Pt. I
Cleveland Confessional Lutheranism: Why Contemporary Christian Music Should Not Be Allowed in any Lutheran Church!- Installment Number 1
Read more in Part two of his discussion
Why am I against Contemporary Christian music? Why do I feel so strongly? I will tell you why. It causes division. St. Paul encourages us to stay away from those would cause division or put obstacles in our way (Romans 16:17). Even those who are in favor of Contemporary Christian music in our Lutheran worship must agree that it causes division.
This is a hot potato subject if there ever is one. Somehow members of our church body seem to believe that orthodoxy, that is, fundamental teachings and worship practices are to be thrown off all in the name of mission. I hear it all the time,
Young people can't identify with the music, language, or tradition of the church.
These folks have missed the fact that the tradition of the church has passed through many hands and subsequent doctrinal review. We need not be concerned that our liturgy and hymnody is faithful to God's Word (the new LSB not withstanding, especially CDROM edition).
The problem is not relevance to modern culture. The church is NEVER of the world, the left hand kingdom as Luther called it. Fundamentally worship is only a response to what God has given us in his divine service. He gives us the law and the gospel. If we devolve into what WE offer to God. worship leaders are the epitome of the problem, missing the point of worship is to join with all the saints throughout time, speaking "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Sabbaoth!" The point is and never was to hear a "leader" perform for us. If we don't know the hymn, teach it in another context. Let the believers lift their voices in unison song not inhibited by the limitations of new music.
Rev. Petersen has an interesting discussion in regards to reverence here:
Fussiness in the Service
With the prinicple of freedom before us, let us consider what the reality of God's presence does to a man. How did Isaiah respond to the Lord in His vision? St. Peter in the boat? Even John during his vision? All of these men were moved by the presence of God and none of them slapped God on the back or winked at Him. So it is also that if we believe that God is present according to His mercy in Word and in Sacrament for us during the Divine Service, that the altars of our Church hold the risen Body of Christ, that His reconciling Word of grace is true and valid even in heaven when spoken by the pastor, this will move us. If we seem a bit fussy, I suspect it can be tolerated. After all, no one seems to mind a bit of fussiness at Arlington during the burial of a veteran or at the inaugerration of the President of the United States.
And yet, and here is the point for the day, our pastors are unnaturally afraid of being "fussy." In the worst cases they go out of their way to be as casual and irreverent as possible. They want to show you that God is just like a fishing buddy and you shouldn't be ashamed to scratch yourself or belch or laugh at him. They think the Gospel means being more comfortable with God even than you are with men. Reverence seems to them almost like unbelief. Of course, as already noted, that is not how it shakes out in the Bible.
Understand that tradition is not contrary to missions, a common misconception. This point struck home this weekend visiting Zion Lutheran here in Fort Wayne. They had the gaul to print on their bulletin "Historic Zion Lutheran" noting specifically "Selections from The Lutheran Hymnal 1948." Ouch, what happened to modern music? How can people work through the "thee", "thou", and "Holy Ghost"? As I looked around I saw an assortment of older, middle aged, and young families. Most notably was a strong black (skin color) population. Aren't these the folks that would be particularly offended by this heavy German-influenced liturgy and music? No, that would miss the point. They are drawn to doctrinally pure Divine Service and hymnody, both of which have passed the trials of time and review.
Unfortunately, the CCM (Christian Contemporary Music) fare hasn't been subjected to the same trials. We half-heartedly accept it as "Christian" much the same as we say Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven Life" is Christian when the core thesis is contrary to scripture. Yes, true exposition of God's word may be found in
some of these texts and musics but weeding through the garbage is a challenge at best. In both cases, a key motivation is wealth and growth. Consider the title "Christian Music Industry." Not ministry but industry, yielding personal gain and wealth.
Out of curiousity I have been listing to the Christian radio station here in Fort Wayne, Star 88.3. Anne has the iPod and the only alternative is the classical station. It only took a day or so before I was disgusted with the "me do" theology. As a professor said on campus, he's rather have NO theology than BAD theology (in reference to the music at the 4th of July campus picnic.) In turn, I've returned to the IPFW campus classical station. They play all liturgical music on Sunday mornings! Compare this to the Top 10 Worship songs fro Sunday morning on the CCM station. The songs I heard were all praise, no law/gospel and devoid of any true scripture being purely emotional driven.
The key to fruitful worship is giving proper reverence. Laid-back and casual are terms that in most parishioners minds are synonymous with irreverance. In others, terms such as non-traditional, contemporary, modern give the same effect. Don't misunderstand me. There may be a time and a place for "electric" instruments in the divine service. Unfortunately the music associated with instruments has been developed out of the church. Modern instrumentation is not the problem. The repertoire and genre-association of the instruments is.
Let us not throw out the baby with the bath water, all in the name of cultural relevance. Worship lacking law and gospel, substance, symbolism, and iconography pointing toward Christ crucified is not worship. It is had not been tested by the fire of time. Intentions may be good and right with this CCM music but without the doctrinal review of the entire church, the dangers are too great.
Pt. II
“Higher Things†magazine generally seems to have this approach. Here’s one example:
From the Bible Study Leader’s notes, relating to an article on CCM:“…saying something false about our relationship with God is considerably worse than not saying anything about Him at all. “Secular†music which talks of other things in this life don’t hurt our relationship with God, unless a particular song specifically advocates or tempts a person to sin (and such songs do exist, so we should be careful). But the music which claims to teach us about Christ causes us to let our guard down, and we are influenced falsely to trust in something besides Christ’s coming to us in Word and Sacrament.†(i.e. Theology of Glory, Works Righteousness, etc...)
The above link gets to the core of the issue. LCMS youth missions says the music is a fine tool. Higher Things says better to say nothing at all then say the wrong thing. Which camp do you fall in in regards to Christian Contemporary Music?
In contrast the historic liturgy in its myriad forms that exist among us, is beautiful in its brevity and razor sharp in its focus. Consider the phrase “The Lord be with you“. How much is conveyed with those five little words: the Gospel thrust of Christ’s incarnation and sacrifice and resurrection, the office of the ministry and the preaching office, the sacramental slant to the service, the baptismal, Trinitarian self-disclosure of God -- all in the greeting!
I caught another mention linked above which makes an articulate argument against tossing off the historic liturgy and approaching the do-it-yourself liturgy. The only poor experience I have had so far in attendance to the various local LCMS churches was our second sunday. The church offers a "traditional" and "contemporary" service. The contemporary apparently has the greater attendance during the summer. The pastor decided to impart the "flavor" of the contemporary (or should I say non-liturgical) worship into our traditional service. So he dropped some of the apparently superfluous aspects like responses, gradual, etc.
Worse yet, he tried to apply the gospel reading (Parable of the Sower) to the words of confession and absolution. It was so unintelligible that we left not knowing that we have been given forgiveness. Of course, we know that we have received absolution but without a clear statement, we were left without a feeling of assurance, the conveyance of this gift through his called servant.
On to another aspect of this issue:
I didn't offer any solution for new hymnody in the last posting. I think this is an important discussion not covered elsewhere. The key issue as I see it isn't the MUSIC but the THEOLOGY. Many responded well to the "filter" analogy. We don't want to be constantly filtering all the music and theology while worshipping. I have found while on campus that I need to be critical of the sermons we hear in chapel. More often than not they are well spoken and a true exposition of the word. Occasionally they take a tangent, use an inappropriate analogy, or just plain speak false teaching.
When it comes to our hymnody and the other music of the church, we have a great example in the existing hymnody. I am specifically drawn to J.S. Bach. It was revealed in my reading last week surrounding his birthday that he was a consummate theologian. He was WELL TRAINED in the word and its truthful exposition. In order to have new solid music written, I believe we need to return to commissioned composer means of establishing new hymnody. These composers are under the purview of ordained ministers and they themselves must be well trained in manners of theology.
This reminds me of the CD I recorded last year of my friend Tim Eisman. A few of the selections had been used in worship. When listening, most of his textual material is direct Biblical quotation or is accurate biblical paraphrase. He was strongly aware of the need for theological integrity. He was commissioned by Concordia University to write these pieces for their chapel services. Finally he was supervised by the campus pastor. The filters and checks and balances are in place to assure accuracy. By the way, the CD's are in transit to Tim. If you'd like to hear clips or
order a copy, go to my website
www.dizzysound.net.
His pieces weren't specifically hymnody but I believe this model could apply as well to any music of the church.
UPDATE: More posts keep popping up. This seems to be a common topic and on the hearts and minds of many. See the following links:
Trojan Horse in the Lutheran Church
The Limits of Liberty (in worship practice)
All Theology is Doxology
Luther Kvetch: Reviving Lutheran Hymnody
Pt III.
I encountered some reactions that require further discussion.
Understand that CCM is not the cause rather it is the symptom of a greater ecumenical epidemic. Some congregations subscribe to a concept of "relaxed, informal, casual" worship style. Of course our hymnody is not congruent with these concepts. Consequently these congregations give carte blanche to the only other music we have which even considers the Christian God, CCM. We join with all the saints on earth in a big hand holding session without considering what we have been taught. John the Apostle speaks to us in 1st John and in Revelation about the nature of the anti-Christ. The anti-Christ is not in the world but is in the Church. The anti-Christ is false teaching. It is the work of the wily foe to corrupt the church from within. Many believe the greatest evil we encounter is in the world. Is there a greater evil than drawing a soul from justification in Christ to false belief in their own merits, actions, or emotion-driven, feverous love of God?
We cannot love God. We hate God and the commands he has given us, the law we cannot fulfill. We do not desire that which is of God nor do we desire to do as he wills. This "old Adam" exists before our baptism. When we are baptized and receive the Word, the "old Adam" is covered and born in us through the Holy Spirit is a "new Adam." The things we do that are pleasing to God are not born of us but of Holy Spirit. As Luther says, "I cannot by my own reason or strength come to him."
This primary misunderstanding that rightful worship is not what we give to God but what God has given us. If we allow those musics which lack a rightful exposition of the Word, pointing us to Christ crucified, we lack the primary message of scripture.
Always keep in mind the goal of CCM is not exclusively returning to God what is God's in worship. It is an industry and is driven by wealth. Its primary goal is not true evangelism. If it were we would hear both the Law and Gospel in with unrestrained fervor. Unfortunately this message is tamed by the need for broad ecumenicalism. For fearing to offend the message of Christ is diluted to the point that the hearers fail to see their "old Adam" is not dead but alive in their flesh. They will have daily struggles and so daily require forgiveness. This forgiveness does not come in what they do or say but comes only through the work of the Holy Spirit, drawing them to baptism, the Word, and the eucharist.
When was the last time you heard "Lord, I am not deserving of your forgiveness?" or "As a baptized, anointed one, create in me in a clean heart as I cannot by my own strength?" No! Repentance or showing the need for forgiveness are not concepts you hear. Rather broad euphemisms, generic adjectives, and pointing to the glory of God is the majority of what we hear.
As Christians we forget that this theology of glory robs us of a understanding of the need for Christ crucified. By avoiding the "downer" of the Law we do not point people to the atonement Christ made for us. By using musics that avoid this clear proclamation in this Gospel message, we fall dangerously close to the description of the anti-Christ, pulling people from true faith and towards a corrupted faith, denying Christ's justification.
Most disappointing is the concept of "new" and "contemporary". These terms lend a false message that our hymnody and liturgy are stale, antiquated and no longer valid to the modern culture. Nothing could be further from the truth! Over and over we see young people drawn to the historical liturgy and hymnody not because they love antiquities but rather, in them is preached the timeless message that never grows stale. Can say the same for the bulk of CCM musics?
Remember, as was emphasized previously (pt. 1), the issue at hand is NOT instrumentation. God has blessed us with instruments of all shapes and sizes in order to return his gifts of music to him in worship. Its not the instrumentation but the message conveyed and lyric and tone.
Finally bear in mind that there is undoubtedly true Christian music within the CCM culture just as we believe there are true Christians within the other denominational faiths that do not preach in truth and purity. We should not dismiss all CCM music as being the ant-Christ in the same way that we cannot allow this music "carte blanche" to be used in worship. Go back and read the second half of "Pt. 2" of this discussion. We need to be utterly confident that these musics are God's Word in its entirely. Doctrinal review, time, and composers who are consummate theologians are the solutions to this issue.
I welcome your comments.
Pt. IV
Formula of Concord - Article X
In my continuing series on CCM and the traditional liturgy, we should be careful to read Article X of the Formula of Concord (we Lutheran's subscribe to this as being a rightful confession of God's Word.) I believe it speaks well to the Paul-ine concepts of rightful worship. Especially a discussion of adiaphora, that which is neither commanded nor condemned by God in worship.
"Therefore we believe, teach, and confess that the community of God in every place and every time has, according to its circumstances, the good right, power, and authority to change, to diminish, and to increase the ceremonies that are truly adiaphora, without thoughtlessness and offense, in an orderly and appropriate way, as at any time it may be regarded most profitable, most beneficial, and best for preserving good order, [maintaining] Christian discipline and the edification of the Church. Moreover, how we can yield and give way with a good conscience to the weak in faith in such external adiaphora, Paul teaches Rom. 14, and proves it by his example, Acts 16, 3; 21, 26; 1 Cor. 9, 19.
Through this quote one can easily justify removing those elements of worship considered adiaphora for the purpose of evangelism, this is clearly not the thrust of the quote. The scripture references given are directed to adiaphora Paul was combatting such as forced circumcision (Baptism is the circumcision of the new covenant), hair lengths, diet and like all of which were being placed as
necessary adiaphora. The Reformers were fighting those who wished to throw off all tradition in order to be anti-Papal. Remember adiaphora is neither commanded nor condemned. It is the parts of worship not specifically given but created and intended for rightful worship.
In many ways, the use of specific orders of worship, hymn tunes, chant tunes, or "specific hymnals" has become idolatrous. They are elevated to equal status with God's Word itself. We forget these orders are made of both human and divine elements. What God has not specifically commanded is given free for interpretation. Our Christian liberty allows for us to have variation in worship practices without losing that which God has commanded, that is, confession and absolution, rightful proclamation of God's Word, Baptism, and Holy Communion. Consequently we bow before the gods of "TLH" or "LW" and not God himself.
Unfortunately, while variations in music and worship style are possible and permissible under Christian liberty we cannot forgot that God has taught us through his apostle Paul to not change or throw off traditions and other adiaphora especially when it causes unrest and disorder. In other words if it prevents the congregants from worshipping properly or it contaminates that which God has commanded it should be removed and avoided. In this light, tradition and orders found in hymnals provide continuity and focus not found in the spontaneous man-made orders promoted in so called "contemporary" services. The uniqueness and newness of this approach can blind us to the truth found in the words. We are too busy speaking and not hearing. We are not able to "inwardly digest" that which we say and sing and so it becomes adiaphora without confessing our doctrine freely and openly. At this point it no longer is rightful worship and should be excised.
When this adiaphora transcends mere words and actions and points us to entirety of the God's Word, the Crucifixion then it becomes rightful and purposeful. Without this, it is done for our benefit alone and does not belong in worship. I especially liked this quote from an another blog. This sums it up quite well.
incarnatus est: Is Adiaphora Adiaphora ?
This concrete sacramental Gospel must take a certain shape. That shape is the "adiaphora". That the Gospel is Christological, sacramental, historical and intrinsically related to the office of the ministry forms and molds adiaphora to reflect the Biblical truth of what the Gospel actually is. All of which is to say that the divinely willed Gospel and sacraments incarnates itself in the adiaphora we know as the historic Lutheran liturgy.
