You ole fuddy-duddy. . .

For most of my life I have instinctively associated orthodoxy and order with boring.  In my college and seminary years, I looked at a parade of District Presidents wearing loud sports jackets and ties or leisure suits and thought I wanted to be anything but them.  It was no wonder I had sympathy for John Tietjen because he looked the part in clericals and black suit.  When my own vicarage and placement services took place, I was relieved that I was going where the DP was sporting a beard and clerical collar in a conservative dark grey three piece suit.  Visuals do not always tell you everything but they do tell you something and it is hard to jettison the impression first given by what you see.  

It might be for this reason that I hardly enter a Wal-Mart anymore.  The infamous People of Wal-Mart web pages showing how ill-dressed or undressed shoppers are says it all.  Or fly somewhere and see how people dress for air travel -- when I fly I dress up and not down!  The same could be said for a concert in which the ticket price alone might imply something a more formal rather than casual.  Just last month my wife and I had to change our path in a store because they young man ahead of us (not in a Wal-Mart) was wearing sleep pants, a bathrobe, and slippers.  Really?  I guess I have become the fuddy-duddy that I rebelled against in youth.  I feel the same way when I find pastors who wear what might be comfortable or easy to put on (from the chair where you dumped it yesterday) but I find it hard to take them seriously in their calling.  If they show up on Sunday morning with vestments of khakis or board shorts or t-shirt or polo, I am immediately put off.  It seems to me that they are rebelling against their vocation in some childish and culturally relevant way that is both arrogant and rude.  

I fear that this kind of thing affects a great deal in the Church.  Our theology is not exciting but boring.  Our morality flaunts duty more than liberty or indulgence.  We are in a very unfavorable position against the world.  The world offers us sexy, cool, vital, vibrant, indulgent, forward-looking, be what you are, and, most of all, have fun in everything.  In comparison the Church seems rather dull, bland, boring, and very uncool.  They say that if you are not a liberal when you are young and a conservative when you mature, you are simply an idiot or a fool.  Maybe youth instinctively rebels against the tradition and traditional theology, morality, and liturgy.  I don't know.  But I do know that in choosing the fun over everything else, the world has not chosen well or anything worth having.  

Youth left me with many things and regrets are also among the memories.  I hope it is true for many.  My sixth grade teacher told me most of all in life to be true to myself.  Which self?  The selfish, rebellious, lustful, fool who does not care about consequences or the mature self that lives in bondage to them or the Christian self who has learned to delight in the will and Word and order of the Lord?  The real radical is not the one who indulges in a Rumspringa vision of life that cares for nothing except the moment and puts off the serious for a time to be announced later.  No, the real radical is the mature self, formed and shaped by the Spirit of God, to become in time the person who has been given eternity.  I am encouraged that some of those coming out of their youthful rebellion are awakening to this truth and showing up in conservative, orthodox, and traditional parishes offering orthodox and traditional liturgy.  It is my hope that this is where the future is headed and not simply a momentary trend.

We might hasten this a bit if we got out of our system the idea that youth ministry should be fun to counter the boring and bland stuff that happens in worship and Bible study.  We might initiate this kind of maturity by refusing the idea that worship is a stage, that the people in the chancel are actors, that the script is made up, and that the goal is entertainment.  We might encourage a more real future by offering our kids a more real present in which the symbols and ceremonies come not from preference or for the sake of the experience but because the presence of God is as real as God, the truth is not subject to individual decision or definition, and the purpose of God is to set us from from the fake freedom that corrupts and kills.  The most radical thing in our world is not going with the flow of culture or fad but resisting the current because God has entered our time to rescue us from our sins, restore our lives in holiness, and direct us to the eternal future which we taste now in the mystery of bread and wine.  Looking back, I can thank a few profs along the way who taught me this radical idea.  

The Claim of Catholicity. . .

For as long as I can remember, the most comfortable view of the Reformation from those who claim to be its heirs seems to claim the most radical perspective for the events and figures of the 16th century.  It is as if the only way we could come to terms with it all is to presume that Luther and his contemporaries were just itching to cast off every constraint of tradition, orthodoxy, and catholicity in favor of an extreme Biblicism that does not care about history or even the apostles.  I understand the insistence that the Church had suffered much before the Reformation and that this movement was finding its way out of the fog.  What Lutherans are comfortable with today, however, is not an accurate or faithful description of the attitude of those actually fought for that Reformation.

The narrative I got was that it was all about and, almost exclusively so, concerning justification.  Nowhere in my education or training was I appraised of the idea that the Reformation was about catholicity.  That idea came unofficially from teachers and mentors outside the classroom.  At the heart of the Reformation, however, is not simply or solely the issue of justification but even more so the question of whose claim to catholicity was genuine.  Justification was part of this and not unrelated to it.  This is certainly the contention of the Augsburg Confession (Conclusion of Part One).  Catholicity was and remains the main cause of the Reformation.  If their concern for justification was Biblical, it must be catholic.  If it is catholic, it must be Biblical.  That is the perspective of the Lutheran reformers.

Over the course of a few decades or so there has been an explosion of authors and works on just this topic -- the Reformation as a conflict over who deserved to be called catholic.  Some are well known tomes from the best seller lists of a few years ago -- from the likes of Steven Ozment, Scott Henrix, and Diarmaid MacCulloch.  Others are renewed interest in other authors and works from the likes of Heiko Oberman, Martin Brecht, and, before that, Jaroslav Pelikan.  Gone is the hero worship style of biography once practiced within and outside of Lutheranism and in its place are serious reviews of the claim of catholicity.  The problem is that I am not so sure that those who call themselves Lutheran are as comfortable with this renewed interest in catholicity.  Too many Lutherans are too comfortable with the idea that Lutherans are radicals with the intent upon wholesale renovation of the Church.  Despite Luther's over the top rhetoric, his practice was somewhat more careful and conservative.

So the problem before us as Lutherans is which form of Lutheranism is authentic -- the one that loves to live on the radical fringe of Christianity and embrace the excesses of culture or the one that tolerates things liturgical but prefers an Amish style spirituality or the one that fully intends to be catholic in doctrine and practice.  The ELCA along with European Lutherans seem to have laid serious claim to the liberal fringe.  The evangelical style Lutherans who disdain liturgy, ceremony, and sacramental piety seem to live in various Lutheran denominations -- my own included.  The catholic style Lutherans are often characterized as loving worship more than the Gospel itself but they maintain the tie between doctrine and practice.  I wish I could say that this has been resolved but it is still being fought out.  The out and out worship wars might have been tamed down a bit but the battleground remains.  The choice of some Lutherans to engage the culture on matters of sexual desire, gender identity, marriage, family, children, climate, etc., is not yet finished as they continue to follow where the culture wars lead.  The whole idea of simple is better than anything too elaborate continues to be held as a balance against those who they feel have gone too far.  At some point, however, we will have to decide which Reformation is not only the real one but the one of which we claim to be heirs.  

Whatever happened to Sweden?

When the electorate of Brandenburg was torn apart by a quarrel between the Lutherans and Roman Catholics, King of Sweden Gustavus Adolphus came to their aid.  He launched an invasion of northern Germany and Pomerania in June 1630, marking the Swedish intervention in the Thirty Years' War. He  consolidated the Lutheran position in the north and turned the tide when the Lutherans were losing to the Holy Roman Empire and its Roman Catholic allies.  His army marched to victory singing the great Lutheran chorales.  What happened to that Swedish Lutheran Church?

Today, the Church of Sweden is a Lutheran joke.  It was perhaps the first to ordain women and its clergy are now between 50-60% female.  It was a largely secular agency of the government for too long and while the buildings were preserved, the faith decayed.  It was overcome with political ideology.  An example of this was revealed when Sweden’s biggest morning paper, DN, in May 2025, published an interview with one female priest who admitted that she wasn’t really that interested in Jesus but originally went to church and communion to meet other lesbian girls. In 2013, a female archbishop was elected primarily on the basis that she was a woman, would be the first female archbishop, and this was a witness against a patriarchal and misogynistic history and culture that preceded her. 

The buildings have been preserved but at the cost of the faith.  Such was the cost of the deal between church and state in which the state had power over what was believed and how it was practiced.  I am half Swedish and it is with great sadness that I acknowledge the loss of this history and identity for what was once a vibrant Christian stronghold.  Lord knows that the population of the Mid-West states of the US was filled with Swedes who brought their faith with them to America.  Apparently, they did not leave much of it back for those who stayed at home.  Now Sweden is a rapidly aging country with an ever increasing Muslim immigrant population that is radically changing the shape of the nation and its culture.  In fact, it is hard to call the Sweden of today Lutheran in any real sense of the word. 

A number of years ago my home town celebrated an anniversary which focused on their Swedish past.  When a number of Swedish dancers were brought in as part of that celebration, my mother invited them to her home to feast upon the treasured foods of their Swedish past.  From pickled herring to lutefisk to Lingonberries, and so much more, she cooked and served them what she grew up eating.  They were not impressed and called the meal "museum food," part of their past but not what they wanted now.  Perhaps that is also the state of affairs in the Lutheran Church of Sweden today.  It is a museum church, preserving a semblance of their history and past but without the faith and confidence in Scripture or the Augsburg Confession today.  It is sad to me and perhaps a poignant reminder of where everyone of us will end up unless we resist the temptation to surrender doctrine to political ideology.  Gustavus Adolphus must be turning over in his grave.

Stupidly true. . .

You may have heard about the dust up at Notre Dame over the appointment of a professor who is an avowed pro-abortion and who makes the ludicrous claim that abortion is an example of white supremacy.  She would be laughable if it were not for the fact that this university which seeks to be the world's premier Roman Catholic school has hired her and given her a comfortable place and a platform to offend the very idea of that university being Roman Catholic.  Notre Dame is now hearing some loud push back from pro-life Roman Catholics on their faculty and among the student body because of this decision to appoint vocal abortion advocate Susan Ostermann to lead the Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies at the Keough School of International Affairs. On the faculty, two scholars — Professors Robert Gimello and Diane Desierto — have resigned from the Liu Institute in recent days over Ostermann’s appointment.  Former Notre Dame President Father John Jenkins rebuked her pro-abortion views in 2022. According to Notre Dame, however, “Those who serve in leadership positions at Notre Dame do so with the clear understanding that their decision-making as leaders must be guided by and consistent with the University’s Catholic mission. Notre Dame’s commitment to upholding the inherent dignity of the human person and the sanctity of life at every stage is unwavering.”

For weeks, University of Notre Dame leaders publicly insisted that the appointment of a pro-abortion-rights professor to head the Asian studies institute was final -- until it wasn't.  Apparently enough of a backlash arose to prevent the Jan. 8 appointment from being completed.  Which goes to show you that what is lacking in the hallowed halls of academia is not in the outrage of those whom they depend upon for moral and financial support.  What is telling, however, is that all of this would have gone ahead and a visible compromise with the schools doctrinal identity as a Roman Catholic institution would have been the acceptable cost they were willing to pay to play with the big boys in the secular land of university enchantment.  The question for all religious schools is why do they bother playing this dangerous game?

The US courts have assured religious schools that they can refuse to employ teachers whose views conflict with the religious teachings of their church.  For whatever reason, some churches think that they must hire those whose view conflict with their teachings but how stupidly true is this.   “I have long worked with scholars who hold diverse views on a multitude of issues, and I welcome the opportunity to continue doing so. While I hold my own convictions on complex social and legal issues, I want to be clear: my role as Liu Director is to support the diverse research of our scholars and students, not to advance a personal political agenda,” Ostermann said.  Yeah, right.  She will not bend in her advocacy of her pro-abortion position which belittles Rome's anti-abortion position as an example of patriarchal white supremacy and she will debate her point of view with those who disagree with her and Notre Dame will pay her to do so.  Again, how stupidly true is this story -- an example of how religious universities falsely presume they must operate.  Sadly, it is but one more instance of how doctrinal fidelity is sacrificed at the altar of diversity.  While I wish I could say this was a Roman Catholic problem, it is not.  We have our own problems in that regard.  In any case, the idea continues to exist that to be credible in our academic world, you must allow faculty to hold a wide range of viewpoints because this is the cost of high-quality academics and research.  The truth is that although you cannot control what your students might hold or espouse, you certainly can control who is teaching and what is being taught at a Christian school.

 

Worship in the garden. . .

I can imagine that the first worship of God which took place in Eden was perhaps the recitation of the warnings and promises associated with the garden, in particular about the tree of life.  By rehearsing the words of God, Adam and Eve were worshiping the almighty.  Of course, such worship did not prevent the entrance of sin and its rebellion against the Word of God.  We all know that.  But the worship of God was from the beginning the remembrance of His Word and the telling out loud of that Word.

When sin changed all of that, I can also imagine that the worship after the Fall was similarly the recitation of the promise of God, in particular the promise of the One who was to come who would have His heal bruised but who would crush the serpent's head.  There was no Temple of the Tree of Life where this took place that but that does not mean that the worship which they had known was entirely forgotten.  The words of warning and promise were replaced by the words of promise that the son of the woman would become their redeemer.

Later, after the giving of the Law, Israel gathered still around the Word of the Lord.  The words of the Law were repeated ritually in the same way the warning issued in the Garden was repeated while still in Eden.  And, of course, after the fulfillment of that promise in the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, the words of the Lord continues to be repeated in worship, telling again the story of Him who died and rose never to die again.  It is something to ponder.

Of course, Norman Nagel already knew that long before I ever did and it came from him.  Saying back to God what He has first said to us we repeat what is most certain and true and this is the shape of worship. Still.  Worship is not telling God what we think or feel but repeating back to Him what He has said, words which are borne from faith in His Word.  In this way we own the promises and so demonstrate that we are His and do not belong to the world but to Him.

The form of the Mass is really an outline of words of God set in paraphrase or literally from the Scriptures in speech or song.  The Divine Service is and should be almost completely made up of God's Word in our mouths, saying back to Him what He has first said to us.  That is not to say this is the sole content of worship but it always was and always will be the primary content of worship (this side of glory, anyway).  By the way, that also includes the visible Word of the Sacraments.  They are not reenactments of anything but the anamnesis or remembrance which He has commanded in which His Word is attached to baptismal water, bread, and wine.  These are not dramas or play acting but doing what the Word tells us to do and so are just like repeating what He has said.  God is glorified.  Even better, we are served with His grace and gifts.  Thanks be to God!