Contemporary Worship & Lutheran Worship: One Pastor’s Change

In Bible Study today I gave a long talk on entertainment and worship. It was prompted by a lapsed member who claimed to attend the Cowboy Church. Attendance was good, they reported, but it “depended on the entertainment” for that day.

This evening I discovered an essay by Rev. Sean Rippy, a former advocate of Contemporary Worship who changed his ways. The entire essay is well-worth a read. It’s not too academic (probably not enough for any CW supporters out there), but i has a good man-on-street reporting to it. He has a very good section on Scripture and the Confession’s statements on worship acceptable to God and the conclusion is very strong. Again, read the whole thing. But here are some excerpts from the middle. I particularly liked his observation about what making things “user friendly” actually curtails biblical literacy.

While CW is sometimes very hard to define, over the years I have realized certain commonalities between each service that is called “Contemporary”. I have learned these by reading books on the subject, attending conferences, being trained by my vicarage pastors and by trial and error. I have even been told when some of my services were not “contemporary” and why. Through this process of discovery I have learned that the Esse of CW is not Lutheran or Biblical. The Esse is that which is at the core and soul of a thing. It is that which if you took it away, it would cease to be what it was and become something else. In other words, what is it that distinguishes CW and sets it apart from Liturgical worship? And does that distinction make CW unlutheran and unbiblical?

1. CW is distinguished by a focus on emotion–often referred to as “meaningful.” CW has accepted the Pentecostal theology of spirituality and has therefore defined deeply-felt emotions as true spirituality. Whether it is more “emotional/meaningful” music, or more emotional/meaningful” sermons, or a more “emotional/meaningful” service, it’s still the same focus on the subjective self and emotion. In this line, charismatic preaching is important to CW. Charismatic choirs are important to CW. Enjoyable, charismatic songs are important to CW.  It may be possible that the pastor who engages in CW does not have this specific understanding of spirituality; however it is reflected in his actions and in his CW.

The primary goal of CW is to pump you up, to make you feel more emotional and charged about Christ and this becomes “true” spirituality. It’s a pep rally of sorts. Even when this “pep rally” mentality is toned down, the goal is still some form of emotional, uplifting experience. From the CW perspective, excitement supposedly shows your commitment to Christ….

After having been told by several “experts” in the field that one’s form is predicated by one’s theology and that it is therefore impossible to use Baptist/Evangelical worship forms and still be Lutheran (this principal is very old–so old it is known in Latin: “Lex orandi, Lex credendi,” meaning: the law of worship is the law of belief or to put it more succinctly: “How you worship is how you believe.” Form and substance are intricately united). However, after having been told that it was impossible to use evangelical forms and have Lutheran substance, I tried anyway. I followed Pastor David Luecke’s understanding of “Evangelical style and Lutheran substance.” I fervently believed that it was possible to blend Evangelical style with Lutheran substance and come up with a solid and unique Lutheran worship style.

This is where I got caught up in trying to write a Lutheran Contemporary Worship Service. I knew that one of the things to be avoided was this Pentecostal concept of Spirituality. It was certainly very difficult to avoid in the songs–almost impossible in fact, as most CW songs are predicated upon this singular concept (spirituality is feelings and feelings are given by the Spirit without means: “Spirit Rain,” “Spirit of the living God, fall afresh on me,” “Blaze Spirit blaze, set our hearts on fire,” etc.–which is obviously not the Lutheran understanding of spirituality or the means by which the Spirit comes to us.)  Furthermore, as I was attempting to write a Lutheran liturgy which could be defined as contemporary, I quickly realized that one of the definitions of CW is that it had to be less reverent and more “spiritual” or emotional in nature. Note the titles of some of these contemporary services: “Celebration Service,” “Spirit Song,” etc. These titles reflect an unLutheran, dare I say unChristian emphasis upon feelings as opposed to the gift of forgiveness in Christ Jesus. (While a title such as “Celebration Service” can be defended as the celebration of Easter or Christ, sadly, oftentimes the service and sermon themselves reveal this is not the case. Also it is the juxtaposition between “celebration” and “traditional.” If the “celebration” service is a celebration of joy, then what is the “traditional” service? Whether intended or not, titles teach!)

What I found was none of the “forms” for CW (for indeed there are general categories that are the same within CW) reflected a Lutheran view of spirituality and worship. It seems that while Lutherans believed and maintained that the Bible says worship must be reverent and holy, the esse (soul) of CW was less reverent (I believe it’s actually irreverent) and more emotionally driven.

Coming to this realization, I tried to make a Lutheran CW which might avoid these pitfalls. Working on the principal that it surely isn’t the unLutheran view of spirituality and irreverence which the people were requesting, I sat down to prepare the services. In the early days, I actually tried to write my own liturgies, working from CW sources and preprinted CW services, trying to remain faithful to the hymnal. It didn’t take long before I realized: a. how difficult it is to write liturgies as opposed to sermons; b. how easily you can mislead people (heresy) when you thought you were writing something else and c. how quickly the people began to misunderstand worship. For example, when one uses an “Evangelical” or “Pentecostal” term, such as “Praise and Worship,” it carries certain meanings, which our people have learned from the Christian radio and popular Christian books, and which do not correspond to a Lutheran understanding of those words. Or when one sings “Spirit of the living God, fall fresh on me,” it carries an unchristian/Pentecostal message, whether it can be understood correctly or not. The author is not saying, “Spirit of the living God, fall fresh on me, through Word and Sacrament. Oh, and by fresh, I do not mean that I have somehow lost the spirit, since I don’t feel Him right now….”

In spite of this, I was told repeatedly, “This is not contemporary worship!” I was frequently requested to add more feeling to the service (like the last pastor did) and make it more “spiritual.” I received complaints like: “The service it too strict” (i.e. reverent). “I don’t sense the Holy Spirit anymore.” The music director repeatedly implored that the opening hymns were supposed to be “uplifting” so we can “lift the rafters” and the closing hymn had to be similarly “uplifting” lest we leave on a low note. And we had to have several opening hymns in order to achieve the “perfect” worshipful mood.

It is also of the essence of CW that the sermon not be a Law and Gospel Sermon, but rather a sermon about getting through life (as if Law and Gospel did not do this–in fact there might be something to the argument that CW sermons have changed the Lutheran understanding of how one gets through life–not by confession and absolution, but by trying harder). Oftentimes this is defended as preaching the third use of the law–however, Lutherans have always contended whether you have a section of third use or not, the Gospel must predominate. This is certainly not the case in the CW sermons I have heard. I received complaints that my sermons talked about sin. I received complaints that my sermons weren’t applicable to daily life. I received complaints that I wasn’t preaching 10 steps to greater health or a better marriage or whatever.

It was at this moment that I realized that what the people were requesting was not, in fact, Lutheran worship, but rather a mix of Lutheran and Evangelical/Pentecostal theology in their worship. They wanted Evangelical spirituality and Lutheran communion, two things that are not actually compatible. Eventually, one must replace the other. In fact, Pastor David Luecke has apparently realized the same thing for a few years ago he told a NOW district conference that we need to think of the means of grace as a failed strategy and adopt new forms and substance in order to grow.

What I learned in summary:

1. As a writer of liturgy you lead people astray. Even if you get one week “perfect” that’s only 1 out of 52. (See below on writing liturgy.)

2. The CW songs lead people astray.

3. The people who request CW are not requesting Lutheran worship, but a hybrid of Evangelical/Pentecostal worship with a Lutheran understanding of communion added on. (Though this too shall change, I imagine, as the two theologies cannot stand side by side. The one must replace the other.)

It is often falsely believed that if a pastor can write a “good” (often defined as God-pleasing) sermon, then he can write a “good/God-pleasing” worship service. As one who has attempted to write contemporary worship services and as one who has spoken to those who “create” worship services for our hymnals, allow me to say, “This is not true.” Besides the significant point that from my experience most of the pastors who go for contemporary worship do not write (or preach, or even seem to understand) “God-pleasing”–Law and Gospel sermons, and therefore do not write God-pleasing–Gottesdienst–besides that! Writing liturgy is a different task than writing a sermon. When you write a sermon, you have an entire 15-20 minutes (average) to get your point across. If you make a mistake, or misspeak, you can correct yourself. When you make a point, you can make it in several different ways, using different examples to make sure you don’t miscommunicate. You can still miscommunicate, of course, however, it’s less likely than when you write a liturgy. When you write a liturgy, you have one or two sentences to get it right and that without misleading anyone.

Oftentimes, you wind up writing what makes sense to you (the author) but not what makes sense to the people (a situation much easier to deal with in a sermon, where you have more time and more words to explain). This is why it takes liturgies years of writing, discussing and practice before they officially come out. Talk to the people who write liturgies for the hymnals–it takes a group (not 1 pastor) and about 2-3 years to get it right. And remember, for the most part, they’re using already tried and trusted wordings! The simple truth of the matter is, pastors are not trained to write liturgies. We have not taken classes to that effect (primarily because no one thought we’d need to have that skill). And those parish pastors that attend conferences on writing worship services, often wind up taking classes from Reformed/Baptist/Pentecostal sources, thus absorbing their theology.

Furthermore, in the desire to make Christian concepts more understandable, CW has a penchant for using metaphors and language that are not scriptural and certainly not Lutheran and often misleads, even if they can be understood correctly. One series of CW services I was using used the example of a summer bus trip for the theme of the summer services. The metaphors used during the confession and absolution alone were down right ridiculous and would be humorous if not actually used in a worship service. In replacing the words of the Bible with the words of human understanding, we are leading our people further and further from the Word–a point which might be highlighted by recent Barna research indicating that Christians are becoming less and less able to understand the Bible. Could it be that we’re taking away one of the primary helps to interpretation of the Bible–the Liturgy? Historically, this is how the liturgy has been used–as an interpreter of the Bible. The Liturgy helps us understand the Bible, but not when you change the Biblical metaphors and words to “modern” metaphors and words.

HT: BJS

Related posts:

1. A Call to Worship?
2. Contemporary Worship Honesty
3. Like Grant and Lee in Class at Westpoint
4. Rev. Rick Stuckwisch on "Worship"
5. Briefly: Incense and Worship