So far the history. Now what of its relationship to our circumstances today. As "quia" subscribers to the Lutheran Confessions, all Missouri Synod pastors heartily agree with the Formula that ceremonies, even Page 15 and Divine Worship 2, are not divinely inspired and commanded. But, disturbingly, this part of the Formula has been quoted time and time again to justify all kinds of innovative ceremonies and practices, which are all said to be in the order of adiaphora. "It is adiaphora" is almost a mantra that is to ward off the concerns of anyone who might ask about the meaning, propriety or wisdom of a new ceremony that has been introduced.
Pastor Andrew Peiffer, of Luther Seminary, Adelaide, wrote about Myths of Worship and placed this one first in the list of four: In the Lutheran Church worship forms are an adiaphoron . . . We are free to do our own thing." The conditions that obtain are that worship must be Gospel-centered and innovations must be improvements over the liturgy which, as Luther observes, "goes back to genuine Christian beginnings."
Three principles should concern every evangelical and confessional pastor. First, that innovations should not be introduced "frivolously and without serious theological consideration." Second, no compromise in the truth of God's Word, that is Lutheran doctrine, and especially the Gospel should be made when "doing something new" in worship. Third, it must be certain that there is no overt or subtle coercion or pressure to introduce ceremonies and practices that compromise Lutheran and true Christian truth.
As James Tiefel suggests, "There are some theological issues here. Are some trying to retain a liturgical style simply because it is a tradition? And here is a more serious question: Are we hindering growth because we have made a law out of what ought to be an adiaphoron? Have we erected a barrier to the Holy Spirit and His means with our western rite, church year and sacramental emphasis? This question gets right to the heart of the issue: Ought we change our style for the sake of carrying out the Great Commission." No one should be afraid to tackle these questions from all directions and without preconceived sociological or theological conclusions.
Why then are many novelties adopted and used so readily and casually? The reason most often given is that "it is so we can attract more people, particularly "baby boomers," to the church. The expressed goal of the Church Growth Initiative is "To set in motion forces that will result in annual increases in the number of members in Lutheran congregations."
Who are these "boomers?" Rev. George Lobein describes them thusly:
1. Born between 1946 and 1964.
2. Seeking integrity in the church.
3. Don't want to be saved, but want help "to make their
lives work.
4. Want to give of themselves in ways that are meaningful to
them.
5. Want quality in everything.
6. Prefer options that make choices convenient.
Since World War II, conditions in the United States and Western Europe have created a most selfish generation . The selfless virtues that made America and Western Europe have been culturated out of them somehow. Bill Bennett lists and documents these as: Self Discipline, Compassion, Responsibility, Friendship, Work, Courage, Perseverance, Honesty and Faith.
Many in the church have determined that to "reach" these people, the church has to "set in motion forces" that pander to what traditionally would be called "their sinful attitudes;" and to suggest to them that their attitudes might be "wrong" or "ungodly" or "given up" would blow the goal of getting them into the church. The notion that they would be expected to live, not for themselves, but for Christ, who died for them and rose again is a natural obstacle that should be met head on if the church is to deal honestly with those who expect honesty and integrity. If the church is surrupticiously "luring" them into the group with hidden agenda of "saving them" when they get connected, it is being dishonest with them and does not deserve their trust.
Thoughtful analysis will show that the popular method of Entertainment Evangelism may back fire, if the boomers ever figure out how they have been manipulated. It would be very judgmental to suggest that the goal may not be evangelism at all, but that boomers want to change the church to satisfy their own selfish tastebuds. How many concerts are given on street corners to unbelievers? Many are presented in the established churches to a bunch of unboomerlike white hairs to try to persuade them that pop style, show biz, sentimental, commercial, managerial religion is okay - and all without sacrificing Lutheran doctrine (the universal disclaimer)? Tiefel, however, comments: "the informal style has as much to do with Evangelical theology as it does with evangelism objectives." So, fisher of boomers, beware.
How many have given serious theological consideration to the elevation of the baby, Kunta Kenti and, now, Lion King style, at Baptism? What about the suggestion of the Church Membership Initiative that if your people like country western music, give it to them as worship? What about rite of balloon release, in disfavor now because it is Ecologically Incorrect to feed birds rubber and string? The clown visit? The use of Holy Baptism as the object lesson for the children's devotion? The leotard clad dancers twirling down the aisle. (The worship committee says they should wear leotards!) The Altar Call? What novel rites will be introduced at the next Youth Gathering that can top the last Event? The Lay ministry program was adopted in spite of very serious questions by highly respected theologians. All that seems to matter are the practical results and the present needs. Thinking about the spiritual consequences of a touching, weepy eyed testimony of God's power and love makes you out to be some kind of mean spirited cynic instead of a serious pastor/theologian dedicated to God's truth and his people's religious well-being.
Pastor/theologians should give serious thought and discussion to claims of contemporary worship promoters, such as: "God commanded praise, not for Himself, but for us. Praise is celebration, celebration is fun. It makes us feel good." "Praise can bring you into a personal relationship with God." Praise, like prayer, is now being promoted as a means of grace. The adrenalin produced fear of God's judgement used to come before the rejoicing at the Gospel. Now Endorphin Evangelism bypasses that whole undignified and self-esteemless business of examination of one's sinful life and repentance.
Charles Porterfield Krauth, the author of The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology, could teach contemporary Lutherans a thing or two. American Lutherans in his day were abandoning every vestige of Lutheranism; the Confessions (except for the Augustana which was only loosely held in esteem) baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood, absolution, any formal worship that wasn't "Protestant." After seriously reading, studying and considering the Confessions, Krauth became a Lutheran again, though for years he was very patient and conciliatory with the "American Lutherans." Later he wrote a very brave and confession: "We hereby retract, before God and His Church, . . . everything we have written or said in conflict with our present conviction. This we are not ashamed to do." Melanchthon had written something similar before signing the Formula. Perhaps others would return to the Biblical principles of Luther if they would seriously consider what they are doing to God's people with their innovations.
Krauth had written something to the effect that accepting ways of doing things without serious consideration could lead to compromising without realizing it. This is probably happening all over the Lutheran Church today. Every innovator always announces his disclaimer that whatever he does he does without compromising Lutheran doctrine, as if saying it makes it so.
Harold Senkbeil says that much contemporary worship encourages the wrong focus. Whereas, genuine Christianity focuses on Christ and what he has done for us in history, the new worship focuses on "the feeling aroused within the worshipper." The manipulation of the emotions is what the pop worship gurus are good at. The style of triumphant glory music and the mushy narration and testimonies are chosen to lead the audience to feel happy, then sad, then happy and victorious at the end. Robert E. Webber concludes that when this occurs, "our religion has been reduced to the lowest level of commercial entertainment."
Before, during and after the concert or worship event appeals are made to buy the tapes, CDs and tee shirts the group has for sale in the back of the church. Such activity reinforces the "commercial" aspects of such touring "ministries." Is the Temple becoming a business again? Many seem to be gladly and unabashedly saying, "Yes, and that's the way God wants it because its fun."
Melanchthon and the Wittenbergers faced the damning power of the Pope and the political and military threats of the Emperor. Their adversaries were apparent and forceful. The church's ministers today may not face ouster from their parishes if they do not adopt the current "style" of worship and meta-church ministry. But the omnipresent Charlie Muellar, at a lunch for pastors of churches in growing counties at the Texas District Galveston Convention, intimated that the large congregations, though out- voted by the smaller congregations, were going to ignore the resolutions of conventions and roll over the pastors and churches that were small and refused to adopt the growth principles he and others were promoting.
A Logia article entitled The Brave New Church makes an ecclesiastical comparison between Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World as inspired by Neil Postman's book: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. Orwell predicted the world would be oppressed by an externally imposed "Big Brother, whereas Huxley said people would be brainwashed to love their oppression and the new technologies so that they lost their ability to think rationally. People may be on the lookout for tyrants who would take away their liberty, but fail to take into account people's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984 people were controlled by inflicting pain, in Huxley, by inflicting pleasure. He asks if the future church will be "subjected to a new tyranny, a tyranny of the trite, banal and trivial, in short, a Brave New World of theological glory without the cross?"
Kenneth Myers, in All God's Children and Blue Suede Shoes, writes: "I believe that the challenge of living with popular culture may well be as serious for modern Christians as persecution and plagues were for the saints of earlier centuries. . . Enemies that come loudly and visibly are usually much easier to fight than those that are undetectable. . . But the erosion of character, the spoiling of innocent pleasures, and the cheapening of life itself that often accompany modern popular culture can occur so subtly that we believe nothing has happened." Thomas Day, in "Why Catholics Can't Sing," warns against performance type worship and says: "The music of the "future kingdom parish" is very narrow indeed, an audible symbol of a rigid intolerance."
Should there be more than concern about the music "ministry" that travels around with the professed purpose and mission to "bring the worship of the Lutheran Church out of the 16th century in the 20th century. And we have to hurry because the 21st century is almost here?" (Aren't we using 1st and 2nd century worship, not 16th?) Is pressure being brought to bear when CEF representatives attend a seminar and then are "treated" (without the knowledge of their home pastor) to four hours of Church Growth Initiative theory? These lay people have little sense of the history of worship or of theological discernment to evaluate what is put on their plate?
Are officials, professors, seminary presidents, and worship gurus giving only one side of the worship story because they are truly concerned for the lost, or is there an underlying mistrust that the Gospel is not working and that the church has to do something to get the people and dollar numbers in?
Will God roll history over again as after the Reformation? Certainly we have loud and forceful voices on both sides, comparable to Melanchthon and Flacius. How will those pastors who have been watching and evaluating the arguments of both sides react? Will they evaluate the conditions in light of the Confession's advise? Are the innovations being introduced with serious theological study and concern for the confused lay people? Is it apparent or not that the evangelical worship involves compromise with Protestant theology and practices or that it is biblical and confessional? Are there cultural and organizational pressures, if not subtle threats, to introduce these ritual innovations? Will there be some Melanchthons who return to the time tested and historic worship forms through which God serves His people and provides a personal and dignified worship that brings joy and pleasure to God, rather than to the endorphin addict who seeks only his own emotional experiences?