Very few LCMS churches are as high church as the one described. Still, congregations that abandon the traditional liturgy in order to attract young people and “make the church grow” are likely to be disappointed. Well executed liturgy will beat a mediocre “contemporary” service every time. Congregations should do what they do well.

Traditional Liturgy is much easier to do well since it is not driven by a pastor trying to make up a service, or set the mood, or generate emotion, or flash and dazzle, or even music – but at its simplest it is word and action – doable in the meanest of situations and by the most mediocre of ability.

I really like the Lutheran Divine Services. When I was in H.S. I was exposed to contemporary non-denominational services and loved them, but now as an adult (in my 30′s) I find that I want the old school stuff back. The LCMS that I attend only has more contemporary services later in the morning; the traditional Divine Service is the early service. Because of the commute and my little ones, it is difficult for us to be there. At any rate, it is easy for me to see the appeal of these service formats since I attend both and like the traditional ones better.

The real stumbling block for many when it comes to “meditative liturgies” is that to truly appreciate them you have to actually believe in something to begin with.

I really like the Lutheran Divine Services. When I was in H.S. I was exposed to contemporary non-denominational services and loved them, but now as an adult (in my 30′s) I find that I want the old school stuff back. The LCMS that I attend only has more contemporary services later in the morning; the traditional Divine Service is the early service. Because of the commute and my little ones, it is difficult for us to be there. At any rate, it is easy for me to see the appeal of these service formats since I attend both and like the traditional ones better.
BTW I love your blog!

@gReuschling

That made my day! Excellent comment!

Being a pastor in a college town, we do draw a fair number of students and cadets in relation to the congregation’s size. And we do a fairly ‘high’ liturgy (but incense tends to incense certain folks (smile). FWIW: a couple of observations:
a. in the roiling changes since the 60s, there seems to be desire for stability. It is hard for me to contemplate, for instance, this generation can ask themselves the question: Why didn’t my parents abort me? b. a couple of the students have said, it’s about Holy Communion as a major reason for attending: in other words, Christ centered services, centered literally on His Body and Blood He gives to His people; c. I am against ‘doing liturgy’ in order to attract people; it is to be done confessionally and Biblically because “it is meet, right and so to do”, in season or out of season.

McCain response: Thanks for your note. The purpose I posted this was not to suggest we should do the liturgy to “attract people” but rather simply to underscore what many have been saying for several years that far from being a “turn off” or “hindrance to growth” the historic liturgy, well done, has “staying power” and serves well as a vehicle for the Gospel, contrary to what some would have us think.

In my own continuing search for a deeper walk with Christ, theology has taken the place of emotion. Part of that has involved leaving contemporary services and attending services that may not appeal to many of my peers. I hope that as people attend more services disguised as rock concerts, they will begin to try to dig a little deeper. Warm feelings and energetic worship only last so long. When the 20-30 crowd become the 60-70 crowd, I wonder how many will have held steadfast and how many will become bored with the glamor and bright lights. I need more meat and less milk and that is why the traditional service appeals to me.

I’m one of these young people (23 years old). Last year I converted from a semi-pop-Baptist background to the LCMS. For me, the study of church history coupled with some of Concordia St. Louis’ resources on iTunes drew me to historic Lutheranism and the liturgy that comes with it. I think in our age of increasing choices, as well as easy and wide-spread access to historical documents, it’s only natural for the ones who are very perceptive of the differences around them to seek for what has been the norm for centuries.

As much as I hate to throw feelings into the mix, there is definitely a preferable feeling to receiving God’s gifts in Word and sacrament presented through the liturgy than, say, the good feeling of laughter watching a pastor have stand-up hour on Sundays. I think the soul that yearns for God understands when it is being properly fed.

I myself am not against ‘contemporary’ musical style per se (I am here referring to musical settings alone, not lyrical/theological content). As a linguist, I tend to see differences in musical settings as similar to differences in languages. Just as languages differ depending on the culture, so too do musical settings. A series of phonetic sounds may be meaningful (and thus relevant) to one language without being meaningful to another. Likewise, what is meaningful musically may speak to one culture (and/or time) without necessarily being meaningful to another culture. In his “Open Letter on Translating,” Martin Luther makes the following comments in his explanation as to why he translated the way in which he translated:

“We do not have to ask about the literal Latin or how we are to speak German–as these asses do. Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common person in the market about this. We must be guided by their tongue, the manner of their speech, and do our translating accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.”

The point is clear. We need to ensure the Scripture we read – the Gospel we preach (and by extension the songs that we sing, the liturgies we use, etc.) remain intelligible to the culture in which we find ourselves. We should never change the content. But we must always ensure the “language” in which it appears is appropriate to the culture.

Are some young Christians today returning to traditional styles of worship? Certainly. Two friends of mine who were raised very low-church Evangelical have both gone high-church Anglican. But I must admit that in my demographic (as a 20-something myself) the vast majority of young Christians still seem incapable of speaking the “language” of a traditional music style. My advice? Why not write “contemporary hymns” and “contemporary liturgies”? We need not sacrifice theological depth and richness simply because we utilize an alternate style of music.

Well, there’s ‘contemporary’ and there’s ‘timeless,’ as well as ‘time-tested’.
As a once-upon-a-time 20-something myself, I had to grow into respect for–indeed, reliance upon–the timeless. In fact, the timelessness of the settings is a more perfect fit for the timelessness of the theology, as is the depth of the music for the depth of the theology.
Resistance to timelessness/time-testedness and depth is, in the end, resistance to that which has come from outside ourselves.
Can we not learn to let the liturgy do what it does: speak FOR us? Why must we forever clamor to imprint our worship with ourselves, our own experiences, tastes, and felt needs? In short, with our own limitations?

I am really skeptical about these kind of stories. I have been reading them since I was a young 20 something in love with the liturgy 30 years ago. I think I have read stories like this every year since. There have always been young people who are attracted to liturgy. Often young people with an interest in the fine arts or young people who are process reality intellectually prefer liturgy. Still the megachurches are in general younger in their demographic then the traditonal liturgical churches. Yes young people love the liturgy. Still many young people prefer contemporary worship.

Not only does God serve US with His gifts in the liturgy, but we are shaped and formed in how to pray, beginning here in our earthly life on to eternity. We already pray with the Holy Angels and the Redeemed who have gone on before us right here and now in the liturgy where we are joined to the church throughout space and time. It’s not about us and our personal tastes. When the church reflects too much of the surrounding culture something is not right. The Lutheran Reformation was conservative, retaining both its catholic and evangelical components.

I am a Lutheran without a church home because:
1) I will not attend a non-confessional Lutheran church (and even some Missouri Synod churches are non-confessional: the closest one to me is a “Purpose-Driven church” that uses the Purpose-Driven book in place of the bible (I’m not kidding).
2) As soon as I see a power-point presentation. a “multi-media sermon,” or a rock band during services, I never return.
Inflexible? Out of touch with “what’s happening” in the church? Guilty on both counts. I won’t make the effort to drive to any church that resembles my place of work on a corporate training day.

Pr. McCain at my comment #14: No, reading your blog postings I know you would not have suggested to have the Divine Service as a ‘marketing tool’and I did not think you were saying that. But clarify: I could imagine that suggestion coming from others and for me, it is literally tempting. “And the greatest treason is to do the right deed for the wrong reason” (TS Eliot, Murder in the Cathedral)@Pr.Schroeder

Oops, make that Pr. McCain at comment #7.