Has anyone seen the worship survey at lcms.org?
I have. Just trudged through the whole thing and am left scratching my head. It is painfully obvious that the current CoW is biased in the whole worship "style" debate. Not only that, but the data is not even close to being trustworthy. The options in many areas are far too generic to warrant factual conclusions. For example, in tables 5 and 6, respondents are asked to indicate whether or not they include the traditional liturgical elements in their Services, but where is the option to check which indicates that they replace one of more of these liturgical elements with a contemporary praise ditty or with their own creative writings? I know several pastors who would state, quite emphatically, that all of the traditional liturgical elements are in place in their contemporary praise services, even though they've actually replaced these with other things. Many of them will say things like, "The liturgy is still there; it's just hidden."
The survey indicates that all are interested in Lutheran integrity in terms of means of grace. The survey also indicates that many utilize a variety of worship resources inside, to their way of thinking, that Lutheran integrity.
How so? Because they say so? The survey doesn't really indicate anything in regards to being interested in Lutheran integrity in terms of means of grace. The data is woefully incomplete. The options are too generic. Seems to me that the intent of this survey is to attempt to give the impression that while there are diverse practices among us, we are all on the same page doctrinally, which is exactly the mantra we've heard from Kieschnick time and time again. The problem is that this little survey doesn't do justice to the real differences among us, which are not limited to variant practices, but are doctrinal to the core. This survey is nothing more than a giant softball placed on a tee for the CoW to hit out of the ballpark as it continues to further sanction the methabapticostal practices (which are built upon methabapticostal doctrines) that have, unfortunately, become common in our synod.
But, you do hit the nail on the head, Pr. Benke, when you say, "to their way of thinking." This is exactly the problem, isn't it? When everyone is free to define what it means to be and act Lutheran, there is really nothing off limits, is there. There are a lot of, in the words of one seminary professor, "Baptists who use wine in Communion" among us. But, hey, they claim to be Lutheran so I guess they is then. After all, we wouldn't want to do something so stiff and rigid as asking them to back up their claims with Scripture and our Confessions.
So the question, Pr. W., is what it means to be Lutheran. That's at the bottom what we/you/all of us require in Seminary education, however it is delivered. An accompanying question is whether the delivery system denigrates the Lutheran-ness of the Lutheran product, or whether the Lutheran "product" can only be delivered with the seminary system as configured either now or in some ideal past.
Yes, Pr. Benke, that is the question, indeed! What does it mean to be Lutheran? Fortunately, we actually have a book that answers that question for us in detail. Problem is, many have forgotten about that book and it doesn't get referenced too often - beyond the usual lip service, of course. It does at the seminaries, though. Students are taught the contents of that book. They are taught what it means to be Lutheran. But, when many of them enter the parish, they find that the vast majority of those they serve have never studied that book and have no idea what it means to be Lutheran. So, they teach. Patiently, lovingly, and diligently. Unfortunately, many they serve are not all that interested in learning what it means to be Lutheran. They have their own idea about that, you see. They learned what it means to be Lutheran from pastors so-and-so and since they never taught them about what's in that "what it means to be Lutheran" book, they don't see the need to learn about it now. They got along just fine for many years with their own brand of Lutheranism and don't see the need to actually put that brand to the test with what's in the book. That, coupled by the outside obstacles of other pastors doing what's right in their eyes, a synodical leadership endorsing and promoting non-Lutheran practices, and a CoW continually fostering the idea that it's okey-dokey to worship like methabapticostals, makes for many "Woe is me!" Elijah moments for the confessional Lutheran pastor in the 21st century LCMS.
So my definition of Lutheran is supple, dynamic, expansive and engaging, not propositional, stiff, restrictive and avoidance-oriented. All of those latter rub against the grain of the Lutheran open-ness to the world adn doctrinal security that I experienced educationally, and have pastorally.
But your definition, like the survey you reference, is woefully incomplete. What does "supple, dynamic, expansive and engaging" mean? What does "propositional, stiff, restrictive and avoidance-oriented" mean? I have some ideas about what you mean, but rather than share those ideas, I'd rather focus on what I see to be the main problem in all of this, which is your use of "my definition." This is what I was getting at above. Since when do you or anyone else get to define Lutheranism? Is it "propositional, stiff, restrictive and avoidance-oriented" on my part to hold you and everyone else who claims to be Lutheran to the definition already found in great detail in the Book of Concord?
Therefore, from that educational perspective, to square up with the board, I have found a lot of folks to be under-educated and perhaps over-indoctrinated in the ministerium of today. Spoon fed and an inch wide and two miles deep in their Lutheran understanding.
This is most interesting, since what I and a plethora of others have wondered is, "Where, oh where, was the catechesis in the last 30-40 years?" It seems, based on the overall condition of the laity, that they were over-educated in pragmatics and under-indoctrinated in Lutheranism. Spoon fed and an inch wide in their Lutheran understanding and two miles deep in their understanding of going with the flow. And, please know that I mean no offense to the laity in saying this. Many have just not been taught, or have been taught wrong, which is not their fault.
With all that said, we desperately need our seminaries to continue educating future pastors in what it means to be Lutheran. This is especially so in our day and age when our own synodical leadership and CoW has seemingly forgotten.
