How I came to love the Lutheran Service Book

Three years ago I would have never seen myself where I am today, doing what I do.  I say this not necessarily because I have gone so far so much as what I am doing now is so different.  I play organ and lead music for a (mostly) liturgical Lutheran congregation where the traditions of the ancient church inform our current practice.  ...just two years ago I was  "worship leader" at a Southern Baptist church where we played all the latest music from the CCM charts.  Did I get hit on the head?  This post does not totally chronicle my discovery of the ancient tradition of Christianity and my journey into the liturgical church so much as it describes how the Lutheran Service Book, specifically, was instrumental in pushing me down the Wittenburg trail.

My love for the Lutheran liturgy came about through quite a strange journey.  Michael Spencer (the Internet Monk, a Southern Baptist, R.I.P.) brought the Lutheran Service Book to my attention had the highest praise for it.  When Bill Cwirla included an excerpt of "I Bind Unto Myself Today" recorded at "Higher Things" on his program (the God Whisperers), I knew I had to get a copy.  I was familiar with "St. Patrick's Breastplate" through my use of the Book of Common Prayer, and I thought that hymn was by far the best musical setting of that prayer I had ever heard (and I've heard many).  That and Starke's metrical paraphrase of the Te Deum (set to Thaxted) alone were worth the price of the leather gift edition.

I was working for a Southern Baptist church at the time, and when I received my copy I remember reading through it thinking, "How awesome would it be to be making music for services who pulled from THIS book as the primary source?"  It just had a special allure to me that no other hymnal in my collection (+75) did.

Part of what makes a hymn, song, or canticle of good quality is a natural ability to transcend its original musical  genre.  As I read through the LSB service settings, I realized that all of them could be led by a guitar if necessary.  This book is connected to the church of ages past, without doing it in a way that necessarily alienates the younger generations of today.  It can be made to speak their language without altering its content.

There's just something different about Lutheran hymnody.  I was using the PCA's "Trinity Hymnal" for my private and family devotions at the time, but it was just too sterile and full of pietistic gospel songs.  The LSB songs were much more deeply spiritual:  they voice lament, prepare you for death, and direct your focus to the cross where you can leave your troubles in the hands of a gracious Savior, as you learn to trust Him more.  They brought me hope and comfort through the trying year I spent working for a Baptist church knowing I no longer believed their doctrine.  

The LCMS congregation I now serve had gotten somewhat away form a strict adherence to the Divine Service, though they did purchase the LSB and do a "by the book" service once a month or so.  Now we follow the order of the Divine Service nearly every week (though we sometimes mix and match the musical settings), and I've heard mostly positive feedback from the congregation.  This stuff speaks to people's souls, much more than their favorite musical style or idiomatic preferences.  I can't begin to describe what a blessing it is to be in a church that allows me to use this material.  N.T. Wright advises, "If you're picking music for worship, pick music from more than one century."  In some places, more than one decade would be progress.  The "evangelical circus" is subjected to such dogmatic chronological snobbery, but I truly feel as if I have finally escaped the "beauty pageant" of its trendy methodology.  

One of the other things I like best about being a Lutheran is being able to sing all this deep poetry in minor key, which the LSB is chock full of.  Evangelical Power Pop Praise is completely void of a repertoire for expressing some of the darker emotions we face as Christian disciples, preferring to drown them out in a torrent of sugary sap.  The ancient chorales, however, are something you can sing honestly.  No more "I Surrender All" with a big phony grin trying to convince everyone that this time I really mean it.  Rather, as Lutherans we celebrate that Christ surrendered all for us, as in hymn #544, "O Love, How Deep."  

As I finish more of my "10 reasons I converted to Lutheranism" series, I will describe more of how the appeal of the fine arts and serious choral music hooked me on Augsburg theology.  As I told a friend of mine who was a Presbyterian church planter, I guess I was just predestined to be a Lutheran.

I finish this with two videos displaying the music mentioned above.  The first is a church singing the "Te Deum," or, "We Praise You and Acknowledge You," (found at LSB 941) and the second is a Reformed church singing "O Love, How Deep" (LSB 544).  Enjoy!

Why I am Lutheran, Part 2C: A meaningful communion

Lutheranism has a more meaningful understanding of the nature and purpose of the Lord's Supper.  In the Baptist view, the purpose is remembrance and nature is purely intellectual.  What more is there? 

Let's go to the source for what Lutheran's believe, teach, and practice:  The Augsburg Confession of faith.  This is the original protestant "declaration of independence" and the concise doctrinal statement of Lutheranism.  All it has to say about the Lord's supper is this:

"Our churches teach that the body and blood of Christ are truly present and distributed to those who eat the Lord's Supper.  They reject those who teach otherwise."

A much fuller explanation is later given by Luther in his large catechism.  What I hope to do here is not give a full defense of the Lutheran position but simply a clear statement of it.  I don't claim this is the only view warranted by scripture and that you must accept this view to belong to Jesus.  However, at the core of the Lutheran teaching is a simple insistence on believing the words that Jesus spoke when he said, "This IS my body" and "This IS my blood."  If he wanted to say "represents" instead of is, he could have just said it.  IS is IS.  In fundagelical parlance:  "Jesus said it, we believe it, that settles it."  To say that Jesus really meant "represents," but somehow only said "is" practically accuses him of linguistic incompetence.

Now the obvious question this raises is how that can be possible.  How can bread be anyone's flesh?  Does Jesus perhaps mean this in a spiritual sense?  A philosophical or metaphorical one?  Many views take that approach.  Lutherans generally don't try to answer that question, yet we can articulate our view a little more specifically.

Let me begin with a chart I received from our Pastor.

Bread | Wine

-------------------

Body  | Blood

In the evangelical (baptist) view, what we receive in the Lord's supper is only the top portion.  In the Catholic view, what we receive in the Lord's supper is only the bottom portion.  In the Lutheran view, we receive the whole chart.  Before I explain how that works, I want to make sure we have clearly differentiated the four main western views here:  Baptist, Reformed, Lutheran, and Catholic.  

Baptist believe that the bread and wine are precisely that and nothing else.  We receive nothing other than plain simple food in the Lord's supper, and we observe the ritual as a means of remembering.  The Reformed (including Anglicans and Presbyterians) believe that Jesus is spiritually present through the elements, that is, the Holy Spirit unites himself to them to nourish us in faith.  However, Christ is only present in this way to the believer.  Unbelievers present receive only food, and through the ceremony believers "feed on Christ in their hearts through faith."  The reason for this is because Christ is seated at the right hand of the father, so therefore he couldn't possibly be anywhere else at the same time.  Our hearts ascend to heaven to commune with him there.  This is the defining difference between the Reformed and Lutheran view:  We would say that Christ is objectively present, so that both believers and un-believers receive when the partake, to salvation and damnation respectively, and in the Lord's Supper, Christ comes down to meet with us.  Reformed say that Christ is present subjectively, so that it is pretty much a safe meal for anyone to eat.  Catholics believe the bread and wine become body and blood actually, while retaining the outward forms of bread and wine, or "accidents."  They would say that while to the empirical senses it appears you consume bread and wine, in reality you consume Christ and not bread and wine at all.  This is actually the closest to the Lutheran view.  The main difference:  We believe you receive BOTH bread, wine, AND body and blood.  One does not displace the other, but they are intrinsically united as one to nourish the believer in grace.

You see, the Lutheran view is rooted in the theology of the incarnation.  As all Christians profess what is called the "hypostatic union," or that Jesus Christ was 100 percent man AND 100 percent God, and not 50/50, so we believe God chooses to give to us the infinite (himself) through the finite (physical means).  The salvation of our souls was provided through a real flesh and blood man who hung on a cross and actually died, and this salvation is brought to us through the simple, ordinary means of grace, the water and the word, the bread and the wine.  

The rational mind screams:  How an this be?  It doesn't make sense!  Well, it makes about as much sense as a holy, omnipotent God becoming frail and finite to redeem his enemies.  Perhaps in a future post I will address and respond to common objections to this understanding of the nature of communion with God.

Thankfully Lutheran

Well, as a sort of belated commentary on the season, I'd like to chronicle an important step in our journey.  Last Sunday, we were accepted as members of our congregation.  That means it's official:  Belonging to the formal membership of an Lutheran congregation means were are fully Lutheran now, and it's about time.  

Church membership is something I have felt somewhat strongly about over the last few years, especially being raised in a tradition that didn't practice it, and working for a church that had the most meaningless application of it.  The last church we were in didn't even have the proverbial list that people's name went on after you join the church.  Our directory, full of "members," included people who didn't come twice a year, never formally joined the church, or even made a profession of faith for that matter, and even some who had actually moved on and were attending other congregations!  When one new person who had been coming for a while expressed a desire to join, it went like this.  The pastor, while making announcements, said, "oh and by the way, [this person] would like to join the church.  Come on up here!  Do you believe in Jesus Christ and have you been baptized?  Yes?  Is there anybody here who has any reason why she should not be a member?  All in favor?  Welcome to our family! "

She sat down after a total of 30 seconds and some brief applause.  What the point of those questions were, I may never know.  Was it actually possible that somebody was going to say, in the middle of a Sunday service, "Absolutely not!  I think she should not be admitted to our ranks."?  It was such an empty formality.  Nothing changed afterward.  She was not taught what we believe, given any permissions or benefits, or expected to participate in the life of the congregation in specific, tangible ways.  It was pretty much just, oh, she wants to be in?  Ok, everyone good with that?  Great!  You're in.  Completely meaningless, waste of time.  

Michael Horton, the host of highly recommended radio program "The White Horse Inn," is known for lamenting this decline of the practice of membership.  He says that often, a kid can be born into a church that won't baptize him, go through the Sunday School program, attend youth group, go to Christian camps, accept Jesus as his savior, go off to college (even a Christian one!) where he participates in some form of campus fellowship or ministry, and finally graduate and go off into the world without ever having belonged to a church.  My question is this:  What stands between this person and their two most likely paths:  Loosing interest in faith communities as an unnecessary component of the "personal relationship with Jesus," and becoming a religious consumer with little to no congregational loyalty beyond what the growth experts and marketing consultants call "branding?"  Nothing.  We have not taught our youth that formally committing oneself to a specific assembly of our faith family is a vital component to the life of faith.  Do we even believe that?  Is the church tangential to the Christian life?  I'm afraid we treat it that way.  It's just a side-show, designed to aid and assist those who so desire.  The church has essentially been reduced to the level of para-church, and I blame the CEO's masquerading as Pastors who leverage branding strategies to exploit the consumerist mentality of their "customers." 

All that to say, that I am 100% guilty of all of the above.  I am 27 years old, and for the first time in my life, I belong to a congregation, formally.  The blame does not rest fully with myself or any specific churches with which I have been associated in the past.  I believe the problem is systemic to Evangelicalism at large.  I grew up in the Calvary Chapel who doesn't practice formal membership, but simply counts you "in" if you attend regularly.  I went to a Southern Baptist college where we had Chapel 3 times a week.  I'm not gonna lie, I slept in on many a Sunday, sometimes catching evening services at the mega-church that ran our college.  They did have formal membership there, which I was strongly encouraged to pursue when I began my internship.  I never followed through with it, I couldn't stomach the four boring classes required which explained to me what the church believed.  I rightly assumed I would learn nothing from them, since the church was quite generically evangelical, with slight dispensational leanings.  Later that year I moved on to another internship, graduated, and worked for two more Southern Baptist churches as a worship leader and youth pastor.  One church gave me a formal installation during a morning service and may have actually had a membership roster.  But for what was it used, nobody knew.

I am a concrete example of what Michael Horton preaches against.  After listening to his teaching for the past few years, I became convinced of the importance of this issue.  My then current church refused to consider the issue, as it would be too "legalistic."  In my opinion, they were legalistically anti-formal membership, as if somehow informality was the Christ-instituted means for association.  

As members of our new church, we are held accountable to worship, serve, and give.  We have a Pastor who gives us the Sacraments services of the church, including marriage, funerals, and baptizing our children.  We have elders who pray for us and are there to give us encouragement and guidance.  We have buy-in, and ownership of the church, its tradition, its organization, leaders, and other members.  We have officially declared that this dysfunctional group of spiritual misfits trying to be disciples is OUR family, with whom we will identify, grow, serve, argue, fight, and learn to forgive, for better or worse.  Our status in the Church Catholic is not dependent on our remaining here, but as long as we are here, we have publicly committed to express our faith through doing life together with this rag-tag group of imperfect saints.

We're assuming they're imperfect spiritual misfits because they're human.  We're too new to know it personally, and the real challenges begin once we truly get to know each other.  The good news is, most members of this church have long tenure, many of over 20 years.  People here know how to disagree and still love each other.  Our family is really a microcosm of our denomination at large.  You the pietistic purpose-driven crowd, the "bronze age" traditionalists, moderate middle-of-the-road group, and the ones who truly own their Lutheran confessions and traditions (the group I fall in).  Yet these groups are not at war with one another, and have demonstrated a spirit of willingness to compromise and give each group a little leeway.

So for thanksgiving this year, I am predominantly thankful for these things.  First, my wife and I have finally found a tradition to call home, Missouri-Synod Lutheranism.  Second, we have found a family to belong to, and they are delightful.  Third, I have full time employment, doing music only and not youth-ministry, in this down economy.  Fourth, I have the one job in the whole country where I get to do everything I wanted.  Think about this;  How many positions are there in America where a guy can teach music (choir) at the secondary level, direct a traditional, liturgical choir, become an organist and grow in that ability, while still directing praise bands that make the hymns sound like the Rolling Stones?  I don't know if there's another position out there like this one.  It's a lot to keep up with, I'll admit, but the work is so fulfilling.  I didn't apply to any other jobs near this far east.  But when I read the job description, I thought, "how ideal would that be?"  It was nothing less than a move of God that brought me here:  My resume was sacked because "organist" wasn't on it, and they called somebody else first.  That person turned it down, and somehow the committee decided to ring my number.  

I know it's not God's job to provide us all with "our best life now," or the highest fulfillment in this life, but I know that where we are at now is His gift to us, and we are enjoying it supremely.  God is good, and we are thankful.

The benefits of Weekly Communion, reasons 9-20

We left off on reason 8. Just a brief recap: Weekly communion helps keep worship Christ centered, guarantees the gospel message gets through, is the historic worship practice of the church, gives a tangible picture of the gospel, serves as a safeguard against the circus, keeps peripheral emphasizes from displacing core doctrines, sets worship apart as specifically Christian, and shows that we come to worship in order to receive. Continuing on down the list:

9. It demonstrates to believers what is important. This goes back to emphasis: Whatever is done consistently week in and week out demonstrates priority. What happens in your church every sunday? Do you hear cheesy jokes? Flashy media clips? Loud, hip, and trendy music? How often are all these, which have nothing whatsoever to do with being a Christian, much more prominent in our life of worship than proclaiming the death of Christ? Lord have mercy.

10. It demonstrates that we worship as a united family, not individuals seeking self-expression. We all share from one cup and one bread. We all receive equally and are received equally into God's family. This is an act of worship that is intrinsically corporate. While singing, thanks to the charismatic revival, has become an individual act where we connect with God alone in our chair and tune everyone else out, communion is something that we consciously and deliberately all do together as a group.

11. It levels the playing field - no super pietism is possible. There is no status around the table: all receive equally, and we all come to God as beggars. Just as God's law is an equal opportunity condemner, so receiving his grace shows us that we are all the same family, united in one faith and one baptism. Nobody gets an extra cracker for being more pious. This is especially a good counter to charismatic worship music. In most churches, there is that one lady near the front with her hands raised who just can not stand still during the singing. Or some dude in the back whose excessive exuberance barely escapes catastrophe. We excuse the eccentricity by saying they are just being expressive in their worship. But are they? Can we really see into their hearts? Do we know they aren't just putting on a show of pious performance? While we certainly ought not to judge, we should remember Jesus frequently referred to the public worship of the Pharisees as hypocritical: doing their acts of devotion in public to be seen by men. I'm not saying we shouldn't be expressive, but worshiping God is not ultimately about the expression of self; it's about the reflection of Christ. And of all things, boisterous and obnoxious enthusiasm while muttering mindless mantras posing as song lyrics isn't the first thing that comes to mind when pondering Christ like character. Communion is an act of worship that doesn't leave room for this.

12. It gives God room to work amidst all our technology and plans. Too many worship services seem like they are planned with the goal of impacting people. Powerful music and emotionally charged motivational speakers combine with tear jerking videos designed to coerce a decision to commit, whether or not the audience is sufficiently equipped to follow through with their newly inspired good intentions. God couldn't possibly work through boring sermons or bad music now, could he? While I am all for making the music as good as possible, nothing can be done to improve communion. You just take it and eat it. If anyone is edified in the process, its not due at all to our brilliance in execution. We couldn't possibly take the credit for how God ministers to people through this.

13. It unites us with believers around the world and throughout time. This is the one act of worship that has been consistently in use through all traditions and all centuries. The prayers have varied and changed. The sermons have been improvised, well studied, or simply read out of a book. The liturgy has been Latin, set in stone, and completely reinvented. All Christians sing, pray, and hear God's word read and taught in worship, but the modes and manners are so diverse, it is practically impossible for a Russian Orthodox to worship with a Brazilian Pentecostal. However, they can share a table (issues of closed communion aside).

14. It lifts the focus off of what we are doing for God. I just can't stand all these songs that talk about how much we're worshiping God and we just want to live for Him, we want to know/see/hear/touch him more… Its all about what we are doing for God! This combines well with moralistic preaching to create emotional exhaustion. When we come to church and don't feel like worshiping God, if the focus is on what we're doing, quite often one is tempted to go through the motions with no enthusiasm because there is nothing inside to give. Good news! Jesus came in order for God to give to us! In the Lord's Supper, we see that God is generous, and delights in dispensing mercy to those who so desire. What a relief! Even if I've had a bad week and don't feel like chanting the mediocre melodies while lifting my hands and making a scene, God still loves me just the same and still offers me the same grace and forgiveness because of the death of Jesus. Proclaim that good news if you say nothing else! Say it over, and over, and over again. We're here to celebrate what God for us 2000 years ago, NOT how we plan on trying to repay Him for it.

15. It keeps the sermon from dominating the service. Many preachers preach shorter when they know there is this additional element to the service, so that people aren't let out too late (that would be the biggest crime in the industry!). This is, in my opinion, an improvement. I am wholeheartedly against the 45+ minute sermons. I've yet to hear one that couldn't have been said in much less (and I've heard tons). Long sermons pose as reverence to God's word, giving the preaching of it prime importance. Baloney. The most "exegetical, verse by verse, expository" lecturers are not going in deeper for spending more time. They are just giving more of their opinion, or their personality, or lame jokes. Or telling irrelevant sentimental stories that they stole from a book and pretend happened to them. 25 minutes or less. Anything more is a waste of time. You're respecting your own ego, not God's word. The deepest sermons I have ever heard have been brief. I repeat: long sermons are not out of respect to God's word. The MacArthur types often spend all that time teaching on just half a verse! Really? You got all that meaning out of a few words? I think it is more likely that the verse is being used as a springboard to jump onto another agenda. Read more scripture, and preach shorter. If we really respect God's Word, we would give it more air time and ourselves less. The sermon isn't God's word.

16. It bridges the gap between the intellect and the emotions. Some churches are really into the intellectual side of worship: You are expected to take notes through the lengthy lecture, and contemplate on the meaning of the doctrine you are singing. Others major on emotion: Theological finer points are too dry and stuffy, we just want to love Jesus and express our love for Him! This group spends more time singing, with exuberance. Neither extreme is healthy. Communion gives an opportunity for emotional worshipers to THINK about what God has done, and for the thinkers it provides a moment of introspective contemplation, where we examine what AFFECT God's self giving has on us.

17. It helps us find peace and rest in the finished work of Christ. When God's law is emphasized over his grace, it can begin to feel like we go to church to receive marching orders. Being under this repeatedly over time creates unrest, anxiety, and frustration. We can never do enough for the kingdom of God. Good news! Jesus doesn't need your help! He can build his Kingdom here on earth with or without your help. When he said "It is finished," he really meant it. Not that there isn't plenty of work to be done, but when we remember what Christ did accomplish on the cross, it puts in perspective the feeble gifts we have to offer him and assures us that His truth will prevail despite our failure to live it out.

18. It nourishes us spiritually. Regardless of what you believe about the nature of the bread and wine. If you believe they are only memorial devices, actually transformed into flesh and blood, or anything in between. If the former, it is at the very least mentally beneficial to reflect on Calvary. If the latter, the more Jesus you can get inside of you, the better. If in between, like most reformation traditions, we believe that through the elements God actually nourishes us with his grace, creating and sustaining faith in us. Why should we starver ourselves spiritually? If God's grace is freely given to us, let us feast on it!

19. It reminds us of why we are there in the first place. Our worship is not something done to earn God's favor. It is a response to the favor he has freely given us. Jesus is the reason we live, and we love him because he died for us. Take that away, and the church is reduced to a social club. Indeed, on a functional level, many churches have become exactly that. Frequent celebration of communion can help fight that syndrome by keeping foremost the reason the Church even exists.

20. It shapes our image of God over time. Is your understanding of God one who demands? Is he never happy or satisfied? A distant authority figure that can never be pleased? While it is easy to recognize these descriptions as technically incorrect, what do your emotions say? When we are constantly coming to worship to give our singing, give our money, give our attention to the sermon, give our time in volunteer service, etc… over time we begin to psychologically associate God with the draining of our resources. If we come to worship to be filled and receive from God grace, healing, forgiveness, and life, it becomes much more natural to love Him. Repetition, repetition, repetition! Emphasis determines priority! God is good! He is generous, and he loves to give forgiveness of sins and everlasting life.

I leave you with this quote from Isaiah: "Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost. Why spend money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy? Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good, and your soul will delight in the richest of fare." Oh yes please. Let us not make excuses, but take every opportunity to feast on God's grace, even if only symbolically.

The benefits of Weekly Communion, reasons 1-8 of 20.

Ok, I am back from my temporary hiatus in writing. The last two months have been a whirlwind as I settle into and adjust to my new position as Music Director and Teacher at Our Savior Lutheran Church and School. I've had hardly a day off in two months, and am just now settling down into a remote sense of balance, with the guiding help of the assistant Pastor and elder board.

So now to continue my exposition on why I chose to convert to Lutheranism, reason 2: weekly communion. In my last post, I described the tradition and theology from where I had come. In the next one, I will address specifically the Lutheran theology of the Lord's supper. For this post, the purpose is to explore the benefits of weekly communion.

To start off, I'd like to address some of the many reasons why people do not celebrate communion more frequently. First off, there are those who say that doing it more seldom gives it deeper significance, and if they do it too much it will loose its meaning. The only strange thing is, nobody will ever apply this principle to anything else in life. We still kiss our spouses every day and say that we love them. We still attempt to have meals as families. We say the pledge of allegiance before school and sing the national anthem before ball games. We make sure to catch our favorite weekly TV show, enjoy our favorite recreational activity, or even partake in a regular spiritual discipline such as daily time in prayer. Somehow, all these things manage to retain their meaning throughout repetition, even growing deeper and more significant as time passes. But not the Lord's supper? Hogwash. Repetition does not reduce meaning. You can mindlessly coast through anything on its first repeat, even if done annually. Meaning isn't added by seldomness, but by attentiveness.

Excuse number two: Who is going to take the time to prepare the elements? Believe it or not, I've been part of churches who might have celebrated communion more had someone stepped forth and offered to handle the preparation. I vote this one the lamest: God became man and died on the cross for our sins, but it is asking too much to pour welches into thimbles? Good grief.

This one takes the cake for strangeness. A dear friend of mine holds the extreme minority position that, since Jesus said, "As often as you drink of it, do this in remembrance of me," and it was during the passover, he was referring only to the passover meal. Therefore, "as often as you drink" clearly shows that God intends for us to celebrate once a year, like the passover. But ultimately, this goes back to the first excuse: Somehow this annual celebration is supposed to be deeper and more meaningful since it is neglected the rest of the year. I have an idea for an annual celebration: How about Easter? Christmas? For pete's sake, Ash Wednesday! Jesus also said that when we partake of the bread and wine, we proclaim His death until He returns. Should the proclamation of the death of Christ be restricted to an annual event? If the Church doesn't proclaim this every time it assembles, what on earth is left that is worth proclaiming?

Now I shall go into the many benefits of celebrating weekly.

1. It helps keep the worship Christ centered. Could there possibly be a more Christ centered action of worship? Good teaching, good songwriting/selection, good liturgy, and good prayers can all point to and focus on Christ. But they can also do a host of other things as well. Communion, on the other hand, can only possibly point to one thing. It is a great way to highlight the importance of Christs death for sinners, since it is the cornerstone of our faith.

2. It guarantees the message gets through even when the sermon doesn't. So many churches preach moralistic sermons. Christianity is an extremely moral religion, but Christian morality is based on God's law. We had this in spades before Christ even came, but it is not good news. In fact, it is more often bad news as it reveals how much we fall short. But if a moralistic, sentimental, or practical self-help sermon is followed by communion, at least the death of Christ is remembered. When the sermon reveals only our failures, the sacrament reveals God's provision of grace.

3. It is the historic worship practice of the church in all centuries. In the Catholic Church, if there is no communion, there wasn't worship. This is the case for all Orthodox believers as well. Up until the time of the Protestant Reformation, mass was worship. Many protestant churches retained this practice. There is something to be said for that fact that saints in every century have endorsed this practice as a beneficial tradition. I'm not saying the majority must be right, but consider the possibility that there is a reason for this historical consensus.

4. It gives a picture of the gospel, providing an avenue for communication that is otherwise overlooked. Churches today are obsessed with communication creativity. We get our message out through every avenue possible: social media networking and advertising, mailers and visitation, etc… When gathered for worship, we present our truths through songs, sermons, and technologically enhanced visual media. How on earth did the Apostles communicate truth without a projector? But consider that these means all relate to two senses only: Sight and sound. These are important, since faith comes by hearing. However, taste and touch are brought into play with the Lord's supper, giving us a concrete picture that we can feel, and that can really get inside of us.

5. It serves as a safeguard against the circus. It's no secret that evangelicals major on irreverence. Motorcycle stunts, AC/DC covers, and magic tricks for some reason all seem like legitimate Biblical expressions of adoration to a holy God. However, that jarring contrast that would be obvious in serving common after a stand-up comedy routine posing as a devotional talk might just be strong enough to discourage the eccentric combination. Usually communion is the one that looses out, but if increased in frequency, it may help us recover a sense of reverence in worship since it just doesn't go with juggling monkeys. Or snakes.

6. It helps keep another emphasis from displacing core beliefs. Too often its not what a church says on paper that matters in term of belief. Most evangelical churches have the same generic vanilla statement of faith anyways, yet there is such wide divergence in teaching style. The reason is emphasis. You can have orthodox theology, but if all your teaching is how to have a successful marriage, career, and wonderful children, then it wouldn't really make a difference if you even believed in the Trinity! What is consistently given the most time in a worship service shows what is truly important. Are we coming together to focus on ourselves, or to worship a crucified Savior? Celebrating communion weekly helps us give consistent time and emphasis to Jesus no matter what the style of worship.

7. It sets the worship service apart as Christian. The bread and wine are universally recognized symbols of the Christian faith. Some liturgical, emergent, or pentecostal worship styles can just be outright strange. I was at an Armenian Apostolic service with Arabic chanting that seemed, at least from a cultural standpoint, more Muslim than Christian. It probably wouldn't have if I knew the language, but once the bread and wine were brought out, there was no confusion possible. This ritual is a distinguishing identifier of who we are as followers of Jesus.

8. It shows that Christians come to worship in order to receive. The difference between Christianity and all religions is that in other religions, man works to attain to the divine. In our faith, God reaches out to us and does all the work. We are simply passive recipients of his grace, and receiving the Lord's Supper gives a clear picture of this.

Ok, I got 12 more reasons coming in the next post. Enough for now. Thanks for reading!

Reason 2a: Weekly Communion (and a more meaningful understanding)

This post will likely take three installments. First, I will deal with some of the difficulties which drove me away from a Baptist view of the Lord's Supper. Than I will talk about the benefits and value of weekly communion. Lastly, I will discuss a Lutheran theology of the Lord's Supper and why I was finally convinced of the "real presence." [that we can have a weekly encounter with Christ through something other than a subjective emotional experience.]

I will endeavor to avoid misrepresenting the Baptist view. That will not be too difficult, since it is the view I used to hold.

For the purposes of this essay, the term "Baptist" will broad enough to encompass all generic evangelicals, including EV Free, Charismatic, Bible and community churches, Calvary Chapels, Vineyards, etc… All these churches have a practically identical theology of the Lord's supper [or lack thereof] and at least fall under the same historical category of Zwinglianism. Now, to their credit, Baptist have a rich theology of the Lord's supper, as successors of the teaching of Swiss reformer Zwingli. Some outstanding writing on the Baptist view can be read by authors Dr. Timothy George (including a brief article on internetmonk.com) and Dr. Russel Moore, in the book "4 views on the Lord's Supper." The view taught by historically aware theologians like these are the epitome of everything right in Baptist theology. If all Baptists thought as deeply and with the same priority about the Lord's supper as these examples, there would be much more fraternity between them and the rest of the Christian universe. (Dr. George is particularly ecumenical in his work and teaching.)

Instead… I will go into a detailed description of the Baptist teaching as the vast majority of participants experience it on the ground level. I highly encourage you to check out those authors, they leave me nothing left to say about the "good side" of Zwinglianism. Instead, I will focus on my experience as part of this tradition and expose what I consider to be the weak underbelly of this line of theological thought.

When teaching on this tradition, most Baptists will spend considerably more time explaining what the Lord's supper is NOT than describing what it actually is. 400 years after the reformation we are still beating the drum of "The Catholics are silly and superstitious, and we are so much more enlightened and intelligent than they are!" We get the point: Everyone knows you think that. I've heard more Baptist teaching on what Catholics believe about the supper and how wrong it is than I've heard Baptists actually defining their own view. It's almost as if we've defined our stance on this by being the complete opposite of "them," which is usually a bad way to do theology.

Traditionally, Baptists believe what is called "memorialism," that the Lord's supper is done in remembrance of Christ's death, and for the purpose of remembering. Catholics teach transubstantiation, that the bread and wine actually transform into the body and blood of Christ. Baptist are so determined to convince you how wrong that is that their teaching has been nicknamed "the Doctrine of Divine Absence." Its just a memory device, you do not actually receive anything other than bread and wine.

I almost begin to wonder if holding to memorialism itself is what causes this wrong emphasis of defining the sacrament in negative terms. As much as Baptist teach about the Catholic view, I have, to this day, yet to hear a single one of them describe it correctly. Their disdain has always been based on misunderstanding and false caricature. I even heard Dr. MacArthur give an abysmally prejudiced presentation on this. A man of his scholarly standards owes it to his opponents to represent their view from a more informed stance. Dr. MacArthur surely has the resources to learn the true Catholic teaching, yet he refuses to consult it. As such, the highest end of Baptist preaching on this doctrine has been to strengthen division in the body of Christ.

Whats worse is, when, in an effort to distinguish itself from other views, Baptist preach the sacrament as simply a memorial exercise, it becomes merely an intellectual device. Once this happens, how are the bread and wine even necessary whatsoever? If the purpose is simply to remember the death of Christ, how are bread and wine even important for that? Why can't I simply meditate on the event and dispense with the snack? The answer: you can, if you believe that. "God said to use bread and wine," isn't compelling enough if we are going to insist that He commanded it for no reason.

The other fruit of the "doctrine of divine absence" is the practice of complete neglect. Since the elements themselves have been relegated to superfluous peripherals, the ceremony has become of marginal importance. Case in point, how often do Baptists typically celebrate communion? In many churches, it is once or twice a year. I certainly hope the death of Christ is at least preached more often than that! In one Baptist church I worked for, we actually went two years without celebrating on a Sunday, once. There was a midweek celebration one time. After repeatedly suggesting it, we finally began practicing it again. Two years! I hear many evangelical megachurches have even completely abandoned it altogether.

Well, what's the problem with that? If these churches are still preaching the death of Christ, than surely the people are still meditating on the death of Christ without the ritual, right? Well, lets see… Is the emphasis of your average generic evangelical church "Christ crucified for sinners," or, "practical steps to life a fulfilling life?" I know these are two extremes, but my experience with hundreds of churches says that the second is by far a more accurate and prevalent stereotype. Do you doubt this? Ever heard the Bible called "Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth?" For pete's sake, God's message to us has been turned into a to-do list! Its all about what we can do rather than what Christ has done.

When you teach that the Lord's supper is only a memory device, it is natural and logical to de-emphasize its practice, if not abandon it altogether. When the Lord's supper goes by the wayside, so does, often, the preaching of the gospel itself. Worship services become focused on self rather than the One who was perfectly selfless.

Another disturbing fact is that this teaching has NO historical precedent before Zwingli. Nowhere in church history has this understanding of scripture ever been taught before the 16th century. Were the first 1500 years of Christianity completely wrong on this topic? I doubt it. I've learned that whenever a preacher comes across with a new doctrine and claims he is finally the one who figured out where the church has been wrong all along, he's selling something. Guarantee.

Lastly, Baptist teachers, for all their emphasis on exegetical teaching, play very fast and loose with the text of scripture when it comes to the words of institution. When reading Jesus' words "This is my body" and "this is my blood" in the gospel account, it is common for a Baptist teacher to just re word it, as he is reading from scripture!!!! to say, "This represents…" For pete's sake, when it comes to this issue, can we not at least save the interpretation for after the reading of God's word? The word is "IS," not "represents." The word "represents" is read into the text; it is not what the text clearly says. This is aside from the fact that their is absolutely no grammatical, contextual, or etymological reason whatsoever to suggest that "is" is more accurately rendered or understood as "represents."

Like I said earlier, I used to hold this view. For years, I assumed that surely Jesus meant "represents." I couldn't ever figure out why he didn't just say what he really meant the whole time. But then I came to realize why I saw the words that way: I had underlying rationalistic epistemological presuppositions that refused to allow me to see it any other way, reality or not. My rational intellect kept shouting: It can NOT possibly be one thing AND something else at the same time! It's logically impossible!" …well, I guess so much for the hypostatic union. You see, the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper is rooted in the doctrine of the incarnation. Jesus Christ became 100 percent God and 100 percent man, and feeds us with his own body and blood through the simplest of physical means, with the ultimate goal of finally reconciling us fully to God.

This just in. I heart an Issues Etc… podcast on this topic where they brought up another interesting point: If communion is a memorial exercise, than its truly about what we are doing: remembering, meditating. Sure its remembering and meditating on what Christ did, but in the actual celebration, we are the ones doing it. That puts the focus back on self. In the Lutheran doctrine, God is the one who is working and we do nothing but receive. However, that will have to wait for another post.

Next up, I will discuss the value of weekly celebration, regardless of understanding...

Why I am a Lutheran, reason 1a

I've discovered it will take a bit more than one post to elaborate on each of my 10 reasons for converting. Here is the first part of my first reason: The Law and Gospel hermeneutic.

Now concerning my reasons for converting to Lutheranism, the first is the Law and Gospel hermeneutic.

Briefly put, a hermeneutic is how you interpret the Bible. The "Law and Gospel" method of interpreting scripture turns the entirety of scripture into "good news," and makes so much sense that, after having learned it, it is actually difficult to listen to preachers who study without it because, in the end, they are often preaching nothing other than guilt and condemnation. Case in point: If the bulk of your sermon would necessarily be true whether or not Jesus Christ came and died, then you are probably preaching a message that is all law and devoid of gospel. The consequence of this is that the message becomes decisively un-Christ-ian, and could just as easily have been preached in a Jewish service (unless, of course, it used the New Testament).

So what is the Law and Gospel hermeneutic and how exactly does it differ from others? To illustrate its use I will compare it to the dominant hermeneutic used in the tradition I recently came out of: Southern Baptist. In Southern Baptist circles, as well as many others which emphasize things like Biblical inerrancy, family values, a strong intellectual approach to dogmatics, and a seminary educated pastorate (including many EV Free churches, evangelical Presbyterians, Bible church types, and to a much more simple extent the Calvary Chapel bunch), the dominant hermeneutic in use is called the historical-grammatical method. It is just what it sounds like: Analyzing the precise historical background of the writing as well as the grammatical structure of the sentences to determine both the exact literal meaning of the text plus its most likely intended meaning given its original audience. This method makes a lot of sense and therefore has strong appeal to those who care about sensibility (lamentably, not enough evangelicals).

The gist of the method is this: Hebrew and Greek are studied intensively. Sentences are literally diagrammed in their original languages so that absolute clarity is seen in the structure of the sentence. The result is that often this arrives at a very narrowly literal interpretation of practically everything. This method makes strong claims at being able to decipher the most exact meaning of every verse of the Bible, and it certainly makes an outstandingly thorough and diligent effort. Unfortunately, among the adherents to this technique there is such wide divergence of opinion over semi-crucial doctrines. Fortunately, that vast majority of proponents of this method deny none of the core doctrines of the faith, but there is strong diversity over issues of soteriology, ecclesiology, pneumatology, and eschatology. The problem with this divergence is that each exegete believes his conclusion to be THE clear teaching of scripture and that other opinions are necessarily wrong.

Another weakness (the most fatal one, imo) of this method is that it tends to be oblivious to biblical symbolism, to the point of explaining it away. Because of its extreme literalism, unless a passage explicitly defines its own imagery, users of this method will explain symbolism away by saying, "You might like to read that into the text, but the text doesn't say that anywhere."

The problem? This would disqualify that vast majority of scriptural interpretation that Jesus and the apostles did in the New Testament. Their exegesis would not pass the rules of this method.

The other major problem here is that the historical-grammattical method seems to boast almost complete objectivity, with literary "power-tools" strong enough to filter out any bias, tradition, or preformed theological conclusions. It might actually be able to do this, in a perfect world. But unfortunately, even the biggest names in exegetical study who rely on this method are inevitably flawed beyond the correction of this method. For example, John MacArthur, is a great expositor and teacher of the Bible. However, he holds to theology that is Baptistic on most counts. That means, that when Jesus says, "This is my body,", MacArthur would interpret it as, "This represents my body," because of the traditional Baptist view of the Lord's Supper. This is inconsistent, because there are no grammatical reasons to insert the word "represents" nor contextual indications. In fact, the only reason the passage gets interpreted this way at all, by anyone, is simply because of rationalistic epistemological presuppositions which subconsciously scream, "It HAS to be symbolism! Jesus couldn't possibly mean IS when he says IS, because that wouldn't make sense!" So in this case, reason circumvents the method. Because we could naturally think that if God became a man and spent some time teaching us "in person," everything he said would quite naturally make sense to us, right?

Enter Law and Gospel.

...continued in pt. 2

Why I am a Lutheran

Hey everyone. It's been a very long time since I last posted. I am going to attempt to resolve at least a weekly update from here on out.

For now, many of you may know that we have finally been liberated from being hostage to the Southern Baptist Convention. That's a dramatic way of saying I got a job with someone else.

As I told my friend who is a Presbyterian minister, "God in all his wisdom has sovereignly predestined my wife and I to become Lutherans."

We've been provided full time work with a congregation of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, and therefore we are finally able to settle in a tradition of reformation heritage. But just to be clear, we did choose the Lutheran tradition, and not just for occupational reasons. While it is true that we may have been able to get by with a congregation from the PCA or ACNA, confessional Lutheranism has had a distinct draw on my life in recent months. So here is the first in a series of posts on why I believe the Lutheran tradition is the best place for us, and the truest expression of the Christian faith consistent with the Biblical witness. For now, I will simply list the points. In the coming posts, I will elaborate on each of the reasons. They are:

1. The Law and Gospel hermeneutic.

2. Weekly communion. And a more meaningful theology than the memorialistic "doctrine of divine absence" which eats away at the reasons for even celebrating the Lord's supper. Is is is, if you know what I mean.

3. A more sacramental expression of Christian spirituality (as opposed to purely intellectual or pietistic).

4. A form of discipleship that involves catechism, or teaching people what they believe and why.

5. A spirituality that is rooted in the christian calendar, using the church year to integrate major themes of the Christian faith into an annual rhythm of life.

6. The use of creeds and confessions (Southern Baptist have them, most have no idea what they are or what they mean).

7. They tend to get the doctrine of Justification right at all costs. The good news is therefore always good, and not a to-do list.

8. Christ centered worship - Even non-Lutherans must admit that Lutherans typically do this better than every other Protestant tradition.

9. Outstanding musical heritage (J. S. Bach, St. Olaf).

10. A theology that welcomes the broken and failures, creating a community that that is a safe place for hurting and wounded sinners to find healing and forgiveness in the arms and death of Jesus.

Ok, so I elaborated just a tad on some of those points. But I will be expanding on each point once we get settled in and I have more time to write (soon!). Feel free to leave your reactions, but be warned, I will probably try to convert you. :P