songs like Creed's "With Arms Wide Open."
"Emotion is the first thing that hits you from music, but there's a
spiritual element to all music," he said. "You can take any love song,
and turn it around and assign it to God."
Doesn't that last line just say it all...
Mollie Ziegler, now known as M. Z. Hemingway, wrote an article called,
"Love Songs for Jesus" in the Spring 2005 issue of Higher Things
magazine. If you have an HT-Online
account you can read the article in its entirety here.
If I remember correctly from that disturbing period of life known as
"junior high," when U2 first arrived on the music scene, the big news
was that they were a "Christian" band but played on Top 40 radio
stations. At least that was what my best friend, Kirsten, told me - and
she knew about those kinds of things. So I'm not sure why it's a
revelation that their music has Biblical influences. But I think even Bono
(who has been married for 24 years and has 4 kids - who knew??) would be taken
aback at the idea of a U2-charist service.
Edited on: October 27th, 2006 1:58 am
|
I am listening to Achtung Baby
Release Date: 04 February, 2002
|
|
Posted On: October 27th, 2006 at 10:07am by luvable lutheran |
Although there is a difference with pop rock music in the service, I have thought an interesting bible study topic would be christian themes in mainstream music. For example, in "Hey Jesus" by the Indigo Girls, it teaches us how not to pray. The song features pretty strong theology, albeit not Lutheran, for a pop song. You can hear the influences of growing up as an Episocal pastor and professor's daughter in Emily Saliers' music. Joan Osborne's, "What if God were one of Us,"
is pretty ironic since God really was one of us when He sent down His only begotten Son to die for our sins.
|
Posted On: October 27th, 2006 at 10:09am by Rachel D [ + ] |
That's... really really sick. It's depressing to see how far gone our culture really is to think that putting U2 songs into a church service is good
|
Posted On: October 27th, 2006 at 1:43pm by Kelly |
The last line, yeah. It sounds as though the word "spiritual" is entirely defined these days *as* "emotional." What exactly do they consider to be the difference between the two adjectives?
|
Posted On: October 28th, 2006 at 10:10am by Anonymous |
What's the problem with spiritual pop music in a church service? If it helps people to better understand the gospel message, what's the problem?
Personally, I'd rather have a traditional Lutheran liturgy, but I know that's not for everyone.
Oh, and I second the suggestion for a study on Indigo Girls music. What a great idea! But, a quick correction: Emily Saliers is from the Presbyerian (PCUSA) tradition, not Episcopal.
|
Posted On: October 28th, 2006 at 9:31pm by luvable lutheran |
Don Sliers is a professor at Emory, which is affiliated with teh United Methodist Church (my bad, not Episcopal), but he and Emily toured around the country at Episcopal, Methodist and the like churches promoting their new book. Although in theHistory
of Emory's Theology School it was founded by the Methodist Episcopal Church of the South (if you aren't already confused) 
This site says that both of the Indigo Girls grew up Methodist.
|
Posted On: October 28th, 2006 at 10:07pm by Anonymous |
Oops. My bad, also. I knew it wasn't in the Episcopal church in which she grew up -- I just couldn't remember which other denomination exactly. Thanks for the correction, luvable.
But, I do agree completely that a study of the subject of spirituality in Indigo Girls music would be valuable. I'd also like to see a study of the spirutuality of other musicians as well, including Moby, R.E.M., and especially P.M. Dawn (another highly spiritual group that had a tremendous impact on my own personal adolescence).
|
Posted On: October 29th, 2006 at 1:39pm by Scott Strohkirch |
Does it surprise anyone really that a church would do something like this? Unless you have been properly catechized into what is appropriate for Divine Service you are going to buy into this idea. Perhaps 5 years down the line someone will look at this and realize that it was stupid and looked foolish, but then again they might consider how to do the Eucharist with Smashing Pumpkins or Black Sabbath. We are becoming more and more profane in our worship styles and it won't stop unless they are convicted by the Holy Spirit that it is profane.
|
Posted On: October 29th, 2006 at 5:00pm by Anonymous |
Scott Strohkirch writes:
"Unless you have been properly catechized into what is appropriate for Divine Service you are going to buy into this idea."
Hmmm. I doubt the LCMS pastor who confirmed me so long ago would think that I was improperly catechized. Kind of a broad brush you paint with there, Scott. What proof do you have to support this claim?
Again, I ask: If the Gospel message is being taught, what's the problem? And, unless Scott or anyone else was there to witness firsthand the message taught in the service, it'll be unfair to criticize the message without supporting evidence.
In fact, if the Gospel message *was* taught at this service, and you are arguing against the service because of the package in which the message was presented, wouldn't that mean that you are in fact arguing against the teaching of the Gospel message?
Scott continues:
"Perhaps 5 years down the line someone will look at this and realize that it was stupid and looked foolish, but then again they might consider how to do the Eucharist with Smashing Pumpkins or Black Sabbath."
I doubt it. They'll be, like, sooooooo 1990s/1980s (respectively) by then...
|
Posted On: October 29th, 2006 at 5:19pm by Scott Strohkirch |
I am saying that the music in the venue mentioned is inappropriate for worship. Any music which is from the outside of the traditional and ancient liturgies is profane. It is too much of a reminder of the world and I go to church to receive God's gifts through his means of Grace.
I doubt that Bono would have approved had he known to what length they were using his and his band's music. If he is truly the Christian he say he is I believe he would be appalled at this church's use of his music.
So yes I am saying that you were improperly catechized if you approve of this music in your service. I will also say that I believe the Pastor who did catechize you has compromised his vocation in so doing. Catechesis is a lifetime thing not just a three or four year program that you take part in your teen years, but is on-going. Anyone who says that Liturgy is adiaphora is missing the point.
God has given us through his word and through the ancient Liturgies how we are to worship in the Divine Service. Anything else outside of that is profane.
|
Posted On: October 29th, 2006 at 6:59pm by luvable lutheran |
What's the problem with spiritual pop music in a church service? If it helps people to better understand the gospel message, what's the problem?
You say that pop music is to help people better understand the gospel. Actually that vocation has been given by God to the Pastor in his His preaching and teaching of the God's Holy Word.
Can you share examples of pop music that "helps people better understand the gospel?" It might be helpful to understand what songs you are thinking about. Honestly, I can't really think of any that would be better than our Lutheran hymnody as many pop songs that I listen to in my car really describe God and christian aspects in a vague way. By vague I mean that you can't tell what denomination or God they are referring to in their music. It could be what the Mormons call God, the Muslims call god or allah, etc. Perhaps that is why it appeals to so many?
At the Lutheran Free Conference I attended yesterday, one of the speakers was talking about being specific about Jesus. If you talk about Jesus in a general way, some people (especially nonbelievers), might think you were talking about a Mexican. His point was that the church today needs to give a clear confession of the faith and point to the Jesus who died on the cross for our sins as our savior so there is no mistaking Him and what he did for another. You wouldn't to make a critical mistake like that when it involves your salvation and those of others, since the consequences would be DEADLY.
|
Posted On: October 29th, 2006 at 7:29pm by luvable lutheran |
I am saying that the music in the venue mentioned is inappropriate for worship. ... I am saying that you were improperly catechized if you approve of this music in your service.... Catechesis is a lifetime thing ...
I agree that having Bono perform in the church, especially blocking the altar of Christ is inappropriate for worship. However, I wouldn't say one is improperly catechized if they approve this type of music in worship. I would say that incompletely catechized might be a better descriptor in our synod today.
I went to an average LCMS congregation and their confirmation program. I also attended 2 congregations in college before receiving my first Luther's Catechism (gasp!). It's sad, but true. I am grateful for the bible studies and other catechetical opportunities at my church that has helped me review what I learned in confirmation, and taught me why we worship the way we do, what it means to be a Lutheran. Maybe it's the student in me, but I continually ask questions and desire to learn more about Scripture.
Getting back to the discussion point and asking a few questions. Is pop music really giving us the Gospel? Would you trust the "Gospel message" delivered by a pop star over that delivered by your pastor in His preaching and teaching? just curious.
|
Posted On: October 29th, 2006 at 8:07pm by Scott Strohkirch |
I am saying that the music in the venue mentioned is inappropriate for worship. ... I am saying that you were improperly catechized if you approve of this music in your service.... Catechesis is a lifetime thing ...
I agree that having Bono perform in the church, especially blocking the altar of Christ is inappropriate for worship. However, I wouldn't say one is improperly catechized if they approve this type of music in worship. I would say that incompletely catechized might be a better descriptor in our synod today.
I went to an average LCMS congregation and their confirmation program. I also attended 2 congregations in college before receiving my first Luther's Catechism (gasp!). It's sad, but true. I am grateful for the bible studies and other catechetical opportunities at my church that has helped me review what I learned in confirmation, and taught me why we worship the way we do, what it means to be a Lutheran. Maybe it's the student in me, but I continually ask questions and desire to learn more about Scripture.
Getting back to the discussion point and asking a few questions. Is pop music really giving us the Gospel? Would you trust the "Gospel message" delivered by a pop star over that delivered by your pastor in His preaching and teaching? just curious.
If the music has you thinking of a song on the radio it is a profane use of music in the church.
As for the so called "Praise and Worship" music that is being deployed in churches across the nation and yes even in LCMS churches I don't think that it is a very good source of music. Most of the "P and W" music today is very similar to Pop love tunes. If you could change the name Jesus to your significant other's name it would be a poor song for worship. The church in which I am a fieldworker in Indiana had a more contemporary service today (no communion). They sang "You are my All in All" here is a good example of a song that could be sung to my wife. The only song worth anything was "Thy Word" which was written by Amy Grant and Michael W. Smith back in the 80s. Even the verses are a bit iffy so the chorus is the only part of the song in which you relate to a Psalm.
We have a rich liturgy in the Divine Service with music that is contemporaneous with scripture. The Lutheran liturgy in any of the services in the new LSB is very timely and is by far more exceptional than anything you will ever find in a Praise and Worship service.
BTW... FOr those who like U2 I challenge you to find one song that states "Christ is Lord, King or God" within it's lyrics. You won't be able to do it and therefore it is a profane use of pop-culture in the church and the minister who did this will have to answer to God for allowing this travesty to occur.
|
Posted On: October 29th, 2006 at 8:54pm by luvable lutehran |
If you could change the name Jesus to your significant other's name it would be a poor song for worship.
This is exactly what Todd Wilken said on the October 15 on Issues etc.
|
Posted On: October 29th, 2006 at 9:04pm by Scott Strohkirch |
If you could change the name Jesus to your significant other's name it would be a poor song for worship.
This is exactly what Todd Wilken said on the October 15 on Issues etc.
I listened to that program. I am also attending Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, IN
|
Posted On: October 30th, 2006 at 8:27am by Anonymous |
Scott Strohkirch writes:
"So yes I am saying that you were improperly catechized if you approve of this music in your service. I will also say that I believe the Pastor who did catechize you has compromised his vocation in so doing."
Wow -- that's fascinating! I'll be sure to let him know of your disapproval next time I see him, Scott. So, what should be the next step insofar as my former pastor goes? Should we bring him up on charges? Should we report him to some LCMS body -- one of the seminaries, or maybe the Presidium? I'm pretty sure he's a graduate of the Fort Wayne Seminary -- maybe we could report him there.
Scott continues:
"God has given us through his word and through the ancient Liturgies how we are to worship in the Divine Service. Anything else outside of that is profane."
So what would your conclusion be for all of those Christian churches that don't use the Divine Service liturgy? And, between Divine Service I and Divine Service II -- is one better than the other? What about non-LCMS liturgies -- do those convey God's word as well as one of the Divine Service liturgies? What about non-Lutheran liturgies? Huh -- I wonder which liturgy Elisha used when calling down the fire of God onto his sacrifice way back when. My bible only says that Elisha prayed in worship, and that God heard his prayer. But, there *had* to have been some version of Divine Service for the Israelites, right?
My point in all this is that I don't believe God really cares so much what form of worship we use -- God will still recognize our celebration and petitions in prayer whether or not we use a Divine Service liturgy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember the bible verse stating "Where two or more of you are gathered in my name, using only Divine Service II as your liturgical practice, there I will be as well."
Your point is made, Scott -- you don't appreciate pop music being used in a worship setting. Luckily for all the other Christians out there who find this method of approaching God to be more useable and familiar than the Divine Service, your word is not final.
|
Posted On: October 30th, 2006 at 8:45am by Anonymous |
luvable lutheran wrote:
"You say that pop music is to help people better understand the gospel. Actually that vocation has been given by God to the Pastor in his His preaching and teaching of the God's Holy Word."
Point taken. But, then, what's the point of liturgy if not to prepare us for the Gospel message as presented by the pastor? And, is there a reason why you believe that the Holy Spirit cannot work through pop music in order to prepare the worshipper for the Gospel message?
luvable continues:
"Can you share examples of pop music that 'helps people better understand the gospel?' It might be helpful to understand what songs you are thinking about."
No songs in particular, but I don't think that the Holy Spirit has a preferred genre of music through which to work. I think it's totally possible for God to come to us and open our hearts to God's message through some popular music -- as much as it is possible for God to do that through traditional liturgies.
Luvable:
"Honestly, I can't really think of any that would be better than our Lutheran hymnody as many pop songs that I listen to in my car really describe God and christian aspects in a vague way."
I agree, which is why I said in my original posting that I much prefer the traditional Lutheran liturgies over any of these modern, newfangled worship practices. But, I also recognize that what works for me does not necessarily work for others, who find traditional liturgies to be stumbling blocks to the message.
As I said before, the package of the message does not in any way deter from the message itself.
luvable:
"You wouldn't to make a critical mistake like that when it involves your salvation and those of others, since the consequences would be DEADLY."
I guess I just never really felt the need to be scared into my faith by the threat of damnation. I'd rather let the Spirit reveal God's Gospel message to me without having to worry about my own salvation. I thought that that was the message of the Lutheran faith -- there's no need to worry about salvation because God has already secured it for us. So, why would I need to worry about making a mistake with "DEADLY" consequences? I am already a child of God, and nothing can take that away from me.
|
Posted On: October 30th, 2006 at 10:48am by luvable lutheran |
anonymous wrote: "what's the point of liturgy if not to prepare us for the Gospel message as presented by the pastor? And, is there a reason why you believe that the Holy Spirit cannot work through pop music in order to prepare the worshipper for the Gospel message?
.
You are correct in that the liturgy does prepare us and is focused around God's giving of gifts in the service, mainly the Word and the Sacraments. It also points us to where Christ is in the service.
To answer your second question, yes I believe that the Holy Spirit's (and God and Christ as part of the Holy Trinity) goal is not to use "pop music" as the primary means of directing people to the church and to where Christ is to receive forgiveness for their sins and catechesis to learn about God's great love for us.
1. Pop music is not designed to point to Christ or where He gives his salvific gifts in the service. It may perhaps as a secondary effect (as we don't know God's ways or Will) lead someone back to the church. One song that comes to mind is Mindy Smith's, "Come to Jesus." Hearing this beautiful song on the radio might get me to goto church, but it doesn't do much more than that as the liturgy does in pointing me to where Jesus is (in His Word and Sacrment.) This is different from where many religions point to Jesus- the one deep down in my heart, but that is another topic for another time. Please show us how this pop song prepares me for the Gospel, especially better than our liturgy?
2. The othe major reason that pop music fails at preparing us for the Gospel is that it is frequently unclear as to what God or Jesus the song is referrring to. In the lyrics above, it could be the god that the Mormons speak of, the god of Islam, the god of christianity. It is unclear and we just dont' know from what the song says. (Now dont' get me wrong, but I really love the music in the song and the fact that it does have christian themes, but it is a song that belongs in the Kingdom of the left as Luther calls it and not in the church or the Kingdom of the right.)
3. Our God (of the Holy Trinity as given to us in Word and Sacrament) is a god of order, not of disorder. He wants us to have certainty about our faith and not doubt about our salvation. There are many details in the Bible, whether in the historical accounts, descriptions of the miracles, commandments for our daily living or about our eternal salvation. God doesn't always give us all the details, such as the exact date as to when He will come again, but he does promise He will come again and gives us signs of that coming. He doesn't just say, I'll come again whenever I feel like it. He gives us governments and organization to keep order in our daily lives. He doesn't just say do whatever you wwant whenever you want. It would be a mad, mad world filled with chaos, but out of His great love for us he maintains a relatively peaceable world.
|
Posted On: October 30th, 2006 at 10:49am by luvable lutheran |
4. I agree that God does not specifiy a specific genre of music that has to be used in worship. However, there is some music that would be inappropriate at worship such as those (in the Halloween season) from the Addams Family or organ music from Horror flicks. Again there is much connotation associated with them and it is usual of death and not the life of Christ Jesus.
The much larger concern is that again most of the songs not foudn in our hymnals are not focused on Christ and what He does for us in worship, but focus on relationships. society and things of the world.
I guess the question is if you are developing a worship service that is Christ centered and also one that is catechetical, one that has teaching and preaching about Christ which is edifying for both the beleiver and unbeliever, why would you want to have pop songs in the service. Why include music that might be less edifying, less clear about which God the music is about, less clear about where God is, less clear about what gifts he gives us or how he gives us these gifts for the church attendee? Wouldn't you want to give the attendee, especially the nonchristian, clear direction and answers to who Christ is, where He is found, how He is essential for our salvation, especially if they are only visiting your church once? Maybe they are only there for a wedding or funeral and it's the only time they are likely to be in a church. I'd want to give them the best of God and what He gives us so they can also have Christ. I wouldn't want to hinder or limit them receiving God, but give them clear direction and answers, so that as the seed is planted, it is planted on good soil and not just any soil so the Holy Spirit can nurture and grow it in faith to eternal salvation.
5. Lastly, how do we know that pop music, especially that which is popular in society isn't a way for Satan to tempt us and draw us away form the church. Satan is at his best, when he uses deception to make things look christin when they are really not. For example, the Mormons believe in God and Jesus, but not the Holy Trinity. Using God's Word in the Bible to guide us to determine if what they tach is of God or of Satan or man, we find that indeed Mormonism is a cult since it denies the Holy Trinity and Jesus Christ as the Savior of the World.
Likewise, as I mentioned, some of the pop music could be speaking about the god of Mormonism and not the true God of the Holy Trinity. Many people think the Mornmons are another christian denomination when they are not.
I know that we agree in our preference for "traditional liturgies," but it is not just a preference. It contains God's Word necessary for daily living and catechesizes us on where forgivesness of sins is found and how we attain eternal life. One example is the hymn, Salvation Unto Us Has Come." If such hymnody is a stumbling block to the clear message that God gives us himself from Scripture, then perhaps it is the receiver that is rejecting God's Word.
Why would God give to you a different means than he gives to my neighbor? Again God is a God of order. He wants us to hear His Word and have faith grow in us. He doesn't hinder this, that is up to us and our sinful selves. I am not trying to scare anyone into faith, but one cannot ingnore the consequences of disbelief or rejection of the faith as outlined in Scripture. Many churches today dont' preach about sin or even mention it so as not to scare folks or tell them about the "bad" that can happen as written in Scripture, but is that really helping our neighbor or just ignoring the inevitable for some? Yes, many of the Mormons are nice people and you can see at their Slat Lake visitor's center all the charities they have for providing for their neighbor. However, by rejecting Christ as the Savior of the world, they are damned. If I said otherwise, I'd say Scripture was lying to us and we know God never lies, but is truthful.
You ask why we as bpatized christians have to worry about making Deadly mistakes. It is always possible that even as baptized Christians we can reject the faith and God's prmises of eternal life to us. Satan loves to tempt christians just as much as the nonchristian. You are correct in that Satan can;'t take away that you are a baptized child of God, but you can reject that new birth and God. Think about how many people you knew were raised in a particular church, but now don't profess that or any faith or dont' really care about church anymore. So many folks fall away from the church after they graduate from highschool and get busy with "life." This is why Lutheran campus ministry is so important to help peopel stay with the faith and nurture them in the faith so they can have eternal life and salvation. It is also a way for those wadnering without any faith to learn about the true faith in Christ Jesus that can bring them hope and salvation in the sinful world around us. As you can see campus ministry is an important mission field.
Sorry this is a bit long, but I'm detail oriented and sometime the details are important. Blessings on your week
|
Posted On: October 30th, 2006 at 12:38pm by Anonymous |
Hi luvable,
Thanks for the detailed and respectful response. This kind of posting seems to be quite rare on this blog and, since I try to respond to postings in kind, I will try to be as respectful to you as you are to me.
You wrote:
"Yes I believe that the Holy Spirit's (and God and Christ as part of the Holy Trinity) goal is not to use 'pop music' as the primary means of directing people to the church and to where Christ is to receive forgiveness for their sins and catechesis to learn about God's great love for us ... I guess the question is if you are developing a worship service that is Christ centered and also one that is catechetical, one that has teaching and preaching about Christ which is edifying for both the beleiver and unbeliever, why would you want to have pop songs in the service."
I agree that this is not the "goal" of the Spirit, but my point is that this kind of music *can be* (not *is*) the bridge to bringing people to the Gospel message in church. Music and liturgy are not goals of a worship service -- worship and experiencing and growing in God's word are the goals.
I know a number of acquaintances who will not step foot into a church because the traditional liturgy is so unfamiliar and foreign to them. They are lost easily in a traditional service, and that causes anxiety in them and they are then not open to the Spirit. They cannot be open to the Gospel message taught in that church precisely because the traditional liturgy is a stumbling block for them. They need something different -- an environment that overcomes this stumbling block, an environment through which the Spirit can reach them. Presenting them with an option that is built around something that appeals to them will help them to open themselves up to the Spirit and the message.
One goal of a local congregation should be to help remove such obstacles -- help to conquer the sinful nature that turns away from God's message. It seems that this is one way that a congregation could be doing this.
I don't think anyone is actually proposing that U2's music replace the liturgy in weekly worship services. The U2charist and services like it are exceptions to the norm -- they are something for a local congregation to do every once in a great while that will appeal to the non-traditional churchgoers in their community. This kind of music brings them into church; what message the pastor then gives will determine if the Gospel is preached or not. How the congregation follows up with these attendees also determines if they will continue to receive the Gospel message.
By saying that all worship practices must follow one specific set liturgy, a congregation is basically telling those to whom the liturgy is a stumbling block to worship that they are not welcome. What about the person abused as a child by a clergy member? Is that person going to find God in a liturgy that reminds him/her of that abuse? If we did not offer the Gospel message in a package that would allow him/her to bypass this memory, would we be basically telling that person that they are either going to need to conquer their fears caused by a history of abuse or they are not welcome to worship with us?
You also wrote:
"Our God (of the Holy Trinity as given to us in Word and Sacrament) is a god of order, not of disorder. He wants us to have certainty about our faith and not doubt about our salvation."
This is something with which I would respectfully disagree, since it is only through doubt and uncertainty that I believe we can truly grow in faith. Without doubt, there can be no faith. But, that is a topic for a different discussion... :)
Blessings to you as well.
|
Posted On: October 30th, 2006 at 5:42pm by Scott Strohkirch |
It is not a matter of bringing the Law down on your catechetical pastor. I happen to think he did you a dis-service in not teaching you to understand better what liturgy is about, but it is certainly not an offense that is unpardonable.
Scott Strohkirch writes:
"So yes I am saying that you were improperly catechized if you approve of this music in your service. I will also say that I believe the Pastor who did catechize you has compromised his vocation in so doing."
Wow -- that's fascinating! I'll be sure to let him know of your disapproval next time I see him, Scott. So, what should be the next step insofar as my former pastor goes? Should we bring him up on charges? Should we report him to some LCMS body -- one of the seminaries, or maybe the Presidium? I'm pretty sure he's a graduate of the Fort Wayne Seminary -- maybe we could report him there.
Scott continues:
"God has given us through his word and through the ancient Liturgies how we are to worship in the Divine Service. Anything else outside of that is profane."
So what would your conclusion be for all of those Christian churches that don't use the Divine Service liturgy? And, between Divine Service I and Divine Service II -- is one better than the other? What about non-LCMS liturgies -- do those convey God's word as well as one of the Divine Service liturgies? What about non-Lutheran liturgies? Huh -- I wonder which liturgy Elisha used when calling down the fire of God onto his sacrifice way back when. My bible only says that Elisha prayed in worship, and that God heard his prayer. But, there *had* to have been some version of Divine Service for the Israelites, right?
My point in all this is that I don't believe God really cares so much what form of worship we use -- God will still recognize our celebration and petitions in prayer whether or not we use a Divine Service liturgy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember the bible verse stating "Where two or more of you are gathered in my name, using only Divine Service II as your liturgical practice, there I will be as well."
Your point is made, Scott -- you don't appreciate pop music being used in a worship setting. Luckily for all the other Christians out there who find this method of approaching God to be more useable and familiar than the Divine Service, your word is not final.
But is is more usable? I would argue that they are not understanding what worship is. It is not about looking inward. Nothing of myself is capable of giving to God and for that matter do you think he needs us to worship him with vain praise? God is there to give us his gifts through his means of Grace. Most of the Pop Praise and Worship music written and produced is about an inward emotional experience. When I go to church on Sunday I don't want to be looking inward because I am ugly with sin on the inside.
This culture of modern Praise and Worship music is not meeting the criteria that the liturgy of the Divine Service in LW or LSB or TLH provide. It is shallow vain glory. Those churches that practice this are at best short-changing their parishioners by allowing this Baby-boomer worship music to be any part of the church service on Sunday. Leave that music for your home and car radio and leave the church music alone.
If you ask the Madre, I am sure that she will agree that this music is best left out of the church service.
Enough for now.
Scott
|
Posted On: October 30th, 2006 at 10:22pm by luvable lutheran |
You're welcome. Thanks for being equally patient and respectful. It's usually most beenficial in discussion to keep it civil, even if we disagree on certain points.
Anoymous wrote, "...this kind of music *can be* (not *is*) the bridge to bringing people to the Gospel message in church...worship and experiencing and growing in God's word are the goals....
1. I dont' understand exactly what you mean in the first part. If the music is a means to "get people" to church, then it sounds like you also need to incorporate that music into the service to get tehm to stay. Otherwise you are doing a "baint N switch" and that is not honest nor helpful for planting any seed or nurturing what little faith one may have.
2. what do you mean by "experiencing?"
I know a number of acquaintances who will not step foot into a church because the traditional liturgy is so unfamiliar and foreign to them. They are lost easily in a traditional service, and that causes anxiety in them and they are then not open to the Spirit.
1. Again I suggest it is not the "traditional liturgy" that is being ineffective, for if you are saying it is, you are saying that God's Word is also ineffective since the liturgy contains God's Word direct from Scripture. It is due to our sinful nature not wanting to be in the presence of God, nr receive hs gifts inlcuding hearing His Word, even if it means convisting us of our sins. Anxiety is a lack of trust or faith.
2. How does one become or be "open to the Spirit?" How does one "open themselves up to the Spirit and message."
3. LIturgy, hymns, Scripture, and all other parts of a 'worship service," are all foreign to children, internationals and probably the nonchristian who attends the first time. It is by repietition each week that one learns these within the worship service. Catechesis is how children learn about worship, even before they can read. Repetition also helps international students learn about worship. When you have a church service that changes every week, it can be very confusing, especially to your guests.
4. If you are attending a service where there is an "environment through which the Spirit can reach them," I assume that this would be a service with many unique charactersitics for each unique person that walks thorugh its doors since each will need a different environment for their own unique needs? This may include the needs of the elderly, children, men, women, people of different races, ethnicities, educational levels, etc. You are not going to please everyone or you are going to knock your socks off trying to do so.
Why does the church today need to change to fit the culture, when it has been aorund for 2000 years and worked fine for Jesus, the Apostles, Martin Luther and the other milliions of christians for the past 2000 years?
5. The question I have also is if you are changing the serive to accomodate the nonchristian or lapsed christian, to make it easier for them to assimilate in the worship or providing a worship style that is more conducive for bringing them into the church, then what happens to the needs of the folks already at church? Aren't you ignoring their needs to be nurtured by the service as well? Or is the primary focus on going out into the mission field and brining in the nonchristians and lapsed christians?
|
Posted On: October 30th, 2006 at 10:23pm by luvable lutheran |
Please reread again what you wrote about the goal of a congregation should be to remove obstacles such as the traditional liturgy to "help conuer the sinful nature that turns away from God's message."
1. If a congregation is removing teh traditional liturgy that contains God's Word and replaces it with music that is less lcear about sin, less clear about Gos' message to us in His Word, contains less of God's Word, isn't that turning away from God's message and His Word? It is actually a violation of the 3rd Commandment, "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it Holy."
The explanation in Luther's catechism states" What does this mean? We should fear and love God so that we do not dspise preaching and His Word, but hold it sacred and gladly hear and learn it." Furthermore "How is this done?" "We despise preachign and the Word of God" "B. when we do not use the Word of God and the Sacraments;" What God requires of us in this commandement is that we should, "gladly hear it, learn it and meditate on it." This includes the Word included in the liturgy as that is what the traditional liturgy has as its foundation.
actually, I beleive the article states that U2's music and slides are woven in between the "rituals of the service." I'm guessing the rituals are communion, prayer, the message and the like. So in essence the music and images on the slides have replaced the liturgy. From the pastor's quotes, it seems like having a "rock-charist" will be a common event at this church.
How the congregation follows up with these attendees also determines if they will continue to receive the Gospel message.
I'm not understanding what you are saying here. So are you saying that it is up to congregation follow-up that determines if we receive the Gosepl in the future? Are you saying that the congregation determines who received the Gospel in the future? Would they deny the Gospel to anyone? It sounds like you are saying it is man that determines if the Gospel is heard and not the Holy Spirit?
I am not saying that one needs to follow a specific litrugy. The new LSB contains several different liturgies which the LCMS utilizes. The congregation is not telling folks that they are not welcome. In fact congregations welcome non christians and christians alike to unify and nurture them in their faith. Perhaps the question might be how is the faith nurtured and edified?
Honestly in your example about an abusee in the church, if they are so traumatized not to be able to worhsip in a liturgical service, then any church at all would be traumatizing to them according to your line of thinking. Would you want to deny them the means of Word and Sacrament including the very Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which is a healing blam for us physically, emotionally and spiritually? Sometimes being in uncomfortable situations such as you describe is the Cross we need to bear, but Christ will never give us anythign we can't handle. He is a loving God and wants us to hear his Word and receive His sacrament for the forgiveness of sins. He is the peace that the world cannot give and one things that can bring peace to the abusee. I woudl encourage, rather than discourage their attendance in a church, especially one with the historic liturgy as it repeats and reaffirms God's love for them.
Where does the abusee "find God in a liturgy?" I'm not sur eif I undeerstand what you are saying here.
If we did not offer the Gospel message in a package that would allow him/her to bypass this memory, would we be basically telling that person that they are either going to need to conquer their fears caused by a history of abuse or they are not welcome to worship with us?
I'm not sure where you got these false notions. God didn't package the his Word differently when He gave it to us in Scriptures, so why would we want to do the same, especially when our sinful nature could screw it up and taint the message? Secondly, if a person is so traumatized by abuse that they cannot tolerate the liturgy, repackaging is not going to "bypass" this. They have some serious issues to deal with by a professional, preferably a lutheran psychologist to help them get through their traumatic experience.
luvable wrote:
"Our God (of the Holy Trinity as given to us in Word and Sacrament) is a god of order, not of disorder. He wants us to have certainty about our faith and not doubt about our salvation."
This is something with which I would respectfully disagree, since it is only through doubt and uncertainty that I believe we can truly grow in faith. Without doubt, there can be no faith. But, that is a topic for a different discussion... :)
We can take this discussion over to the Lutheran Student Union Forum at http://forum.higherthings.org/
I would like to hear you explain more about your view that you believe that doubt and uncertainty increases faith.
|
Posted On: October 31st, 2006 at 7:49am by Anonymous |
Scott Strohkirch wrote:
"I happen to think he did you a dis-service in not teaching you to understand better what liturgy is about..."
I think I understand completely what liturgy is about. It's a very elitist statement you are making, Scott. Sort of like telling me that, if only I had *your* knowledge, then I couldn't help but see things your way.
I see an ivory tower in your future sometime...
Scott continued:
"Those churches that practice this are at best short-changing their parishioners by allowing this Baby-boomer worship music to be any part of the church service on Sunday. Leave that music for your home and car radio and leave the church music alone."
Again, very elitist of you to think that others have to fit your conception of what "church" should be. "Church" is many things to many people - what is right for you (or me) is not necessarily what is best for others.
Scott:
"If you ask the Madre, I am sure that she will agree that this music is best left out of the church service."
Maybe or maybe not... and your point is what? Is her opinion more valuable than others? Is church a majority rule organization?
I ask again - if worshippers are being given the Gospel message when worshipping in this context, what difference does it make?
|
Posted On: October 31st, 2006 at 8:09am by Anonymous |
luvable,
Interesting discussion you are presenting, but you really need to cut down on the number of questions and comments you are making. Your last two postings are impossible to respond to because you make far too many points and questions, and I don't have time to dedicate to writing a two-hour essay to respond to your questions and comments.
Really quickly, a few thoughts:
luvable wrote:
"5. The question I have also is if you are changing the serive to accomodate the nonchristian or lapsed christian, to make it easier for them to assimilate in the worship or providing a worship style that is more conducive for bringing them into the church, then what happens to the needs of the folks already at church? Aren't you ignoring their needs to be nurtured by the service as well? Or is the primary focus on going out into the mission field and brining in the nonchristians and lapsed christians?"
I'm not saying that churches should get rid of traditional liturgy. I never have, and I never will, or else I would stop going to church. Like I have said a number of times before, I *don't like contemporary worship services!* I wouldn't go to a church that exclusively had them! Can I make this any more clear?
What a church can do is work to bring both types of worshippers into the sanctuary, to receive the Gospel message. Traditional worshippers are no more important than people for whom traditional liturgy is a stumbling block to worship. A congregation who is looking to bring into church the latter will need to look for ways to remove stumbling blocks. No one is talking about changing the message preached; no one is talking about presenting a non-Lutheran message. Both can be done using a contemporary format as well as a traditional format.
Two services, two formats. Simple as that.
What you and Scott both seem to be implying is that it is only through a traditional liturgy that God works. I and many, many other Christians disagree. Why not focus on the message being presented rather than focusing on the packaging in which the message is given? There are enough messages out there (works righteousness, triumphalism, etc.) that are contrary to the Gospel that we could be countering rather than bickering about liturgy.
luvable also wrote:
"I would like to hear you explain more about your view that you believe that doubt and uncertainty increases faith."
I'm sure that, someday, you'll understand what this means. This really isn't anything that can be explained so much as experienced. To the person who has never been through a doubtful moment in their faith life, this doesn't make sense. To others who have experienced doubt and have grown | |
