Our New Associate Pastor

Assigned by the Synod at Concordia Theological Seminary on Tuesday, April 28, The Rev. Candidate Daniel Ulrich will become the new Associate Pastor of Grace Lutheran Church;  we are happy to welcome Daniel and his wife Katie!

We expect that ordination and installation will be at Grace early in July.  We hope to see them soon as they visit to begin the job of finding a house.

Both Daniel and Katie are from Indiana (he from Lafayette and she from Ft. Wayne area).  Katie is a civil engineer currently employed by a firm from Indianapolis.

Our parish excitedly awaits the formal welcome and official reception of our newest pastor and his wife into the life of our congregation.  Until then our prayers go out in thanksgiving to God and for their safe keeping and guidance in the coming months!

Thou shalt. . .

According to the report below, the city of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, ever the hotbed of liberalism, has decided that the thou shalt of city ordinance shall trump the thou shalt not of Scripture and those who disagree shall either do what they law says or pay up in punishment.  Surely this will go into the court system but those who have had their heads in the sand should wake up and take notice.

 ______________________________________________________

By Cheryl K. Chumley - The Washington Times - Monday, October 20, 2014 

Coeur d‘Alene, Idaho, city officials have laid down the law to Christian pastors within their community, telling them bluntly via an ordinance that if they refuse to marry homosexuals, they will face jail time and fines.

The dictate comes on the heels of a legal battle with Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post wedding chapel in the city, but who oppose gay marriage, The Daily Caller reported.

A federal judge recently ruled that the state’s ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional, while the city of  

Coeur d‘Alene has an ordinance that prevents discrimination based on sexual preference.

The Supreme Court’s recent refusal to take on gay rights’ appeals from five states has opened the doors for same-sex marriages to go forth.

The Knapps were just asked by a gay couple to perform their wedding ceremony, The Daily Caller reported.  “On Friday, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and the Knapps politely declined,” The Daily Signal reported. “The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term and a $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.”

______________________________________________

Lest you think this is some mere lunatic fringe position, take note that no less than Hillary Clinton has questioned the right of religious freedom to deny all rights and privileges of the church to those who refuse to grant free and unlimited reproductive freedom to women -- only a stone's throw away from the gay and lesbian position being required of all religions irrespective of the religious freedom stated in the Bill of Rights.  

___________________________________________

.

NEW YORK CITY, April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Speaking to an influential gathering in New York City on Thursday, Hillary Clinton declared that “religious beliefs” that condemn "reproductive rights," “have to be changed.”
“Yes, we've cut the maternal mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health,” Hillary told the Women in the World Summit yesterday.
Liberal politicians use “reproductive health” as a blanket term that includes abortion. However, Hillary's reference echoes National Organization for Women (NOW) president Terry O’Neill's op-ed from last May that called abortion “an essential measure to prevent the heartbreak of infant mortality.”
The Democratic presidential hopeful added that governments should throw the power of state coercion behind the effort to redefine traditional religious dogmas.

“Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources, and political will,” she said. “Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.”
The line received rousing applause at the feminist conference, hosted in Manhattan's Lincoln Center by Tina Brown.
She also cited religious-based objections to the HHS mandate, funding Planned Parenthood, and the homosexual and transgender agenda as obstacles that the government must defeat.

“America moves ahead when all women are guaranteed the right to make their own health care choices, not when those choices are taken away by an employer like Hobby Lobby,” she said. The Supreme Court ruled last year that closely held corporations had the right to opt out of the provision of ObamaCare requiring them to provide abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization to employees with no co-pay – a mandate that violates the teachings of the Catholic Church and other Christian bodies.

White House Easter Photo

I heard second hand that this was put out on social media from the White House but I know that this photo was taken last year, not this year.  Maybe it was re-issued.  If that is true, then it represents an even stranger situation than one first imagined.  In any case, the photo is not just weird -- it is kind of spooky.

Compare this with the explicitly Christian tone of the British Prime Minister... watch it below...

What does it mean to be good?

Sermon for Easter 4B, Good Shepherd Sunday, preached on April 26, 2015.

    Good is such a vague term.  Somebody shoves some new food in front of us and we taste it.  It is "good" but that does not necessarily mean we want to eat it again.  We say that a movie or book was "good" but it is a comparative term.  It is not great but slightly better than expected or than the last one we saw or read.  And then there are the lies.  How do I look in this outfit? You look good.  Where do you want to eat?  Thai food?  Good.  We say good when we mean not good.  It is part of the game of words.
    God plays no game of words.  To call Jesus the "good" shepherd is not a game of words.  We do not define this goodness but Christ defines it for us.  Real love is sacrificial.  His love for us is tried and tested.  Christ is our Good Shepherd because His love is authentic – it is tested by the betrayal of one of His own, by the suffering of the cross, by the lonely death He died for you and me, and by the days He lay in the grave so that you and I might rise with Him to new and everlasting life.
    Christ is the Good Shepherd not because He is better than the shepherds who went before Him or better than the hirelings who love not the sheep (though certainly He was).  No, Christ is the Good Shepherd because He dies for the sheep.  This is not a claim of a name but a job description which He fulfills perfectly.  He defines "good" by a holy life, a life-giving death, and rising to eternal life.  I am the Good Shepherd... I lay down my life for My sheep... willingly...
    I am the Good Shepherd, says Jesus.  Our Lord does not shepherd for fun or profit.  He shepherds His sheep for their great need.  They are victims of evil prey, duped by fake shepherds, left to their own to find pasture and water, and waiting for death.  Jesus comes not for Himself but for us, not for His purpose but for our need.  Remember how Jesus gazed upon the crowd and saw them as they were – victims, soon to be scattered, easy prey for the predator... like sheep without a shepherd.  For this reason He has come.
    Jesus is not simply a better shepherd than others, though, indeed, it is true that He is.  No, His goodness is defined by His life given in exchange for ours.  He defines goodness by standing between us and our enemies of sin and death, bearing the full brunt of their weight and pain, dying the death we should have died, and rising to fulfill His promise of eternal, green pastures.
    Our Lord does not run from death but runs to it when His sheep can be saved by nothing less. He has no death wish but a life wish for you and me, His sheep.  When the hirelings and all who went before Him shrunk from the price of loving the sheep, Christ loves His sheep to death.  Yes, you and me.
    Jesus says this.  I lay down My life for My sheep.  He is not comparatively good but good in word and deed.  His death proves that His concern is His sheep – you and me.  To call Jesus the Good Shepherd is to point to the cross where His goodness is defined and we discover what it means for Him to love us.  He is not a shepherd of sentiment, He does not speak for picturesque imagery, and He does not identify Himself as the Good Shepherd for idyllic pastoral setting.  No He is the Good Shepherd because of His love of the sheep for whom He died.
    He is the Good Shepherd and there is no other.  We do not esteem Him good but He shows us what it means to be good.  As my dad lay dying, he lamented to my brother and me that he was not a better father.  At the very same time I was wondering inside if I was as good a father as he was.  We make these comparisons all the time.  Children and even adults are prone to define goodness comparatively or as the one who gives us what we want or like.  But Jesus is compared to no one and He comes to give us what we need.
    Jesus is the Good Shepherd because He does what no one else can or will do – He dies for His sheep.  This He says not to comfort you or to make you feel better about things but to save you.  He is the Good Shepherd to save us from the punishment our rebellion deserves, to forgive our sins, and to bestow on us the life death can no longer steal – a gift more than we deserve.  So today when we come to appreciate Jesus the Good Shepherd we are acknowledging that there is salvation in Him and in no other and that He is good because He dies for us, His sheep.
    Love is one thing – it is sacrificial and it bears the full cost of loving.  It is the Good Shepherd who gives His life in exchange for the sheep.  That is why we call Him our Good Shepherd – so we rejoice in Him who dies for worthless sheep, who rescues the lone and the lost, who leads us to green pasture, who gives us the still quiet waters, and who sets us a table in the presence of our enemies.  God's goodness is found not on how easy or full or long or rich this life is but in the life our Lord offers in exchange for us.  His life for His sheep.  That is why He is our Good Shepherd.  Thanks be to God!

Order in Chaos

I have said repeatedly in this forum that I am in favor of a liturgical diaconate, something akin to the permanent deacons of the Roman Catholic Church.  I won't repeat myself here except to say that what we have now around the Synod is chaos -- some Lutheran teachers, some Lutheran DCEs and DCOs (and the other DCs), some elders, some volunteers, etc... all assisting in the Divine Service, either fulfilling the role of Assisting Minister (Divine Service Settings 1 & 2) or just filling in reading the lessons or helping to distribute the Sacrament within the service.  Instead of the chaos, ordered deacons would restore some level of training and give to the churches something of discernment more than who wants to do it.  Using a standardized  curriculum and having uniform standards that must be met would bring some order to the chaos and make sure that those assisting know a bit more about what and why they are doing it.  I am NOT, repeat that NOT, referring to this as a fill in for the Pastor or a substitute when the ordained are not available, deemed too costly, or whatever.  This would have no responsibilities alone but only in conjunction with the Pastor of that congregation.

That said, my focus here is on the use of lay readers or lectors.  IF you have them, and although I find nothing to forbid the practice even if it is not essential or even necessarily beneficial, then we ought to have a curriculum for and some basic standards required of those who read the lessons (not the Gospel) on Sunday morning.  This sort of sub-diaconal role has long standing and history within the catholic tradition.  To be sure this was part of the development of the myriad of minor orders and offices that became a ladder to the priesthood. I certainly do not envision restoring the idea of minor orders and its progression to ordination.  But it can also stand alone.  IF we will have people reading the lessons, then let us at least have some sort of expectation of training and some sort of standards of competence since this is not something casual.  It would be much more salutary than a blurb in the Sunday bulletin or monthly newsletter asking folks if this is something they want to do.

Some of the training would be eminently practical -- pronunciation helps and training for public reading.  But some of it needs to be theological -- what is this Word, what about the lectionary, not only how do we read it but why, and what does God do through His Word read and heard... among other things.  We already have people doing it (every parish I have served or served in has had lay readers well established before I got there) and not everyone is a good reader and the task is too important to simply be farmed out to any willing volunteer.  So why not have an order of lectors, uniform training, and standards of competence?

Note here that I am NOT suggesting that each District of the Synod do its own thing.  Districts are not independent representative groups of congregations to the Synod but simply the Synod in that place (something we often forget).  So lets not make the same mistake we did with lay deacons (isn't that an oxymoron) and have every District do what seems pleasing in its own neck of the Synodical woods.  No, let us proceed with a view toward bring some order out of the chaos of Sunday morning ministers.  It may just assist the Pastor in helping the people have a higher view of Scripture and it may just encourage more young men to consider seminary and the pastoral vocation. . . never a bad thing.

Just a few thoughts here. . .

Luther -- ever relevant and always interesting

I have read recently of several who have encouraged the reading of Luther.  Sarah Hinlicky Wilson writes in the First Things blog from a Lutheran perspective and the Lutheran World Federation's Lutheran Reading Challenge.  Robert R. Reno writes in the print edition of First Things from an appreciative Roman Catholic perspective.  Both make the point of Luther being accessible, open, with an immediacy, and from the vantage point of the Scriptural witness.  All good and well and I agree wholeheartedly.

There is another reason why Luther is good  reading and relevant reading for our age.  The concerns of Luther age old concerns that never age.  One of them is authority.  In a world of constant change and competing voices, we look with fresh eyes on the whole issue of authority in the Church.  Is it deposited in a history (ecumenical councils), in a magisterium (teachers or structures), in consensus (catholicity) in offices (priest, bishop, pope), the individual (Protestantism), or Scripture (not a naked Scripture but Scripture as the living voice that calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies with a uniform voice yesterday, today, and forever the same)?  Luther's struggle was not so much directed toward a man (pope) or institution (episcopacy or papacy) but toward asphalia, certainty -- authority which builds confidence instead of question or doubt.  That is exactly the issue today.  We have no objective truth, no ecumenical consensus, no authoritative voice (to counter the idol of personal relevance or preference), and no standard of truth larger than the person (like my Nebraska kin used to say -- a mile wide and an inch deep when referring to the Platte River).

The second point that makes Luther relevant is the idea of guilt and the search for a clear and clean conscience (read up on John Kleinig here).  Oh, sure, we act like guilt is an outmoded concept, that shame is a vestige of the past, and that none of us feels bad anymore about what we say, think, feel, do, or desire.  But of course that is a lie.  We have attempted to deal with guilt by making sin acceptable.  Instead of solving the problem, it has only created a chaos of disorder both internally within the individual and externally within society.  If nothing is a sin, then nothing is good either.  Secondly, we spend an inordinate portion of our day and use our technology (social media) in search of fake friends and a place to mouth off about things yet find ourselves fearful of real conversation where ideas may be challenged and we just might have to defend ourselves instead of unfriend our enemies.  We have no clear conscience because we refuse to admit sin out loud so its guilt and shame are buried deep -- too deep to be answered by the one thing that bestows a right spirit within us -- repentance, confession, absolution, and trust in the forgiveness won for us by Christ's death.  Luther knew this pain and he speaks as one of us even when he says out loud what nobody says openly anymore.  Just because we do not talk about it does not mean it is no longer an issue.

Finally, is the issue of suffering.  We have invested all our energy in pursuing a world free from any pain.  As lofty as this goal is, it has begun to consume us and leaves us tattered and weary by the effort to sustain happiness and to key in on pleasure and the highest and holiest of virtues.  We deny suffering its right to exist and so if we feel any pain or sorrow, it is our duty or someone else's duty to relieve us.  It is, however, an impossibility to live life without suffering.  Suffering is inherent to life since the fall -- up there with sin and death.  Luther is relevant here because he speaks to suffering -- to the ache of the guilty conscience who knows not how to be at peace with God and others. . . to the hurt of a father who has lost his daughter. . . to the fear of a man whose life hangs in the balance every day. . . and to the struggle of friends who become enemies and the loneliness of championing truth and virtue not popular with the people or the times.  He speaks boldly but compassionately, knowing that addressing sin is not the hard voice but the prelude to the rest of forgiveness and to the blessed hope of life defiant before death.  Maybe it even helps that Luther has an occasional potty mouth in a world where coarseness and vulgarity have become the norm of conversation instead of the expletive deleted from the public square.

Lutherans do not deify Luther nor are we bound to everything he has written (and, friends, he wrote a great deal to be sure!).  But we Lutherans have a hearty voice who addresses these common concerns with a Biblical familiarity and vitality that insists there is but one authority that endures forever.  And we also have a real person whose real life struggles and abiding faith can surely speak to a time of uncertainty and to a culture more convinced of doubt than anything else.

"The Herod Procedure. . . "

The Telegraph headline below reports on the latest, what one commentator described as the Herod Procedure:  

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life.” The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article’s authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.” 

Rather than being “actual persons,” newborns were “potential persons.” They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.”

 Reported here. 

The pressing clash of values that has been simmering for a very long time has boiled over with no more hiding the intent of culture, medicine, and freedom -- children are disposable whether inside or outside the womb.  For too long Christians who stand against abortion have been dismissed as extremist and their critics complain that their points are exaggerated and their characterization of the issues overblown.  Now the changing times are allowing more openness by those who view children (and the aged) not as people but as excess baggage which may be disposed of by those who would have to care for them.  It is coming.  Be aware.  Life issues remain on the forefront of nearly every issue facing us as a nation of people and as individuals, here in America, and throughout the world.  All the prevents this from obtaining legal authority is the need for political cover in the popular opinions of the majority.  Be vigilant, people, the battle is just begun!

The failure of teaching. . .

The approaching victory of same sex marriage and the bullying of its antagonists is seemingly unstoppable yet this alone will have zero impact upon the doctrine of the Church or the orthodox understanding of Scripture's clear and unmistakable voice on the matter.  That said, what is sure to happen is that churches will lose some people who are convinced that despite what Scripture and tradition says, an accommodation must be made to allow for diversity of thinking on these matters within the churches.  Some will resign their membership, some will move to other gay friendly churches, and others will simply stop coming to church.  In the end many will blame the onslaught of culture, the influence of the media, and the perversion of the sexual thinking of the day.  In small ways, this may be correct  but there is one area in which we have failed our own people.

For most of my own life, the church assumed the culture was friendly to the values of the kingdom.  We did not need to teach about the immorality of sexual promiscuity as long as culture frowned upon it (at least the overt expression of sexual license) and so we did not need to frame out why this was evil.  We did not need to teach about the lifelong nature of the marriage commitment and why it was essential to the teaching of marriage as long as divorce was seen as bad in the culture.  When this changed and states began to pass divorce friendly laws, we still failed to explain why this was wrong; we contented ourselves with saying that good Christian people did not do this and left it at that.  We did not need to teach about the value of children as long as our people were having many children and the government was encouraging large families (the need for labor and the hopeful prospect of defeating communism with bodies if not ideology).  So we did not teach about children as gift and blessing, we did not address the idea of birth control which the soldiers learned from the US Army when they came home from war with condoms in their pockets.  We merely assumed our people knew why it wrong if we said it was wrong.  We did not need to teach that homosexual behavior was contrary to God's will as long as it was confined to back alleys and dismissed as effeminate behavior by men "light in their loafers."  It was a subject simply not addressed so when culture began to question why it was not okay, we responded less by reasoned, Scriptural argument than by saying "it is just wrong." 

If the American culture is headed this way, it may be something we have little influence over and can do little about but if the people in the Church are following their lead, it is due mainly to a lack of catechesis.  We were so busy teaching people justification by the gracious act of God in Christ without any human work or merit that we stopped there and failed to actively teach what the shape of Christian life looked like.  Worse, we ridiculed those who did spend their time there as if eternity were the only real focus of orthodox Christian teaching.  Our people read authors not our own and developed a spirituality that was more than influenced by those who in a crass way believed that your best life was now and God's job was to make it happen.  Our people borrowed from so-called pastors who preached good sex, successful business, happy marriages, free thinking children, and the gospel of personal satisfaction with its god of personal preference.  Now we are reaping the fruits of poor catechesis.  Our people cannot explain why sex is good only within marriage, why marriage is only for man and woman, why homosexual behavior is contrary to God's creative intention, why children should be welcomed and not prevented, why abortion is murder, why the suffering elderly should not be put out of their misery, why the goal of faith is not to reduce suffering in my life, and why this life is not the primary focus of my faith...  They do not know because they have not been taught -- teaching requires more than saying something is wrong.

Let's face it.  If secular America follows the dead end of Europe, it is because there is no reasoned alternative to confront the tyranny of moment.  But if Christian people follow this lead, it is because they have not heard the clear clarion call of truth, not been catechized and nurtured in this truth, and not been taught why wrong is wrong.  Some of that blame, perhaps much of it, goes right back upon the churches, pastors, and leaders of the orthodox Christian churches who for too long assumed culture was friendly to the faith and to our values and could be counted upon to partner with us in keeping up the appearances of Biblical morality absent the teaching voice of church and classroom.

I am not going to do it if you do it. . .

"“If you insist upon calling every element in the Divine Service ‘Romish’ that has been used by the Roman Catholic Church, it must follow that the reading of the Epistle and Gospel is also ‘Romish.’ Indeed, it is mischief to sing or preach in church, for the Roman Church has done this also…let us boldly confess that our worship forms do not tie us with the modern sects or with the church of Rome; rather, they join us to the one, holy Christian Church that is as old as the world and is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets." - C.F.W. Walther

Lutheranism has for much of its life lived with a fear of things Romish.  It is made us suspicious of bishops, tilted us toward democracy and congregationalism, kept us from embracing in practice the liturgical identity of our catholic confession, and made us long for the cover of Protestantism or Evangelicalism.  We have dealt with an embarrassment about our liturgical tradition even though we glory in the theological and doctrinal content.  And now we find ourselves somewhat fractured yet holding together. . but for how long?

In Lutheranism we have a few different perspectives that co-exist within most Lutheran denominations -- although I speak from the perspective of Missouri.  We have the evangelical wing of the Church of the Augsburg Confession.  These are the folks who seem somewhat tied to Lutheran doctrine in theory but who borrow freely from and look for inspiration to the Evangelicals.  These folks read all the latest and greatest books and are heavy into visioning, core values, cutting edge technology, and church that does not act, sound, look, or seem like church.  These tend to be more suburban parishes, posting larger attendance numbers, and are virtually indistinguishable from other big box churches on a Sunday morning.  They are LINOs -- Lutherans in name only -- who will probably join the rest of evangelicalism in gradually acceding to the cultural pressure on gays and lesbians, open communion, and the ordination of women (among other things).  They are extreme congregationalists in terms of the institution but network in practice with like minded folks of any denomination.

Then we have the broad squishy middle of Lutheranism.  These folks don't want to be evangelicals and they don't want to be Roman Catholic.  They have adopted Lutheranism as an identity but the Lutheranism with which they identify may not fully resemble the Lutheranism of the Confessions or Lutheran history and tradition.  They will tolerate a little ceremonial but look upon most of it and unnecessary, distracting, and at odds with the spirituality of the heart and mind.  They are not that into symbolism and like sermons that make sense, tie up loose ends, and present a reasonable face to the mystery of God and His deliverance.  They want their church to be Lutheran -- at least the Lutheran they knew growing up (even it that may not be an accurate picture of Lutheranism since the 16th century).  They are conservative but not too conservative.

Finally we have the Lutherans who call themselves confessional or evangelical (not to be confused with the way the word was used above) catholics.  These folks want to be the kind of Lutherans who exemplify in faith and in practice the fullest expression of our Concordia -- doctrinally, liturgically, and devotionally. These folks are usually written off by the first party because they believe these people love ritual more than Jesus and pure doctrine more than winning people for Jesus and repentance more than helping people live a better life now.  These folks are viewed with deep suspicion by the squishy middle because they are too chancel prancy and swishing on Sunday morning and they present a side of Lutheranism the vast middle would just as soon forget.  They are not conservative but radicals.  They will survive and gladly surrender the institutions of the church and its structures for the cause.

The problem is this.  The party of the first part has the media, the money, and the numbers.  Some of their parishes are like mini-denominations in what they do, the size of their physical plants, and the scope of people. Many in the church tolerate them because they fear this may be the distasteful future for Lutheranism to survive.  The muddy middle represents a Lutheranism that looks on paper like the dying mainline of American Protestantism.  They have the numbers in terms of congregations but their numbers are dwindling as people age, move, and die.  But they do have loyalty to the institutions of the church bodies.  The last group can be found in rural, urban, and suburban settings and seems to be growing.  It certainly has the nod of official Missouri.  It has the momentum and the passion but it faces the prejudice of people who don't like things Catholic.  It does not have much of the money.

So where do we do?  Well, it depends. . .  If a church body like the Missouri Synod decides that some things are beyond the pale of Lutheranism, then some evangelicals among us may leave or just simply distance themselves from the rest of us until it is a fait accompli.  On the other hand, if the confessionals are stopped from holding the line on doctrine and practice and ecclesiastical supervision remains a sham, then things are liable to get messy and some of the most vocal will end up probably leaving.  In the end the balance hangs with the fuzzy middle.  Do they want showcases of life that they find personally distasteful or do they give the benefit of the doubt to those whose liturgical practices curl their nose hairs.  At this point it is probably too soon to call. . . but I am hoping that we will try real Lutheranism and those who claim the legacy of Walther will get over their angst over ritual and ceremony and decide to bite the bullet and be as Lutheran as you can be. . . I guess you know where that places me. . .

Now that things have calmed down in the parish. . .

If you went to church on Easter, you probably saw a lot of new faces.  The problem is most of those new faces were not of people new to the area or new to the church.  They were the unfamiliar faces of those who tend to go to church only on the high holy days of Christmas and Easter.

Many pastors and parishes bristle at the prospect of folks like that showing up after missing most of the rest of the year (spring through the dead of winter).  Some pastors spend their time in pulpits castigating those who just showed up after a nine month hibernation.  Sometimes the people who are there every Sunday sneak a smile or two when the pastor really gives it to those slackers.  I probably used to be one of them.

Now, well, not so much.  I have softened a bit (maybe quite a bit).  I have become a secret optimist.  I not only hope but expect that some of them will be caught up in the spirit of the day by the Holy Spirit speaking through the voice of the Word and they will find their way back to their place at His table weekly.  It does not happen often but it happens enough to encourage my hope against hope.

A friend once told me that he prefers to call the unchurched (or dechurched) those not yet of the kingdom.  I like that.  I believe that I may not live to see it or ever know the fruits of the Word the Lord planted through my ministry but I am confident that the Word will not return to Him empty handed.  And I have see it happen enough to be excited by the prospect that the good news of the Lord's death and resurrection may just, by the Spirit's design, hit home again.

So if you are in a slump because the pews were full at Easter and now seem rather empty, do not give up hope.  The Lord is entirely unpredictable except that He always errs on the side of grace and hope.  So join Him in hoping and praying for those who came back after a lot hiatus from the Lord's House.  God has turned many dead bones into lively folks.  We need to stop conveying a sense of skepticism and doubt to the Lord and believe that what we preach and teach will accomplish the Lord's purpose.  He is faithful and He will do it.

Some thinking. . . always dangerous -- seldom profound

The Indiana RFRA has certainly stirred up the pot.  Ever careful not to stir it up anymore, the Roman Catholic Bishops of Indiana weighed on with a predictable call to patience, calm, and respectful dialogue.  In other words, they said little except that by the end of their pastoral letter we could hear their sigh of relief expecting that they had successfully maneuvered through the mine field without causing more collateral damage.  You read it and see what if my characterization is fair.

One particular sentence stuck out at me.  The rights of a person should never be used inappropriately in order to deny the rights of another.  At first glance it appears to be a salutary truth but in reality it is a lie.  The rights of a person inevitably infringes upon the rights of another.  It is always that way.  Ours is not a nation in which every person enjoys absolute protection of their rights from the rights of another.  It is a nation in which certain rights have a guarantee of protection while other rights have a less solid claim before the law.  It is impossible for us to guarantee all rights to all without the exercise of those rights in some way infringing upon another.  In essence, our constitution and bill of rights has chosen carefully which rights have constitutional protection and which may not enjoy the same status.  Of course that has become a bit more muddled since the Supreme Court starting inventing rights not explicitly spelled out in either the constitution or its accompanying amendments.

Certain rights have explicit protection under the constitution and the bill of rights.  Among them is free speech (originally more seen as political speech but now generally given much freer reign).  With free speech is the freedom of religion -- not simply the right to worship without interference but the freedom of religion.  While government cannot establish one religion, it cannot abridge the free exercise of religion either.  Even these are not absolute and the SCOTUS has drawn a few lines in the sand to prevent this from being an absolute right.  The court has said that the state can restrict or constrain this right for a compelling reason but this is not to be taken lightly or treated casually.

Other rights which enjoy general acceptance among the populace are, nonetheless, not explicitly mentioned and therefore do not have the same claim to legitimacy as one of the guaranteed freedoms -- like freedom of religion.  You may think you have a right to marry whom you choose or to have sex with whomever you choose and however you choose but none of these are either explicit or implicit in the constitution.  At the time of the abortion decision, the court began reading into the constitution certain rights not explicitly mentioned but presumed to the modern day mind.  Among them the right of privacy which says that you can do what you want, with whom you want, when you want, behind closed doors and consensually.  And this has become the right that is wagging the tail of the constitutional horse today.

I am not suggesting that the government hide in your bedroom but simply pointing out that the freedom of religion is not something we read into the constitution but an explicitly mentioned and guaranteed right.  Maybe you think we need to rewrite the constitution (I am not in favor of it but it seems that the courts have done a pretty good job doing that without much of a mandate or authority from the people).  Maybe you disagree with the way the constitution is written (even our government does not think it salutary enough to be used as a model for fledgling democracies).  All I am saying is that if you have a beef with the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts dating from 1993 federally and passed at different times on the state level in most states, then you probably have a beef with the constitution and what is explicitly protected and what is not.

In the meantime, there is no possibility that freedoms can be guaranteed or protected without finding places and times and people who will have certain rights constrained in order to protect others our constitution considers more basic and essential.  The bishops are wrong.  We cannot have it all ways.  Certain rights will trump other rights.  We may not like it and it may offend us, our values, and our lifestyles, but it is simply the way it is.  Period. 

If you have read me before, you know that I consider democracy very messy, unpredictable, tedious, and fraught with problems.  It is probably the best we can do this side of glory (although I harbor the suspicion that a benevolent monarchy with the right king or queen is more efficient and effective).  Democracy is imperfect and it structures an imperfect people in search of a more perfect union.  But rights will continue to be traded off against each other.  There is no other way.  All I am saying is that explicitly mentioned protections and rights trump the others.  In this case, religious freedom is one of those in the upper hierarchy of values for which our founding fathers choose to write in constitutional protections.

Finding the real Jesus. . .

With Easter in the rear view mirror and its fruits before us, it is time to reflect a moment on the mountain of TV specials that accompany the Feast of the Resurrection.  Some of them are moderately friendly to the Biblical record of things but most are decidedly unsure about what we do know or what can ever be known about the real Jesus.  From AD to The Dovekeepers to Killing Jesus (three of the newest) to reruns of the familiar programs of old (Ten Commandments among them), we find ourselves inundated less by fact than by fiction, by the wondering thoughts of people who leave us hanging when the Biblical witness is anything but uncertain.

Who was Jesus?  Is the Bible reliable?  Did Jesus believe He was the Messiah or the Son of God?  Was Jesus married?  Was Jesus gay?  Did Jesus do the miracles ascribed to Him?  Did Jesus actually die?  Did Jesus actually rise again?  It is a feeding frenzy born less of religious conviction than the fact that these tend to be rather cost effective ways to play upon the season interest of folks inside and outside the Christian faith.  Strangely, these are promoted less by Christians and churches seeking converts than by media interested primarily in market share and pocket book issues.

In the end, perhaps Anthony Sacramone has it right.  In the face of all the questions, curiosity, and interest, the REAL Jesus is not some uncertain question but present in the mystery of His promise:  This is My body . . . This is My blood. . .  So maybe, if we can remember, we can counter all the intellectual pursuits with the reality of His flesh for the life of the world, given and shed for sinners and present in the Holy Sacrament of His Body and Blood. 

Where is the real Jesus?

The REAL real Jesus!

Would that we Lutherans believed what we say we do, what we confess in our Concordia, and what we teach according to Scripture. . . maybe if we did, there would be less need for our people to pursue the unknown because they know Christ where He has placed His promise. . .

No short cut around the Cross. . .

Sermon for Easter 3B, preached Sunday, April 19, 2015.

    Lutherans on the one hand are hesitant before the figure of Christ on the cross.  Many of us prefer an empty cross.  But what does the empty cross prove?  In the same way, the empty tomb does not say much.  It does not tell us that Christ is risen but only that His body no longer resides in the grave.  No, an empty cross and an empty tomb are not enough.  Even the enemies of Jesus prepared for the prospect that Jesus' body would turn up missing and some would claim Him raised from the dead.  An empty grave is no proof of the resurrection just as an empty cross does not prove sin's debt is paid.
    No one knows this better than Jesus.  Jesus knows we need Him standing among His people, extending His wounds that won salvation, and opening the Scriptures so we might know this was the plan all along.  This is what we find when Jesus has another conversation on the road with a people who thought perhaps Jesus had not risen but had come back as a ghost.
    What does Jesus do with these people?  He does not condemn them –though He might.  He does not chastise them – though He could.  No, He meets them in their fears and doubts, shows them His hands and feet, and shows them how He is the message of the Scriptures and the cross was always God's plan.

    That is where we come in.  We still come as people wearing doubt and living in fear.  We need more than a what if or what might be.  We need to know the Jesus whom we know suffered and died and that He rose again and that this was God's plan all along.  Anything less that we will be captive to fear.
    Jesus asked them why they were troubled, why they doubted... but He already knew why.  They need more than a ghost Savior and the hope of some vague spiritual existence to replace this life.  So He shows them His hands and feet – not reluctantly as if these were an embarrassment to Him but proudly as one displays the scars of victory.
    Jesus wounds are not His shame but His victory.  He was obedient unto death.  The cross is not an embarrassment to Christians but the sign of our hope.  On this cross Jesus suffered and died and now the Gospel of Christ crucified and risen will be proclaimed to every corner of the world.  What happened on the cross is not a bad memory to be forgotten but saving truth that must be remembered at all times to call all people to hope.
    Jesus insists that He can only be known through His suffering and death.  Easter cannot exist without Good Friday. We have nothing to celebrate on Easter unless Christ was first crucified, suffered in our place for our sins, and died our death to set us free.  Jesus Christ and Him crucified – the one Gospel.

    The cross was not some back up plan God had to resort to when His first plan, the commandments failed to save us.  No, God always knew what must be done to save us.  He was prepared to pay this price to redeem us even before He had created us.  This is the nature of God's love for us.  Forgiveness had to be bought with suffering and only Jesus' suffering.
    So we proclaim Jesus Christ and Him crucified, we raise up Christ whose body bore the full weight of suffering on the cross, because this is the Gospel.  We cannot build our hope on anything less than Christ and Him crucified.  You cannot rush into Easter and skip Good Friday.
    This is what we are witnesses of – not that the grave was empty or the body was taken down from the cross – all of which are perfectly true.  No, we are witnesses of the death that gives life, of the suffering that paid sin's price, and of the reconciliation with the Father which Jesus accomplished by His suffering and death.  To say Christ and Him crucified does not diminish Easter but is the only framework in which Easter makes a difference.
    So Jesus met with those folks on the road, ate with them to prove the resurrection is not an illusion and spoke to them how all of Scripture promised this one for all, once for all story.  There is salvation in Christ and in no other.
    We want to get to Easter without Good Friday.  We want a cross that lets us forget how Jesus won our salvation.  We want the cross empty and our joy full.  But it happens only when we behold Good Friday, trust in Easter's hope, and believe that Christ did it all for you. . . for me.
    Christians need the whole story.  The righteous life that has the power to make us sinners righteous.  The obedient suffering that pays the debt of sin not with silver or gold but with Jesus' flesh and blood.  The death that is not His shame but the power of our Lord and the hope on which we build our everyday lives.   The resurrection which is not icing on the cake after our best life now but the perfect life that always alludes us here and gives us what this mortal life has only in glimpses and pieces.
    The Scriptures give us nothing less than Jesus whose incarnation, suffering, death, and resurrection are the only means to our salvation and the only hope on which to build an eternal tomorrow.  The cross is the scandal of the Gospel but it is also the power of the Gospel.  Only in this way will Jesus be known, sins forgiven, people called to repentance, the broken healed, the dying live, and the dead raised.  Only the Gospel of Christ suffering, dead, and resurrected has the power to break down walls, unite different people, and reclaim a world from its prison of death. We ARE witnesses of these things; Christ is risen

The rise of the neo-Lutherans. . .

So someone who follows this blog sent me the link.  I liked the title.  I expected to read an article about Lutherans ditching the Divine Service, adopting praise bands, ignoring their Confessions, acting like Evangelicals, etc...  Boy was I surprised.  The article is not about Lutherans but about the German Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church who are pushing for the communion of divorced, remarried, and gay Roman Catholics.  Since they are German, the article calls them "neo-Lutherans."  I am not amused.  It is highly spurious to taint the great Reformation quest for resolution of basic urgent questions like authority in the Church, the nature of the grace in which we stand, and the restoration of the voice to the Gospel with the desire to see divorced, remarried, and gay Roman Catholics welcomed again to the altar.  As important as this issue is, and it is important for Roman Catholics and those outside of Rome, it is not the article on which the church stands or falls.  So I cry foul.  We Lutherans who take our Confessions seriously don't want to be painted with the broad brush of Cardinal Kasper and his allies.  Not at all!

The issue within Rome regarding divorced, remarried, and gay folks is a distinctly Roman circumstance that is being addressed within the parameters of Roman Catholicism.  There is no Lutheran voice in this debate.  There are certainly any number of Lutherans watching and listening but Kasper and those like him are definitely not pursuing a Lutheran theology in addressing this.  To be sure, this issue is larger than it appears and there is within the Roman umbrella a distinct divide about their approach to modernity.  Indeed, every Christian Church today is facing the same challenge.  Do we accept, surrender, resist, or refute modernity and the cultural changes in values, dogma, piety, and truth that are being pressed upon us?  Lutherans have seen many within their communion cave to the pressure of feminism, gay rights, co-habitation, rampant divorce without Biblical reason, and the kind of individualism which refuses to be accountable to others.  Lutherans are in the struggle for their lives in this regard.  Rome is facing the same battle but it is a distinctly Roman battle which will be fought on Roman terms.  Lutherans have no stake in this except the hope among many of us that Rome will not capitulate to the dilution of truth that has swallowed up too many creedal churches.  We have our own issues to deal with in regard to cohabitation, gay marriage, and divorce without Biblical justification.

Kasper and his like are many things but they are not neo-Lutherans.  One thing is sure, however, disarming truth never results in renewed churches.

From oldline to mainline to sideline. . .

America's religious past is intertwined with the history of what were the oldline Protestant denominations who became the mainline churches of this nation.  No one can deny the profound impact of the old churches on our history and identity -- from Congregational to Reformed to Presbyterian to Methodist.  Now, as you survey the landscape of our country, there are no more Congregational Churches, few Reformed congregations, a hemorrhaging Presbyterian that births new denominations more than new congregations, a Methodist Church that is a shell of its once former, robust self (its ad campaign about open minds was perhaps the last straw), and an Episcopal Church which is largely a ghost.  In effect, the loss of name, of people, of influence, and of relevance have pushed these to the sidelines.

Once Lutherans, always second class folks to the oldline and mainline churches, aspired to play with the big boys.  The ELCA has largely succeeded and, in doing so, fractured its own identity and bled off more than a million people and a thousand congregations almost overnight.  The LCMS was envious of the prestige of taking a seat at the table but has resisted the liberalism of faith and morality that characterizes what is left of the mainline churches and is often counted as an evangelical denomination (elevating their belief in Scripture and its infallibility over its decidedly catholic worship and sacramental life).  Perhaps we are just too odd to know what to do with.

In the meantime, Roman Catholicism has been the largest presence in America since the mid-1800s even though it emerged from the ethnic ghettos only after World War II.  With the immigrant population as its fuel, it remains the one church body that grows consistently in numbers (though the actual numbers of those in Mass weekly or who have gone to confession recently betrays a soft underbelly even to this behemoth).   In particular, the LCMS has a kinship to Rome because we too hid in our own ethnic refuges or rural and Midwestern America so long we still feel uncomfortable among the urban settings so familiar to so many Americans.  We find ourselves also wearing the ill fitting garments of democracy like Rome and harbor a strange longing for the structures we left behind in Europe.  We both feel most at home in places where our people are the majority.

My point is this.  Even Rome is awakening to the reality that for America, Christianity is itself moving from the oldline roots of our heritage and the mainline presence of our congregations to the sidelines of irrelevance.  Whether you are in a church that has adopted every social justice position of history or in a parish where Christ and Him crucified is still preached and taught faithfully, our culture has shoved us all to the shoulder of the road and marched past with a doctrineless spirituality that tastes and samples without owning the creedal faith of historic confession.

I don't like it.  But I almost feel like it is better to be on the outside of American culture looking in than to continue the myth that church and state in the US have some sort of symbiotic relationship.  True faith has always been at best tolerated, usually marginalized, and at worst persecuted.  The churches who confess such faith and their people are in the same boat.  In the end, it just might be our salvation.  We have become businesses who judge all things by the bottom line of increased sales and sales volume instead of faithful enclaves of those who wear Christ's holiness while witnessing His saving death the world.  We have amassed properties off the tax rolls that we must justify, that consume our dollars, and that distract us from our true work and if they were taxed we just might have to choose what we are about instead of trying to have it all.  We have become more social clubs in which we come to find happiness, satisfaction, and entertainment instead of communities gathered around the Word and Table of the Lord.  We have exchanged the pressing desires of the day for the judgment of eternity and turned God into a personal trainer, life coach, and inspirational speaker instead of acknowledging Him as almighty Creator of all things, sacrificial Redeemer of sinners, and Giver of faith and Sustainer of the faithful.

All my kids work in retail and live in slavery to the sales volume and how it compares to last year at this time.  My wife works in the medical community where nurses end up dealing with customer satisfaction as much as the healing arts.  Sadly, I have seen over my 35 years as a pastor that the church has followed the leadership not of the Lord but of business.  The business of America is business, as it was once said.  We Christians heard and followed.  Perhaps we were too successful.  We got what we wanted but people shoved us to the sideline anyway.  Maybe now we will wake up.

The Strident Tone of Liberation. . .

The GLBT community suffers from being ungracious winners (in the public square).  In the span of a generation, homosexuality has gone from whispers to prime time TV, from the love that dare not be named to the love many see on equal par with love men and women have for each other, and from being illegal to having nearly every legitimate claim before the law that any heterosexual has.  But, apparently, that is not enough.  Those pressing forth for gay liberation will not be satisfied until they use every tool of legality and public pressure to silence anyone and everyone who disagrees with them -- and this includes shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Unless I am wrong, I know of no Christians -- except perhaps the lunatic fringe folks of Westboro Baptist Church -- who believe that anyone should be denied their full protection and benefit of civil rights before the law.  Unless I am wrong, I know of no Christian who believes that gays should be denied employment, commerce, medical care, etc... --- only that Christians not be forced to do what violates their conscience and religious beliefs.  Unless I am wrong, I know of no Christian who believes that gays should be segregated in the way that Blacks were once treated in America.  Yet the GLBT community believes that it has the right to deny the constitutionally protected right of religious expression to those who disagree with them.  They are most ungracious winners in the fact that they refuse to be satisfied with free access to every workplace but those very few where religious beliefs contradict homosexuality, refuse to patronize every other bakery or flower shop where their money will be gladly accepted except the very few whose owners have religious beliefs that conflict with homosexuality, and refuse to believe that any dispute with the GLBT agenda is constitutionally protected.

Who would deny that the GLBT community has made a huge turnaround in the attitudes of the general public toward homosexuality?  Yet, this very community has become most ungracious in its success and insists upon persecuting churches and people who resist the pressure to accept without reservation their full agenda.  Why are these folks being so ungracious, petty, and strident?  Could it be that liberalism has become not merely about toleration but about the enforcement of politically correct thought, speech, and action?  Liberals are most unliberal with those disagree with them.  It has often been said that conservatives are mean spirited, narrow minded, and judgmental but it appears that they do not have a corner on this intolerance.  I should be surprised but I am not.  Victory often brings with it the grave temptation to intolerance.  Christians have their share of guilt in this matter as well.  But seldom has a group accomplished so much so quickly and then turned around to feed their enemies to the lions.

Feminism worked for the cause of women's liberation only to insist upon the right of abortion and the use of abortifacients as the absolute and sole domain of a woman's conscience and the litmus test for whether or not you are misogynists.  Now gays who have begged for tolerance have become the ugly bullies they once abhorred and have made any disagreement with their agenda impossible.  Even reasonable people from within the GLBT community fear the bullying tactics now being used against other minorities (in this case religious) who would dare to disagree.  How quickly the sweet taste of victory turns foul and putrid when it becomes the very thing that was its own enemy!

The truth is that I have known many gay folks and some of them have been and continue to be close friends.  I harbor no desire to see them harmed in any way nor do I seek to have their constitutional freedoms abridged in any way.  They know that I oppose gay marriage and they know why.  It is not prejudice against them or against anyone to suggest that God's design for marriage and family is one man, one woman, in lifelong fidelity and faithfulness.  As far as I know, they do not seek to have my constitutional freedoms denied me and accept my love for them even with my rejection of homosexual practice as the equivalent of God's intention in creating them male or female.  I pray for them and I know at least some of them pray for me.  I believe that any and all who seek to be saved will be saved only through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ.  I know that God delights in the repentance of sinners who too often retreat to the well worn ruts of their favorite and familiar sins and this is true for both gay and straight.  I pray that I am gracious to those who disagree with me -- speaking forcefully on the principle but loving generously the person.  My parents taught me that such was not the high ideal but the basic standard of Christian life and conversation.

My desire is both that the Christians who oppose gay marriage and its full inclusion in the life and ministry of the Church will be gracious and those who oppose them will be gracious -- in victory or defeat.  The battles will surely continue on this matter but pity the future of our nation and of Christianity when it comes down to persecuting mom and pop businesses in their choices of whom to serve.  We dare not make laws requiring people to patronize this business or that and we dare not infringe upon the constitutionally protected religious freedom by requiring business people to ignore conviction and faith in order to make a living.  Finally, when the public square must be devoid of any moral voice but the prevailing voice of the moment, when churches and their people must be silent in that public square, our nation will have surrendered the cherished freedoms for which so many fought and died for the tyranny of intolerance that will undo us.

Disbelieving for joy. . .

Sermon for the Circuit Brethren, preached on Thursday, April 16, 2015 (text Luke 24:36-38)

I wish I could believe you. . . says the wife to the husband who has admitted infidelity and promises never to stray again.    I wish I could believe you says the sponsor to the addict who has fallen off the wagon but vows never to do it again.  I wish I could believe you says the parent to the child who has broken faith one more time with words and actions.  I wish I could believe you says the merchant who has heard one more excuse from someone who cannot pay his bill but promises to make it good.  I wish I could believe you says the patient to the doctor who says the news is bad but there is a chance of recovery.  I wish I could believe you says the grief stricken family to the pastor who speaks of hope, resurrection, and everlasting life.

We live in a real world of disappointments, of caution which finds it safer to be skeptical than to pin your hopes on something only to be let down, and of broken promises from the people we count on most.  We do not want to disbelieve and it would give us only the greatest joy to believe that our cheating spouse will not cheat again, the addict will not use again, the kid will not screw up again, the deadbeat will not renege on his debt again, the doctor will not disappoint again, and the pastor will not just speak nice words again. . . but we are left with the track record of death, disappointment, destruction, decay, disease, and darkness and we don’t know how else to live.

So I understand the disciples disbelieving for joy.  Christ was dead and the whole world saw Him suffer, cry out from the cross, breath His last, and the spear pierce His side.  What they wanted to believe and what they thought they could afford to believe were two different things.  And they are for you and me as well.

Easter’s challenge is not to sing the alleluias and shout Christ is risen on Easter Sunday.  No, the challenge of Easter is to look into the eyes of the person who has hurt you one more time and forgiven them as Christ has forgiven you.  The challenge of Easter is to hope when everything around says the rate of recidivism is impossibly high for addicts, folks behind in their bills, people who get cancer, and grieving folks who find the hurt too deep to believe again.

Here we come.  The broken, the disappointed, the skeptic, the addict, the sinner, the bereaved. . . and what does Jesus offer?  The meal of His flesh in bread and His blood in wine.  The witness of Scripture which says the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms all testify to the Christ who must suffer and on the third day rise and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in His name to all nations...

The refuge for the doubting, for the skeptic, for the hardened sinner, for the grief stricken, for the cancer victim, for the aged, for the youth, for the seemingly righteous and those whose shame is terribly obvious....  Christ offers us Himself in bread and wine, rich with forgiveness, deep with grace, abundant in mercy, and strong enough to hold up all our broken hopes and hearts.  Christ offers us the plan that always was, before the foundation of the world, witnesses first in the Law Christ would keep for us all and in the prophets whose message hid the cross, I am here. . .

I am not at all sure we come as the confident who do not doubt or fall or struggle. . . but like the disciples of old we come disbelieving for joy, hoping against hope, the tomb is empty and the promise is full, the cross has paid the debt and we are free in Christ from prison of our first parents choice.  Faith comes but in halting steps, small advances, and little gains.  We keep coming back here disbelieving for joy, eating Christ’s flesh, drinking His blood, hearing His Word, and Christ walks us more and more into the light.  The old Adam still beckons but little by little our fearful hearts learn, there is something stronger than sin in the blood of Christ, stronger than death in the flesh of Christ, and stronger than doubt and fear in the Word of Christ.  Lord, where else can we go?  You alone have the Words of the eternal life.  Amen.
Christ is Risen.  He is Risen indeed.  Alleluia!

Many stiches, much work, God's glory. . .

When we moved into our newer building (2001) we had nice kneeling cushions at the altar rail.  They were well constructed and worked fine.  But they were dull.  A woman in my parish, herself a widow of a pastor, decided that the Lord deserved better.  She worked out designs, printed them on patterns, enlisted volunteers to stitch out the millions of stitches it took, and even found donors to fund the purchase of all the thread.  That was years ago.  Every now and then she would trot out the progress for folks to see.  Some people dropped out and new people tried it out and her faithful core stuck it out for year after year.  And then they were complete!!

On Palm Sunday/Sunday of the Passion we set them apart to the Lord.  For His greater glory the artist and her artisans labored and now they lie waiting the many whose knees will rest on them as they feast upon the body and blood of Christ.  In a few minutes of Scripture, versicle and response, and prayer, it was all finished.  Years came to fruit in a few moments and the first folks came to kneel upon these precious gifts to the Lord and to His house.

I had hardly anything to do with it.  I watched, doubting perhaps that I would be here to see it complete, and
proven wrong by the faithful.  So, Carol, here's to you.  You led the doubters who did not think it could be done and the naysayers who thought it foolish to begin and brought us all to our knees -- for the greater glory of God.  My hat is off to you.  I have learned not to doubt the resolve of a woman on a mission.  So there they lay -- a testament to vision, to artistry, to artisans, and to faithfulness.  The cushions surely glorify God but I just wonder if the laborers and their faithful work are not greater causes for Gods' glory!  Would that we had more of them -- determined, faithful, persistent, and resolute.  Thanks be to God!

Flash Dance in Beruit

See what happens when a chant is so thoroughly familiar that the people cannot but join the song!  A little old but better late than never.

A picture IS worth a thousand words. . .

Have no idea where this is but you can see the chancel is obscured by the praise band instruments and the worship divas... but the truth prevails. . .

His wounds are His glory and our healing

Sermon preached for Easter 2B, on Sunday, April 12, 2015

    Jesus dies and rises again and the best He can get from His disciples is them huddling behind locked dears with hearts closed off from joy by their fear!  Shouldn’t Jesus have expected more?  The locked doors did not stop Jesus but the fearful hearts – well, that’s another story.  The disciples were as afraid of believing in Jesus as they were fearful of the Jews.  Either way their lives were held captive by fear and doubt.  What would bring them peace?  What would comfort them?  What would restore their joy?  What would turn them to hope?
    No one would expect that the wounds of Jesus’ suffering and death could become the healing wounds of our grief and the comforting scars that would teach us hope.  No one but Jesus.  Into their turmoil, Jesus came and all He had to show them were the wounds in His hands and feet.  But it was enough.  And to fearful people, His wounds are still enough.
    Peace be with you. . . said Jesus.  Jesus spoke of peace to calm the real fears of people who have enemies, who face temptations, and who deal with the trials of daily live.  Jesus spoke of peace to bring forgiveness to the guilty consciences of sinners – even those sinners who betrayed Jesus and denied His resurrection from the dead.
    Jesus spoke of peace to turn the sorrows of the grieving into joy and to turn the sadness of their loss into the gladness of salvation.  All this Jesus spoke to them but still they were not ready to give up their fears or surrender their sorrows.
    The disciples who told Thomas they had seen the Lord had already seen His wounds and put their hands in them.  Now Jesus allows Thomas to do the same.  In the wounds of Jesus, Thomas’ doubts and fears melted away.  “My Lord and My God,” he cried.  And his heart finally knew rest, comfort, and peace.
    Jesus said, “Blessed are they who have not seen and yet have believed...”  Now you might think that was a rebuke to Thomas.  We might be angry if people did not believe us but Jesus is remarkably patient with doubters and the fearful.  Thomas’ refusal does not anger Jesus.  Our Lord does not turn Thomas away but draws Him into the wounds that impart His promised peace.
    You and I worry about being afraid, doubting, sadness, and about fear.  These things only have power over us if we hide them!  It is true.  We face many enemies in this world.  We endure many tests.  We suffer many trials.  But own doubts and fears do not anger Jesus.  But, like Thomas of old, until we surrender our fears, doubts, and turmoil to the wounds of Jesus, we are frozen by them.  But in them we are free.
    Just as Jesus invited Thomas to touch Him and know the full comfort of His presence and His peace, so do we come here today.  Bidden by Jesus to find healing in His wounds, the Spirit works to muster the courage to confess our doubts, to surrender our fears, and to give up our distress.
    What our eyes cannot see, God gives us faith to see.  Faith becomes the eyes that see when the ones in our head see only dead ends, fear, doubt, guilt, shame, and upset.  Through the clear vision of faith, we see Jesus and His promised peace calms our fears, eases our doubts, and invites our trust.
    We wonder what age we will look in heaven.  Like those pictures of people in their youth that accompany obituaries, we dream of glory without scars and wounds.  But Jesus scars and wounds are not His shame; they are His glory. In those wounds is our peace, our forgiveness, and our hope. Far from hiding them, Jesus shows off the marks of His suffering that we might know what His wounds have accomplished for us and for our salvation.  His wounds are not His shame but His power to address each of us with His peace.
    The waters of baptism flows to unlock hearts closed by fear. It is the Spirit’s work, working through the Word, to break through the locked doors of our fears and our closed hearts.  It is the Spirit who moves us to confront our fear and doubt.
 The Word breaks through and in the very place of our doubts and fears, the Spirit plants the peace of Christ.  Where we were once held captive by fear and doubt, eyes of faith see the wounds of Christ and enter into freedom and hope.
    It happened for the ten disciples who first met Jesus after Easter. It happened a week later for Thomas, too.  And it happens for us every Sunday we come to behold the wounds of Jesus that heal our broken lives, forgive our shameful sins, erase our guilt, ease our fears, and answer our doubts.  The wounds of Christ are not His shame but His glory. . . and OUR glory.  Easter does not make them go away but allows us to see those wounds as the means of our salvation and invites us to trust in them always.
    Easter’ hope is not that we forget what Jesus suffered but that we glory in the wounds that have bought us back from sin and death and overcome our fears with hope.  So that in the midst of the worst of life’s troubles and trials, we too might see Jesus with eyes of faith and joyfully proclaim: My Lord and My God.  Amen.  Christ is Risen.  He is Risen Indeed.  Alleluia!

A noteworthy passing. . .

While attending to my father, I missed the death of Fr. Thomas Hopko, renown voice of Ancient Christian Radio, noted author, eminent professor, and well spoken defender of Orthodoxy.  He died on March 18 of this year.  Many know Fr. Hopko through his introduction to Orthodoxy, The Orthodox Faith: An Elementary Handbook on the Orthodox Church.  That is but one of the many contributions Fr. Hopko made over his life.

I personally knew him as an acquaintance during my time in New York and knew him much better through his print and radio work.  He was a most gracious individual and his lifetime of service has left us all the wiser and in his death the poorer.  Especially noteworthy was his representation of the Orthodox Church at ecumenical dialogues where he clearly and graciously presented the Orthodox faith.  Perhaps my first real encounter with Fr. Hopko was through his contributions to the book Women and the Priesthood, a work which continues to address the ongoing pressure on Rome, Constantinople, and the LCMS to ordain women.  I commend this little volume (if you can still find it)...

The Church rejected me. . .

No one who has admired British documentary television is unaware of the name Diarmid MacCulloch.  There is an article, really a preview to the article, which discusses a few things about this person who has brought so much good stuff to TV.  But the article is less than satisfying and, if it represents an authentic view of MacCulloch, it also represents a sadly parochial view of things not parochial at all.

Read the whole interview here. . .  I have excerpted a portion for comment.

MacCulloch’s life has in fact been significantly moulded by the two subjects that make up his latest programme. Aware from a young age that he was gay, MacCulloch – a parson’s son – considered this no barrier to entering the clergy. The Church was unsure how to treat his relationship with his boyfriend but ordained him as a deacon nonetheless. He says he thought of his relationship as more or less identical to that of any other clergy marriage, however disconcerting this was for his more conservative colleagues. It was when he was on the verge of being ordained as a priest that things came to a head: the presiding bishop said that he couldn’t go through with it “until the fuss dies down”, in MacCulloch’s words. Refusing to accept that he should have to compromise his sexual relationships for his career in the Church, MacCulloch walked away from his ordination. “What it represented was the Church rejecting me,” he tells me. If today he has any regrets, he hides them totally. For these reasons and more, he says that this series is “extraordinarily personal – it reflects what I want it to say”.

Let me begin by saying that no one has a right to be ordained or to have a "career" in the Church.  It is a privilege and a gift bestowed upon rather few.  Secondly, rejecting the ordination of someone is NOT rejecting the person or even judging them in the place of Christ.  The Church discerns God's guidance and acts to affirm the inner call of the few to the public order of the office of Word and Sacrament.  To fail to affirm the inner call is not to judge or condemn the individual who is not ordained.  It happens all the time.  Sometimes the candidates themselves come to a different conclusion and other times the Church does.

What must be singled out, however, is the repudiation of compromise or sacrifice for the sake of the vocation of the Pastor.  MacCulloch seems to believe, as many do today, that the Church must affirm everything about the individual or the Church is rejecting everything of the individual.  Here again the burden is always placed on the Church.  Why is the Church the evil one for requiring any candidate to live up to certain standards of moral life and conduct?  Furthermore, is it the Church or is it Scripture?  Is the problem with narrow minded sex obsessed church leaders or is the problem with broadminded sex obsessed people insist upon the freedom to live as they choose AND serve the Lord as they believe they are called?

If you make certain things (gender and sexual orientation) the non-negotiables when requesting ordination, you automatically make it hard on the Church.  For the pastoral vocation is recognized in part by the selflessness of the will and the shape of service.  This is even more profoundly true when you make the rejection personal.  We have given into the idea that ordination is a right, that this is the arena in which we must be allowed to serve or we are personally rejected, and that every aspect of the Church's life must be conform to the idea of rights, demands, and personal choice.  In doing so we leave people with the mistaken idea that if they cannot have it on their terms, they are turned away.  In truth, they were headed in the wrong direction from the get go. 

No, Mr. MacCulloch, the Church did not reject you.  You made it impossible for the Church to be faithful to Christ and to affirm your calling.  But you can take some comfort in the fact that you are not the first nor will you be the last to stand before the Church and insist that they must take you as you are or not at all.  Not just in this case but in every case when people make such demands, I only pray the Church has the wisdom to politely but firmly say "thanks, but no thanks."

Loss of reverence -- cause or symptom. . .

There are many, sometimes me included, who attempt to blame everything that is wrong in the church upon a lack of solemnity, a deficiency of reverence and respect.  At the same time it is easy to blame the advent of contemporary worship as the chief culprit of this casual attitude toward the things of God.  While it is surely true that some of the blame can rightfully be laid at the explosive growth of entertainment style worship in which having a good time seems to be the primary purpose of those who gather in God's house, it is not responsible for everything that is wrong.  In fact, many have suggested that contemporary worship in which the music and message are an appeal to the taste, preferences, and pleasure of the person is itself an outgrowth of a greater problem.

Someone has done a study to show that the Boomers (my generation) were less likely to attend worship than their parents and their children even more less likely.  It stands to reason that their children will be even more distant from the Lord's House on the Lord's Day.  In other words, you cannot blame Vatican II and its after math both in Rome and outside of Rome for all our problems today.  Of course, this is correct.  The transformation of worship into a self-centered and a self-serving entity has sealed the deal but our souls were already restless and itchy for change.

We have lived too long to believe the tempting lie that if we all went back to page 15, to Thees and Thous, and to the good old hymns of long ago, everything would change.  I have personally been in worship services where the liturgy was wonderful but the people were not.  What we need is nothing less than a wholesale rediscovery of sin and its painful reality.  Only when we know fully the consequence of sin and our garden rebellion will we awaken to the immensity of God's gift in the person of His Son to be our Savior.  Jesus the life coach commands little in the form of respect or awe but Jesus the God-man who lives the holiness we cannot and dies wearing our guilt, well, that Jesus compels us to honor Him.

Repentance.  That is the key.  And before we hear and heed the call to repentance, we must be convinced that sin is real, that death is our enemy, that Satan roars about seeking to devour us, that evil is more than not getting what you want, and that none of us can contribute one bit to the big fix our sinful condition needs.   It is an old fashioned word in a world where self-interest prevails but it is the word that dare not be far from our lips and its call far from our ears.  It is what happens in the preparation for the Divine Service each Sunday, privately with the Pastor during the week, alone in our thoughts and prayers, and the uncomfortable awareness that grows with our study of God's Word.  We are dead in trespasses and sin and cannot free ourselves.  Mea culpa.  Mea culpa.  Mea maxima culpa.  Beat the chest.  Let out the sigh.  Choke back the tears.  This is the repentance that the Spirit bears as its fruit in our lives -- from this grows faith and hope and trust and from nothing else.

Yeah, contemporary worship that glories in technology and elevates our love of self to virtue is bad.  It is real bad.  But it is the bad we love to hear, the lies we love to tell, and the deception with which we are most comfortable.  It has born terrible fruit in our lives and worship that is for me, of me, and about me is one of those poisoned fruits -- not the cause but the fruit of a life of self-awareness of everything but sin and its death.  Loss of reverence is not merely caused by our worship troubles -- it bore this rotten fruit and taught us to love what is killing us.

The treasures of the past

I posted it a while ago but it is worth another look.  Held in trust are all sorts of treasures hidden in the Vatican -- not so much to prevent us from seeing them but to preserve them and because the sheer number of items kept is more than can be displayed. . . take a look!

Gender and the Liturgical Distinction

The fact that men and women are physically different seems lost as a distinction worthy of note today.  The push is on an equality in which no distinctions are allowed or in which distinctions there is no inherent difference to prevent one from being interchangeable with the other.  Just as GLBT equality has taken the stage today, so did feminism push an equality in which distinctions were always suspect and therefore no real distinguishing characteristics were allowed.  In this way different but equal is refuted even though the anatomy of male and female insist upon such difference.  Just as the GLBT community has insisted that their cause was the next logical step after women's liberation, so did the voice of feminism insist that its cause was the next logical step after racial distinctions were bridged -- although the male and female dichotomy of our existence offers an obvious reality that no racial distinction can justify.

For too long we in the Church have been limited to either liberation or misogyny.  If we hold to orders for male only, it would seem that women are not equal nor are they valued.  If we hold to orders for either male or female, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that the Church and Scripture (at least the catholic tradition on Scripture on this point) were always wrong in the past and are wrong now with respect to the ordination of women.  So we have struggled with creative ways to say what we did not want people to think was in any way offensive to women.  We have mostly failed in that regard and nearly everyone is embarrassed of confounded either by the choice to ordain or not to ordain women.

Peter Leithart is a writer with whom I do not always agree but he has written briefly on the First Things Blog about a liturgical distinction as part of God's creative order in which complimentarity and equality fit together in a way that is fresh amid the stale old arguments pro and con the ordination of women.  You can read it all here but I will quote a couple of paragraphs.  It makes you want for more from this author -- not always a feeling you get by reading anywhere (including here!).  Leithart is not absolutely unique -- what he is saying has been said before by others -- but how he says it is the key.  He speaks clearly and winsomely for the ordination of males only and I would love to see how he would handle a fuller treatment both of the concepts and the texts:

First Timothy 2:12–14 is one of the texts most commonly cited in debates over women’s ordination: “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, then Eve. And not Adam was deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression.”

Some inside and outside the Church regard this text as prime evidence that Christianity is inherently misogynistic. Even for Christians who take the text at face value, it seems a thin reed. What hath Adam to do with the pastoral ministry?

Paul knows what he’s about. In Genesis 2, the human race starts out in God’s house, the garden-sanctuary of Eden. Nearly every feature indicates that the garden is a temple. Like other biblical sanctuaries, it’s oriented to the east. It’s a well-watered spot, a place of life-giving food, a sacred place where Yahweh is present to his creatures. After the fall, cherubim are stationed at the gate, anticipating the cherubic guardians of the tabernacle and temple. Later sanctuaries are reconstituted gardens; the garden is a proto-sanctuary.

Adam is created first and commanded to “cultivate and keep” the garden—or, better, to “serve and guard” it. Both terms describe priestly ministry. Priests are guardians of holy places and household servants of the Great King of Israel, and Adam is the first of the line.

Yahweh’s “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make a helper suitable for him” should be understood in this context. What Adam needs is not a friend, but a liturgical partner—a hearer and speaker to converse about the word of Yahweh, a singer to harmonize his praise, a respondent to his versicles, a table companion to break bread with him in the presence of God. Once Yahweh forms Eve, Adam is to guard and serve her too. He speaks Yahweh’s word to her and shares fruit from the tree of life. Paul says elsewhere that the woman is the glory of the man, and, in guarding Eve, Adam guards a bright radiance of glory.

Satan’s temptation is a perverse liturgy: first the serpent’s deceptive word, then “sacramental” food that opens Eve’s eyes. Instead of guarding Eve, Adam stands passively “with her” (Genesis 3:6), watching in fright as the serpent seizes Adam’s liturgical role. Adam falls in that he forsakes his priesthood.

Men and women are biologically different in ways that used to be obvious to everyone, but Genesis isn’t about biology. Churches are confused about ordination because we are materialists who identify the order of creation with biology, who assume that everything but physics is cultural construction. Liturgical differences aren’t imposed on the more basic physical differences. For Paul and Genesis, differences between male and female are essentially symbolic, fundamentally liturgical.