God's voice is always musical. . .

One thing I learned from J. S. Bach is that God's voice is music, always musical.  The voice of God is not strictly words but the sound of music – complete with all its harmony, counterpoint, rhythm, form, etc...  It is a language that accompanies the words. I think it a rather modern idea that music exists as its own idiom and that it exists for the purpose of pleasure or the expression of emotion.  Bach taught me that the voice of God is music and this is the language of God.  His Word literally sings.  As a Lutheran Bach came by this naturally.  For us liturgy is simply sung Scripture –whether word for word as it appears in the book or paraphrased.

While for many of us or even most music is a soundtrack and not the screenplay, the success of it all is measured by the words and music that fuse together to become one.  It is surely that way for music in service to the Word.  It does not provide a sound but rather becomes something new when wedded to the Word of God.  The two become one.  It pulls you in and fills you with its peace and harmony.  How sad that it is now almost universally divorced from the context that gives it meaning and power, purpose and majesty. 

Though some reformers were hesitant about music, not Luther.  “First then, looking at music itself, you will find that from the beginning of the world it has been instilled and implanted in all creatures, individually and collectively.  For nothing is without sound or harmony.  Even the air, which of itself is invisible and imperceptible to all our senses, and which, since it lacks both voice and speech, is the least musical of all things, becomes sonorous, audible, and comprehensible when it is set in motion….Music is still more wonderful in living things, especially birds….And yet, compared to the human voice, all this hardly deserves the name of music, so abundant and incomprehensible is here the munificence and wisdom of our most gracious Creator.” in Luther’s Works, vol. 53, pp. 322. 

He commended music as the supreme gift of the divine -- second only to His Word.  “We can mention only one point (which experience confirms), namely, that next to the Word of God, music deserves the highest praise.  She is mistress and governess of those human emotions….which as masters govern men or more often overwhelm them….For whether you wish to comfort the sad, to terrify the happy, to encourage the despairing, to humble the proud, to calm the passionate, or to appease those full of hate….what more effective means than music could you find?” Ibid., 323. 

Again, in a 1530 letter, Luther wrote,“Except for theology, [music] alone produces what otherwise only theology can do, namely a calm and joyful disposition” (Robin A. Leaver, “Luther on Music.” Lutheran Quarterly, 2006).  Luther did not speak of music as the domain for the learned alone nor of something distant but as immediate and profound, for the commoner and peasant equal to the scholar.  From Bernard of Clairvaux to Thomas Aquinas plus those who went before (David and his harp) right down to the modern day, music is given by God from His own heart of congregational song.  Even more than giving a voice back to the congregation again, Luther sought to teach the whole counsel of Scripture through the music of the worship service. Luther said, “God has His gospel preached through music, too.”  He was fond of the rubric “say and sing”  -- not simply as God's directive to us but as God's practice for us, too.

It is God's medium to us in such way that the simple words become song and it is our medium to God in such way that our words become praise.  Can we say too much about it?   For the God who sings is the God we know in Christ by the power of the Spirit.

Henkel time again!!!

This year's Henkel Conference is scheduled for August 17-18, 2026.

Register through Eventbrite by clicking here.  You can be added to the conference email distribution list by sending a request to: henkel@ascensionmadison.com.

Those scheduled to present include:

•  Mollie Hemingway, Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist, Senior Journalism Fellow at Hillsdale College, Fox News contributor, and best-selling author
• Scott Yenor, Chair of the American Citizenship Initiative at The Heritage Foundation and Professor of Political Science at Boise State University
• Alex Newman, president of Liberty Sentinel Media
• Noelle Mering, Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in the Life and Family Initiative and columnist for the Catholic Herald
• Korey Maas, Chairman and Associate Professor of History at Hillsdale College
• plus more TBA! 

Not a straight line downward trend. . .

A friend sent me some numbers regarding the enrollments at Concordia Theological Seminary in Ft. Wayne and Concordia Seminary in St. Louis. Although we often think that there has been a long and gradual decline in the graduates presented for ordination, the reality is slightly different and it does not quite fit the scenarios offered by those who would like to make radical changes in the way Missouri forms pastors.  I thought it might be worth a look.

Taking Liberty University out of the mix (for what I would call obvious reasons), the whole of the schools covered by the Association of Theological Schools (the accrediting agency) shows that numbers for the total combined enrollment did, indeed, gradually decline year by year from 2016 through 2024.  

2016—29,282
2017—28,597
2018—28,597
2019—28,531
2020—28,183* Covid Year
2021—26,828
2022—25,437
2023—23,926
2024—23,812

That represents an 18%+ decline overall.  Now, if you did figure in Liberty when it acquired ATS accreditation in 2018, the numbers would be slightly different but typically American seminaries counted by ATS dropped steadily and rather evenly over the years.  For Missouri the situation is a little different.  Yes, there was some decline but not nearly as pronounced nor as predictable as the ATS numbers reveal.

Average enrollments for Ft. Wayne and St. Louis are rather steady.  A decline at Ft. Wayne of 8% and at St. Louis of a little over 15% and for the two together a little more than 12%.  This means that we are in a holding pattern more than a crash and burn scenario.  Those who wish to reshape how we train our pastors need to pay attention.

2016—    159            209
2017—    157            208
2018—    158            191
2019—    145            191
2020—    152            201
2021—    158            179
2022—    160            179
2023—    161            188
2024—    146            176       

We should not be consoled by these numbers nor should we slack in our efforts to recruit men for the pastoral ministry but neither should we presume that this decline is a continuous trajectory that signals a need for radical action.  If anything, it should give us a bit of breathing room to be deliberate and careful to make sure that we don't screw things up in an effort to fix something that may not be quite as urgently in need of repair as some presume. 

So I am suggesting that we not listen to the chicken littles who are predicting the demise of everything as we know it nor should we be complacent.  My radical thought is don't screw this up in the name of progress or urgency.  We are seeing good numbers with the Set Apart to Serve (for all church workers).  The recruitment task lies largely with pastors and congregations and not with programs or seminaries.  We identity and support men for the cause and the seminaries form them with help from a vicarage year and good, solid examples within their home congregations.  Is what we are doing perfect?  Of course not.  But it is not so bad it justifies wholesale change and that is my fear.  Those who advocate opening up the doors to a very different way we train and certify graduates are counting on fear ruling the day.  Lets make sure that we are not uninformed so that what we do will not have to be undone down the road -- when it may be too late.  

I may shock a few folks. . .

Now that both Lent and Easter are behind us -- at least for this year -- it is with some fear and trepidation that I offer these words.  Lent is not to be an extended version of Holy Week.  I am sure that some on both sides of the pulpit will disagree but let me continue to poke the lion anyway.  Not all the readings appointed for the Sundays in Lent (no matter what lectionary you use) rehearse over and over again the readings of Holy Week.  You should not either.  I grew up with an understanding of Lent that basically affirmed the whole purpose of this season was to render as explicitly as possible the horror of sin, the agony of the cross, and the details of everything from Palm Sunday through Holy Saturday.  It could have been worse.  I am not at all saying this was the worst thing that could have been preached but I am saying that the purpose of Lent is not to dwell solely on the final days of Jesus' life before His rest in the tomb and resurrection.  The personal discipline of Lent as well as its churchly focus is on the shape of Christian living under the cross.

It might be odd for a Lutheran to say this but I think it is okay to preach morality in the extra services of Lent.  Sanctification is not a topic alien to Lent but very appropriate.  We need to be taught how to mortify the flesh (when did you ever hear a sermon on that in a Lutheran congregation?).  We need to be taught how to practice the self-denial and walk worthy of our calling that befit those who have been baptized and who believe in Jesus Christ.  Calls to morality are far too few and far too careful not to offend.  Perhaps we ought to be offended during Lent.  

It might be odd for a Lutheran to say this but I think it is okay to preach over and over again the Creed (Apostles fits Advent and Nicene fits Lent).  We need to have this creed preached into us so that we can speak it forth within the gathering of the faithful on Sunday morning, teach it too our children, and grow up in its faith and truth.  Lent is a great time to rehearse for the people what the words mean which we confess so matter of factly on Sunday morning.  Preach the creed regularly or else they will become largely ceremonial words (which they are not).  This we believe is a good way to begin a Lenten homily.

It might be pretty normal for a Lutheran to say this but I think it is okay to preach the catechism (the Small one by Luther).  We tend to think of the catechism as words for a kid to learn until they are confirmed when they never deal with them again.  Wrong.  Preach the catechism.  Help us to hear the words we should be reading and praying regularly already and help us to learn them so that we might teach them well to our children.

Don't worry about a gimmick.  An acrostic might be nice but you don't have to create a sermon meme in order to preach during the penitential seasons of the Church Year.  You don't need to be clever by half to prove your people were smart to call you pastor.  Preach faithfully the things we ought to know already and you will find how many things we do not know as well as how earnest people are about things as common and ordinary as the stuff of daily life.

It is June and you have six months to think about it before Advent is upon you and Lent shortly thereafter.  Think about it.  Leave the Passion narratives for Holy Week and preach faith and life in Christ the crucified and risen Lord.  If you cannot help yourself, you can go back to preaching Lent as an extended Holy Week in a couple of years and tell me off by saying you tried it and it did not work.  I don't think that will happen but it is your out if you think I am wrong. 

One more time. . .

In my first call there were those who told me that I prayed like my prayers came from a book.  I thought it was a compliment.  It was not.  Real prayer came from the heart.  Who can argue with that?  Of course, real prayer comes from the heart.  Is there a conflict between coming from the heart and coming from the book?

Of all the things Rome should have been embarrassed about in the wake of post-Vatican II changes to the Mass, the Prayer of the Faithful ended up being the saddest.  You may not account for what people will do to undo the integrity of what is put out there but this was designed for exactly that purpose.  At the local level people form their own intercessions and pray them on Sunday morning.  But that was the problem.  

I would not call it an exaggeration to say that the result has been terrible.  In the end, it was hard for the thinking and listening faithful to add their Amen to them -- not because they could not hear or understand them but precisely because they could not forget what they had heard and how sad it was against the promise of what could have been and should have been.  From the trite, banal, and sugar coated petitions that appealed only to sentiment to the political and social propaganda masquerading as prayer to the petitions designed not to offend people but surely offended God, it was a disaster.  It still is.  

Lutherans are not far behind.  We have traded the careful, eloquent, and rich words of the old General Prayer for words that belong in the announcements rather than a petition directed to the Lord of all.  We listen to find out news rather than to hear what is being prayed so that we can add our Amen to the petitions.  It would be a tragedy if it were not a travesty.  At some point, those in the LCMS headquarters decided that something of substance and with words that not only pray but teach us to pray should be offered.  Thus the Synod's offering sent by email as starting point for some and the quick and easy end run for others.

Alas, the genie is out of the bottle.  We could but won't go back to the General Prayer of the past.  But we could and should go back to learning how to craft faithful and eloquent intercessions befitting the Church and useful for teaching the faithful to pray.  I long for the days when people considered this one of the most important times of the liturgy.  Sadly, it is too often a placeholder in the Divine Service today.  The presider has not give due time to consideration of and composition of the Prayer of the Faithful and so the people are dulled into a sense that it all does not matter that much.   

We Lutherans do not have a GIRM -- General Instruction in the Roman Missal.  What it says, however, is not unhelpful to us as well. 

In the Prayer of the Faithful, the people respond in a certain way to the word of God which they have welcomed in faith and, exercising the office of their baptismal priesthood, offer prayers to God for the salvation of all. It is fitting that such a prayer be included, as a rule, in Masses celebrated with a congregation, so that petitions will be offered for the holy Church, for civil authorities, for those weighed down by various needs, for all men and women, and for the salvation of the whole world. As a rule, the series of intentions is to be

1.  For the needs of the Church;

2. For public authorities and the salvation of the whole world;

3. For those burdened by any kind of difficulty;

4. For the local community.

Nevertheless, in a particular celebration, such as Confirmation, Marriage, or a Funeral, the series of intentions may reflect more closely the particular occasion.

It is for the priest celebrant to direct this prayer from the chair. He himself begins it with a brief introduction, by which he invites the faithful to pray, and likewise he concludes it with a prayer. The intentions announced should be sober, be composed freely but prudently, and be succinct, and they should express the prayer of the entire community (GIRM 69-71). 

Maybe we Lutherans ought to look in our own worship books for good examples of such a Prayer of the Faithful.  I would commend you to reflect upon the examples on page 265 or 249 of Lutheran Service Book.  While you can surely do better than either of these examples, please do not do worse.  My own pet peeve is names.  We can use the Christian first name and that is enough -- even for the President and surely for the sick.  And don't forget to allow some silence for the faithful to name in their hearts those whose names were not read or did not get listed in the worship folder.  Also, it would be good to teach folks the value of silence before the final petition invites their Amen.  We all have our own prayers to add, don't we?  While everyone is so fully accustomed to the form, Lord, in Your mercy/hear our prayer, I actually do prefer the other form (ektene) in which we ask the faithful let us pray to the Lord and they respond Lord, have mercy.  It is a pretty traditional form, don't you think?  So if I have pressed a nerve, so be it.  Let's do a better job with the Prayer of the Faithful.  Oh yes, this is definitely the job of the pastor.  It is not that others cannot do it but that this is one of the most important parts of his vocation.