When I have discussions with CoWo proponents, they always insist that their services are equivalent to the Divine Service in the LSB. Data shows otherwise. And not one has been able to explain WHY they delete certain elements.
To be accurate, the Israelites started with the Tabernacle (Exodus 27:9-19) before Solomon's Temple (1 Kings 6). There was no variation in the rituals and the Temple fulfilled very specific tasks that were not proper for the synagogues to undertake. Mark 1:21 gives us a glimpse of synagogue life, which revolved around Torah reading, teaching, and prayer. There is no evidence to suggest that each synagogue was free to do as it pleased, e.g. bring up one of the gals to read and teach.
The NT is silent about the specific form of our services. However, our liturgies preach Christ and come from Scripture, so how can that be improved upon? They are a shadow of what came before in the OT. They are orderly and purposeful, delivering Christ for us and to us.
Variation is undoubtedly acceptable. Radical revision is not. We can tolerate new instruments, new arrangements, new languages, and so on. However, when we start incorporating worldly elements that have more to do with tickling our ears, it is not mere variation. It is also observable that heterodox things generally attach to CoWo preference parishes - female teaching, female leadership, skipping critical parts of the liturgy, masking "embarrassing" things like confession and absolution, avoiding the creed and Lord's prayer, etc.
Here's my "variation" challenge to the CoWo churches:
1. Turn off the cringe mood lighting and turn up the sanctuary lights.
2. Place the band and performers out of sight at the back of the church.
3. Rip out the stage sets.
4. Install a crucifix.
5. Install an altar that bespeaks how we value the Lord Jesus's atoning sacrifice and propitiation of God's wrath.
6. Stop playing background mood music during the service.
7. Axe every praise song that is Enthusiast feels nonsense.
8. Stop allowing the laity and women to handle God's Word during a service.
9. Provide a chalice and have a strict, orderly distribution of the Lord's supper.
10. Stop skipping non-negotiable parts of the liturgy.
Bernays was the nephew of Sigmund Freud, who also had a vested interest in social and emotional deception. Today, Bernays is recognized as the godfather of propaganda, using Freud's ideas about the psyche to herd humans via "engineered consent" manipulations. In polite company, this is called "public relations." He is hailed as a genius for his marketing manipulations to get the masses to part with their money. He also helped Alcoa offload a dangerous industrial byproduct, fluoride, into our drinking water.
Bernays was a big fan of "free speech" and "democracy" because they afforded the "right of persuasion." In other words, voters deserved to be propagandized to vote this way and that way because only the elite knew what was good for them.
Bernays's deception tools are visible everywhere today, including in the church. Engineered consent fingerprints are all over the "spontaneous" emergence of contemporary Christian music (CCM) at the same time that "Jesus People" were being established within the overall Hippy movement and the general deconstruction of American mores at the time, particularly targeting the family and sexual discipline.
Since CCM did not come out of Sri Lanka, but has a precise genesis in California at a time of revolutionary mass social deception, we should pause to consider why the forces of engineered consent would like it to displace "traditional" worship. Was CCM a response to a new context or was the new context a consequence of CCM?
Perhaps the concept of social imaginary can be useful to clarify the purpose of liturgy for Christian formation and Gospel communication: "The social imaginary is a shared system of values, institutions, and symbols that shape how people imagine and interact with their society. It's a common way of thinking about the world that guides people's actions and values." Of course, the rites of worship properly root the social imaginary of a church member in a Christ-centered, biblical worldview. But certain elements of the historic liturgy contextualized biblical faith in the Roman patronage system. For instance, the entrance rites would have been an immediate, experiential allusion to the patronage system, and would have communicated the Gospel to that patronage culture because it played off the social imaginary of the patronage system in a way to confess that Jesus is Lord and our benefactor. But when we retain these cultural vestiges of a bygone era, at what point do they obscure or corrupt the Gospel of Jesus Christ rather than proclaim it? It seems to me that the question for worship design is how can we communicate verbally and non-verbally, within and into the present social imaginary, Jesus is Lord over all and Savior of sinners.
That's a challenging concept. Pr. Theimer. It brought to mind the canticle "what shall I render to the Lord for all His benefit to me." God as benefactor, a truth for sure, but a truth worth a peek through the "social imaginary" lens. Latino cultures are often laced with the ancient Spanish system of patronage, "juice" if you will - who has the "juice" needs to be applauded and obeyed. On another note, I've had folks accuse me of messing with the hymns of the Church by using the words of traditional hymns but using Latin/Caribbean rhythms, since 90% of the worshipers are Caribbean. It connects, they invite friends and family, they sing exactly the same words, they hear the same lessons, they hear the same Lutheran Law/Gospel message and receive the same Meal. But those rhythms are suspect somehow. I think it's the worshipers' body language that those opposed find bothersome. Their "social imaginary" is what's at stake.
Thank you, Pr. Theimer. I would encourage you to learn about the work of the LCMS's most effective evangelist - truly a generational talent - Pr. James May of Lutherans in Africa. You will notice that his Divine Services are all conducted fully vested and honoring our formal liturgy. What is different is the language, the location, and the instrumentation (usually acapella). This is entirely alien to Africans, yet Our Lord God has mightily blessed Pr. May and his students to bring the saving Gospel to the ears of thousands upon thousands. Our liturgies Are not exclusive to or effective only with Germans and Scandinavians.
I had opportunity to participate in a mission visit to Africa and attend worship services at LCMS mission stations. The form of the liturgy (the Ordo) was observed in every case. The lessons were from the lectionary, Hymns from an LCMS hymnal were in use as well as hymns being created by those in mission training which were contextualized to people coming from animist traditions into the Christian faith. What struck me was the vibrancy of all of it. All of it. The choir gathered from Saturday early evening through to Sunday morning - they were up all night (!) practicing for the Divine Service and learning their songs and hymns. With tremendous joy they brought the liturgy, and hymnody, and offertory, and sending forth to abundant life, having received by grace through Christ their eternal lives. It was stupendous and has informed my practice for decades since.
Though I am currently working on my membership with my local LCMS, I still run with ecumenical circles maintained in the form of bible studies. Non denominations/evangelicals, really have a low view of classical order or anything that points to tradition designed to bring us back to Christ.
This is more evident in their monthly open table communion, they refuse to listen to why Lutherans have a closed table communion every week. They recoil that not all can come to that altar and receive the bread and wine, because it’s between them and God and it’s not the pastor or anyone else that should restrict the table.
The fidelity of tradition, symbols, rites need to be maintained, honored, and catechized, that here is where everyone has fallen short.
I'm hoping you can help me understand some of the results in your survey...you surveyed 10 congregations, but not all of the survey results indicate 10 congregations (such as 5/6 for Lay Distribution of Elements or 4/4 "Colloquial Bible Translations"). Could you further elaborate on what these ratios indicate?
When I have discussions with CoWo proponents, they always insist that their services are equivalent to the Divine Service in the LSB. Data shows otherwise. And not one has been able to explain WHY they delete certain elements.
In the OT there was only one worship location, so there could not be any variation in worship.
How does the introduction of the synagogue bring along local customs and adaptations?
To be accurate, the Israelites started with the Tabernacle (Exodus 27:9-19) before Solomon's Temple (1 Kings 6). There was no variation in the rituals and the Temple fulfilled very specific tasks that were not proper for the synagogues to undertake. Mark 1:21 gives us a glimpse of synagogue life, which revolved around Torah reading, teaching, and prayer. There is no evidence to suggest that each synagogue was free to do as it pleased, e.g. bring up one of the gals to read and teach.
The NT is silent about the specific form of our services. However, our liturgies preach Christ and come from Scripture, so how can that be improved upon? They are a shadow of what came before in the OT. They are orderly and purposeful, delivering Christ for us and to us.
Variation is undoubtedly acceptable. Radical revision is not. We can tolerate new instruments, new arrangements, new languages, and so on. However, when we start incorporating worldly elements that have more to do with tickling our ears, it is not mere variation. It is also observable that heterodox things generally attach to CoWo preference parishes - female teaching, female leadership, skipping critical parts of the liturgy, masking "embarrassing" things like confession and absolution, avoiding the creed and Lord's prayer, etc.
Here's my "variation" challenge to the CoWo churches:
1. Turn off the cringe mood lighting and turn up the sanctuary lights.
2. Place the band and performers out of sight at the back of the church.
3. Rip out the stage sets.
4. Install a crucifix.
5. Install an altar that bespeaks how we value the Lord Jesus's atoning sacrifice and propitiation of God's wrath.
6. Stop playing background mood music during the service.
7. Axe every praise song that is Enthusiast feels nonsense.
8. Stop allowing the laity and women to handle God's Word during a service.
9. Provide a chalice and have a strict, orderly distribution of the Lord's supper.
10. Stop skipping non-negotiable parts of the liturgy.
Tell me about the churches that apply all 10 of these steps. What does it guarantee?
The end of worship formation by Edward Bernays.
Is that a book? I don't recognize that name.
Bernays was the nephew of Sigmund Freud, who also had a vested interest in social and emotional deception. Today, Bernays is recognized as the godfather of propaganda, using Freud's ideas about the psyche to herd humans via "engineered consent" manipulations. In polite company, this is called "public relations." He is hailed as a genius for his marketing manipulations to get the masses to part with their money. He also helped Alcoa offload a dangerous industrial byproduct, fluoride, into our drinking water.
Bernays was a big fan of "free speech" and "democracy" because they afforded the "right of persuasion." In other words, voters deserved to be propagandized to vote this way and that way because only the elite knew what was good for them.
Bernays's deception tools are visible everywhere today, including in the church. Engineered consent fingerprints are all over the "spontaneous" emergence of contemporary Christian music (CCM) at the same time that "Jesus People" were being established within the overall Hippy movement and the general deconstruction of American mores at the time, particularly targeting the family and sexual discipline.
Since CCM did not come out of Sri Lanka, but has a precise genesis in California at a time of revolutionary mass social deception, we should pause to consider why the forces of engineered consent would like it to displace "traditional" worship. Was CCM a response to a new context or was the new context a consequence of CCM?
Bernays books:
Propaganda
https://www.amazon.com/stores/Edward-L.-Bernays/author/B004MPHV92?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1&qid=1739647556&sr=8-1&isDramIntegrated=true&hoppingPortalEnabled=true
Crystallizing Public Opinion
https://www.amazon.com/Crystallizing-Public-Opinion-Edward-Bernays/dp/107827326X/ref=sr_1_2_sspa?crid=1QL94UJ4655EV&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.dTrvpnWB3OzudEFiQIagkMy42IdNlbMHC581mFYZJP9acPjj8sslcBg_7ugE3VVB4CiaGIGT3z1DGtpPtFAUbOTT_BQounTxVAEUcDU85B2yXW_z0XxQNaUB8sgBkrPu9jpEsVFon7FSOddxEG-AzSNcK8GPGj8UiUPy3pcIv7YmHUO9oqncZRpNpJw7eBHk0fgE-y4c3wUPqjgt-QBeidRpJqlYSZ8aKfPaUY8962I.pMYHSWcSJXqbIYpR1ITfFPixEWz8qo5bpSxderUVk7U&dib_tag=se&keywords=edward+bernays&qid=1739647583&sprefix=edward+bernays%2Caps%2C149&sr=8-2-spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGY&psc=1
Engineered Consent
http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/politics/bernays_1947.pdf
Thanks for that background, I was looking for books under that name, but wasn't finding one called "The End of Worship Formation."
Do you think these concepts are an extension of orators using rhetoric as they have for millennia? That is, nothing new under the sun.
Perhaps the concept of social imaginary can be useful to clarify the purpose of liturgy for Christian formation and Gospel communication: "The social imaginary is a shared system of values, institutions, and symbols that shape how people imagine and interact with their society. It's a common way of thinking about the world that guides people's actions and values." Of course, the rites of worship properly root the social imaginary of a church member in a Christ-centered, biblical worldview. But certain elements of the historic liturgy contextualized biblical faith in the Roman patronage system. For instance, the entrance rites would have been an immediate, experiential allusion to the patronage system, and would have communicated the Gospel to that patronage culture because it played off the social imaginary of the patronage system in a way to confess that Jesus is Lord and our benefactor. But when we retain these cultural vestiges of a bygone era, at what point do they obscure or corrupt the Gospel of Jesus Christ rather than proclaim it? It seems to me that the question for worship design is how can we communicate verbally and non-verbally, within and into the present social imaginary, Jesus is Lord over all and Savior of sinners.
That's a challenging concept. Pr. Theimer. It brought to mind the canticle "what shall I render to the Lord for all His benefit to me." God as benefactor, a truth for sure, but a truth worth a peek through the "social imaginary" lens. Latino cultures are often laced with the ancient Spanish system of patronage, "juice" if you will - who has the "juice" needs to be applauded and obeyed. On another note, I've had folks accuse me of messing with the hymns of the Church by using the words of traditional hymns but using Latin/Caribbean rhythms, since 90% of the worshipers are Caribbean. It connects, they invite friends and family, they sing exactly the same words, they hear the same lessons, they hear the same Lutheran Law/Gospel message and receive the same Meal. But those rhythms are suspect somehow. I think it's the worshipers' body language that those opposed find bothersome. Their "social imaginary" is what's at stake.
Thank you, Pr. Theimer. I would encourage you to learn about the work of the LCMS's most effective evangelist - truly a generational talent - Pr. James May of Lutherans in Africa. You will notice that his Divine Services are all conducted fully vested and honoring our formal liturgy. What is different is the language, the location, and the instrumentation (usually acapella). This is entirely alien to Africans, yet Our Lord God has mightily blessed Pr. May and his students to bring the saving Gospel to the ears of thousands upon thousands. Our liturgies Are not exclusive to or effective only with Germans and Scandinavians.
I had opportunity to participate in a mission visit to Africa and attend worship services at LCMS mission stations. The form of the liturgy (the Ordo) was observed in every case. The lessons were from the lectionary, Hymns from an LCMS hymnal were in use as well as hymns being created by those in mission training which were contextualized to people coming from animist traditions into the Christian faith. What struck me was the vibrancy of all of it. All of it. The choir gathered from Saturday early evening through to Sunday morning - they were up all night (!) practicing for the Divine Service and learning their songs and hymns. With tremendous joy they brought the liturgy, and hymnody, and offertory, and sending forth to abundant life, having received by grace through Christ their eternal lives. It was stupendous and has informed my practice for decades since.
Though I am currently working on my membership with my local LCMS, I still run with ecumenical circles maintained in the form of bible studies. Non denominations/evangelicals, really have a low view of classical order or anything that points to tradition designed to bring us back to Christ.
This is more evident in their monthly open table communion, they refuse to listen to why Lutherans have a closed table communion every week. They recoil that not all can come to that altar and receive the bread and wine, because it’s between them and God and it’s not the pastor or anyone else that should restrict the table.
The fidelity of tradition, symbols, rites need to be maintained, honored, and catechized, that here is where everyone has fallen short.
I'm hoping you can help me understand some of the results in your survey...you surveyed 10 congregations, but not all of the survey results indicate 10 congregations (such as 5/6 for Lay Distribution of Elements or 4/4 "Colloquial Bible Translations"). Could you further elaborate on what these ratios indicate?
Please see footnote 2, which explains the methodology.