I find all this talk along the lines of “Lutherans just stick with what’s familiar to them” and “traditional worship is ineffective at reaching new generations” to be rather funny because I’m a relatively young person (early thirties) who is a recent convert to Lutheranism from evangelicalism. I don’t speak as one who’s been a Lutheran all her life.

The thing is that for Lutherans, the “personal” is not (or at least it should not be) found in what we bring to God, but in the gifts that God gives to us (personally) in Word and Sacrament. Those hymns so full of “secondary discourse” are all about the objective reality of what Christ has done FOR ME. They are basically God’s Word set to music. If faith comes by hearing the Word of Christ then why would we want to sing songs that are all about our own feelings and works? If worship is all about “expressing my feelings to God” then that would be one thing. But it’s not primarily about that. Worship is primarily about receiving God’s gifts. Will receiving God’s gifts of Word and Sacrament create feelings in me? Often times it will. But that’s not the primary focus. Frank is spot on in what he says regarding the Psalms, which have way more objective content than most praise songs.

I seem to constantly hear the argument “we need to use contemporary worship to reach new people.” My question is: what are you reaching them with when you are constantly teaching by your practice that worship is all about what we bring to God?

Regarding the phrase “surrender your life to Jesus” you are just deconstructing the phrase to make it sound as though evangelicals and Lutherans believe the exact same thing when they really don’t. No, the Arminian evangelicals who use such language (which Calvinists generally don’t use) probably won’t come out and say “I believe faith is a work.” But they do believe (and I speak from personal experience here) that they are saved because they made a decision to accept Jesus as their Savior. They certainly believe the Holy Spirit was involved (in giving them the ability to choose God) but they don’t believe it was God’s doing alone. Just suggest election and predestination to such folks and see how loudly they protest against the idea of our free will being violated.

The reason I have a problem with using such language is not because I am a Lutheran on a “witch hunt” who doesn’t know anything about actual evangelical theology. I know a great deal about evangelical theology, having been a (mostly) Arminian evangelical all my life until quite recently. You can deconstruct evangelical language all you want, but the fact is that such language puts the focus on human activity in salvation (and in sanctification). This is true even if you modify it by saying “well, it’s God who causes you to surrender” – if that’s the case salvation still hinges on something I do. And it’s not merely an academic issue – this sort of theology can really do a lot of spiritual damage. I’m not sure why we feel the need to improve upon what the catechism expresses quite well without the man-centered theological baggage.

When Paul was in prison, and he was singing hymns, what was it that changed the heart of the guard? The content, the message that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes on Him would not perish, but have eternal life.

When we sing in worship, do those around us hear the Gospel in its rich purity? God does not need to hear the Gospel, but we do, and our neighbor does! Lately, for me, that’s the bottom line.

Based ton your first comment, I’m guessing I’m probably in your generation or at least close (I’m 35).

“I just observe people of my generation (mid-40’s and under) in traditional settings wanting to collapse onto the floor by about verse five of so many boring traditional hymns. Right or wrong, they could care less whether the theology is ‘right.’”

There are certainly hymns that I like less than others, but I’d rather sing a hymn than pretty much any “contemporary” song I’ve ever run into.

“That by itself is not convincing perhaps other than to say I find it ineffective at reaching new generations that did not grow up with traditional worship forms, and even for many of them who grew up Lutheran it is a stretch.”

I didn’t grow up with traditional worship forms, or even anything that remotely would have qualified as liturgical (I spent the first 27 years of my life in non-traditional and contemporary Baptist churches). Yet the first time I experienced a traditional liturgical service I realized how much I was missing. I know I’m not the first person from a non-liturgical background to have that reaction.

In fact, at my church, where we have a traditional service (8am) and a contemporary service (11am), most people who visit the 11am service end up attending the 8am service within a few weeks and stay there for the most part.

So, I’m not at all comfortable with asserting that a traditional liturgical service isn’t effective for reaching folks outside of the traditional Lutheran fold, or even that new generations prefer contemporary to liturgical. (Yes, I know you didn’t say that.)

In fact, I’m not comfortable with talking about worship style being effective or ineffective at all, or making the decision based on preference. I think that’s putting the cart before the horse.

“So many traditional Lutheran hymns are just loaded with secondary discourse – you can sing them and keep your distance and stay far away as you doze off, waiting for them to be done soon.”

Actually I find that fairly attractive.

“Most of the time, it comes down to “what I like” versus all the rest of the arguments.”

I’m with you there. “What I like” is not acceptable criteria for shaping the divine service.

“There is no such thing as Christian music. Only Christian lyrics. That has been said again and again. True, in my opinion.”

I would posit something different … and I think it is helpful to this conversation. I’d say there is no such thing as Christian music OR Christian lyrics. Trying to determine whether lyrics are or are not Christian is striving after the wind, in my opinion.

There is sacred music, suitable for the divine service, and there is non-sacred music, not suitable for the divine service. That’s not to say that music that is not sacred it not beautiful, praiseworthy, or that it does not express appropriate theological content or portray a right and proper attitude towards God.

It may seem like that’s not significantly different from saying lyrics are or are not Christian, but I think it makes a world of difference when we’re talking about what is appropriate for the divine service. Then we move the question back to what the purpose of the divine service is. Once we arrive at its purpose, only then can we determine whether a particular song is or is not appropriate for the divine service.

Best,
Jeremy

Moreover, I would also take issue with the Psalms being perceived as personalized in the same way that the majority of modern Christian music accomplishes its personalization. The easiest way to test ccm is to simply look at the grammar: who is the song about by looking at who is the subject of the verbs. If we, or our feelings, or our works, or our actions are the subject of the song, it is about us and is not about us the work and person of Jesus. Using the Psalms as a baseline is actually a good idea in that our hymnody should at least measure up to the various psalmists in both proclamation as well as theological content.

I’m glad you brought up Amazing Grace. Is it possible to reach people with a song like Amazing Grace that says absolutely nothing about person and work of Jesus? Is it possible to reach a lost soul with a song that both a Muslim and a Buddhist can sing without compromising their own unique theological distinctiveness? I know that Amazing Grace is a sacred cow to many but the song says about who Jesus is (and therefore says nothing of the Father who sends Him nor the Spirit who proclaims Him) and what He did for us as well as what He does for us today in the preached Word and through the blessed Eucharist. The Psalms on the other hand always speak of the Lord who saves and points us to the Christ who does the saving.

Yep, I’ll be happy to use the Psalms as a “traditional” benchmark any day!

I don’t see the problem. Isn’t “surrendering” – I confess that I’m in bondage to sin – confession?

Isn’t salvation through grace by faith? Believing in Jesus Christ. And doesn’t faith only happen through the power of the Holy Spirit?

Dave’s statement makes sense to me. Sometimes, unless we use the insider language, or the officially approved language, Lutherans can’t accept others as not be works-based.

Whether we’re right or not, seems like Lutherans are always on witch hunts to pound out theological language they don’t like. None of my evangelical friends would say faith is a work nor would they say it was anything other than God’s doing alone.

As for affirming Dave’s comment, don’t we believe as Luther said that we cannot by our own understanding or effort believe in Jesus Christ or come to him… except how…? When the HS calls, gather, enlightens and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth and keeps it united with Jesus Christ.

And so if someone surrenders, wouldn’t that be something God is doing?

In addition to what he writes, I just observe people of my generation (mid-40′s and under) in traditional settings wanting to collapse onto the floor by about verse five of so many boring traditional hymns. Right or wrong, they could care less whether the theology is “right.”

That by itself is not convincing perhaps other than to say I find it ineffective at reaching new generations that did not grow up with traditional worship forms, and even for many of them who grew up Lutheran it is a stretch.

So often, no energy.

As for the “personal relationship” aspect of new hymns, read the psalms, the hymnbook in our bible, and it is so personal, you can’t escape the first person, personal expression, speaking out to God, crying out to God aspect of it. Three kinds of psalms – mad, glad or sad. All personal.

So many traditional Lutheran hymns are just loaded with secondary discourse – you can sing them and keep your distance and stay far away as you doze off, waiting for them to be done soon.

It is so often talk “about” the gospel. Forde used to say there is nothing more deadly than talk “about” the gospel, rather than the proclamation of the gospel, in sermons. And, while generalizing to some degree, I find the same in so many traditional hymns.

As for expediency, I just find it is way easier to reach people in worship using modern contemporary sounding music whether it is amazing grace with guitar, A Mighty Fortress on Guitar, or something being written today.

I’ve heard they have Luther’s original chart of A Mighty Fortress, arranged on… guitar. Lutherans broke the mold with indigenous contemporary worship but, for the most part, have let the evangelicals pave the way, the Lutherans sticking to what was familiar to them.

We are not doing what Luther did.

We stay comfortable rather than reach new people.

We prefer insider language and music.

Seems different to me than what Jesus would have done. Didn’t he leave everything to reach those far from God?

If contemporary worship music helps us reach new people, and traditional hymnody honestly just scares many people away, are we sticking with our traditions at the expense of the great commission?

Are we setting aside the commands of God to honor our own traditions.

Most of the time, it comes down to “what I like” versus all the rest of the arguments.

There is no such thing as Christian music. Only Christian lyrics. That has been said again and again. True, in my opinion.

ADMIN NOTE: This comment was transferred from the typepad blog which will be deleted soon.

I think this statement is a fantastic summary of a compelling argument against it. If there is something that I must do to earn my salvation it no longer is a salvation by God’s grace, but our merit.

Indeed the merit may be small (listening and making the choice), but it implies that I made the choice so I get the benefit of the choice I made. It means that Christ did not do enough… and that I had to finish the job. Not what I read in Scripture about our helpless state and Christ’s mission to save us.