Book Review/Summary - Various Christian Apologetic Books

The first part of J.P. Moreland’s 1997 book, Love Your God with All Your Mind, explains why Christian apologetics are good and necessary, now more so than ever. In my opinion, Moreland does a better job making the case for aplogetics, that for Christianity. He explains how historically Christianity was a champion of education and set up the modern education system. The thought was it was good to learn to read the Bible and think about it intelligently. Also, the founding assumption of science being that there are laws of nature that do not change came from the Christian assumption that a God created an orderly universe. However in modern times, due to emotionally directed preaching, Moreland says there is a prevalence of an “Intellectually shallow, theologically illiterate form of Christianity that came to be part of the populist Christian religion that emerged.”

Moreland claims that it all began with the advent of modern rationalist, who were also atheists, such as David Hume (1711-1776) and Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) separating being intellectual with being Christian.  This was furthered during each American revival, which includes the First Great Awakening (1730s-1750s), the Second Great Awakening (1800s-1820s), the Charles Finney revival (1824-1837), and the Layman’s Prayer Revival (1856-1858). On the heels of the Finney revival Mormonism came along (1830) and converted new Christian converts who had no understanding of Christian teaching. From In their doctrine and covenants book, they even discuss how you know the religion is true from a “burning in the bosom.” That sounds a lot like the “Christian” song, He lives, which claims “You ask me how I know He lives, He lives within my heart.”

Moreland also cites the 1980 Gallup Poll “We are having a revival of feelings but not of the knowledge of God. The church today is more guided by feelings than by convictions. We value enthusiasm more than informed commitment.” He then states that “Religion is now viewed by many as a placebo or emotional crutch precisely because that is how we often pitch the gospel to unbelievers.” Lastly, he poses the question, “Since God created man with reason,wouldn't He use it to communicate to us and bring to us to a point of faith?” Moreland also has many other apologetic books that I have not read yet, but come recommended.

One of the oldest and best known books on apologetics is Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis. It began as a series of radio talks between 1942 and 1944 about why a previously atheist Lewis became a Christian after investigating.  These radio shows were published into three pamphlets throughout that same time period and then adapted into this book in 1952. It has been a very popular and influential in Christianity since. This book is interesting and a good read, but is a very cursory, preliminary, introductory look and does not go nearly as deep as other books. But then again, that's what it was intended to do. It is separated into four books (sections).

The first book is a case for a supernatural power, creator being, or God. Lewis states that a shared human morality must come from a God, as must laws of nature, which could only come about by design. He ends with the argument that humans yearn for something greater, and are trying to fill a hole, which is why there are religions all over the world. Book two argues that atheism doesn't explain the universe, neither does dualism (one good god and one bad god), or multiple Gods (pantheism). He then discusses the problem of evil, but unfortunately, as is common, he goes straight to free will as the ultimate good. But if it is so good, and the only thing worth having, we would have it in heaven and be able to sin in heaven? Also does God have free will? Is there the possibility, then, that He could do evil? Next Lewis tries to make the case for the Christian God being the correct one by discussing the historicity of the Bible and Biblical accounts.  In book three, he looks at moral issues from a theologically Christian perspective and in book four he discusses specific Christian theological issues like the trinity.

Another good book is Josh McDowell's More than a Carpenter from 1997. Here McDowell uses historical and legal arguments for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. McDowell wrote other books, some of which were also popular, but this one is the best in my opinion.

Lastly, no apologetics collection is complete with Lee Strobel's, The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus from 1998. This book is a documentation of his journey into becoming a Christian. He also wrote other books later that discuss more specifics to topics, like the historical Jesus, the problem of pain, etc…

Other notable apologist that I have read some of and found useful are John Warwick Montgomery and Norman Geisler. Other notable apologists that I have heard a bit about, but have never read include, Ronald Tacelli, Ravi Zacharias, Gregory Koukl, and Peter Kreeft.

The Theory of Knowledge

The theory of knowledge usually begins with the classic definition of knowledge from Plato, which is still widely used today in philosophy. It is that knowledge consists of justified, true belief. To know something is true, you have to believe it is true. It also has to actually be true. Lastly, this true belief must be justified. In other words, you must have a reason if you know something to be true. According to Plato and classic western philosophy, there are nine kinds of justification, or reasons to believe something, in three different categories, shown above.  

A.) External

    1.) Revelation

As Christians, we believe in one sole source of divine revelation and that is Holy Scripture. This principle is called Sola Scriptura – Scripture alone is the authoritative, inspired, inerrant, and efficacious word of God.

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” -2 Timothy 3:16-17

“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.” -Revelation 22:18

For the rest of these justifications, we must remember that any teaching must be completely, in every way, consistent with the God’s Word. Everything must be tested and if something is good, hold on to it, if it is bad, throw it away. This takes discernment, which is a fruit of the spirit.

“To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn (or light).” -Isaiah 8:20

“but test everything; hold fast what is good.” -1 Thessalonians 5:21

    2.) Earthly Authority and Experts

          The Lutheran Confessions

“The Lutheran Confessions are a true and binding exposition of Holy Scripture and serve as authoritative texts…. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod… subscribes unconditionally to all the symbolical books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as a true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of God.” -LCMS Website

          Theologians

LCMS Published Stances, from the president, committees, and the CTCR

“The Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) provides study documents, opinions and statements on theological issues.” -LCMS Website

Clergy and lay, both LCMS and non-LCMS (Two of my favorites are Martin Luther, who had a doctorate in theology and C.S. Lewis, who was a layman in the Church of England.)

          Other Authorities/Experts.

Other smart people, such as philosophers and scientists

    3.) Generally Accepted (Consensus Gentium)

          Inside the Church

The first form of this is consensus within the Church. We believe teach and confess historic Christianity. Fellowship of all believers. If someone is teaching something new, that no one has ever taught before, then he is a false prophet.

“I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.” -1 Corinthians 1:10

“Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” -Jude 3-4

          Outside the Orthodox Church

The second form of this reason to believe something is broader than the Church and extends to consensus among everyone.

B.) Internal

    4.) Consistent with Current Beliefs

If something is not in the Bible, it must be consistent with what the Bible teaches, or it cannot be true.

    5.) Instincts/ Intuition/ Self-Awareness

Once again, this must be consistent with what the Bible teaches, or it cannot be true.

“For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.” -Romans 2:14-15

“…I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts…” -Jeremiah 31:33

    6.) Memory

Remembering that something happened can be a good reason to believe it is true, but memories can also be unreliable.

C.) Self-Evident

These are the self-evident things that are not based on logic or observation, for example human rights.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” -The Declaration of Independence

    7.) Faith

True knowledge from faith is having conviction and is not from within yourself. Biblically, faith is described as follows:

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” -Hebrews 11:1

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.” -Ephesians 2:8

    8.) Logical or Rational

However, the modern man (being oh so enlightened – much more so than the typical man, or any previous man), might reject all the above reasons based on religion, faith, beliefs, instincts, historical precedence, broad acceptance, and philosophy, and insist instead on a logical and rational argument before believing something. The field of apologetics is really just going through the evidence, or justifications for our beliefs using logic. 

“So [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there.” -Acts 17:17

    9.) Sense Perceptions (Observations)

Now, the post-modern man (being oh so evolved, both physically and mentally beyond the modern man) might reject pure logic and reason, as only making it theoretically possible, but might want science, or observation of a thing before believing. Materialists, or people who try to use science to disprove religion, are really saying that only sense perception is the only valid on for any belief and they deny the previous eight.

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” -Romans 1:20

“He says to the snow, ‘Fall on the earth,’ and to the rain shower, ‘Be a mighty downpour.’ so that everyone he has made may know his work,” -Job 37:6-7

Vocation, Vocation, Vocation

My wife just showed me a blog that she recently found called the Humbled Homemaker. The specific post was from a guest author about being part of the "the real food movement" and being Christian. I had read things about this before and how it is good stewardship of nature and your body, but what struck me about this post was that it took a different approach. First of all, it was not selfish, but saying as a homemaker she wanted to have good healthy food to take care of her children and her husband.  This expanded the issue from stewardship to vocation and serving her neighbor in their bodily needs. More than that, even, was how she discussed that food is not a moral issue.  Your salvation does not depend on whether or not you buy organic food, but on Grace alone.  She also expressed repentance for judging others based on what they bought at the grocery store, and realized they might have good reasons for doing so. This post was a great Christian confession of her faith and keeping life in perspective.

Then I clicked on a suggested, related post by the regular author of the blog about how we can't "name and claim" our health. Here, she specifically wrote against the prosperity gospel and even mentioned how we should not turn food, or health, or even stewardship into an idol. Christianity is not about self-help, or having a better life, but about Jesus. After reading these posts I looked at the author's bio and she discusses how the best work that she can do for God, is simply to fulfill her vocations as a mother, wife, and homemaker. She also discusses how her blog is a way to present the Gospel, while writing about things the is passionate about.  This blog has the best Christian discussion of food that I have come across to date. While I never saw her use the word vocation, it is clear that she has a great understanding of the doctrine.

Book Review/Summary - Broken (Jonathan Fisk)

This is a great book and I highly recommend it.  It brings to mind the great Luther quote: “Whatever your heart clings to and confides in, that is really your God, your functional savior.” Pastor Fisk's book is sort of an updated (and way more readable) version of Adolph Köberle's book called "The Quest for Holiness", where he discusses "three ladders" which are the three ways the modern man tries to ascend to heaven (think the tower of Babel here). The three ladders are Mysticism (Feeling), Moralism (Ethics), and Speculation (or Rationalism).  Pastor Fisk also has these three, but adds a few more.  They are as follows:

Mysticism

This is essentially worshiping of emotions or feelings.  This is trying to find God in our heart or experiences.  It includes seeking an emotion high to get close to God (modern evangelicalism anyone?) and the goal of life being the pursuit of happiness (modern America?). However, once it wears off, there is nothing left but to seek the next high.  This eventually leads to despair when you can’t keep it up. Ultimately, we are not saved because God is in our hearts (that is Osianderianism). We cannot reach God with our hearts. God reached to us through his Son.

Moralism

This is essentially worshiping your actions or ethics. This is trying to find God in your good works. It includes pietism, as well as moralistic therapeutic deism (modern evangelicalism anyone?), and the goal of life being meeting some set of goals. This manifests itself in phrases like "deeds not creeds" and WWJD? However, this eventually leads to either denial of our sinful nature and to pride, or to despair if you are honest enough with yourself to realize you can never be "good enough". Ultimately, the Bible is not a book of morals and laws of what we have to do, but the good news that Jesus did it all. We cannot reach God by what we do. He reached us by what He did.

Rationalism

This is essentially worshiping your mind or reason. This is trying to find God in your enlightenment. This worldview assumes that you can find truth found internally through reason, instead of externally through Gods revelation of the Bible. Here, the sole criteria of truth is, "Does it make sense to me?" This led to modernism and liberalism (Mainline Protestants anyone?). Ultimately the Bible is the Truth.  We cannot reach God with our mind.

by E. J. Pace, first appearing in the book Seven Questions in Dispute by William Jennings Bryan

Pragmatism

This one is essentially saying that something is "truth" simply because it works. Therefore, the ends justify the means. This is postmodernism, because it denies there is an objective truth. It is deconstructionism because an individual fits whatever they want in however they want and redefine anything and everything to make it fit with what they think. Believers get redefined as "fully devoted followers of Jesus" and unbelievers become "seekers". This leads to the seeker driven church, where you redefine church to be whatever you want if it brings in people and grows the church. It is appealing to a culture based on instant gratification. However, it is not Biblical and leads to despair when things are not working.  We cannot reach God by redefining God.

Prosperity

This one is essentially the American Dream gospel, or the "health and wealth gospel". This is all about selfishness and having your best life now. It is essentially a modern form of Hedonism and worshiping stuff. However, this leads to despair when money does not buy happiness. Ultimately, the point of Christianity is not for you to have things, but the hope in the resurrection of the dead and the life everlasting. You cannot reach God by having things.

Change

This one is essentially looking for the "silver bullet" to "fix" the church and everything else. It starts by saying,  “If we can just…” It is always moving to the next popular preacher, trend, or structure. This is jumping on the bandwagon and swarming to the fad (Schwärmerei?). This leads to changing away from traditions and liturgy to try to find God outside of the church where He promised he would be found. This leads to despair when change after change still doesn't end in perfection. You cannot reach God by just finding the right change.

Lawlessness (Freedom or Liberation)

This last one is essentially worshiping freedom or choice. Choice has become a false god, a true American idol. It manifests itself in statements like, "I do what I want, when I want it." It is the desire to be free from everything, including free from traditions of the church. This seeking to justify yourself creates a perceived need to break with historical church. When you try to remove God's law altogether, soon, nothing is a sin. This only leads to trying to be free of God. It turns into preaching you have to be free or else, which is the ironic intolerance of tolerance. You cannot reach God by being a slave to sin and you cannot find God by getting away from him.

People know something is wrong and broken. People have a need to justify our own consciences and get rid of lingering guilt and doubt. It leads to preaching to others to convince them so that they preach it back to you to convince yourself. All of this is man trying to reach God and justify ourselves, but it is never done, never complete, and you can never completely be sure you have made it. However, we just need to realize that all good things come from outside ourselves and that we can't reach God, but we don't need to because he sent his Son to reach us.

Easter!

For some reason, the creeds come to mind today, probably because of the phrase directly in the middle of them.

Apostles Creed

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day He rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Christian Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

Nicene Creed

I
 believe
 in
 one 
God, 
the 
Father 
Almighty, 
maker
 of
 heaven 
and
 earth 
and
 of
 all
 things
 visible
 and 
invisible.




And
 in
 one 
Lord
 Jesus
 Christ, 
the
 only‐begotten 
Son 
of
 God,
 begotten
 of
 His
 Father
 before
 all
 worlds,
 God 
of
 God,
 Light
 of 
Light,
 very
 God 
of
 very
 God,
 begotten,
 not
 made,
 being
 of
 one
 substance
 with
 the
 Father, 
by
 whom 
all
 things
 were 
made;
 who
 for
 us
 men 
and 
for
 our
 salvation
 came
 down
 from
 heaven
 and 
was 
incarnate 
by
 the 
Holy
 Spirit
 of
 the
 virgin 
Mary
and 
was 
made 
man; 
and 
was 
crucified
 also 
for 
us 
under
 Pontius
 Pilate.
 He
 suffered and
 was
 buried.
 And
 the 
third
 day
 He 
rose
 again
 according
 to
 the
 Scriptures 
and
 ascended
 into
 heaven
 and
 sits 
at 
the
 right 
hand 
of
 the
 Father.
 And
 He 
will 
come
 again
 with
 glory
 to
 judge
 both
 the 
living 
and
 the 
dead,
 whose 
kingdom
 will 
have 
no 
end.




And 
I 
believe 
in
 the
 Holy
 Spirit,
 the
 Lord
 and
 giver
 of 
life,
 who
 proceeds 
from 
the
 Father
 and
 the 
Son, 
who 
with 
the 
Father 
and 
the 
Son 
together
 is
 worshiped 
and
 glorified,
 who 
spoke 
by
 the
 prophets.
 And 
I
 believe 
in
 one holy
 Christian 
and 
apostolic
 Church 
 I
 acknowledge
 one
 Baptism 
for 
the 
remission
 of 
sins,
 and
 I 
look
 for 
the 
resurrection
 of
 the
 dead and 
the 
life 
of
 the world 
to 
come.
 Amen.


The Sacrament of the Altar

It is Maundy Thursday after all....

Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Holy Communion on the “night in which He was betrayed,” that is Maundy Thursday, or the day before Good Friday.  This event is recorded in Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:19-20; and 1 Cor. 11:23-25. During the Passover Meal, Jesus sat down with His disciples and said the Words of Institution (the Words of our Lord).  The Word of God, which combined with the elements, that make this meal a Sacrament.  The central words (and common to all accounts) that we hear each week are: “This is My Body given for you… This is My blood, given for you.” As we are fed with Jesus’ own body and blood in, with, and under the Sacramental bread and wine, we receive them for the forgiveness of our sins; for the strengthening our faith; as a remembrance of Christ’s death, resurrection, and coming; and as an expression of our common unity in faith.  The Lord’s Supper, then, does not just look back, but also looks to the present and forward to the feast it the presence of the Lord on the Last Day (Matt. 26:29).

 If there is one event which signifies and exemplifies the unity of God’s people it is that of the Sacrament of the Altar.  As we are given the body and blood of our Savior Jesus Christ in this holy meal, we are reminded of the death, resurrection, and presence of Christ Himself. Owing that this Sacrament is a central part of the Divine Service, the way in which we celebrate it, in accordance to the Word of God alone, reflects the utmost respect and reverence of the gifts God gives us.

The types of vessels used for Holy Communion depend upon the custom of the congregation. Generally, the vessels are placed on the altar signifying their central place in the Service. The paten is a round plate on which the host (bread) is often placed when consecrated and distributed. The host is usually kept in a round container with a cover, called a pyx, which is placed on top of the paten.

A number of different vessels could be used to hold the sacramental wine. The first would be the chalice (sometimes called the Common Cup), in which the unity of congregation is symbolized in their common drinking of the “one cup.” The purificator is the napkin used to clean the chalice. The use of the Common Cup was the general practice until the late 19^th century when it was eliminated mainly for the reason of the denial of the Real Presence of Christ’s Body and Blood (instead believing a spiritual presence [Calvinistic], or no presence at all [Anabaptist]). Many churches now use individual glasses or cups, which fit into a template in a round tray. A white Communion veil is commonly draped over the vessels before and after Distribution to symbolize the Sacraments as the “mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1) now openly revealed to all through Christ.

The hygiene of Communion vessels is noteworthy. Historically, the use of the chalice was universal in Lutheranism, but has become infrequent especially in the last 30 years owing to hygienic concerns of some people. People believed, mistakenly, that germs are easily transmitted by using the chalice. The chalice is generally made out of or plated with silver or gold, highlighting the reverence and importance of the Sacrament. Such noble metals are also used for practical purposes such as the prevention of the cup becoming discolored due to a chemical reaction with the wine, as well as they are more hygienic. In fact, the combination of noble metals of the chalice and the alcohol content of the wine makes the possibility for germs to be transmitted almost nonexistent (recent scientific studies estimate that under the most favorable conditions, transmission of germs from one person to another was 0.001%, and when conditions approximated those of actual use in a congregation, no transmission can be detected.  Contrast shaking hands after church, where there is nearly a 100% chance for transmission of germs).

note: this post was adapted from my brother's writings

Forecast for rain showers? I hope so.

Being the season of Lent and all, it seems appropriate to be introspective and repentant. In this vein, there are a couple of quotes that I have been thinking about lately that I thing bear some reflection.

Martin Luther once said, “God’s word and grace is like a passing shower of rain which does not return where it has once been. It has been with the Jews, but when it’s gone it’s gone, and now they have nothing. Paul brought it to the Greeks; but again when it’s gone it’s gone, and now they have [Islam]. Rome and the Latins also had it; but when it’s gone, it’s gone, and now they have the pope. And you Germans need not think that you will have it forever, for ingratitude and contempt will not make it stay.”  As of 2012 eastern Germany is called "the most godless place on Earth" and "chief among non-believers."

In 2010, Cardinal Francis Eugene George, who was Archbishop of Chicago and president to the the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, commenting on the current state of Christianity in America, said, "I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison, and his successor will die a martyr in the public square."  This is easy to believe since we have all heard about the latest polls with growing number of Americans having no religious affiliation.  We have even termed them the "Nones." I have heard others say that based on the growth of Christianity in Africa and Asia along with its decline in the West, they will be sending us missionaries in 50 years time.

Also:

Hearing such things it is easy to pray, "Come quickly, Lord Jesus." It is also easy to get a sense of doom and gloom from such statements and while we should take them to heart, let's also take them as a call to action.  Remember the next thing Martin Luther said after the above quote is, "Therefore, seize it and hold it fast, whoever can." This decline and decay is not inevitable. Also, the second part of Cardinal George's quote after discussing the martyr is, "His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history."

Even so, if it were solely up to us, we very well should have a sense of doom and gloom. Thankfully, it is not up to us, in the end. Even more than a call to action, we need to realize that God is in control and he has promised to preserve his Church until the last day. To God alone be the Glory.

Exhortation - It's the Law!

Recently there has been a very active online discussion and debate of preaching the third use of the Law at the end of a sermon. This discussion took place on various sites, such as Surburg's Blog, Gottesdienst, and Infant Theology to name a few. To my surprise, there was very little discussion of Walther on the issue.  This was a surprise to me because he literally wrote the book on Law and Gospel in preaching. As a refresher, God's Law has three uses.  The first use of the Law is as a curb, or deterrent or warning, which means that it keeps us on the right path moving forward in our lives (Romans 1:28-32 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). The second use of the Law is as a mirror, which means that it shows us our sin, and therefore, our need for a savior (Romans 3:23-24). There is a saying that the Law always condemns, which means that it always can act in its second use. However, the Law does not only condemn, it also has the two other uses. The third use of the Law is as a ruler, or direction about how we are to live our lives as Christians, or exhortations (Matthew 5:48).

I think most people understand that proper distinction between Law and Gospel is necessary, but how to do that has always been difficult, indeed any one who can do that should be called a doctor of theology, according to Walther. Many of the posts and online forums focus on proving that Christians works should be preached, but I don't think that is the issue that was really at stake. I think the order was the real issue. Many laymen have had it ingrained in them by pastors that the sermon must end with the Gospel and Walther's VII thesis is often cited, "[T]he Word of God is not rightly divided when the Gospel is preached first and then the Law" However, this means that the sermon should have Law before the Gospel, but it does not say you can't have it after as well. Also, reading into the text, Walter continues by saying, "The second perversion of the true sequence occurs when sanctification of life is preached before justification". Therefore, it appears as though he is saying the third use of the Law should be preached after the Gospel. Lastly, reading through some of Walther's sermons, it appears that he ends some of them with exhortations to Christians, setting an example for other preachers.

*Addition
Here is another great article on the topic, using Luther's own words about Antinomians

Worship Wars

As I have learned from my recent studying of the relationship between theology and practice, doctrine (that is the truth that the Church teaches) has effected every single part of the worship life of the Church, from the building and furniture, to songs and format of the service, and even what the pastor wears and what motions people make. These things have been developed over the last two thousand years or more to have meaning and to proclaim the Gospel and the teaching of the Church. Looking forward from the reformation there may be many divergent forms of worship, but looking backward for the ~1600 years from the time Christ instituted the Church, there was an amazing amount of uniformity. The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox (including Coptic Christians), and many Reformed and Lutheran churches still do today. After completing my research into what worship is, what we do, what it means, and why we do it, I feel like I can finally keep up with with the arguments on both sides of the worship wars. Here I have attempted to summarize them below by making assertions and give links to other sites that make the arguments from people who know a lot more about it than I do, and who write better too.

The "new" seeker-driven church, which came out of the revival movement, also has a liturgy (albeit a different one than the historical orthodox church). Everything they do also has meaning which stems from their new modern (or postmodern) theology and philosophy, including armenianism. The point of worship for this crowd is twofold.  First it is to offer something to God, rather than receive something from God. However, Jesus tells us in Matthew 20:28, that He came to serve, not to be served. The second is to manipulate people into making a "decision for God". In our modern language this is referred to as decision theology. Their songs are written and produced to evoke and manipulate certain emotions, to give people a “spiritual high” that will lead them to make a decision for Christ. Their "sermons" are vague platitudes and self help advice. They tailor their style to what is popular in the culture to bring people in. As can be seen practice comes from doctrine.  A great book about this is The Fire and the Staff.

You can find a great resource into high church vs. low church in regards the confessional Lutheran worship here.

Many Lutheran Churches are just trying to imitate the larger church down the street or are falling into the trap of wanting to be more worldly. First of all, most Lutheran churches cannot put on a production on the scale of the mega-churches, so they just look like pale imitators (and imitators of things we should not be doing anyway). On common modern addition to the church is technology. Since everything in the church conveys meaning, what meaning does a large predominant projection screen convey?  Entertainment? Most of the time our attempt to add technology to the service is really just a distraction from God's word, as described here.

Some churches are trying to "keep" the liturgy, but updating the language to make it "more accessible."  However, since most of the parts of service come straight out of the Bible, all they are doing is replacing God's Word with human words. Many people want "Lutheran Substance with Evangelical Style", but those things are just plain incompatible, because doctrine and practice are linked.  You can read about how changing our liturgy will change our doctrine in a negative way here.

Unfortunately, this is already happening and our churches teaching and liturgy are already becoming more and more secularized, as read here.

Finally, and probably worst of all, there are some who are purposefully and willfully trying to change the worship style of confessional Lutheran churches because of a subtle, but real, shift in practical theology.  There is a great article about how "Functional Armenianism" is sneaking into our church here.

If we truly believe that God's Word is efficacious and that there is nothing we can do to be saved and that our will is bound against the will of God, then shouldn't we tailor the service around everything proclaiming God's Word? That is what the historic liturgy does! Of course, many of us recognize this and some have even signed a letter of admonition to congregations who are straying liturgically, which can be found here. While how this admonition was handled has been somewhat controversial, I have yet to see any decent, Bible-based argument against its content.

The ironic thing here is that most people want to make these ill-conceived changes to our wonderful heritage to try to attract a younger crowd. However, younger people are craving authenticity and substance.  They want something real and meaningful, which is why there is beginning to be a movement toward more liturgical and historical churches, as described here and many other places.

If we stay true to ourselves, we have a lot to offer (meaning truth and the way to salvation), but since too many of our churches aren't, these people who are searching for our church don't end up with us, but to Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, as described here.

If we don't stay true to ourselves, even lifelong Lutherans, who want a richer and more meaningful and faithful worship will leave the our Church for others.  This is beginning to happen more and more to both our laity and clergy alike. I personally have friends who have made this move. An example of this is here and another is here.

*Addition:
Lastly, here is great Herman Sasse Quote: "Where pastors and congregations are no longer in agreement with the classic liturgy of their church, the deeper cause tends to be that the teaching contained in this liturgy is no longer understood."

Book Review/Summary - The Fire and the Staff: Lutheran Theology in Practice (Klemet Preus)

The Fire and the Staff is a great book about theology in practice.  Here are my notes on it that I took while reading it.

Doctrine is the fire. It light our way and warms us. It can be true, pure, and clear.

• There is a truth and it can be known
• Our confessions are the truth
• Justification, being the chief article, is the heat of the fire. On it faith stands or falls
• justification = salvation = faith
• Other confessions are at least partially un-Biblical and therefore, false
• Your churches doctrine is the doctrine you proclaim to the world
• Confession of faith is more urgent/important than life and death
• Indifference about confession of faith is a sin

Doctrine unites us together and tells everyone what we believe. It unites us in mission to proclaim it. It does not create disunity, but exposes it.

Practice is the staff. It points to and reinforces doctrine. It promotes the Gospel.

The highest form of faith and worship is actually passive, not active, when if comes to salvation. The Holy Spirit is active where the truth (forgiveness) is taught, not necessarily where emotions are felt. We are saved by Jesus on the Cross, not by Jesus in our hearts.

Songs during worship should NOT:

1. point to Jesus or salvation being in our hearts
2. have common secular tunes
3. have strong beats

The Church

Is NOT: fun, exciting, entertaining, dramatic, unpredictable

It IS: consoling, comforting, saving, powerful, clear, predictable

We don't need a dynamic church or preacher because we have the dynamic word (1 Cor. 21:28)

Pastors

The great commission was given to pastors, not to everyone.  They speak for Christ and are called to proclaim the word, administer the sacraments, and hold the office of the keys.

The means of Grace are the marks of the church and the marks of the ministry. Pastors should be predictable, because they should all be doing and saying the same things.

Characteristics of the Church Growth Movement/Modern American Pop Christianity

1. Music is to affect people emotionally (instead of teaching)
2. Pop style speaks to people (instead of God's Word speaking to people)
3. Decrease in liturgy, creeds, and rituals (instead of keeping traditions that have purposes)
4. Increases the involvement of laypeople (therefore despising the office of the ministry)
5. Despises the sacraments (and therefore despises God's means of Grace, and the marks of the the true Church on earth)
6. Deeds not Creeds (a selfish statement that our human love is more important than God's love, not to mention focusing on the Law instead of the Gospel)
7. God's Providence is his most important disposition toward us (instead of His Grace)

The word "power" is mentioned 118 times in the new testament, but never in connection with the people of God. Christians are describes as "poor" and "weak." 

If we don't agree with any of those theological statements (doctrine), then why would we try to imitate the "style" (practice) that they made up to meet their goals, which are not our (or God's) goals? 

Change

• The Church changing for the Church (Heterodoxy to Orthodoxy only)
• It must happen if it is something that is required by the Gospel
• It must come about by teaching, not by force
• It must have a benefit (if it ain't broke, don't fix it)
• Individuals changing for another individuals
• It must NOT happen if stated as a requirement for salvation
• It must happen to yield to the week (as long as it is an acceptable thing to do itself)
• Individuals changing for the Church
• We should not demand that the church do what we prefer. Rather, we should be conformed to prefer what God wants for us.
• "To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some." -1 Corinthians 9:22
• The Church changing for individuals
• Never