Monday, March 18, 2024

Jealousy does not become you. . .

Sermon for the Fifth Sunday in Lent (B), preached on Sunday, March 17, 2024.

The king is not even crowned before people are vying for position.  James and John live up to their nickname, the Sons of Thunder.  Jesus is talking about the crown He will wear – not a crown of gold adorned with jewels but one of twisted thorns but no one is listening.  They hear king and kingdom and crown and they think only of grasping a share of the glory for themselves.  They do not get the King who is come not to be served but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many.  Are we any different?

We take the ways of the world and incorporate them into the way we think God works.  So like the parents who fight teachers so their children can get ahead without doing the work, we are jealous for our place in the kingdom and our portion of the glory pie.  Who cares if you are on the right or left hand of Jesus or in the nose bleed seats of heaven.  If you are there, is that not enough?  But, sadly, it is not enough. We try to work God the way we work the system here on earth and to figure out the easiest way to glory.  It sounds terrible, doesn’t it?  None of us would ever admit to having those kind of jealous feelings but that does not mean we do not have them.

Maybe it is too much to expect a people so rooted and planted in this world and in the ways of this world to think and behave differently when it comes to the Kingdom of God.  Maybe it is too much for fishermen with smelly and calloused hands to think past how to get ahead of your competitors in the marketplace and get the ways of Jesus.  Maybe it is too much for us to leave behind the well worn ruts in the path of getting ahead at the expense of others to presume that we get the cross or understand what God’s love is.  Maybe we are too wedded to right to recall that love is gift and not the reward for merit.

If we were Jesus we would have smacked them down hard.  But Jesus does not.  He is shockingly kind to them and patient beyond all expectation.  They could not have known what the were really asking but that does not mean they were so far off either.  They believed the Lord had a kingdom even if they failed to see His crown had thorns.  But they would drink from His cup and be baptized with His baptism of suffering.  Maybe they did not realize what they were asking but that would not prevent them from sharing in what Jesus would drink and be baptized.  James was first and John the last.  One died quickly in martyrdom at the hand of Caesar and the other slowly, watching his brothers in the faith give up their lives for the Lord.
In the economy of God’s kingdom, the king ends up the slave of all, the slave ends up the heir, the strong become weak, the weak become strong, the first are last, the last are first, the confident doubt, the doubter believe, the victors lose, the losers win, the masters serve, and the dead live.  It is no wonder that James and John did not get it.  None of us do.  We are daily blessed with mercies new that we do not deserve and once for all with salvation unearned by those who benefit from it.

The Lord is not angry with James and John for their arrogance.  He is a good Lord and a generous Savior.  His mercy endures forever so it can endure a moment of bald greed from disciples who should have known better.  Jesus even forgives the rest of the disciples who are offended that James and John thought to ask what they had all wanted for themselves.  They all wanted what we want still – our place in the Kingdom, our moment in God’s Son, our fifteen minutes of fame, and a little glory to make up for all the crap life shoves your way.  They did not know what they were asking for or how to ask for it but at least they asked.        

We live in a world which no longer wants to be with Jesus or share in His glory.  In our world, the glory is being the doubter or the skeptic.  Whatever the weaknesses and shortcomings of James and John, in their heart of hearts they wanted to be with Jesus through difficulty and in glory.  Give them that, at least. What of you and me?  Will we drink of Jesus’ cup or turn up our noses at the prospect of serving God and others in His name?  Will we embrace the baptism of suffering or will we choose an easier and less painful path to glory?  The answer to these questions you and I are now writing by what we believe, how we live out that faith, and what values accompany us into the Kingdom of God.

Maybe James and John were fools but they continued to serve the Lord, preaching and teaching right up until their death.  Maybe James and John were filled with thoughts of pride and ambition but the glory they sought included Jesus and did not exclude Him.  What about you and me?  Do we serve without counting the cost or do we count the cost of serving too high?  Are we faithful or does our faithfulness wear out as soon as it begins to cost us something?  Are we fools for Christ or just fools?  

Let James and John be an example to us.  Their bravado and their foolishness was not hidden behind a pious exterior.  They were glad to be fools for Christ.  Christ died for them.  He rose for them.  He forgave them.  He worked through them.  They waited upon the Lord even when it was made clear to them that at the end of their waiting no seats of glory on the right or left were Jesus to give.  They were happy to have whatever the Father ended up giving them.  The glory of salvation was all the glory they needed.  This little incident only reminded them of that.

We are fools for Christ with them.  We look at water and see in the font the womb that gives us birth to everlasting life.  We hear a pastor stand in front us and say “You are forgiven” and we believe it.  We hold up a book in gold plating believing that it speaks God’s Word to us.  We open our mouths to receive bread that is Christ’s flesh and the cup of His blood.  We pray trusting that God will give us the right answer even it is it not the one we want.  We open our wallets to surrender the money to the Lord.  We walk out the door with the blessing of God on us and believe that will carry us through week and right back here.

Jesus comes for sinners and if you are one, He is your Savior.  That is what shocks us most of all.  God loves us not with the tenuous love that will give up as soon as we screw up but with the enduring love that forgives and restores us as often as we need it.  You know what would be great?  If when we open our eyes in heaven and see that James and John are on the right and left of Jesus – not because they asked but because the Father willed it.  For then we would know why we were there.

Bet you have never heard this. . .

Typically Lutherans are sensitive about ceremonies.  Though Lutherans are much more comfortable on the whole with the recovery of ceremonies lost over time, it is still not uncommon for Lutherans to complain that this or that is too Catholic.  I get it.  I am old.  I grew up in a Lutheran congregation that was particularly sensitive in this regard.  They did not apply the label to the tolling of the church bell during the Our Father or the Verba Christi and would have been highly offended if someone had said it but they definitely wanted to make sure that people did not mistake them for what they were not.

The old joke is that if identical twin boys, one a Roman Catholic priest and the other a Lutheran pastor, walked down the street in clericals, any Lutheran worth his salt could tell them apart and knew which was his guy and which was not.  I have not seen much evidence of the truth of this but I take it at face value.  Lutherans can smell a Roman without too much trouble.  At least they think they can.

Oddly enough, however, when have you ever heard a Lutheran turn up his or her nose at something and dismiss it by saying That is too Protestant?  Of course not.  You have never heard this.  While it does not take much to violate the smell test against those things too Catholic, no Lutheran I know would ever complain that something was too Protestant.  Lutherans are quick to accuse Reformation era practices and the very words of Luther himself as being suspect.  Luther, after all, must have had a bad day when he said we ought to make the sign of the cross.  He surely did not mean to tell us we should do this.  Maybe we could if we really wanted to but most Lutherans know they don't want to, right?

So that is my point.  The complaining style Lutherans are always on the hunt for things too Catholic but they have yet to find something too Protestant.  If you don't believe me, look at how hard it is to convince folks that adding back into the rubrics the catholic practice of our past and throughout the ages is legitimate and authentic.  But we Lutherans will accept every liturgical free for all borrowed from the Baptists and the non-denominationals and gladly affirm that this practice is thoroughly legit.  It just might be that we really do not know who we are....

Sunday, March 17, 2024

Curious. . .

While I am in no way desiring to challenge the significance of the Common Service for American Lutheranism, the reality is that this does not represent one stream within Lutheranism but a conglomeration of several, perhaps many streams of liturgical tradition and practice.  It is certainly an improvement over what went before among the Lutherans in America and it is a laudable achievement no matter what.  Yet, it is, to a certain extent, an invention.  It was created at a time when Lutheran congregations in America had degenerated into a liturgical identity that was alien to our Confession and more reflective of the religious culture around them.  Except for the Missouri Synod and its German liturgical norm, American Lutheranism looked more American than Lutheran.  We should all be grateful for the accomplishment of a norm that was and remains distinctly Lutheran.  It lives on not simply in the Common Service of 1888 but in the forms produced by the Lutheran version of the liturgical movement.  To deny the kinship is to be blind to the relation between what was produced in the 1960s and 1970s and what went before it.  Nevertheless, the Common Service tradition is less than 150 years old and strives more to a consensus of the various versions than a reflection of what ought to be normative.  The failing of the liturgical movement within Lutheranism was its refusal to fully unpack what went before and to be more influenced by the liturgical movement of Rome.

In any case, what I find curious is that those so adamant that the Common Service tradition is the most authentic liturgical face of Lutheranism are also those who insist that the one year historic lectionary is the only authentic pericopal system for Lutheranism.  The odd thing here is that the historic lectionary is decidedly older than the Common Service.  It could even be said that the Common Service tradition is a baby in comparison to the age and breadth of the historic lectionary.  Neither, however, were dropped down on tablets from on high and both represent a particular choice or decision for what we will use.  I might add that the version of the historic lectionary most used is that from the Lutheran Service Book and that in and of itself is neither pristine nor without editorial change.  Perhaps the work of the Lutheran Missal Project represents the most comprehensive view of Lutheran history and practice when it comes to the historic lectionary.  It will be interesting to see the finished product and to see how this impacts both the present and the future going forward.

What I find most interesting is that both the Common Service and the historic one year series of readings appointed for the Church Year seem to be most concerned with Lutheran versions and practice.  I suppose that there is no avoiding our own concern for our own history.  Yet the concern for the Confessions is not quite so narrowly applied.  The Augustana claims no less than the catholic consensus of doctrine and practice (which includes church usages such as the liturgical form and the lectionary).  If we applied the same rationale for choosing the historic lectionary with its antiquity well prior to 1517 to the Divine Service, we would surely find some things in the Divine Service a challenge or a problem.  Not in the least here is the issue of the canon of the mass.  Here I would mention two things.  One is the placement of the Our Father prior to the Words of Institution.  The other is the distinct lack of any formal thanksgiving or Eucharistic Prayer.  Indeed, one of the things that is most confusing about switching services in a hymnal such as Lutheran Service Book is exactly that -- the change within the canon.  Divine Service 3 has the Our Father and then the Verba Christi without any formal thanksgiving (except the Proper Preface).  Divine Services 1, 2, and, to a certain extent 4, have prayers in which thanksgiving for the saving work of Christ takes prominent place.  Divine Service 3 is clearly out of sync with the liturgical forms and practices before Luther and Divine Services 1, 2, and 4 show a more organic development with the liturgical tradition prior to the Reformation.  I will not go into a discussion of ad orientem but it could be part of this debate as well.

In the end this is probably not a burning question in the minds of most.  We have surrendered to the idea of diversity to the point where many see no issue here.  I am certainly the odd man out in bringing this up.  What I would suggest is that those who insist upon the antiquity of the historic one year lectionary should reflect a bit more on the disconnect in the canon between the Common Service and what went before and what has come after.  I would also suggest that if antiquity is a prime consideration in favor of the historic one year lectionary, the same should encourage us Lutherans to revisit the issue of the Eucharistic Prayer (which does not have to be the Roman Canon with the objectionable parts Luther removed).  The reality is that Lutheranism has not formally addressed the topic of why there cannot or should not be a Eucharistic Prayer in the canon -- only why some of the words of the Roman Canon were found unfaithful.  Therein end my rambling thoughts for today. . .

Saturday, March 16, 2024

Behind the veil. . .

The practice of veiling images and crucifixes is sometimes viewed as a way of hiding them from view.  In reality, the opposite ends up happening.  Veiling crucifixes, statues, and images tends to draw the eye to what is there.  The veils are thin and do not quite hide anything.  In fact, the veiling tends to heighten our senses to the presence of the crucifix, statue, or image and to make us more aware of them.  

In the Middle Ages, especially in Germany, the images of crosses and saints were also covered from the start of Lent. The custom of Lenten veiling was common by the tenth century in England (e.g., Aelfric of Eynesham, the Regularis Concordia), and mirrored the practice of Europe dating from at least the ninth century. In the 1600s, Rome limited the veiling to Passiontide (from Palm Sunday on). Some associate it with the Gospel text for Passion Sunday, which speaks of Jesus hiding himself from the people (John 8:59).  

Since Lent is an unfolding of the journey to the cross, I find it more logical to veil at the beginning of Lent, from Ash Wednesday onward, and then to remove the veil on Good Friday.  Perhaps we might explain the veiling as a means of training us to perceive the glory of the Cross a glory not obvious to us except by faith. It then makes it even more profound when we view the unveiled crucifix on Good Friday and hear, “Behold the wood of the Cross, on which was hung the salvation of the world.”  In another sense, the glory of the cross is not overcome by but rather made clearer in the light of the Resurrection.

Of course, some readers will get their dander up and insist we do not have to veil anything.  Who says we do?  But it is a very helpful custom.  The cross is veiled to the disciples and Jesus unveils it step by step until Good Friday when it is fully exposed.  In this small way, the veiling in the churches mirrors what is happening in the appointed readings and draws even more attention to the death by which life is come into the world.  Something to think about during Lent...

Friday, March 15, 2024

When Sunday is merely the weekend. . .

The proliferation of Saturday worship services is thoroughly understandable.  People have lives and plans and if you want them to include worship, you have to find a time that they can fit it into their busy schedules.  Sunday is no longer the Lord's Day for most Christians but merely one day of the weekend.  How many of us think of Sunday as the day of our Lord's resurrection, the first day of the week, the eighth day of the new creation ushered in by that resurrection of our Lord?  Instead, Sunday is just part of the weekend.  It is not even a day reserved for family but has become a typical work day for doing the weekly shopping, laundry, cleaning, yard work, etc.  In addition, it is the "me" day we have claimed for us -- to sleep in, to do what we want to do, and to be freed from the ordinary routines of the work week.  This is even more true of Sunday than it is of Saturday.  Weekends are thoroughly understandable but are we missing something here?  A very long time ago Pope John Paul II lamented this situation:  “Unfortunately, when Sunday loses its fundamental meaning and becomes merely part of a ‘weekend,’ it can happen that people stay locked within a horizon so limited that they can no longer see ‘the heavens.’” 

Couple this with the penchant for transferring week day holy days and festivals to Sunday and we have minimized to the extreme any demand upon the people's time and attention.  No more Epiphany on January 6 or Ascension Day forty days after Easter or Reformation on October 31 or All Saints on November 1.  We do not know our calendar anymore.  We reduce the liturgical obligation to Sunday alone and then transfer Sunday to a time when people are less busy with other things in their lives, Saturday late afternoon.  We no longer expect anyone to arrange their schedule around the Lord but have turned our Savior into a beggar who must plead with people and bargain for their time.  As I am often reminded, time is more valuable than money and we have done our best, it would seem, to reduce the time the Lord lays claim to down to a minimum.  Then we wonder why there are so many empty pews!

This past Christmas was a pain.  I know it just as about every Lutheran pastor I know also knew it.  We had the regular schedule of services for the morning (Advent IV) and then several Lessons and Carols for Christmas in the afternoon, ending with the Divine Service at 8 pm.  Then on Monday, Christmas Day, we had the Divine Service at 10:45am.  I preached six times over two days (four different sermons).  Was it worth it?  To answer that you must place a judgment and value upon the Lord's Incarnation.  I think you already know my answer.  We have a proliferation of Christmas services largely because of the space issue both in the building and in the parking lot.  Sadly, if it were not for the many who only show up on Christmas, we could have boiled the Christmas services down to one.  Where are the faithful?  I am happy to meet the new folks who showed up for the first time and visitors who were new to our congregation on Christmas Eve but if the ordinary crew for a Sunday morning and the Christmas only folks had all come, we would have been packed for every service.  We were not.  

But this is not simply about Christmas.  It is about the way that Sunday has faded as the Day of the Lord and become merely one day of the weekend and all weekends belong to us.  If anyone, even God, expects us to disrupt our schedules, they have another thing coming.  We will worship when and if it is convenient to us and we have nothing better to do.  I wish this were only a Christmas problem.  It is not.  Sure, I know that folks are traveling and working and have to get the kids into bed at a decent hour.  I am a parent.  Our family had the same things to wrestle with just like parents do today.  The reality is that worship competes against an abundance of options -- most of which are likely more entertaining than what happens in the Lord's House on the Lord's Day.  But if we cannot get the faithful to come, how can we expect those new to the faith to learn the habit of the Lord's House on the Lord's Day?  

Something to think about for us all...

Thursday, March 14, 2024

An interesting ratio. . .

I read this and found the ratio rather startling.  According to the most recent figures found, there are 5,340 Roman Catholic bishops worldwide.   At the same time, there are some 400,000 priests worldwide (a number declining rather than growing).  Of course, some of those must be retired.  However, it is a shocking thing to think that Rome has one bishop for every 75 priests.  That is a very fat level of middle management given the governance structure of Rome.  It would seem that instead of merely closing parishes, Rome needs to close up some dioceses and to figure out where to put some of those bishops who are doing, well, who knows what.  They could be helping with the numbers of parish priests not being replaced by new ordinands.

Of course, this is probably not true only of Rome.  Lord knows, the Episcopal Church is rather top heavy as well.  If you added in those serving in some middle level bureaucracy in many church structures you would probably find a similar ratio.  Of course, most of these judicatories are not suffering as much as Rome the decline in the numbers of priests overall.  In any case, it does not bode well for Rome's future.  Maybe instead of complaining about folks who reject the papal direction today they could actually try to serve the needs of the folks whose parishes are being shuttered for lack of clergy.  

Could it be that the high numbers of clergy not serving in parishes and the high number of bishops is symptom of the common ailment of Christianity?  In other words, we value the administrative work of management over the Word and Sacrament ministry of pastor with his people?  Could it be that we also have come to depend more upon our earthly wisdom in the form of planning, marketing, and administration over the promise of God to be where two or three are gathered in His name around His Word and Supper?  At least in Rome's case, such a high proportion of bishops to priests only underscores the general incompetence of the managers in that body -- given that they have their hands full with everything from blessing same sex couples to rooting out clergy sex abuse to preventing people from either celebrating or attending the wrong mass.  It appears that permanent deacons total 541.  Well, that will help with the problem! Oh, well.  Not my problem....