I recently attended what I consider to be an extremely traditional Lutheran worship service. Needless to say, I did not enjoy it. I still haven’t found a real church “home” since I got married. My wife came from a highly Pentecostal, pop-culture-driven background, while I hail from a Lutheran/ Pentecostal/ Non-denominational journey. I’m in the process of perhaps returning to my Lutheran roots, but the problem for us is finding a church that is not too traditional.

It seems that even the supposedly “contemporary” Lutheran churches are playing 70’s/80’s music at about the speed of a funeral dirge, and they call it contemporary. Let me give a big hint, it may be contemporary to Lutherans, but it’s MILES behind the rest of the church. I know people do the best with what they have, but it’s better to go completely acoustic than to use a synth drum beat these days. I would consider even this kind of service slightly “less traditional,” but certainly not contemporary.

These experiences have really caused me to begin thinking about worship, culture, and my own biases which I bring to the table. I read an article entitled “The Pride of Simplicity,” by Leonard Payton, which can be found by clicking here.

Payton blames the egalitarian movements within our society and popular culture in general for the breakdown of church culture, particularly in regards to the “aesthetics and ethics of the church.” After using George Orwell’s Animal Farm as a model for modern church culture, Payton writes,

“A number of swirling ideas inside and outside the church have fueled a similar egalitarianism, ideas such as, ‘I’m OK, you’re OK,’ the emphasis on civil liberties, the individualism of ‘what Jesus means to me,’ multiculturalism, diversity, and the notion that doctrine divides and is therefore bad. This last point is especially ominous because it equates any earnest pursuit of the truth with elitism.” Payton continues by stating, “The pride of simplicity has been bubbling up in all aspects of the visible church. However, this trend has affected worship music more than any other trend in church life. We disdain our hymnals because they presumably speak to the head and not to the heart. (Notice the implicit accusation of intellectual elitism here.) We replace those hymnals with songs which can be performed while the eyes are closed. We reduce our lyric vocabulary to a bare minimum, and take special care not to touch anyone’s hot buttons with language which might sound too doctrinal. Here again, we see an attack on implied doctrinal elitism. And of course, the accompaniment instrument of choice becomes the guitar with its ubiquitous eight chords in fixed inversions which, by default, cast out any sense of good voice leading. . . . Where has costly worship gone? . . . We are lured into such irreverence by the apparent demands of evangelism, ‘becoming all things to all men.’ We quickly transform this principle into the practice of finding the least common denominator, which in our time is popular culture. Those embracing such a philosophy of ministry often claim, ‘I just want to see people come to Christ,’ but this philosophy implies that unless we each take the same approach we somehow do not care to see people come to Christ. Notice the emerging new elitism! Paul never said, ‘To the hedonist I became a hedonist.’

Unfortunately, this ethos of mandatory simplicity soon begets a kind of comfort which, when violated, is characterized as un-spirit-filled. This is a catastrophe for Christian growth, since many of God’s attributes are disquieting. To ignore those attributes is to worship a god not seen in the Bible, in short, to violate the first and second commandments. Many of the experiences our living Heavenly Father designs for our growth are unpleasant as well. And yet, when we insist on likable, or “seeker friendly” music, we inadvertently despise the chastening of the Lord.”

Is Leonard Payton taking this a little too far? Is contemporary music all that bad? Is this all some sort of legalistic, man-made tradition of men? Or is there validity in what he says? I believe that Payton is absolutely right, and I am an unfortunate product of this cultural egalitarianism of which he speaks. This is not to say that I feel worship should universally be traditional, but the church should not model worship after the culture – rather it is called to transform the culture.

Payton concludes his article by saying,

“This brings me to my main point: All styles are not equal. This is obvious to anyone who has given any serious thought to aesthetics. However, the problem before me was an ethical one. All styles are not ethically equal. And since style is an issue of aesthetics, it therefore appears that there is no clear dividing line between ethics and aesthetics in worship music. From this truth we can derive the following principle: Any style not able to carry a text rightfully belonging in Christian worship is a style unsuited for Christian worship. And since the forms are, the more disastrous the marriage. Since ours is a time in which musically illiterate people produce most of the music we hear, the musical forms have all the imagination of Hallmark card poetry or pulp novels. These are very simple forms with very little flexibility. And as mounting Christian egalitarianism has succumbed to the pride of simplicity, these forms have been accepted into the heady realm of the ‘anointed.’ Indeed, I have even read straight-faced advertisements for “anointed guitar solos!”

As Christians we must put more pressure on musical form. Congratulating ‘diversity’ or “multi-culturalism” may seem peaceable, but truthfully, it is a tired capitulation to sloth and ease. And in the end, such a stance will only serve further to enervate Christian worship. ‘I’m OK, you’re OK’ must be replaced with, ‘I’m a sinner, you’re a sinner; let’s grow in the Lord with all our hearts, souls, minds, and strength.’”

So that’s it? Don’t do contemporary worship? In Payton’s opinion, this is the case. But is it really so bad to use modern contemporary worship music? I really don’t believe so, to an extent. When a missionary goes into a new culture, he assesses the scene and adapts the worship style to their comfort in order to evangelize the indigenous people. We must do the same in American culture. However, some would argue that American popular culture is really no culture at all, rather a godless byproduct of human rebellion and rejection of morality. There is truth in this statement. For this reason the music chosen needs to be carefully examined to ensure that it gives glory to God and points to Jesus Christ crucified and risen again for the forgiveness of our sins. It also should be delivered in such a manner that all glory is given to God, not to a performer. The worship leader’s role is just that, to lead worship, not to draw attention and praise to him or herself.

So what are the necessary eleme
nts of a worship service? This is largely a matter of preference, but Martin Luther has a few thoughts to offer. In the Augsburg Confession, Article XII, he writes of the Church,

“The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.

And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4, 5. 6.”

Well said, Luther. Praise God that not every worship service looks alike! We would be a dull world indeed. Throughout this process, God is revealing my own pride and biases concerning worship. I have most recently traveled in church circles which cater to the demands of the popular culture, and this has given me a false perception of “how things should be done.”

Neither traditional nor contemporary worship is better than the other. Both contain advantages and disadvantages. The heart of the matter is that we give all of the glory to God and the Holy Spirit is free to work on men’s hearts through the clearly proclaimed Word of God.

Now with that out of the way, I feel that a list of recommendations to Lutheran worship leaders is in order. I would love to hear any feedback you have about any of this, particularly Lutheran laity, leaders, pastors, etc. Once again, this is coming from a guy who has helped lead everything from Lutheran to Pentecostal to Charismatic to “emerging-style” worship, and these are merely suggestions to make Lutheran Worship more relevant for my generation.

Dan’s Recommendations for Lutheran Worship

1. Remember the purpose and intention of the liturgy. One of my biggest complaints about extremely traditional services is how fake they feel. Chanting all of the prayers and saying everything in unison in a monotone voice is very comfortable for those coming out of the Roman Catholic faith, which was Luther’s intended audience for his service. But for someone coming from little or no church background, this can be scary and seems somewhat cult-like, particularly in our current postmodern era. Some in my generation are actually interested in heavy tradition, but typically they are also smoking pot and they really “dig” any kind of ancient rituals (just kidding, not always). The bottom line is to remember the point of each element of the service and not just do things for the sake of tradition.
2. Perform every service as though half of the congregation are visitors/newcomers. The neat thing about this is, even the people who have been regular attenders for years will likely learn something new or gain some new insight from the service when you do this. Lutheran services are some of the most confusing places to be, which frustrates newcomers. Particularly keep this in mind when it comes to the following:
• Switching between hymnals, finding things in a hymnal. This confuses me the most at Lutheran services. I am still trying to figure out which hymnal to use during the entire first verse typically.
• Finding Scripture passages in the Bible. It can be helpful to remind people of the order of books in the Bible or give a page number if you use a standard pew Bible. For instance, “Turn in your Bibles with me to 1 Corinthians 4. Remember 1 Corinthians is a letter written by Paul, so you will find it in the New Testament. After Matthew, you’ll see Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, and then 1 Corinthians. Once again that is chapter 4, verse 1. (Wait) Ok, 1 Corinthians 4:1 says, . . . .” You’ll be surprised how many don’t bring their Bibles because they are intimidated or because everything is always printed in a bulletin. Give people a reason to open the Word! They might even underline a verse during your sermon if you do this! A lot of megachurches have stopped printing Bible verses on the screens for this reason, only the references.
• Sharing of the peace. This part freaks my wife and I out the most! People impersonally shake our hands and say “peace of the Lord.” What’s the point? Give people more than two minutes to do this, and encourage them to get to know the names of people sitting near them. It’s even better when people get out of their seats and walk around. It’s very cold if this is not relational. This was very weird for my wife and I the first time we did it in a traditional service.
• Confession and Absolution. How can you read “I, a poor miserable sinner, confess. . .” in a monotone voice? It sounds so insincere and fake. Perhaps consider playing some light worship music in the background (on CD, not an organ) while giving people some time to confess their sins before God. Make this part of the service last a good 15-20 minutes. Consider even putting it after the sermon, so that people have a chance to respond to God after hearing His Word. You could still provide the liturgy, perhaps on a PowerPoint screen, for people to use as a guide, or for newcomers. People would be free to leave their seats and find a corner or simply kneel or remain at their seat. After the pastors and elders finish confessing their sins before God, they could stand up and now people could come before them to confess specific sins for which they wish to receive absolution. This would be James 5:16 in action! The pastors and elders could pray with them and pronounce the forgiveness of God to the desperate sinner! After a few more minutes, the invitation could be made for people to reconcile or make plans to reconcile. Jesus said not even to bother bringing things before Him without first being made right with our brother. This also would be a great part of self-examination prior to receiving the Lord’s Supper. Then the pastor could pronounce the forgiveness of God to the congregation. Given the right music and atmosphere, this could be a VERY powerful part of a service.
• Preaching the sermon. OK, public speaking 101 teaches us a few things such as: don’t read your speech word for word, use cue cards instead of a written copy, don’t stand behind a podium the entire time, move towards your audience gradually as you speak, make good eye contact, speak loudly and clearly, use humor to engage your audience, use visual aids or handouts (sermon outline, PowerPoint) to help your audience follow your logic, and USE INFLECTION IN YOUR VOICE IN ORDER TO KEEP YOUR AUDIENCE’S ATTENTION. I can’t stress that last one enough. I don’t remember reading, “Thou shalt not use a PowerPoint presentation in church” anywhere in the Bible.
• Collecting tithes/offerings. Particularly with the recent scandals on television regarding money hungry prosperity preachers, make it clear that if someone is visiting, they are under no obligation to give. Explain very simply why we give to God. Avoid giving a second sermon on the offering alone. That chases people out as well.
• Communion, the Lord’s Supper. I can’t tell you how often we have attended Lutheran services that do not bother explaining Communion procedure. The bottom line is this, if it involves getting out of your seat, then you need to have printed instructions or you need to explain it before doing it. Also, if your congregation practices closed-communion (such as LCMS and WELS), MAKE THIS CLEAR BEFORE BEGINNING. Luckily I know I am not supposed to commune in an LCMS church, but many times I would have had no indication of this had I not previously known. Nothing would be more offensive to a new perso
  n than going up to an altar and being told at that point (in front of others) that he or she could not commune. You can count on that person never coming back. It’d be better to explain the procedure for those who will not be communing as well. P.S. Don’t make people who are not communing go up to the altar with their arms crossed or holding a cross to receive a blessing. Most new people, like myself, find that creepy and uncomfortable. Rather, explain that they can simply stand up, exit the aisle and let others pass, then return to their seats. Much more comfortable.
3. Avoid using only scripted prayers in the service, and avoid chanting every prayer. The chanting thing reminds me more of the Gregorian services, or Zen Buddhist monks. Reading all of the prayers feels really fake, too. It gives the impression that people cannot simply come to God without fancy liturgical vernacular. True story time! My Lutheran pastor growing up told my entire confirmation class that he only prayed during Sunday morning services, when he read the prayers! Also, I have talked to several older Lutheran women who were surprised to find out that they could pray to God anything other than the Lord’s prayer and during services on Sunday. One lady was over fifty and had attended church her entire life. I know some will dismiss these instances as the exception and not the norm, which is hopefully the case. But consider the message you send by always reading or chanting prayer.

That’s all I’ll say for now. I have plenty more ideas, trust me. I hope this helps some.

Here’s a real topic of contention, not only in recent history, but ever since the 4th century of the church! You may recall hearing the term Anabaptist. Anabaptists believe that infant baptism is not valid because a child cannot commit to a religious faith, and they instead support what is called believer’s baptism, which is administered following instruction and a profession of faith. But can an infant have saving faith? Is baptism more than a symbol? A blog is not a sufficient medium to address such a topic – since large volumes can be (and have been) written concerning the issue, but this is a short attempt to explore the issue Scripturally and historically.

First of all, infants are included in “all nations” who are to be baptized (Matt. 28:19). Certainly they were included when Peter said in Acts 2:38, 39: “Repent and be baptized everyone one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins….The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off — for all whom the Lord our God will call.” Whole households (which is everybody in the family plus servants) were baptized in the beginning of New Testament times, which likely included infants (Acts 16:15 and 33).

In Romans 6, we learn that in baptism we have been buried with Christ through baptism and raised to life with Him. That happens to infants when baptized (Gal. 3:27). “For as many of you who have been baptized have put on Christ.” Baptism through the Word creates the faith necessary to receive salvation for infants. Infants can have faith. In Mark 10:14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” The Greek word in this text is “paidia” which means babes in arms. Infants can belong to the kingdom of God. “From the lips of children and infants, You have ordained praise….” Psalm 8:2. “Yet You brought me out of the womb, You made me trust in You even at my mother’s breast” Psalm 22:9. Jesus makes this point very well when He says in Matthew 18:6, “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” The Greek word for “little ones” in this passage is “mikron,” which according to Andrew Das in his book Baptized Into God’s Family, implies children under the age of four. Notice the terminology here, Jesus says “little ones who believe in me!” Jesus is clearly showing us that these little ones are capable of faith!

Well how is that possible? Well that’s because faith is not a work of our own. It is the gift of God, not by works (Ephesians 2:8,9). The Holy Spirit draws the believer to Christ through the Word and creates faith in his or her heart. The Bible clearly teaches that our salvation cannot come about by our own works; it is entirely the work of God. The Scriptures illustrate this by calling the faith of men a raising from the dead (Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 2:12), a being born of God (John 1:12-13), a new birth by the Gospel (1 Peter 1:23-25), and a work of God like the creation of light at the creation of the world (2 Corinthians 4:6).

We could get much more in depth Scripturally, but for the purpose of being brief, let’s move into historical evidence for infant baptism. All of the following historical excerpts are from “Infant Baptism in Early Church History,” by Dr. Dennis Kastens in Issues Etc. Journal, Spring 1997, Vol. 2, No. 3.

From the beginning of New Testament Christianity at Pentecost to our time, unbroken and uninterrupted, the Church has baptized babies. Polycarp (69-155 AD), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. Justin Martyr (100-166 AD) of the next generation, about the year 150 AD, states in his Dialog with Trypho The Jew that baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament.” Irenaeus (130-200 AD) writes in Against Heresies II 22:4 that Jesus came to save all through means of Himself — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants and children, boys and youth, and old men.”

Similar expressions are found in succeeding generations by Origen (185-254 AD) and Cyprian (215-258 AD), and at the Council of Carthage in 254 where the 66 bishops stated: “We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God….especially infants….those newly born.” Origen wrote in his Commentary on Romans 5:9: “For this also it was that the Church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants.” Origen also wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: “Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins.” Cyprian’s reply to a bishop who wrote to him regarding the baptism of infants stated: “Should we wait until the 8th day as did the Jews in the circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born.”

Augustine (354-430 AD) wrote in De Genesi Ad Literam, 10:39 declared, “The custom of our mother Church in baptizing infants must not be counted needless, nor believed to be other than a tradition of the Apostles.” Augustine further states: “…the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they cannot possibly be vivified in Christ. In 517 AD, 10 rules of discipline were framed for the Church in Spain. The fifth rule states that “…in case infants were ill…if they were offered, to baptize them, even though it were the day that they were born…such was to be done.” (”The History of Baptism” by Robert Robinson, London, Thomas Knott, 1790, p.269).

This pattern of baptizing infants remained in Christianity through the Dark and Middle Ages until modern times. In the 1500 years from the time of Christ to the Protestant Reformation, the only bonafide opponent to infant baptism was the heretic Tertullian (160-215 AD) who de facto denied original sin. Then in the 1520s the Christian Church experienced opposition specifically to infant baptism under the influence of Thomas Muenzer and other fanatics who opposed both civil and religious authority, original sin and human concupiscence. Thomas’ opposition was then embraced by a considerable number of Swiss, German and Dutch Anabaptists. This brought about strong warning and renunciation by the Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Reformed alike. It was considered a shameless affront to what had been practiced in each generation since Christ’s command in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20) to baptize all nations irrespective of age.

All of this (and more) evidence has lead me to comprise the following statement concerning baptism:

Baptism Statement

In baptism, God graciously and miraculously washes away our sins by applying the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection to us, gives us a new birth, clothes us in Christ’s righteousness, gives us the Holy Spirit, saves us, buries us, and through faith raises us up with Christ as new creatures, making us holy before God and integrating us into the body of Christ. None of this comes about due to anything magical in the water, but by the Word of God in and with the water conjoined with our faith in that Word. Baptism was always immediately taught and administered to new believers
in the New Testament and Jesus commanded His followers to disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Jesus Himself was baptized as an example for us in order to fulfill all righteousness. According to the Bible, all of this happens in baptism and it is entirely the work of God, not our own doing. In Scripture, the promises and power of baptism are extended and made available to all – including infants. This does not stray from the Scriptural teaching that a person is saved by God’s grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Baptism is one of the miraculous means of grace (together with God’s written and spoken Word) through which God creates and/or strengthens the gift of faith in a person’s heart. This faith needs to be fed and nurtured by God’s Word or it will die. Faith can also be created in a person’s heart by the power of the Holy Spirit working through God’s (written or spoken) Word. Baptism should then soon follow conversion for the purpose of confirming and strengthening faith in accordance with God’s command and promise. Therefore baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation. The thief on the cross was saved (apparently without baptism), as were all true believers in the Old Testament era. Mark 16:16 implies that it is not the absence of baptism that condemns a person but the absence of faith, and there are clearly other ways of coming to faith by the power of the Holy Spirit (reading or hearing the Word of God). Still, baptism dare not be despised or willfully neglected, since it is explicitly commanded by God and has His precious promises attached to it. It is not a mere “ritual” or “symbol,” but a powerful means of grace by which God grants faith and the forgiveness of sins. Therefore, baptism is “enough” for salvation in that it contains all the blessings of salvation that God Himself has attached to it. However, these blessings are only received by those who cling in faith to the words and promises attached to baptism, remembering that this faith itself is a gift from God (Mt. 3:13-15; 28:18-20; Mk 16:16; Jn. 3:5-7; Acts 2:38,41; 8:12,36-38; 22:16; Rom. 6:1-4; 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:26-27; Eph. 5:25-26; Col 2:11,12; Tit. 3:5-6; 1 Pet. 3:21).

Often I am confused as to the role of works in my faith. I have often been told that since my faith is to “bear fruit,” if I am not doing good works I am not saved. This even appears to be the message of James when he writes, “faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” In his book God’s Yes and God’s No: The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, C.F.W. Walther states in Theses X, page 54,

“The believer need not at all be exhorted to do good works; his faith does them automatically. The believer engages in good works, not from a sense of duty, in return for the forgiveness of sins, but chiefly because he cannot help doing them. It is altogether impossible that genuine faith should not break forth from the believer’s heart in works of love. . . . You may regard all the doctrines that are preached in the Lutheran Church as true, but if your heart is still in its old condition, filled with the love of sin, if you still act contrary to your conscience, your whole faith is mere sham. Yours is not the faith of which the Holy Spirit speaks when He uses the word “faith” in the Scriptures; for that faith – the genuine article – purifies the heart.”

Thus good works are the evidence (or fruit) of salvation, but they cannot earn one’s salvation. Even so, the only works that are good are those which are done for the glory of God and the good of man. Such works, however, no man performs unless he first believes that God has forgiven him his sins and has given him eternal life by grace, for Christ’s sake, without any works of his own (John 15:4-5). Since good works never precede faith, but are always and in every instance the result (or evidence) of faith in the Gospel, it is evident that the only means by which we Christians can become rich in good works, which God desires for us (Titus 2:14), is unceasingly to remember the grace of God which we have received in Christ (Romans 12:1; 2 Corinthians 8:9).

Hence we must reject as foolish any attempt to produce good works by the compulsion of the Law or through carnal motives. At the same time, we must recognize that “faith, if it does not have works, is dead being by itself” (James 2:17), as I stated earlier. Even in the Old Testament, God says, “I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules” (Ezekiel 36:27). This is a word of caution to those who would “continue in sin that grace may abound” (Romans 6:1), but is not meant to remove the assurance of the sincere believer who has repented of his or her sins. “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death” (Romans 8:1-2). Remember that “the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7).