The New Methods - Subserving the Word of God

It has become common in LCMS circles to utilize creative, attention-getting methods in order to gain an opportunity to proclaim the Gospel -- implying that the Gospel might not have had such an audience without something creative and attention-getting. This creative attention-getting seems to be viewed as a kind of "pre-evangelism" and may be manifested in a variety of methods ranging (not meaning to lump them all together) from pop-music-worship to hot-air balloons and even billboards which say "JeffersonHills [Lutheran] Church Sucks, signed Satan."

For some people, the more creative an idea is, the more commendable it is -- and that rationale has led to some rather outlandish extremes with which even those who use creative ideas are not comfortable. Chuck Finney has video clips of some of these new methods on steroids. The Wittenburg Door awards the "Loser of the Month" green weenies to some standouts as well.

On one hand, objections are raised as to whether these creative, attention-grabbing items and activities are "gimmicks" and part of a bait-and-switch scheme while on the other hand those who participate in them are offended at such criticism. The latter contend that the items and activities are salutary efforts to attract the attention of people to the Gospel -- people who wouldn't normally or naturally be interested in hearing the Word of God, Christ, repentance, grace and faith.

When people have been attracted in this way, those who avail themselves of such methods intend and attempt to redirect people in what they call an "opportunity to proclaim the Gospel" but in some cases, the new measures may be a total repudiation of historic liturgy and Lutheran orthodoxy.

I hope that this introduction is a fair assessment of a situation which needs clarification among those associated with each other in the LCMS.

Are these methods something new, previously unknown in the Church, that St. Paul, Chrysostom, Luther, Chemnitz, and Pieper never imagined -- but would have approved? Has the LCMS had any official position on this type of strategem? And rather than arguing in generalities, might we address the specifics?

A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod [Adopted 1932] may have something to say about it in the article dealing with the Means of Grace:

"Whatever activities do not either directly apply the Word of God or subserve such application we condemn as 'new methods,' unchurchly activities, which do not build, but harm the Church."

What does it mean to "subserve" the Word of God?

What were the "new methods" or "unchurchly activities" which the Brief Statement condemned as not building but harming the Church? Is the term "new methods" to be identified with Charles Finney's "New Measures"? (See Michael Horton's article on Finney's New Measures.)

I believe we get a better sense of the issue by holding a debate in the public square. In future posts, I hope to spend more time investigating the historical background of "new methods" in the LCMS -- and reviewing what the Word of God and our Confessions say about evangelism, conversion, and the Means of Grace. But for the present, perhaps readers would like to post some salient observations, historic references and questions without harangues, diatribes or insinuations.

Finally, it seems to me from experiences at other sites, that people quite often are more upset about the tone of posts or about making judgments than they are with the premises themselves. People can't seem to get by the style and address the substance. The comments and responses are often more about the way something was said than what actually was said -- though it seems to me that people ought to be able to overlook uncharitable hyperboles while still getting at the sum and substance of the matter. Thus I wonder if this discussion will be any different even if it is hotly contested.

The proper form will be to state a premise and defend it with reasons -- and to react by referencing a specific sentence and then responding to it. And it may also be helpful at some point to state the things on which the controverted positions are agreed in the course of dealing with the disagreements.

In any case, if you are squeamish about such things, it might be better not to enter the comments area. And who knows? Maybe none of the three visitors to this site who actually read this post will care to comment anything at all.

A Lutheran Vinedresser

Friedrich Muench (1798?—1881), trained as a Lutheran minister in Germany, typified the enthusiastic style of the German winegrowers of Missouri. "With the growth of the grape," he wrote, "every nation elevates itself to a higher degree of civilization." The winery he founded in Augusta, Missouri, is in operation today. (State Historical Society of Missouri)

A History of Wine in America: From the Beginnings To Prohibition by Thomas Pinney
(UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS Berkeley · Los Angeles · Oxford, © 1989 The Regents of the University of California) includes an account of a vinedresser who had been trained for the Lutheran ministry:

The philanthropic and literary farmer Friedrich Muench, of Washington, Warren County, a man trained to the Lutheran ministry in the University of Giessen and one of the original emigrants attracted by the blandishment of Gottfried Duden's description of the Missouri country, published the earliest treatise that I have found issuing from the Missouri German community.[94] His "Anleitung zum Weinbau in Nordamerika" ("Directions for Winegrowing in North America") appeared in the Mississippi Handelszeitung in 1859; a later version in book form appeared at St. Louis in 1864 as Amerikanische Weinbauschule; this went through three editions, and was translated in 1865 as School jar American Grape Culture: Brief but Thorough and Practical Guide to the Laying Out of Vineyards, the Treatment of Vines, and the Production of Wine in North America.

Muench, or "old Father Muench" as he grew to be called, had been growing grapes since 1846 and continued to do so until 1881, "when he was found dead among his beloved vines, one fine winter's morning of that year, with the pruning shears still in his hand, in his 84th year." Something of Muench's high-minded style may be had from this passage in his School for American Grape Culture:

"If it prove but moderately remunerative, the vine-dresser, free, lord of his own possessions, in daily intercourse with peaceful nature, is a happier and more contented man than thousands of those who, in our large cities, driven about by the thronging crowd, rarely attain true peace and serenity of mind. With the growth of the grape every nation elevates itself to a higher grade of civilization—brutality must vanish, and human nature progresses." (P. 11)

The Hymnal for the 2008 Spelling Bee

The winning word for the Scripps 2008 National Spelling Bee contest was: GUERDON.

I just happened to know that word from my familiarity with stanza 4 of Hymn #513 in The Lutheran Hymnal:

If I find Him, if I follow,
What His guerdon here?
"Many a sorrow, many a labor,
Many a tear."

Big Words for Little Children

Sanctimonious. Eau de toilette. Commode. Frappe. Hideous. Banshee. These are not the kind of words we would expect many children to know — or spell. (I myself had to crack open the dictionary to check “commode” and “frappe.”) These very words, however, were heard in the first fifteen minutes of Casper, a cartoon I sat down one Saturday years ago to watch with my sons. This program was rated “Y” which meant that it was suitable for children under 7.

I watched this cartoon from a rather different perspective than my sons. Not only did I wonder about the propriety of them watching ghosts being frappeed in a commode, but I also wondered what was going on in their minds since they hadn’t the slightest idea what such words meant. Did they come to associate these words with what they saw — or did they pass through one ear and out the other, making no concrete connection with the glassey-eyed, mezmerized gaze into the boob tube?

Schools in general have been dumbing down the curriculum for the children. The latest thinking in the elementary education field is that children should be given only five vocabulary words since studies have shown that most children can’t remember more than that. And there are scores of Christian education pundits who would dumb down the liturgy and hymnody of our church, espousing children’s sermons and musical ditties with the belief that such childishness is appropriate for children. It is not.

Our children may run into some big words in our hymns and liturgy which they don’t understand. We need not feel compelled to present an etymological lecture about every word encountered. A passing attempt will suffice while our children are growing into their vocabulary. In time, they will be taught what such “difficult” words mean instead of being programmed to avoid the big words, letting them fall into the oblivion of disuse.

Words can be received and stored up before the meaning of them becomes known. The subsequent knowing, especially regarding the words of faith, will not be achieved solely by experience, intuition, or rationalization. If they were, there would be little left for the Holy Spirit to do. We might well prefer that our children not learn words by associating them with the antics of animated characters, but by having them associated with the living Word of God. Thus they will come to know and love “big” words — words judged to be big not because of the number of syllables, but because of the wealth of meaning and life conveyed therein. Justification. Expiation. Incarnate. Propitiation. Christocentric. Forensic. Sanctification.

P.S. If you find yourself wishing to recall the lyrics of Casper the Friendly Ghost theme song or have other cartoon trivia in mind, check out Toon Tracker.

Can't Get Enough?

If you have a need to spend more time reading Lutheran blogs, you can do the equivalent of one-stop shopping at the Lutheran Blog Directory - "Here I Blog."