Make your home fireproof...

Purchase and install.  It is not a stand alone product.  It expects the attention of the faithful in prayer, devotion, learning, and service.  It should be as standard as the smoke alarm in every household.  It is the daily reminder of what you brought with you from the Divine Service and it calls you back each Sunday, as well as directing your time and your labor in between.  As you sleep it is the constant reminder that He who loved you, who saved you by His blood shed on the cross, neither slumbers nor sleeps but watches over, protects, and defends His own baptized people.  It tells the visitor to your home who you are by saying whose you are.  Get one today!

Contemporary but not modern...

In pursuit of that which is edgy and new, churches have silenced the organ, piano, and other instruments with more history in favor of praise bands whose sound and instrumental complement mirror what younger folks experience in their own musical preference.  The only problem with this is that the praise band itself is a throw back to a previous era.  The usual mix of bass, drums, guitar, keyboard, and song diva seem positively out of date to those whose music is primarily digital -- Ipod, Iphone, or DJ.

This from Michelle Boorstein of The Washington Post:

And to people younger than 30, the drums and electric guitars of the contemporary rock that dominates much of American Christianity are not only not edgy, “but for them, it’s like singing hymns,” [DJ Hans] Daniels said. “Why does the music you worship to and jam out to have to be completely separate?”

As always, the issue is how far are we willing to go to reflect that which is "in" at the moment?  The praise band was, in the beginning, a sanctified sound that harkened back more to the folk tradition of Peter, Paul, and Mary than rock and roll.  It made baby boomers like me happy for a time.  Perhaps it still appeals more to that cross section of people than to the younger crowd.  None of these are ready to hear the sound of heavy metal in worship, neither are they ready for rap or any other of the more modern musical genre.  Yet, in the quest to be contemporary, why stop with one age or generation at all?


Strangely enough, the most diverse sound in church on Sunday morning is the sound emanating from the Hymnal.  In my own congregation, we enjoy a mix of hymnody that may include plainsong chant and a text from the first three centuries of Christianity along side a Reformation chorale, an English hymn, a Protestant gospel hymn, ethnic music from China, Africa, or other places, as well as hymnody from living hymwwriters and composers.  Even more strange is the fact that the tonal resources of the pipe organ and a creative musician on the bench can give each of these a credible sound that respects the source while making it possible for a diverse assembly of ages, races, cultures, and backgrounds to join in congregational song.

Perhaps most telling is the comment from an 81 year old member:  “I like the music more than I did last year,” she said.  Last year?  Just how often does the sound of the church's song change in that congregation? And does it include an homage to the past or is yesterday relegated to the garbage pile in the pursuit of that which is ever new?

See what happened when we let "Kum by yah" move into the pews?

Hubris, Arrogance, and Infatuation . . . with me and my moment

Not just our own but every generation has risen up with great hubris and price, thinking that we have discovered truth as no one else knew it.  We wake up every morning presuming that there is a right way of doing things and we must invent it or all will be forever lost.  We are not any better or worse than any age or time in this regard, though, perhaps, the pace of change has heightened this arrogance of person, place, and time. 

C.S. Lewis once labelled such hubris of the moment “chronological snobbery... the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited.”  In other words, the past must also prove itself against a heart set in principle toward the present.  We think those tied to the past as such dinosaurs and we wait almost gleefully for the signs of their coming extinction.  Yet it is the tyranny of the present that deserves to die.  Trend and fad, especially in religion, die an unnaturally quick death and live but a brief life.  Nothing is new for long.

It makes me wish that our Lord would never have sung or said such things about a "new song."  We use this as a premise to justify our abuse of the living legacy of the saints, discarding them and their witness as old news.  The ELCA is meeting now in Pittsburgh under the theme "Always being made new..."  The clothes of yesterday do not fit our modern style and so we take whatever the Lord has said about a "new thing" and presume it to mean whatever fits today and feels good in the moment.  Never mind that the "new thing" the Lord is doing nearly always revolves around the fulfillment of His promise and the gift of a Savior who is His Son in our flesh and blood.  Nope, we don't want an old "new" thing but "new" new things.


Inside this is the weak underbelly of fear that belies the modern church.  We are so afraid of being outmoded, of falling behind, of being deemed irrelevant, that we pursue that which is "new" in exchange for the eternity which God gives -- that which changes not.  So we are always second guessing ourselves, always asking, as did old Mayor Koch, "How am I doin?"  The problem is that we ask those outside the church, the pagans, if you will, who have already said "no" to the eternal which is Christ.  We ought to be asking the Lord but we readily exchange His "well done" for a brief shining moment when the world says we are cool, relevant, and worthy.

Our constant obsession over what those outside us think of us, is the great temptation of the moment,  Cut loose from the anchor of forever, we have only this moment.  So we ask the wrong people the wrong question.  We are obsessed with how we are perceived and tweak the message and the medium to improve our customer response scores. We are forever posting photos of just how with it we are, so desperate to retain the fresh look of the contemporary, we Photoshop who we are, what we believe, and how we worship to meet the moment.  We are image conscious instead of being consumed with faithfulness to the Lord.  We monitor like the NSA what people think of us, how they see us, and what we need to change so more of them will friend us.

Lutherans should be more mindful of the fallacy of this predilection toward the moment than others since it is our battle cry that we invented nothing, we followed no novelty, and we are completely uncreative when it comes to what is believed, confessed, taught, and practiced.  We said in our Confessions that the only new worth perusing is the one, catholic and apostolic faith.  The LCMS once insisted that we bring a changeless Christ to a changing world.  Now we are gravely tempted to the captivity of the moment or, worse, to the church as it was like when we were young.  A short term memory whether over the past fifteen minutes or fifteen years is as big a curse as they come.  When we remember no further back than Walther, when we imagine in our minds the dream of a church when we were fifteen, when sway to the beat of our favorite tunes on Sunday morning, we are all hearing the same drummer, just beating at different speeds.

The Church has a future.  It is sealed in Christ.  We do not have cave to the moment, to the recent past, or even to a hundred years ago.  Because we have the changeless Christ who is yesterday, today, and forever the same, we have tomorrow already in hand.  We can afford to be patient.  We can afford to look past the stats of the last ten seconds or ten years.  We look to the Word, preach it in season and out, when people want to hear and refuse to listen.  Its relevance is not based on their perception but upon its efficacy -- its power to deliver what it says.  We may add a bit to the past but it is always a small contribution to that the faithful saints have bequeathed by their faithful confession and service.  And this is always enough.  Enough for us to endure.  Enough for us to do His bidding.  Enough to prevail against the gates of hell.  Enough for God to do what He desires, intends, and promises.  Market research is nothing in the face of the Word of the Lord that endures forever...

Upward and outward or downward and inward. . .

As I often quote, "We shape our buildings and then our buildings shape us..."  said by no less than Winston Churchill.  Nowhere is that more true than when it comes to the buildings erected for worship.  We have reinvented the wheel not only in terms of brick and mortar but, in the process, transformed the ordinary shape and expectation of what happens on Sunday morning.

The medieval cruciform shape with its vaulted high ceilings and scale led our attention away from us and upward to the Lord.  It was a shape that purposefully diminished the scale of man relative to the scale of the Lord.  Just as this moved the attention of people upward, it moved them outside themselves and outside the ordinary confines of their lives, their opinions, and their thoughts.  Today's fan shaped and semi circular structures do just the opposite.  They focus our attention downward -- on what is happening before us -- and encourage us to think of ourselves more as spectators than participants, watching what others do more than doing anything ourselves.  In addition, this focus turns us more to our neighbors and the folks sitting around us.  Finally, it focuses us on inward things -- our thoughts, feelings, desires, likes, pleasure, etc... usually framed with a thine veneer of spirituality.

Some years ago when we were planning to build, our architects came to watch the worship, the use of the then current building, and to engage the desires and thoughts of the people.  Our old A-frame space was the source of many complaints (some of them genuine in terms of the slanted walls that created a hazard for those trying to walk down a side aisle and some of them more shaped by feelings and the desire to see more than the backs of people's heads).  What we ended up with is a cross shaped building, where the arms are all of somewhat equal length and width, but the seating is wider than it is deep.  It is not fan shaped but can easily allow you to feel the same perception.  Where once the assembled congregation was gathered in two banks of pews, separated by a center aisle, now the people are divided over six banks of pews and seats with three main aisles in addition to the side aisles on the far sides.  We get to see more than the backs of people's heads but we are more spread out than ever before -- something that works against singing and against a central focus of attention on the center that is Christ in the Word and Sacrament.

Some have complained about how modern architecture ends up not only focusing on the people but ends up with a community celebrating itself more than the means of grace.  I am not sure that I would go quite this far but it can certainly be true that our architectural form facilitates such a self-centered focus.

There is good that has come from the free standing altar.  People see in a way they never saw before the ceremonies and ritual that expresses what it is that we believe, confess, and teach.  When folks watch the consecration, they see the Word attached to the element both with ears that hear Christ's Word and eyes that see the head of the presider bowed toward the bread and cup.  When these are raised for the adoration of the faithful, it affirms in a ceremonial way the affirmation that Christ is present, in the bread and cup, as His Word promises and delivers.  For some Lutherans this is shocking.  When folks tend to think of Holy Communion more as a private moment with Jesus, the attention given to the elements which become what Christ says (His body and blood in and with the bread and wine) can be jarring in the way it challenges this self-centered spirituality focused more upon feelings than upon the concrete elements of the means of grace.  This is but one example.

But there is also a bad thing that has come from the free standing altar and a versus populum orientation.  That is the idea that we have to see what is going on to appreciate things and that the altar is not the central focus of the Liturgy but merely one point on a circle that encloses people, pulpit, font, and altar.  It has helped us begin to see things skewed toward us and less toward God.  There is the unspoken understanding that the leader, the celebrant, is focused on us, rather than upon God. How easy it is for us then to believe that his job, his role, is to please and enrich us, rather than point us to God, to what the Lord is doing among us, and call on us to follow Him. Liturgical leadership often finds it hard not to abdicate to the personal preferences of people, as if the function of worship itself is to please and affirm us where we are, rather than gift us with the grace to go where Christ has led.

When we built our new building in 2000, we moved from an ad orientem posture to versus populum and it has not been without its struggles.  Some folks have been surprised and a few shocked by seeing what happens at the altar, the church usages, ceremonies, and rituals which are thoroughly ancient, catholic, and Lutheran.  It is as if being confronted with this each week has put some in the uncomfortable position of being forced to be more Lutheran than they are comfortable being.  It has also led some to the conclusion that these things are adiaphora and therefore simply expressions of my own personal preference instead of that which is consistent with what we confess as Lutherans in our Concordia.  Yet I think overall this has been positive.  Those who come on Sunday mornings experience an orientation, liturgy, and ceremonial which is Christ directed and means of grace focused.  It is most decidedly NOT in keeping with the evangelical presence all around us and goes well beyond the minimalism that many Lutherans were at ease with prior to the work of liturgical renewal in the 1950s-1970s.

Yet the struggle remains.  The hardest work of the liturgy is to get our attention off ourselves.  The advent of the smart phone has only made this even more difficult.  We are so inwardly focused by our technology that we think it perfectly okay to have a running commentary of what is going on and whether or not we like it (either by speaking to family or neighbor in the pews or texting those not present).  Architecture cannot solve this problem but the modern shapes of churches have certainly come down clearly on the side of worship which is me-focused.  The shape of good architecture and the shape of the liturgy should not be at odds in their work to get us to turn away from ourselves but sometimes that is exactly what happens when we have shaped our buildings in one way and now find them shaping us.

VS Pietists... or perhaps evangelical style Lutherans today?

Valentin Ernst Loescher (1673-1749), the most capable opponent to the Pietists, was moderate and patient during the bitter conflict that divided German Lutheran. The two parts of this book are his defense of Orthodoxy against the violent attacks of the Halle theologian. Part one -- systematic presentation of pietistic theology and Loescher's evaluation of it. Part two -- response to a Pietist refutation of Part one, and makes a plea for honesty in the judgments of embroiled theologians. - See more at: http://online.nph.net/p-1419-the-complete-timotheus-verinus.aspx#sthash.kjDHpFOt.dpuf

Valentin Ernst Loescher (1673-1749), the most capable opponent to the Pietists, was moderate and patient during the bitter conflict that divided German Lutheran. The two parts of this book are his defense of Orthodoxy against the violent attacks of the Halle theologian. Part one -- systematic presentation of pietistic theology and Loescher's evaluation of it. Part two -- response to a Pietist refutation of Part one, and makes a plea for honesty in the judgments of embroiled theologians. - See more at: http://online.nph.net/p-1419-the-complete-timotheus-verinus.aspx#sthash.kjDHpFOt.dpuf

Valentin Ernst Loescher (1673-1749) was perhaps the most capable opponent to the Pietists.  He was a patient and even tempered voice during the bitter and divisive conflict that polarized Lutheranism in Germany. His book are both a defense of Lutheran Orthodoxy against the Pietist attacks center in Halle and a plea for truth to be told in this debate.

Lest someone think that this is merely a curious view into the past, there are many within Lutheranism who would posit some of our current day struggles to the echoing past of Pietism.  No less than Dr. Matthew Harrison is of this view.

What V.E. Loescher once described as the malum pietisticum at the height of eighteenth-century Pietism is with us yet to day. Pietism is as old as man. It turns the heart away from the concrete and extra nos word and means God has established for our salvation, to inner lights, experiences, feelings, and convictions. More amenable to such things, prayer meetings and home Bible study displace the divine delivery of gifts on the Lord’s day with its ancient and gospel-oriented liturgical progression. Instead, they create their own solar
system, relegating the divine service to an orbital position, and with it also the means of grace and the office divinely mandated to deliver them. Loescher noted these marks of Pietism: “pious-appearing [doctrinal] indifference,” “devaluation of the means of grace,” and of necessity, “the debilitation of the office of the
ministry.” (Logia, Lutheran Missions, 1998 issue, Vol. VII, Number 3, p.3)

Nowhere is the lingering remnant of the war between Pietism and Orthodoxy more apparent than in the worship wars that have plagued modern day Lutheranism.  Within those who disdain the form is a seeming disdain for the means of grace.  Perhaps a quote from Loescher might remind us of the attack of those on the opposing side of worship wars, even the tensions between the confessional and missional.

Valentin Ernst Loescher (1673-1749), the most capable opponent to the Pietists, was moderate and patient during the bitter conflict that divided German Lutheran. The two parts of this book are his defense of Orthodoxy against the violent attacks of the Halle theologian. Part one -- systematic presentation of pietistic theology and Loescher's evaluation of it. Part two -- response to a Pietist refutation of Part one, and makes a plea for honesty in the judgments of embroiled theologians. - See more at: http://online.nph.net/p-1419-the-complete-timotheus-verinus.aspx#sthash.kjDHpFOt.dpuf

Valentin Ernst Loescher (1673-1749), the most capable opponent to the Pietists, was moderate and patient during the bitter conflict that divided German Lutheran. The two parts of this book are his defense of Orthodoxy against the violent attacks of the Halle theologian. Part one -- systematic presentation of pietistic theology and Loescher's evaluation of it. Part two -- response to a Pietist refutation of Part one, and makes a plea for honesty in the judgments of embroiled theologians. - See more at: http://online.nph.net/p-1419-the-complete-timotheus-verinus.aspx#sthash.kjDHpFOt.dpuf

“They scorned pure doctrine, orthodoxy, and the means used to preserve pure doctrine. They scoffed at church ordinances and usages, and slandered and nullified sermons, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and the preaching ministry. They dared abstain from the public worship, as well as from the use of the Lord’s Supper along with fellow Christians…They have the audacity to maintain that they alone, as true disciples and followers of Christ, are holy and pious, and hence they despise all others…They endeavored to include everything in their private assemblies.”  (Complete Timotheus Vernius… by V.E. Loescher translated by James Langebartels, pp 55-56.  Northwestern)

It just goes to show you that old battles continue on, that old heresies get repackaged and come back as new challenges to orthodox faith and worship, and that we do no good to the cause by failing to know our past.  Sometimes what someone said a long time ago is the best word to say today...

Valentin Ernst Loescher (1673-1749), the most capable opponent to the Pietists, was moderate and patient during the bitter conflict that divided German Lutheran. The two parts of this book are his defense of Orthodoxy against the violent attacks of the Halle theologian. Part one -- systematic presentation of pietistic theology and Loescher's evaluation of it. Part two -- response to a Pietist refutation of Part one, and makes a plea for honesty in the judgments of embroiled theologians. - See more at: http://online.nph.net/p-1419-the-complete-timotheus-verinus.aspx#sthash.kjDHpFOt.dpuf

What are the people in the photo doing?

What do you think is happening in the photo?

A  Runners are receiving refreshment in their race...

B  People are standing around talking and eating and drinking...

C  YAVs at the LCMS National Youth Gathering are answering a youth's question...

D  LCMS Convention Eucharist is being distributed...

E  Roman Catholic Youth at the World Youth Day in Rio are communing...

If you selected E, you were correct.  Yes, those are plastic cups serving as the ciboria for this Mass.  In case you were wondering, the National Youth Gathering and the LCMS Convention used ceramic vessels crafted for the event [and, in the case of the Convention, then given to mission congregations].  That should not make you feel much better.  We have our own open sores with respect to the means of distributing the Holy Supper.  Mass events tend to bring out the worst in us.  We treat the distribution of the Body and Blood of Christ as if it were merely the hawking of food in the food court of a local carnival.  Get your elephant ears, fried Twinkies, and Body and Blood of Jesus here... step right up!  What is most disconcerting is how this casual treatment of that which is the most precious food of all has ended up in the Roman Church.  Some will sigh with relief that at least the photo was not of us and our screw up but I maintain that it should not comfort us one bit that it was Rio and the World Youth Day.  Such disrespect erodes the confidence of the people that it is what the Lord in His Word says it is.  For if it is indeed the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, it deserves nothing less than our best vessels for sacred use and the deepest honor of our hearts.  Anything less and we make common what is holy, one of the definitions of blasphemy. 

Good, wise, faithful, and well delivered words. . .

Holy Cross Day
The Rev. Robert Bugbee, Preacher
The Installation of President Harrison and others elected to their offices by the LCMS
At Concordia Seminary, St. Louis...

Whose sacrifice?

In the 2002 Roman missal, the priest says:  Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.  To this, the people respond:  May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all his Church.

This changed slightly in the 2006 translation to:  Priest: Pray, brothers and sisters, that my sacrifice and yours
may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.  People:  May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good and the good of all his holy Church.

The rubric for this (from the General Instruction) states: 

The Preparation of the Gifts

73. At the beginning of the Liturgy of the Eucharist the gifts which will become Christ’s Body and Blood are brought to the altar.

First of all, the altar or Lord’s table, which is the center of the whole Liturgy of the Eucharist,[69] is made ready when on it are placed the corporal, purificator, Missal, and chalice (unless this last is prepared at the credence table).

The offerings are then brought forward. It is a praiseworthy practice for the bread and wine to be presented by the faithful. They are then accepted at an appropriate place by the Priest or the Deacon to be carried to the altar. Even though the faithful no longer bring from their own possessions the bread and wine intended for the liturgy as was once the case, nevertheless the rite of carrying up the offerings still keeps its spiritual efficacy and significance.

Even money or other gifts for the poor or for the Church, brought by the faithful or collected in the church, are acceptable; given their purpose, they are to be put in a suitable place away from the Eucharistic table.

74. The procession bringing the gifts is accompanied by the Offertory Chant (cf. no. 37 b), which continues at least until the gifts have been placed on the altar. The norms on the manner of singing are the same as for the Entrance Chant (cf. no. 48). Singing may always accompany the rite at the Offertory, even when there is no procession with the gifts.

75. The bread and wine are placed on the altar by the Priest to the accompaniment of the prescribed formulas; the Priest may incense the gifts placed on the altar and then incense the cross and the altar itself, so as to signify the Church’s offering and prayer rising like incense in the sight of God. Next, the Priest, because of his sacred ministry, and the people, by reason of their baptismal dignity, may be incensed by the Deacon or by another minister.

76. Then the Priest washes his hands at the side of the altar, a rite in which the desire for interior purification finds expression.

The Prayer over the Offerings

77. Once the offerings have been placed on the altar and the accompanying rites completed, by means of the invitation to pray with the Priest and by means of the Prayer over the Offerings, the Preparation of the Gifts is concluded and preparation made for the Eucharistic Prayer.

At Mass, a single Prayer over the Offerings is said, and it ends with the shorter conclusion, that is: Through Christ our Lord. If, however, the Son is mentioned at the end of this prayer, the conclusion is: Who lives and reigns for ever and ever.

The people, joining in this petition, make the prayer their own by means of the acclamation Amen.

  
For Lutherans this presents a problem.  If the sacrifice at the priest's hands is ONLY the sacrifice of the people's worship, thanksgiving, tithes, and offerings, then this sacrifice can be prayed for, namely, that God would accept this sacrifice through Christ our Lord.  

If the sacrifice at the priest's hands INCLUDES the bread and wine brought forward, as also gifts of the people in the offering, then it is possible to pray that the Lord would accept the bread and wine as part of the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving of His priestly people.  It is confusing at best and we would not use such language and liturgical actions that could possibly give the impression that we are praying the Lord to accept the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood.  

If the sacrifice at the priest's hands means the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving but INCLUDES offering of the unbloody sacrifice of Christ's body and blood in the Mass, then Lutherans hit a stop sign and cannot move forward from here.  Why would we need to pray that this sacrifice already received would be received again or anew?  What God has already accepted, He will not now reject so that prayer is not merely confusing but wrongheaded.  The only sacrifice about which there can be any doubt about the Lord receiving is the people's priestly offering of praise, thanksgiving, tithes, and offerings.  Here again, we have no doubt that offered in faith through Christ, God has already promised to receive the sacrificial worship of His people. 

The whole issue of Lutheran theology with respect to the Mass is the confusion of sacrificium with beneficium, sacrifice and sacrament.  This was not merely Luther's theoretical problem with the Mass but represents the crux of the liturgical issue faced by Luther and the Lutherans and it is this, along with the issue of justification by grace through faith, that provided the principles used for the excise of the canon.  What many Lutherans distinguish, however, is the issue raised above and the Eucharistic prayer itself.  It is my own conviction that the Eucharistic prayer does not automatically mix sacrificium and beneficium.  That is best determined by the language of the prayer.  This is certainly one issue relating to the issue of the Eucharistic prayer -- though not the only one.  Yet it does represent where the core issues of the Reformation remain in place even with a Roman Mass which has evolved much closer to the Lutheran ideal.  It also reminds us of the necessity, due to the principle of lex orandi lex credendi, to be extremely precise in the language of the liturgy which obscures the evangelical character of the sacramental gift in favor of an overt emphasis upon the sacrificial gift and its giver.  As Luther put it in the catechism, the defining words of the Sacrament of the Altar are in the words given and shed for you for the forgiveness of your sins.

Just something to think about...


 

For you and with you...

St Augustine once preached to the people of Hippo, 'for you I am a bishop, with you I am a Christian.'  It is a marvelous phrase that comes from a powerful sermon, preached upon the anniversary of his ordination.  A longer snippet of that sermon and the context for the quote is:

“What, though, is to be dreaded in this office, if not that I may take more pleasure, which is so dangerous, in the honor shown me, than in what bear fruit in your salvation?  Let me therefore have the assistance of your prayers, that the one who did not disdain to bear with me may also deign to bear my burden with me.  When you pray like that, you are also praying for yourselves.  This burden of mine, you see, about which I am now speaking, what else is it, after all, but you?  Pray for strength for me, just as I pray that you may not be too heavy.”

“Where I’m terrified by what I am for you, I am given comfort by what I am with you.  For you I am a bishop, with you, after all, I am a Christian.  The first is the name of an office undertaken, the second a name of grace; that one means danger, this one salvation.  Finally, as if in the open sea, I am being tossed about by the stormy activity involved in that one; but as I recall by whose blood I have been redeemed, I enter a safe harbor in the tranquil recollection of this one; and thus while toiling away at my own proper office, I take my rest in the marvelous benefit conferred on all of us in common.

So I hope the fact that I have been bought together with you gives me more pleasure than my having been placed at your head…” 

Augustine seems to have it about right.  The Pastor (Bishop at the time of Augustine had more in common with how we might use Pastor than with the idea of a vast diocese and hundreds of priests serving hundreds of congregations) has his office not for his own sake but for the sake of those whom he serves.  For you I am a Pastor. The Augsburg Confession seems to have this in mind when it says in Article IV:

Article V: Of the Ministry.

1] That we may obtain this faith, the Ministry of Teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, 2] the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases God, in them that hear 3] the Gospel, to wit, that God, not for our own merits, but for Christ's sake, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ's sake.

The sacramental character of ordination (which the Confessions themselves affirm (Article 13:12 of the Apology):  If ordination be understood in this way, neither will we refuse to call the imposition of hands a sacrament. For the Church has the command to appoint ministers, which should be most pleasing to us, because we know that God approves this ministry, and is present in the ministry [that God will preach and work through men and those who have been chosen by men] is sacramental because of the "for you" nature of the office itself.

 But the office lives in tension with the man, baptized and set apart as a child of God, with all the baptized.  In other words, by becoming a Pastor through the ordination of the Church and its conferral of the authority of the means of grace, the Pastor does not somehow relinquish or release himself from his identity as a baptized child of God, set apart by water and the Word, and in whom the Spirit has worked to impart faith.

You note this in the liturgy when the Pastor at the Invocation signs himself with the sign of the cross along with all the baptized and not over them or at the same time in the creed when he signs himself with the sign of the cross as one voice among the many voices made one in the confession of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith.  In addition, the threefold signing of the cross (over mind, lips, and heart) at the reading of the Gospel remind the Pastor (and the Bishop) that he is not merely the speaker of the words of Christ but one to whom those words are addressed.

I also find this profoundly connected to the Sacristy Prayers of Dr. Martin Luther:


Lord God, you have made me a pastor in your church. You see how unfit I am to undertake this great and difficult office, and if it were not for your help, I would have ruined it all long ago. Therefore I cry to you for aid. I offer my mouth and my heart to your service. I desire to teach the people. And for myself, I would learn evermore and diligently meditate on your Word. Use me as your instrument, but never forsake me, for if I am left alone, I shall easily bring it all to destruction. Amen.

and

O Lord God, dear Father in heaven, I am indeed unworthy of the office and ministry in which I am to make known Your glory and to nurture and to serve this congregation.  But since You have appointed me to be a pastor and teacher, and the people are in need of the teaching and the instruction, be my helper and let Your holy angels attend me.  Then if You are pleased to accomplish anything through me, to Your glory and not to mine or to the praise of men, grant me, out of Your pure grace and mercy, a right understanding of Your Word and that I may also diligently perform it.  O Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, shepherd and bishop of our souls, send Your Holy Spirit that He may work with me to will and to do through Your divine strength according to Your good plea- sure. Amen.

--- Quoted from The Pastoral Care Companion, pg. xviii, CPH © 2007

 For many years now it has become fashionable to emphasize the Pastor more as with the people and for the people.  Some use this as good cause to depart from the tradition of vestments.  Funny, though, vestments are designed to minimize the Pastor as a person and to emphasize the office the Pastor holds.  Perhaps it is a sign of the times and our faux egalitarian sense that we want a Pastor down off the pedestal and no better than the rest of us.  Perhaps it is also a sign of how uncomfortable we are with the idea that God comes to us in means and that the authority of the means of grace are conferred upon the Pastor by the Church.  Both must live in tension and, for the wise Pastor, neither will gain dominance over the other.  I am who I am for the sake of the people given to my care for the Gospel purely preached and the Sacraments rightly administered but I also am one who lives under that Word, by the grace of God visited upon me in my baptism into Christ, and fed and nourished at the Table of the Lord where I commune as a member of the body even as I commune others in His name and at His behest.

The people need Pastors and Pastors have this office for the sake of their people.  It is this genius of complementarity that is at the heart and core of the ministry and of the Lutheran Confessions as they describe this Office and order its responsibilities.

Public Utility or Church

Writing for the book, Praying for England, Grace Davie notes that the church remains for many in the UK and Europe a "public utility."  It is an insightful observation and one that remains problematic for the US.  Here people belong not to parishes but to congregations, often well beyond the geographical areas in which they live, work, and shop.  Here membership is by choice and action of association whereas in England and Europe, membership is somewhat like citizenship -- it is yours with birth until you renounce it.  This is a religious association by default more than by decision.  Because of this the church is less the arena in which your faith is practiced than it is the right of a nation, invoked when and where the nation and its citizens determine.  Beyond this, the majority of people associate with the faith less directly than vicariously -- through another.  So it matters less how many people are in the pews than that there is a church, a priesthood, worship, and prayer going on.  Those who are there, even thought they be few, act vicariously on behalf of the many for whom belonging is the right of citizenship.

How can this correlate with a religious society built upon free association?  While one might think that this is incompatible with the American experience, the surprise is that this is indeed the direction we are headed even absent a state church or religion.  The church in our culture has become more and more on the sidelines, an important but rather passive institution.  While this is certainly true of the old mainline coalition of churches in America, it is also the pressure placed upon those outside that definition.  The increasing willingness to speak of freedom of worship as opposed to freedom of religion and the slow creep of the government infringing upon the free exercise of that religion has left the churches in America on the defensive.

The churches are center stage in time of national tragedy or crisis but largely sidelined outside of those occasions.  When our nation needs someone to pray, the churches are called to pray (though in a non-sectarian manner in which religious claims defer to a presumed commonality of faith and values that is fitting for a diverse nation.  Outside this civil religious function, the churches are largely sidelined from a public role.  Like a public utility, the churches are increasingly seen by people and government as institutions that exist for public good and when the churches violate this understanding of the public welfare of the people and the state, they are banished from the public square.

While this is hardly new, what remains surprising is how easily and comfortably religion in America has followed the lead of England and Europe -- even given the fact that there has never been a formal state church and the lines of demarcation between church and state more clearly drawn and held in check in America.  In social service agencies, the churches have become franchisees of the state, administering public funds for public purpose and have been willing to silence their witness or limit it to the acts of charity themselves.  The churches are seen as able and willing partners in feeding the poor, administering social service programs, even in education -- but only insofar as the churches do not invoke the name of God or make public witness to the God of their confession.

For a good while Lutherans were willing to do this -- even Roman Catholics.  Now with the press of abortion, same sex marriage, gay rights, and a host of other issues, Lutherans are being forced to choose between this partnership between the state and non-profits and being faithful to what they believe and confess.  In the case of the ELCA, there has been a natural fit since this church body has defined advocacy as a primary work of the Gospel.  In the case of Missouri, we are finding it ever more difficult -- even in the area of chaplaincy in the military, an area in which we excelled in the past.

It seems to me that apart from the few independent groups in England and Europe, the churches have contented themselves to choose the role of public religious utility over extinction.  It remains to be seen how that will go in America.  What would the face of religion in America look like if tax exemptions were removed and the churches were required to conform to the laws of the land (with respect to gay marriage, etc...)? 

Page loading problem...

IF YOU CANNOT READ THIS.... click on the title of the post on the right side, mid way down, and the post will be clear.... I am not sure what is causing a problem for those who find garbled words over today's post.

Why does the liturgy feel unnatural?

It seems that we place a premium upon that which feels at home to us. Hardly anyone ever feels at home in the early stages of their life within the liturgy of the Church. Why? Some would suggest that liturgical worship is outmoded, irrelevent, out of keeping with our culture, behind the technology curve, uses music from an antique style, etc... I suppose some of those could be true but the real reason why the liturgy feels unnatural to us is that it IS unnatural.

The natural inclination of our hearts (original sin) is on us. We naturally judge all things by what we like, what we want, what we feel, what we desire, etc... Scripture tells us that the natural heart is at enmity with God and finds the things of God strange and unfamiliar. We are not at home on the holy ground of God's presence and neither should we be. Worship is a learned activity that proceeds from faith and the liturgy is the domain of the Word of the Lord and the Sacraments of the Lord. It is not our "home ground" but remains the holy ground and alien place where we come because we are bidden and not because it appeals to us. That is not to say that we do not learn to love the liturgy and love the means of grace. Of course we do. But it is learned love and, as long as we wear this flesh and blood, a part of us will always seek to rebel against the House of the Lord and what the Lord does within His House.

I will admit that often liturgical congregations seem intent upon adding to the strangeness of God's House and the mystery of liturgical worship by failing to welcome, to assist the new person, and communicate how the liturgy flows (both in the page number wherein the liturgy and hymns may be found and in form -- saying back to God what He has said to us...).  As irritating as it is to enter a liturgical congregation for the first time and have no one pay attention to you or your lack of familiarity, the main reason why the liturgy feels unnatural is sin.  Our sinful natures remain like the tired old ruts of road.  When left without instruction, we revert to that which is natural.  I am bored.  I don't like this.  I don't get it.  I don't want to be here...

One does not have to be a stranger to liturgical worship to feel this distance.  Many of those who have been participants in the liturgy for years remain on the fringes.  They fight, resist, and remain in the dark about the who, what, and why of liturgical worship.  It is easier to remain aloof from what is going on than to surrender our preoccupation with self.  We carry our smart phones with us, we treat the things of God casually and wander in and out instead of paying attention to what God is doing, and we give in to the incessant need to talk about, comment on, or converse about anything rather than listen to the rhythm of the liturgy.  We complain about the music or the ambiance (hard pews, too much sitting, standing, kneeling, etc...) or the people (focusing on them instead of their liturgical roles).  In the end we are choosing the easy path of giving in to self rather than yielding by the aid of the Spirit to the Lord and His gracious actions.

"Liturgical worship feels unnatural to us because does not reflect our "natural" feelings. Rather, it teaches us what to feel when God meets us in His Word and sacrament."—Harold Senkbeil, Sanctification: Christ in Action, p. 180.

That is the point.  We must learn what to feel, what to look for, what to focus upon...  The Spirit's primary work is not delivering God's gifts to His people but preparing us to receive them.  The Spirit has a herculean task in this regard.  We do not want to learn new feelings, to learn new desires, to hear and heed something besides the voice of our own hearts.  This is the Spirit's work from baptism.  Killing the old nature declared dead in baptism and raising up the new person created in Christ Jesus to hear and heed the Word of the Lord, to rejoice in His gifts, and to delight in His service.

The liturgy is not our natural home because of sin but God is at work in the Spirit so that we might desire that which is His domain, His gifts, and His holy ground.  It is a life-long process that is fed and nourished by constant participation in the liturgy, regular catechesis in how God works to deliver Christ's gifts to His people, and by learning to pray the liturgy as the voice of faith and the faithful.

Entertainment worship only works when it offers us something we like or want.  There is no guarantee that on a given Sunday we will be convinced that what entertainment worship offers is something worth getting out of bed and going for...  In fact, the Christian world is filled with people who go from church to church solely because they have grown tired, bored, or disenchanted with the entertainment of one church and look for something new, exciting, and different.  Hence the constant pursuit of novelty by some Christian churches.  The problem with this is that the pursuit of that which is new, exciting, and different is squarely at odds with the God who gives Himself to us in predictable places (Word and Sacrament).

God help us, Amen.

What did the Pope say and what did he mean?

Funny how the news is buzzing with rumors about this "new" Pope and how he seems so "different" from the previous popes. Perhaps people believe that the papacy is recreated every time a new puff of white smoke appears over the Vatican. Perhaps some think the Roman Catholic Church is like a business and Francis its new CEO who is stirring things up and remaking everything in his own image. It might be humorous if it were not so pathetic -- pathetic in the sense that the media just does not get it. There are surely nuances of difference, perhaps even change, but one of Rome's hallmarks is consistency. Instead of reading Pope Francis against his predecessors, they would do well to read him with the previous popes, especially the last two.

Paul McCain has a perceptive comment on this worth passing on:

I’ve been struck this morning by the fact that last night and this morning the media is quite abuzz with quotes from an extensive interview given by Pope Francis and printed in sixteen Jesuit theological journals. I wondered if just maybe the media was lifting sound bites out of context. And, I think they have. I would encourage you to read the entire interview, for it is really very interesting, but here I’m providing the extended comments the Pope made from which the little snipped were lifted. You can judge for yourself if in fact the Pope is declaring a new teaching on homosexuality, divorce, etc. I do not think so. I simply hear the Pope saying that the main focus of the Church should be on proclaiming salvation in Christ and from that clear proclamation then comes catechesis during which moral instruction comes. Am I being too generous in my evaluation? I would encourage all my fellow Lutheran pastor to take the time to read Pope Francis’ interview, for I believe it is important we stay informed about what the Bishop of Rome is saying. The interview makes clear that Francis is a formidable intellect in his own right. Here is a link to the official English translation of the entire interview: http://www.americamagazine.org/pope-interview
Here is the longer context of the “sound bites” you are hearing in the media this morning.

“This is also the great benefit of confession as a sacrament: evaluating case by case and discerning what is the best thing to do for a person who seeks God and grace. The confessional is not a torture chamber, but the place in which the Lord’s mercy motivates us to do better. I also consider the situation of a woman with a failed marriage in her past and who also had an abortion. Then this woman remarries, and she is now happy and has five children. That abortion in her past weighs heavily on her conscience and she sincerely regrets it. She would like to move forward in her Christian life. What is the confessor to do?

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.

The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. “The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus. We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow.

“I say this also thinking about the preaching and content of our preaching. A beautiful homily, a genuine sermon must begin with the first proclamation, with the proclamation of salvation. There is nothing more solid, deep and sure than this proclamation. Then you have to do catechesis. Then you can draw even a moral consequence. But the proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives. Today sometimes it seems that the opposite order is prevailing. The homily is the touchstone to measure the pastor’s proximity and ability to meet his people, because those who preach must recognize the heart of their community and must be able to see where the desire for God is lively and ardent. The message of the Gospel, therefore, is not to be reduced to some aspects that, although relevant, on their own do not show the heart of the message of Jesus Christ.”

I’ve been struck this morning by the fact that last night and this morning the media is quite abuzz with quotes from an extensive interview given by Pope Francis and printed in sixteen Jesuit theological journals. I wondered if just maybe the media was lifting sound bites out of context. And, I think they have. I would encourage you to read the entire interview, for it is really very interesting, but here I’m providing the extended comments the Pope made from which the little snipped were lifted. You can judge for yourself if in fact the Pope is declaring a new teaching on homosexuality, divorce, etc. I do not think so. I simply hear the Pope saying that the main focus of the Church should be on proclaiming salvation in Christ and from that clear proclamation then comes catechesis during which moral instruction comes. Am I being too generous in my evaluation? I would encourage all my fellow Lutheran pastor to take the time to read Pope Francis’ interview, for I believe it is important we stay informed about what the Bishop of Rome is saying. The interview makes clear that Francis is a formidable intellect in his own right. Here is a link to the official English translation of the entire interview: http://www.americamagazine.org/pope-interview
Here is the longer context of the “sound bites” you are hearing in the media this morning.
“This is also the great benefit of confession as a sacrament: evaluating case by case and discerning what is the best thing to do for a person who seeks God and grace. The confessional is not a torture chamber, but the place in which the Lord’s mercy motivates us to do better. I also consider the situation of a woman with a failed marriage in her past and who also had an abortion. Then this woman remarries, and she is now happy and has five children. That abortion in her past weighs heavily on her conscience and she sincerely regrets it. She would like to move forward in her Christian life. What is the confessor to do?
“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.
The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. “The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus. We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow.
“I say this also thinking about the preaching and content of our preaching. A beautiful homily, a genuine sermon must begin with the first proclamation, with the proclamation of salvation. There is nothing more solid, deep and sure than this proclamation. Then you have to do catechesis. Then you can draw even a moral consequence. But the proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives. Today sometimes it seems that the opposite order is prevailing. The homily is the touchstone to measure the pastor’s proximity and ability to meet his people, because those who preach must recognize the heart of their community and must be able to see where the desire for God is lively and ardent. The message of the Gospel, therefore, is not to be reduced to some aspects that, although relevant, on their own do not show the heart of the message of Jesus Christ.”
- See more at: http://cyberbrethren.com/#sthash.ZWclYx4E.dpuf

My words:

I believe Paul has it about right both about Francis and the need for even us Lutherans to know what he is saying and to get what he is saying right.  The world is quick to write off the Church as a one or two issue cause -- abortion, sexuality, and marriage have dominated the media focus on Christianity.  Christianity and the Gospel are seen by the media through the lens of what the Church says about abortion, sexuality, and marriage.  Instead, the media (and perhaps some Christians) need to remember that we see abortion, sexuality, and marriage through the lens of the Gospel.  In this we can concur with Pope Francis.  Too many people are listening to Christianity only for what is said on this subject or that.  The media reduces the Christian voice to one word, "no".  Instead, when the Church does say "no" it is always in the context of the "yes" of the Gospel.  I frankly doubt that Francis will get his message across to those waiting and watching for cracks in the foundation.  But I applaud him for trying.  That is what we Lutherans ought to be doing!

What Did the Pope Actually Say?

September 20th, 2013 No comments

I’ve been struck this morning by the fact that last night and this morning the media is quite abuzz with quotes from an extensive interview given by Pope Francis and printed in sixteen Jesuit theological journals. I wondered if just maybe the media was lifting sound bites out of context. And, I think they have. I would encourage you to read the entire interview, for it is really very interesting, but here I’m providing the extended comments the Pope made from which the little snipped were lifted. You can judge for yourself if in fact the Pope is declaring a new teaching on homosexuality, divorce, etc. I do not think so. I simply hear the Pope saying that the main focus of the Church should be on proclaiming salvation in Christ and from that clear proclamation then comes catechesis during which moral instruction comes. Am I being too generous in my evaluation? I would encourage all my fellow Lutheran pastor to take the time to read Pope Francis’ interview, for I believe it is important we stay informed about what the Bishop of Rome is saying. The interview makes clear that Francis is a formidable intellect in his own right. Here is a link to the official English translation of the entire interview: http://www.americamagazine.org/pope-interview
Here is the longer context of the “sound bites” you are hearing in the media this morning.
“This is also the great benefit of confession as a sacrament: evaluating case by case and discerning what is the best thing to do for a person who seeks God and grace. The confessional is not a torture chamber, but the place in which the Lord’s mercy motivates us to do better. I also consider the situation of a woman with a failed marriage in her past and who also had an abortion. Then this woman remarries, and she is now happy and has five children. That abortion in her past weighs heavily on her conscience and she sincerely regrets it. She would like to move forward in her Christian life. What is the confessor to do?
“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.
The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. “The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus. We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow.
“I say this also thinking about the preaching and content of our preaching. A beautiful homily, a genuine sermon must begin with the first proclamation, with the proclamation of salvation. There is nothing more solid, deep and sure than this proclamation. Then you have to do catechesis. Then you can draw even a moral consequence. But the proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives. Today sometimes it seems that the opposite order is prevailing. The homily is the touchstone to measure the pastor’s proximity and ability to meet his people, because those who preach must recognize the heart of their community and must be able to see where the desire for God is lively and ardent. The message of the Gospel, therefore, is not to be reduced to some aspects that, although relevant, on their own do not show the heart of the message of Jesus Christ.”

- See more at: http://cyberbrethren.com/#sthash.ZWclYx4E.dpuf

What Did the Pope Actually Say?

September 20th, 2013 No comments

I’ve been struck this morning by the fact that last night and this morning the media is quite abuzz with quotes from an extensive interview given by Pope Francis and printed in sixteen Jesuit theological journals. I wondered if just maybe the media was lifting sound bites out of context. And, I think they have. I would encourage you to read the entire interview, for it is really very interesting, but here I’m providing the extended comments the Pope made from which the little snipped were lifted. You can judge for yourself if in fact the Pope is declaring a new teaching on homosexuality, divorce, etc. I do not think so. I simply hear the Pope saying that the main focus of the Church should be on proclaiming salvation in Christ and from that clear proclamation then comes catechesis during which moral instruction comes. Am I being too generous in my evaluation? I would encourage all my fellow Lutheran pastor to take the time to read Pope Francis’ interview, for I believe it is important we stay informed about what the Bishop of Rome is saying. The interview makes clear that Francis is a formidable intellect in his own right. Here is a link to the official English translation of the entire interview: http://www.americamagazine.org/pope-interview
Here is the longer context of the “sound bites” you are hearing in the media this morning.
“This is also the great benefit of confession as a sacrament: evaluating case by case and discerning what is the best thing to do for a person who seeks God and grace. The confessional is not a torture chamber, but the place in which the Lord’s mercy motivates us to do better. I also consider the situation of a woman with a failed marriage in her past and who also had an abortion. Then this woman remarries, and she is now happy and has five children. That abortion in her past weighs heavily on her conscience and she sincerely regrets it. She would like to move forward in her Christian life. What is the confessor to do?
“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.
The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. “The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus. We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow.
“I say this also thinking about the preaching and content of our preaching. A beautiful homily, a genuine sermon must begin with the first proclamation, with the proclamation of salvation. There is nothing more solid, deep and sure than this proclamation. Then you have to do catechesis. Then you can draw even a moral consequence. But the proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives. Today sometimes it seems that the opposite order is prevailing. The homily is the touchstone to measure the pastor’s proximity and ability to meet his people, because those who preach must recognize the heart of their community and must be able to see where the desire for God is lively and ardent. The message of the Gospel, therefore, is not to be reduced to some aspects that, although relevant, on their own do not show the heart of the message of Jesus Christ.”

- See more at: http://cyberbrethren.com/#sthash.ZWclYx4E.dpuf

What Did the Pope Actually Say?

September 20th, 2013 No comments

I’ve been struck this morning by the fact that last night and this morning the media is quite abuzz with quotes from an extensive interview given by Pope Francis and printed in sixteen Jesuit theological journals. I wondered if just maybe the media was lifting sound bites out of context. And, I think they have. I would encourage you to read the entire interview, for it is really very interesting, but here I’m providing the extended comments the Pope made from which the little snipped were lifted. You can judge for yourself if in fact the Pope is declaring a new teaching on homosexuality, divorce, etc. I do not think so. I simply hear the Pope saying that the main focus of the Church should be on proclaiming salvation in Christ and from that clear proclamation then comes catechesis during which moral instruction comes. Am I being too generous in my evaluation? I would encourage all my fellow Lutheran pastor to take the time to read Pope Francis’ interview, for I believe it is important we stay informed about what the Bishop of Rome is saying. The interview makes clear that Francis is a formidable intellect in his own right. Here is a link to the official English translation of the entire interview: http://www.americamagazine.org/pope-interview
Here is the longer context of the “sound bites” you are hearing in the media this morning.
“This is also the great benefit of confession as a sacrament: evaluating case by case and discerning what is the best thing to do for a person who seeks God and grace. The confessional is not a torture chamber, but the place in which the Lord’s mercy motivates us to do better. I also consider the situation of a woman with a failed marriage in her past and who also had an abortion. Then this woman remarries, and she is now happy and has five children. That abortion in her past weighs heavily on her conscience and she sincerely regrets it. She would like to move forward in her Christian life. What is the confessor to do?
“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.
The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. “The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus. We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow.
“I say this also thinking about the preaching and content of our preaching. A beautiful homily, a genuine sermon must begin with the first proclamation, with the proclamation of salvation. There is nothing more solid, deep and sure than this proclamation. Then you have to do catechesis. Then you can draw even a moral consequence. But the proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives. Today sometimes it seems that the opposite order is prevailing. The homily is the touchstone to measure the pastor’s proximity and ability to meet his people, because those who preach must recognize the heart of their community and must be able to see where the desire for God is lively and ardent. The message of the Gospel, therefore, is not to be reduced to some aspects that, although relevant, on their own do not show the heart of the message of Jesus Christ.”

- See more at: http://cyberbrethren.com/#sthash.ZWclYx4E.dpuf

On the way to 1 Million Views

When I began this blog a few years ago it was ostensibly to provide a place to distribute my sermons and, secondarily, to venture forth with a few random opinions on a variety of topics.  I am amazed that this little hobby is heading to its 1 Millionth View sometime over the next weeks.  I am also surprised whenever I go to a church event and have people come up to me and identity themselves as fans of the blog.  Close to a hundred folks did just that at the Synodical Convention in July.  I am also surprised when a blog post or portions thereof end up being reposted on other venues or copied and printed in parish newsletters and the like.  What a surprise it was to end up being quoted and footnoted in a WELS paper presented to a WELC convention (or other gathering of that church body - I forget which)!

I do not use this blog to address things personal and I purposefully have left out family, friends, and parishioners as fodder for the post or targets for my rants.  I do not mean things personally even when I mention people by name.  I do intend to stir up the pot a bit, especially within my own Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, for the cause of confession Lutheranism at large, and for the greater ecumenical endeavor of truth relentlessly pursued, normed by Scripture, and faithfully confessed (which is the only real ecumenism worth our attention).

Even though it seems blogs have become somewhat dated in the sphere of technology, I will continue to crank out some things, guaranteed not to be well developed or well written theological or sociological opinions but, well, meandering thoughts of an LCMS Pastor.  If I offend you, I apologize but I do not write to inflame.  If I bore you, look elsewhere for your entertainment. If I hit a nerve with you, I hope you thought a bit more about that topic or issue and helped you form a more informed opinion on the matter.  Well, that is about all.  Thanks for listening, for your polite comments, and for making this a far bigger endeavor than I had ever imagined.

The growing pains of faithful Lutheran identity. . .

I have had a couple of folks over the years who have complained that I seem to be leading my congregation to a more Catholic self-identity.  I deny this; I have no aspirations with regard to Rome.  What I do admit and I confess to is moving my congregation to a more authentic Lutheran confessional identity with its concurrent practice.  Unfortunately, this is not an easy distinction for Lutherans to make.

Confessionally

I grew up in a Lutheranism was which decidedly anti-Catholic.  There was no greater offense than for an outsider to visit the Divine Service (sorry, make that, Order of Morning Worship with Communion) and say "why, that looks Catholic to me!"  How dare you!  But it was easier to be Lutheran in the 1950s.  All Lutherans used the Common Service of 1888 (in our case, on page 15 or ante-communion on page 5).  The music might be different in liturgy and hymnal but we were secure in our Lutheranism and could afford not to take our Confessions all that seriously.  So when our Confessions insisted that we had the Mass every Lord's Day, holy day, and every other day communicants desired to receive it, we could wink at that and continue our quarterly or monthly Lord's Supper.

We had an American culture (on the surface) well integrated with mainline Protestantism so we sought to be a Lutheran version of that mainline Protestant identity.  Lutherans were coming out of their ethnic conclaves in the 1950s and were hitting America big time.  We seemed comfortable enough with an outward facade of Calvinism coupled with a somewhat odd (bizarre?) sacramentality and a predilection for formal, liturgical worship (mostly black gowns with an occasional surplice and stole).  Again, we could ignore our own Confessions and their insistence that we observed faithfully all the liturgical traditions (read that church usages and ceremonies) that did not conflict with the Gospel because all the Lutherans pretty much looked and acted fairly similar.  Who was to hold us to account?

When confessional renewal began and voices like Arthur Carl Piepkorn began challenging this view of Luther and the Lutherans, we had to take sides.  Sadly, the side of taking worship and the confessions more seriously seemed to fall more to those on the side of a decidedly non-confessional view of Scripture and the Gospel.  You know what happened in Missouri and you can also follow the evolution of Biblical inerrancy through Frederick Schiotz and the old ALC through to the present ELCA.  The side of Biblical truth was deeply suspicious of those who sought a more faithful Lutheran confessional identity.

Now we find ourselves full circle.  Those who take Scripture seriously in Lutheranism are generally also those who take the Confessions seriously and do not view them through a predisposition to a dressed up Calvinism, Protestantism, or evangelicalism.  That view has been on the ascendancy since the 1980s and resulted in the election of Dr. Matthew Harrison as President.  Lutherans are being held accountable to our Concordia more now than ever.  This has been primarily a clergy movement but not exclusively so.  Now, to be sure, those who worked to address the Biblical inerrancy issue in the 1970s are still not at home with this and continue to label these Lutherans who believe confessional is not merely a descriptor of what is believed but a cause for practices wholly consistent with what we say we believe.  Whether hypo-Euros or sacerdotalists, it would seem that the Cascione crowd has found an unlikely ally in the Kieschnick crowd.  Now the complaint is clergy dominance -- Cascione believes that lay influence will Protestantize the "Catholic" practice of the some of the Confessionals and Kieschnick believes it will moderate arbitrary and unbending doctrinal adherence and practices of the Confessionals.

Liturgically

I grew up in a Lutheranism which was decidedly formalistic (all our Pastors seemed to stand and sit and move according to an unwritten script) but it was also mostly unliturgical.  They did not do this because they believed the liturgy confessed the faith but simply because this was what Lutherans did and what they were taught to do.  They were rigorous in the way they followed the rules but they always felt a little uncomfortable in the vestments, clerical collar, and at the altar.  They were preachers more than liturgists.

Now we find ourselves at a time in which the call of the faithful (lay and clergy) is becoming more a both and than an either or -- take worship seriously and take the faith seriously.  This has resulted in a division.  There are those who elevate the cause of the lost higher than any other value and who seem willing to dump every liturgical identity of our Confessions and our history in order to convert one lost soul.  There are also those who believe that you cannot have a high view of the Bible and not have a catholic (small "c" folks) view of worship and the liturgy. 

This has left some Lutherans with some uneasiness.  They go to a Lutheran congregation in which the Word is held in proper Confessional esteem and with it come liturgical practices that some have rejected as "Catholic" but which were properly and always the practice of the Lutheran Church until the last couple of centuries.  They find their Pastors chanting, wearing Eucharistic vestments, crossing themselves, kneeling, genuflecting at the consecration, ringing bells, etc... and they do not like it.  They were raised to instinctively reject all the frills as adiaphora (translate that unnecessary) or as impediments to the simple worship of Jesus (as much as you can call it that using a hymnal and following some of rubrics).  They wish that they could return to the 1950s when liturgical simply meant using the hymnal, when Holy Communion was a more occasional than essential part of the Divine Service, and when the more catholic practice of Confessional doctrine was more circumspect.

When these Lutheran lay folk visit other Lutheran congregations, they tend to find the neat divisions of the modern worship wars.  The praise band Lutherans (generally larger congregations and those planted more recently) and the pipe organ Lutherans (generally small to medium size and with a longer history).  They wonder what happened to their old Protestant style Lutheranism.  It is gone.  It was a victim of the battle for the Lutheran soul that asks either the Confessions or not.  Sure, you may find it occasionally in the WELS or ELS (or some rural parts of the Upper Midwest), but you can also find in these the same divisions as Missouri -- because this is not strictly a single synod issue.  When they go to the ELCA, they find a different liturgical strangeness -- inclusive language, gay or women clergy presiding, social issues parading as the Gospel, and union with those who disagree with us about many things but seem to agree on others (Presbyterians, Reformed, Episcopalians, UCC, etc...).  This group of Lutherans seems to have lost their church home and they don't like it one bit.  But they don't know where to go, either.

Catechesis

I grew up in the days when catechesis meant simply the memorization of the Synodical Catechism and its hundreds of proof-texting Bible passages -- NOT a framework for piety and practice of the Lutheran faith.  Now we find that the Confessionals who advocate the full Divine Service are also insisting that the Catechism not merely be taught but actually shape the piety of Lutherans.  We have arguments over how the Small Catechism is being translated and about what happens in classes leading to Confirmation and in new member instruction.  The catechism is no longer a hurdle that must be jumped to belong, it is a living part of what it means to believe, confess, and teach as Lutherans -- for parents in the home, for children in the faith, for converts from outside, and for Sunday morning classes (where the Catechism accompanies our study of Scripture).

Some Lutheran lay folk like this but they are also somewhat suspicious of the catechism as if it were being  used to replace the Bible.  They have grown up with the idea that Bible study is good but are not so sure about all this talk of the catechism.  When they read that the Catechism, the Hymnal, and a good Lutheran study Bible are the print resources that support the Christian life in the home, they think this sounds good in principle but they wonder why not just the Bible (along with, say, Portals of Prayer)?  So they like the emphasis upon Bible study but they wonder why their Pastors keep bringing up the catechism or the Confessions.

In other venues, the catechism is completely lost.  Here the mission of the Church is strictly converting the lost and these folks see the catechism the way they see the hymnal -- a distraction at best and an enemy at worst to real, measurable, church growth.  They insist they teach the substance of the catechism but do not use the book, the vocabulary, or the structure of Luther's catechism.  To this, the confessionals cry foul.  How can you teach the catechism without teaching, well, the catechism?

This is where a bunch of folks in my parish fit... or, rather, do not fit.  I suspect it is true of many throughout the Synod...

Movin on up. . . OR Having your best life now. . .

Lakewood Church, Joel Osteen proclaims,"It's God's will for you to live in prosperity instead of poverty." The pastor of the Houston megachurch and wife Victoria certainly practice what they preach. The couple has moved to a $10.5 million mansion in River Oaks, while keeping their former Tanglewood residence, valued at $2.9 million.

They are, however, selling a vacant lot next to their former home. Asking price for the half-acre property at the corner of Doliver and Sherbrooke: $1.1 million. Martha Turner Properties has the listing.
The lot is marked by an ivy-covered wall that adjoins the 5,600-square-foot, four bedroom home. When the land is sold, the property will be divided.  In a sign that the Houston real estate market remains soft at the high end, the Tanglewood lot was first offered for sale at an asking price of $1.4 million last August. The price was dropped  to $1.299 million in December and to $1.1 million last month.

Several months ago, the couple and their children moved to a 17,000-square-foot stone mansion in the Tall Timbers subdivision in River Oaks. The Osteens' new home is situated on 1.86 acres and surrounded by an ornamental fence. The 411: It has six bedrooms, six bathrooms, three elevators and five wood-burning fireplaces, with a one-bedroom guest house and pool house. The Harris County Appraisal District valued it at $10.5 million.

___________________________________________

My Comments

Those who laud Joel Osteen are moved by the hope that God wants them to prosper like he has and that one day they too will enjoy such a lavish lifestyle.  It is the religious counterpart to the old Wall Street movie in which Gordon Gecko smugly proclaims:  The point is ladies and gentlemen that greed, for lack of a better word, is good.

Movin on up is the blueprint of the prosperity gospel and, until you can get it for yourself, it is comforting at least to see the preacher get it... at least that is the presumption.  Sadly, we are all too comfortable with this kind of thing -- we even expect it.  Pope Francis is said to have been concerned that bishops and priests were driving too nice a car and worried about the perception.  It is said for this reason he has yet to move into the papal apartment.  Apparently Francis and Joel don't talk or, if they do, they don't agree.

More virtue in dirt. . .

Sometimes it is not easy to resist temptation.  No, that would be wrong.  Always it is difficult to resist temptation -- but it is even more a challenge when the temptation appeals to something inside of you.  We are greatly tempted to complain about the news, about the state of the world, and to despair over what we consider the loss of that which was, at least on the surface, better than what we have now.

Perhaps the greatest question of all is the question of virtue.  Where do you find virtue today?  We live in an age when the vocabulary is hard and vulgar, when conversation takes place via keyboard or smartphone rather than face to face, when bitching has become a right, and when moral failure seems to propel folks even higher into the public eye instead of sending them packing.

St. Basil the Great put it this way:  Man should be like the earth and bear fruit; he should not let inanimate matter appear to surpass him. The earth bears crops for your benefit, not for its own, but when you give to the poor, you are bearing fruit which you will gather in for yourself, since the reward for good deeds goes to those who perform them.

We should not let inanimate matter surpass us...  Now there's a thought.  Could it be that dirt knows better its place and virtue than the crowning achievement of God's creation?  But that is exactly the point of the fall.  We have lost our sense of place and purpose and substituted an inflated ego, an unbalanced sense of self, and the cause of me for the First Commandment.  It is a stubborn will that cannot easily be put down into its place.  It rises up and betrays what we confess with our lips and it does this over and over again.  So we come in repentance to acknowledge our failure, to ask for God's forgiveness, and to seek, by the aid of the Spirit, not to repeat our error.

It seems to me that this is the core issue of stewardship.  We have become content to let the dirt surpass us and we have forgotten the noble character of our creation, even though marred by the Fall.  We have surely forgotten that God sees and regards the good works we do in faith.  This is, in itself, great blessing.  By acting as misers in the things of this life, we eschew the gift of eternity and we care nothing for the regard of God.  In this we are stupider than ass who must be bridled to walk in the right way.  For we have been set free of the curse of this self-imposed bondage to chose whom we will serve.  Our deeds betray whether or not we have exchanged the noble cause of faith for the ignorance of selfishness that hides behinds a heart insisting that we deserve whatever good we have.  There may be more virtue in dirt than in human flesh and blood.  Pray brothers and sisters that we may repent and be restored from ignorance to faith and from a self-absorbed life to one of faith and the good works that show forth that faith.