Comments on: My New Years Resolution is to. . . .

By: Dan O'Day (prayeramedic)

Dan O'Day (prayeramedic) — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:01:51 +0000

Hey, Tiffany — I love you! In Doug’s defense, I don’t believe Doug was trying to demean Pastor Biggs as a person, he was simply making the point that he believes he has walked away from an LCMS perspective on worship, which is only one aspect of his pastoral ministry. I don’t believe Doug meant to discredit the man himself simply because of this one disagreement.

I myself fully support Pastor Biggs’ approach to different styles of worship, and I believe this discussion has more to do with semantics than with genuine doctrinal perils. But I believe we’ve established that.

Everyone is certainly entitled to his or her opinion.

By: Dan O'Day (prayeramedic)

Dan O'Day (prayeramedic) — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:51:32 +0000

Sorry about the misunderstanding Doug. I (incorrectly) thought that when you said: “in the Old testament God gave “worship”, if you will. Did He not tell Moses exactly what the Tabernacle was to be made of and contain? Did He not tell them exactly what to offer as sacrifices? Was not any departure from this unacceptable to God? Yes.” I thought you were implying that the style of worship Lutherans do today comes from God directly and thus it is wrong to depart from it. When re-reading it, I noticed the next line says: “But, the ‘direction’, if you will, has not changed.” I apologize for my misunderstanding.

In regards to your statement: “We use 3 different ones every month along with a Matins service, and generally throughout the year use 6 or 7 different services, but all contain the basic elements of what makes up a proper Divine Service.” Despite these different formats, I believe they all constitute one style, i.e. traditional. Not that anything is wrong with that style — but it is not suited for all people. It is very hard for my wife and I to sit through a traditional Lutheran service, because we don’t understand much of what is happening and it seems unnecessarily tortuous to us. It actually detracts from the service for us — because we are foreign to it in many respects. Last time I went to a very traditional service, my wife and I ended up leaving in frustration because we couldn’t follow along. In addition to using three different books/hymnals, they had different types of page numbers in them (little in front, big in back or something) and we kept getting lost. Plus they had a rubric in the sidebar that explained when to stand, kneel, sit, turn around and face the back, etc. VERY CONFUSING. The pastor changed into a cape for the communion, very weird. That makes me not want to attend the church, and I can’t focus on the content because too much is going on for me. In that case, I am not focusing on Christ giving me His gifts, I am becoming unnecessarily confused by the style.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not too happy with many praise celebration services either. Often they are very “fluffy” and focused more on making me feel good rather than simply sharing Law and Gospel with me along with Christ’s gifts. They also tend to encourage a passive laity and make a sharp clergy/laity distinction (see my post “I have a secular job” at http://390days.com/2008/10/secular-job for more on that).

I think something like the “Epic” service at Prince of Peace would be much more comfortable and accessible for me. It is experiential (nothing wrong with experiencing God, so long as my faith doesn’t rely on my feelings, but solely on Christ), community-oriented (something to which the church needs to return), participatory (a big plus, it enables the priesthood of believers to take part in worship), and image driven (a huge plus for the post-literate culture of today).

So when it all boils down to it, the style is irrelevant and secondary to Christ and His gifts in the context of the service, so long as the style does not detract from these. And for me, the traditional style often detracts from it. For you, it may enhance the experience. And that is great. Different strokes for different folks. . . . And all one body!

Thanks for the thought-provoking comments and Christocentrism Doug. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on many more posts and issues. It is good to have a variety of perspectives and inputs. God bless!

By: tiffany

tiffany — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:45:32 +0000

This is Dan’s wife here (Tiffany)…I am jumping into this great conversation a little late (I usually never make it to reading anything because blogs are on the computer!!) hahaha

I didn’t grow up in a Lutheran church or any specific denomination for that matter. I was raised knowing that Jesus Christ died for my sins. I didn’t “understand” a lot about wording, and even upon meeting Dan, I was a new Christian…I didn’t realize all that Christ had freed me from, and that was evident in the worldly culture in which I lived prior to Christ transforming me. I was a professing Christian (unattached to denomination), and I was eager to learn more and more. Jesus met me right where I was, completely entrenched in sin.

Upon coming to knowledge of Christ, I was plugged in to a mega church. I have to be honest that I don’t know that I would have ever willingly come to a “house church” to learn more about the Lord. I went to this mega church because I knew I needed something more and the way they promoted (yes, I used the word promoted) the gospel was appealing to me in my worldly ways…and guess what??? The Holy Spirit used this place and the people there to speak into my life. Christ used these people to teach me more about HIM. Of course, over the period of about a year, the Holy Spirit prompted me to move on in search of a deeper Scriptural truth (Biblically-based, of course)…

I ceased going to that church, but God used that setting to draw me closer to him. God draws people through all avenues, whether it is house churches, mega churches, mission fields, or what we would consider dead churches.

On one other note, I must say that it is great to have theological discussions about wording and nit-picking the Word to make sure that it hasn’t been taken out of context or translated in error. However, I am encouraging each person that reads this not to mince words and argue over silly things in regards to debating…when those that haven’t come to the same understanding and “deep” revelation that we have come to in regards to some biblical topics, it actually hinders the gospel message when we feud over wording…it is silly—possibly what the scripture would refer to as foolish. Of course, this blogosphere is the perfect medium to have these types of disputes, but I encourage everyone not live their lives this way, always pointing the finger, because all of us are sinners and we each look foolish in our knowledge in comparison to God. So instead of finger-pointing, perhaps we should encourage and in some cases realize that God uses ALL situations, and that NO situation (regardless of how we see things) is a perfect setting for God, because we are ALL conceived in sin. Whether a pastor focused on “giving worship to God” or whatever, isn’t the point. To quote Doug:
“I am saddened that a man trained in a Missouri Synod seminary who should have been taught this truth has abandoned it. His words on the website of his church shows he has. Equally saddening is those we elect to be responsible to correct such false thinking are apparently ignoring it.”

First of all: Shame on you!

My question to you: Have you ever met this pastor? I haven’t. How can either one of us sit here and question his training in seminary because of a silly phrase that you may find to be full of error? I will admit to you (I know that this is hard to believe) that I have made a mistake today–I don’t know what it is specifically, but I know that I made one–and I will make one by the time I go to sleep tonight. I don’t know that I can say that a Pastor has “abandoned” the “truth” of God’s word because of a small phrase about “giving worship to God.” I guess, before I make that judgment call about someone’s life, I need to ask myself, what am I actively doing today, and every day to spread the Word of God and be relevant in reaching the masses? I am not doing anything remotely close to what this guy is doing…and I don’t even know him.

By: Doug

Doug — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:01:54 +0000

Thanks for your comment, Dan.
Actually you assign to me saying things I did not say when you said “To say we need Christ plus any specific form of worship (or Christ plus anything) is to commit the dangerous error of the Judaizers”. Did I say this? No, I did not. I commented that this pastor has reversed what “worship” really is. God comes to us in Word and Sacrament, and this is missing in that pastors “worship is what we give to God.” Certainly we sing and we speak, but if what we do is not filled with all that is in agreement with what God has given us – Word and Sacrament – then it becomes, as I said, something not much different that what pagans do – try to “ascend to God and bring Him down”.
I basically agree with what you say with “Worship has a lot more to do with how I live my life on Monday than it does with what I say or do on Sunday. Sunday morning is merely a microcosm of my life of worship, wherein I receive Christ’s gifts and respond to Him. In a way I both give and receive, because worship contains two aspects: sacramental and sacrificial.”
Yes, I agree what we do every day is our “spiritual worship.” But, Sunday morning is more than merely a microcosm of that. Instead, it is where God “fuels” us, if you will, with the “bread of life” in a “Divine Service” (gottensdeist) generally held on Sundays.
Yes, I agree no one can demand all have one certain Divine Service,” Yet, there are things that should be in them. For instance The Invocation (In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit) reminds us God came to us in Holy Baptism and made us His own instead of what many think of baptism, that it is where I show God I am ready to now obey Him. The early writers of the “man made liturgies” recognized how God comes to us in His word, so they made almost all the elements of the Liturgy quotations from Scripture; God coming to us, for it is the “sword of the (Holy) Spirit.” To have as much of this “sword” in a liturgy is good. The Sermon is to be a proclaiming of what the Word of God (inspired, or “breathed out” by God) means and its application to our life, for “we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works which God prepared beforehand for us to walk in.” The Supper is, again, God coming to us to feed us and not just us “remembering”. the Benediction, especially the Aaronic one, we have to remember, is qualified by God telling Moses “this is how I WILL PUT MY NAME ON MY PEOPLE.” Notice the direction is from God to us.
So also, then, the hymnody, the everything, does need to reflect finally this same direction. For instance, at the beginning of last Sunday’s Adult bible study we sang a hymn from the “consecration” section of one of our two hymnals, “consecration” having much to do with how my life will be a “worship” of him, but notice the very first words: “Savior thy dying love thou GAVEST me,” and then is said “Nor should I aught withhold, Dear Lord from thee.” Here the direction is kept right.
You close by saying “It’s great that you have your tradition, but don’t bind others in it — that’s when it becomes legalistic and stubbornly clinging to vain traditions which were made by men and not by God.” I didn’t tell anyone that they should stubbornly cling to my “tradition” or to any one certain Divine Service. We use 3 different ones every month along with a Matins service, and generally throughout the year use 6 or 7 different services, but all contain the basic elements of what makes up a proper Divine Service.
Yes, I did say, and will continue to say, for it is Scriptural, what takes place on Sunday morning, or on any day that we gather in this way, what takes place is God giving to us, and is not what this pastor said, what we give God. Notice, Dan, he did not even say what you say about Sunday worship. He says nothing about God giving to us.
Again, thanks for your comments.

By: Dan O'Day (prayeramedic)

Dan O'Day (prayeramedic) — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:01:43 +0000

Hey Doug. I think a big difference here though is that God did not prescribe any of the forms of worship we use today outside of His Word and Sacraments. The rest of it, whether it be liturgy, hymns, etc. are man-made traditions — God did not prescribe them any more than He prescribed other forms of worship. Not to mention, Christ alone is what we cling to — not the style of worship. To say we need Christ plus any specific form of worship (or Christ plus anything) is to commit the dangerous error of the Judaizers, which is why Paul wrote the book of Galatians — to combat this heresy. The Judaizers asked believers to adhere to Jewish customs such as circumcision and other traditions, just as many churches today try to prescribe various traditions as being necessary to the Gospel’s faithful proclamation. It’s just not needed. It doesn’t necessarily do harm, but people need to wake up and realize that no one style of worship is the best or whatnot. God made different kinds of people who respond to different things, stylistic differences cater to this diversity which God created.

Worship has a lot more to do with how I live my life on Monday than it does with what I say or do on Sunday. Sunday morning is merely a microcosm of my life of worship, wherein I receive Christ’s gifts and respond to Him. In a way I both give and receive, because worship contains two aspects: sacramental and sacrificial. The sacramental aspects of worship are entirely God’s work, the sacrificial aspects are where I respond to God and offer Him my praise, prayer, etc. Certainly He doesn’t need it, but as my loving heavenly Father, He is pleased to receive it. So in reality, I do give to God in worship, but not nearly as much as He gives me. But I wouldn’t mince words over Prince of Peace’s statement that worship is something we give to God. In this context worship is merely my praise and adoration, not the contents or events of the service itself, regardless of style.

It’s great that you have your tradition, but don’t bind others in it — that’s when it becomes legalistic and stubbornly clinging to vain traditions which were made by men and not by God.

By: Doug

Doug — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:01:34 +0000

There is no doubt that those holding to a post modern mind set need what God sent His Son to do; gain for all mankind as sinners the forgiveness we need so we will no perish but have eternal life. To do so God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law that He might redeem us. It is that while we where yet sinners, Christ died for us. All of this is the reality of the shadow during the Old Testament times. Yet, all that is said above, all quotes from the New Testament, do reflect one very important fact that Prince of Peace gets wrong when they say worship is something you give to God. Instead, in the Old testament God gave “worship”, if you will. Did He not tell Moses exactly what the Tabernacle was to be made of and contain? Did He not tell them exactly what to offer as sacrifices? Was not any departure from this unacceptable to God? Yes.
It is really no different in the New Testament, except Jesus is the Tabernacle and Jesus is the Sacrifice, the reality of the shadow. But, the “direction”, if you will, has not changed. And, in the Lutheran Church we are supposed to know this, for we do not “give” to God Holy Baptism. Instead, God comes to the one being baptized in His word connected to the water, causing what Paul speaks of in Romans 6. We do not “give” to God the Holy Supper. Instead, Jesus, in a mysterious way, “gives” to us His true body and blood “in, with, and under” the bread and wine, feeding us with forgiveness, life, and salvation. In other words, Lutheran pastors are supposed to know what we often call “worship” is really, in the old German, “Gottensdeist” (think it is spelled correctly), or “God’s service to us”, and therefore a “Divine Service” of God coming to us in Word and Sacrament. When we reverse this and make it “us giving to God”, then it is all backwards, and is beginning to border on nothing more that what pagan religions do: Attempt to offer “god” something to make him/her/it happy with us.
Instead, those of every generation need to hear over and over that God loved us and sent His Son to be the “covering up of the guilt of our sin” before God, that in Holy Baptism God robes them in the righteousness of Christ, and they stand before God a “saint”, as Paul calls the Christians in various churches, that, as Ephesians 2 says, by grace we are saved through faith, and that is NOT OF OURSELVES, but is a “GIFT” of God, not by WORKS, so no one can boast.
I am saddened that a man trained in a Missouri Synod seminary who should have been taught this truth has abandoned it. His words on the website of his church shows he has. Equally saddening is those we elect to be responsible to correct such false thinking are apparently ignoring it.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:16:24 +0000

I think my issue has something to do with that I see a distinction between simply having a good starting point for a discussion with someone (like, say, knowing that the person you’re speaking with is a atheist, for example), and trying to “get people in the door” so that you can then give them the gospel message. To me, the latter is more akin to marketing, than contextualization, but anyway…

Looking forward to reading any upcoming posts that would explain your thoughts on postmodernism….

By: Dan O'Day (prayeramedic)

Dan O'Day (prayeramedic) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:59:59 +0000

Hey Daniel, I think I didn’t express that clearly. Absolutely the message should not change — but the style used to present it is fairly irrelevant so long as it does not detract from the message nor change it in any way. The Gospel is still offensive and foolish — no matter the context in which it is delivered. I absolutely agree with you that the message itself should not change, nor does it. The only thing changing here is the style, exactly as you said, things like music, liturgy, etc. I agree what you say about using the idols as a starting point, that’s what this service is, a way to get people 18-35 in the door who likely would never set foot in any normal church setting. From there, the pure Gospel is being presented — the message itself has not been altered.

Perhaps I’ll write a post soon with my thoughts on postmodernism — what it is, how it came to be, if it is the prevailing thought in the world today (it is more or less ‘emerging’, not totally dominant yet), etc. That might be helpful to define some of the terms I use a lot in my posts, and to show how I am using them.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:36:03 +0000

Is “postmodernism” a reality though…? (I think I’ve still yet to be convinced…) And if it is, and it is something that really alters the way people think, and therefore are able to understand the gospel, how does one of those particular services you highlighted communicate the gospel in a way that would be more easily understood by a “postmodern person” than another? Just wondering, cuz at this point, I don’t see anything that suggests a difference in the way the message is communicated, only in the style of things like music, or liturgy…

And as to Paul and the Aeropagus (one of the favorite examples of those proposing the cater-your-platform approach…), yes, he did use the example of the idols as a starting point, but, from there, it was the exact same gospel message he preached everywhere else. In fact, if Paul was so good at catering his message to the philosophical minds around him, why did most of them respond by saying “what is this babbler talking about”, or “he seems to be advocating foreign gods…”, only a few were interested in hearing more, most thought he was some crazy dude… Anyways… Daniel

By: Dan O'Day (prayeramedic)

Dan O'Day (prayeramedic) — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 00:59:49 +0000

Hello Carla! Thanks for stopping by! I also sat under Pastor Biggs ministry at Messiah in Lincoln, NE for a short period of time — he’s a great guy. I’m glad to see an LCMS church figuring this out, and in a timely and trendsetting fashion — very atypical for this denomination! Well done.