Pluralistic Worship - Revision history

Kathyyee: Protected "Pluralistic Worship" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

Kathyyee — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:17:46 GMT

Protected "Pluralistic Worship" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

← Older revision

Revision as of 14:17, 30 June 2010

Bhkauflin at 16:25, 10 July 2008

Bhkauflin — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:25:26 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:25, 10 July 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	{{MasterHeader\|author= Rev. Terry L. Johnson\|partnerurl=http://WWW.Ligonier.org\|partner=Ligonier Ministries\|other=\|mediatype=article\|lang=English\|editor=n/a\|translator=n/a\|levels=0\|reviewed= Not Reviewed\|newtitle=Pluralistic Worship\|series=Tabletalk \|topic=Church Practices \|subtopic=Worship \|month=June \|day= \|year=2008}}During the Reformation era, debates raged over what things must be considered crucial to Christian faith and practice, and what could be considered ''adiaphora'' (Latin for “things indifferent”). All sides agreed that the doctrines of the Trinity, the atonement, and justification were central. But what about worship issues? What about the elements of worship, sacramental theology, church architecture, and furnishings?	+	{{info}}During the Reformation era, debates raged over what things must be considered crucial to Christian faith and practice, and what could be considered ''adiaphora'' (Latin for “things indifferent”). All sides agreed that the doctrines of the Trinity, the atonement, and justification were central. But what about worship issues? What about the elements of worship, sacramental theology, church architecture, and furnishings?

	Theological considerations drove the Reformers to insist upon biblical preaching, congregational singing, vernacular Bible readings and services, and sacramental practices that were consistent with their rejection of a sacrificial understanding of the Eucharist. The Reformers did not always agree on the details, but the principle was clear: “Let us, therefore, repudiate everything that smacks of sacrifice,” said Luther in his ''Formula Missae ''(1523). One could argue (I wouldn’t, but one could) that there is nothing wrong with a minister standing in front of the table, with turning his back on the people as he mumbles the words of institution, with elevating the host, with fencing the altar with a rail that keeps the laity at a distance, with serving a communion wafer that won’t crumble. All of these could perhaps be justified with reference to reverence for the eucharistic service, with the aim of maintaining dignity and order. One could argue that they are ''adiaphora''. However, to many Protestants they were not ''adiaphora,'' because, they argued, these practices grew out of the doctrine of transubstantiation and implied a sacrificial understanding of the mass.		Theological considerations drove the Reformers to insist upon biblical preaching, congregational singing, vernacular Bible readings and services, and sacramental practices that were consistent with their rejection of a sacrificial understanding of the Eucharist. The Reformers did not always agree on the details, but the principle was clear: “Let us, therefore, repudiate everything that smacks of sacrifice,” said Luther in his ''Formula Missae ''(1523). One could argue (I wouldn’t, but one could) that there is nothing wrong with a minister standing in front of the table, with turning his back on the people as he mumbles the words of institution, with elevating the host, with fencing the altar with a rail that keeps the laity at a distance, with serving a communion wafer that won’t crumble. All of these could perhaps be justified with reference to reverence for the eucharistic service, with the aim of maintaining dignity and order. One could argue that they are ''adiaphora''. However, to many Protestants they were not ''adiaphora,'' because, they argued, these practices grew out of the doctrine of transubstantiation and implied a sacrificial understanding of the mass.

Bhkauflin at 15:46, 18 June 2008

Bhkauflin — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:46:38 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:46, 18 June 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	{{MasterHeader\|author= Rev. Terry L. Johnson\|partnerurl=http://WWW.Ligonier.org\|partner=Ligonier Ministries~~\|date= June 2008~~\|other=~~\|series=\|categorytopic=Worship~~\|mediatype=article\|lang=English\|editor=n/a\|translator=n/a\|levels=0\|reviewed= Not Reviewed\|newtitle=Pluralistic Worship}}During the Reformation era, debates raged over what things must be considered crucial to Christian faith and practice, and what could be considered ''adiaphora'' (Latin for “things indifferent”). All sides agreed that the doctrines of the Trinity, the atonement, and justification were central. But what about worship issues? What about the elements of worship, sacramental theology, church architecture, and furnishings?	+	{{MasterHeader\|author= Rev. Terry L. Johnson\|partnerurl=http://WWW.Ligonier.org\|partner=Ligonier Ministries\|other=\|mediatype=article\|lang=English\|editor=n/a\|translator=n/a\|levels=0\|reviewed= Not Reviewed\|newtitle=Pluralistic Worship\|series=Tabletalk \|topic=Church Practices \|subtopic=Worship \|month=June \|day= \|year=2008}}During the Reformation era, debates raged over what things must be considered crucial to Christian faith and practice, and what could be considered ''adiaphora'' (Latin for “things indifferent”). All sides agreed that the doctrines of the Trinity, the atonement, and justification were central. But what about worship issues? What about the elements of worship, sacramental theology, church architecture, and furnishings?

	Theological considerations drove the Reformers to insist upon biblical preaching, congregational singing, vernacular Bible readings and services, and sacramental practices that were consistent with their rejection of a sacrificial understanding of the Eucharist. The Reformers did not always agree on the details, but the principle was clear: “Let us, therefore, repudiate everything that smacks of sacrifice,” said Luther in his ''Formula Missae ''(1523). One could argue (I wouldn’t, but one could) that there is nothing wrong with a minister standing in front of the table, with turning his back on the people as he mumbles the words of institution, with elevating the host, with fencing the altar with a rail that keeps the laity at a distance, with serving a communion wafer that won’t crumble. All of these could perhaps be justified with reference to reverence for the eucharistic service, with the aim of maintaining dignity and order. One could argue that they are ''adiaphora''. However, to many Protestants they were not ''adiaphora,'' because, they argued, these practices grew out of the doctrine of transubstantiation and implied a sacrificial understanding of the mass.		Theological considerations drove the Reformers to insist upon biblical preaching, congregational singing, vernacular Bible readings and services, and sacramental practices that were consistent with their rejection of a sacrificial understanding of the Eucharist. The Reformers did not always agree on the details, but the principle was clear: “Let us, therefore, repudiate everything that smacks of sacrifice,” said Luther in his ''Formula Missae ''(1523). One could argue (I wouldn’t, but one could) that there is nothing wrong with a minister standing in front of the table, with turning his back on the people as he mumbles the words of institution, with elevating the host, with fencing the altar with a rail that keeps the laity at a distance, with serving a communion wafer that won’t crumble. All of these could perhaps be justified with reference to reverence for the eucharistic service, with the aim of maintaining dignity and order. One could argue that they are ''adiaphora''. However, to many Protestants they were not ''adiaphora,'' because, they argued, these practices grew out of the doctrine of transubstantiation and implied a sacrificial understanding of the mass.

Kryndontpay at 01:57, 22 May 2008

Kryndontpay — Thu, 22 May 2008 01:57:11 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:57, 22 May 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	{{MasterHeader\|author=Rev.Terry L. Johnson\|partnerurl=http://WWW.Ligonier.org\|partner=Ligonier Ministries\|date=~~January~~ 2008\|other=\|series=\|categorytopic=Worship\|mediatype=article\|lang=English\|editor=n/a\|translator=n/a\|levels=0\|reviewed= Not Reviewed\|newtitle=Pluralistic Worship}}	+	{{MasterHeader\|author= Rev. Terry L. Johnson\|partnerurl=http://WWW.Ligonier.org\|partner=Ligonier Ministries\|date= June 2008\|other=\|series=\|categorytopic=Worship\|mediatype=article\|lang=English\|editor=n/a\|translator=n/a\|levels=0\|reviewed= Not Reviewed\|newtitle=Pluralistic Worship}}During the Reformation era, debates raged over what things must be considered crucial to Christian faith and practice, and what could be considered ''adiaphora'' (Latin for “things indifferent”). All sides agreed that the doctrines of the Trinity, the atonement, and justification were central. But what about worship issues? What about the elements of worship, sacramental theology, church architecture, and furnishings?
-		+
-	~~<br>~~	+
-		+
-	During the Reformation era, debates raged over what things must be considered crucial to Christian faith and practice, and what could be considered ''adiaphora'' (Latin for “things indifferent”). All sides agreed that the doctrines of the Trinity, the atonement, and justification were central. But what about worship issues? What about the elements of worship, sacramental theology, church architecture, and furnishings?	+

	Theological considerations drove the Reformers to insist upon biblical preaching, congregational singing, vernacular Bible readings and services, and sacramental practices that were consistent with their rejection of a sacrificial understanding of the Eucharist. The Reformers did not always agree on the details, but the principle was clear: “Let us, therefore, repudiate everything that smacks of sacrifice,” said Luther in his ''Formula Missae ''(1523). One could argue (I wouldn’t, but one could) that there is nothing wrong with a minister standing in front of the table, with turning his back on the people as he mumbles the words of institution, with elevating the host, with fencing the altar with a rail that keeps the laity at a distance, with serving a communion wafer that won’t crumble. All of these could perhaps be justified with reference to reverence for the eucharistic service, with the aim of maintaining dignity and order. One could argue that they are ''adiaphora''. However, to many Protestants they were not ''adiaphora,'' because, they argued, these practices grew out of the doctrine of transubstantiation and implied a sacrificial understanding of the mass.		Theological considerations drove the Reformers to insist upon biblical preaching, congregational singing, vernacular Bible readings and services, and sacramental practices that were consistent with their rejection of a sacrificial understanding of the Eucharist. The Reformers did not always agree on the details, but the principle was clear: “Let us, therefore, repudiate everything that smacks of sacrifice,” said Luther in his ''Formula Missae ''(1523). One could argue (I wouldn’t, but one could) that there is nothing wrong with a minister standing in front of the table, with turning his back on the people as he mumbles the words of institution, with elevating the host, with fencing the altar with a rail that keeps the laity at a distance, with serving a communion wafer that won’t crumble. All of these could perhaps be justified with reference to reverence for the eucharistic service, with the aim of maintaining dignity and order. One could argue that they are ''adiaphora''. However, to many Protestants they were not ''adiaphora,'' because, they argued, these practices grew out of the doctrine of transubstantiation and implied a sacrificial understanding of the mass.

Bhkauflin at 19:55, 21 May 2008

Bhkauflin — Wed, 21 May 2008 19:55:34 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:55, 21 May 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	{{MasterHeader\|author=Rev.Terry L. Johnson\|partnerurl=http://WWW.Ligonier.org\|partner=Ligonier Ministries\|date=January 2008\|other=\|series=\|categorytopic=~~No topic~~\|mediatype=article\|lang=English\|editor=n/a\|translator=n/a\|levels=0\|reviewed= Not Reviewed\|newtitle=Pluralistic Worship}}	+	{{MasterHeader\|author=Rev.Terry L. Johnson\|partnerurl=http://WWW.Ligonier.org\|partner=Ligonier Ministries\|date=January 2008\|other=\|series=\|categorytopic=Worship\|mediatype=article\|lang=English\|editor=n/a\|translator=n/a\|levels=0\|reviewed= Not Reviewed\|newtitle=Pluralistic Worship}}

	<br>		<br>

Bhkauflin at 18:19, 20 May 2008

Bhkauflin — Tue, 20 May 2008 18:19:58 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:19, 20 May 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	{{MasterHeader\|author=Rev.Terry L.Johnson\|partnerurl=http://WWW.Ligonier.org\|partner=Ligonier Ministries\|date=January 2008\|other=\|series=\|categorytopic=No topic\|mediatype=article\|lang=English\|editor=n/a\|translator=n/a\|levels=0\|reviewed= Not Reviewed\|newtitle=Pluralistic Worship}}	+	{{MasterHeader\|author=Rev.Terry L. Johnson\|partnerurl=http://WWW.Ligonier.org\|partner=Ligonier Ministries\|date=January 2008\|other=\|series=\|categorytopic=No topic\|mediatype=article\|lang=English\|editor=n/a\|translator=n/a\|levels=0\|reviewed= Not Reviewed\|newtitle=Pluralistic Worship}}

	<br>		<br>

Bhkauflin at 18:07, 20 May 2008

Bhkauflin — Tue, 20 May 2008 18:07:27 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:07, 20 May 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	{{MasterHeader\|author=Rev.Terry L.Johnson\|partnerurl=http://WWW.Ligonier.org\|partner=Ligonier ~~Minitries~~\|date=January 2008\|other=\|series=\|categorytopic=No topic\|mediatype=article\|lang=English\|editor=n/a\|translator=n/a\|levels=0\|reviewed= Not Reviewed\|newtitle=Pluralistic Worship}}	+	{{MasterHeader\|author=Rev.Terry L.Johnson\|partnerurl=http://WWW.Ligonier.org\|partner=Ligonier Ministries\|date=January 2008\|other=\|series=\|categorytopic=No topic\|mediatype=article\|lang=English\|editor=n/a\|translator=n/a\|levels=0\|reviewed= Not Reviewed\|newtitle=Pluralistic Worship}}

-	<br>	+	<br>

	During the Reformation era, debates raged over what things must be considered crucial to Christian faith and practice, and what could be considered ''adiaphora'' (Latin for “things indifferent”). All sides agreed that the doctrines of the Trinity, the atonement, and justification were central. But what about worship issues? What about the elements of worship, sacramental theology, church architecture, and furnishings?		During the Reformation era, debates raged over what things must be considered crucial to Christian faith and practice, and what could be considered ''adiaphora'' (Latin for “things indifferent”). All sides agreed that the doctrines of the Trinity, the atonement, and justification were central. But what about worship issues? What about the elements of worship, sacramental theology, church architecture, and furnishings?

Kryndontpay at 23:41, 19 May 2008

Kryndontpay — Mon, 19 May 2008 23:41:12 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:41, 19 May 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	{{MasterHeader\|author=Rev. Terry L. Johnson\|partnerurl=WWW.Ligonier.org\|partner=Ligonier Minitries\|date=January 2008\|other=\|series=\|categorytopic=\|mediatype=article\|lang=English\|editor=n/a\|translator=n/a\|levels=0\|reviewed= Not Reviewed\|newtitle=Pluralistic Worship}}	+	{{MasterHeader\|author=Rev.Terry L.Johnson\|partnerurl=http://WWW.Ligonier.org\|partner=Ligonier Minitries\|date=January 2008\|other=\|series=\|categorytopic=No topic\|mediatype=article\|lang=English\|editor=n/a\|translator=n/a\|levels=0\|reviewed= Not Reviewed\|newtitle=Pluralistic Worship}}

	<br>		<br>

-	During the Reformation era, debates raged over what things must be considered crucial to Christian faith and practice, and what could be considered ''adiaphora'' (Latin for “things indifferent”). All sides agreed that the doctrines of the Trinity, the atonement, and justification were central. But what about worship issues? What about the elements of worship, sacramental theology, church architecture, and furnishings?	+	During the Reformation era, debates raged over what things must be considered crucial to Christian faith and practice, and what could be considered ''adiaphora'' (Latin for “things indifferent”). All sides agreed that the doctrines of the Trinity, the atonement, and justification were central. But what about worship issues? What about the elements of worship, sacramental theology, church architecture, and furnishings?

-	Theological considerations drove the Reformers to insist upon biblical preaching, congregational singing, vernacular Bible readings and services, and sacramental practices that were consistent with their rejection of a sacrificial understanding of the Eucharist. The Reformers did not always agree on the details, but the principle was clear: “Let us, therefore, repudiate everything that smacks of sacrifice,” said Luther in his ''Formula Missae ''(1523). One could argue (I wouldn’t, but one could) that there is nothing wrong with a minister standing in front of the table, with turning his back on the people as he mumbles the words of institution, with elevating the host, with fencing the altar with a rail that keeps the laity at a distance, with serving a communion wafer that won’t crumble. All of these could perhaps be justified with reference to reverence for the eucharistic service, with the aim of maintaining dignity and order. One could argue that they are ''adiaphora''. However, to many Protestants they were not ''adiaphora,'' because, they argued, these practices grew out of the doctrine of transubstantiation and implied a sacrificial understanding of the mass.	+	Theological considerations drove the Reformers to insist upon biblical preaching, congregational singing, vernacular Bible readings and services, and sacramental practices that were consistent with their rejection of a sacrificial understanding of the Eucharist. The Reformers did not always agree on the details, but the principle was clear: “Let us, therefore, repudiate everything that smacks of sacrifice,” said Luther in his ''Formula Missae ''(1523). One could argue (I wouldn’t, but one could) that there is nothing wrong with a minister standing in front of the table, with turning his back on the people as he mumbles the words of institution, with elevating the host, with fencing the altar with a rail that keeps the laity at a distance, with serving a communion wafer that won’t crumble. All of these could perhaps be justified with reference to reverence for the eucharistic service, with the aim of maintaining dignity and order. One could argue that they are ''adiaphora''. However, to many Protestants they were not ''adiaphora,'' because, they argued, these practices grew out of the doctrine of transubstantiation and implied a sacrificial understanding of the mass.

-	Is the sacramental host a sacrificial offering of Christ’s flesh and blood placed by a priest on an altar that satisfies, even propitiates a holy God? Yes, said the medieval church, Tridentine, and even post-Vatican II (1960s) Roman Catholicism. If so, then of course one should perform the miracle of the mass at a distance from carnal curiosity seekers; of course the host should be elevated and adored — it is, after all, the actual body of Christ; of course great pains should be taken to prevent clumsy or careless lay people from spilling the wine (so deny them the cup) or dropping crumbs of Christ’s flesh (hence wafers).	+	Is the sacramental host a sacrificial offering of Christ’s flesh and blood placed by a priest on an altar that satisfies, even propitiates a holy God? Yes, said the medieval church, Tridentine, and even post-Vatican II (1960s) Roman Catholicism. If so, then of course one should perform the miracle of the mass at a distance from carnal curiosity seekers; of course the host should be elevated and adored — it is, after all, the actual body of Christ; of course great pains should be taken to prevent clumsy or careless lay people from spilling the wine (so deny them the cup) or dropping crumbs of Christ’s flesh (hence wafers).

-	But since (in a Protestant understanding of things) none of these things is true, language, gestures, and furnishings that imply that they are true cannot be regarded as ''adiaphora''. They must be purged from the church’s eucharistic practices. Priests must be called “ministers” or “pastors,” and altars must be replaced with tables. As Luther put it: “everything that smacks of sacrifice” must be repudiated. Everything that implies sacrifice must be removed. Calvin summarized: “[The Lord] has given us a table at which to feast, not an altar on which a victim is to be offered; he has not consecrated priests to make sacrifice, but servants [''ministros''] to distribute the sacred feast” (Institutes, 4.18.12). Neo-medievalists in conservative evangelical circles would do well to learn the language of church architecture, furnishings, and gestures, and not naively reinstate that which we theologically reject.	+	But since (in a Protestant understanding of things) none of these things is true, language, gestures, and furnishings that imply that they are true cannot be regarded as ''adiaphora''. They must be purged from the church’s eucharistic practices. Priests must be called “ministers” or “pastors,” and altars must be replaced with tables. As Luther put it: “everything that smacks of sacrifice” must be repudiated. Everything that implies sacrifice must be removed. Calvin summarized: “[The Lord] has given us a table at which to feast, not an altar on which a victim is to be offered; he has not consecrated priests to make sacrifice, but servants [''ministros''] to distribute the sacred feast” (Institutes, 4.18.12). Neo-medievalists in conservative evangelical circles would do well to learn the language of church architecture, furnishings, and gestures, and not naively reinstate that which we theologically reject.

-	But the real point of this article is not the Lord’s Supper. We regard as axiomatic the principle that worship cannot be entertainment. Worship as entertainment is idolatry. By definition worship must be about God, not my amusement. Here is where disagreement exists: stages, theater-lighting, bands, dancers, dramatists, hand-held microphones, all up front, the service performed on behalf of an audience relaxing in theater-style seating. Is this ''adiaphora''? Normally, issues of seating, lighting, placement of musicians, style of platform might have qualified as things indifferent, just as the elevation and adoration of the host might have been considered ''adiaphora''. But a line has been crossed in our generation. Much of what passes for worship today is nothing more than lightly baptized entertainment, and therefore is idolatrous. It is idolatry from which serious churches must distance themselves. Our principle must be (with apologies to Luther): “Let us, therefore, repudiate everything that smacks of entertainment.”	+	But the real point of this article is not the Lord’s Supper. We regard as axiomatic the principle that worship cannot be entertainment. Worship as entertainment is idolatry. By definition worship must be about God, not my amusement. Here is where disagreement exists: stages, theater-lighting, bands, dancers, dramatists, hand-held microphones, all up front, the service performed on behalf of an audience relaxing in theater-style seating. Is this ''adiaphora''? Normally, issues of seating, lighting, placement of musicians, style of platform might have qualified as things indifferent, just as the elevation and adoration of the host might have been considered ''adiaphora''. But a line has been crossed in our generation. Much of what passes for worship today is nothing more than lightly baptized entertainment, and therefore is idolatrous. It is idolatry from which serious churches must distance themselves. Our principle must be (with apologies to Luther): “Let us, therefore, repudiate everything that smacks of entertainment.”

	Has the time come when the sanctuaries of evangelical Protestantism must be cleansed of everything that reflects the world of entertainment? Our Reformed forefathers took axes to the altars, and they whitewashed the walls of medieval churches. If our analysis of worship that entertains is correct, similar iconoclastic fury must be shown, and soon, in our houses of worship lest they become houses of mirth: theater seats pulled out; stages broken up; dancers and actors banished; musicians’ and choirs’ roles redefined as that of simply supporting and enhancing congregational singing; pulpit, table, and font restored to their proper places; pastors moved back behind pulpits; and simple services of the Word read, preached, sung, prayed, and seen (in the sacraments) reestablished. What was once indifferent can be considered indifferent no more, not if Reformed Protestantism is to continue to practice purity in its worship and avoid idolatry. “Little children,” says the apostle John, “keep yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:21).		Has the time come when the sanctuaries of evangelical Protestantism must be cleansed of everything that reflects the world of entertainment? Our Reformed forefathers took axes to the altars, and they whitewashed the walls of medieval churches. If our analysis of worship that entertains is correct, similar iconoclastic fury must be shown, and soon, in our houses of worship lest they become houses of mirth: theater seats pulled out; stages broken up; dancers and actors banished; musicians’ and choirs’ roles redefined as that of simply supporting and enhancing congregational singing; pulpit, table, and font restored to their proper places; pastors moved back behind pulpits; and simple services of the Word read, preached, sung, prayed, and seen (in the sacraments) reestablished. What was once indifferent can be considered indifferent no more, not if Reformed Protestantism is to continue to practice purity in its worship and avoid idolatry. “Little children,” says the apostle John, “keep yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:21).

Kryndontpay at 14:33, 17 May 2008

Kryndontpay — Sat, 17 May 2008 14:33:34 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:33, 17 May 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	= ~~ ~~Pluralistic Worship~~                          =~~	+	{{MasterHeader\|author=Rev. Terry L. Johnson\|partnerurl=WWW.Ligonier.org\|partner=Ligonier Minitries\|date=January 2008\|other=\|series=\|categorytopic=\|mediatype=article\|lang=English\|editor=n/a\|translator=n/a\|levels=0\|reviewed= Not Reviewed\|newtitle=Pluralistic Worship}}

-	~~By Rev. Terry L. Johnson~~	+	<br>

		+	During the Reformation era, debates raged over what things must be considered crucial to Christian faith and practice, and what could be considered ''adiaphora'' (Latin for “things indifferent”). All sides agreed that the doctrines of the Trinity, the atonement, and justification were central. But what about worship issues? What about the elements of worship, sacramental theology, church architecture, and furnishings?

		+	Theological considerations drove the Reformers to insist upon biblical preaching, congregational singing, vernacular Bible readings and services, and sacramental practices that were consistent with their rejection of a sacrificial understanding of the Eucharist. The Reformers did not always agree on the details, but the principle was clear: “Let us, therefore, repudiate everything that smacks of sacrifice,” said Luther in his ''Formula Missae ''(1523). One could argue (I wouldn’t, but one could) that there is nothing wrong with a minister standing in front of the table, with turning his back on the people as he mumbles the words of institution, with elevating the host, with fencing the altar with a rail that keeps the laity at a distance, with serving a communion wafer that won’t crumble. All of these could perhaps be justified with reference to reverence for the eucharistic service, with the aim of maintaining dignity and order. One could argue that they are ''adiaphora''. However, to many Protestants they were not ''adiaphora,'' because, they argued, these practices grew out of the doctrine of transubstantiation and implied a sacrificial understanding of the mass.

-	~~During~~ the ~~Reformation era, debates raged over what things must be considered crucial to Christian faith~~ and ~~practice, and what could be considered ''adiaphora'' (Latin for “things indifferent”). All sides agreed~~ that ~~the doctrines of the Trinity~~, ~~the atonement~~, ~~and justification were central. But what about worship issues? What about~~ the ~~elements of worship, sacramental theology,~~ church ~~architecture~~, ~~and furnishings?~~	+	Is the sacramental host a sacrificial offering of Christ’s flesh and blood placed by a priest on an altar that satisfies, even propitiates a holy God? Yes, said the medieval church, Tridentine, and even post-Vatican II (1960s) Roman Catholicism. If so, then of course one should perform the miracle of the mass at a distance from carnal curiosity seekers; of course the host should be elevated and adored — it is, after all, the actual body of Christ; of course great pains should be taken to prevent clumsy or careless lay people from spilling the wine (so deny them the cup) or dropping crumbs of Christ’s flesh (hence wafers).
-		+
-	~~<br>Theological considerations drove the Reformers to insist upon biblical preaching~~, ~~congregational singing, vernacular Bible readings~~ and services, and sacramental practices that were consistent with their rejection of a sacrificial understanding of the Eucharist. The Reformers did not always agree on the details, but the principle was clear: “Let us, therefore, repudiate everything that smacks of sacrifice,” said Luther in his ''Formula Missae ''(~~1523~~). ~~One could argue (I wouldn’t~~, ~~but~~ one ~~could) that there is nothing wrong with a minister standing in front of~~ the ~~table, with turning his back on the people as he mumbles the words~~ of ~~institution, with elevating~~ the ~~host, with fencing the altar with a rail that keeps the laity~~ at a distance~~, with serving a communion wafer that won’t crumble. All~~ of ~~these could perhaps~~ be ~~justified with reference to reverence for the eucharistic service, with the aim of maintaining dignity~~ and ~~order. One could argue that they are ''adiaphora''. However~~, ~~to many Protestants they were not ''adiaphora~~,~~'' because, they argued, these practices grew out of~~ the ~~doctrine~~ of ~~transubstantiation and implied a sacrificial understanding~~ of the ~~mass~~.	+

-	~~<br>Is the sacramental host~~ a ~~sacrificial offering~~ of ~~Christ’s flesh and blood placed by a priest on an altar that satisfies~~, ~~even propitiates a holy God? Yes~~, ~~said the medieval church, Tridentine~~, and ~~even post-Vatican II (1960s) Roman Catholicism~~. ~~If so, then of course one should perform the miracle of the mass at a distance~~ from ~~carnal curiosity seekers; of course~~ the ~~host should~~ be ~~elevated~~ and ~~adored —~~ it ~~is, after all, the actual body~~ of ~~Christ; of course great pains should~~ be ~~taken~~ to ~~prevent clumsy or careless lay people from spilling~~ the ~~wine~~ (~~so deny them the cup~~) ~~or dropping crumbs~~ of ~~Christ’s flesh (hence wafers)~~.	+	But since (in a Protestant understanding of things) none of these things is true, language, gestures, and furnishings that imply that they are true cannot be regarded as ''adiaphora''. They must be purged from the church’s eucharistic practices. Priests must be called “ministers” or “pastors,” and altars must be replaced with tables. As Luther put it: “everything that smacks of sacrifice” must be repudiated. Everything that implies sacrifice must be removed. Calvin summarized: “[The Lord] has given us a table at which to feast, not an altar on which a victim is to be offered; he has not consecrated priests to make sacrifice, but servants [''ministros''] to distribute the sacred feast” (Institutes, 4.18.12). Neo-medievalists in conservative evangelical circles would do well to learn the language of church architecture, furnishings, and gestures, and not naively reinstate that which we theologically reject.

-	<br>But since (in a Protestant understanding of things) none of these things is true, language, gestures, and furnishings that imply that they are true cannot be regarded as ''adiaphora''. They must be purged from the church’s eucharistic practices. Priests must be called “ministers” or “pastors,” and altars must be replaced with tables. As Luther put it: “everything that smacks of sacrifice” must be repudiated. Everything that implies sacrifice must be removed. Calvin summarized: “[The Lord] has given us a table at which to feast, not an altar on which a victim is to be offered; he has not consecrated priests to make sacrifice, but servants [''ministros''] to distribute the sacred feast” (Institutes, 4.18.12). Neo-medievalists in conservative evangelical circles would do well to learn the language of church architecture, furnishings, and gestures, and not naively reinstate that which we theologically reject.<br>But the real point of this article is not the Lord’s Supper. We regard as axiomatic the principle that worship cannot be entertainment. Worship as entertainment is idolatry. By definition worship must be about God, not my amusement. Here is where disagreement exists: stages, theater-lighting, bands, dancers, dramatists, hand-held microphones, all up front, the service performed on behalf of an audience relaxing in theater-style seating. Is this ''adiaphora''? Normally, issues of seating, lighting, placement of musicians, style of platform might have qualified as things indifferent, just as the elevation and adoration of the host might have been considered ''adiaphora''. But a line has been crossed in our generation. Much of what passes for worship today is nothing more than lightly baptized entertainment, and therefore is idolatrous. It is idolatry from which serious churches must distance themselves. Our principle must be (with apologies to Luther): “Let us, therefore, repudiate everything that smacks of entertainment.”	+	But the real point of this article is not the Lord’s Supper. We regard as axiomatic the principle that worship cannot be entertainment. Worship as entertainment is idolatry. By definition worship must be about God, not my amusement. Here is where disagreement exists: stages, theater-lighting, bands, dancers, dramatists, hand-held microphones, all up front, the service performed on behalf of an audience relaxing in theater-style seating. Is this ''adiaphora''? Normally, issues of seating, lighting, placement of musicians, style of platform might have qualified as things indifferent, just as the elevation and adoration of the host might have been considered ''adiaphora''. But a line has been crossed in our generation. Much of what passes for worship today is nothing more than lightly baptized entertainment, and therefore is idolatrous. It is idolatry from which serious churches must distance themselves. Our principle must be (with apologies to Luther): “Let us, therefore, repudiate everything that smacks of entertainment.”

-	~~<br>~~Has the time come when the sanctuaries of evangelical Protestantism must be cleansed of everything that reflects the world of entertainment? Our Reformed forefathers took axes to the altars, and they whitewashed the walls of medieval churches. If our analysis of worship that entertains is correct, similar iconoclastic fury must be shown, and soon, in our houses of worship lest they become houses of mirth: theater seats pulled out; stages broken up; dancers and actors banished; musicians’ and choirs’ roles redefined as that of simply supporting and enhancing congregational singing; pulpit, table, and font restored to their proper places; pastors moved back behind pulpits; and simple services of the Word read, preached, sung, prayed, and seen (in the sacraments) reestablished. What was once indifferent can be considered indifferent no more, not if Reformed Protestantism is to continue to practice purity in its worship and avoid idolatry. “Little children,” says the apostle John, “keep yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:21).	+	Has the time come when the sanctuaries of evangelical Protestantism must be cleansed of everything that reflects the world of entertainment? Our Reformed forefathers took axes to the altars, and they whitewashed the walls of medieval churches. If our analysis of worship that entertains is correct, similar iconoclastic fury must be shown, and soon, in our houses of worship lest they become houses of mirth: theater seats pulled out; stages broken up; dancers and actors banished; musicians’ and choirs’ roles redefined as that of simply supporting and enhancing congregational singing; pulpit, table, and font restored to their proper places; pastors moved back behind pulpits; and simple services of the Word read, preached, sung, prayed, and seen (in the sacraments) reestablished. What was once indifferent can be considered indifferent no more, not if Reformed Protestantism is to continue to practice purity in its worship and avoid idolatry. “Little children,” says the apostle John, “keep yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:21).

Kryndontpay at 01:00, 6 May 2008

Kryndontpay — Tue, 06 May 2008 01:00:29 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:00, 6 May 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~Your page~~	+	=  Pluralistic Worship                          =
		+
		+	By Rev. Terry L. Johnson
		+
		+
		+
		+	During the Reformation era, debates raged over what things must be considered crucial to Christian faith and practice, and what could be considered ''adiaphora'' (Latin for “things indifferent”). All sides agreed that the doctrines of the Trinity, the atonement, and justification were central. But what about worship issues? What about the elements of worship, sacramental theology, church architecture, and furnishings?
		+
		+	<br>Theological considerations drove the Reformers to insist upon biblical preaching, congregational singing, vernacular Bible readings and services, and sacramental practices that were consistent with their rejection of a sacrificial understanding of the Eucharist. The Reformers did not always agree on the details, but the principle was clear: “Let us, therefore, repudiate everything that smacks of sacrifice,” said Luther in his ''Formula Missae ''(1523). One could argue (I wouldn’t, but one could) that there is nothing wrong with a minister standing in front of the table, with turning his back on the people as he mumbles the words of institution, with elevating the host, with fencing the altar with a rail that keeps the laity at a distance, with serving a communion wafer that won’t crumble. All of these could perhaps be justified with reference to reverence for the eucharistic service, with the aim of maintaining dignity and order. One could argue that they are ''adiaphora''. However, to many Protestants they were not ''adiaphora,'' because, they argued, these practices grew out of the doctrine of transubstantiation and implied a sacrificial understanding of the mass.
		+
		+	<br>Is the sacramental host a sacrificial offering of Christ’s flesh and blood placed by a priest on an altar that satisfies, even propitiates a holy God? Yes, said the medieval church, Tridentine, and even post-Vatican II (1960s) Roman Catholicism. If so, then of course one should perform the miracle of the mass at a distance from carnal curiosity seekers; of course the host should be elevated and adored — it is, after all, the actual body of Christ; of course great pains should be taken to prevent clumsy or careless lay people from spilling the wine (so deny them the cup) or dropping crumbs of Christ’s flesh (hence wafers).
		+
		+	<br>But since (in a Protestant understanding of things) none of these things is true, language, gestures, and furnishings that imply that they are true cannot be regarded as ''adiaphora''. They must be purged from the church’s eucharistic practices. Priests must be called “ministers” or “pastors,” and altars must be replaced with tables. As Luther put it: “everything that smacks of sacrifice” must be repudiated. Everything that implies sacrifice must be removed. Calvin summarized: “[The Lord] has given us a table at which to feast, not an altar on which a victim is to be offered; he has not consecrated priests to make sacrifice, but servants [''ministros''] to distribute the sacred feast” (Institutes, 4.18.12). Neo-medievalists in conservative evangelical circles would do well to learn the language of church architecture, furnishings, and gestures, and not naively reinstate that which we theologically reject.<br>But the real point of this article is not the Lord’s Supper. We regard as axiomatic the principle that worship cannot be entertainment. Worship as entertainment is idolatry. By definition worship must be about God, not my amusement. Here is where disagreement exists: stages, theater-lighting, bands, dancers, dramatists, hand-held microphones, all up front, the service performed on behalf of an audience relaxing in theater-style seating. Is this ''adiaphora''? Normally, issues of seating, lighting, placement of musicians, style of platform might have qualified as things indifferent, just as the elevation and adoration of the host might have been considered ''adiaphora''. But a line has been crossed in our generation. Much of what passes for worship today is nothing more than lightly baptized entertainment, and therefore is idolatrous. It is idolatry from which serious churches must distance themselves. Our principle must be (with apologies to Luther): “Let us, therefore, repudiate everything that smacks of entertainment.”
		+
		+	<br>Has the time come when the sanctuaries of evangelical Protestantism must be cleansed of everything that reflects the world of entertainment? Our Reformed forefathers took axes to the altars, and they whitewashed the walls of medieval churches. If our analysis of worship that entertains is correct, similar iconoclastic fury must be shown, and soon, in our houses of worship lest they become houses of mirth: theater seats pulled out; stages broken up; dancers and actors banished; musicians’ and choirs’ roles redefined as that of simply supporting and enhancing congregational singing; pulpit, table, and font restored to their proper places; pastors moved back behind pulpits; and simple services of the Word read, preached, sung, prayed, and seen (in the sacraments) reestablished. What was once indifferent can be considered indifferent no more, not if Reformed Protestantism is to continue to practice purity in its worship and avoid idolatry. “Little children,” says the apostle John, “keep yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:21).