LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 29

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

SYNODICAL REPORTS 29

R2-02
Commission on Worship

Introduction

Through His holy Word and Sacraments, Christ comes into our
midst and gives us life. Basking in the warmth of His forgiving
grace, we cannot help but give thanks for His mercies:

Give us lips to sing Thy glory,
Tongues Thy mercy to proclaim,

Throats that shout the hope that fills us,
Mouths to speak Thy holy name. (LW 328:5)

Forgiven and redeemed. we take the Good News of salvation
into our daily callings in our homes, places of employment, and
communities, sharing with others the love of God in Christ Jesus.

The Commission on Worship serves the Synod by promoting
worship practices in our congregations that are both faithful to
Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions and reflective of the
rich heritage of God’s people. Through a variety of means, the
commission seeks to “develop and deepen an understanding and
love for the Lutheran heritage in Christian worship” and to “rec-
ommend worship materials to the church” (Bylaw 3.928 a, c).

Building Consensus in Worship

The 1998 synodical convention passed Res. 2-10 “To Build
Consensus on Worship.” In considering the numerous overtures to
that convention which called for synodical action on all sides of
the issue, Res. 2-10 was crafted with the hope that a dialogue could
be initiated involving broad representation from within the Synod.
A critical piece of the resolution was

that the Commission on Worship bring together a forum represent-
ing the diversity of practices within the Synod ... for the purposes of in-
creasing understanding, building consensus in our docirine and practice
of worship, and providing inpul to ihe Commission on Worship as it
develops guidelines for worship.

For this process to be successful, the commission formulated
several assumptions. First, a process toward building consensus
would not be accomplished by a single, “national” meeting of ex-
perts. Second, an atmosphere in which meaningful dialogue could
occur would require a fair amount of trust among the participants,
and such trust would more likely occur if the participants were able
to meet on an ongoing basis.

On the basis of these assumptions, the commission developed a
three-part process. For the first phase, recommendations for partic-
ipants were sought from the following entities: President’s office,
Council of Presidents, Board for Congregational Services, Board
for Black Ministry Services, North American Missions, Depart-
ment of Youth Ministry, the conferences of large and growing
churches, the rural/smal] town standing committee, and the District
mission executives. The commission then appointed additional par-
ticipants who lived in geographical proximity to those already ap-
pointed. On Feb. 2!—23, 2000, these 20 representatives and the
members of the commission met together not only to discuss the
issue of worship but also to learn how to dea! with a controversial
topic in a respectful way under the guidance of Ted Kober of
PeaceMaker Ministries.

The second phase of the consensus-building process consisted
of the 20 participants returning home in pairs to establish 10 re-
gional teams that would begin ongoing discussions. The two lead-
ers of each team were instructed to agree mutually on a list of 8-10
individuals who would take part in the local discussions. The re-
gions included New England, Washington D.C./Baltimore, north-
ern Alabama/Tennessee, northern Ohio, Michigan (two teams),
metro St. Louis, eastern Nebraska, North Dakota, and Los Angeles.
Because representation was dependent on the names that were rec-
ommended to the commission, not al] areas of the country were
represented. Nevertheless, the Synod as a whole was well repre-

sented, including the east and west coasts, south and north, urban
and rural, with participants from congregations of every size.

The final phase came after a year of regional discussions when
the 20 leaders returned to St. Louis on Feb. 19-20, 2001, to report
on their efforts. Due to unexpected circumstances, two teams were
never able to convene and a third group had to postpone its meeting
due to inclement weather. Nevertheless, the success of this process
was quickly evident. Because the regional teams were given com-
plete freedom regarding the composition of their groups and the
way in which they would conduct their discussions, the reports
quickly demonstrated a diversity of insights and approaches. Sev-
eral teams had as many as four meetings and spent considerable
time in discussion. One team consisted of 16 students from one of
our Concordias. Another team chose to invite all of its District’s
pastors to a two-day forum. A number of teams included church
musicians and interested laypeople. All teams included a broad rep-
resentation of interests and perspectives.

Because they had so many valuable things to report, it is chal-
lenging to present their findings in summary fashion. Several teams
reported that at the conclusion of their meetings, a number of par-
ticipants were frustrated that consensus had not been reached. Yet,
these same teams reported that they had very congenial meetings,
where candid and respectful discussion took place. Furthermore,
all teams reported that there was a genuine interest and desire for a
forthright discussion of the issues.

Repeatedly, the teams reported that there was general agreement
in'a number of areas. For example, there was nearly unanimous
agreement that doctrine is important when it comes to worship. Ob-
viously, this requires further examination in order to identify agree-
ment on the specific doctrinal content that shapes our worship.
Likewise, there was consistent agreement in the desire to be faith-
ful to Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. Finally, most
teams reported that music is a major issue in our current debate and
will require continued study in order to understand its function and
role in worship.

It came as no surprise to any of our participants that there were
some areas of disagreement. For example, one team reported diffi-
culty in agreeing on acommon definition of worship. Another team
struggled with the question of whether worship is primarily for the
church member or the visitor. Several wrestled with the challenging
issue of unity versus uniformity and the question of the relation-
ship of the individual congregation to the Synod as a whole. Others
expressed a realization that diversity has come to be expected in
worship; yet, there was disagreement on the nature or limits of such
diversity.

From the reports that were received, the commission has begun
to draw several tentative conclusions. First, there is a strong inter-
est in coming to a better understanding of the various positions re-
garding worship. As one report put it, “Our group did not conclude
that there should be a worship détente, a kind of ‘can’t we just get
along’ arrangement. What is called for is the exercise of evangeli-
cal persuasion by love and truth.” The commission found encour-
agement in learning that most people in the Synod genuinely de-
sire to work on this issue.

Second, we learned that we can talk calmly about worship.
Even before beginning this process, it was already fairly evident
that much of the public rancor that has characterized the worship
debate over the past two decades has not had a positive effect.
While there have been attempts at dialogue, a safe forum for such
discussion has often been lacking. What the commission has
learned from this process is that because of the divisiveness of the
debate over worship, it is essential that a deliberate process be es-
tablished in order to initiate a productive dialogue.

Closely related to the previous conclusion is a third one,
namely, that before consensus can be reached, relationships of trust
must first be built. This suggests that the process of building con-

2001 Convention Workbook