FW: Rote Worship Loses Meaning?

 

 

Feed: Necessary Roughness
Posted on: Sunday, January 17, 2010 5:09 AM
Author: Dan
Subject: Rote Worship Loses Meaning?

 

One of the critiques I repeatedly heard at the LCMS Model Theological Conference on Worship was that a person can mindlessly run through the liturgy and not apply it in their lives. This is a slightly different critique than the one I heard in the Ohio District talks, that liturgy is justification for one's weekly misdeeds. I suppose theoretically one could divorce one's mind from the meaning of the words, but this isn't a charge unique to liturgical worship. In fact, it's more likely to happen when one is getting lost in ecstatic music. The aversion to rote worship and memorization is counter to how we learn and harms our ability to use knowledge. Do we memorize multiplication tables, or do we sit down with a piece of paper and do the basic math every time? Do we turn screws each way to see what works, or does "righty-tighty-lefty-loosey" come into the mind without effort? Rote worship — liturgical worship — is part of the institutional knowledge of the church. It is the shorthand of our vocabulary to convey bigger ideas. It is also a guard by which we ensure we believe the same things. We do not live in Wonderland, where Humpty Dumpty chooses the meaning of words. How many times in a Lutheran's life do the following phrases fit various situations? poor, miserable sinner by what we have done and by what we have left undone I forgive you Lord, have mercy From the creeds: I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins, etc. These are the church's tools, and we make them ours. We do not get the opportunity to collect every little question about God during the week, seek a judgement of appropriate application by the pastor, then run it back to our daily vocations and apply it. No, some situations simply call for a nice, polite, "I'm a poor, miserable sinner." That's simply the best explanation for stuff I have done and stuff I haven't done (oh, there's another one…). The liturgy will not tell you how to have your best life now, prescribe a program for evangelism, or communicate some vision from the pastor regarding where he wants the congregation to be in five years. It will tell you that you are a sinner, that you need to be and have been redeemed by Christ, and that He has provided His Supper to strengthen your faith. That's not bad stuff to recite every week. If it loses meaning to me, then the fault is mine, not the liturgy's.

View article...

FW: Worship Wisdom

Again, Pr. Beecroft…

 

Feed: Rev. Mason Beecroft
Posted on: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 12:39 PM
Author: masonbeecroft
Subject: Worship Wisdom

 

This comes from A. Daniel Frankforter's book, "Stones for Bread." "If worship is to flourish, churches must constantly critique what they do in the name of worship. But they must do so for the right reasons. When worship reforms are driven by a desire to grow a congregation rather than improve it (through strengthening its awareness of the reality of God), a church begins to turn itself into a theater. It may mount a show that draws a crowd, but to no very serious purpose. American churches are exposed to powerful temptations to make themselves appealing by misrepresenting the Christian faith. Since they are voluntary organizations whose survival depends on their ability to recruit members in a highly competitive market, their leaders tend to develop a business mentality. They fixate on 'the bottom line' and strive to maintain 'market share' by ditching old 'products' and experimenting with new packaging. Seldom do they take seriously Jesus' warning that the message he sends them to preach is not designed to make the apostles popular. Ecclesiastical journals are full of advice for revitalizing shrinking churches. Much of it is based on the work of pollsters and seers who  claim to be adept at discovering what the potential new consumer (i.e., the unchurched public) wants. Their usual suggestions are to fire the organist, hire a rock band, burn the vestments, and take an ax to the pulpit. They blame the falloff in church membership on outdated worship styles and promise growth to any parish that narrows the gap between its worship and the entertainments that enrich other purveyors of American popular culture. Oddly, however, only a small percentage of people who leave churches say that discontent with traditional worship is the reason for their departure. Most simply dismiss the church as an irrelevant organization whose only function is to perpetuate itself. Such cynicism is encouraged by evangelistic programs that concentrate on growing congregations rather than transforming them. Recruits become seriously disillusioned when they begin to suspect that their church values them less for themselves than as trophies of its success. The church must meet the challenge of demonstrating its relevance to a skeptical and unredeemed world, and this requires it to speak to the concerns of those whom it hopes to convert in languages they understand. But the church must be mindful of the dangers it faces when it engages the world. A congregation can easily attract the unconverted to its services if it allows them to dictate the terms under which they come. but ultimately such a church may cease to be a church, for it finds that it is preaching nothing that the worldly do not already know."

View article...

FW: The Consensus of Purer Antiquity and Lutheranism

Here is some motivation from Pr. McCain to read more Chemnitz:

 

Feed: Cyberbrethren Lutheran Blog Feed
Posted on: Friday, January 15, 2010 4:49 AM
Author: Paul T. McCain
Subject: The Consensus of Purer Antiquity and Lutheranism

 

For we can affirm with a good conscience that we have, after reading the Holy Scripture, applied ourselves and yet daily apply ourselves to the extent that the grace of the Lord permits to inquiry into and investigation of the consensus of the true and purer antiquity. For we assign to the writings of the fathers their proper and, indeed, honorable place which is due them, because they have clearly expounded many passages of Scripture, have defended the ancient dogmas of the church against new corruptions of heretics, and have done so on the basis of Scripture, have correctly explained many points of doctrine, have recorded many things concerning the history of the primitive church, and have usefully called attention to many other things. And we long for this, that in the life to come we may see what we believe and hope concerning the grace of God on account of His Son, the Redeemer, as members of the true catholic church; that we may see (I say) the Son of God Himself, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, and fathers, who held to the true foundation, and may enjoy intimate friendship with them to all eternity. Therefore we examine with considerable diligence the consensus of the true, learned, and purer antiquity, and we love and praise the testimonies of the fathers which agree with the Scripture. — Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I, p. 256.

View article...

On the Model Theological Conference on Worship

Dear QBR Readers,

I have been including perspectives on the MTC from others on our blog and will continue to do so. I pray they are of benefit.

We will post some of our delegation's thoughts in time, too, but I wanted to share them with our Wyoming District Pastors and Board of Directors first.

My service to my congregation and to them has to be my priority. And then online "reporting" to the Lutheran blogosphere.

Toward Concordia in Christ,

Paul J Cain

Perspectives on the MTC, #9

From Pr. Beecroft, one of the MTC speakers…

 

Feed: Rev. Mason Beecroft
Posted on: Saturday, January 16, 2010 11:20 AM
Author: masonbeecroft
Subject: "So who decides?"

 

This question was pervasive at the LCMS Model Theological Conference, "Toward a Theology of Worship…," which was held this past week in St. Louis. As the discussion turned toward issues of style, rite, ceremony, form and liturgy appropriate to our sacramental confession, this typical response came often, "So who decides what is appropriate? Or reverent? Or sacramental?"  The underlying assumption, of course, is that it is all, or largely, in the eye of the beholder. What is appropriate, reverent, and sacramental for one person, may not be appropriate, reverent, and sacramental for another. Thus, the predominant factor for making such determinations is cultural context. The most important consideration is how to communicate the idea of the Gospel to modern (post-modern) people. I would contend this approach merely reflects the confusion of our mismanaged modern (post-modern) minds. Jonathan Robinson, author of "The Mass and Modernity," comments that our cultural climate "may be summed up in the attitude that one set of opinions is as good as any other set, and this is so because there is no objectivity to be found in human experience. The very possibility of looking for a description of 'the way things really are' is looked on as foolish. 'That's your choice, and so long as you don't try to impose it on anyone else, you are entitled to it' sums up this attitude. There are no grands-discours, or general descriptions of reality, because, to put it bluntly, there is no reality to be described" (23). As such, there is no objective form, rite, or ceremony to be imposed on Christians (or Lutherans?) because who is to decide what is really best or appropriate? It is really up to each person, pastor, or congregation to decide what is best for their own particular needs. I firmly believe that such rampant individualistic subjectivism works against our objective, sacramental confession of faith. The Book of Concord, the theological confession of Lutherans, clearly states that we "do not abolish the Mass." Rather, we retain the Mass and observe it with greater piety and devotion than our opponents. Now our modern (post-modern) Lutherans will say that such language is historically and contextually bound, only descriptive of their particular time and not to be imposed on modern, enlightened Lutherans. Little surprise, I disagree.  The historic liturgies (masses or divine services) of Christendom embody the sacramental confession of our Lutheran faith, proclaiming our belief in the presence of the living, risen and ascended Christ through the words of the proclaimed Gospel and the in the bread and wine of Holy Communion, His very Body and Blood. The Great Tradition of sacramental Christianity (Lutheran, RC, Orthodox, Anglican[?]) has reflected these truths in varying degrees by their deep ritual, ceremonial, liturgical conduct. If people believe God Himself is present, then worship is marked by reverence, mystery, formality, repetition, obedience, and humility. Only a confused, disordered modern (post-modern) person will not be able to recognize the great transcendentals of truth, beauty, and goodness in sacramental Christian worship, and they will fail to conduct themselves appropriately in the presence of the Most Holy Trinity. They will not act like Moses, Isaiah, or St. John, choosing instead the irreverent path of the American religious consumer who locates God in a distant, far off Protestant heaven. So who decides? The question itself reflects an unholy amnesia, a loss of identity. Certainly each pastor and each congregation should not be making those decisions. The liturgy is too important to be left in the hands of a pastor whose seminary training in liturgical and sacramental theology is shamefully lacking. It is too important to be decided upon by our congregations in some democratic form, especially when so few of them have been formed or catechized by the historic liturgies of the church. Certainly, the needs of the American consumer should not decide what is appropriate. Robinson states, "The result of trying to adapt the liturgy to meet the perceived needs of the world from the perspective of modernity weakens, not strengthens, the Church." Amen. So who decides? Well, perhaps the decision has already been made. Maybe, just maybe, we have had the answer to the question of our theology of worship all along. Remember, we have received the Mass. We have retained the Mass. We do not abolish the Mass. Our fathers in the faith have decided for us. It is a good thing. It is meet, right and salutary. So we worship with the angels. Christ speaks. We listen. Christ feeds us His body and blood. We eat and drink. We kneel. We make the sign of the cross. We sing. We confess sins. We confess faith. God puts His name on us and we go into the world, bearing witness to His love made known in Christ. We gather in the Liturgy of the Mass where Christ forgives, redeems, and saves us, sending us out to the liturgy after the liturgy, our lives and vocations. The immediate objection by those who remain confused is, "Well, which form of the Mass?" They point to historical diversity as a red herring, pretending that it allows all sorts of creativity, novelty, and diversity in our own day. My response is the form found in the Lutheran Service Book. There is our form of the Mass. It is not perfect, but it is faithful. It could use more direction in terms of ceremony, but if all of our congregations submitted themselves in humility and obedience to the heritage we have received, then we would not be in our current state of evangelical confusion and widespread disunity. May the living, risen, and ascended Christ grant us repentance by His Holy Spirit and so draw us in faith to His precious gifts of the Mass for the renewal of the life of His Holy Church.

View article...

Perspectives on the MTC, #8

From Pastor Weedon.

 

Feed: Weedon's Blog
Posted on: Saturday, January 16, 2010 2:08 PM
Author: William Weedon
Subject: More Meditation on Worship Conference

 

Before the conference was ever held, Pr. Asburry noted that the question that is ultimately behind all the discussions will likely not be addressed: the question of authority. He was prescient. It is the "white elephant" in the room of American Lutheranism. Granted that many of the questions before us do indeed fall into the category of adiaphora (neither commanded nor forbidden); granted that not all adiaphora are created equal (Arand); WHO regulates adiaphora or church ceremony? Our Symbols are not silent on this, but neither are they entirely helpful, for they propose a solution within a framework that is no longer in existence for us. The AC says this is the task of pastors and bishops and that within certain carefully defined parameters, the congregations owe them obedience in such matters, even though these are not matters of salvation or anything close. The FC says that the Church in every "land" (the territorial church) has the authority to increase or decrease such ceremonies. Notice that in both references to the Symbols, we have a transparochial recognition: bishop and the territorial church. How that worked out you can see from studying the Church Orders. Take the order promulgated under Duke Julius for Braunschweig-Wölfenbüttel and authored by the two principal writers of the Formula: Chemnitz and Andreaea. Its corpus doctrinae makes it utterly clear that uniformity in ceremonies is not necessary to true churchly unity and that in no way should humanly instituted ceremonies be thought of as salvific. And yet, the order extols the benefits of uniformity for the sake of a united confession of the truth and to avoid needless controversy. It mandates by force of law the use of the ceremonies as prescribed within the territory. Nor do they look only to themselves; but they weigh the practice of neighboring territories as they formulate church ceremony. The end result is a legally binding standard by which Superintendents could hold pastors and parishes accountable, yet equally clear was that this standard did not descend on gold plates from heaven. It was not intended to be irreformable, but it was intended to be used and any deviation from it was to be remedied. Uniformity was not extolled as constituting the Church's unity, but as being of service to that unity. Fast forward several hundred years and across the ocean. We have now lived as Lutherans in America for a long time. Here there is neither bishop nor territorial church. What has happened? We have an atomization of the Church whereby each parish and each pastor become the equivalent of the bishop and the territorial church - and each fiercely guards his respective turf no matter which side of the question of worship one comes down on. It there a way out of the impasse without addressing head on the question of authority in an honest and open way? The Synod repeatedly frames her convention resolutions as "encourage the congregations of Synod to..." Is it even possible for there be a true transparochial solution to the disarray in worship practices? I fear the answer is no, unless we are able to address the matter of authority and to learn again the virtue of humble submission to one another in the joy of the Gospel. http://feeds.feedburner.com/WeedonsBlog

View article...

FW: Applying the Principle of Adiaphora with Confidence, by Klemet Preus

On Adiaphora by Klemet Preus

 

For your consideration:

 

Feed: The Brothers of John the Steadfast
Posted on: Sunday, January 17, 2010 5:38 AM
Author: Pastor Tim Rossow
Subject: Applying the Principle of Adiaphora with Confidence, by Klemet Preus

 

Article X of the Formula of Concord deals with indifferent matters or what has been called "adiaphora." The application of Article X to the question of worship among Lutherans in America today may seem difficult. But once we sweep away some of the extraneous issues and get to the core of the Biblical and Confessional position on adiaphora, we can apply it today with confidence. Here was the issue which confronted the Lutherans. They had been part of the Roman Church until recently. While establishing the ministry of the Gospel and Sacraments among themselves they had discarded certain Roman customs. The Roman church wanted the Lutherans to return to these customs in order for there to be peace among the two groups. Some Lutherans figured that they should go ahead and reintroduce the abandoned customs. They thought that they might as well not antagonize the Roman church any more than necessary and since some of these customs were neither commanded nor forbidden in the church then they were not doing wrong for actions intended to minimize the conflict. Other Lutherans said that there should be principles which would guide the church as she decided which customs to reintroduce. These are the principles. Obviously you can't introduce ceremonies which are contrary to the bible even if these customs are claimed to be indifferent matters. If certain customs or ceremonies are designed to give the impression that our religion does not greatly differ from that of the papists then we are not free to use those customs even if, under different circumstances, the ceremonies would be indifferent matters. When customs or ceremonies are introduced as though through these ceremonies contrary religions are reconciled, then such ceremonies are not matters of indifference. (FC SD X 5) Let me make some observations especially pertaining to number 2 above. First, let it be noted that the "two religions" mentioned and discussed in the formula are the Lutherans and the Papists. But the principles apply to the true church and any religious expression which teaches contrary to the pure Gospel. So "enemies of the gospel," as they are called in the Formula (FC SD X 2), could be Calvinists, Armenians, Nestorians, synergists or American Evangelicals.      Second, the confessions address the question of giving the impression of unity when there is none. "Nor do we include among truly free adiaphora or things indifferent those ceremonies which give or (to avoid persecution) are designed to give the impression that our religion does not differ greatly from that of the papists" FC SD X 5, Tappert 611). So, it is wrong to give an impression which is false and it is doubly wrong to do so in order to avoid persecution. Third, the Formula negatively states the motives for employing ceremonies which give a false impression – "to avoid persecution." But it is not merely the avoidance of persecution which can motivate wrongly in this context. In principle the same prohibition would apply if employing ceremonies was done for positive reasons. If we deceive people into thinking that we are something different than we are so that we can gain acceptance by the dominant culture or at least by the dominant religious culture then the gain through deception violates the principle of the Formula no less than does the avoidance of pain through deception. Fourth, at the time of the Reformation the Papists had the ability to force upon the Lutherans certain ceremonies by the threat of persecution through legal means. The capacity to persecute through legal means is not possible today in America where we enjoy freedom of religion. Does that mean that there is no application of the principles articulated in Article X of the Formula? Hardly. The example which the Formula finds in the scriptures is the well known case of the imposition of circumcision by the Judaizers upon Paul's disciples. The imposition occurred "in order to establish their false doctrine that works of the Law were necessary for righteousness and salvation" (FC SD X 12 Concordia 628). Yet such an imposition was not done through legal pressure. Only the Romans could have done that. Rather, the Judaizers (enemies of the Gospel in Paul's day) employed a type of ecclesiastical intimidation to force their will on others. That is why the Confessions enjoin the church "not to yield to the adversaries or permit these adiaphora to be forced on them by their enemies, whether by violence or cunning" (FC SD X 10 Concordia 628, emphasis mine). So when customs are cunningly imposed upon the church which give the impression of unity with the dominant church culture even though that unity does not exist then the principles articulated in FC X are violated. Now someone might say; What customs might fall into this category today? What practices are being imposed today? How do these give the impression of unity? And I would answer; these customs are being imposed:  Bands in front of the church, whose purpose is to entertain, A medley of songs at the beginning of the service which have the purpose of warming up the people for the preacher, The insertion of crossover music into the divine service, The removal of paraments and vestments, The removal of hymnals in deference to projections on a screen, The removal of the pulpit, Decreasing the use of the ecumenical creeds, Departure from the standard historic ordinaries, Public testimonials of laymen and laywomen during the service and even during the sermon,   And probably many more. And someone would object; Are you saying these things are wrong? And I would answer; In and of themselves these may be matters of indifference. Most of them are neither forbidden nor commanded by the Bible. But all of them are strongly associated with American Evangelicalism which is the most powerful religious force in America today. They picture and promote the theology of Evangelicalism and are "pushed by the enemies of the gospel to establish their false doctrine" (FC SD X 12 Concordia 628). And there are strong cultural and ecclesiastical forces which are trying to impose these customs upon the Lutheran churches today. We need to resist accepting these ceremonies just as strenuously as the Lutherans in the 16th century resisted the imposition of Papist ceremonies on their churches. If we do not then we will "give the impression that our religion does not differ greatly from that of the" Evangelicals. And some one would object, "But it is demonstrable that the church will not grow without these changes." And I would answer; Whether we grow or not it is deceptive to make people believe that we are similar to mainstream American Evangelicalism by adopting their ceremonies. If we deceive in order to avoid persecution we violate our confession. If we deceive in order to enjoy numerical growth we violate it just as well. "A clear cut confession of faith is demanded of us" and "we dare not yield to the enemies of the gospel in indifferent things."  But someone would say; You are trying to impose your customs on us.  And I would answer: That's a different question which can wait for another day.

View article...

FW:

So, what is Rome doing liturgically in English? "And also with you" will be no more. Consider the following…

 

Feed: New Liturgical Movement
Posted on: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 6:25 AM
Author: jeffrey.a.tucker@gmail.com (Jeffrey Tucker)
Subject: And With Your (Not Thy) Spirit

 

The forever forthcoming new translation of the Roman Rite in English will have many positive changes, among them "And with your spirit," but you know this already. It seems that the news about the new translations will never end and the translation will never arrive - and this is mostly because of delays from the USCCB. Cardinal George seems to be pushing back the problems, and just about everyone is to the point of being fed up, as this story suggests. Of course the translation is a huge improvement that, no matter how good, still does not erase a tragic missed opportunity for the 1970 Missal. There are yet a number of frustrations. 1) This translation seems far better (for example, it is an actual translation, unlike the current English rendering) but it is not what it should be. You can see this from the translation of "et cum spiritu tuo." "Thy" is a beautiful word and is lovely to sing and say. "Your" is not a beautiful word, and it is awkward to sing and say. This problem of cognition vs. liturgical language is pervasive. 2) I don't see any progress within ICEL over the permissions/royalty problems of selling the right to publish the Mass text. 3) In the course of doing this, the USCCB has inadvertently granted a monopoly over the Psalms to a for-profit publisher (GIA) that owns exclusive rights to the Grail, a publisher that has been responsible for some of the worst of the musical problems in the Church today, which will now have total control over the psalms and be free to force all composers and publishers in the world to cough up money to pay them forever. Don't try to discover the terms of their monopoly control: all legal agreements are secret and will not be released (unless perhaps legal pressure comes to bear). 4) The delays are preposterous. Everyone is sitting on lots of music that we cannot post because ICEL is preventing this until Rome gives final approval. Improvement is always fantastic. Sadly, no one believes that the new translation is a stable solution for the long term.

View article...

Resources Received: New and Notable!

Jeske, John C. Treasures Old & New: Daily Readings from the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 2009. 384 Pages. Paper. $24.99. http://www.nph/ (LHP)

"A daily devotional book for Seminary students and pastors who want to review the biblical languages of Greek and Hebrew. A passage from the Hebrew Old Testament and a passage from the Greek New Testament are provided for each day of the year. Also, a brief passage from the Lutheran Confessions in English is included. Notes on vocabulary and grammar follow each passage.

"General themes of the Christian church year calendar as well as key doctrinal passages of the Old and New Testament are chosen for these Scripture references" (publisher's website).

 

 

Buy this. Use this. A more formal review will follow soon.

 

PJC

Resources Received

Mosaic Holy Bible (New Living Translation). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale/Credo Communications, 2009. 340 + 1330 Pages. Hardcover. $29.99. (Other editions available.) http://www.holybiblemosaic.com/ http://www.tyndale.com/ http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/ (LHP)

Please note the Apostles' Creed on the back cover:

FW: Reformation Theology Research Award Announcement

For your scholarly consideration, brothers…

 

Feed: Cyberbrethren Lutheran Blog Feed
Posted on: Friday, January 15, 2010 7:25 AM
Author: Paul T. McCain
Subject: Reformation Theology Research Award Announcement

 

Sponsored by Concordia Publishing House Goal To promote the study of Lutheran Confessional theology (16th century to present), its history, and its application in congregational life. 2011 Topic American theologian, C. F. W. Walther, in honor of the 200th anniversary of his birth Submissions Research paper or commemorative sermon and prayer Cash Award $1,200 award for the best original research paper; $600 award for the 2nd place paper $200 award for best commemorative sermon and prayer (May 7 commemoration of C. F. W. Walther, Theologian) Publication Honors The award-winning papers, other selected papers, and the best commemorative sermon and prayer will be published with a bibliographic essay on the state-of-the art in research on C. F. W. Walther's service as a theologian. The publication will also include the jurors' list of noteworthy researchers and their research topics so that writers may collaborate for future study. Term and Conditions (Summary) Anyone may enter a 25-page research paper with 3–5 pages of bibliography. Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod pastors and divinity students may enter a sermon and prayer. However, each submission must carefully adhere to the terms and conditions of the award (details provided below). Submit your text to: Rev. Edward A. Engelbrecht, STM ed.engelbrecht@cph.org Or: Rev. Edward A. Engelbrecht Concordia Publishing House 3558 S. Jefferson Ave. St. Louis, MO 63118-3968 To maintain objectivity, the senior editor will catalog the entries and remove the names of all authors. A panel of theologians will jury all entries submitted by October 31, 2010. Announcement of award winners will coincide with the publication of the finalist papers in 2011. Please read the extended entry for the terms and conditions. Term and Conditions (Details) Term The entry period for a submission of: 1) a research paper, or 2) a commemorative sermon and prayer, on C. F. W. Walther begins January 31, 2010 and ends October 31, 2010. No additional submissions will be accepted after the close of the entry period. Participants Any individual may submit a research paper and its bibliography. Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod pastors or divinity students may submit a sermon and prayer. Employees of Concordia Publishing House who are or were employed during the term described above, members of the Board of Directors at Concordia Publishing House, and jurors appointed for the award are not eligible to participate. All participants must submit accurate and truthful information about themselves in English. CPH will not reveal identities of participants unless and until they receive awards and publication honors. Research Paper and Bibliography Format A paper must present original and previously unpublished research. A paper may not exceed 25 manuscript pages in length (8.5" x 11" page; 12-point Roman font; double-spaced type). Entries must be in MS Word. The body text must be written in English; footnotes may include texts cited from other languages. All annotations must have complete reference information and conform to the CPH Style Sheet. The jury process requires anonymity. Documents written so as to reveal the writer's identity will be disqualified. (E.g., Do not write with personal references to earlier work such as, "In an earlier article, I showed . . . ." A previously published writer should refer to himself in the third person.) A research paper will investigate historical theology by integrating doctrinal history, personal history, and church history within the broader context of civilization. It will present original research and conclusions. Its thesis will be introduced with the words, "The thesis of this paper is . . . ." The paper will include explicit references to passages from the Lutheran Confessions and may include interaction with other theological traditions as appropriate to the topic. The final section of the paper shall have the heading, "Application to Parish Life Today." There you will compare/contrast the paper's historical theology topic with issues faced by people now, concluding with admonition and encouragement for modern readers. Each research paper shall be accompanied by 3–5 pages of bibliography (8.5" x 11" page; 12-point Roman font; double-spaced type). Under the heading, "Primary Resources," the participant will list all primary resource material used. Following a heading, "Secondary Resources," the participant will list all helpful secondary resources used that pertain directly to Walther. (The bibliography should not include general reference works such as lexicons, unless cited for specific arguments in the paper.) Bibliographic entries must be in MS Word, have complete reference information, and conform to the CPH Style Sheet. CPH reserves the right to reject any paper that advocates teachings that are contrary to the Scriptures or the Lutheran Confessions, or which is written by an individual that has publically criticized Concordia Publishing House, or The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Sermon and Prayer Format The Sermon and Prayer entries will focus on the May 7 commemoration of C. F. W. Walther, Theologian (Lutheran Service Book, p. xii, the hymnal of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod). Each sermon entry must be original and previously unpublished. The entry shall include: (1) the feast day, (2) the title, (3) the biblical text reference, (4) the statement of theme in capital letters, (5) a brief outline, (6) the body of the sermon, and (7) a concluding prayer. The total entry shall not exceed 5–7 manuscript pages (8.5" x 11" page; 12-point Roman font; double-spaced type). For more specific guidelines and examples, participants may consult the "Author's Guidelines: Special Sermons" for Concordia Pulpit Resources. Jurors will consider the style and content of the sermon and prayer, with special interest in their faithfulness to the biblical text, application of the biblical text, and appropriateness to the life and service of C. F. W. Walther. The jury process requires anonymity. Documents written so as to reveal the writer's identity will be disqualified. (E.g., Do not write with personal references to earlier work such as, "In an earlier message, I showed . . . ." A previously published writer should refer to himself in the third person.) CPH reserves the right to reject any sermon or prayer that advocates teachings that are contrary to the Scriptures or the Lutheran Confessions, or which is written by an individual that has publically criticized Concordia Publishing House, or The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Submission of Entries Entries must include the writer's complete contact information (email address, mailing address, and phone number) in a cover letter or email. They shall be submitted to Rev. Edward A. Engelbrecht, CPH Senior Editor for Professional and Academic Books & Bible Resources. They may be sent by email attached file or standard mail to the following: ed.engelbrecht@cph.org Or: Rev. Edward A. Engelbrecht Concordia Publishing House 3558 S. Jefferson Ave. St. Louis, MO 63118-3968 The senior editor or his assistant will acknowledge receipt of each complete submission. Because the jury process requires anonymity, the senior editor will catalog all entries and remove the writer's name from each document before the jury process begins. Documents written so as to reveal the writer's identity will be disqualified (see above). Judging of Qualifying Entries A participant shall reasonably cooperate with the senior editor and the jury process in any verification of information about an entry or eligibility. A panel of jurors will judge each entry based on the conditions of the award as well as personal assessment of the entry's content and style. The jurors will select the best papers. They will make known the first and second place research papers and sermon/prayer to the senior editor in spring 2011. The senior editor will contact the award winners and other writers who submitted entries that will be published. Cash Awards $1,200 (USD) will be awarded for the best original research paper, $600 for the second place paper and $200 for the best commemorative sermon and prayer. Publication Honors The award-winning papers and the best commemorative sermon and prayer will be published with a bibliographic essay on the state-of-the art in research on C. F. W. Walther's service as a theologian. In addition, other selected essays may be published. Authors of other essays selected for publication will receive a copy of the printed volume. The publication will also include the jurors' list of noteworthy researchers and their research topics so that writers may collaborate for future study. Additional Terms and Conditions 1) By submitting an entry to the context, each entrant hereby assigns exclusive right in their contribution to CPH for one year from the date of publication. Thereafter, they assign non-exclusive rights to CPH while the book remains in print in any form now know or hereinafter developed, including, but not limited to, electronic rights. CPH and/or its contracted general editor have the right to edit the contributions to suit the requirements of its doctrinal and editorial polices. CPH holds the right to final editorial approval. By submitting a contribution, each entrant certifies that their contribution contains no material, the publication of which would violate any copyright or other personal or property right of any person or entity and CPH may rely on the entrant's representation in publishing their contribution. 2) CPH, as sponsor of the competition, will be the final arbiter of all questions regarding entries, judging, interpretation of the rules, and other aspects of this contest. In the event that there is an insufficient number of qualified entries or if the jurors determine in their absolute discretion that no or too few entries meet the quality standards established to award the prizes, CPH reserves the right not to award the prizes. CPH will not be responsible for incomplete, lost, late or misdirected, or illegible entries for failure to receive entries due to transmission failures or technical failures of any kind. 3) All federal, state and local laws and regulations apply. Void where prohibited. 4) By entering, entrants acknowledge compliance with these rules, including all eligibility requirements. 5) Except where prohibited, participation in the contest constitutes entrant's consent to publication of his or her name and image in any media for any commercial or promotional purpose, without limitation or further compensation. 6) Winners agree that CPH, its employees and agents, shall not be liable for injury, loss or damage of any kind resulting from participating in this contest or from any acceptance or use of any prize awarded. Winner is responsible for all federal, state or local taxes that may be due upon acceptance of the award. 7) The prize is non-transferable.

View article...

FW: [LetUsPray] LetUsPray prayers re: the earthquake in Haiti

Please forward.

 

Pastor Cain

 

From: LetUsPray@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LetUsPray@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rev. Jon D. Vieker
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 11:03 AM
To: letuspray@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [LetUsPray] LetUsPray prayers re: the earthquake in Haiti

 

 

Below are two potential additions for the prayers this Sunday.

P:            Almighty God, merciful Father, Your thoughts are not our thoughts, and Your ways are not our ways. In Your wisdom You have permitted this devastating earthquake in Haiti. Keep Your church there from despair and do not let their faith fail them, but sustain and comfort them. Direct all efforts to attend the injured, console the bereaved, and protect the helpless. Deliver any who are still in danger, and bring hope and healing that they may find relief and restoration. Lord, in Your mercy,
C:            hear our prayer.

 
P:            Merciful Father, we commend to Your keeping all who work to bring rescue and relief in Haiti. Give them courage in danger, skill in difficulty, and compassion in service. Sustain them with bodily strength and calmness of mind that they may perform their work to the well-being of those in need so that lives may be saved and communities restored. Lord, in Your mercy,
C:            hear our prayer.

 
--

Rev. Jon D. Vieker
Assistant Director
Commission on Worship
The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod
1333 S. Kirkwood Road
St. Louis, Missouri 63122-7295
e-dress: Jon.Vieker@lcms.org
website: http://worship.lcms.org
Voice: (314) 996-1266
FAX (314) 996-1165

"In the twenty-first place, God's Word is not rightly divided
when the preacher does not, in general, let the Gospel predominate."
C.F.W. Walther, Law and Gospel

__._,_.___

Reply to sender | Reply to group

Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity:

Visit Your Group Start a New Topic

"In peace let us pray to the Lord . . ."

If your edress changes, please unsubscribe from your old edress, and then resubscribe from your new edress. This is the simplest way to change your edress with LetUsPray.

Subscribe: LetUsPray-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: LetUsPray-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
List owner: LetUsPray-owner@yahoogroups.com
URL:http://worship.lcms.org

We usually send the prayers out by Monday of each week. If for some reason you do not receive them by the end of the week, check the LetUsPray Archives at: http://worship.lcms.org/LUPArchives.

Notice: If there is advertising that appears in this message, please be aware that it is added by yahoogroups.com automatically.

MARKETPLACE

Going Green: Your Yahoo! Groups resource for green living

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___

Perspectives on the MTC, #7

A third post from Dan...

Feed: Necessary Roughness
Posted on: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 10:35 PM
Author: Dan
Subject: Presentations

All the presenters and responders, except for moderator Ted Kober, are ordained pastors. Imply the title "Reverend" unless otherwise noted. David Johnson of the LCMS Commission on Worship kicked off the conference by asking everyone to be sensitive and showed a video with clips from various church services.  Jon Vieker of the LCMS Commission on Worship introduced a select bibliography, and Larry Stoterau, LCMS Pacific Southwest District President introduced the Theses on Worship prepared by the District Presidents. Dr. Jeff Gibbs, professor of Exegetical Theology at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, held the first presentation in the gym, so I couldn't post snippets on Twitter. His presentation, "Worship that is Scriptural and Confessional," was golden. If the audio is made publicly available, it will be worth your time to download and listen to it. Because I couldn't Twitter his points, here are some notes: Theology is like the first shingle of a house: if it is allowed to be off even a little bit at the beginning, the row of shingles will be completely messed up down the road. Christianity is not an escapist religion. Just dying and going to heaven is not the complete story. We also have the resurrection of the body. Death is a separation of body and soul as judgment of the sin still in it. Jesus begins the new creation in his own body. Worship is a piece of God's story for all creation. Corporate worship is inevitably shaped by tradition because our God is the God of history. Corporate worship began in the gap of Scripture between Malachi and Matthew. God did not demand weekly worship, but God used and uses that tradition to build the church. We refuse to either be a slave to tradition or despise tradition. Worship is not about me; God is not to become part of me, I am to become part of God. Conversion happens through the Word, which can be done in or outside worship. Worship is primarily God in service to his Christians, to do what we need him to do. Ephesians 4:11 – "to equip the saints" in the Greek context should instead read "to restore the saints". Instead of giving people tools for a finite job, pastors should be continually restoring the saints. We should recapture the hearing of Scripture as God coming down to us. Are we in worship magnificently preaching Christ and His glory? The Reformation was won in the printing press and the pulpit. Is the gospel only forgiveness? There is more to say. Only some of Paul's letters mention justification. In every letter Paul proclaims the glory of what has been done in Christ. We need to hear all the glories of Christ and all the dangers that he has saved us from. But our preaching is cliche-ridden and law-based. Does preaching fill you with joy and power and courage? We are dead men who have been brought back to life! Towards the end of his presentation Dr. Gibbs actually did preach a small homily of Law and Gospel, powerfully and emotionally. It was great stuff. Larry Vogel of the Committee on Theology and Church Relations gave a presentation on worship that is "pastoral and sacramental." There are some notes on the Twitter feed. He discussed how all religions worship God, but only we do "in spirit and truth." Worship is not something we do to bargain with God (Psalm 50:7-12) but flows from our reception of God's gifts. Worship may generate spiritual "highs", but what is the reason? Where there is faith in God, there is true worship. The heart of the Church's regular worship is the Word of Christ in reading, preaching, song, and Sacrament. Lutheran worship is evangelically pastoral and catholicly Sacramental. One major critique I had with Rev. Vogel's presentation was that he would say he liked one way of worship but then advocate another. It was like a self-denial. Dien Ashley Taylor, pastor of Redeemer Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Bronx, vibrantly delivered a presentation of "Worship that is Personal and Contextual." He stated that confession can inform context, and vice versa. Adiaphora is not a free-for-all, but it is a sanctified conversation with brothers and sisters in Christ to keep worship "proleptically and prophetically straight." We should not be "idiosyncratically contextual for contextual's sake." We are the church catholic. "Lutherans, who value the Word, should not abandon the word catholic." My take: Contextual, desired to mean that worship was adapting the place and instruments of where the church is, was supplanting "contemporary" in some circles, but it is an equally vague word when proponents want to use it opposite historical or liturgical. Liturgy can be a context. Rev. Taylor employed a lot of jargon and, as you can tell above, complex vocabulary in his presentation. He also sang pieces of songs as examples of different contexts. Everyone joined in on some songs such as, "We All Believe in One True God," but not on others. Mason Beecroft gave "Missional and Vocational (One Approach)." He ran out of time despite cutting and moving some slides, but his thesis was clear: "Retaining the Mass is key to being missional and vocational." In addition to the points I put on Twitter, he also said that God desires to share holy things with his people through physical means, and we show that through sacred space and sacred ritual. Our nonverbal movements, in addition to spoken Word, also communicate what is going on. Do styrofoam cups communicate that we have the blood of the God-man Jesus Christ? We should communicate that something bigger than us is taking place. Pastors wear vestments and cite liturgy to take the attention off themselves and put it on Christ. Pr. Beecroft also showed concern about the amount of liturgical instruction taught at seminary. Seminarians receive 3 to 6 hours of instruction. Do we want surgeons going into the operating room with 3 to 6 hours of instruction and practice? How much more should we be concerned when eternal souls are at stake? Finally, Pr. Beecroft noted that alternative worship forms often tinker or do away with creedal texts. When we lose the common text of what we believe, we have nothing that keeps us believing the same thing. Jeff Cloeter gave a presentation called "Worship that is Missional and Vocational (Another Approach)." Several good points are on the Twitter list. He identified four principles in worship: good preaching, unity and clarity, bridging worship into the week, and leaders that model. He freely admitted that he have all the answers to practical things like how to be a better father, and he would refer people to those who would have a better idea. He described the mission field as similar to a fort and tepees. We convert people by working in our vocations, animated by the Body and Blood of Christ, shed for our trespasses, showing in a mysterious way that we have encountered God. The Great Commission is not fulfilled by only inviting people to church. On Wednesday morning, Charles Arand, chairman of the department of systematic theology at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, gave a presentation of "Worship that is Practical and Theological." Arand to his credit was the first person to really begin to engage in what is really adiaphora — neither commanded nor forbidden. Practices flow from our theology, so some adiaphora are better than others. Adiaphora gives expression of the theology of the church. He likened worship to a bicycle with training wheels: the front wheel, the marks of the church, controlling the direction; one training wheel, the contextual principle, using the tools of a particular place to expand the church; the other training wheel, the catholic principle, the unity of the church; and collegiality, the balance between the two training wheels. We dare not lean, Arand argued, either way too far without falling over. Still more to come.

View article...

Perspectives on the MTC, #6

 would love to have a conversation with Pr. Waddell, especially after the MTC…

Feed: WorshipConcord
Posted on: Thursday, January 14, 2010 8:14 AM
Author: worshipconcord
Subject: The LCMS Model Theological Conference on Worship, 11-13 January 2010

Posted by WorshipConcord, a blog about Lutheran liturgy & worship +++ Last night I returned home from the LCMS Model Theological Conference on Worship hosted by the Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) and the Commission on Worship (COW), and underwritten by Thrivent Financial for Lutherans. One of our contributing editors, Kent Burreson, has promised to provide us with his observations and brief analysis on the conference for the February issue of the WorshipConcord Journal, so I will only offer a few personal observations here, and then let Kent provide us with a more comprehensive take in a couple of weeks. This was a conference made up of people who were invited by the CTCR, the COW, and the District Presidents, both ordained and lay people who are involved in the theological discussions about worship or the practice of leading worship in some way. So many theologians and many musicians of the Synod were in attendance. My own personal observation (as someone who was invited to respond to one of the main presenters and then join the panel discussion at the end) is that the conference was a success. One of the primary goals of the conference was to have a conversation among those who have different points of view on worship. We accomplished this goal. I am not sure that it was primarily aimed at bringing participants to change the respective positions they hold. I don't think anyone actually changed their position on worship. Certainly positions were developed and strengthened by the excellent teaching that took place at the conference, teaching that emphasized the Gospel, the sacraments, and our relationships in the body of Christ. What this conference did accomplish, in my opinion, is a greater understanding among ourselves and better relationships. Cynicism, sarcasm, and caricature are dead. In a world where words written in books, in journals, and on web sites (like this one!), we need to be reminded that there are flesh and blood brothers and sisters in Christ on the other end of the dialogue, not just a disembodied pen (or keyboard). We are all body-and-soul human beings for whom our Savior lived and gave his life on the cross. This conference, while it did not make us all best friends, provided a safe atmosphere for strengthening positive relationships. In many ways what happened in St. Louis this week resonates closely with what we at WorshipConcord are doing. You may remember that part of the vision for WorshipConcord is that it "provides a common basis for discussing worship issues by stressing relationships, shared theological values, and sound methodology." Of couse there is nothing "pollyannish" or "pie-in-the-sky" about my observations. I am a realist. But I am an optimistic realist. My close friends know that I like to use the analogy of a tent peg. Referring to the conversation about worship, I have often mused whether the peg has been hammered so far into the ground that we are no longer able to grasp onto it. The 2010 Model Theological Conference on Worship demonstrated that this is not the case, that we are in fact able to grab onto the discussion again, and do it from the perspectives of faith and love, seasoned with civility. Thank you, CTCR and COW, for hosting this conference. There is hope. JAW + sdg +

View article...