tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post5661489991600859921..comments2024-03-29T04:31:15.219-05:00Comments on Pastoral Meanderings: Couldn't have said it better and not even as good...Pastor Petershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10653554256101480140noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post-75804757350358819632022-08-15T07:07:53.471-05:002022-08-15T07:07:53.471-05:00I don’t think anyone gets that worked up over bell...I don’t think anyone gets that worked up over bells, except maybe handbell choirs which are kitschy in a uniquely 1980s Midwestern Lutheran way. The only issue with reintroducing bells at the consecration beyond the testimony of Gerhard that they, to no one’s surprise, serve no purpose for edification, which is after all the entire Lutheran approach to church ceremonies, is the statement by Luther that ceremonies should not be reintroduced in a congregation once they have been discarded. In practice, this means that if Luther’s retention of bell ringing for the sake of order and edification was reimagined evangelically as inviting the congregation to pay attention to the Word which had previously been spoken inaudibly, once the Word became spoken or chanted loudly as the Lutherans did, there was no need to ring a bell alongside it. If the original purpose of the bell was to signal the transubstantiation because the Verba was mumbled secretly, then any Lutheran would be hard pressed to explain much less champion its reintroduction, especially since the Saxons seemed to have no idea why they even did it.<br /><br />Unless of course the motivation for reintroduction is less about Luther, whose elevation was discontinued by the Saxon Lutherans, and more about conformity with medieval catholic church ceremonies for purposes beyond order and edification. Which would be a good discussion to have.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com