Contemporary Worship: "Do What Thou Wilt"
“Oh calf of god, sweet calf of god…”
Faith should not have any limit or boundaries and all should be welcomed. Is it not the catholic faith that says one true faith? Does that mean you should only believe in Catholicism? What is important is the belief in lord individually, not how others come together to Praise. This church just like any other can be viewed with an individual opinion however it is irrelevant because the power of people coming together to praise 1 god almighty is what truly matters.
~ “Messanger”
The above quote is a recent response to an article by Dr. Eckardt from October of last year concerning King of Kings, an LCMS congregation in Omaha. And within one particular worship service, we see the Shenanigans of Shenanigans: a “consecration” of the elements of “Holy Communion” done by a female layman in the congregation: the vocalist in the praise band, by means of a paraphrase of the Words of Institution. It’s still right here for all the world to see.
This is, of course, a profound scandal. The silence from our chain of command in the LCMS is indeed deafening, though “disheartening” is a more proper adjective. It is as though we are subject to being dis-heartened - not unlike ancient Aztec worship practices. By contrast, our leaders should inspire us to “take heart,” to have courage (from the French word “coeur” - meaning heart).
But alas.
“Just wait until the next convention!”
Our leaders are going to do what they are going to do. Who knows? Maybe some of them agree with King of Kings? Maybe they have reasons and justifications for their silence. And, there is the old joke about episcopal consecrations involving removing the candidate’s spine. There is a reason why that one is perennial. But whatever the reason or reasons, it is up to others to fill in the leadership gap, and assure people in our synod (and those who are interested in our synod) who have been scandalized that this is not the usual practice, as well as to teach and encourage younger pastors (old dogs seldom learn new tricks, but we rejoice when they do) to consecrate the elements themselves, and to do so clearly and with reverence, without rushing and without frivolity, but with love, humility, and holy awe.
Indeed, the above-quoted comment is really the only defense that I have read of this practice. The advocates among us for “contemporary worship” (what a terribly Orwellian expression, as it is the liturgy, the Article 24 Mass, that is truly timeless and ever-contemporary) are strangely silent about this “consecration.” On one occasion, I put it bluntly to my interlocutor, “Do you approve of this kind of “consecration”? And the response was to sidestep the question altogether, to adopt a Laodicean lukewarmness that would neither confirm nor deny. This kind of refusal to answer the question is right out of the Pharisees’ playbook, and is indicative of a lack of confessional and testicular fortitude. At least the fellow above, as feeble as his ability to construct a proper English sentence is, has the courage of conviction to come out and say it - though he does so behind a pseudonym.
But at least it’s something. Kudos for that.
Dr. Eckardt reminds me of an anecdote about my dad when he was fourteen years old. Uncle Stan had married into the family, and on one occasion, while sitting around, offered the Beane men cigars. They all declined. Stan teased, “Isn’t there a man in this whole damn Beane family?” Fortunately for our family honor, my father, obviously awash in testosterone, said, “Gimme one of them cigars.” He lit it and smoked it in front of everyone, much to Uncle Stan’s delight.
Are there any men in the LCMS ministerium? Besides Eckardt? Yes. I know there are. In fact, there are many. But there are too many in our ministerium who seem to have adopted the Ethiopian eunuch as their patron saint. In his Christian Questions With Their Answers, Luther quipped: “To such a person no better advice can be given than this: first, he should touch his body to see if he still has flesh and blood.” Indeed, maybe some of our pastors ought to do some self-examination in the endocrine department. Perhaps the “CoWo” guys observe the Eleventh Commandment that they will defend their tribe at all costs, with absolute freedom taking preference in worship before the question of whether or not this “consecration” is right or wrong.
I do think the above comment is illustrative. He argues that in matters of the faith, there are no limits and no boundaries. This is essentially the principle of “Do What Thou Wilt,” that there are no “should,” and certainly no “shall” rubrics where it comes to worship. To them, Christian liberty is not a zone of freedom within boundaries, but rather, it is boundless. And why should we limit ourselves to “the catholic faith” as if it were the one “true faith”? In response to this very question, our forebears confessed - as we find on page 319-320 of Lutheran Service Book (LSB) (which is a confessional statement to which all of our pastors and congregations are bound): “Whoever desires to be saved must, above all, hold the catholic faith. Whoever does not keep it whole and undefiled will without doubt perish eternally. And the catholic faith is this, that we worship….”
Worship is the essence of the catholic faith, and we cannot be saved unless we confess it. Our worship is directed solely to the Holy Trinity who is also the Holy Unity. Worship and confession cannot be separated. And indeed, “whoever does not believe” the catholic faith “faithfully and firmly cannot be saved.”
It matters how people come together for praise and worship. Right after God revealed to Moses that He wants to be worshiped formally, with beauty, in a sanctuary set apart for worship, a place of opulence built with the finest of materials and craftsmanship, sparing no expense, and offered and led by ministers similarly vested with richness and beauty, making use of bells and incense and art - the Israelites were contemporaneously engaging in a different kind of worship. They claimed to be worshiping the same God: YHWH, but were simply doing so in a different style - one that included praise and worship typified by “noise” and “shouting", emotional fervor, fun, and even “play..”
Like modern Americans, these pioneers of entertaining, freestyle worship were playing at their worship.
The above commenter notes the source of the “power” of the worship as it is done at King of Kings: “the power of people coming together to praise 1 god almighty.” This is an honest confession, but it is wrong. The power of worship is the Word. Handling the Word is like handling high voltage power lines. It is not to be trivialized or played with. There may not be one absolute right way to consecrate the elements (e.g. spoken, sung, elaborately vested or modestly so, on an altar or at a hospital bedside - as circumstances dictate), but there are certainly wrong ways to do it.
Using a layman of either sex to do it is wrong. Using a paraphrase is wrong. This is indefensible, but it is defended de facto by those who have oversight, but who say nothing, month after month. And that leaves all of us to do nothing but confess. All we can do is say that this is an abomination. And that we will do. We will also lament. We will pray for courage for our leaders, praying with faith that eventually, the Lord will see to it that they be replaced by men of courage. We pray with the Psalmist: “How long, O Lord.” But meanwhile, men, fellow pastors, there is something you can do. For you have a duty to consecrate rightly and ritely in your own calling, confessing that this is not a matter for entertainment or triviality, that Jesus really did establish an office of the ministry, and that Oscar Feucht’s assertion, “Everyone a Minister” is simply wrong.
And we do rejoice in our Christian liberty. Pastors and churches are not identical clones of one another. But that said, in matters of worship, we are not free to deviate from the Word, or to be frivolous or offensive. Liberty is never absolute. Without boundaries, what we have is chaos - hence the origin of “Do what thou wilt” as a guiding principle that stands in opposition to the church catholic’s petition: “Thy will be done.”