Borrowed and maybe a repeat. . .

This is what passes for church in Germany.  At least in Roman Catholic Germany.  If the link does not work, try this: https://x.com/i/status/1905328689564287102.  In any case, it is worth remembering that the Roman Catholic Church in Germany lost the equivalent of a very large diocese for Rome or, in Lutheran terms, a Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, last year alone.  For the first time, fewer than 20 million Roman Catholics live in Germany, according to the 2024 Church statistics published by the German Bishops’ Conference (DBK) on Thursday, March 27.  Only some 1.3 million attend Mass.  Ourch.  As it was once said by Sen. Everett Dirksen of the US budget, a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon it adds up to real money.  In church terms, a diocese here and a dioceses here and pretty soon it adds up to some real losses.  There is no room for Lutheran smugness here.  We are bleeding off people at an alarming rate as well.  So the guy in the video presumes that the perceived relevance of the faith in the eyes of those in the pews is the problem.  Translate that to if we don't change we will die.  Lutherans hear and believe it all the time.  We must adapt.  We must change.  We must be relevant.

My question today is if giving into the press to be "relevant" and adapting worship to what some listen to on their playlists will help save the Church or is it killing that same Church?  You tell me.  During all those dark ages of the 1910s through 1950s when we had solemn, predictable worship (sometimes in a language not spoken by the folks in the pews), the numbers were growing.  At the time my congregation was being formed, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod was starting a new congregation every 54 hours or so.  Growth was explosive rather than incremental.  The percentage of those who claimed the faith and were in worship each week was high -- making today's numbers an embarrassment as much as a crisis.  We were growing but, more importantly, we were keeping the folks who joined in worship and in the life of the Church through their faithfulness.  

Today it is highly likely that you could walk into any Roman or Lutheran or Presbyterian or Baptist or non-denominational gathering and find the same song list playing and find a casual atmosphere in a living room sort of setting (where comfort and entertainment are key).  Even when the outline of the liturgy is present, it is there only in a shadow of its former robust self.  Sermons preach happy talk to people who want to be happy and the offensive words of the Bible (sin, death, etc.) are avoided in favor of the promotion of wellness and satisfaction and security.  This was heralded as the way for a Christianity that seemed to have lost its way recover its vitality and life.  Instead, it is literally killing us.  The Baptist Lifeway study indicated that the folks who do not go to church would prefer buildings that looked like churches used to look instead of the bland mall type structures being erected today.  I am convinced that this is also code for the fact that they also want churches to act like churches and not glorified entertainment or self-help venues.  Are we failing to reach those who are not Christian because we are too unlike their everyday lives and choices and tastes or because we are too much like them and have nothing compelling to offer?  Are we failing to keep those we have or keep them in worship more than once a month or so because we have too much liturgy, reverence, solemnity, doctrinal preaching and teaching, music that tells Christ's story, etc.?  

It would seem that in nearly every denomination there is a split happening between those old staid and stodgy folk who want to keep worship and catechesis as it was and those who want to ditch it in favor of something new.  We certainly feel it as Lutherans and so does Rome (if they care to admit it).  I suspect it is far more widespread than other presumed causes for the great divide among us.  We have worked so hard to reconcile and retain the different sides.  Has it been worth it?  In one sense, by keeping both camps in the one church body, we have presented a confusing identity to the people outside us and those in the pew.  Who are we really?  I may be a curmudgeon but I suspect we all know the real answer to that question.  The sad conclusion is not that some want a different, softer, gentler, kinder, more relevant and diverse Christianity but they do not want Christianity at all -- at least the kind that reflects the historic Christian dogma and life drawn from and expressed in the Scriptures.  This is not a fight over what Christianity really is or is not but between those who want to be Christian in every identifiable way that has been expressed before and those who do not.  In my dark days I just wish we would recognize it and part ways.  Then, perhaps, those who want to take Christianity seriously might find a way to heal their divisions and present a consistent, historic, and orthodox faith to the world.