The Preaching Crisis
This is, appropriately, a fake picture…
While still in seminary, I heard the words “preaching crisis” applied to the LCMS. Now, I have heard many outstanding sermons, and I’m grateful for having heard so many during my time as a seminarian at CTS (2000-2004). But over the years (including my time as a layman), I have also heard sermons that are shockingly bad.
The worst one that comes to mind is one that I wish I had recorded for posterity. It was posted online at the website of a local congregation more than twenty years ago. The preacher was a Very Important Person in the LCMS, a member of one of our alphabet soup synod agencies - and he was quick to tell you so. This sermon was literally (and I don’t mean figuratively) the preacher yammering on about how he likes his pizza and chicken to be cooked and prepared. It was pure fluff. At the extreme end of this culinary tour de force, our Lord was finally mentioned in what sounded like an afterthought. It was a master class in how not to preach.
This is what is known by the ironic term: “relevance.”
I can think of few things less relevant (and reverent) than that objectively awful sermon. Crisis indeed!
I recently saw a clip from another such “relevant” LCMS pastor online. George Orwell famously coined the term “two minutes hate.” Well this was “one minute embarrassment.” It was so cringe, that I cannot bear to share the clip with you, or say the guy’s name - even though it was made public. But I am genuinely embarrassed for our ministerium, and I am pleading with our younger men to rise above this kind of thing. I am imploring our seminaries to continue doubling down to teach homiletics as a serious discipline to our future proclaimers of the Word.
Here it is:
Dressing a certain way for worship is not wrong. Singing hymns is not wrong. Singing praise songs is not wrong. Raising your hand for worship, it's not wrong. Not raising your hand for worship, it's not wrong, right? You know, doing high church liturgy, not wrong. Genuflecting - you know what genuflecting is? - It's when you make the sign of the cross in front of you and it's a reminder of your baptism when God placed this sign of the cross on you in the name of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit. It's powerful, it's not wrong. But what gets wrong is when all of a sudden we force any of those things on somebody else, because guess what, none of those things are prerequisites and requirements for Jesus loving you or saving you. You can use them. You can teach them. You can practice them. But you can't demand them.
First of all, there are indeed wrong ways to dress for worship. These guys are theoretical postmodernists, but I suspect that if a gal showed up in a thong bikini, or a guy came to church wearing a tee shirt with a big middle finger on it, I would hope that they would be asked to leave, or at least dress more appropriately for worship. But who knows? Maybe things are worse than even I think they are.
Secondly, this pastor, speaking authoritatively from the pulpit (figuratively, anyway, it was actually a music stand on a stage next to a guitar) during a sermon, lecturing about worship, said that the word “genuflect” means to make the sign of the cross. This is a CSL graduate from around twenty years ago, a former DCE, and a guy with not only an MDiv, but two degrees from two different Concordia colleges. How is it even possible?
I get when pastors leave their wheelhouse and start talking about things other than Word and Sacrament ministry. But worship is something pastors really ought to know something about, especially when they are, well, lecturing about worship. This would be like a firearms instructor calling a magazine a “clip,” or a cardiologist referring to the aorta as a “small vein.” This would be a big red flag making you wonder about the guy’s credentials.
But worst of all is the straw man fallacy. Who actually forces anyone to make the sign of the cross or to genuflect? Who actually does this? Is there even one actual example of this? Who actually says that these things are “prerequisites and requirements for Jesus loving you or saving you”? Anybody? Who “demands” that anyone make the sign of the cross or genuflect?
There is no easier law-preaching than making up imaginary sins of imaginary people.
These same pastors - who push a “do what thou wilt?” hermeneutic to try to defend using worship forms that originate from churches that deny the sacramental presence of our Lord, and thus replace the mystery of the Lord’s Supper with emotional effluvia, they who say: “Liturgy and non-liturgy are equal,” that there is no better or worse practice - often attend an annual conference called “Best Practices.”
You cannot make this stuff up.
Our confessions refer to the authentic Lutheran best practice for worship: “It can easily be judged that if the churches observed ceremonies correctly, their dignity would be maintained and reverence and piety would increase among the people” (emphasis added, Augsburg Confession, A Review of the Various Abuses That Have Been Corrected, 6). If ceremonies can be observed correctly, they can also be observed incorrectly. All ceremonies are not “created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” or rites.
Making the sign of the cross is an adiaphoron. It is neither mandated nor prohibited by Scripture. Nevertheless, it is encouraged as a best practice in our confessions (“Well, if you believe that sort of thing,” as my wife is wont to say). In fact, I wonder if this pastor and congregation are even using the Small Catechism to teach the faith to young and old. The sign of the cross appears in both the Morning and Evening Prayers in the Small Catechism. Why should a Lutheran pastor ever have to 1) explain what the sign of the cross is, and 2) defend its use in a sermon - if his members are being correctly and authentically catechized? The best way to teach is to set the example. We used to call that “leadership,” but now “leadership” means following whatever practices are being done outside of our Lutheran confession.
In the Large Catechism, Luther urges the sign of the cross as a best practice: “
Likewise, children should continue to cross themselves when anything monstrous or terrible is seen or heard. They can shout, “Lord God, protect us!” “Help, dear Lord Jesus!” and such. Also, if anyone meets with unexpected good fortune, however trivial, he says, “God be praised and thanked!” or “God has bestowed this on me!” and so on, just as the children used to learn to fast and pray to St. Nicholas and other saints before. This would be more pleasing and acceptable to God than all monasticism and Carthusian acts of holiness. (LC I:74).
There is no compulsion to either genuflect or make the sign of the cross. But in an age when people desire authenticity, encouraging best practices is certainly to be encouraged instead of adopting the credo of the Me Generation: “Let it all hang out.”
At any rate, the preaching crisis is indeed a thing. Our pastors ought to know what words mean if they’re going to use them in sermons, and especially if they’re going to scold other pastors and congregations for sins (real or imaginary). They should also know what authentic Lutheran worship best practices are when they are assuming to speak in their authoritative capacity as Lutheran preachers.
Sadly, such preachers reflect poorly on all of us. Maybe all we can do in the face of such “monstrous or terrible” sermons is to cross ourselves and cry out: “Lord God, protect us!”