The past couple days I attended a conference for new pastors (1-3 years in the ministry). The topic was building ministry. I was saddened by the Kansas District in their attempt to show the newbies how to do worship.
There were three things I noticed about the conference:
1) Though the conference was called "building worship", it wasn't so much about worship as it was about exposing us to different forms of worship.
This could have been an immensely helpful conference. There are many ways in which we could have talked about building worship. We could have had a workshop that explores the options available in the Lutheran Service Builder. We could have talked about integration of choir/instrumentalists in the Divine Service (even include the soft rock options, if we must cover that). We could have talked about using the Synod-wide hymnal and its different services throughout the church year. We could have had a presenter on building the bulletin (or power point) to better assist with worship.
...but we didn't do anything of the sort.
|The Liturgy of Lord of Life|
w/ My Thoughts
Instead, we we taken to Lord of Life Lutheran Church in Leawood, KS. It's a marvelous building. They have facilities that can make churches covet. However, the church was designed to lend itself solely to contemporary music. It had no organ. There were no stained glass windows. The altar was moveable. The cross can be removed completely from the sanctuary, and is on occasion. There were no pews, but locking chairs. Which, to be fair, is just fine. The church of God can exist even where there is nothing but his Word. Regardless, in this space we were taken through the steps of contemporary worship.
Here is the liturgy that we used on Monday night. Notice that the formula of worship is rather common among non-denominational churches. Other than the shout out to Holy Communion, it's pretty much the same.
By the way, the confession was a "metaphor" taken from Ecclesiastes 2:1-11. And since this was a metaphorical confession, I guess the forgiveness was metaphorical as well because the Pastor did not declare those confessed sins as forgiven. Or perhaps it just wasn't clear to me that he was saying that my metaphorical sins were forgiven. Which should raise red flags about clarity.
My main question for all this is: Why? Why all the changes, if many of the "parts" are still there?
The following morning, we were taken to St. Luke's Lutheran Church in Kansas City, KS. What an amazing congregation. It is an old established congregation, served by a wonderful pastor. They do such amazing works of service and have such a thriving social ministry, that it would do anyone who wants to know about such things to pick their brains.
At this congregation, we went through what the District Officers said was "traditional" worship. We used Creative Worship. My heart sink when I saw the liturgy. It had been tinkered with among other things. To be fair, the confession that it brings about is a specific one, but it doesn't have the grind in it as when you confess before God that you are "poor miserable sinner" in need of his forgiveness. It's really not all that "creative" as its name sounds anyway.
Again, my question: Why?
2) We are not about forming a unified Synod, but about forming cliques for those within our Synod.
One of the main thrusts of the conference seemed to be to drill in the idea that we have different forms of worship to draw in different kinds of people. There are those that like soft rock, and those that don't. There is the understanding that if we all do our own thing, everything we do is equally beneficial. And we have to offer as many products as possible, so that we reach as many people as possible. I heard it over and over again, some are able to do contemporary worship and some are not able to do it, thus they don't.
This observation is one that brings to light one of the main problems with a "you do your thing, I'll do my thing" understanding of worship. While I know there will never be one unified group of people all doing the same liturgy on Sunday morning, there is something about "one holy Christian (catholic) and apostolic church" that says we are striving for unity in Christ, not only in faith but in the way that we receive our Savior in worship on a weekly basis.
I did not see this striving at all. What I understood was, let me do my thing, and you do yours. It seems that there is a desire not to talk about things anymore. Saying "I'm ok with 'contemporary'," or "I'm ok with 'traditional'," doesn't really cut it. It just keeps us divided and doesn't allow anyone to express concerns that someone may have with their worship.
From what I saw, we are happy being divided and forming cliques within the Synod. Just make sure the nerds don't mingle with the jocks.
3) Are people really going to church for the right reasons? Are they really Christians?
Finally, while it is one thing to say that a certain form brings people into church, but are we willing to go as far to say that it keeps them in the church? The debate is often over getting people to know Jesus, so get them in anyway that is possible. But what about the opposite end? Must people continue to have that contemporary music to remain not only in the Lutheran Church with right doctrine and teaching, but also must they have it to remain a Christian?
Are people going to church for the right reasons? Are they being fed and nourished as they should be? Are they receiving Christ in such a manner that it is to Jesus Christ they cling and no other? I often pose this question, and posed it during a Q&A session during the conference. If there were no organs, and no hymnals, and if there were no electricity for guitars and laser guns (let the reader understand), and there were no instruments but the human vocal chords which sang and preached the Word of God, would there still be members at your church? Would they still cling fast to the teaching of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and hold the forgiveness he brings so dear, that they would stay?
While I will not make judgments on an individual basis, anyone who leaves the church because of personal preference, instead of the false doctrine taught therein, probably doesn't know what Jesus has done for them, nor what they receive from Christ Jesus when the come to church.
Again, I'm not making the judgment, but am delivering the message. Clearly this last section is less clear than the others, but it should provide a thought provoking question? Do they remain for Jesus, or for the music?
With what we're doing in the Kansas District and throughout the Synod with our liturgies, I have to wonder about Humpty Dumpty. Is the liturgy taking a great fall, or are we egging our father's houses? I'm afraid that before we answer that question as a Synod, we won't be able to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
But that's ok. Because while all the king's horses and all the kingsmen (again, let the reader understand) won't be able to put Humpty back together again...
...the King can.