Dr. Jack Kilcrease has written an excellent article over at his blog "
theologia crucis" titled, "Why Non-liturgical Worship Cannot be Lutheran." The section of his article quoted below reminds me of something I blogged a couple weeks ago
found here and namely non-liturgical worship is an effect of bad theology and false teaching. The practice of so-called "Contemporary Worship" is rooted in Decision Theology and Pietism. Why Lutherans would want to borrow such a practice is beyond me. Here is a quote from Dr. Kilcrease's excellent article. Be sure to visit his blog and read the entire article.
4. Non-liturgical worship is a break with the biblical and ecumenical heritage of the Lutheran Church: The Old Testament Church had liturgical worship. All churches had liturgical worship until the 17th century the "Holy Fairs" began to emerge in Northern Ireland and Scotland. These evolved into the American camp meetings and the modern church-growth style worship settings of modern Evangelicals.
The Formula of Concord states that we should not abandon any of the traditions of the Church unless they contradict the Scriptures. This is partially because they help maintain continuity with the Church-catholic (which is important if we don't want to be a sect), but also because they teach the faith even when we have faithless teachers.
A good example of this is during the Arian controversy. In spite of the fact that Arius and some other Bishops were teaching the faith incorrectly, a great many of the laity were still saved by the fact that the liturgy contained true expositions of the faith. Liturgy saves us from unskilled or heretical pastors and teachers. It promotes and preserves the faith.
Free-form worship can't do this because it is subject to the whim of any given church-leader that comes along. Instead of teaching the faith, it seeks to promote a sub-cognitive faith based on meaningless formulas that are repeated over and over again. It seeks to promote emotions that will manipulate people into doing things, not create real faith, which always integrates the total person, intellect and emotions. This is one of the reasons why when they do surveys in churches that have non-liturgical worship and church-growth techniques they without fail can't even correctly explain the Apostles Creed. (Read the full article here.)
I agree!
ReplyDeleteThe question is "Did God institute a liturgical Divine Service?" If you've read the Torah lately, by the third book (hint: Leviticus) you'll have a clear answer. I always chuckle at christians who protest "Leviticus is all about the Law!" The moral Law came in Exodus - Leviticus brings relief from the knowledge of sin; we call this atonement. For this atonement, blood would have to be shed and the blood of animals flowed from the Tabernacle and the Temple until God's only Son came 1500 years later to shed His blood for us.
ReplyDeleteNow, there seems to be many inside our Synod and throughout christianity who deem themselves qualified to prepare and present a weekly worship "experience" to the Lord. My suggestion is to read chapter 10 in Leviticus. See what the Lord thinks of altering His Divine Service; witness the first "critical event" in the Ablaze movement. The liturgy was instituted by God to deliver the forgiveness of sins to us and for us. A traditional liturgy based upon God's Word will accomplish the same - the question is "Will your contempory worship proclaim the same message clearly?" Beware unauthorized fire.
Peace,
Dennis
Good comments, Dennis. Your points remind me of the paper by Dr. John Kleinig "The Glory and the Service: Worship in the Old Testament." That is a good read and I think you can still order it from the Ft. Wayne seminary.
ReplyDelete