It was one of those free magazines that has an article or two but exists mainly to showcase products for churches (convincing the reader that one cannot exist without those products). I don't know when I got it or why I did not toss it away but I was put on hold one day and reached for something to peruse while I waited. This magazinad was nearby.
Apparently an arson attack on a Lutheran congregation in the state of Washington destroyed the building and its AVL (audio, video, and lighting) set up. In rebuilding, they were able to obtain an even more immersive audio video experience than ever before. While the article did not really tell me much, the photos did. The congregation uses its walls as screens and blankets the walls with video projection from no less than four HD projectors.
The photos showed the altar and pulpit with a video background that looked like stone walls and stained glass windows and then with the landscape of the city at night (buildings and landscape all lit up). My assumption here is that the congregation can literally paint whatever landscape it wants across the walls. Such is the power of the technology available that it is no longer limited to screens. In fact, judging by the photos in the article, the images are painted from floor to ceiling and from one end of the building to another.
The article was really selling the brand of projector but in doing so it gave me pause to think about how this power to image literally anything could be used for ill just as much as it might be used for good. Underneath it all is this somewhat sobering assumption. The bottom line is that there is no permanent image in this congregation's worship space -- only the blank canvas. In addition, without any permanent imagery, the faith itself somewhat takes on the same temporary character as the images which are projected upon the blank walls. In other words, there is nothing there at all until something is projected upon it. It is the ultimate virtual church. I am uneasy about this and about the implications to both the church and those who worship there.
The whole idea of a church building is to give shape and form to the faith confessed. Integral to that faith and form is the idea of permanence. While no one expects things built of stone or brick or wood or steel to be eternal, neither should we assume that these things are temporary -- at least not as temporary as a projected image!
The other temptation is to be creative. Without limit or boundary to what can be done, what should not be done is as tempting as what ought to be done. That is a simple truth that surely cannot be denied in this circumstance as well. I am not, by the way, impugning the integrity of the pastors or staff of this congregation. I am assuming that creativity can often lead to presumption and that just because we can, we ought to do it. I believe there is even something Biblical in that thought. What is possible is not always what is beneficial. Even under the best of circumstances restraint would have to be the keyword for such technology. The church at worship is not an entertainment experience and the technology to create whatever we will is often at odds with the focus upon the Word of the Lord that endures forever.
Maybe I am just an old curmudgeon who thinks too much. . . or maybe not.
Pastoral Meanderings
The Random Thoughts of a Lutheran Parish Pastor
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
Monday, January 29, 2018
A Reality Check. . .
There are many who complain about the state of Christianity today. It is a mess, to be sure. We are most conscious of those outside the faith pressing against us. We have people trying to silence the voice of the faithful from the public square. We have a media intent upon portraying Christians as ignorant, foolish, superstitious, narrow minded, domineering, and judgmental people. We have judges trying to take away things like clergy housing allowances and legislators rethinking charitable tax contributions and a host of things even more significant. We have universities who ridicule the faith and people of faith and insist that intellect and religion are mortal enemies. We have a culture intent upon redefining gender from the body to emotions. We have a cavalier approach to the sanctity of life which assigns to the living the choice to kill babies in the womb, euthanize elderly in nursing homes, and allow people a painless physician assisted end to life when they deem it not worth living. As great as all of these threats are, I really don't fear atheism or secularism or elitism or progressivism or any other threat as much as I fear a Christianity which has lost confidence in the Scriptures and lost enthusiasm for living out what we believe, confess, or teach.
If there is anything that will weaken the Church more than the forces outside poised against the faith, it is a casual attitude toward doctrine and a lackadaisical attitude toward life within the Church from those who claim to believe. Nothing is as powerful against the faith as the lukewarm faith of those who choose reason and science over Scripture and who do not feel the need or the importance of being in the Word and at the Table of the Lord regularly and faithfully. Lets be honest here. The real enemies of the faith are those who claim to be friends but who dismiss what is to be believed and who find other causes more compelling that being together around the Word and Table of the Lord on the Lord's Day.
We have had a reality check in the form of a culture which we once thought friendly to the faith but has now proven to be an enemy. We cannot depend upon those outside the Church to form and nurture morality. We cannot depend on those outside the faith to defend our right to believe, teach, and confess faithfully what the Scriptures teach and tradition affirms. We cannot treat catechesis casually nor can we afford to let pass without challenge the casual way so many Christians wear the name of Christ. We cannot pass off the job of teaching the faith to programs and professionals in the Church for it is precisely this abdication of individual and parental responsibility that has left us vulnerable today.
There are those who look at our problems with Pollyanna eyes -- who presume that it is merely a matter of tinkering with worship formats or song choices or preaching more relevant sermons to change the status quo. Those who believe that a programatic change will solve the problems we face are deceiving themselves. The problems we face internally and externally call for nothing less than repentance and for a renewal of the faith that puts us regularly and faithfully in the Word at home and at the Church around the pulpit, font, and altar. In order to identify the false teachers, the people in the pew must be more diligent in knowing the faith and knowing what grounds the faith. In order to keep the Church faithful, the people in the pew must insist upon doctrinal sermons that really do teach the faith and are faithful to the Scriptures, liturgy which is true to the form and shape which has marked Christian gatherings since the earliest days of the faith, and hymns that speak the Gospel and do not simply give voice to what we want, feel, or think.
The truth is that the Church has always been smaller than we think. Like the remnant in Israel who heard and heeded the voice of the prophet and worshiped the Lord in spirit and in truth, Christianity has been marked by the faithful who hear and heed the Word, who faithfully believe and confess the creeds, and who worship the Lord with faith in the means of grace. The true Church - the one which is faithful to Christ, faithful to His Word, faithful in doctrine, and faithful in practice, is and has always been smaller than our inflated rosters and rolls or the self-identification of people to pollsters.
My point here is not to depress you but to encourage you. YOU need to be faithful. You need to be faithful to your baptismal vocation. You need to be faithful to the Word and to a life of catechesis in that Word. You need to be faithful in your marriage or singleness, to your family and in your home, and to the places where you work and enjoy your leisure. Your faithfulness is the life of the Church, established, nourished, and nurtured in Christ our Lord. Your faithfulness is what will commend the faith to those who come after you and witness to those who do not know Christ now. You cannot depend upon the structures of the Church or even her "professionals" but the life of the faith and the vitality of the Church rest upon you, the people in the pews. There is no church which will survive unless the pews are filled with people who know and believe the Word of God and who love and desire the grace bestowed in the sacramental life of the Church and who desire to serve the Lord faithfully right where they are (in home, at work, and in the world).
The doomsday prophets sounding an alarm that the days of the Church are numbered are false prophets. The Word of the Lord endures forever and God will not allow the gates of hell to overcome the Bride of Christ. But we cannot live in the false security that our faithfulness does not matter, our witness is not important, and our orthodoxy does not count. Of course we need faithful pastors and church workers -- that goes without saying. But if you, the people of God, do not see how important your faith, your piety, your worship life, and your witness is, you are discounting that which God holds high. Legislative support and political victories and a friendly press and university system would be nice but the real keys lie in faithful people, knowing the faith, living the faith, and being faithful in worship.
If there is anything that will weaken the Church more than the forces outside poised against the faith, it is a casual attitude toward doctrine and a lackadaisical attitude toward life within the Church from those who claim to believe. Nothing is as powerful against the faith as the lukewarm faith of those who choose reason and science over Scripture and who do not feel the need or the importance of being in the Word and at the Table of the Lord regularly and faithfully. Lets be honest here. The real enemies of the faith are those who claim to be friends but who dismiss what is to be believed and who find other causes more compelling that being together around the Word and Table of the Lord on the Lord's Day.
We have had a reality check in the form of a culture which we once thought friendly to the faith but has now proven to be an enemy. We cannot depend upon those outside the Church to form and nurture morality. We cannot depend on those outside the faith to defend our right to believe, teach, and confess faithfully what the Scriptures teach and tradition affirms. We cannot treat catechesis casually nor can we afford to let pass without challenge the casual way so many Christians wear the name of Christ. We cannot pass off the job of teaching the faith to programs and professionals in the Church for it is precisely this abdication of individual and parental responsibility that has left us vulnerable today.
There are those who look at our problems with Pollyanna eyes -- who presume that it is merely a matter of tinkering with worship formats or song choices or preaching more relevant sermons to change the status quo. Those who believe that a programatic change will solve the problems we face are deceiving themselves. The problems we face internally and externally call for nothing less than repentance and for a renewal of the faith that puts us regularly and faithfully in the Word at home and at the Church around the pulpit, font, and altar. In order to identify the false teachers, the people in the pew must be more diligent in knowing the faith and knowing what grounds the faith. In order to keep the Church faithful, the people in the pew must insist upon doctrinal sermons that really do teach the faith and are faithful to the Scriptures, liturgy which is true to the form and shape which has marked Christian gatherings since the earliest days of the faith, and hymns that speak the Gospel and do not simply give voice to what we want, feel, or think.
The truth is that the Church has always been smaller than we think. Like the remnant in Israel who heard and heeded the voice of the prophet and worshiped the Lord in spirit and in truth, Christianity has been marked by the faithful who hear and heed the Word, who faithfully believe and confess the creeds, and who worship the Lord with faith in the means of grace. The true Church - the one which is faithful to Christ, faithful to His Word, faithful in doctrine, and faithful in practice, is and has always been smaller than our inflated rosters and rolls or the self-identification of people to pollsters.
My point here is not to depress you but to encourage you. YOU need to be faithful. You need to be faithful to your baptismal vocation. You need to be faithful to the Word and to a life of catechesis in that Word. You need to be faithful in your marriage or singleness, to your family and in your home, and to the places where you work and enjoy your leisure. Your faithfulness is the life of the Church, established, nourished, and nurtured in Christ our Lord. Your faithfulness is what will commend the faith to those who come after you and witness to those who do not know Christ now. You cannot depend upon the structures of the Church or even her "professionals" but the life of the faith and the vitality of the Church rest upon you, the people in the pews. There is no church which will survive unless the pews are filled with people who know and believe the Word of God and who love and desire the grace bestowed in the sacramental life of the Church and who desire to serve the Lord faithfully right where they are (in home, at work, and in the world).
The doomsday prophets sounding an alarm that the days of the Church are numbered are false prophets. The Word of the Lord endures forever and God will not allow the gates of hell to overcome the Bride of Christ. But we cannot live in the false security that our faithfulness does not matter, our witness is not important, and our orthodoxy does not count. Of course we need faithful pastors and church workers -- that goes without saying. But if you, the people of God, do not see how important your faith, your piety, your worship life, and your witness is, you are discounting that which God holds high. Legislative support and political victories and a friendly press and university system would be nice but the real keys lie in faithful people, knowing the faith, living the faith, and being faithful in worship.
Sunday, January 28, 2018
The Beginning of the ROMAN Catholic Church
There is probably no one who will agree with me on this but it is my belief that what we call the ROMAN Catholic Church today really did not come into being until the Council of Trent (1545-1563 with the Tridentine Mass finally in 1570). The monolithic character of the Roman Catholic Church is hardly in evidence, except in the office of the papacy, prior to Trent and the uniformity of its liturgy and life is the direct fruit of Trent.
What I am not saying is that there were two distinct churches prior to Trent but that the Catholic Church prior to Trent and the one defined by Trent have distinct characteristics and differences worth noting. Though prior to Trent Rome was not exactly in chaos, it could be said that Rome was at least a vast umbrella of theological and liturgical strains that lived side by side under the cover of the papacy. This may be what some call chaos. Perhaps the nature of its life prior to the printing press and following Gutenberg could account for some of this but the job of Trent was not simply to respond to Protestants but to shore up many of the loose ends in the Roman Catholic Church that could have allowed or even encouraged a Luther.
Everyone knows that the monastic houses of Rome often manifested and even encouraged theological distinctions and differences which were reconciled by their uniform fealty to the Roman Pontiff. It was not simply a matter of different orders or disciplines but also different theological emphases and identities. Ask any diocesan bishop of Luther's day and he would complain not only of the indifference of monastic orders to local episcopal jurisdiction but also that they fostered a distinct theological identity -- all in competition with the local authority and, in many cases, in disdain of the local authority. Perhaps it is with reason since secular clergy, especially in rural areas, were too often ill-trained and ill-equipped except to read the mass and perform the functional rituals of the sacraments.
Liturgically there was even less unity than theologically. There was no uniformity either in the layout of missals in the Middle Ages or in their content. Some of those missals began the church year with the Christmass vigil and ended with Advent; others began with Advent and ended with the last Sunday after Trinity. Some did not even include Advent. Others lumped the sanctoral cycle in with the temporal cycle and others kept them distinct. The liturgical colors were not uniform. So the piety fostered by these differences was also different from place to place.
One of the things we should have learned from the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation is that it is impossible to look at the Roman Catholic Church today as if it were the same communion that Luther faced. It is just as true that the post-Tridentine Roman Catholic Church is a distinctly different church than the one Luther knew. Perhaps it could be said that the goal of Rome is to see a seamless unity between the early Church, the medieval Church, and the Roman Church both before and after Trent (as well as into the Vatican II timeframe) while the goal of Lutheranism is to mark those differences because they actually did contribute something to the story begun in 1517.
I am not at all saying that the complaints of Luther are no longer valid or that Rome's complaints of Luther have not changed over the years. Rome has a more nuanced view of Luther today and some of what people think were Luther's big points seem to have been satisfied (mass in the vernacular, is but one example). These are not exactly true. There have been many cosmetic changes in Rome but the core of Luther's complaints still stand -- even with JDDJ and its claim to have solved the justification riddle. Lutherans have forgotten much of what it means to be Lutheran and stand more on their caricatures of Lutheranism than their own Confessions. But under it all, it is simply not possible to look at Rome today and presume that this is the same church Luther faced. Trent is the major factor in this difference but not the only one. Of the Lutheran problems, well, I have written on those before in the hopes that we will recover our theological and liturgical identity more fully from the Augsburg Confession than our dreamy eyes wishing we were evangelicals.
What I am not saying is that there were two distinct churches prior to Trent but that the Catholic Church prior to Trent and the one defined by Trent have distinct characteristics and differences worth noting. Though prior to Trent Rome was not exactly in chaos, it could be said that Rome was at least a vast umbrella of theological and liturgical strains that lived side by side under the cover of the papacy. This may be what some call chaos. Perhaps the nature of its life prior to the printing press and following Gutenberg could account for some of this but the job of Trent was not simply to respond to Protestants but to shore up many of the loose ends in the Roman Catholic Church that could have allowed or even encouraged a Luther.
Everyone knows that the monastic houses of Rome often manifested and even encouraged theological distinctions and differences which were reconciled by their uniform fealty to the Roman Pontiff. It was not simply a matter of different orders or disciplines but also different theological emphases and identities. Ask any diocesan bishop of Luther's day and he would complain not only of the indifference of monastic orders to local episcopal jurisdiction but also that they fostered a distinct theological identity -- all in competition with the local authority and, in many cases, in disdain of the local authority. Perhaps it is with reason since secular clergy, especially in rural areas, were too often ill-trained and ill-equipped except to read the mass and perform the functional rituals of the sacraments.
Liturgically there was even less unity than theologically. There was no uniformity either in the layout of missals in the Middle Ages or in their content. Some of those missals began the church year with the Christmass vigil and ended with Advent; others began with Advent and ended with the last Sunday after Trinity. Some did not even include Advent. Others lumped the sanctoral cycle in with the temporal cycle and others kept them distinct. The liturgical colors were not uniform. So the piety fostered by these differences was also different from place to place.
One of the things we should have learned from the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation is that it is impossible to look at the Roman Catholic Church today as if it were the same communion that Luther faced. It is just as true that the post-Tridentine Roman Catholic Church is a distinctly different church than the one Luther knew. Perhaps it could be said that the goal of Rome is to see a seamless unity between the early Church, the medieval Church, and the Roman Church both before and after Trent (as well as into the Vatican II timeframe) while the goal of Lutheranism is to mark those differences because they actually did contribute something to the story begun in 1517.
I am not at all saying that the complaints of Luther are no longer valid or that Rome's complaints of Luther have not changed over the years. Rome has a more nuanced view of Luther today and some of what people think were Luther's big points seem to have been satisfied (mass in the vernacular, is but one example). These are not exactly true. There have been many cosmetic changes in Rome but the core of Luther's complaints still stand -- even with JDDJ and its claim to have solved the justification riddle. Lutherans have forgotten much of what it means to be Lutheran and stand more on their caricatures of Lutheranism than their own Confessions. But under it all, it is simply not possible to look at Rome today and presume that this is the same church Luther faced. Trent is the major factor in this difference but not the only one. Of the Lutheran problems, well, I have written on those before in the hopes that we will recover our theological and liturgical identity more fully from the Augsburg Confession than our dreamy eyes wishing we were evangelicals.
Saturday, January 27, 2018
A smug dismissal. . .
A number of folks from my parish have visited Noah's Ark and some have expressed interest in the newly opened Museum of the Bible. I am not sure if I will visit either, although the idea of a full size Noah's Ark is intriguing -- if only to imagine the scale of it all. As far as the Museum of the Bible, I am told it is filled with interactive exhibits and, since I am fairly old fashioned in this, I prefer simply to look at old things (like I do every morning in the mirror). Yet by all accounts both are doing well. I hear that the Noah's Ark Creation Museum continues to attract crowds and that there are long lines awaiting a first glimpse of the Museum of the Bible.
Whatever hesitance I have in visiting either is more than made up for by the almost uniform disdain of the educated elites in condemning both. The Creation Museum is treated less as a museum than a Six Flags for Fundies and the monumental effort of the Green/Hobby Lobby family is undermined at every turn. Yet under all of this is the remarkable difference between the average American and those who hail from liberal academia. Most Americans are at least curious but the skepticism of the liberal, progressive, secularist, avant guarde seem to have not even a shred of curiosity. They only condemn.
They complain about the manner in which some of the antiquities were obtained. Well enough, I guess, except that at least they were maintained in a region well known for destroying its own history! They complain that it is an intrusion to have something so overtly religious -- especially one so close to the halls of government. There is no wall high enough or deep enough to separate church and state for these folks. They complain that the folks who have put these together are not intellectual heavy weights (at least not in the crowd they hang with). I guess the only true education is a thoroughly secular one and the only true intellectual is one who does not believe in anything except himself and what he espouses.
Both the Creation Museum and the Museum of the Bible have shown the great gulf between America's intellectual and academic elite and the ordinary folks across the country. This is a problem. The problem is not that Christians are slighted or Christian history smugly cast aside but that many (dare I say most) of those who are regarded as the brightest bulbs in the room have disdain for and dismiss most Americans as being ignorant, superstitious, foolish, gullible, and naive. For these folks the only good religion is one that does not hold to much except that which justifies what is politically correct (at least at this juncture in time) and the only good religious person is one who does not vote for our leaders or speak in public.
Strangely, most Americans at least listen to those who disagree with them. Those who are often considered narrow minded and judgmental watch TV, listen to the news, and read -- especially the opinions of those intellectuals who seem to dominate news and opinions. But, it seems, the other side prefers to complain and condemn the "other side" without bothering at all to listen or learn much about it. I wrote a while back about how the retired leader of Public Broadcasting went out on a tour of America (outside the saltwater and urban bastions of liberalism) and found, to his surprise, that Americans were not bitter, selfish, ignorant, or jealous but mostly content, generous, well informed, and happy.
We live in a polarized society but it seems that this works more to the advantage of those who find the Creation Museum or Museum of the Bible to be shockingly naive and who have judged most Americans (especially the Trump voters) to be positively neanderthal in the politics, religion, and culture. Without bothering to listen or learn, they can condemn with impunity and, since they have control of much of the media, they have a self-serving platform on which to disseminate their condemnations and bitterness.
Whatever hesitance I have in visiting either is more than made up for by the almost uniform disdain of the educated elites in condemning both. The Creation Museum is treated less as a museum than a Six Flags for Fundies and the monumental effort of the Green/Hobby Lobby family is undermined at every turn. Yet under all of this is the remarkable difference between the average American and those who hail from liberal academia. Most Americans are at least curious but the skepticism of the liberal, progressive, secularist, avant guarde seem to have not even a shred of curiosity. They only condemn.
They complain about the manner in which some of the antiquities were obtained. Well enough, I guess, except that at least they were maintained in a region well known for destroying its own history! They complain that it is an intrusion to have something so overtly religious -- especially one so close to the halls of government. There is no wall high enough or deep enough to separate church and state for these folks. They complain that the folks who have put these together are not intellectual heavy weights (at least not in the crowd they hang with). I guess the only true education is a thoroughly secular one and the only true intellectual is one who does not believe in anything except himself and what he espouses.
Both the Creation Museum and the Museum of the Bible have shown the great gulf between America's intellectual and academic elite and the ordinary folks across the country. This is a problem. The problem is not that Christians are slighted or Christian history smugly cast aside but that many (dare I say most) of those who are regarded as the brightest bulbs in the room have disdain for and dismiss most Americans as being ignorant, superstitious, foolish, gullible, and naive. For these folks the only good religion is one that does not hold to much except that which justifies what is politically correct (at least at this juncture in time) and the only good religious person is one who does not vote for our leaders or speak in public.
Strangely, most Americans at least listen to those who disagree with them. Those who are often considered narrow minded and judgmental watch TV, listen to the news, and read -- especially the opinions of those intellectuals who seem to dominate news and opinions. But, it seems, the other side prefers to complain and condemn the "other side" without bothering at all to listen or learn much about it. I wrote a while back about how the retired leader of Public Broadcasting went out on a tour of America (outside the saltwater and urban bastions of liberalism) and found, to his surprise, that Americans were not bitter, selfish, ignorant, or jealous but mostly content, generous, well informed, and happy.
We live in a polarized society but it seems that this works more to the advantage of those who find the Creation Museum or Museum of the Bible to be shockingly naive and who have judged most Americans (especially the Trump voters) to be positively neanderthal in the politics, religion, and culture. Without bothering to listen or learn, they can condemn with impunity and, since they have control of much of the media, they have a self-serving platform on which to disseminate their condemnations and bitterness.
Friday, January 26, 2018
From my home state. . .
Click here to hear a PBS story on a FSSP seminary in Denton, Nebraska, that had a 13 week chart topping CD of Gregorian Chant.
What stuck out to me was this statement: The chanting and the Latin lessons are part of the daily routine for the 90-some seminarians who will live and study here for seven years. In other words, at a time when it seems most Protestant churches are seeking out ways to bypass seminary entirely or in part with online preparations for their candidates for the ministry, this seminary already has a longer program than any of them (7 years) and is intent upon forming the piety of their seminarians as much as their pastoral character. Now that is something to reflect upon. . .
The obligatory Latin lessons and chanting study are part of the early period of their study, time referred to as the contemplative phase. I am not sure that much time is ever spent upon this aspect of piety at the seminaries I know. Concordia Theological Seminary certainly has the nod but this is less as the formal study of the students than the religious life of the school centered in Kramer Chapel and the liturgy of the hours, the weekly Eucharist, and the daily chapel. It is there for the students but it is not an obligatory exercise in the way the FSSP seminary requires.
One of the hardest things to face a pastor upon leaving seminary and arriving at his first call is loneliness. Yes, the loneliness of being apart from the friendships created at seminary and the support of professors but more than this. The spiritual loneliness of having had a rich and profound devotional life centered in the Chapel and lived out together under the Word and at the Table of the Lord is gone. It is replaced by the fact that you, as pastor, are now the preacher, teachers, presider, and chief intercessor of the parish. You go from being the one who is daily fed to the one who feeds and it is very easy to be only a giver and seldom fed.
Pastoral formation is very important but the spiritual formation of the pastor is just as important. Nearly everywhere I go pastors complain about not finding time for their own devotional lives and how easy it is to be in the Word from the professional perspective of a teacher and preacher and how hard it is to be in the Word devotionally. The resources we have today are many but the discipline of those tools is generally left to the pastor and that is the problem. Marriage and family are just as demanding upon the pastor as the parish and it is too easy to defer to the needs of home and congregation and not give piety and spiritual life the attention they deserve. The pastor is also the chief devotional leader in his household as well as the congregation. I know that was and is true for me and I know that it is a very common issue among our pastors.
Having this as an intentional part of seminary is both wise and practical. For surely these will be with the seminarian long into his pastoral life. We would do well to consider how to draw upon the rich resources of our own liturgical and devotional tradition and form this into the curriculum of our seminaries. As I said earlier, I know that the chapel is not only the geographical center of the Ft. Wayne campus but its beating heart. That said, a curriculum which formally includes piety and spiritual formation is a worthy and necessary cause especially for Lutherans today.
What stuck out to me was this statement: The chanting and the Latin lessons are part of the daily routine for the 90-some seminarians who will live and study here for seven years. In other words, at a time when it seems most Protestant churches are seeking out ways to bypass seminary entirely or in part with online preparations for their candidates for the ministry, this seminary already has a longer program than any of them (7 years) and is intent upon forming the piety of their seminarians as much as their pastoral character. Now that is something to reflect upon. . .
The obligatory Latin lessons and chanting study are part of the early period of their study, time referred to as the contemplative phase. I am not sure that much time is ever spent upon this aspect of piety at the seminaries I know. Concordia Theological Seminary certainly has the nod but this is less as the formal study of the students than the religious life of the school centered in Kramer Chapel and the liturgy of the hours, the weekly Eucharist, and the daily chapel. It is there for the students but it is not an obligatory exercise in the way the FSSP seminary requires.
One of the hardest things to face a pastor upon leaving seminary and arriving at his first call is loneliness. Yes, the loneliness of being apart from the friendships created at seminary and the support of professors but more than this. The spiritual loneliness of having had a rich and profound devotional life centered in the Chapel and lived out together under the Word and at the Table of the Lord is gone. It is replaced by the fact that you, as pastor, are now the preacher, teachers, presider, and chief intercessor of the parish. You go from being the one who is daily fed to the one who feeds and it is very easy to be only a giver and seldom fed.
Pastoral formation is very important but the spiritual formation of the pastor is just as important. Nearly everywhere I go pastors complain about not finding time for their own devotional lives and how easy it is to be in the Word from the professional perspective of a teacher and preacher and how hard it is to be in the Word devotionally. The resources we have today are many but the discipline of those tools is generally left to the pastor and that is the problem. Marriage and family are just as demanding upon the pastor as the parish and it is too easy to defer to the needs of home and congregation and not give piety and spiritual life the attention they deserve. The pastor is also the chief devotional leader in his household as well as the congregation. I know that was and is true for me and I know that it is a very common issue among our pastors.
Having this as an intentional part of seminary is both wise and practical. For surely these will be with the seminarian long into his pastoral life. We would do well to consider how to draw upon the rich resources of our own liturgical and devotional tradition and form this into the curriculum of our seminaries. As I said earlier, I know that the chapel is not only the geographical center of the Ft. Wayne campus but its beating heart. That said, a curriculum which formally includes piety and spiritual formation is a worthy and necessary cause especially for Lutherans today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




