Personal Relationship? Yes and No.

About a month ago I posted on the LCMS's Facebook page asking what the synod believed about a couple popular concepts in Christianity today were. One of the things I asked about was whether or not the notion of a "personal relationship with God" was Biblical. In the past I thought it was, but when I started questioning it, the evidence seemed to lean the other way.

I was surprised to receive my answer from the LCMS's Director of Worship, Rev. Will Weedon. I guess my questions were deep enough that they wanted someone high up in the administrative hierarchy to address it. His answer was a "Yes and no" sort of response. He was clear that we do have a personal relationship, but perhaps not in the sense that people like to think of it as.

The way I understand it, when there is talk of a personal relationship with God, it's sort of an informal friendship kind of thing. Phrases like "Jesus is my homeboy" or, as 13 year old girls struggling with being alone say, "Jesus is my boyfriend." This kind of mentality makes Jesus Christ the kind of person you'd go to the bar and have a beer with. A sort of buddy-buddy with God kind of thing. Then there is the notion that if you're sufficiently on fire for God, that he will routinely speak to you.

As Rev. Weedon explained, the kind of relationship we have with God isn't a buddy-buddy kind, but rather a Father-child one. We are entitled to come boldly before God and ask for what we need, and confide our troubles in him. We are also called to be obedient to God, and can trust that he will be faithful and trustworthy to us. Does this entail that God will give us divine revelations every other day? Probably not. Indeed we may not "hear" from God very often. But that is alright - we have all we need to hear from God in the Bible. The truth that may be tough for some to read seems to be that God is not our buddy but he is our Abba Father. Let's not trivialize it by making him our drinking buddy.

Lectionary & The Holy Spirit

It seems that most denominations use lectionaries in there services. A lectionary is a sort of schedule of verses to be used on a given Sunday. The churches I attend seem to use three-year lectionaries. I don't think that the lectionary ends up quoting every piece of the Bible, but instead covers the main points.

To the best of my knowledge, neither of the AG churches I attended had any sort of lectionaries for there Bible readings. Certainly we were encouraged to use reading plans - lectionaries in and of themselves - for our personal devotional time, but typically the chosen reading for the worship service wasn't as planned out. I went to two AG churches. The first one's pastor was more methodical, choosing a book and going through it in a structured fashion. The second one's pastor went with what he felt the Holy Spirit leading him to, meaning we might go anywhere in the Bible.

The LCMS uses the Revised Common Lectionary, which was produced in the early 90s. I haven't been involved with Lutheranism long enough to really have a "feel" for it or anything.

There is something inside me that questions the use of a lectionary. Remember, these things pre-plan the Bible verses used for sermons, and may very well be used for decades or centuries, without variation. Does this stop the Holy Spirit from working as he would like? Is it possible that God may intend for a pastor to speak to his congregation about one topic, but because that's not what the lectionary calls for, it doesn't happen? Or is it the case that, in his omniscience and omnipotence, God is able to use the lectionary and get his point across to the believers just by using this structured system? Does God want a lectionary to be used?

Honestly, I feel like God is able and willing to use lectionaries. Mainly because it's what's been done for thousands of years. Jews used lectionaries, as early as the time of Moses according to some. The Catholic church has used them for the entirety of its existence, and even Lutheran churches continue to use it. The way I see it, even if these don't give the Holy Spirit the kind of "free reign" seen in other types of churches, God can still work in peoples' lives through the passages prescribed for a given Sunday.

Preserving Truth

There are a couple things I've noticed about how services are carried out that kind of impress me.

First, it's how Christ-centric the service is. Jesus gets seriously emphasized in the structure of a typical Sunday service. It begins with confession and absolution, which reminds us of our sinful nature and how Jesus has won forgiveness for us. Instead of just one part of Scripture being read, as I have seen to happen in the Pentecostal and Baptist churches, there are three sections read including a part of a Gospel - ensuring that Jesus will somehow be mentioned. Sermons vary in content but invariably speak of Christ. The creeds, whatever may be spoken, talk of Jesus and his actions. Communion is seen as a time where the bread and wine take on the essence of Jesus's body and blood (that's another post in and of itself right there). And it goes on. If it were of any question at first of who the service was about, a person would see quickly it's about Jesus.

Second, it's how the order of actions in the service are designed to preserve truth. There is a lot more that goes on in a Lutheran service than in, say, Pentecostal or Baptist. For those kinds of churches it seems to generally be something like: opening hymn, prayer, greeting, worship, sermon, benediction, and closing hymn. The sermon tends to take up the largest chunk of time. In the Lutheran church there are many more things which don't change - confession, absolution, the creeds, the Lord's Prayer, Communion, and the standard songs if it's a traditional service. I think these unchanging parts are pretty important, because they prevent theology from being changed wrongly. The preacher might accidentally or intentionally try to include false teachings into their sermons but the stuff that's around in every service will make sure no major doctrine is distorted.

What Are The Lyrics, Again?

Martin Luther held music in high regard. He is quoted as saying that second to the Word of God, music is one of the best and most powerful things out there. In a traditional Lutheran service you are bound to find a lot of music being used.

Such is the nature of my home church. There is a whole lot of singing done in the service, be it hymns or things with strange Latin names - the Kyrie, Nunc dimittis, Sanctus, and so on. Even the word "Amen" is sung. Personally I don't mind this, since singing is strongly present throughout Christian history, and I would imagine there was plenty of it in ancient Judaism.

The hymnals contain something like 650 songs, and each week we seem to use different songs. Then there are the ones which are considered normal parts of the service. Trying to learn how to sing all these songs is quite the hassle. I know how many beats a half note or full note with the dot next to it lasts, but otherwise I never learned how to read music. I couldn't tell you what a C flat or a G sharp sounds like. I don't know what octave I sing in. I learn music by listening to it repeatedly and getting a feel for the tune and lyrics. The hymns are easier to learn since they at least have a repeating rhythm, even though they don't normally rhyme too well. It's the Kyrie or Sanctus that gets me - they have no obvious rhythm. Of course they were also made centuries ago, in a totally different culture where tastes in music were different.

Right now, I don't really chime in with the singing. Or if I do, it's really, really crappy singing because I barely understand the tune. And I've yet to hear the same hymn twice. Getting a feel for the musical aspect is something that I will need to get used to. I'll probably just take it one thing at a time, learning one then moving on to the other.