The evangelical Lutheran worship book is teh crazy.
this is a pretty theological post, so read only if you really, really want to.
Went with my friend's family to church this morning to check out the cranberry book, Evangelical Lutheran Worship, which is the service book. My friend and her mom had mentioned to me that the Nicene Creed and the Apostle's Creed had been changed and that the whole layout of the service made no sense.
Now I see what they mean. The changes to the creeds are odd and go against traditional wordings of them (yet they leave in the "and the Son" part? Which isn't, in fact, part of the original?). But I tend to agree with my friend's mom that the changes to the creed really sound, well, Mormon. Like as in the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary instead of the creedal "by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary and was made man." Oy. Lutherans, you got some esplainin' to do!
But the worst part was the fact that the ten different communion settings vary only in the musical settings for the various parts of the liturgy. No real substantive differences as my Episco-Friends (we must start a league of superheroes NOW) will testify, Rite I is substantively different from Rite II, and Eucharistic Prayers A, B, C, and D are all different in their language and theological emphases. For example, Prayer C is all modern-y and leaves a fluffy (ie not good) taste in my mouth while Prayer D feels ancient and inspired. But I digress. The ten 'settings' aren't different substantively yet they make the service unwieldy because one still has to flip through it trying to find the right place. The hymns aren't bad (I think I can actually sing them) and I didn't get enough time with the psalter, so I can't say anything there. But it means that, should the Episcopal Church stop existing tomorrow, I'd have to be Roman Catholic. Oy. The Mass (which apparently the Lutherans aren't too keen on calling it that) is waaaay too important to me.
I'm pretty sure the local congregation practices the "open table" theology of communion which is against church tradition and good theological practice. Communion should be received only by the baptized, not just anyone. It seems mean, it seems exclusionary, but it makes good theological sense. If baptism is more or less rendered irrelevant for the fullness of the church's worship (which is Holy Communion), then isn't baptism itself rendered null? Doesn't it become just a sign of church membership instead of a real and substantive change in one's being? A state of being which then calls us to be the "very members incorporate in the mystical body of [the] Son, the blessed company of all faithful people; and ... also heirs, through hope, of [the] everlasting kingdom"? While we are good and right not to damn non-Christians to hell because they aren't Christian, we don't declare non-Christians saints. Gandhi was a great man who taught us Christians some things about the political consequences of the Gospel, but he wasn't a Christian. He was a devout Hindu. I will not declare him a part of the mystical body of the Son just because it seems nice. Being a saint is a real heavy burden which Gandhi did not elect to bear. He did not elect to bear Christ's cross, to be witness to the Resurrection of our Savior, or to proclaim the Good News to all people. All of these are requirements of church-proclaimed saints. Might Gandhi be in heaven proclaiming God's praises as a saint? Yes. But for that to happen Gandhi would have had to convert in heaven (oh goodness that sounds Mormon) to the Christian faith. But should we, like the Mormons, make him a part of the church posthumously? No.
So I wonder why ECUSA is in communion with ELCA? Our Eucharistic theology isn't similar, our understandings of ordination are significantly different. I wonder if this full communion stuff is just a part of Mainline Protestantism's attempt to become more socially powerful. I think the churches need to do some good, old-fashioned family arguing instead of just trying to pretend like everything's all good and well. Communion is a big deal, and it shouldn't be approached so lightly. We need to fight and clarify why we're Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Moravian. If being Methodist isn't significantly different from being Lutheran, then why aren't they united? Same for all the others. If there are fractions in the Body of Christ, it better be for a good reason. A damn good reason.
Went with my friend's family to church this morning to check out the cranberry book, Evangelical Lutheran Worship, which is the service book. My friend and her mom had mentioned to me that the Nicene Creed and the Apostle's Creed had been changed and that the whole layout of the service made no sense.
Now I see what they mean. The changes to the creeds are odd and go against traditional wordings of them (yet they leave in the "and the Son" part? Which isn't, in fact, part of the original?). But I tend to agree with my friend's mom that the changes to the creed really sound, well, Mormon. Like as in the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary instead of the creedal "by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary and was made man." Oy. Lutherans, you got some esplainin' to do!
But the worst part was the fact that the ten different communion settings vary only in the musical settings for the various parts of the liturgy. No real substantive differences as my Episco-Friends (we must start a league of superheroes NOW) will testify, Rite I is substantively different from Rite II, and Eucharistic Prayers A, B, C, and D are all different in their language and theological emphases. For example, Prayer C is all modern-y and leaves a fluffy (ie not good) taste in my mouth while Prayer D feels ancient and inspired. But I digress. The ten 'settings' aren't different substantively yet they make the service unwieldy because one still has to flip through it trying to find the right place. The hymns aren't bad (I think I can actually sing them) and I didn't get enough time with the psalter, so I can't say anything there. But it means that, should the Episcopal Church stop existing tomorrow, I'd have to be Roman Catholic. Oy. The Mass (which apparently the Lutherans aren't too keen on calling it that) is waaaay too important to me.
I'm pretty sure the local congregation practices the "open table" theology of communion which is against church tradition and good theological practice. Communion should be received only by the baptized, not just anyone. It seems mean, it seems exclusionary, but it makes good theological sense. If baptism is more or less rendered irrelevant for the fullness of the church's worship (which is Holy Communion), then isn't baptism itself rendered null? Doesn't it become just a sign of church membership instead of a real and substantive change in one's being? A state of being which then calls us to be the "very members incorporate in the mystical body of [the] Son, the blessed company of all faithful people; and ... also heirs, through hope, of [the] everlasting kingdom"? While we are good and right not to damn non-Christians to hell because they aren't Christian, we don't declare non-Christians saints. Gandhi was a great man who taught us Christians some things about the political consequences of the Gospel, but he wasn't a Christian. He was a devout Hindu. I will not declare him a part of the mystical body of the Son just because it seems nice. Being a saint is a real heavy burden which Gandhi did not elect to bear. He did not elect to bear Christ's cross, to be witness to the Resurrection of our Savior, or to proclaim the Good News to all people. All of these are requirements of church-proclaimed saints. Might Gandhi be in heaven proclaiming God's praises as a saint? Yes. But for that to happen Gandhi would have had to convert in heaven (oh goodness that sounds Mormon) to the Christian faith. But should we, like the Mormons, make him a part of the church posthumously? No.
So I wonder why ECUSA is in communion with ELCA? Our Eucharistic theology isn't similar, our understandings of ordination are significantly different. I wonder if this full communion stuff is just a part of Mainline Protestantism's attempt to become more socially powerful. I think the churches need to do some good, old-fashioned family arguing instead of just trying to pretend like everything's all good and well. Communion is a big deal, and it shouldn't be approached so lightly. We need to fight and clarify why we're Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Moravian. If being Methodist isn't significantly different from being Lutheran, then why aren't they united? Same for all the others. If there are fractions in the Body of Christ, it better be for a good reason. A damn good reason.