Religion = doctrine or experience?

Again, First Things has a good piece on liturgical renewal and the return of one raised in the liturgy to that very liturgy that gave him life.  It is a good read and I urge you to take a look.  I appreciated his personal take on the journey back to his beginnings and Leroy Huizengais a good writer.  I stole a quote from his article:

In recent years, however, while continuing to play in worship bands, I began to become increasingly uncomfortable with the idea of “contemporary worship.” As Rich Mullins, to this day one of my heroes, once said, contemporary Christian music is great entertainment, but it doesn’t belong in worship. (Ironic, indeed, coming from the guy who gave us “Awesome God” and “Sometimes by Step.”) 

Rich Mullins is a big name in the contemporary Christian music scene and I had not heard him say that contemporary Christian music is good entertainment but terrible worship.  I concur and it gives me pause to think that one who has contributed so much to the standard literature of the CCM experience knows where is belongs and where it does not belong..

Leroy Huizenga suggests that among the reasons for the Lutheran (or other liturgical church's) foray into contemporary worship and contemporary Christian music:

I suspect it involved a shift in the philosophy of religion (itself a subset of other cultural and intellectual currents) that came about in the 1960s and 1970s. Painting with a broad brush, before that time, religion concerned doctrine. After that shift, religion concerned experience. It’s easiest to see, I think, in evangelicalism, but the pattern holds for mainline Protestant and Catholic churches too. In any event, Christian worship became all too captive to culture and undergirded by a reflexive pragmatism. 

His point is well taken.  When I was confirmed as a Lutheran youth, it was all about memorizing doctrine and Scripture -- namely the Small Catechism (1941 version) and the supporting passages of that Synodical edition of the Catechism. At some point along the way, we became suspicious of indoctrination and decided it was, on the whole, a bad word.  So we substituted experience and relationship for training in doctrine and righteousness.  We began to think that kids should feel more and think less about God.  Perhaps some of that was a needed corrective for a faith prone to intellect and weak on emotion.  But we did not stop with balance.  We turned the tables and raised up a generation (tail end of the boomers and those afterwards) who learned quickly doctrine=bad religion and relationship/experience=good religion.  It was a small step from the catechism classroom to the nave and chancel to bring about the same transformation.

It is still the claim among missionals that liturgy only works for high brow, intellectual, education, and emotional stunted folks and most of those are old so the Church has to move on.  To fill the fill we picked up our old Peter, Paul, and Mary style worship music of the 1960s and put it on steroids -- complete with the sound systems and screens to make the whole experience complete.  It worked only because we had taught them doctrine was bad and left their catechetical training starved for truth and saturated with the fat of relational and experiential Christianity.

The big difference between the missional crowds and the confessional folks is less musical taste or sense of beauty than it is the centrality of doctrine in the catechetical ministry and worship life of the Church.  The missional crowds seek what works -- they are very pragmatic in that regard.  They seek to fill the void of what is lacking in culture and society today.  They are seeking a relationship for people for whom being lost is sin but more than that, it is isolation and being disconnected from family and community.  The confessionals also care about community (koinonia, they would say) but they view this essentially through the lens of that which the Word and Sacraments create, nurture, and nourish.  What works is less important than what is true and what is true is the God works through the means of grace.  Period.

So, for example, those missionals and experiential Christians who practice CCM and CCW and who seek relationships with Jesus for the people they reach do not get the problem.  After all, they are bringing in people who would never darken the confessional door.  Why do the confessionals complain?  The confessionals wonder how you can have a relationship with Jesus apart from the Word and Sacraments and see these as much vehicles of truth as creators of koinonia.

The old battle continues under new names and in different venues but the issue boils down to the same conflict between truth/doctrine and relationship/experience.  We might well look to history to see how this pendulum swing has gone before and what fruits it has borne -- but that would be too simple.  So we continue to plod down the same old tired ruts of pitting them against each other, making them compete, and choosing one over the other. 

The one thing that gets lost in all of this is that there is no relationship and there is no experience of Jesus apart from the means of grace.  Larry Peters did not say it and neither did Luther or the Church before Him.  The rock on which Jesus builds His Church is really Himself, the means of grace which impart Christ and His gifts to us, and the faith created by the Spirit that responds with "Amen."  I get the relationship/experience/missional crowd.  I just don't think they get me... at all!

I just couldn't help it... wish he had...

Fearfully and wonderfully made...

Twins playing in the womb.... it is testament to the amazing gift of God in creation and the work of God to bring forth life.  Who can watch such an image and not be moved to rejoice in the Lord?!

Did you have a happy progenitor's day?

In an age of political correctness, in which the only folks we offend are those who hold to the "traditional" point of view, it comes as no surprise that Spain has eclipsed the idea of father or mother altogether.  On the birth certificate used in Spain, mother and father are no longer categories of identification.  When Spain redefined marriage the Spanish Government rewrote birth certificates, removing the words “father and mother” and replacing them with “progenitor A and progenitor B.”  So, I trust you had a happy progenitor's day a couple of weeks ago and again in May.

First we have those who suggest that having two moms or two dads instead of a matched set of each is no biggie when it comes to the kids (a statistical myth I wrote about earlier).  Now we have the move away from the terms mother or father to something missing the cache of these terms of endearment but hitting the mark on pure neutrality.  Until Hallmark gets on the bandwagon, I am not sure how these might catch on.

What is so shocking is the way we assimilate these changes so quickly, without much fuss!  Did the Spaniards rise up against such a break with tradition and an affront against common sense?  Not to my knowledge.

Now I read that the Secretary of Defense has directed the celebration of Gay Pride in the military -- the same military that only recently advocated don't ask, don't tell, and discharged violators of that rule.  Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Friday thanked gay and lesbian military members for their service, as the Pentagon prepares to mark June as gay pride month with an official salute. In a matter of months we go from being an unwilling service tolerating gays who are quiet to one that openly celebrates gays.  Last time I checked we did not have a pride day or month for heterosexuals, religious adherents, ethnic backgrounds, etc... so why Gay Pride now?

The shock I am focusing upon is not the Gay Pride designation but the speed with which the changes in the fabric of society have taken place.  The pace of change is itself a big problem.  The dizzying race to turnaround old ways to the proper, modern attitudes is sure to cause us problems in the long run.  We are still not finished with the full integration of races into the fabric of America (although we have spent more than 150 years in the process).  Why do we believe that we can accelerate the pace of these sweeping changes into a matter of a year or two -- or even months -- without consequences.

I am convinced that people have grown immune to such change and are not even aware of it.  Incapable of processing the radical shifts in what is promoted as good, right, and salutary, they end up numb to the changes themselves and we are left with a papered over transformation that covers the great divide but does not reconcile the divisions.

A tale of two boys...

Sermon preached for the Nativity of St. John the Baptist on Sunday, June 24, 2012.

    The Gospel begins with the story of two boys – their stories are similar and strikingly different.  Their conceptions were both from God, one a child given to aged parents who had given up hope of a son and the other to a woman and her betrothed who neither expected nor sought the surprise of a son.  They were born six months apart to mothers who were cousins.  The mothers grew up in different surroundings but their lives forever intertwined – Mary from Galilee; Elizabeth from Judea.  One a carpenter's wife and the other wife of a priest. John thought to follow his father’s footsteps in service to God and the other expected only to be a carpenter. John was a child of promise to whom many looked while Jesus was hidden in plain sight until the one from the wilderness would reveal Him as their lives intersected in the Jordan River.  One brought the old voice of silent prophets back to Israel and the other fulfilled the prophetic Word with the dawn of hope never seen before.
    Suddenly, quickly, and dramatically John appears.  His father was mute by doubt that challenged God.  From the barren home would come the first voice to speak “Thus saith the Lord” in more than 450 years.  When it came time to name this child of promise, the voice returned to signal that this child was born for something.  He shall be named John.
    His voice shook the foundations of Israel.  "Repent for the Kingdom of God is near!"  No one could recall when such a voice last spoke and they knew not what to do except heed the voice crying in the wilderness – even while the religious leaders of the day were wary.  But this prophet did not point to himself.  He spoke of Him who was to come, the mighty One of whom this prophet was unworthy.  "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,” he said. From the jump in his mother’s womb to the waters of the Jordan to his dying breath, John’s life and purpose were clear only in relation to Jesus.
    And from that moment on, "He must increase" while John must decrease.  This was not the regret of one who coveted the attention but the faithful trust of the one content to prepare the way for the One to come.  As quickly as John came, he was gone.  His disciples were released to Jesus.  His place fulfilled, he was content to fade away.  But it would not be so. Herod refused to let John simply disappear.  He spilt his blood and put his head on a platter – this meddlesome prophet had made enemies and Herod's wife worked the scheme until Herod could do nothing but acquiesce.
    John's nativity or birth is the only one on the Church's calendar besides Jesus.  Saints are remembered not on their birthdays but on their death days.  Because John's birth was the beginning of the messianic day, John is remembered both in birth and in death.  He is the prophet who is greatest in Israel, whose righteousness exceeds all other, and yet he is also a sinner in need of redemption by the One whose way He prepared.  John did not fight this but knew from the womb that his life only made sense in relation to Jesus, that his purpose was clear only when Jesus was in focus.
    Jesus comes just as suddenly, perhaps more so.  Unlike John's prominence, Jesus was hidden in plain sight until John pointed Him out in the waters of the Jordan.  He is there but hidden until the moment of revelation.  When it comes to mark Jesus as the Savior who will not depart from His people – the path of the cross becomes also in focus.  For this Jesus death is also the destiny of His life but the surprise of His resurrection and life gives to all who trust in Him redemption and hope.
    Jesus claimed John's crowds as His own.  "What do you see and hear?" Indeed.  He claims the promise spoken by John but not as words alone.  With deeds and works of power He is manifest among the people as the long-promised Son from God, the One who will faithfully shepherd God's people from the sins to forgiveness, from death to life.  The crowds followed because in His voice they heard authority to do more than condemn their sins.
    They heard in Him the voice of redemption, a love for sinners that would go to death to cleanse them and rise to keep them in righteousness forever.  Jesus is the embodiment of John's promise and the incarnation of the hope a dying world has longed so to hear.
    John was not without his temptation – "Are you the one who is to come or should we look for another?"  Yet his legacy is not one of doubt but of confidence, of faith, of trust in the Word of the Lord.  His witness was not some ambiguous claim with bookends of doubt and fear on either side.  His witness was clear: "I am not the light but the voice calling in the wilderness to prepare His way."  He was born to point to the Lamb and he was content to point to the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.  In life and in death his words still speak.  Herod did not silence him.  He speaks through us as we sing with our own voices Lamb of God, You take away the sins of the world” as we come to meet the hidden Jesus revealed in bread and wine.
    The Gospel begins with a tale of two boys – both children of promise – one to prepare and the other to complete the new day which God dawned upon our darkness.  We are loved and forgiven, we are cleansed and made whole, we are reborn to life forever, and we are set apart for holy witness and service to this Gospel.  Our lives are in focus only when Christ is in focus.  Our lives make sense only in light of Jesus.  To keep Jesus center is not to sacrifice ourselves but to find ourselves, to know the life that death cannot overcome, and to be set upon the way of righteousness, life, and joy.  Like John, we live to point to Jesus as our Lamb who takes away the sins of the world and as the sacrificial Lamb who offered Himself for the sake of the whole world.  The prophet’s voice speaks when we witness with John the greater One who is come to take away the sins of the world, to grant hope to the despairing, light to those in darkness, and life to those in the shadow of death.
    Let us never waver in the voice that points to Jesus the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.  Let us speak boldly the news of the Kingdom of God which is come in Christ.  Let us with John echo joyfully that in us and in all things, Christ must increase... for then, and only then, does who we are and why we are make any sense at all...  Amen!

My dream desk...

I have a love/hate relationship with post-it notes -- mostly love.  I go through a ton of them and keep my desk stocked with all sizes (preference for 3x3).  I am not a colorful person and generally stick to the washed out yellow of the cheap, imitators of the genuine brand.  So it was with great joy that I read of the invention of my dream desk (except that it is not styled like the giant mahogany traditional desk in my office and it has no drawers to squirrel away all my stuff).  They got the top just right.  Maybe this is the desk you have been waiting for, too!

I am not sure how exactly I would use it but I am pretty pumped with desire to give it a try. Imagine the things you could do with such giant yellow sticky notes!

Old fuddy duddy that I am, I might suggest a slight modification -- instead of the obligatory calendar desk pad, how about a calendar size stack of giant post-its that we could use to retrofit the glorious solid wood desks of old?

Yes, that is my modification -- not a desk made of post-its but a desk top of replaceable post-it notes for doodling, phone numbers, notes, etc...  The one good thing about the giant size is that they would be far easier to keep tabs on than the ubiquitous 1x1 1/2 size -- especially when it looses its sticky.  What do you think?  Is this a great idea or what?

Open Letter to the Missouri Synod

In response to the incursion of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) into the realm of religious freedom with its controversial contraceptive mandate issued earlier this year, we are compelled to offer “Free Exercise of Religion: Putting Beliefs into Practice,” an open letter to our members and, indeed, all Americans.

Twenty-four leaders of religious organizations across the country have joined with us in signing the letter. Together, these signatories represent more than 10 million American men, women and children. They represent religious organizations that stand with us in opposition to the contraceptive mandate on the grounds that it is an infringement of our God-given right to act according to the tenets of our faith.

>>Read Letter
 From Rev. Jon D. Vieker
Senior Assistant to the President

Where do you think you are going dressed like that?

Found this on the, where else, internet:

Below is the modesty Dress Code enforced for entry into Saint Peter's Basilica.

The dress code forbids:

• hats for lay men inside the basilica
• shorts/skirts above the knees
• sleeveless shirts
• shirts exposing the navel
• shirts for women that expose cleavage
• shirts which contain profanity
• excessive jewelry
• The use of mobile phones is also prohibited, as is smoking.

In my lowly layman's opinion, this same dress code should be printed out and posted on the door of every Catholic Church on earth...the immodest clothing displayed on Sunday mornings is over the limit.

The sad thing is that people (especially mothers) used to have a cultured sense of decency. Nowadays this has been lost so that grown men and women see nothing wrong with entering a church half clad. The solution is not to judge and shame others but to bring about a re-education on what is modest and appropriate.

It ain't about false modesty.  It ain't about expensive clothing.  It ain't about good taste or lack thereof.  It is about humble modesty which shows both respect and a willingness to let the attention focus upon the Lord and not upon yourself.  Some of you will try to make me out a snob or a prude or even a high brow (who me?) but I say your matter of dress should reflect the attitude of the heart.  Trouble is, it usually does -- in the wrong way.  The Church is the one place where if you got or not, don't flaunt it.  'Nuff said....  

'We cannot celebrate a sin'

From the news agency of the German dioceses (KNA), via the news website of the Diocese of Münster:

Kurt Koch for commemoration and acknowledgment of guilt

Ecumenism Cardinal: Reformation is no reason to celebrate

There is no reason to celebrate the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation, in 2017, in the opinion of the "ecumenical cardinal" of the Vatican, Kurt Koch. He pleads for, not an anniversary, but a "reformation memorial", said the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity on Tuesday night (04/24/2012) in Vienna: "We cannot celebrate a sin." On October 31, 1517 Martin Luther published 95 theses on the state of the Church, which started the Reformation and led to the secession of the Protestant churches.

He was aware that, with his statement, he might be perceived as an "anti-ecumenist," Koch said. He expects to make an anniversary commemoration a "two-sided admission of guilt", following the model of reconciliation seeked by John Paul II in 2000. The commemoration of the Reformation would then lead to progress in the ecumenical discussion of the churches.  With the atonement plea in the the Jubilee Year of 2000, the pope apologized extensively for the first time in 2000 years for the errors and sins of Christians. Among these, John Paul II denounced the division of Christendom.

A little something on the day we commemorate the Presentation of the Augsburg Confession.... just to show that the opinions are not all agreed... at least yet.... so, well, the work goes on...

The strange business of church conventions...

Typically, when our church gathers in convention (on whatever scale) we receive overtures from congregations, conferences of Pastors, circuits, etc..  These are sent to direct the church to one thing or another from the basic component structures of our church body (congregations and clergy).  But these do not go to the convention delegates in raw form.  They are sifted through a group called a floor committee.  This committee hashes over these (often conflicting) overtures and, in effect, chooses sides between competing motions, re-writes motions to fit the particular jargonese of church resolutions, and eliminates those which will never be considered by the convention in any form.  At this point it is safe to say that the original overtures will never be seen again.

Now to be fair, there are public hearings on the original resolutions.  Strangely, the floor committees hear from the delegates prior to the introduction of the actual resolutions but after they have already written up the resolutions which they will be introducing to the floor of the convention.  Now they may tweak the resolutions because of testimony at the open hearings but they hardly ever change them (substantively, anyway).  So it is a way for those who hold strong opinions to vent their passion on an issue while offering little real opportunity to shape those resolutions which the floor committees write and present to the delegates.

The floor committees run the show on the convention floor.  Every resolution addressed to the convention generally comes from the floor committee.  Occasionally the resolution is modified (amended) and occasionally a substitute resolution is offered but the vast majority of resolutions come out of the floor committee and are voted up or down as they were presented.

In the end, most conventions pass resolutions strikingly similar to the ones drafted by the floor committees.  These do more merely funnel the many overtures from the constitutive elements of the Synod, they actually work to direct those overtures -- and the direction tends to favor the current administration of the District or the Synod.  Those on floor committees are appointed by the District or Synod President and these individuals are always going to appoint like minded folk to run their shows.  This is not evil and I don't mean to say it is manipulative but it is a fact of life.

At the convention, delegates speak to the motion.  It is a highly structured and awkward conversation.  The so-called Behnken rule applies.  For ever pro speaker, there must be a con speaker, etc...  The limit is two minutes per speaker (at least where I am).  And just as the discussion gets going and people begin speaking passionately on behalf of their positions, someone comes strolling to the mic with a smug grin and says the four words that bring everything to a grinding halt.  "I call the question."  These words represent a judgement that the conversation has gone bad and is not accomplishing anything and will come to an abrupt end if the delegates agree (which mostly they do).

Then we vote.  At least where I am we are low tech.  No electronic signals here.  Old fashioned paper ballots printed, marked, counted, reprinted, marked, and counted until a majority and shows of hands to most all motions.  Not scientific but somewhat fool proof though slow.

Only a few motions actually make it through a District Convention and most of the time is spent on PR, recognition of people, videos, greetings, points of privilege, and other non-business speeches in which we wax long on how familial we are and how we must trust each other and play nicely together as we always have (do I detect a parental tone here?).  We eat often, drink massive amounts of coffee, tea, and water, make many trips to the rest rooms, make smiled greetings to any and all, hold manifold private and studied conversations with those of like mind and those not, maybe drink a beer or two... and then we go home.

It is not always efficient.  It is not always effective.  It is not always fair.  It is not always representative of who we are as the Church or its manifold congregations... but it is the Missouri way and we have raised our children well in this and they seem unlikely to depart from it soon...  But I wish we could do better...

Sacrament of the Sick...

I grew up understanding the idea of last rites for the dead.  Even if Lutherans did not have a sacramental rite for the dying, we knew to call the Pastor when death was near.  As a Pastor I have been at several hundred bedsides of the sick unto death.  For several dozen, the last words they heard this side of glory were the words of the Commendation of the Dying and the blessed final stanza of Lord, Thee I Love With All My Heart.  Who cannot be moved by the powerful imagery of those words calling the angels to come and bear us home to the bosom of Abraham?

After Vatican II, the Extreme Unction became less extreme and more commonplace -- it became less the essential last rite for Roman Catholics and mutated into the Sacrament of the Sick.  One author has chronicled the change thus:

Following Vatican II, the significance of the change in the name of the sacrament, and the timing of its administration, was drilled into the thinking of seminarians and priests alike. It was no longer called “extreme unction” (the sacrament for the dying), and it was now to be administered as soon as possible in any serious illness. Thus, the sacrament was, practically speaking, reduced to anointing the sick, and it became the “sacrament of the anointing of the sick.” In reality, the norms were very clear that in the phrase, “the sick,” is meant the seriously ill, or those whose health is seriously impaired due to old age. (PCS §9) Unfortunately, the USCCB decided to add their own little footnote to this number 9, which argues that periculose, in the original Latin text, must be translated as “seriously,” rather than “gravely,” “dangerously,” or “perilously.” Then it simply states without any further qualification that the sacrament “should be given to anyone whose health is seriously impaired.”

I especially like these words that Roman Catholic theology and rubric use to frame this:

This anointing also raises up and strengthens the soul of the sick person, arousing a great confidence in the divine mercy; thus sustained, the sick person may more easily bear the trials and hardships of sickness, more easily resist the temptations of the devil ‘lying in wait for his heel’ (Gen. 3:15), and sometimes regain bodily health, if this is expedient for the health of the soul.

Of course, we all know that Lutherans have rediscovered anointing -- not in the extreme nature of this unction but more in character with the Sacrament of the Sick.  It has, in both my parishes, brought great comfort to those so afflicted -- not as sacrament but, perhaps, sacramental.  It points to the grace if not itself being a means of grace.  The author of the noted piece is gravely concerned about the abuse of this sacrament of extreme unction having become somewhat of a novelty, trivializing the idea of impending death and making commonplace and even adding to the general fear of death that causes folks to seek such sign and comfort.  I am not so sure.  I may not have history on my side but as a Pastor of more than 32 years, I know that we live in times when the separation of sin from disease and death is chronic even among Christians.  I also know that whatever we can do to connect the spiritual care of the Gospel to those wrestling with physical affliction (which, unless I am terribly mistaken, is itself the mark of death we carry in our bodies) helps the connection of Christ's death and resurrection to every facet of this mortal life.  That is not a bad thing.  I think that perhaps we have two distinct rites here -- one for the commendation of the dying in their last hours on earth and the other as the sign of Christ's comfort and strength and grace made perfect even in our weakness and carrying us through the days of our trouble here on earth.  It may have one source but it has two distinct foci and the Church would do well to acknowledge this.

Strangely, anointing is very ecumenical with hardly an evangelical supply place without a bottle of anointing oil for sale.  It is surely strange that the great divide between side on baptism and the Eucharist finds more common ground on anointing -- significant if not sacramental in authority and use.

The pen is mightier than the sword...

Remember when Pres. Obama handed to Sr. Keehan, head of the Catholic Health Association, one of the pens used to sign into law Obamacare?  Well, apparently she used that pen to write her own judgement that the so-called compromise over abortion, antiabortifacients, and birth control was, in fact, no compromise at all.  Read it all...

(RNS) In an unexpected blow to the Obama administration and a major boon for America's Catholic bishops, the influential Catholic Health Association on Friday (June 15) rejected White House proposals aimed at easing faith-based objections to the contraception mandate.

“The more we learn, the more it appears that the … approaches for both insured and self-insured plans would be unduly cumbersome and would be unlikely to adequately meet the religious liberty concerns of all of our members and other Church ministries,” Sister Carol Keehan and leaders of the CHA said in a five-page response to the Department of Health and Human Services.

The point here is not who won and who lost but the problems with crafting a compromise over a moral absolute.  It cannot be done.  The cause for life is a cause for life.  Period.  There is no compromise on those medical procedures or medicines which prevent pregnancy by killing what is in the womb.  To pay for it in any way shape or form is to be an accomplice to this evil that deprives the most basic right to those not yet born.

The struggle goes on...

Androgynous Parents

For a long time it has been postured that parenting is parenting -- no matter who does it.  Parenting is without gender, androgynous, if you will.  Whether gay or straight, it matters little except that children have a stable home life and two parents.  It represents the holy grail of gay adoption advocates and is not a small issue with respect to rights and privileges accorded to gay as well as straight (marriage is but one of these issues).  For a long time those opposed to this notion have had studies and statistics thrown at them to disprove the idea that it does matter who those parents are. Now some serious research by those without an agenda has confirmed the myth that it does not matter who the parents are, as long as there are parents.

Two studies released Sunday may act like brakes on popular social-science assertions that gay parents are the same as — or maybe better than — married mother-father parents.

“The empirical claim that no notable differences exist must go,” University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus said in his study in Social Science Research.

Using a “gold standard” data set of nearly 3,000 randomly selected American young adults, Mr. Regnerus looked at their lives on 40 measures of social, emotional and relationship outcomes.
He found that, when compared with adults raised in married, mother-father families, adults raised by lesbian mothers had negative outcomes in 24 of 40 categories, while adults raised by gay fathers had negative outcomes in 19 categories.

Findings like these contradict claims that there are no differences between gay parenting and heterosexual, married parents, said Mr. Regnerus, who helped develop the New Family Structures Study at the University of Texas.

You can click on the link to read the story in the Washington Times.  My point here is that we are constantly told gender and orientation does not and should not matter except in the claim that equal rights should be accorded to all regardless of gender or sexual orientation.  Now we find out that the push for this position has been driven by ideology even more than the opposition to this view.

We are told parents are parents -- parenting is an androgynous role.  We are told that children should be free to choose sexual orientation and that the role of family, society, and education is to allow them the freedom to choose and to experiment for themselves.  We all heard the story of the Canadian couple raising a child without specific gender.  Regardless of the theological issues involved, do we want to turn child rearing into a grand experiment where all ideas and ideals have equal weight and value except the "traditional" model of husband, wife, and their children?

Entertainment Bibles. . .

I have on these pages complained about the marketing of Scripture as more a reflection of our status in life, the stage of life where we are, the self-image we cultivate, or the things we value most (usually much more than the Word of God).  It is a scandal of our own creation -- because we buy the dang things!  Anyway, I will not recount or recant what I have said but I am happy to read of another Lutheran Pastor who shares my disdain and who has framed his opposition in a very "entertaining" piece.

You can read it all here....  Pr. Russ Saltzman has written a pretty good summary of the problems with this whole category of Bibles.

I will simply copy a paragraph or two to bolster my own complaint about the marketing of Scripture into a cash cow for publishers no longer beholden to the Church and with an agenda not necessarily friendly with our cause of making known the Word of the Lord.

But if I have any real objection, it is less with The Voice itself and more with the entire category of what I call “entertainment Bibles,” every one of which was supposed to rock our Christian world.

The effect of an entertainment paraphrase, whatever the intention, is to titillate by novelty. When the novelty is gone, we go looking for new entertainment. That’s how it rolls.

An athiest fighting her Catholic background gives up the war....

A big Catholic welcome to the “geeky atheist” Leah Libresco, who chronicles some of her journey here:

I decided to take a little time to make sure I really believed what I thought I believed, before telling my friends, family, and, now, all of you.  That left me with the question of what to do about my atheism blog.  My solution was to just not write anything I disagreed with.  Enough of my friends had accused me of writing in a crypto-Catholic style that I figured no one would notice if I were actually crypto-Catholic for a month and a half (i.e. everything from “Upon this ROC…” on) .  That means you already have a bit of a preview of what has and hasn’t changed.  I’m still confused about the Church’s teachings on homosexuality, I still need to do a lot of work to accept gifts graciously, and I still love steam engines.

Starting tomorrow, this blog is moving to the the Patheos Catholic channel (the url and RSS will remain unchanged).  Meanwhile, I’m in RCIA classes at a DC parish, so you can look forward to more Parsing Catholicism tags (and after the discussion of universalism we had last week, I think it will be prudent to add a “Possibly Heretical” category).

This post isn’t the final word on my conversion.  I’m sure there’s a lot more explaining and arguing to do, so be a little charitable in your read of this post and try to give me a little time to expand my ideas over the next few weeks.  (Based on my in-person arguments to date, it seems like most of my atheist friends disagree two or three steps back from my deciding Morality is actually God.  They usually diverge back around the bit where I assert morality, like math, is objective and independent of humans.  As one of my friends said, “Well, I guess if I were a weird quasi-Platonist virtue ethicist, this would probably convince me”).

And how am I doing?  Well, I’m baking now (cracking eggs is pretty much the least gnostic thing I can do, since it’s so, so disgusting to touch, and putting effort into food as more than the ransom my body demands for continued function is the second least gnostic).  I’ve been using the Liturgy of the Hours and St. Patrick’s Breastplate for most of my prayer attempts.  and, over all, I feel a bit like Valentine in this speech from Arcadia.

It makes me so happy… A door like this has cracked open five or six times since we got up on our hind legs. It’s the best possible time to be alive, when almost everything you thought you knew is wrong.

Baptists Elect Luteran President...

NEW ORLEANS (RNS) Pointing heavenward and wiping away tears, the Rev. Fred Luter was elected Tuesday (June 19) as the first black president of the predominantly white Southern Baptist Convention.

I guess he is the first of the Luterans to be elected President of the Southern Baptist Convention... we have no word yet on whether this might effect a change of status for the Augsburg Confession with respect to this denomination... wait and see!

Mosquito Nets in the cause of the Gospel

Buzz Off! LCMS Lutheran Malaria Initiative Song.

Rev. Fritz Baue wrote a song called Buzz Off! to support the LCMS Lutheran Malaria Initiative.  Listen to it here...

BTW the children at the Grace Lutheran Church VBS took up the goal of 50 nets for the LMI and we are right at the goal... what can YOU do???

Scatter the Seed...

Sermon preached for Pentecost 3, Proper 5B, on Sunday, June 17, 2012.

    For the last few hundred years even non-revival churches have been captive to a revivalist  understanding of evangelism.  We have been forever changed by the image of people knocking on your door trying to convince you of their religious truth and of people deciding to follow Jesus after hearing an emotional appeal.  Add to that the false idea that truth does not matter as much as sincerity and that none of us really can know the truth about God.  So we cling to our own ideas and try to convince the uncommitted that our truth is the better truth – so evangelism becomes who is better at explaining or selling their version of the truth.
    In addition the whole focus of evangelization have become so individual that faith is reduced to a mere decision, feeling, or desire instead of trust in the objective Truth who is Christ.  So evangelism becomes more about establishing a relationship than doctrine, the Gospel a product to be sold, and the churches arguing over where you should go to get their product.  So where is the voice of the Word calling into the darkened wilderness of the world with forgiveness, life, and salvation in Christ Jesus?
    Today we heard Jesus call describe how the Kingdom of God comes.  It is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground.  Funny how Jesus distances the work of the man from the seed and its growth.  The man does not plot out the field or judge the soil or otherwise tinker with the scattering of the seed.  He just scatters the seed.  Period.  The seed is the Word of God.  It does not belong to us and we do not control it or manipulate it.  God makes it work.  The farmer sleeps and rises while the seed sprouts and grows as God bids it.
    I grew up when farming was a small operation and the farmer dependent upon weather, soil, and timing.  Now it is a big business where the soil is manipulated, manipulated seeds are planted, the plants fertilized and herbicides keep the bugs away, and irrigation make up for the unpredictability of rain.  I wonder if the same thing has not happened to the Church.  Our marketing savvy, our technology, and our confidence in our craft have taught us to trust in and seek to control what is and has always been the domain of God.  All we are called to do is scatter the seed.
    What does it mean to scatter the seed?  It means to speak the Gospel in words.  It means to act out the Gospel in deeds.  Is that really so difficult?  It is not our faith we are called to share but the Word of the Lord.  We are not here to replicate our faith in others but to speak the Word  that has the power to bring forth fruit.  We act out the Gospel because the Word is not intellectual appeal but the power of love at work, redeeming and transforming lost lives and making holy what is sinful and dirty.  The Gospel is the power of mercy and service like we learn from the Good Samaritan.  But this mercy and service is nothing more and nothing less than Christ at work in us and through us. The love of Christ compels us to act in love and show forth the Kingdom of God.
    So we scatter the seed of the Gospel in words, deeds, and actions.  The rest is God's domain.  We sleep and rise up and sleep again.  But God continues to work His will.  The Word brings forth His appointed fruit – not because we help it along but because God wills it.
    The earth produces by itself, first the blade and then the ear, and then the full grain in the ear.  The blade is the fragile new growth of faith.  It is new and wonderful but weak and vulnerable.  Because we know the power of God in Word and Sacrament, we bring the new Christian into the Church where he is protected from the assaults of the enemy, from the voice of doubt in the world, and from the temptation to sin within every Christian.  As the Lutheran Hour used to say: bringing Christ to the nations and the nations to the Church.  It is all about God’s power and grace working in the Means of Grace to make this new growth prosper and bear its appointed fruit.
    The ear appears with all its potential.  The future lies right there in the life reborn by the work of God in baptism.  We have all that we need to do what God bids and become what God has called us to be.  We have the Word.  We have the Sacraments.  By these means of grace the Spirit works to bring forth the fruit God has appointed.  We do not make the fruit appear; the Lord brings forth His appointed fruit in us and faith trusts and rejoices in God’s work.
    Then the full grain shall appear.  The farmer does more waiting than anything else.  Waiting for the new growth, for the grain to appear, and then for it to ripen for the harvest.  The harvest is not our moment but God's.  The harvest is plentiful by God's design.  The day for that harvest God will appoint and we do not get to choose that day nor can we anticipate it.  Once the disciples wanted to weed out God’s field but Jesus insists that all must be left until God’s appointed hour.  It is enough for us to recognize the work of God all around us, to rejoice in the richness and fullness of what God has done, and to be ready when He calls for the harvest.
    Evangelism is not a methodology or a program.  It is putting into practice the trust that God does what He promises and we are to do what He bids.  Scatter the seed.  Worry not where it falls or upon whose ears the Word is spoken or among whom the mercy of Christ is shown.  Just do it.  God will do the rest. If we do the small part God has equipped us to do, God will do the rest.  But if we disdain scattering the seed, we only betray our failure to trust and our unwillingness to act for the Kingdom that called us through the voice of the Word and claimed us in baptismal water.
    It is not that we lack the training or programs or marketing ability or technology that the Church is in crisis.  It is that we lack confidence in God, in His Word, and in His Spirit.  It is this that cripples the individual Christian and creates the doubt and fear that keeps us silent when we are called to speak, that searches for words when God’s Word is to be proclaimed, and that substitutes talk about us for the Word of the cross and empty tomb.
    If you do what God asks, God will do the rest.  You need not understand it or agree with it.  God will do what He has promised.  Salvation does not come by human will or decision and neither does the Church grow by these means.  Salvation comes by the Word proclaimed and heard by the Spirit and the Church's job, our job as baptized believers, is to scatter the seed of the Word in words, in actions, and in demonstration of the Kingdom's values.  God will do the rest.  And, miracle of miracles, your faith grows as well.
    We seem perfectly willing to scatter all kinds of seed but the seed of the Word.  We tell people what we think and how we feel about everything except the truth that forgives, restores, redeems, and bestows eternal life.  On this Father’s Day we acknowledge that a dad is more than a provider of seed but one who mirrors God’s own protective and loving care to us.  The faithful Father will testify to his children what God has done and the promise of His Word that gives us hope.  The faithful Church will do the very same thing in the world – just as the faithful Christian.  So dads, and moms, sisters, and brothers, scatter the seed.  Speak the Word faithfully and forthrightly.  God will do the rest.  You can be sure of it.  Amen.

stolen... no, passed on from Tapani Simojoki who likewise passed it on from Jay Newman

Too funny for words... and not a little truth in this humor as well!

The Great Republic of Missouri

I think it was Robert Preus (of sainted memory) who said that the LCMS was not a republic of autonomous districts but a Synod divided into small administrative units.  Or something like that.  That we argue against it all the time, Missouri has always functioned as a hierarchical body, that is, until events of the last fifty years or so have led to act more like a republic of semi- or completely autonomous Districts.

The split in Missouri and the tensions leading up to it tended to emphasize the distinct character of the Districts, groups capable of making separate or even conflicting decisions from Mother Mo.  DPs were then less the representatives of Synod in that place than they were representatives of geographical (or, at least two non-geographical) groupings of Pastors and parishes.  Their job was to represent us to the Synod, if you will, in the same way that our Representatives and Senators represent their own constituencies to the halls of American government -- Synod being somewhat on the same character level as big, bad, obtrusive government.

So Synod is not me or even us -- Synod is them.  What we have lost sight of is that this invention is at best an illusion, perhaps a falsehood we tolerate, or, worst, a downright lie.  DPs and Districts do not represent the Christians in a certain place to the Synod as a whole.  They are simply Synod in that place.  The tendency of Districts to act as if the whole cannot decide without the agreement of the parts is a foreign understanding of the Synod.  The way Districts treat money, for example, is part and parcel of this alien understanding.  It is a convenient delusion to believe that it is ours first and only a small portion, as we determine, belongs to the whole.  None of the founders of Missouri ever conceived of Districts as competition with Synod.

Worse, the individual parishes and their Pastors routinely speak of Synod as they or them -- that is, not me... not us...  But the way our forefathers defined our church structure was the Synod's first meaning is me and us.  Synod is not "other" -- Synod is me.  Go look in the mirror.

Even worse is the idea of "corporate Synod."  I absolutely detest this thing.  It may be a legal distinction necessary and salutary in one context but it is untenable as theology or history.  It would do well if we just forgot about the legalese and went back to the more popular notion that we all are Synod and that Synod in this place is me/us (congregation and Pastor).

It would help our church body a great deal if we ceased speaking of Synod as they or them, ceased referring to the "corporate" Synod, and ceased the idea that Synod is something different from me/us.  We are them.  They are us.  Period.

The same goes for the special interest groups.  The Council of Presidents is not some special authority.  The CoP is simply a group of  people within the Synod with a common job description and experience -- part of the many that we are.  The same is true of every other little entity within the larger structure of Synod.  The sooner we see that Synod is us and we are Synod, the sooner we can act and work on becoming who we are (as Pres. Harrison is wont to say).

We have gotten to the sad point where some flaunt their independence from Synod, some flaunt their dissent from Synod, and some flaunt their cynicism and distrust of Synod.  It is as popular as cheating on your income taxes.  Well, that is wrong, too.  If Synod is to become something more than a synonym for all the things we despise, we have to start looking into the mirror and thinking "We are Synod; Synod are us."  Only then can we hope to rein in the great gulf of doctrine and practice -- in such way that there are no winners or losers.  For truly we have all lost by belonging to a Synod we despise, ridicule, and dispute.  Meanwhile, the good work that God is going in us, among us, and through us gets lost in the fray of the battle...

Certainty in an ambiguous world

The whole issue of doctrine has been rendered difficult if not impossible for modern conversation.  On the one hand, we are less convinced than ever that anyone or any church can ever know the truth completely or with certainty.  On the other, we are less convinced than ever that agreement in doctrine is even a possibility, much less necessity, for fellowship.  So we are left with a "conservative" view that agreement is good, that it ought to be pursued, but that it is possible only for core or essential doctrines.  Disagreement in non-core doctrines or nonessential dogma is not an expectation.  In this view diversity is anticipated but limited to the non-core aspects of the faith.  The "liberal" view is that since no one can know all or know with certainty much of anything, diversity -- even diversity which directly contradicts or conflicts -- is not only tolerated but celebrated.

Now there are a few anachronisms to these points of view; Missouri, being one of them.  These antiquated groups actually hold that doctrine can be known, that it can be known with certainty, and that it can be known to a rather high level of completeness.  This is what we say in theory, at least, although the practice is something we struggle with.  The tensions in Missouri center around how much diversity can be tolerated.  Some in the LCMS have resigned themselves to a high level of diversity and others still demand a more rigid uniformity.  The Orthodox have limited doctrinal certainty to the first seven ecumenical councils and have left the balance of the question to episcopal discretion and collegiality to decide.  Rome seems to have substituted communion with the Pope for doctrinal uniformity.  Like an umbrella, the Roman Catholic Church tolerates a certain level of disagreement and diversity as long as the central spine that holds it up (Papal authority) finds ready agreement.  Lord knows what might happen if that central authority of the papacy were to be dismantled.  What would hold Rome together?  Meanwhile, the rest of Christendom seems largely untroubled and even somewhat amused by the questions of what we can know of God, with what certainty we can know it, and what level of uniformity in confession and practice is required of those who claim fellowship.

Missouri and the smaller confessional Lutheran bodies are either dinosaurs of a past era or prophetic voices to the modern mess of ambiguity and relative truth.  It all depends upon who you are.  We in Missouri believe we are being prophetic; the rest of Christianity sees us as artifacts of an ancient and lost theological position.

So what then shall we do?  That is what Missouri is now considering.  In the so called "Koinonia" Project, we are being asked to discuss this basic question first and foremost.  Sure, some have already written off this conversation as fruitless or pointless -- a wasted effort.  Others have already gone past this and cannot figure out why such a big deal is being made of this issue.  They have come to accept this diversity and even frame it in the context of modern or old fashioned approaches.  Some believe the old style Lutherans will eventually come around.  Most of Missouri lies in the muddle, I mean, middle.  We recall an era when we were more confident, more certain, and more united -- we would like to go there again but we are not all that sure how you can recapture something  like this and we worry that we just might be missing something while we look away from the pressing matters of the parish and Church to pursue doctrinal clarity and doctrinal unity.

For my part, I think the potential far outweighs the cost or the distraction.  I cannot for the life of me see the future to a Christianity in which the Gospel means one thing to some and another thing to others and something completely different to many other groups within the whole.  Doctrinal clarity, doctrinal conviction, and doctrinal unity are not some impossible dream but the key to the revitalization of a Christianity which has grown fuzzy and complacent about the very truth that defines this faith.

A hollow victory that leaves ruin in its wake...

Thankfully the district board’s resolution, 5-01, did not pass. 5-01 was a tragedy and would have only given ULC $250,000 and more importantly it would have probably put ULC under church discipline as it said that ULC had violated the 9th commandment among other lies and half truths. When 5-01 was presented to the floor for discussion a Pastor called for a substitute motion. The substitute was excellent as it directed MNS Board of Directors to withdraw from the sale of ULC and deed the property to ULC. President Seitz ruled the motion out of order and then someone challenged the ruling of the chair. The discussion, on the ruling, was great and gave a lot of good reasons why the sale was unethical. I argued that this would have never happened if the district leadership had listened that to the many people telling them this was wrong including the joint MNN and MNS Pastoral conference which voted overwhelmingly that this matter should be decided by the district convention and not the board. After the lengthy discussion the vote to overrule the chair failed 158-216. Then we were back to 5-01 and someone offered another substitute motion, this one directed 2 million dollars from the sale to go directly to ULC to continue its ministry. An amendment to change the 2 million to $500,000 was offered and then rejected by a vote of 142-228. The discussion on this was interrupted a couple times by orders of the day and then taken up again after a couple hours. The final vote of the motion to give ULC was yes-181 no-165. Which is a very hollow victory as the beautiful ULC will be destroyed by a wrecking ball. I pray that ULC will find a new home and continue with its confessional ministry at the U of M.

That is the report from the MNS District Convention.... So we sell and demolish a church building right next to campus, housing a very successful and faithful Campus Ministry and congregation.... and in the end we give nearly all the money back to the congregation to help them relocate... to a property further from the focus of their mission...

What was it Jesus said about the sons of darkness being shrewder than the sons of Light????

The Demise of the Public Square. . .

Richard John Neuhaus, of sainted memory, often spoke of the public square as the great meeting place of people, ideas, politics, and values.  It was the primary location of the public conversation in which we engage one another for the good of all.  He also spoke prophetically of the "Catholic Moment" in which the Roman Catholic Church was poised to enter and have great impact upon that public conversation.  You can read him in his own words.  But it occurs to me that the public square has become more a thing of romance, myth, and memory and less a reality in our fractured world.

With the advent and power of political correctness, speech, ideas, and even access to the conversation has become strictly limited.  What we can say and how we say it are no longer freely flowing from the sources but more and more narrowed by the litmus test of the accepted language and showing the proper respect to the deities who govern what can and cannot be said.

With the introduction and expansion of the social media, the conversation has become a multitude of conversations which are not public in the old sense of that term but private -- access is limited to friends and comments read more of likes and dislikes than the free exchange of ideas and values.  This conversation is also somewhat trivial in its content and parochial in its extent.

With the mobility of a people on the move from location to location and whose home time is more a retreat away from people than the welcome place of friends, family, and neighbors, the public conversation is increasingly anonymous and less face to face than mediated.  We do not know who our neighbors are, we do not talk to them or with them, and so the places where this public exchange may take place are fewer and fewer.

Pastor Peter Speckhard, I believe a nephew of Fr. Neuhaus, has illustrated this lack of a public square by directing us to what has, for all intents and purposes, become the new American meeting place.
I have nothing against Walmart. In fact, I find it to be the only place here in Green Bay where I might truly bump into anyone. There are no (or very few) restaurants, stores, clubs, or even public parks where the mayor, a Packer player, a recently released prisoner, an illegal immigrant, a soccer mom, etc. might all be in the same room on the same day. Except Walmart (and perhaps McDonald’s). The cultured despisers of these places despise the only things that unify our culture. Walmart is the secular equivalent of a large Catholic parish.

His point is well taken.  We have fewer and fewer public meeting places where folks of all kinds and from all sorts of perspectives can meet together as one.  As much as I dislike Wal-Mart as an institution, he is exactly right.  Like him, I too run into people of all ages and stations, members and non-members, co-workers and neighbors, every Sunday folk and the absent brethren -- they are all at Wal-Mart.  Perhaps the genius of Sam Walton was less in the retail end of things than judging the approaching American future and capitalizing upon the need to have a public meeting place where everyone is welcome, where there is something for everyone, and where the public conversation can begin again.  Because of Pastor Speckhard's words I find myself having to grudgingly admit that Wal-Mart may have purpose and use beyond its retail identity.

I believe that this may also be one of the things that growing churches have made their focus -- a public meeting house where any and all find welcome and a place.  While this is not the primary intent of the Church, who could deny that this is one of the fruits of the community established by the Spirit where the Word and Meal are central focus and bind the scattered who gather at His call?  The fellowship hall cannot be a substitute for the community and fellowship of the Spirit working through Word and Sacrament, but it is surely one of the fruits of this community and fellowship taken seriously.

Thrivent Financial for.... Anybody with Money

It is hardly a surprise.  Though it was predictable, it was and is lamentable.  Thrivent (before that Aid Association for Lutherans and Lutheran Brotherhood) had as the main focus a fraternal benefit society for Lutherans.  Lutherans, pooling their dollars to take care of financial and insurance needs, with the "profits" being returned to the Lutheran client and the Lutheran community of congregations, church bodies, and parachurch organizations -- with special concern for Lutherans making an impact in their communities, nation, and world.

Thrivent Financial FOR LUTHERANS is now on the verge of becoming Thrivent Financial FOR ANYBODY WITH MONEY TO INVEST.  The tail wags the dog and those running the show are now to envious of the money non-Lutherans might invest and so enamored of the goal of bigness that they are planning to knock down the fence so that the Lutherans become merely one among many groups served.  How this will impact the fraternal side is waiting to be seen.  Thrivent has reduced the money available for its Thrivent Choice program to allow the clients to direct the "profits" back into the Church and community.  Thrivent has pretty much destroyed the old network of branches to replace it with groups crippled by fewer dollars to direct and more restrictions on how these chapters can make a difference locally.

Read it and weep, if you, like me, are a Thrivent client...  A sad day, indeed.  Shame on you!!

As a fraternal benefit society, Thrivent is required to donate to the community an amount that's at least equivalent to what it would pay in corporate income taxes. Last year it donated about $175 million to charities, schools, congregations and people in need. 

It's also required by law to have a "common bond" or membership theme that necessarily excludes certain people. If it dropped the Lutheran connection, it would most likely replace it with a Christian common bond, Rasmussen said.

"There are other Christians out there that need our help," she said. "We've read statistics that 40 percent of Christians have a two-week savings horizon. We think with what we have to offer, that they could find that compelling."

Right now, to be eligible for Thrivent membership a person either needs to be Lutheran or married to a Lutheran. Membership is also open to people who attend a Lutheran school, such as St. Olaf, or who work for a Lutheran organization such as Lutheran Social Services.

"There's go to be a connection to Lutheranism in order to be eligible for membership," Rasmussen said. The talk of change has stirred deep feelings among some members, she said, particularly in more rural areas. "I think the people that are questioning it are worried that we're going to lose our Lutheran heritage or our identity," she said. "So it's very important that we honor that tradition."

In other words... honor the tradition by betraying it!!

You are not special. . .

Apparently a commencement speaker near Boston addressed the graduates with something different from the usual "you have the world by the tail, nothing is impossible, today is the first day of the rest of your life" baloney that one usually is force fed on such occasions.  I regret that the link to the full text is not working right now (swamped with traffic, perhaps).  That said, I leave with a few pertinent paragraphs from one graduation speech that will not be forgotten.  Some will call him a rude and arrogant crank while others will laud him as if he were the only honest man left.  The truth is somewhere between those extremes.  Read it and weep or rejoice, it is your choice.  I believe the speaker was named David McCullough.

[C]ommencement is life’s great ceremonial beginning, with its own attendant and highly appropriate symbolism. Fitting, for example, for this auspicious rite of passage, is where we find ourselves this afternoon, the venue. Normally, I avoid clichés like the plague, wouldn’t touch them with a ten-foot pole, but here we are on a literal level playing field. That matters. That says something. And your ceremonial costume… shapeless, uniform, one-size-fits-all. Whether male or female, tall or short, scholar or slacker, spray-tanned prom queen or intergalactic X-Box assassin, each of you is dressed, you’ll notice, exactly the same. And your diploma… but for your name, exactly the same.

All of this is as it should be, because none of you is special.
You are not special. You are not exceptional.

Contrary to what your soccer trophy suggests, your glowing seventh grade report card, despite every assurance of a certain corpulent purple dinosaur, that nice Mister Rogers and your batty Aunt Sylvia, no matter how often your maternal caped crusader has swooped in to save you… you’re nothing special.
Yes, you’ve been pampered, cosseted, doted upon, helmeted, bubble-wrapped. Yes, capable adults with other things to do have held you, kissed you, fed you, wiped your mouth, wiped your bottom, trained you, taught you, tutored you, coached you, listened to you, counseled you, encouraged you, consoled you and encouraged you again. You’ve been nudged, cajoled, wheedled and implored. You’ve been feted and fawned over and called sweetie pie. Yes, you have. And, certainly, we’ve been to your games, your plays, your recitals, your science fairs. Absolutely, smiles ignite when you walk into a room, and hundreds gasp with delight at your every tweet. Why, maybe you’ve even had your picture in the Townsman! [Editor’s upgrade: Or The Swellesley Report!] And now you’ve conquered high school… and, indisputably, here we all have gathered for you, the pride and joy of this fine community, the first to emerge from that magnificent new building…

But do not get the idea you’re anything special. Because you’re not.

The empirical evidence is everywhere, numbers even an English teacher can’t ignore. Newton, Natick, Nee… I am allowed to say Needham, yes? …that has to be two thousand high school graduates right there, give or take, and that’s just the neighborhood Ns. Across the country no fewer than 3.2 million seniors are graduating about now from more than 37,000 high schools. That’s 37,000 valedictorians… 37,000 class presidents… 92,000 harmonizing altos… 340,000 swaggering jocks… 2,185,967 pairs of Uggs. But why limit ourselves to high school? After all, you’re leaving it. So think about this: even if you’re one in a million, on a planet of 6.8 billion that means there are nearly 7,000 people just like you. Imagine standing somewhere over there on Washington Street on Marathon Monday and watching sixty-eight hundred yous go running by. And consider for a moment the bigger picture: your planet, I’ll remind you, is not the center of its solar system, your solar system is not the center of its galaxy, your galaxy is not the center of the universe. In fact, astrophysicists assure us the universe has no center; therefore, you cannot be it. Neither can Donald Trump… which someone should tell him… although that hair is quite a phenomenon.

“But, Dave,” you cry, “Walt Whitman tells me I’m my own version of perfection! Epictetus tells me I have the spark of Zeus!” And I don’t disagree. So that makes 6.8 billion examples of perfection, 6.8 billion sparks of Zeus. You see, if everyone is special, then no one is. If everyone gets a trophy, trophies become meaningless. In our unspoken but not so subtle Darwinian competition with one another–which springs, I think, from our fear of our own insignificance, a subset of our dread of mortality — we have of late, we Americans, to our detriment, come to love accolades more than genuine achievement. We have come to see them as the point — and we’re happy to compromise standards, or ignore reality, if we suspect that’s the quickest way, or only way, to have something to put on the mantelpiece, something to pose with, crow about, something with which to leverage ourselves into a better spot on the social totem pole. No longer is it how you play the game, no longer is it even whether you win or lose, or learn or grow, or enjoy yourself doing it… Now it’s “So what does this get me?” As a consequence, we cheapen worthy endeavors, and building a Guatemalan medical clinic becomes more about the application to Bowdoin than the well-being of Guatemalans. It’s an epidemic — and in its way, not even dear old Wellesley High is immune… one of the best of the 37,000 nationwide, Wellesley High School… where good is no longer good enough, where a B is the new C, and the midlevel curriculum is called Advanced College Placement. And I hope you caught me when I said “one of the best.” I said “one of the best” so we can feel better about ourselves, so we can bask in a little easy distinction, however vague and unverifiable, and count ourselves among the elite, whoever they might be, and enjoy a perceived leg up on the perceived competition. But the phrase defies logic. By definition there can be only one best. You’re it or you’re not.

You can’t have a vocation of "No."

Writing about gay kids in Catholic schools, Eve Tushnet chides the Church by insisting that "You can’t have a vocation of No."  Interesting.  This author seems to imply that saying no to urge or desire, whatever that might be, is not possible or at least not tenable.  If we pressed her point, we would have to give up all sorts of things that we have sacralized -- from staying away from unhealthy foods and eating right to drugs and tobacco.  It was not that long ago (okay, it was) when the whole anti-drug campaign in America was "Just Say No."  Well, perhaps Ms. Tushnet would suggest that sex is one of those things about which it is impossible to deny while the other things are within the realm of self-control.

It seems that the Church is the lone voice speaking to the culture that "no" is not only within our vocabulary but it is the wisest and most positive path you can take in so many instances.  Saying "no" is not all the Church says but it is the beginning of the conversation.  You cannot begin to speak of the benefits or morality of self-denial until first you admit that saying no to self is itself a virtue.  The Church begins with the proposition that saying no is not only possible but it is beneficial to us and to our culture.  Indeed, the rule of desire is not freedom at all but the worst of all possible prisons.

According to St. Paul, it is self-denial and self-control that is the very mark of our new lives in Christ and the fruit of holiness worked by the Spirit within us.  It is his whole argument in Colossians:  If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth.  (Colossians 3:1-2 ESV)  In addition, consider the other explicit mentions of self-control (big word for saying "no"):  For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.  (Titus 2:11-14 ESV) or But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.  (Galatians 5:22-23 ESV)  or      But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit.  (Galatians 5:22-25 ESV) or Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.  (1 Corinthians 9:24-27 ESV)  -- I could go on and on.


Ms. Tushnet is telling us that it is not a vocation to say "no" when clearly it is the Christian vocation born of our baptismal death and rebirth.  For a school of the Church to offer another option is to deny the very mark and virtue of Christ's work in us and the Spirit's power over our natures captive to the dominion of desire.  


Right now gay teens hear a robust “Yes!” from the mainstream media and gay culture. From the Church, they hear only a “No.”  To this appeal from Ms. Tushnet, I would suggest that it is not only gay teens who hear this "no" and if the Church's voice is silenced we are left with only the "yes" of our culture and its addiction to desire.  It was, after all, desire that got us into trouble in the first place.  No is not the only thing the Church says but it is one very important word, heard only from the Church, to a world in bondage to the consequences of our "yes" to all that seems, feels, and is judged right because we desire it.

Five Wives... No the kind you drink...

The AP is reporting on Idaho's state liquor authority rejecting a vodka for sale in the state liquor stores because it is offensive to Mormons.  You can read the AP story here but I have quoted a few lines of the ban on quasi-religious concerns:

SALT LAKE CITY — Five Wives Vodka was named in bad taste and won’t be stocked or special ordered at stores operated by the state of Idaho, regulators said.

The middle-shelf vodka is made by Ogden’s Own Distillery in Utah, where the Mormon church is based. Its label carries the name and an image of five women, an apparent reference to polygamy, a practice abandoned by the church more than a century ago.

Idaho State Liquor Division administrator Jeff Anderson said the brand is offensive to Mormons who make up over a quarter of Idaho’s population.

Hmmmm... I thought Mormons were not supposed to drink at all.  If that is the case, any vodka would be offensive to practitioners of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  No?  Probably the distillery is run by some ungodly group that is not so ill inclined toward drinking... like, say, Lutherans?!

Hermeneutic of suspicion...

Hermeneutic is a nice big word you learn at seminary.  Since you paid so much for that education and the Church has invested not a small sum in you, it is nice to draw on that vocabulary from time to time.  It is not such a hard word, really.  The dictionary calls it the study of the methodological principles of interpretation such we might use for of the Bible although not exclusive to Scripture.  An easier way of defining it is the way we see and understand something.


For a long time, maybe a couple of hundred years, Scripture has been approached more and more from the vantage point of a hermeneutic of suspicion.  That is, instead of accepting at face value the words and meaning from Scripture, or using Scripture to explain itself, the interpreter approaches the Bible with deep suspicion about its veracity, accuracy, and historicity.  In other words, it is not telling the truth, it is not factual, and it does not report actual events in time.  It does not matter whether we agree on this, this is the standard approach of historical criticism and it is the fruit of those who distinguished between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of Scripture.  This is what gave birth to the quest for the historical Jesus -- necessary because it was presumed that Jesus could not be known accurately from the Scriptures themselves.


Even conservative Christian churches have not been immune from the effects of this hermeneutic of suspicion.  We fought a battle in our own Missouri Synod over whether this was a benign tool that could be used by those who disagreed with its presumption or whether this methodology was so fraught with problems as to render its use impossible.  Though the battle was "won" over forty years ago, the war wages on both inside and outside our church body.  This is not because our seminaries still actively teach this hermeneutic but rather because the world around us is so steeped in suspicion toward Scripture and its truthfulness, accuracy, and historicity.


This is not simply limited to an approach to Scripture.  We have employed this hermeneutic of suspicion on all levels of our life and discourse.  I was listening to people speak about the recall movement of Gov. Walker in Wisconsin and it was clear from the get go that the people debating did not agree on even basic facts (statistics from supposedly neutral sources, for example).  In other words, their suspicion was not simply toward the opposing view but toward everyone and everything that was said.  How can people come together when even basic and incontrovertible facts are rejected as untruthful or slanted?


In the Church this has surely been a primary ingredient in the worship wars between so-called "contemporary" worship forms and music and those labelled "traditional."  It has also had a great deal of impact upon the debate between the "creative" and "missional" types who think outside the box and those who look more like the Church has looked and do more what the Church has done in the past.  It does not matter which side you are on (and you know from reading this blog which side I am on), the point is we are deeply suspicious of each other and can hardly agree on the meaning of the terminology so that our conversation is hindered from the get go.  We do not trust what our "opponents" say and we do not believe their motives are noble (on both sides).  It would seem to me that this is perhaps the most glaring problem of the proposed koinonia project of conversation and discussion in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.


My point in writing this is that we are bearing the fruit of a way of looking at things in which we believe nothing is as it seems.  We will never begin to bridge the divides or even speak honestly about those divides as long as we are so deeply suspicious of one another, of truth, of institutions, and of life.  We have learned from the anti-historical folks to disbelieve the very things of which we can be certain.  It is not simply a religious problem.   It is a profound dilemma facing the Church and its witness, the divisions within Christendom, and Christian people.  It is a crippling malady for political conversation and governing.  We must at some point confront and address what this hermeneutic of suspicion has done to us and to our life together (in and outside the Church).  


Is everyone lying to promote their own agenda?  Is it always wrong to promote your point of view or influence the outcome based on your point of view?  Is the one who disagrees with you always wrong?  Is the one who disagrees with you always moved by nefarious motives?  Is there danger behind every issue and is that danger urgent?  


I am not the one with the answers.  I am just as guilty as anyone of my own suspicious nature and cynicism.  But I hope that we can at some point learn a new hermeneutic for the old hermeneutic of suspicion has born nothing but poisoned fruit -- within the Church and for our life together as a society of people.