Friday, August 17, 2012

FW: Q&A — Finding a Church

Cwirla…

 

Feed: Steadfast Lutherans
Posted on: Friday, August 17, 2012 11:15 AM
Author: Norm Fisher
Subject: Q&A — Finding a Church

 

This question came in regarding locating a good liturgical church when planning to move to a new area. We do recommend the website LutheranLiturgy.org for finding churches while vacationing or moving, but obviously that doesn't list every excellent church. (Pastors, please add your church to that website).

 

I'm facing a potential move to Boone, NC, due to a potential job offer. I've been browsing this site, the LCMS site and the IssuesEtc site trying to find a good solid confessional Lutheran church in that area, but I'm not coming up with much. I'm willing to drive farther to get to work in order to live close enough to drive to a good church on Sunday or during the week, but I don't know how to identify a good church, especially if they don't have a decent website. Can anyone here help me out? What are the closest confessional Lutheran churches to that town? I have been attending an excellent confessional Lutheran church in the Chicago area for a while and would love to have a church like that, or one like Wolfmueller's church in Aurora, CO, which I visited this past week while on vacation.

Obviously we can't post every area that people are asking about, but below is "A Guide to Church Shopping" by Pastor Cwirla which might help others who are in this situation.

 

Found on A Guide to Church Shopping on blog.higherthings.org:

 

I'm going to give you a few things to think about on your shopping trip – twelve in case you're counting. And then twelve dos and don'ts. Why twelve? No particular reason except that 12 happens to be one of those biblical "lucky numbers" like 3, 7, 10, and 40. Twelve tribes of Israel, twelve apostles, twelve foundations under heavenly Jerusalem. It's better than six.

The first four are the really big ones. Tie them to your foreheads and bind them on your wrists next to your WWJD bracelet. The other eight are there to round out the list and give you some things to think about while you're sipping your latte at Starbucks on Sunday morning and pondering where to go to church. So here goes.

1. Is the church Christ-centered?

A spoked wheel without a hub can't spin. It can be missing a spoke or two, or even be slightly out of round, but without the hub at the center, the wheel won't work.

Without the death and resurrection of Jesus for the forgiveness of the sinner and the life of the world firmly in the middle of a church's teaching, preaching, and practice, it's hold on Christianity will be tenuous at best. Being "biblical" isn't enough. Some churches like to say they're "Bible-believing" churches. That sounds good, but the Bible wasn't nailed to a cross for the forgiveness of your sins. Christian churches are "Christ-believing," and you can't get more biblical than that.

It's all about Jesus, or it isn't particularly Christian. It's not about how much I love Jesus, but how Jesus loves me (and you) to death. It's not about what would Jesus do (WWJD) but what did Jesus do for you (and for the world) (WDJD4U).

2. Is the church confessional and creedal?

A creed is a formal statement of belief, a church's public confession of what it believes, teaches, and confesses.

"Doctrine divides" and "Deeds not creeds" you say. Yeah, I read the bumper stickers too. It's all nonsense of the first order! The Christian faith is not something you make up as you go along. And it doesn't come through private one-on-one conversations with God while driving on the freeway. The Ethiopian had the company of Philip along with the Scriptures in his chariot (Acts 8:26-40). And he wasn't driving the chariot!

The Christian faith is "the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). In other words, what we believe is what Christians have always believed since Pentecost. Look and listen for things like the Apostles' creed, which goes all the way back to the 2nd century. Or the Nicene creed (AD 325). Or even the Athanasian creed (5th century). Lutherans have a whole book called the Book of Concord which was pulled together in 1580. It's our public statement of what we believe and don't believe. Now that's confessional!

You say, "But that's a bunch of old stuff written by dead guys. What about today?" I say, "Look. The church has been around longer than Billy Graham, Dwight Moody and the last crusade at Anaheim Stadium". We're talking almost 2000 years of history here. As the old saying goes, "Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat its errors." The old creeds keep us from reinventing the faith and praying to our "Father-Mother in heaven" or whatever other paganism is in style these days.

If a church can't put down in writing what it believes and teaches, maybe it doesn't believe anything at all.

3. Is the church sacramental?

Isn't that the capital of California? No, that's Sacramento, which, though it shares a verbal connection, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the sacraments. Believe me; I live in California.

"Sacraments" are rituals established by God in which God reveals Himself to be gracious to us through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Don't be surprised that God works through rituals. He's always worked through rituals. Even in the Garden, there was a ritual. Don't eat from a certain tree in the middle. Eat from any other tree, including the Tree of Life, but not that tree. An action and a word – ritual. In the old testament, God worked through the ritual blood sacrifices of the temple and the ritual of circumcision. In the new testament, He works through Baptism, the preached Word, and the Lord's Supper.

God is sacramental; so are we. That's how He wants to deal with us. Deal with it.

As long as we're talking sacraments, let's talk baby baptism, shall we? Sacramental churches baptize their babies. This isn't some kind of weird medieval magic or religious superstition. It's simply the recognition God promises to work through Baptism to make Jesus' death and resurrection personally our own. In Baptism, we are individually and personally buried with Jesus in His death (Romans 6:4). It's our washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5). The cross says, "Jesus died for all." Baptism says, "Jesus died for you."

Baby baptism has been around since Jesus commanded His disciples to "make disciples of all the nations" (Mt 28:19-20) and the first households were baptized (Acts 2:29). Anyone who says, "The Bible doesn't say to baptize babies," is arguing from a vacuum of silence. The Bible doesn't say not to baptize babies, either. And the Bible doesn't say to "dedicate" them, so I'll see you, raise you, and call the hand. Only occasionally in the early centuries did anyone challenge baby baptism, but they were challenging the status quo not a novelty. It wasn't until the 16th century and the Reformation that some fringe types starting baptizing the already baptized because they didn't like Roman Catholics; hence the name "Anabaptists" (ana = again, baptizo = to baptize, anabaptist = to baptize again). The Anabaptists were the theological forerunners of many protestant Christians in America today.

What a church says about baby baptism tells you a lot about what it believes concerning salvation. If salvation is a transaction in which God does His part and we in turn do our part, then baby baptism makes no sense at all. Better to wait until the kid is old enough to decide and seal the deal for himself.

But if salvation is entirely God's doing, accomplished in dead Jesus on the cross and given to us freely, gratis, by grace, without our works or decisions, while we are still spiritually stone cold dead (Ephesians 2:4), then baby baptism makes all the sense in the world. The kid does nothing except get wet and kick a little bit; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit do it all. "By grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesian 2:8-9). Let's not throw the baby out of the baptismal bath water.

As long as I'm tooting the sacramental horn, a few words for the wise about the Lord's Supper. The Lord's Supper consists of bread and wine (yes, Virginia, that's bread and wine, not crackers and grape juice or whatever else someone might serve up on the Sunday menu) together with the words of Jesus spoken on the night He was betrayed: "This is my body given for you." "This is my blood shed for you." You heard Him right. The bread is Jesus body, and the wine is Jesus blood. Not represents, symbolizes, signifies, stand for, or any other clever way of ducking the word "is." Don't ask me how, I don't know; I just work here. It just is. "Is" still means "is" in sacramental churches.

Sacramental churches tend to have the Lord's Supper frequently, usually weekly or even more. That's because they actually believe you receive something important, namely, the body and the blood of our Savior Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sins. If all you get is bread and wine and a fond memory of Jesus, three or four times a year is enough. You may as well go to brunch. The bread and wine are usually better at brunch than in church anyway.

Sacramental churches usually tend to practice some form of "closed communion." It tends to come with the confessional territory. Some congregations are fairly open, others are tight as a drum. Some ask that you speak with the pastor before you approach the altar, others want you to take 100 hours of classroom instruction and a driving test. The point is that the Lord's Supper is not a "y'all come down if the Spirit moves you" kind of meal. Neither was the Passover that came before it.

A word of warning, and I mean this seriously. The Lord's Supper can kill you, and I'm not talking about catching some nasty germs by drinking from a common cup. It happened to some folks in Corinth who were elbowing the poor out of the food line at the church's potluck and coming to the altar as though they were bellying up to a bar in Vegas. They got sick and died for the way they communed! (1 Corinthians. 11:27-32). So don't get bent out of shape if the pastor says he doesn't think you ought to commune that day. He probably has your health and well-being at heart. You ought to thank him.

I recommend that church shoppers refrain from communing until they settle in at a place. The Lord's Supper is more than your little personal time with Jesus. It's a deeply communal form of worship, where believers are visibly united with each other in the one Body of Christ. "Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf" (1 Corinthians. 10:17). That kind of unity suggest a certain sense of commitment, don't you think?

If you desire to receive the Lord's Supper as a guest in a congregation, please be so kind as to introduce yourself to the pastor beforehand and be prepared for some meaningful conversation. It will save you potential embarrassment later, and it's the polite thing to do. Imagine sitting down to dinner, and all of a sudden, a total stranger comes through the door, sits down at your table, and asks you to pass the mashed potatoes. I think you'd at least want to know his name, wouldn't you? Enough said.

4. Is the church liturgical?

Smells and bells versus praise bands and projection screens. Everything from Gregorian chant to Jesus-palooza 2003. Welcome to Worship Wars!

I refuse to take up arms. Call me old fashioned, but I stick with the tried and true vintages, straight from the church's cellar. Liturgical churches use a fixed order of service that's more or less repeated from Sunday to Sunday. The repetition has been going on now for almost 2000 years, so it has a pretty good head of liturgical steam, if not smoke, behind it. Liturgical churches tend to use a book or some kind of printed order of service that wasn't made up from scratch on Friday. Projection screens belong in movie theaters, in my less than humble opinion. Don't we stare at screens enough every day?

Though it's often called "traditional worship" by those who engage in "contemporary worship," that's really only half the truth. Liturgical worship is historic worship, the way Christians have been worshipping for nearly 2000 years. Some of the phrases of the liturgy go all the way back to the new testament. Liturgical worship is also biblical worship, not in the sense that the Bible demands we worship this way, but that nearly every word of the liturgy is a quotation from Scripture. Liturgical worship is also Christocentric worship, with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness and life of the sinner right in the middle of everything. That's the important one, remember?

Liturgical services are usually two part affairs. There's the service of the Word, which consists of readings from Scripture and a sermon on one or more of the readings. And there's the service of the Sacrament, or Lord's Supper. Hymns and psalms are sprinkled in, along with the creed and a few other things like the offering. It can be a bit confusing to the newcomer. Historic liturgy, like decent red wine, is an acquired taste, especially for us brain damaged Americans whose fingers are always on the remote. But hang with it long enough, and you too can learn the age old new song of salvation along with the angels, archangels, and all the company of heaven.

"Do you have to worship this way," people always ask me. "Not necessarily," I say with a Gospel smile. "We don't necessarily have to do anything. But what else would you do?" OK, so I'm biased. String me up by my stoles and chasuble. Some people don't mind lurching around in a liturgical Yugo. For my money, the historic liturgy is a classic Bentley, which I try to keep in good running order and up to contemporary emission standards.

"Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship with reverence and awe; for our God is a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:28-29).

OK, there you have it. The top four things to think about as you're shopping around for a church. If you haven't written me off as some kind of closet Catholic who's sniffed a little too much incense in his college days, then let's quickly move through the other eight in no particular order.

5. What does the church teach concerning the Bible?

Let's be clear. The Bible is the Word of God. Period. It doesn't just contain the Word of God or become the Word of God when you believe it. It is the Word of God, apparent warts and all. The Scriptures are inspired (literally breathed out) from God (2 Timothy 3:14-16). They're not intended to make you healthy or wealthy but wise to your salvation through faith in Jesus. The Scriptures are useful for doctrine, for rebuking (and we all need a little rebukin' now and then), for correction and for training. Watch how a church uses the Bible, especially those uncomfortable passages. If they're picking and choosing, they're probably making things up on the fly.

6. Does the congregation believe, teach, and confess the Triune God – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit – three Persons in one divine Being, as the only true God?

Basic, but it needs to be said. Many so-called "mainline" churches pray to a "Father-Mother" god or a Creator-Redeemer-Sanctifier god in the interest of inclusivity and political correctness. This is more than a matter of words. If a church can't say "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" something has gone terribly wrong. The historic creeds and liturgy, if they are taken seriously, will help keep things in line.

7. Does the congregation believe, teach and confess that all people are by nature sinful in the eyes of God?

Yes, I know that all that "poor, miserable sinner" stuff can be a real blow to the self-esteem, but denial doesn't change the truth. Churches that deny we are sinners to the core tend to push for self improvement as the way to salvation, as though you have within you the power to change and improve. Remember, we're not sinners because we sin; we sin because we are sinners.

8. Does the congregation teach that sinners are justified (declared righteous) by God's grace (His undeserved favor) through faith (trust) for the sake of Jesus (on the basis of His sacrificial death)?

Sounds amazing, but it's true. We're innocent in God's eyes all thanks to dead and risen Jesus. This is the central teaching of Christianity. Without it, a church can't really be called "Christian," no matter how religious it might otherwise appear. You may hear many religious and even inspiring things during the course of a service, but did you hear that Jesus Christ died on a cross, rose from the dead, and reigns at the right hand of God for the forgiveness of your sins and for His sake, pardon, peace, forgiveness, and eternal life are yours in His name? If you didn't hear something like that, then what you heard wasn't distinctively Christian.

9. Does the congregation distinguish God's commands, threats, and punishments from His promises of forgiveness, life, and salvation in Jesus Christ?

Ever read the Bible and wonder whether God is talking out of two sides of His mouth? Or even if He has two mouths? We call that the Law and the Gospel. The Law is what God demands from us – absolute perfection, not just a good try. The Law is a mirror, reflecting how bad things really are with us. It also instructs and guides us, and serves to curb some truly bad behavior. But the Law is always going to accuse you and make you feel bad about yourself. That's probably why people don't like to see the Ten Commandments in public places.

But don't despair! The Law is not God's last Word. You're a sinner, that's true. And Jesus is the Savior of sinners! That's even truer. The Gospel is "good news." (That's what the word "gospel" means – good news.) The good news is that Jesus bore your sin in His body on the cross. Jesus didn't come to condemn the world, but to save it in His death (John 3:16-17). There is nothing we can do to save ourselves, and there is nothing we need to do. Jesus has already done it all – for you and for all. He said so when He died. "It is finished" (John 19:30). He calls you to believe that, trust Him, take Him at His Word and live in His freedom.

What about good works? Don't we have to do something to please God? Well, yes and no. We don't do good works in order to please God. We can't. But we want to do good works because we believe we are already pleasing to God on account of Jesus. Works always follow faith. When we believe that God is at peace with us in the death of Jesus, we're free to do what pleases Him. The Christian life is not about trying to become pleasing to God, but serving God who is pleased with us in His Son Jesus. It's not like the Army slogan, "Be all that you can be." It's more like, "Be all that you already are in Jesus."

10. What opportunities for teaching does the congregation have? Disciples are made by baptizing in the triune Name and teaching (Matthew 28:19-20). Not one or the other, and not in any particular order. Baptism occurs once in a lifetime; teaching takes a whole lifetime. You don't need a weekly calendar crammed full of targeted small group Bible studies ("The Soccer Mom's Bible Study"), but a steady diet of Scripture and doctrine for young and old alike is a good sign.

11. Does the church have any practices that encourage people to behave in a strange or abnormal manner?

Major red flag here! Barking, babbling, uncontrolled laughter, fainting, fits, and convulsions are most assuredly NOT signs of the Holy Spirit's presence. They may be the sign of unclean spirits, in which case you don't want anything to do with this. If this is happening, leave that place immediately, do not pass Go and by all means do not collect $200 (or contribute it). God is not a God of disorder but of peace who does things in a decent and orderly way (1 Corinthians. 14:33,38).

12. Is the congregation in fellowship with other Christian congregations or does it stand alone?

Watch out for the "Lone Rangers" of religion, especially if they claim some "new revelation" or special teaching that no one else has. A new teaching is probably an old heresy recycled. The prophet Elijah once thought he was the only true believer left in the land of Israel. He was off by 6,999 (1 Kings 19:18).

 

TWELVE DOS AND DON'TS FOR CHURCH SHOPPERS

  1. Do shop for churches "concentrically." Start with the congregations closest to where you live. The closer you live, the more you can be involved in its life. Can't find a decent church within a reasonable distance? Perhaps your living room might be the start of a new congregation in the area. That's how many churches got started. But don't start there.
  2. Do be so kind as to leave your name, address, and phone number so that the church can contact you if they want. Don't feel compelled to leave an offering, unless you truly desire to make one. (Don't let my budget committee see this one!)
  3. Do attend more than one service before moving on. Don't let your first impression be your only one. Churches, like people, have bad hair days too.
  4. Do make arrangements to speak with the pastor of the congregation as soon as possible.
  5. Do introduce yourself to congregation members and talk with them. You'll learn a lot. Don't sit on the fringes. Christianity is not a spectator sport.
  6. Don't get sucked in by programs and music. Remember, this is worship, not entertainment. Music can be manipulative.
  7. Don't lead with your heart; use your head. Christianity is about the objective fact of salvation in Jesus Christ, not feelings.
  8. Don't be put off if the service seems out of touch with the culture. The Church is supposed to be the embassy of a kingdom not of this world.
  9. Don't expect any congregation or pastor to be perfect in practice.
  10. Do plan on joining. Church shopping should be a temporary phase, not a way of life.
  11. Do look and listen for Jesus Christ crucified in the middle of everything.
  12. Do pray that God would lead you to a faithful, Christ-centered, sacramental, liturgical congregation that proclaims the faith of Christ crucified and risen for your salvation.

By the way, if your church shopping brings you in the neighborhood of Hacienda Heights (CA), drop in at Holy Trinity Lutheran Church on Newton Street and introduce yourself. We'll leave a light on for you.

The Rev. William M. Cwirla The Feast of the Holy Cross, 2003


View article...

FW: Herr, wie macht sich dein Christenheit

Carver…

 

Feed: HYMNOGLYPT
Posted on: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 11:14 AM
Author: Matt Carver (Matthaeus Glyptes)
Subject: Herr, wie macht sich dein Christenheit

 

Here is my translation of "Herr, wie macht sich dein Christenheit" (Joh. Örtel, 1591?), a hymn on the untimely death of faithful ministers and the persecution of the evangelical church. The original title reads "A Hymn of Lamentation and Supplication Because of the Dwindling of Christendom in These Troublous Times." It seems to have been composed by Örtel for, and sung on, the occasion of the burial of Wittenberg professor, Dr. Johannes Auenarius, and was subsequently published in Leipzig in 1591. The appointed melodies are "Herr, wie lang willt vergessen mein" (Ps. 13) and "Wo Gott der Herr nicht bei uns hält" (Ps. 124).

 


O LORD, how scarce Thy Christendom
In these dark times is growing!
Upon us let Thy mercy come!
We trust that Thou, all knowing,
Dost in Thy wisdom take away
Thy faithful servants, that they may
Dwell in Thy heavn'ly kingdom.

2. The wicked world expels them all,
No more can it abide them,
Therefore Thou tak'st them to Thy hall,
Which Thy love hath supplied them,
That they may live within Thy grace
And have their constant dwelling place,
Secure from every danger.

3. Thy Christian Church is as a tree
On all sides roughly shaken;
Scarce fruit she harbors in her lee,
And all too soon they're taken;
And yet on earth she hath remained.
God, grant that she may be sustained;
From all despair preserve us!

Translation © 2012 Matthew Carver.

GERMAN

1. Herr, wie macht sich dein Christenheit
so dünn zu diesen Zeiten!
Drum denk an dein Barmherzigkeit!
es muß doch was bedeuten
Daß du die treuen Diener dein
so sehr aufrafst, und holst sie heim
zu deinem Himmelreiche:

2. Die schnöde Welt dringt sie fast aus,
ist nicht mist ihn zu frieden,
so nimmstu sie, Herr, in dein Haus,
dahin du sie beschieden,
daß jeder da sein bleibend staht
und sein beständig Wohung hat,
von aller Fahr befreiet.

3. Dein Christlich Kirch ist wie ein Baum,
der gschüt von allen Enden,
daran stehn wenig Beerlein kaum
die sich nicht auch verwenden:
Doch steht der Stamm noch in der Erd,
hilf, Gott, daß der erhalten wird,
so wolln wir nicht verzagen.

Amen.


View article...

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

FW: Of "Father" and "Mass"

Consider…

 

Feed: Gottesdienst Online
Posted on: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 2:19 PM
Author: Pr. H. R.
Subject: Of "Father" and "Mass"

 

Since its inception Gottesdienst has included the title Father for clergymen and the term Mass for, well, for the Mass, as part of its style guide. This, along with the chasubles, chanting, and genuflecting will sometimes provoke the charge of "too Catholic" or "weirdos" or even things less complimentary. In the past some well meanings folks have suggested that we just drop all the Catholic lingo: we'd get way more traction in our goals of restoring Lutheran worship if we just referred to clergymen as Pastor and the Mass as the Divine Service.

However, Gottesdienst is a journal of the Lutheran liturgical tradition - a tradition that includes all of the above. To set those terms aside to curry favor with the unconvertable champions of innovation would be to undo the whole point of the journal.


Nevertheless, from time to time it is good to review why we use these terms and how they are indeed part of the Lutheran tradition.


First, Mass. Does anyone seriously not know that this is the chief term used in the Lutheran Confessions for the Sunday Communion Service? If you don't believe me, just go to bookofconcord.org and do a search. It's right there, for example, in AC/Ap XXIV "we don't abolish the Mass but keep it religiously." Yup, that's us.


Second, Father. Let's start with Johan Gerhard's Theological Commonplaces: On the Ministry section 26:

And, likewise, [ministers] are called "fathers" (2 Kings 6:21). This title is repeated in the New Testament (I Cor. 4:15; Gal. 4:19) not merely for the sake of honor but also because through the Word they beget spiritual children to God - instrumentally, that is; and in this sense and respect they are said to save both themselves and their hearers (I Tim. 4:16). 


Or again, how about the Large Catechism:

Besides these there are yet spiritual fathers; not like those in the Papacy, who have indeed had themselves called thus, but have performed no function of the paternal office. For those only are called spiritual fathers who govern and guide us by the Word of God;159] as St. Paul boasts his fatherhood 1 Cor. 4:15, where he says: In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel. Now, 160] since they are fathers they are entitled to their honor, even above all others. But here it is bestowed least; for the way which the world knows for honoring them is to drive them out of the country and to grudge them a piece of bread, and, in short, they must be (as says St. Paul, 1 Cor. 4:13) as the filth of the world and everybody's refuse and footrag.


Shucks, even Fr. Walther himself was known to use the term. And in our day of so many denominations ordaining women, might not a title that directly confesses the manner in which Jesus instituted the ministry have some worth?


I serve in rural Illinois. Folks call the Mass "Church" and they call me "Pastor," or "Reverend," or "Preacher."   And that's just fine - those are all part of our tradition as well, but they are in no danger of being lost. The terms "Mass" and "Father" each have something unique to confess and have fallen into disuse and calumny. So we use them at Gottesdiesnst and encourage our readers to get reacquainted with them. Where I serve that means we talk about them in Bible Class - these are good conversations that lead the people into the richness of the Lutheran heritage.


+HRC


View article...

Thursday, August 2, 2012

FW: Lutherans rejoining the Catholic Church? Lutheran Ordinariate?

Huh?

 

Feed: Luther, Baptists, and Evangelicals
Posted on: Thursday, August 02, 2012 6:19 PM
Author: noreply@blogger.com (Gary)
Subject: Lutherans rejoining the Catholic Church? Lutheran Ordinariate?

 

A Roman Catholic friend sent me an email to advise me that Pope Benedict is considering a Lutheran Ordinariate, similar to the Anglican Ordinariate created last year, so that Lutheran churches can rejoin the Catholic Church.

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/...ture.org%29%29

Is this really true?  Are there very many Lutherans who are seeking to rejoin the Catholic Church?  Just how much of their "Lutheraness" will they be allowed to retain?

I'm all in favor of Church unity, but not a one-sided capitulation, especially not a one-sided Lutheran capitulation!

If any one has more details or website links, please leave them in a comment below.


View article...

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

FW: The St. Ambrose Hymn Writing Contest

More…

 

Feed: Cranach: The Blog of Veith
Posted on: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 4:00 AM
Author: Gene Veith
Subject: The St. Ambrose Hymn Writing Contest

 

Who says conservative Lutherans don't like contemporary Christian music in church?  We do.  It's just that we want the contemporary Christian music to be, you know, hymns, as opposed to pop ditties.  And we do need new hymns.  Towards addressing that need, I am happy to announce that some twenty-somethings in our congregation, St. Athanasius Lutheran Church in Vienna, Virginia, have organized a major hymn-writing competition.  They have raised a $1,000 prize and have arranged for publication.  For details and for just learning about what the big deal is about hymns, check out the website:  St. Ambrose Hymn Writing Contest.

Here are the parameters of the contest:

The Challenge:

Many of the Gospel readings throughout the historic Church Year lack hymns which properly exposit their true sense. It is the purpose of this contest to provide profound and artistic hymns for such unaddressed pericopes (that is, a set of readings given for a certain day). Therefore, the challange of this contest is as follows: to compose a hymn which discerns and declares the meaning of the chosen lectionary texts and properly expresses the congregational response to the work of our Lord in the Word.

The Texts:

The hymn should concern itself with the following texts, with a focus on the gospel reading:

Zephaniah 1:7-16
1 Thessalonians 5:1-11
Matthew 25:14-30

The Prize:

The winner of the contest shall be awarded $1,000. The winning hymn will be publised by Liturgy Solutions, which will be granted first right-of-refusal to the hymn upon acceptance of the prize money.   The author/composer royalty to be paid by Liturgy Solutions will be 50% of all receipts from sales and any other profitable uses of the hymn (public performance for profit, radio broadcast, etc.)."

So the texts the hymn is supposed to elucidate deal with the Day of the Lord, Jesus coming back like a thief in the night, and the Parable of the Talents.

Yes, I have been asked to be one of the judges, but I will show no favoritism to the tunes of Bob Dylan, Gram Parsons, Bill Monroe, Hank Williams, or other artists that I can go on and on about on this blog.  (Well, if Bob Dylan enters the contest with a lectionary hymn, he might have an edge with me.)

But, seriously, you can use an existing hymn tune, if you like, or you can compose your own.  The words will be key.  You know those numbers at the bottom of each page in a hymnbook?  7.7.7., 8.6.8.6, 10.10.10.10.  Those are the number of syllables in each line.  That's important to know in writing words to go with a particular tune.

Anyway, enter!  Try it.  You need not be Lutheran to win.  There is a thousand dollar prize!  The deadline is December 1.  Maybe your hymn too will be sung in future centuries.


View article...

FW: New Lutheran Quote of the Day

Korby…

 

Feed: Weedon's Blog
Posted on: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 8:01 AM
Author: noreply@blogger.com (William Weedon)
Subject: New Lutheran Quote of the Day

 

In the LCMS these canonical requirements are summed up most brightly and clearly in the constitution: this synod is bound to the Word of God and the Lutheran Confessions. Period. Beyond that, all is advice.  But what do we mean when we put one under orders in terms of evangelical energy, the ordering of the church's life by the Holy Gospel? We say: "We tie you to the cross and the church to your back. We pray for you; we lay hands on you for a gift of grace to be faithful and courageous in your service to that God who called you to be a servant, a servant in the style of Jesus Christ. Endure suffering as a faithful soldier. Be a man of prayer. Tend your people." —Dr. Kenneth Korby, The Pastoral Office and the Priesthood of Believers, Lord Jesus Christ, Will You Not Stay? p. 364, 365

http://feeds.feedburner.com/WeedonsBlog


View article...

Monday, July 30, 2012

FW: Elert: Has the liturgical church replaced the preaching church?

Elert…

 

Feed: Mercy Journeys with Pastor Harrison
Posted on: Monday, July 30, 2012 4:34 PM
Author: Rev. Matt Harrison
Subject: Elert: Has the liturgical church replaced the preaching church?

 

 

 

The untimely death on Nov. 21, 1954, of Werner Elert, professor of Theology in the university of Erlangen Bavaria, is a serious loss not only to Erlangen and to German theology but also to world Lutheranism. He is perhaps best known in North America for his two-volume Morphologie des Luthertums (Munich, 1931, 1932) [The Structure of Lutheranism, CPH]. During and since World War II his Dogmatics and his Ethics were pub- lished, and more recently he devoted his considerable energy and the resources of his vast scholarship to studies in the ancient church. Elert turned in this direction in his later years because he was more and more persuaded that Protestants in general and Lutherans in particular had surrendered Patristics to Roman Catholic scholars and that the altogether natural, but apologetic, interests of these scholars colored conclusions and made it increasingly difficult to get at the truth. The first major fruit of Elert's new studies was published in his Abendmahl und Kirchengemeinschaft in der alten Kirche (Berlin, 1954) [Eurcharist and Church Fellowship, CPH], a study which sheds important new light on current ecumenical discussions. A few weeks before his unexpected death, at a meeting of the General Synod of the United Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany (VELKD), he participated in a discussion which preceded the adoption of the first part of a new liturgy for that church. His extempore remarks on this occasion are here translated from the Informationsdienst der VELKD (January, 1955) both in memory of this distinguished theologian and churchman and also on account of their significance for American as well as European Lutheranism.

 

 

"In the historical part of Leiturgia it is asserted that Luther really did not achieve a proper understanding of public worship. When one goes on to consider the conception of worship which is set forth in this study, one finds that it rests, quite understandably and properly, on a consideration of historical development. The liturgical life of the church is of course an historical phenomenon which must be traced to its origins. Now, it is to be observed (and this can easily be established by anyone who is familiar with the literature) that the description of the beginnings of Christian worship which is offered in Leiturgia follows the description given by Roman Catholics on the basis of the very outstanding investigations which have been made in recent decades by Benedictines especially, and more recently also by Jesuits. Lutheran liturgiologists rest their case, insofar as the historical treatment is concerned, on these investigations. I do not intend to criticize the work of the Benedictines, for everyone knows how much thorough knowledge, how much quiet objectivity, and how little polemic is involved in it. However, we cannot and should not expect that these Catholic brethren are in a position to understand and present, even in the history of worship, what was of concern to Luther. If Luther is to be judged by the norms which are basic to the Benedictine interpretation, it can indeed be said that he did not really un- derstand what worship is.

 

 

"Over against this charge I should assert that, if it can at all be said that Luther reached back beyond the Middle Ages to the ancient church, this was especially true in his restoration of preaching to an important and central place. The contrary opinion with regard to public worship in the ancient church is so widely held that I cannot hope to counteract it effectively in the few moments at my disposal here. But I cannot refrain from mentioning a few little things which the reader of the sources will encounter and to which the literature makes some reference. We are today given the impression that worship in the ancient church was quite exclusively liturgical — as we still find it, for example, in Eastern Orthodox churches. But in a sermon one of the ancient Church Fathers sets forth in very vivid fashion the fault he has to find with the contemporary liturgical service. The congregation is not there, he reports. The people are wandering about outside, the boys and girls lounging about during the performance of the liturgy. They have a watchman posted at the door, however, and when the distribution of the elements in Holy Communion is about to begin, a signal is given and the young people rush into the church like a pack of hounds, snatch up the host from the clergyman's hands as a dog snatches up a piece of meat, and then depart. I am not suggesting that this sort of thing was the general practice, but it happened.

 

 

"I have a different understanding of preaching from that [set forth in Leiturgia]. The preaching of the ancient church . . . was doctrinal preaching. It was an expression of the orthodox faith of the church at that time. Accordingly it is subject to the prejudiced charge which is leveled against all forms of orthodoxy, including the orthodoxy of our time, that the preaching was dry and irrelevant and of interest only to learned theologians. I wish that you could see some of the few extant fragments of paper on which stenographers recorded sermons. Perhaps you are aware that the extant sermons of the great Church Fathers, including those of Augustine, were not written by themselves but were recorded by stenographers. When one sees and deciphers the hastily written shorthand notes of the stenographers, one can get an impression of what preaching was like at that time. Sermons were not dull doctrinal addresses in our sense of the term. Congregations were attentive. Records reveal the tremendous, dramatic emotion which the sermons evoked, even the cries with which the auditors interrupted the preacher. The stenographic reports give us all sorts of information, even that Augustine had a bad cough on one occasion. This is alluded to in a passing remark, 'Pardon me, I could not help coughing, for I have been preaching a great deal the last few days.'

 

 

"If one reads the great sermons on the dogma of the ancient church which Gregory Nazianzen preached in Constantinople before he was elevated to the patriarchate—the entire dogma of the ancient church is contained in four sermons which have been published on

the basis of stenographic reports— one must be astonished at the intellectual and spiritual power of the preacher, who was able to communicate the teaching of the church to his hearers in such a compact, vivid, and existential manner, for what he treated concerned life and death. This is what services were like in the ancient church. Our honored liturgiologists . . . will say that all of this is well known. But there is still danger that we misinterpret the ancient church when we see it only in the light of the Benedictine investigations and inquire only about the origin of the Kyrie and ask when the Hallelujah was first employed. . . .

 

 

"The impression has gone abroad, and our liturgiologists are at least partly to blame for this, that the preaching, teaching church is to be replaced in some sense by the liturgical church."

 

 

THEODORE G. TAPPERT

 

Lutheran Quarterly VI (1954), 181, 182


View article...