What do you do with a Certified Letter? Here is one idea...

Certified Letter to Faith Church

The following letter was sent, Certified Mail, in response to the receipt of a Certified Letter from a Lutheran Congregation. While such letters are an official way for a congregation to terminate relationships with individuals and families they are releasing from membership, and an entirely appropriate form of rebuke when an estranged member cuts himself off from the congregation and refuses to respond to their overtures of evangelical concern, they are nothing but a callous expedient for the congregation which makes no attempt whatsoever to reach out to its members (who up to that point were supposedly considered their brothers/sisters in Christ) or to otherwise contact the intended recipient ahead of time to determine with certainty what their situation is; thus, such Certified Letters belie the congregation’s evangelical confession. That is what happened to the family, below. So perturbed were they with this callous expedient, that they returned the Certified Letter, unopened, along with a personally handwritten letter of their own that extended nine full pages of legal-sized paper. They had much to say, which they found important enough to deliver to their former congregation via Certified Mail. It is worth reading. As many readers may find it difficult to read human handwriting, rather than posting images of the handwritten letter, it has been transcribed, below (edited, of course, for public consumption).

---

Lxxxxx
1234 Anystreet Road
Nowhere, WI 54000

Faith Church
5678 Anyotherstreet Road
Next to Nowhere, WI 54000

To Whom It May Concern:

We received a piece of certified mail from you, postmarked March 11, 2015. We are returning it to you, unopened. We have very little interest in hearing what you may have to say in such a letter, that you could not preface with a demonstration of evangelical concern, or even basic courtesy, by making a simple phone call or sending an email. But, to be honest, it would have been difficult for us to imagine that you would have done otherwise.

At one point in time we were considered by the members of Faith Church to be Christian brothers. At least, we are pretty sure that we were. Feeling welcomed when we first joined, we were immediately drawn by them into the ministry of the congregation and put to work, and labouring closely with them, had established what we had considered to be close and meaningful relationships. This all came to an end after nearly seven years, when, in mid-2007, without explanation, we were shunned by the congregation. It was difficult to discern precisely, at first, as Mr. Lxxxxx was heavily involved with Church leadership, and was in constant communication with many of those who are now counted as our former friends. But by the end of 2007, his final year in any leadership capacity at Faith Church, it had become clear that the only communication being initiated by those “friends” was strictly related to church business. Beginning in 2008, the reality was unmistakable. Not just a few people, but everyone, including the Pastor, remained mysteriously aloof. He waited week after week for his friends to initiate with him some form of personal conversation. Weeks turned into months. Months turned into years. Nothing. All the while, the women of the congregation pretended to carry on as normal with Mrs. Lxxxxx, but she saw very clearly what was going on, and refusing to be socially separated by them from her husband, remained by his side. She was quickly disfavored, as well. By the time Pastor Sxxxxxxxx passed away in 2009, those former friendships were regarded by us as completely severed. As the years continued to pass, however, we once again began to enjoy some social involvement in the congregation, as other marginalized members of Faith Church recognized our situation and reached out to us in various ways. We also enjoyed conversation with new members, who had not yet been fully received into the labours of the congregation.

Accordingly, Mr. Lxxxxx’s last face-to-face meeting with the Rev. Wxxxx was unfortunate, but predictable. Having had to travel for work, he was unable to attend the October 2013 Voters’ Meeting, but discovered some weeks afterward – quite by accident – that there was some concern regarding the issue of Bible translations, and that the Board of Elders had been asked by the congregation to look into it. There was no hint that this was intended as any kind of formal investigation. Nevertheless, having himself been rather notoriously engaged in research and writing on the topic, he forwarded to the Rev. Wxxxx a number of articles and resources for the Board to consider. When, at the following Voters’ Meeting in January 2014, Mr. Lxxxxx was surprised to see that the issue of Bible translations was on the agenda, he enquired of the Rev. Wxxxx regarding the nature of the Elders’ report – as he was again unable to to attend due to business travel. He was stunned to learn that the Elders would not only be reporting their findings, but would move to officially adopt the NIV 2011. “Did the Board study any of the documents I forwarded to you, for them to consider?” he asked the Reverend.

“What documents?” was the reply.

Mr. Lxxxxx, realizing that he had been marginalized yet again, then clarified, “The documents and links I sent to you in an email not long ago.”

“Oh,” then after a long pause, “No. We only considered the documentation provided by Synod.”

“But that documentation was biased in favor of a single conclusion!”

“Yes, I know it was biased. It was biased on its face. But I don’t know why it was biased...”

Now incredulous, Mr. Lxxxxx proceeded to make clear, in sharp and conclusive terms, that he would allow neither himself nor his family to knowingly sit under teaching that proceeded from a document descending directly from post-Modern philosophies known to be perverting human language, and, along with it, human thought patterns; a document which is nothing more than the translators’ paraphrasing of the original languages (paraphrasing which is further edited downstream in the publication process by “readability committees”); a document which deliberately twists thousands of words of Scripture in ways that purposely accommodates liberal theology (feminism, in particular); and a document which, rather than clarifying the Scriptures for English readers, ultimately obscures their meaning by intentionally gutting the Bible of significant vocabulary and grammatical forms found in the original languages – that do have English parallels, if translators care to take into consideration not just the limits of “conversational English,” but the full capacity of the English language to carry objective meaning – making it ever more difficult for the English reader to find and rely on “direct positive statements of Scripture,” and thus also statements that are, by definition, clear. Such translation ideologies gravely endanger the Perspicuity of Scripture in the name of making it accessible for the marginally literate English reader, they threaten to drive the laity of the Church ever deeper into a general illiteracy and intellectual incapacity such as was common in medieval times, and they certainly ought not be vaunted in Christ’s Church as the standard English form of Holy Writ in all teaching and publications.

Nevertheless, Faith Church proceeded to officially adopt the NIV 2011 as the congregation’s translation.

This was not the reason we left Faith Church and the WELS, however; it was merely the straw that broke the camels back.

A few months prior, we were warned by the Rev. Wxxxx to “prepare” our sixth grade boy, who had just entered Catechism, for a discussion of the Sixth Commandment. Finding it a bit ridiculous to rush him through “sex-ed” just to prepare him for Catechism class, we refused to go to such lengths, insisting that such matters need to be handled delicately with children his age, that discussion of sexual activity in any direct terms would be entirely out of bounds, and that there is very little basis for understanding the Sixth Commandment anyway, without a thorough positive grounding in biblical courtship and marriage – deviation from which would itself serve as a glaring example of something that is sinful.

Then we read the catechism that would be used by the Reverend to instruct our young boy, which was written by one Rev. David Kuske. In comparison with the catechism resources we afterward recommended he use instead for the Sixth Commandment lesson (Gausewitz or Koehler), Kuske goes into excessively lurid detail of sexual intercourse, including what kind of sex to have, when to have it, and how enjoyable it should be. The Rev. Wxxxx forcefully rejected use of the alternative resources we suggested (which were, in our opinion, better by orders of magnitude, without all of the direct sex-talk and associated imagery), and when we opted to keep our son home rather than attend his lesson, were indirectly criticized by him for our parenting decisions. In retrospect, given all of the sexual scandals in WELS that have been made public over the past year, and the many more that are roiling just under the surface, we wonder now whether Kuske’s catechism might have something to do with it – whether, in our over-sexed day and age, introducing direct sex-talk with sixth-grade boys and girls is a bit premature for these youngsters, and puts images in their minds that they might otherwise be inclined to struggle against, had their pastor not been the one who put them there using Synod materials that carry the approval of the Church. Given this, it is no wonder the current generation of WELS theologians prefers the NIV 2011’s use of the phrases “make love” (Ge. 4:1,17,25; 29:21,23,30; 38:2; Ru. 4:13; 1 Sa. 1:19; 2 Sa. 11:11; 12:24; 1 Ch. 2:21; 7:23; Is. 8:3; etc.) and “have sex” (Ge. 19:5; Jud. 19:22; 1 Co. 6:9) – phrases and imagery thought in previous generations to be far too indelicate to implant in the minds of pious Christians, who were probably also averse to using such terms for fear that they would indirectly reinforce immoral standards cherished by the world and ignite fleshly desires, against which Christians already struggle.

About a month after Mr. Lxxxxx’s final face-to-face conversation with the Rev. Wxxxx, he was called by the Reverend on the telephone. Mr. Lxxxxx made clear that he meant what he had said in January, and that we were looking for another congregation. He told him that we were, at that time, investigating other WELS congregations, along with LCMS congregations. The Reverend assured him that we remained members in good standing, that if we found a suitable WELS congregation he would be glad to transfer us, and if not, then we would be simply released from membership. We never heard from him again. In all of this time, we were contacted by no one from the congregation out of evangelical concern, or even curiosity, over our extended absence, save one person. We received from the congregation what we had come to expect since 2008: near deafening silence.

We quickly found that there were no suitable WELS congregations within reasonable traveling distance. In the end, we found that among those WELS congregations which seemed intent upon demonstrating their Confession through a wholesome liturgical practice, seemed uncorrupted by ambitions of glory, seemed unwilling to give place to worldly entertainment standards in their worship chambers, seemed confident in the Holy Spirit’s work through the Means of Grace to Call, Gather and Enlighten His Elect, and seemed content to allow Him to work in His way, through His Means, in His time, unaugmented by their own innovations, Faith Church was to be most commended in regard to its NIV 2011 deliberations: where Faith Church actually had the courage to at least publicly identify “Bible translation” as an issue, and to go through the motions of publicly addressing that issue (although, with a predetermined outcome, given that a single source of admittedly biased materials was all that they consulted), all of the other WELS congregations we visited simply started using the NIV 2011 without discussion, without the people even knowing it – when we asked, we learned that the new Bibles just showed up in the pews one Sunday, and no one knew the difference. We could not abide such cowardice.

Of all the other options in our area, there was one ELS congregation and two LCMS congregations that were in many ways very suitable. But we ultimately decided that we were unwilling to dance around the issue of Universal Justification, merely for the convenience of attending those congregations.

“Universal Justification” is the teaching espoused by name in the WELS, and with one name or another by ELS and LCMS, as the centerpiece of Christian teaching – the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls. It asserts that all mankind, including every individual, is righteous before God, and forgiven of his sins, whether he has faith or not. The natural, and fully accepted and confessed, consequence of this teaching is that those who die without faith, though they are righteous and forgiven by God, nevertheless spend an eternity barking in hell – not as punishment for their sins (since no one bears sin before God under the teaching of Universal Justification), but merely for their lack of faith. Thus they are willing to accept the teaching that righteous and forgiven saints spend an eternity in hell. The doctrine of Universal Justification, however, is nowhere named, described, or articulated in the Scriptures. It is a purely derived doctrine, without a single word of direct positive attestation in the entirety of Holy Writ.

In all, however, according to the Rev. Dr. Siegbert Becker in his essay Universal Justification, there are a total of three distinct doctrines of Justification taught by WELS. The first is Universal Justification. The second distinct doctrine of Justification, which is merely a corollary of Universal Justification, is “Objective Justification.” It teaches that God, and not man, is entirely responsible for man’s Justification. Such a teaching is not peculiar to WELS, or to Lutherans for that matter; for even the Calvinists do not deny that Justification is objective in this sense. However, WELS, ELS and LCMS seem to assert that Objective Justification also defines “faith” as “man’s work”, and therefore insist that claiming Justification comes by faith is thus to assert a doctrine of synergism. Normally, Universal and Objective Justification are conflated by them, and referred to as “Universal Objective Justification,” but, Becker makes clear, they are, in fact, distinct doctrines, with Objective Justification merely a happy consequence of Universal Justification.

The third distinct doctrine of Justification espoused by the old Synodical Conference Lutherans is so-called “Subjective Justification” – the only doctrine of Justification spoken of and articulated in the Scriptures, and the doctrine identified in the Lutheran Confessions as the main doctrine of Christianity. Except, the Scriptures don’t name it “Subjective Justification”; the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions refer to this doctrine interchangeably as “Justification” and “Justification by Faith Alone.” According to WELS, “Subjective Justification” is entirely superfluous. All of mankind is already righteous and forgiven before God (they say); Justification does NOT come though faith, since that is man’s work, and to suggest that faith is in any way the cause of Justification (even an “instrumental cause”, as it was defined by Leyser and Gerhard) only robs God of the glory He is due for the work He has already accomplished. Subjective Justification (they say), isn’t “Justification” at all, properly speaking – it’s merely “the reception of faith,” and with it merely “receiving the benefit” of the righteous and forgiven standing they, and all men, have had in the eyes of God since the time of Christ’s death and resurrection. Prior to faith (they say), all of mankind is already Justified – fully righteous and forgiven before God – but individuals are denied “enjoyment” of this Justification until God gives them faith.

According to the Bible and the Confessions, however, “Justification by Faith Alone” is the only doctrine of Justification that is taught; mankind (including every individual) is NOT already Justified before God, he is already Condemned; the unbeliever is NOT already righteous and forgiven before God, but stands before God in the filth of his own sin, in need of righteousness and forgiveness; this Justification was earned by Christ in His Passion, and is now offered to mankind in the Message of the Gospel, via which the Holy Spirit works to produce faith; and a person is said to be Justified when the promise of Salvation has been appropriated to himself through the faith God gives him, and not before.

Frankly, it was a shock to us to learn that WELS, ELS and (it seems) LCMS all believe, teach and confess a doctrine of Universal Justification. This fact was withheld from us during Bible Information Class (adult catechism). The fact is:

• We reject the doctrine of Universal Justification as without a scintilla of Scriptural or Confessional support;
• We reject as Scripturally unfounded and as entirely fallacious reasoning the assertion that Justification must be Universal in order for it to be objective, or to be accomplished entirely outside of man;
• We, rather, fully embrace and confess the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone;
• We, further, confess and insist that the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone is the only doctrine of Justification taught by the Scriptures in direct positive terms, and that it is therefore the only Scripturally defensible doctrine of Justification that Christians may confess;
• We fully reject the assertion that faith is in any way man’s work (the Scriptures directly forbid this notion), and we therefore reject the assertion that Justification by Faith Alone is a doctrine of synergism;
• We reject the assertion that “Objective Justification” is a doctrine of Scripture which is taught in distinction from Justification by Faith Alone, and find it impermissible to define “Objective Justification” as any kind of justification at all;
• We, rather, confess that the objectivity of Justification is a defining attribute of the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, and insist that Justification by Faith Alone does, indeed, constitute a fully objective Justification – that is, our Justification is accomplished fully outside of us, without any merit or participation of our own in any sense;
• We confess with confidence and rejoicing that faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit;
• We reject as flippant hyperbole the assertion that saving faith, under the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, is reduced to merely “a profound hope that man conjures within himself”;
• We further confess in this regard, that it is fully biblical to speak of faith being active (i.e., receiving, appropriating, trusting, etc.), without it also being considered volitional and thus synergistic;
• We recognize that the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone is the only doctrine of Justification confessed in the Lutheran Confessions, and was the only doctrine of Justification directly named and taught by the orthodox Confessors and Concordists;
• We further recognize that a form of Universal Justification was asserted by a heterodox member of the Wittenberg Faculty, a teacher whose doctrine was roundly condemned by his orthodox peers, and who was dismissed in 1595 for clinging to his false doctrine – for denying that Justification is restricted to believers;
• We therefore reject as unfounded fiction and utterly preposterous all claims that Universal Justification is “implicitly taught in the Lutheran Confessions,” that it was understood, embraced and taught by the Confessors and Concordists without ever being named or articulated by them, and that it must therefore bind the consciences of any Christian today who would lay claim to an orthodox confession;
• We recognize the introduction of Universal Justification and its corollary teachings in American Lutheranism, as a biblically indefensible innovation of the old Synodical Conference.

Putting the best construction on our experiences, and despite any appearances that might cause some to conclude otherwise, we assume, Faith Church, that you are, in fact, possessed of great evangelical concern over our plight, and though, over the course of a full year, you exerted no effort to find out from us directly, we also assume that you are nevertheless deeply interested to know how we fare today.

We have found a Lutheran congregation. It is a congregation affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA). Of this congregation, we are happy to say:

• They are confessional – that is, they understand the dire need for a clear Christian confession in a sinful world where otherwise well-meaning believers, as victims of sin’s corruption, everywhere misunderstand and pervert the Scripture’s teaching;
• They fully subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions, as articulated in the Christian Book of Concord, not insofar as they are a correct presentation and exposition of the pure doctrine of the Word of God, but boldly confessing before the world and other Christians, that they are so;
  
  in particular:
  
  
  • They positively reject the doctrine of Universal Justification, and instead, believe, teach and confess the single Scriptural and Confessional doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone – the very doctrine for which Luther and his fellow confessors struggled so mightily, risking their lives that it would be preserved to the Church for the eternal benefit of mankind;
  • They do not confuse laity with clergy – that is, laymen are NOT considered Ministers of the Word, and are NOT tasked with carrying out the functions of the pastoral Office;
  • They fully trust the Holy Spirit to work through His appointed Means, and being confident in the efficacy of those Means and content with His timing, do not feel compelled to augment His work with their own innovations;
  • Not merely mouthing the words of their confession, they endeavor to make manifest this confession, maintaining in the Divine Service a wholesome liturgical practice that unmistakably demonstrates Lutheran catholicity, rather than supplanting it with the obnoxious sectarian practices of pop-church evangelicalism.
  
  
• They are conservative – that is, rather than dispose of their Lutheran birthright (which, in order to keep it, requires much honour, trust, patience and a keen awareness of the past) for an immediately satisfying bowl of sectarian and worldly porridge (which, if it satisfies at all, does so merely for the moment, soon afterward requiring the satiation of new and different cravings), they endeavor to carry into the future that great deposit of wisdom wrought of Christian experience over the millenia. Thus they endeavor to conserve the past, rather than discard it as quaint, passé and irrelevant in favor of the wisdom of the day;
  
  in particular:
  
  
  • They reject (as far as we can tell) the post-Modern philosophies of contemporary times, which represent a full frontal attack on the very morality of language itself, mightily threatening the Church, not by changing the words She confesses before the world, but by dramatically altering that Confession in place – altering the meaning of Her Confession by altering the structures of language employed to express it;
  • They have chosen to use and promote a wholesome translation of the Scriptures which not just theoretically, but manifestly honours the doctrine of inspiration, retaining in English as much as practicable, both the grammatical forms and the vocabulary found in the Greek and Hebrew originals, and which honours the tradition of English ecclesiastical thought and expression by maintaining continuity with the English translation Received by English speaking peoples over 400 years ago as the Bible in English, and that continues to this day as a dominant Bible translation preferred by English speakers;
  • They hold that it is wise practice for the Church to maintain a sharp distinction from the world in Her practice, including the use of terminology in their catechesis and during the Divine Service, which maintains a continuity with the past and which reinforces the “other worldly” reality of the believer’s citizenship in the Kingdom of Grace.

And to top it all off:

• They – like Lutherans across the globe (in our experience) – are just plain nice folks.

Unfortunately, this congregation, being a two-hour drive for us, is not very conveniently located. We are not able to attend weekly, as we would like, but endeavor to attend at least twice monthly. When we are unable to attend, however, we do take time to worship as a family in our home, following a modified form of “The Order of Morning Service” from The Lutheran Hymnal (pg. 5), and reading from Luther’s Postils for the Sermon. This works very nicely.

If the truth be told, however, we started this practice of home worship years before finally leaving the WELS. We began to notice that there was a consistent dearth of Law in the preaching and teaching, not only of Faith Church, but in every WELS church we visited. The emphasis on the Gospel was so smothering that the Law, if present at all, was virtually indiscernible. While both of us had grown up within pop-church Evanglicalism and among confessing Pietists, were fully acquainted with the Law, and personally found Law-less Gospel preaching a sufficient (and welcome) balance to the smotheringly Gospel-less Law preaching we had been reared with, the impact on our children, who, over a decade had only become familiar with the Gospel, was unmistakably negative. Having literally no acquaintance with the Law, they failed to place any real significance on the Gospel, taking for granted that they were already forgiven and righteous regardless of what they do, as if they were entitled to it. The result was behaviour issues of various kinds, a general disregard for God’s Word, and a failure to respond to correction which was drawn from it. We appealed at various times to our WELS pastors for more Law in their preaching, so that there would be a more discernible balance between Law and Gospel, but when our requests were dismissed – sometimes with ridicule for being “lovers of the Law” – we realized that there would be no changing their nearly Law-less Gospel preaching. Mrs. Lxxxxx had finally grown so fed up with the fact that our children had not imbibed the Law in any significant way from our association with WELS, that she began taking them through the Book of Proverbs every month, and visiting with them other sections of the Bible that emphasize Law – like the Book of James. This had quite an impact. As the the older children would read the Proverbs, they would stop, read it again, gulp, and say things like, “Oh, boy...” They had no idea. At one point, Mrs. Lxxxxx even suggested, somewhat facetiously, that we leave Lutheranism entirely, and go back to Pietism, just so that our children could be acquainted with the Law through the teaching of the Church, and finally come to appreciate the Gospel. Needless to say, that is not what we did. Instead, we started reading Luther’s sermons for semi-regular family worship, in place of attending Faith Church every Sunday. Luther is very direct in his preaching of the Law, and equally so in his preaching of the Gospel, nearly every sermon being very well balanced between the two. It is unlike any preaching we had heard over the past four decades, including the last fifteen years of association with WELS. Acquaintance with the Law has helped with discipline in the home, too, and improved our family’s appreciation for the Gospel.

Finally – you may be interested to know – there is informal, though very serious, discussion of opening a Lutheran mission congregation in our area (River Falls, Hudson, New Richmond, Baldwin, etc.), of confessional and conservative character similar to the congregation in which we currently enjoy membership. The intent would be to use our family, and perhaps other interested individuals, to seed this mission. Efforts are underway, now, to investigate possible meeting places.

Ta Ta for Now,

Lxxxxx

DEEDS or CREEDS?

DEEDS or CREEDS?
by Mr. Vernon Kneprath

‘Deeds or Creeds’ is the title of one application for the Sunday School lesson about Rahab in material published by the WELS publisher, Northwestern Publishing House.¹ The application is a lesson in itself; one that is applicable to all who are confronted with the question regarding what should or must be included in worship services.

A question is posed in the lesson…

“Which do you think is more important, deeds or creeds?” Or, in other words, what is more important? Is it the things you say you believe, with words, or is it the things you do, based on your beliefs?

The lesson goes on to teach (paraphrased)…

We may think that deeds are more important because they show what we believe. But our deeds cannot bring anyone to faith.  Only the Gospel can. That’s why our creed – a confession of what we believe – is important to share with others.  We confess our faith in church as we say the Apostles’ or Nicene Creed and when we sing the liturgy and hymns. We confess our faith at home, work, and school when we talk about God and what he has done for us.

Our deeds (good works) do not help to save in any way. They are simply our thankful response to what God has done for us through His Son, Jesus. The Holy Spirit uses our creed (confessions of faith in God’s Word) to lead unbelievers to faith and to strengthen and encourage fellow believers.

This Biblical teaching is from WELS material published 15 years ago. Some might argue it is outdated. Some might argue that the culture has changed so much that the lesson should be changed to reflect something more real, more relevant. As some WELS congregations turn toward contemporary worship services they are commonly changing or even removing the Creeds from worship in an effort to become more “user-friendly.”

When teachers who teach this lesson (and students who learn it) notice that the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds are omitted from worship, they are confronted with the inconsistency of teaching and practice. A church which fails to practice what is taught to the youth soon loses all credibility. The likely conclusion is that neither the words (creeds) nor the practices (deeds) matter.

The Gospel message in the Creeds is the means by which God creates and strengthens faith. That message is timeless and indifferent to culture. That’s why the Creeds have been a part of our worship service for centuries. Remove the Creeds from worship service? Outdated? Irrelevant? The Gospel of the Creeds is what all people need to hear.

------------
Endnotes:

1. Week 8, Lesson B, Page 114. Grades 5-6 Old Testament, Christlight. Northwestern Publishing House. 1999

Treating the Symptom

Thoughts from Thunder Mountain

["Huachuca" - A Chiricahua Apache word meaning "thunder."]

 

Treating the Symptom

 

BJ: "You treated a symptom. The disease goes merrily on." (M*A*S*H, season seven, episode 22, "Preventive medicine")

Of course, in a very real sense, this is the way of the Gospel ministry. Pastors, Elders, Deacons, and Christians in general deal with the symptoms of sin every day; some at times much worse than others. But, try as we might, with ourselves or others, we can't get rid of the disease - sin itself. That won't happen until we die or Jesus returns, whichever comes first.

But this is not just true of the conflict between the New Man, created through faith in Jesus Christ, given by the Means of Grace, and the Old Adam, created at our conception. This is also true of many problems in this all too human institution called the visible church. Look at the issues that IL has been raising the past few years: the spread of contemporary worship, use of Reformed and/or Arminian songs and sermons, denigration of the visible Sacraments, felt-needs approach to outreach, giving in to feminist tendencies in Bible translations so as not to offend certain segments of the population, and so forth. How would we sum up all these items and others like them? What's the common denominator?

In this reporter's opinion, it is - once again - a kind of fear. This time it is fear of growing smaller and smaller; of getting so small as to pass into insignificance; fear of becoming a mere footnote in the history of Lutheranism in America; fear of getting so small that full-time positions in the church body can no longer be funded; fear that schools can't remain open, or even fear that churches will grow so small that many Pastors will end up selling shoes in a department store or driving an ice crème truck in order to put food on their tables. But isn't this shrinkage exactly what Jesus Himself predicted of the Last Times? Did He not wonder out loud that if the Last Day was put off beyond the time set by His Father, would there be any believers left on earth at all? See Luke 18.

So what happens? All too often it seems - and maybe it's only an impression I have - but it seems that Pastors and leaders will grasp at anything to fill the chairs, and worry about whether what they grasp is true orthodox, Biblical, confessional Lutheranism later. Thus, we get five-man-electrical-bands cluttering up the Chancel, churches with no public celebration of the Lord's Supper, "relaxed" worship with very little awe and reverence for a transcendent God. In short, congregations following the latest fad in church work. Very often these tricks pull in lots of people, that's true. But there used to be an old adage my seminary professors taught me, "If you get people for sociological reasons, you will also lose them for sociological reasons!" And so we often see these same "successful" churches with a kind of revolving door, as people come to be entertained for a year or two, if that, then leave out the back door once they've become bored with the "show," and go looking for something more fun and exciting.

Therefore, what is happening is that we end up treating the symptom - trying to make the Gospel "real, relevant, and relational," while the disease; rejection of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Him crucified, goes merrily on. And all the time, God has given us the antidote to this disease; preaching the Law to show people their sin, and preaching the Gospel to show them their Savior; calling people to repentance and faith in God's Son for the forgiveness of their sins and the salvation of the souls; and bolstering this preaching with the tools God has also given, Holy Baptism, Holy Absolution, and Holy Communion. True, even this will not stop sin from occurring again and again, but it can and it will keep the disease in check and bring comfort and peace to hurting souls. That is the kind of "operation" that God has given us to do.

As a classmate back in seminary used to say when studying the latest Church Growth gimmicks, "Tricks are for kids!" Let's all get back to the serious business of battling Satan and the disease he brings, using only the best medicine of all, the Word and Sacraments!

Deo Vindice!

A Brief Explanation of Lutheran Hymnody: For the Lutheran who asks regarding the Beautiful Hymns of His church

Three weeks ago, we published a lengthy post entitled, An Explanation of Lutheran Worship: For the Lutheran who asks the Meaning of the Beautiful Liturgy of His church. The body of that post contained a full Explanation of the Common Service — the order of Divine Service beginning on “page 15” of The Lutheran Hymnal which was published by the Synodical Conference in 1941. An English-language harmony of sixteenth century Lutheran liturgies published in 1888 by the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, it still serves as a benchmark of liturgical excellence. Indeed, in our recent post, Lutheranism and the Fine Arts: Dr. P.E. Kretzmann and the Necessity of Continuing Catechesis, we quote Dr. Kretzmann referring to the Common Service as “unsurpassed in the entire history of the Christian Church.”

The Explanation we published two weeks ago was taken directly from catechetical materials developed by the General Council for the distinct purpose of educating Lutherans regarding the doctrinal integrity and catholicity of genuine Lutheran worship. Indeed, this Explanation of the Common Service, published in 1908, was dedicated to the “Young Lutheran who asks the meaning of the beautiful liturgy of the Lutheran Church.” In our introductory remarks preceding the explanation, we marveled at this. Lutherans these days don't educate their youth about Lutheran worship, and if they do, they don't do so in a way that extolls it's beauty as a work of Fine Art, nor do they do so in a way that reinforces its doctrinal integrity, nor do they do so in a way that embraces its catholicity. One of the bright shining exceptions to the lamentable reality that contemporary Lutherans no longer value their heritage of worship enough to bother passing it down to their youth, is the LCMS-affiliated organization, Higher Things. Outside of this organization, the best one can hope for is a one- or two-lesson explanation of Lutheran worship which neither extolls its beauty nor places value on its doctrinal integrity and catholicity, but uses the opportunity to deride our heritage by vaunting its status as “an adiophoron” and setting it on equal footing with just about any form of Sectarian Worship imaginable – as long as one wears the appropriate set of blinders as he goes about imagining. Yeah, sure, you can do it, but why would you want to? In answer to this one needs but a “reason,” and in the world of adiaphora that merely means “opinion.” Thus one “reason” is as good as another, and anything one can “justify” has open license attending it.

But we further asked the reader to notice the use of language this Explanation employed. It was not written for functionally illiterate Lutherans who find reading and understanding anything written above the sixth-grade reading level to be a hopeless struggle. On the contrary, being dedicated to the “Young Lutherans,” it was written to Lutheran Youth, and plainly assumed that they had command of their own language. If it was written above their level, then it served the noble purpose of lifting them out of their immature literacy and colorless task-oriented-use of language, through the rich vocabulary and precise grammar employed in the distinctive and enculturating language of the Church. Contemporary Lutherans, it seems, no longer value the uplifting qualities of higher literacy, either.

Regardless of what the so-called wise-men of contemporary times insist upon, I am not ready to succumb to such disrespect for others that my operative assumption is that they are all functionally illiterate. I don't think all, or most, or even a significant minority of educated Lutherans are just a bunch of dumb-dumbs who can't read. Some very-well may refuse to read anything more complex than a comic book, but that is a separate matter – a matter of sinful obstinacy, and perhaps even rebellion. It is not a matter of literacy. So today, we are going to continue our use of materials having high-literary quality to provide a brief explanation of Lutheran hymnody.

What is a Hymn? A Canticle? A Carol? An Anthem?
We begin with the source pictured at the top left: The Handbook to the Lutheran Hymnal, by W. G. Polack – who was the chairman of The Lutheran Hymnal committee. This work first appeared in 1942, essentially accompanying the publication of The Lutheran Hymnal, and went through several revisions thereafter. It is a book which catalogs all of the hymns used in The Lutheran Hymnal, identifying their authors and sources, providing a history of the circumstances under which the hymn was written (if notable), reproducing the hymn in its original language alongside the English version which appeared in the hymnal and identifying (sometimes justifying) alternate readings from the original composition. It is considered a classic in the field of hymnology.

'Crucible Moments' and 'Becoming Lutheran'

Becoming Lutheran
It is very likely that most readers of Intrepid Lutherans have not been following this research, if they even knew about it, but Rev. Matthew Richard (CLBA), who is working on a doctoral degree from Concordia Seminary - St. Louis, has finished the research stage of his dissertation. The title of his dissertation is Becoming Lutheran: Exploring the Journey of American Evangelicals Into Confessional Lutheran Thought, and the research consisted of three surveys whose participants were once active Evangelicals that have made the transition to confessional Lutheranism, or those who are in the process of making that transition. I was one of the survey participants (along with hundreds of others).

The first two surveys (quantitative and qualitative surveys, respectively) have been published:

Results of Survey #1 (quantitative)
Results of Survey #2 (qualitative)

It is unknown to me if he will be publishing the results of the third survey, which concerned advice for Lutheran pastors with respect to prospects or parishioners who are going through the transition.

Rev. Richard has been compiling the results of his research on his Research Journal blog. In addition, he was the subject of a very interesting interview on Worldview Everlasting TV after the results of the first survey were released last February.


Having personally been through the lengthy transition from “Evangelical” to “confessional Lutheran,” and having done so reflectively (that is, I wasn't just jumping from one Evangelical church to another, like so many Evangelicals tend to uncritically do), I find that his results describe very well the process that we endure, and that they also help explain why many of us who've made the transition as adults (again, reflectively and deliberately) cling so tenaciously to sound and genuine Lutheranism and warn so vigorously against anything that smacks of contemporary Evangelicalism. Indeed, both Rev. Richard and Rev. Fisk discuss this very thing in the interview, above. Unlike those Lutherans who have become enamoured with sectarianism and adjure their brothers to “just give it a chance,” we've already “given it a chance,” already know very well the ruin to which it leads, and, rejecting it, urge others not to even dabble in it. Just as there are no non-smokers like former smokers, there are no non-Evangelicals like former Evangelicals. I'm one of them. I highly recommend looking at his research.

Crucible Moments
In the first survey issued by Rev. Richard, “Fear” and “Anger” emerged as two themes repeatedly observed. These two emotions were explored in the second survey – certainly for the sake of gaining a deeper and more objective understanding of these two factors, but, it seems reasonable to think, perhaps also seeking a way of “easing the process.” With the results of the second survey now published, however, I think it is pretty clear that these “emotions” are necessary aspects of the process, and that if a person does not endure them then it seems difficult to say whether a genuine transition to confessional Lutheranism has been made (assuming they actually believed the Evangelical teaching they had previously imbibed over the years).

Worldview Change is Repentance from Falsehood

This result (which may be surprising to some) reminds me of a statistic reported by Josh McDowell in his book, Right from Wrong: 90% of one's values are developed by age 13, while the rest develop mostly between the ages of 13 and 18, and remain essentially fixed through the rest of his life – barring what McDowell called “crucible moments” during adulthood, or moments of ideological or worldview crisis. These “crucible moments” force a person into deep reflection, like no other kind of life experience can, and often result in either a change to, or a significant reinforcement of one's worldview. For any such change to occur in adults, whose values are essentially fixed, worldview crisis is necessary for the change to occur.

As the rest of Rev. Richard's research seems to show, the journey from contemporary pop-church Evangelicalism to genuine confessional Lutheranism is a very definite worldview change. I can personally attest to this fact. If “alleviating” or “easing the process” means hiding distinctive Lutheran teaching and practice in order to avoid “offending” prospects, or to soft-pedal the Second use of the Law in order to avoid “offending” the unregenerate, or to hide the Sacrament for fear of “offending” visitors, then the only effect “easing the process” might have is to attenuate the genuine change itself. That would be unfortunate. Perhaps it is best to simply be aware that individuals making a journey from “Evangelicalism” to “confessional Lutheranism” are struggling through internal conflict, and merely receive it as an explanation for what a given pastor observes as he brings disaffected Evangelicals through adult catechism? Perhaps it is best for a pastor to simply offer direct Scriptural support for every doctrinal claim he makes during the process, instead of trying to practice some form of “armchair psychology,” and leave the prospects to wrestle with the clear statements of Scripture on their own and arrive at their convictions through the Holy Spirit's working? I ask these questions rhetorically, of course, while agreeing with Rev. Richard in the interview, above, that, at the very least, confessional Lutheran pastors ought to patiently stick with disaffected Evangelicals who are in the midst of a worldview crisis.

Anyway, I think that the final product of Rev. Richard's research (which won't be published for several months it appears) will make for interesting reading – as will the many journal articles it will no-doubt produce. For now, I hope our readers will use the links above to give his raw research a look, and I hope that they find something interesting or beneficial in it.

 

An Explanation of Lutheran Worship: For the Lutheran who asks the Meaning of the Beautiful Liturgy of His church

Last week, we published an article entitled, Lutheranism and the Fine Arts: Dr. P.E. Kretzmann and the Necessity of Continuing Catechesis. It stood in stark contrast against the depraved junk being pushed by the Church Growth Movement (CGM), which, though vaulting the latest in “scientific methodology”, nurtures anti-intellectualism as much as it promotes mediocrity, turning its back on the preaching and teaching of sound doctrine and repudiating the hard work of rigorous catechesis in order to make Christianity more outwardly attractive to the unregenerate who despise Christ and the teaching of His Word. Another term for this among CGM advocates is, “Evangelism.”

But most importantly, that post emphasized the need not only for rigorous catechesis, but of a broad catechesis that includes more than just Bible study. In that post, Dr. Kretzmann and the Walther League strongly encouraged complementary catechesis in areas of Church History, of Christian Missions, of Distinctive Lutheran Doctrines, Customs and Usages of the Lutheran Church, of Church Art, of Science, and of Literature. And within the category of Church Art was included the very important topic of Liturgics.

In fact, the catechesis of the Lutheran Worshiper was the topic of another recent post on Intrepid Lutherans, The Catechesis of the Lutheran Worshiper: An antidote to the “itching ears” and “happy feat” of CGM enthusiasts?. In that post we drew the distinction between those who favor so-called “contemporary worship,” as those who Congregate before Entertainers, with those who retain a wholesome catholicty and still embrace the distinctive practices of historic Lutheran liturgy, as those who Congregate before the Means of Grace.

But what is such “wholesome catholicty”? What is the “distinctive practice of historic Lutheran liturgy”? Do American Lutherans of the 21^st Century even have such a thing? If so, is it at all in general use? Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but one thing is for sure: they certainly had such in the 19^th and 20^th Centuries, AND they had catechetical materials to go along with it for the purpose of teaching successive generations about Lutheran worship.

Lutherans of these bygone times highly valued the wholesome catholicty of their historic Lutheran worship practices, that served to starkly contrast them with the American sects which surrounded them — which had in many cases been given over to the evangelical revivalism of Charles Finney, and to practices emanating from the Holiness movements within American Methodism (as discussed in our recent post, The Church Growth Movement: A brief synopsis of its history and influences in American Christianity). Even in confessional Lutheran churches in America, the allure of the Anxious Bench became increasingly difficult to resist, and Methodist hymnals were, distressingly, in growing demand (as Dr. C.F.W. Walther laments, in our post, C.F.W. Walther: Filching from sectarian worship resources equals “soul murder”). It was within this environment that the confessional and liturgical movements of the 19^th Century grew, and worked toward the establishment of confessional unity among Lutherans in America, and to distinguish and insulate American Lutheranism from the poison of sectarian influences.

In 1908, the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America published an Explanation of the Common Service – a harmony of sixteenth century Lutheran liturgies published in 1888, in the English language. This is the same Common Service found in The Lutheran Hymnal, which was published by the Synodical Conference in 1941, and which is still used in many Lutheran congregations even today. It is my understanding that, in many circles, this liturgy of the Divine Service is still referred to as a benchmark of liturgical excellence. Indeed, in our recent post, Lutheranism and the Fine Arts..., Dr. Kretzmann refers to the Common Service as “unsurpassed in the entire history of the Christian Church.” Sadly, however, though many Lutherans still use it, most Lutherans, and nearly all young Lutherans, are completely ignorant of this fine and beautiful liturgy, having never had the privilege of being consistently guided through worship under the rubrics of this Common Service.

Interestingly, the Explanation published in 1908 by the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, was dedicated to this very group of people, to the “Young Lutherans who ask the meaning of the beautiful liturgy of the Lutheran Church.” As you read this Explanation, notice its use of language. Consider the fine education and catechesis “Young Lutherans” must have enjoyed a century ago, which was deliberately reinforced by the church in books such as this. Do Lutheran publishing houses have such respect and concern for the youth of today? Certainly, they target young people with a great deal of material, so concern unquestionably exists — but does the quality of these materials generally rise to this level? Does it specifically advocate and reinforce Confessional practice? Does it refer to the liturgy as something “beautiful” and as something to be valued? I don't believe I've seen this sort of thing coming from the main Lutheran publishers.

Therefore, in the interest of those who would otherwise never have the opportunity to know, the following Explanation of the Common Service is offered. It explains Lutheran worship according to what has been considered the definitive Lutheran liturgy yet produced – a liturgy which is nevertheless disappearing under the short-sighted tyranny of “contemporary relevance,” and an explanation whose need has long been disregarded as counterproductive to progress and to the future of Evangelical church practice.

Note: the reader may recognize this Explanation as having appeared on Intrepid Lutherans in the past. In fact, it was published as a series in the Summer of 2010, as follows: Intrepid Lutherans: Explanation of the Common Service — Part 1 Intrepid Lutherans: Explanation of the Common Service — Part 2 Intrepid Lutherans: Explanation of the Common Service — Part 3 Intrepid Lutherans: Explanation of the Common Service — Part 4 It is offered, below, in a single unbroken post. Note also that this explanation, though long out of print, is now available in book form from Emmanuel Press, one of the fine confessional Lutheran publishers listed in the right-hand column of this blog.

---

Lutheranism and the Fine Arts: Dr. P.E. Kretzmann and the Necessity of Continuing Catechesis

“Competent art is hard to come by these days. True, there are many who have been trained in the techniques of their particular art form, or who have practiced on their own, and have developed an impressive skill. But the execution of technical skill alone is not art. The most that such accomplishes is to showcase the skill of a work's creator, while reducing the measure of art’s usefulness to the act of gratifying consumers. True art has little to do with either the artist or his immediate consumers, but centers on a subject which is external to both. More than just centering on a subject matter, compelling art succeeds at drawing the viewer, reader or hearer of it into a conversation regarding the subject. And this is no small task for the artist! In a single work, he must initiate a conversation and say everything he intends in a way that holds his end of the conversation throughout the inquiries and developing thoughts of those who may engage in it. If the artist is to avoid babbling, this requires that he have such a thorough familiarity with his subject that he can anticipate questions or objections associated with his expression of it, and respond to them while also reinforcing areas of agreement. Sometimes, the subject is simple and the conversation is short. Other times the conversation is longer. Sometimes, the artist points toward or draws conclusions. Other times, he only questions. Sometimes he is speaking for himself. Other times, he represents the voice of others. Regardless of the type of conversation, enduring art is that to which its viewers, readers or hearers return again and again, to admire how the conversation is carried out by the artist, or even to renew it again for themselves. Thus, in addition to technical skill, true, compelling and enduring art requires an abundance of creativity.”

With these words, I opened the blog post, Music for the Twelve Days of Christmas, Part 2: Heinrich Schütz ... and other thoughts to ponder over the New Year Holiday..., which used the story of the Lutheran composer Heinrich Schütz as a pretense for discussing the nature of Fine Art and its sources. The attentive reader of that post can't help but notice the stark contrast that is drawn between what the Church has always prized as genuine and uplifting artistic expression, and what passes for such these days: the highest, yet least appreciated forms of art finding a place in today's contemporary pop-Church rise only to some expression of folk art, while those most highly sought after are among the lowest forms of expression, the mere spectacle of entertainment art which serves only to “gratify consumers” without requiring much thought from them. We saw clear examples of this in our recent post, Real? Relational?? Relevant??? O THE HORROR OF IT ALL!!!.

The notion that artistic expression ought to center about the observer of it – his feelings, his emotions – or worse, ought to draw observers into the “experience of the art” itself by exploiting human passions, is a distinctly post-Baroque idea that is absent from our most cherished Lutheran music which comes to us largely from the “Age of Lutheran Orthodoxy” (coinciding with the Baroque Era) and centers on the objective message of the Gospel. On the contrary, such notions find their root in the Enlightenment myth of “human perfectibility,” a myth which serves to drive people away from recognizing their fundamental need for Divine Grace. Indeed, such notions were, notably, repeated by enemies of the Church as a means of deriding both the Church and Christian contributions to the Fine Arts. This fact was touched upon in a following blog post, Music for the Twelve Days of Christmas, Part 3: Johann Sebastian Bach. Such ideas ought to have no place in considerations leading to artwork that is created in the name and in the service of the Church.

Genuine artistic expression is a potent means of substantive conversation, of engaging the mind of one's fellow conversant through the language of art; and as such, it represents the highest stage of human learning: the Rhetoric Stage. Thus, genuine artistic expression requires genuine education. Moreover, for those who would meaningfully engage such works of art, an understanding of art's idiom is also necessary if it is to be properly appreciated. And, such understanding is also a product of Education, requiring the effort of catechists in the Church toward this end.


Recognizing the Need for Continued Catechesis of Lutheran Young People
The Walther League recruits Dr. Kretzmann
Enter Dr. Paul. E. Kretzmann – Educator (Ed. D.), Theologian (D.D), Historian (Ph. D.). We posted a blog entry about this very important figure of 20^th Century American Lutheranism in our post, Dr. P. E. Kretzmann: Standing on God's Word when the World opposes us. In 1894, a grassroots Lutheran youth organization, called the Walther League, was formed, focusing on youth who had completed their catechism and had been admitted to communicant membership of their local congregations. Their purpose was as follows:

“The purpose of this association shall be to help young people grow as Christians through


WORSHIP — building a stronger faith in the Triune God;
EDUCATION — discovering the will of God for their daily life;
SERVICE — responding to the needs of all men;
RECREATION — keeping the joy of Christ in all activities;
FELLOWSHIP — finding the power of belonging to others in Christ.”

From Rev. Cwirla's Blogosphere: Walther League and Higher Things

This sounds like a good thing, does it not? Whatever happened to this organization? The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS) blog, Witness, Mercy, Life Together, writes concerning the Walther League: “The league eventually disbanded in 1977 as a result of painful but formative doctrinal discussions.”

Sometime during the 1930's, long before its eventual demise and probably during the period of its peak involvement, and before his departure from the LCMS, Dr. Kretzmann was asked to write a little book for Walther League Chapter leaders, that they could follow as a guide to the continuing catechesis of Lutheran young people. Printed by Northwestern Publishing House, the name of this little book was Knowing and Doing, and the need for it was expressed in its Foreword by Rev. Paul Prokopy. He justifies the need for continuing catechesis, and for this little book, as follows:

“It goes without saying that our Lutheran young people should know very definitely what the Lutheran church stands for and just why they are Lutherans, and that in all cases they should be ready and able to present the doctrine of their church and to defend it intelligently and ably against attacks. Yet we find that our young people are ofttimes at a loss to testify clearly and sometimes they are even ashamed to confess boldly that they are Lutherans, the reason being that they are not sufficiently informed and that they have not an intelligent understanding of the very important issues involved...

“Knowledge certainly is power, and if this applies anywhere, it applies to church activity... Placing first things first, Bible Study stands at the head, followed by study of Church History and Missions, the Study of the Distinctive Doctrines, Customs and Usages of the Lutheran Church, and [the study of] Practical Questions and of Church Art...

“But it is not enough that our young people know, they must also do – Knowing and Doing, as the title [of this little book] indicates, must go together... We must have a well-informed, intelligent and efficient [laity].”

It is interesting to know that only a generation ago the idea of “a well-informed, intelligent and efficient laity” was founded on the basis of broad KNOWLEDGE – not just of the Scriptures, although this was most important and stood at the head of all areas of study, but included other important areas of study, as well: Church History, Missions, Distinctive Doctrines, Customs and Usages of the Lutheran Church, Church Art... The full listing of the Table of Contents includes these, and other important areas of study and of practice:

PART I: KNOWING
Chapter 1: Bible Study
Chapter 2: The Study of Church History and Missions
Chapter 3: The Study of Distinctive Doctrines, Customs and Usages of the Lutheran Church
Chapter 4: Practical Questions
Chapter 5: Church Art
Chapter 6: Science and Inventions in the Light of Scriptures
Chapter 7: Literature in the Light of the Bible

PART II: DOING
Chapter 1: The Work of Young People within the Home Congregation
Chapter 2: The Work of Young People in the City and District
Chapter 3: The Work of Young People in the Church at Large

Dr. Kretzmann's thoughts in Chapter 5, on teaching Lutheran Young People how and why to appreciate the rich treasure we Christians have in the gift of Church Art, is most helpful as we contemplate the important role of the Fine Arts in Lutheran church-life. It is reproduced here, in its entirety.

---

Appreciating Fine Art in Service to the Church
An Important Aspect of the Young Lutheran's Catechesis
Few members of the Lutheran Church realize what a splendid heritage is ours in the field of the arts. The work of Luther and his collaborers was not one of senseless destruction, as that of many self-styled reformers in his days and since, but it was a true reformation of the Church, both toward the inside and toward the outside. It is true, of course, that he eliminated all false doctrine from the teaching of the Church. It is true, also, that he removed, or attempted to remove, all that savored of false doctrine, even in the external usages of the Church. But he never became a mere iconoclast, just as he never degenerated into a mere demagogue. He never tore down merely for the sake of seeing things fly. And if he found the superstructure rotten, he carefully examined the foundation, lest he spoil something that was fundamentally good and had only been contaminated and sullied by false doctrine. Carlstadt and the Zwickau prophets, followed by practically the entire Reformed branch of the Church, attacked and destroyed many things which were in themselves not dangerous or which contained a germ of splendid value. Luther and his coworkers preferred to keep the kernel, even if the shell had to be discarded.

Lutheranism and the Fine Arts“But especially in sacred song has the Lutheran Church a grand distinctive element of her worship. 'The Lutheran Church,' says Schaff, 'draws the fine arts into the service of religion, and has produced a body of hymns and chorals, which, in richness, power, and unction, surpasses the hymnology of all other churches in the world.' 'In divine worship,' says Goebel, 'we reach glorious features of pre-eminence. The hymns of the Church are the people's confession, and have wrought more than the preaching. In the Lutheran Church alone, German hymnology attained a bloom truly amazing. The words of holy song were heard everywhere, and sometimes, as with a single stroke, won whole cities for the Gospel'” (Krauth, C. (1871). Conservative Reformation and its Theology. Philadelphia: Lippincott. pp. 152-154) As quoted by Intrepid Lutherans: Music for the Twelve Days of Christmas, Part 1: Michael Praetorius

In pursuing this course, the Lutheran reformers set a good example to all who bear the name of the true Reformer himself, and we should be proud to follow in their footsteps. Luther himself stated that he was in no sense an enemy of the arts, but that he desired to see them all in the service of the Gospel. His interest in the field of art, therefore, was profound. That he was a powerful poet and writer we all know. He was also a musician of no mean ability, he was well versed in liturgics, and he took an intelligent interest in other branches of art as it concerned the work of the Church.

What the fathers of the sixteenth century began the Lutherans of the next century continued; what Luther and Melanchthon and Bugenhagen and others advocated, the latter preserved. It is true that the riches of the Church in the field of Christian art have been largely lost during the age of Pietism, followed by that of Rationalism, but it is fortunately also true that the Lutheran Church of America is awakening to an appreciation of the heritage of the reformers and that proper steps have been taken and are being taken to reintroduce the precious monuments of art which the Church possessed in the sixteenth century.

All this is not being done in the desire for innovations, nor is an enthusiastic minority trying to foist something unwelcome upon a suspicious majority. The Word of God tells us: “let all things be done decently and in order,” (1 Cor. 14:40). A very clear word is that written by St. Paul: “Let every one of us please his neighbor for his good to edification” (Rom. 15:2). And again, the same apostle writes: “Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by Him,” (Col. 3:17). Moreover, we have evidence that it is by no means displeasing to the Lord if we, in a proper way, and without omitting the more important matters pertaining to the spread of His Kingdom here on earth, take an intelligent interest in Christian art and adorn our houses of worship in a manner befitting the majesty and beauty of Him who is fairer than the sons of men. When Mary of Bethany had poured out over Him her pound of ointment of spikenard and Judas, with a great show of interest in the poor, protested against the waste which was practiced by the deed, Jesus calmly took Mary's part, bidding the assembled company let her alone (John 12:7).

Among the foremost subjects to which the attention of the younger members of our church might well be directed is that of church architecture and ecclesiastical art in general. This interest is aroused and sustained by the very complete accounts of the building of the Tabernacle and the Temple of Solomon, together with the minute descriptions of the various appointments and pieces of furniture which were prepared at God's command in the wilderness and afterward copied by Solomon. If we add to the account of the Bible what has been found in the course of the last century concerning Oriental architecture, the subject becomes fairly fascinating. With our interest in the subject aroused in this manner, it is only natural that we desire to know more about the second Temple and then about that of Herod. Our admiration is aroused by the splendor and magnificence of the buildings crowning Mount Zion and many references to the Temple, not only in the Old Testament, but in the gospels as well, become clear to us.

However, our interest does not cease here. We are anxious to know in what kind of buildings the early Christians worshiped, when and how the first Christian churches were built. We study art of the early Christians as displayed in the catacombs and learn how closely their art was connected with, and expressive of, their belief. We view with surprise and misgivings the erection of the Byzantine cathedrals under Constantine and Justinian; we see the development of the Romanesque style until the limit of its possibilities was reached, only to find that the Gothic style practically removed all limits, making the erection of cathedrals possible which are marvels of human ingenuity and the very apotheosis of ecclesiastical art.

At the same time, we see that the pictorial and plastic arts are placed in the service of the Church, that the arts are, in fact, for centuries dominated by religion, that the greatest works of the greatest masters are performed largely in the interest of Christianity. Add to this the appeal of the minor arts, the work in tapestry and embroidery, in iron and brass and wood, the use of bells and the development of organs in the service of Christian worship, and we have subjects of such intense and absorbing interest as to challenge study, even with absorbing application... Possibly eight [one hour] illustrated lectures would be sufficient to give at least a proper idea of the subject.

Lutheran Worship and Artistic Expression: The Divine Service is NOT a Concert Performance“It may be conceded, of course, that the matter of organ music of every kind is an adiaphoron. There is no commandment of God which gives to the organ either a primary or a secondary position, or makes music either essential or subsidiary for divine worship. And yet, it is not a matter of indifference... A Lutheran congregation will strive to bring out its doctrinal position also in its cultus, and will avoid everything that may be misconstrued as though the Lutherans had abated one whit from their position toward the means of grace. The Word and the Sacraments must always occupy the most prominent place before the congregation, and everything that will detract the attention of the audience from these most important parts of the service must be avoided with the greatest care...” (pg. 406) “[A]ttempts at artistic playing were frowned upon. All efforts which savored of concert playing were not looked upon with favor. Motets or other strange pieces in the service proper were not permitted, the organ being strictly in the service of the congregation and its singing. The organist might give evidence of his art in the postlude... Above all, secular music was strictly taboo, secular songs and fantasies, as well as popular melodies being under the ban...” (pg. 407) “The organist will therefore prepare himself very carefully for each service. His music must be selected with the purpose of bringing out the lesson or the character of the day... The hymns must be studied both as to text and music to emphasize the spirit in them. All the shadings of joy up to the veriest exultation, all the blendings of sorrow, longing, repentance, and whatever other disposition is brought out in the text, must be correctly interpreted in the music... Above all, extemporaneous playing and improvising is inexcusable at the organ during regular church-services. An artist of the first rank may attempt it at a church concert, but for anyone else to test the patience of the congregation in such a manner is little short of an insult. The sacredness of public worship and the exclusive emphasis which we must place upon the means of grace forbid such performances...” (pg. 407) “A Lutheran organist will remember, above all, that the classical choral melodies of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries should always occupy first place in his repertoire.” (pg. 408) “The organ deserves special attention in its relation to the singing of church-hymns and the liturgy... [but] to educate the congregation in the ability to sing, the organ is neither needed nor is it adapted for that purpose; but it is good and appropriate for accompanying good church-singing, which is learned by singing and in no other way. And since the organ occupies this accompanying position only, it must be retained in this position... Long preludes, postludes, and interludes must be discontinued, but, above all, the insertion of self-composed fugues and other devices, by which the congregation assembled for services is changed into a concert audience.” (pg. 408) (Kretzmann, P. (1926). Christian Art in the Form and in the Place of Lutheran Worship. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House.)

We have a very similar case where we broach the subject of liturgics and hymnology. Luther very properly retained all that was in itself unobjectionable in the orders of service of his day, not only in the communion service, but also in the minor services and occasional sacred acts. In the many church orders, also, which fixed the order or worship in the various German countries in the sixteenth century, not to speak of the Scandinavian countries and England, the most beautiful sections of the ancient liturgy were retained. The Lutheran Church in America has very wisely selected the very best that was to be found in the sixteenth century liturgies, the result being a Communion Service which is unsurpassed in the entire history of the Christian Church [i.e., the Common Service developed by the General Council, and published in the old The Lutheran Hymnal of 1946]. But it ought to be studied and appreciated. – By the same token, the treasure of hymns which the Lutheran Church possesses is a special blessing of God's grace. Not only in the sixteenth century did the fountain of religious poetry flow in rich measure, but it has come down to us in a practically uninterrupted stream. There are hundreds of hymn-writers of the first and second rank, not only in Germany, but also in Denmark, in Norway, in Sweden, in England, in America, and elsewhere, and the products of their pens are numbered by the thousands and tens of thousands. To know the men and women whom God has gifted in such a remarkable manner, to study the hymns and songs which have imparted strength and consolation to untold numbers of Christians throughout the world, that is in itself a privilege which we have not sufficiently appreciated in the past. [As in the case of pictorial, plastic and architectural art that has been created in service to the Church], eight lessons should be devoted to the study of fundamental points of liturgics and hymnology, [as well].

Moreover, when the foundation has been laid and there is some understanding of the pricelessness of the heritage which we possess, the significance and the symbolism of the Lutheran form of worship may well be made a special topic of study. Every real piece of art is worthy of the most careful, detailed, and painstaking study, and we shall appreciate all the more what we have if we examine it in an intelligent manner. Eight lessons will barely suffice for this purpose. However, the interest of our people having once been properly aroused, most of them will surely want to know more about church music as such and about sacred music in general, including the history of the great Passions of Bach, the oratorios of a number of great masters, and the cantatas, motets, and choruses of scores of other musicians. Here again, eight hours or lessons are hardly sufficient, but they may serve to awaken the right kind of interest, which will direct reading and study into the proper channels.


(Kretzmann, P. (~1935). Knowing and Doing: A book of practical suggestions for young people and young people's societies, with special reference to Walther League Work. Chicago: Walther League of the Ev. Lutheran Synodical Conference [printed by Northwestern Publishing House, Milwaukee, WI]. pp. 36-41)

---

“In the case of Christian art, the creation of a compelling and enduring work is truly an amazing accomplishment. The subject matter of Christian art itself is generally despised by the World; and ambiguity, which is inherent to art and very often its most appreciated aspect, is at the same time a great enemy of Christian subject matter – fidelity to which requires clarity and closure. Thus, Christian art that remains beloved and acclaimed by all, over centuries and across cultures, which succeeds at engaging its viewers, hearers or readers in unambiguous conversation regarding the reality of Christ and the impact of His Gospel, represents skill and creativity towering over that which produces ambiguous works of profane subject matter for which people already have natural affinity. Why? Because it is an easy task to produce works of art having the World’s approval by appealing to fleshly desires and worldly sensibilities, relative to the task of producing generally acclaimed works which militate against what naturally appeals to man and which serves to lift up the offense of the Cross instead.”

From Intrepid Lutherans: Music for the Twelve Days of Christmas, Part 2: Heinrich Schütz ... and other thoughts to ponder over the New Year Holiday...

The Catechesis of the Lutheran Worshiper: An antidote to the “itching ears” and “happy feat” of CGM enthusiasts?

As has been mentioned on Intrepid Lutherans many times, the problems of the Church Growth Movement (CGM) are not recently identified, nor has public discussion of them among WELS Lutherans begun only since the time Intrepid Lutherans first started publishing, in May 2010, when we “burst onto the scene” with the shocking declaration:

Many of us see our common enemy, the devil, threatening our unity as a synod, mainly through the backdoor of our practice. We sing and preach about unity, but it is becoming increasingly clear that there lurks among us a spirit of disunity. It is certainly not everywhere; but it is there. Let us acknowledge where the devil is mounting his assault so that, by God’s power and might, we may defeat him: worship practices that are inconsistent with confessional Lutheran theology; Church Growth theology and methodology; paying lip service to the Means of Grace while mimicking the practices of the churches that deny the efficacy of the Means of Grace; forfeiting our confessional Lutheran identity, either by neglect or by choice.

And hasn’t this ubiquitous “spirit of disunity” been amply demonstrated over the past two-and-three-quarter-years? We continued in that first post:

Many would like to simply agree to disagree on these matters rather than disturb the Church over them. That would be understandable if the issues revolved around personal preference. But the issues are theological, not personal. True spiritual unity is not preserved by ignoring theology. What we are advocating is an open theological discussion with solid theological conclusions. If we are misunderstanding one another, let us make things clear. If arguments have been built upon logical fallacies, let them be exposed. If any have strayed from confessional Lutheran doctrine or practice, let them take note and return. For our part, we have made a small beginning at such a discussion by creating this blog where we will be posting articles that promote and encourage confessional Lutheranism... Contribute what you can to the discussion... What we ask you not to do, dear brother, is absent yourself from the discussion as if there were nothing to discuss, as if it didn’t apply to you, as if you could close your eyes and shut your ears and pretend you have no responsibility to defend the synod you call your home from the devil’s divisive schemes. This is only a beginning, a first step (not to imply that we are the first or the best to speak about these issues). What we seek is unity – true confessional Lutheran unity within the WELS, a goal that only the Holy Spirit can bring about.

One of the predecessor forums to Intrepid Lutherans, run by WELS members, which treated of issues in WELS, was aptly named “Issues in WELS.” Now defunct, many laymen discovered through this organization that WELS wasn’t the paradise they were led to believe it was – not that they were especially successful at broadcasting their existence and distributing their materials; but a simple Google search with the words “issue” and “Lutheran” seemed to do the trick for many WELS Lutherans. For others, they either already knew, or figured out for themselves that something was amiss. Most, it would seem, are still oblivious – for better or worse. Another forum, run by WELS members, which also treated of issues in WELS, was the blog Bailing Water. Now relatively dormant, the blog owner continues to maintain it as a Confessional and historical resource. The reader, if he is unfamiliar with it, is encouraged to peruse that “resource,” to get an idea of the nature of discussion up to the time Bailing Water wound down its active life. In many ways, the nature of discussion on Intrepid Lutherans is made dramatically different by the requirement that commenters post under their real names. Thus, in commenting on Intrepid Lutherans, one puts his good name and reputation on the line, not only for his peers to evaluate, but their posterity. One result has been that commenters seem to more carefully measure their words when they post. Another has been that many simply will not allow their opinions, concerns or positions on certain matters to become publicly known.

“Contemporary” Worshipers Congregate before Entertainers or shall we more charitably say, “congregate before other worshipers.”

(top) Lakewood Megachuch, Houston, TX (bottom) Hillsong Megachurch, Sydney, AU

Regardless, many good and interesting discussions were had on Bailing Water, especially with respect to CGM, one of which is the subject of our post. A commenter in the Bailing Water post, Anything that isn’t unbiblical is fair game, makes some interesting points, though arguing that only the text matters in identifying hymns and liturgy as Lutheran or not, and ultimately expecting the act of worship itself to merit blessings from God:

Here’s another aspect of the discussion that I rarely see raised. When people talk about how contemporary services are more “engaging” than liturgical ones, I would argue that the problem is not the liturgy, but the liturgy done poorly. I have been in many WELS churches where the pastor mumbles through it as though what were going on were NOT special... was NOT opening the gates of heaven. I’ve been in churches where the Gloria, a joyful hymn given to us by the angels, was sung at the tempo of a funeral dirge.

To say that because the Western Rite shares the Word of God, then whether or not it is done well makes no difference, is to overstate the Scripture. Yes, the Word is how the Spirit works. But if I am a pastor (or a congregation) and my efforts to use the Word are so half-hearted, then I’m not sure why I would expect the Spirit to bless my efforts. To state it more succinctly, if the Western Rite is done badly, when it could be done well, why WOULD God bless it? The pastor and congregation’s half-hearted worship means they are luke-warm towards the Gospel that worship proclaims. Therefore, while confessional, their worship is an affront to him, as Jesus’ words to to the church at Laodicea makes clear.

Therefore, I’d like to see more WELS congregations doing what I know some are - looking at how they utilize the Western Rite. Where does the chant from TLH come from? It’s like 18th century Scotland? I honestly don’t know. But I can’t imagine that 18th century Scotland was a bastion of confessional Lutheranism. Therefore, let’s not be too emotionally attached to the chant. Perhaps there’s a better musical vehicle in which to couch the Gloria, Agnus Dei, Sanctus, etc. That’s VERY Lutheran - keeping the text, but updating the melody - as the vast number of hymns in the “Hymns of the Liturgy” section demonstrate.

To sum up, what I’d like to see is the Gloria sung in all our churches, but a version which might be a better vehicle than page 15 of TLH or page 16 in CW. Same with all five canticles of the Western Rite. I’d like to see them done in a style that - yes - enthuses people. No, I am not an enthusiast. I’m a musician, who finds bad, tired singing a stumbling block when trying to worship.

Maybe, if the Western Rite were done well, there wouldn’t be such a rush to contemporary services.

Another commenter responded, addressing the “way” worship is done, and whether it impacts anything. Not for a moment admitting that the “act of worship merits blessing from God” the way that the first commenter did, he did identify how careless, or even deliberate mediocrity distracts worshipers from the centrality of Christ in the congregation’s worship, just as much as “worship ministers” and other stage entertainers distract worshipers from the True Object of their worship, who serve to fixate the attention of worshipers first on themselves:

You state on 1/16, “I would argue that the problem is not the liturgy, but the liturgy done poorly. ...Maybe, if the Western Rite were done well, there wouldn’t be such a rush to contemporary services.”

Speaking purely in human terms, I agree that there seems to be a superabundance of, well, mediocrity in our worship. I see it when I travel, and it distresses me, as well. However, having spent nearly thirty years as a pop-church Evangelical and about three years as a praise-band guitarist, I can tell you for a fact that Contemporary Worship is no panacea – they struggle with the same problem. And what is that problem? Our own sin and weakness of faith.

Many Lutheran congregations in the 70's and 80's left behind their catholic and confessional heritage, thinking that the “more engaging” music and worship forms of the sectarians would better serve the interests of faith, by removing the “stumbling block” of forms that “fail to enthuse” (as you seem to put it). A disturbing percentage of these congregations (by my estimation) eventually left behind the Lutheran Confession entirely, failing to cure their sin and faith problems with the sectarian worship forms they imported from the heterodox, but having been taught by these forms, and the passions they engender, to trust their own acts of worship as Means through which with Holy Spirit works to strengthen faith. This is lex orandi, lex credendi in action. Under the guidance of then popular Lutheran leaders, like Rev. Larry Christiansen (a household name as I was growing up), the teaching of the Means of Grace was mutilated, most notably forcing a distinction between water Baptism and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, in order to justify Worship as a Means of Grace, or specifically, a Means through which the Holy Spirit works to strengthen faith. I know the process...



Lutheran Worshipers Congregate before the Means of Grace

(top) St. Matthew Ev. Lutheran Church (ELCA), Wauwatosa, WI (bottom) Grace Ev. Lutheran Church (ELCC), Oakville, ON

So, what is the solution to sin? You know it – faith in Christ, and His completed work on behalf of all sinners. What is the solution to weakness of faith? You know that, too – the Holy Spirit, and his work through the true Means of Grace. Sectarian worship forms that take the focus off of Christ and shift it to the man in the pew, that exchange our catholic and christocentric forms for unavoidably anthropocentric forms, are nothing other than forms of robbery in which the Thief delights. Christ is diminished and one of man’s three great opponents rushes into the void – the lusts of his own flesh. Sectarian worship forms that themselves beguile the worshiper over time into a pursuit of pleasure, that by repeated experience displaces the true Means and supplants them with a counterfeit, are themselves forms of deceit spawned by the Father of Lies calculated to defraud us of our faith. Indeed, the Devil prowls about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. We must be vigilant. Contemporary Worship is no friend of the Church. Although it may seem to for a time (and this is the danger of applying visible measures, like statistical trends, as measures of faith), it does not strengthen faith. Instead, it excites human passions in ways that mimic the fruits of faith, while in fact starving faith until nothing is left but striving works.

So, assuming that proper Gospel motivation is behind a desire to pursue excellence in worship, rather than remain content with mediocrity, are there practical things that a congregation can do to “do the liturgy and traditional hymnody richly” rather than “poorly?” I think that there are.

Instrumentation
Whenever instrumentation in the Divine Service draws attention to itself, it distracts the worshiper from his confession and from focus on Christ. Worship accompaniment is nothing other than a companion to the worship of Christians in the assembly. It melts in with the voices of the congregation, and serves only to assist in guiding the melody – much like the individual two pews over who sings a little louder than everyone else. Worship accompanists are nothing other than co-worshipers. That is what makes the organ so perfect as a worship instrument. Despite its kingly size and wide range, it is almost invisible to the worshiper – it fills the chamber so completely that it has no location, and coexists in unity with the single voice of the congregation. Rock 'n Roll “praise bands,” with their stage antics and entertainment presence, by their nature draw attention to themselves. Likewise do self-absorbed vocalists (men or women designated as so-called “Worship Ministers”), who launch into their own impromptu monologues and prayers in Representational capacity during the worship they are designated to “lead” (and, yes, I know for a fact that this happens in WELS congregations – I’ve seen it on St. Mark Depere’s website, and my own Pastor has indicated to me how upset he has been with a local WELS congregation which has embraced Contemporary Worship, where he has witnessed one of the female “worship ministers” preach her own exhortational mini-sermon, in front of the congregation, during the course of worship!). As distracting as this is, a poorly maintained organ, wheezing, anemic, and out of tune, is offensive to the ears. A poorly trained organist is worse. They draw attention to themselves and away from focus on Christ for negative reasons, and create aversion for the Divine Service itself. Organs, as a simple matter of stewardship, need to be maintained, and ought to be replaced when their service life is ended. Organists ought to be encouraged to continue their training, and I would think that continuing lessons ought to gladly be sponsored by the congregation.

Pastor’s Role as Liturgist
Pastors, one would think, would be so full of faith that, in their role as liturgists, they couldn’t fail to make obvious the significance of their Representation, and of the congregation’s corporate confession, through appropriate presence and tonal inflection. Sadly, I’ve heard far too many drones to make this assumption, [and worse, I’ve heard far to many clumsy lovers romance their congregations from the pulpit, “mouthing their verse and moaning their tragedy” – DL]. Pastors ought to make it a practice to examine how they express themselves in public, and make conscious effort to complement their words with congruent inflection, and to speak with the authority one would expect of a man who stands by the command and in the stead of Jesus Christ.

Catechesis of the Worshiper


Church Architecture Among the chiefest of Liturgical Devices

(top) A 19th Century color plate showing the “city scape” of Strasbourg, France. On the left is the Cathédrale Notre-Dame-de-Strasbourg, on the right, is Église Saint-Thomas (at that time referred to as “the Lutheran Cathedral,” as by then the Cathédrale, which lies to the northeast of Église Saint-Thomas, had returned to the control of the Roman Catholics.) Prior to the 20th Century, Christian church buildings were the most prominent man-made feature of European and American city-scapes and country-sides. Much more than four walls and a roof, these liturgical devices are full of meaning in their appearance, preaching Law and Gospel by their mere presence just as much as the liturgy itself – and broadcasting that message to everyone within view of them. (bottom) Considered one the of the most beautiful churches in Latvia, Velēna Ev.Lutheran Church is, at 115 years of age, a very young neo-gothic structure. It is pictured above in a photo by Gatis Pāvils linked from his website, Ambermarks.com

Again, assuming that worshipers are genuinely looking to their faith, and, motivated by the Gospel, genuinely aspire to excellence as they offer praise, thanks, and adoration before God, are there practical measures that a congregation can take to assist them to this end as they seek to do so within the context of the Western Rite and traditional hymnody and instrumentation? Yes, I think so. And I think the answer is catechesis.

I mentioned in a previous entry, above, that worshipers ought to be taught to think the words they recite and sing, to take ownership of those words as their own thoughts, and give them their due expression. They need to come to understand the gravity of the words they use, and the reason they are recited together with others.

Worshipers also need to be taught the meaning of what they are doing, and what the pastor is doing, as they are carried together by the liturgy through the Divine Service. Which parts of the service are Sacramental? Which parts are Sacrificial? When do the Sacramental and Sacrificial parts of the service take place, and where do they take place? When and how is the Pastor acting Representationally, and who is he representing at various points in the service? When is the Pastor to be absent from the Chancel and why?

Worshipers need to be taught the meaning of what they see. The appointments in the Nave and Chancel are liturgical devices, which communicate in the symbolical language of ecclesiastical art. For those blessed with stained glass, these works of art often speak for themselves. But what of altars, triptychs, lecterns and pulpits, fonts, vestments in their variety, paraments, crosses and crucifixes, candelabras, and various vessels of the Eucharist? What do they mean and why are they placed where they are? Why is the pulpit and lectern positioned off to the side? Baptist and Evangelical churches have a single “lectern/pulpit” mounted in the center. Baptist churches generally don’t have an altar. Why the difference? The language of these symbols needs to be taught if they are to be used beneficially.

Of course, the most prominent of liturgical devices is the architecture of the church building itself! The neo-gothic architecture is the product of centuries of experimentation, to perfect the functioning of the building with respect the Western Rite. Why is there a bell tower? Why is there a cross mounted on top? Baptist churches don’t have crosses, they have spires. Why the difference? Why is the Nave and the Chancel separated? Why are the Sacristies located where they are? Why is the organ and choir located in the rear? Baptist and Reformed churches have the organ and choir mounted in the front? Why the difference? (Related to these questions, unfortunately, is the painful topic of the utter tragedy of contemporary church architecture...).

The answer to all of these questions is, doctrine – which emphasizes the importance of teaching pure doctrine through our practice (lex orandi, lex credendi). [Indeed, Professor John Schaller himself notoriously emphasized the need to emphasize doctrine in relation to what Lutherans uniquely DO, especially compared to what sectarians DO! – DL]. One of the best books I have ever read on these topics is an old book, by Dr. P.E. Kretzmann, Christian Art, In the Place and in the Form of Lutheran Worship. In addition to these questions, it also covers the history of the liturgy, hymnology, heartology, and the content of Lutheran liturgy. Published in 1921, it is also available used, and via "print on demand" from CPH...

The final point of the second commenter, above, the point titled Catechesis of the Worshiper is vitally important in my opinion, and probably one of the most conspicuously neglected aspects of Lutheran liturgical life. And it was this point which was very ably addressed by Rev. Michael Berg (WELS), at our 2012 Conference of Intrepid Lutherans, Church and Continuity. He not only lectured on the Western Rite itself, and the relevance of historical practice with respect to it, he also walked through the catechetical materials he wrote and uses in his congregation – some of the finest materials I think I’ve encountered. It is with his presentation that I leave the reader, and urge our pastors to consider. I’m sure that Rev. Berg could be contacted, and would be willing to share his materials.


Conference of Intrepid Lutherans: Church and Continuity ~ June 1-2, 2012
Bethlehem Lutheran Church ~ Oshkosh, WI
The Beauty of the Western Rite, Part 1
The Beauty of the Western Rite, Part 2
by Rev. Michael Berg (WELS)