Interesting eve this is. . .

In our spiritual but not religious idea of Christianity, many admire Jesus and some want to follow Him but it would seem that they are more enamored of a noble man than God in flesh.  Augustine faced the same issue.  They would warm to a religion “to claim that Christ’s grace consists in his example and not in the gift of his person”  (Contra Iulianum opus imperfectum, II, 146).  Everyone from Mormonism to those who would never set foot in any church likes the idea of a good example.  Jesus is certainly that but not primarily.  There is nothing Christian about looking to the Son of God in flesh as mere prototype of what we could be or should be if we simply worked a little harder at it.  In fact, there is nothing particularly religious about a God who is our example only and not the prime actor for our salvation.

On one hand it focuses only on the present as if today was the most important day of all.  The Son of God was incarnated of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit not to help us better ourselves or fix the problems we face in the moment but to pay the cost of our redemption not by example but by blood and to present us to the Father wearing the righteousness He earned as our clothing for everlasting life.  A little grace to guide us now is not a bad thing but God did not need to wear our flesh or die our death for sin in order to give us a good example.  We have had good examples throughout time and they have been easily forgotten or admired without salutary effect in our daily lives.  Why would God send us His Son to be numbered among the many whose good ideas for a better life have been overlooked by a people who like the idea of righteousness without wanting to actually work for it?  No, the gift of God in time and for eternity is His Son in our flesh to be our Savior and Redeemer, doing what we could not do and would not if we could and facing what we would deny so that we might behold eternity.

On this night, the world waits for one year to end and another to begin.  For the Christian, however, we have not invested in the passage of time but in the One whose entrance into time provides the opportunity for eternity for those who love His appearing.  Christ is teacher, to be sure, but not first and not primarily.  He is Savior and Redeemer.  We would love the idea of a tear of a calendar which would erase the past we would rather forget and provide the promise of a better future but that is not what we get in Jesus.  He does not erase the sins we commit but cleanses them by His blood.  The stubborn stains of our failings and the unraveling of life in the face of death cannot be wished away.  Tonight belongs to One whose birth in flesh we just celebrated and because it is His, it can also be ours.  No one knows the future but Him who is its end and consummation.  We put our faith not in the hope of better day to come but in the Day of the Lord in which salvation is ours because He paid our cost.  That is what rescues New Year's Eve from the inevitable disappointment of a yesterday which can never quite be left behind and a tomorrow as filled with foreboding as with hope.  Christ is the key!

O Lord, You have been our dwelling-place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God. You turn man to destruction and bid us return, you children of men.  A thousand years are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.  The days of our years pass before you as we are born and die.  Do not judge us, O God, nor deliver us to the pain of eternal death but forgive us, O merciful Savior, all our innumerable sins and shortcomings.  Impress in us, we pray You, the constant thought of the vanity of the world, the certainty of death, and the judgment to come, not to deprive us of hope but so that we might mortify more and more the lust of the flesh, the desire of the eye, and the pride of life -- that we may be prepared at all times for the coming of the Son of Man.  Keep us mindful that we are strangers and pilgrims on earth and give us grace to look for the city above, on high, where our citizenship is eternal in Christ, that we might follow those who have kept faith with Him and through faithfulness and patience have overcome the world and inherited the promises once made in our baptism.  Help us to life in holiness and to die in peace through our Lord Jesus Christ, who will change our lowly bodies and fashion them like His own glorious body, never to die but only to live in blessedness forever.  Amen.

 

Convincing the world of the need. . .

As longtime readers of this blog well know, I prefer a fountain pen and paper to every other tool in writing.  There is something blessedly content about the flow of ink from a good pen onto smooth paper and its pace seems to match my thinking better than a keyboard.  Of course, eventually things get moved from the journals to the word processor or screen.  They end up being closer to the final product than a rough draft and that fits me well.  I suspect few agree with me.  The local office supply store no longer carries either the fountain pen or its ink.  I get mine online.  The rest of the world has rushed to the keyboard, screen, or even AI to produce its words.

Apparently there is something similar to religion in the demise of the fountain pen as staple of life.  One author has suggested that the reasons religion is losing ground are many but chief among them is obsolescence.  We just don't need God or the Church or piety anymore.  I think there is truth to this.  Death is no longer our enemy (as long as we think we have some control over it) and life is presumed to be happy (unhappiness the disappointing exception).  These are decidedly different from the way things were generations ago when death was the feared enemy and happiness was considered rare enough and contentment with one's lot was the goal.  Who needs religion or God when things are going well?

Religion as the supplier of what you cannot obtain for yourself is the obsolete religion no longer considered urgent or beneficial and certainly not necessary.  Sure, there may be those who like a fountain pen or those who like antiques but they are not the mainstream and so Christianity has slipped from the center of life to the fringes and beyond.  It is not irreligion that is the problem or the enemies of the faith so much as it is a lazy view of life in which things not needed are forgotten.  I have posted in the past about author Christian Smith, a sociologist at Notre Dame.  His 2005 book Soul Searching, brought the phrase “moralistic therapeutic ­deism” into our vocabulary and I found his newer work Why Religion Went Obsolete compelling as well.  It is not simply what he says I appreciate but his style of writing as well.  He explores this idea of obsolescence across the various aspects of our lives -- not simply religion.  We are remarkably self-sufficient in the sense of the screen and how we order our lives even if we are even more dependent upon the suppliers in the marketplace to deliver to us what we order.

Orthodox Christianity may seem to be on the way out but spirituality is here to stay, he says.  In other words, the transition from a Biblical faith to a therapeutic one continues as spirituality is disconnected from doctrine and even morality.  Instead it is what the individual defines it to be and serves the purpose for which the individual determines.  In this way, he teaches us to see that content is not always as big an issue as how it is delivered and how important the basic need for access is to the faith.  Progressive Christianity is fully onboard with this and has chosen relevance over orthodoxy and a morality which is a slightly slow but solid echo of what is in fashion at the moment.  Orthodox Christianity has to begin not with what is believed, taught, or confessed but why it is important and how it tags to our everyday lives.  That is my conclusion to his thought, anyway.  We need to begin not with what we know in Christ but why what we know in Christ is urgent, compelling, and beneficial to those who do not know Him at all or who know Him merely as a sentimentalized idea.  

We can have coffee bars and baristas, pleasant architecture reminding us of any public space, comfortable seating, good music, and inspiring messages but still lose people because we have given them no compelling reason to meet Christ in His Word and Sacraments or to need Him in their everyday lives.  That is my indictment of modern liberal, progressive, and evangelical Christianity.  Their plea that God is not so bad does not marshal much support among the masses because they are convinced that despite all the bad new, life is relatively good.  And it is.  We no longer as a people worry so much about food or shelter or medical care and these are the measures of a rich people.  Nostalgia means we will keep things deemed unnecessary around for sentiment and that explains the holidays while admitting the rest of the time the pews are empty.  Once a month has become the norm for church attendance, according to polls, and this too accords with the idea.  No, in order to make headway we must feel the bite of sin and death in our lives and come face to face with our own inability to repair what we think is wrong.  This now is also part of the job of Christianity -- outlining the need even before God's remedy.  Translation:  the law must still be preached!

The Sermon for Holy Innocents + 2025

Sermon preached on Holy Innocents, December 28, 2025.

Christmas is not yet packed away and saved to our memories and here is some pastor spoiling our festive mood with talk of death.  But the people of God have always lived with the threat of death.  You may think it odd that now, just days after Christmas, you hear of the murder of the Holy Innocents instead of lilting prose and poetic glory of angels, shepherds, and a birth in a stable.  But here we are – living as a people who live under the shadow of death.  Trying to make our peace with it so long as it holds off as long as we want and does not come too painfully.  But not God.  From the echoes of the Christ Child’s first cry it is clear why all this has happened.  The only One who has real life has come to surrender that life into death to redeem all who live under death’s curse.  

You may think it starts in Bethlehem.  Well, not really.  This little town remembers when the sons of Jacob were down in Egypt, far from their home, standing in the court of one whom they did not know.  Their brother Joseph, hidden from their recognition, seemed the evil one to demand that they must betray Rachel’s son Benjamin to get the grain to provide for their families.  Yet they had no choice.  They were facing death and death makes you do things you do not want to do. So Benjamin was traded for life; Jacob shed tears for the loss of another son along with his wife.  Instead of grain alone to sustain this life, the trade brought forgiveness and life, reuniting a family, building a lineage for the One who is to come.  This One born of Mary by the Spirit would build a future where death had created an end.

Herod insisted upon death.  His threat led Joseph to gather the holy family and leave under the cover of darkness for safety in Egypt.  What irony!  In Herod’s rage, no heart or home in Bethlehem would be spared tears.  All firstborn male children who had not reached their 3rd birthday were murdered to satisfy a tyrant’s fear.  It was not God’s will that they should die but that the Christ should die.  It was not God who set the stage for heartache.  No, not anymore than it was God who caused Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of death.  Death comes to all men.  You cannot avoid it nor can I and even an innocent child is not immune from it.  God is not to blame but He is the One who rescues us from death’s claim.

The baby boys of Bethlehem died – but not as sacrificial lambs.  No, they died as martyrs – the first to die for the sake of Christ.  The daughters of Rachel grieved for the Holy Innocents and they are not alone.  Babies still die.  Not just old people waiting for death.  Death is not God’s will.  Death is not God’s plan.  It was always life.  We chose death and this death shaped God’s plan.  It was always for Christ to come, the first born of the Virgin Mary, to kill death and put an end to the reign of terror death and the devil have imposed upon God’s people.

Jesus came for the Holy Innocents and for all who die.  He came not to offer His sympathies or commiserate with the grieving but to break death’s back.  He came not to be a moral example to show us how to earn our salvation but to fulfill all righteousness and then to give it back to those who deserved none of it.  He came for death and to die.  That is Jesus’ care for children – not a pat on the head when they do something cute but His blood for theirs, His body for theirs, His death for their life, and baptismal water to wash the stench of death from them once for all.  For the mothers whose tears seem never to end, Jesus offers not pious platitudes but life and the hope of reunion, to hold again the children they once held and to hold for the first time the babies they never held.  Their justice is not revenge but a life where Herod is forgotten and death is no more but only life and joy and peace.

Guess what?  This gift is not for the Holy Innocents of Bethlehem and those who mourned their death then.  It is not simply the hope for mothers and fathers who bury the children who were supposed to bury them.  It is your hope and mine.  Those who die in Christ have an end to their suffering and pain.  They weep no more nor do they cry out.  They are at peace.  In grief, we weep for them but really for ourselves who continue to live under the shadow of death waiting for the final consummation.  We know that every tomorrow and new year will bring tears as we surrender loved ones and friends to death.  And some of us will die.  But we have comfort.  This world is not the end and this world cannot steal from us the life that Christ came to give.  We have a more powerful prayer than to hold death at bay until we are ready for it or to die without pain.  Our prayer is for real hope, for a new and everlasting tomorrow, for a life strong enough to rescue us from death.

It is a pleasant lie to say that time heals everything.  It does just the opposite.  With every passing day new troubles and new trials and new tears come.  But time has also been drafted into God’s purpose.  Instead of the tomorrow of fear, we live in the tomorrow of hope.  It is true.  All things work together for good for those who love God.  Even our sufferings and sorrows.  You do not see how it can be and neither do I.  This we hold onto not with minds convinced by reason but by faith in the only One who died and rose again.  This we cling to not as a life raft but as the mighty ship to rescue us from the sea of death forever and sail us to everlasting life.  

The baby born in Bethlehem whom Herod aimed to kill did not die in Bethlehem.  He died at the moment appointed, when He was ready to fulfill His purpose in being born.  When that ripe moment came for Him to surrender Himself to death for our sins, He killed death.  He did not stay dead; He rose again as the creed confesses.  

On the third day, Sunday, when the tomb was opened He was not there.  He had passed through death to the life that could never be taken from Him.  He lives now to bestow upon you and me, upon the mothers crying for their children, upon the fathers who have lost everyone, the life that cannot die.  He beckons us back here into His holy house and to the table where we taste our future in this bread and wine.  Here in His body and blood is the foretaste of the eternal feast.  By this communion we are assured.  We are not alone.  He has not forgotten nor forsaken us.  He is with us and He is for us.  Here we are united with those who have loved His appearing and shed their mortal flesh to await the resurrection.  This is our Christmas miracle – not of sentiment or myth but of a Savior who is wounded by death to give healing to those who live in the shadow of death.

You will bury those whom you love and they will bury you.  But death’s impenetrable prison has been opened.  Death cannot hold us anymore than it held Him.  He has gone to prepare a place for us.  He is coming again.  He lives and all who plotted to murder Him with the beloved boys of Bethlehem and all who stole the martyrs lives in violence and all who sigh in their beds with their final breath – He is coming for them and coming for us.  That is why we remember these events so long ago and honor them with a day so near the birthday of our Lord.  It is to remind us when death is near and tears won’t stop, Christ came for you and will not surrender you to death.  From your hardships and despair, He will call you from Egypt and your sojourn in this land of disappointment will be over.  You will be raised to citizenship in a new land in which life is rich and free and full and endless.  The baby boys of Bethlehem will be there.  Rachel’s sons and Jacob’s offspring will be there.  All those who died in Christ will be there.  And we will be with them too.  This is Christmas that points to Easter.  Amen. 

Too much respect for. . .

There was a time when a family came to me desiring to have Baptist friends and family serve as sponsors (what many call godparents) for their first born child.  There was no amount of conversation that could dissuade them of their choice.  So I met with the sponsors.  I listened to them uneasily try to affirm their support for this decision to baptize a child which they could not do for themselves.  Then I put it too them in this way.  "I have too much respect for you as Baptists to deny what you believe in order to accommodate this family's request for you to affirm something you clearly reject."  The family and friends almost sighed with relief.  They were serious enough Christians to know that standing at the font and signaling their affirmation of what would take place there with this baby flew square in the face of everything they believed about deciding for God.  They only way they could preserve their integrity was to deny that anything was happening in that baptism except make believe.  And so they politely declined.

I only wish that we Lutherans had enough integrity not to ask of these Baptists that they swallow hard and say "I will" to something they knew in their heart of hearts they could do.  But that is the problem.  We Lutherans have some kind of strange angst about what we believe, teach, and confess that is completely alien to our Confessions.  There we plainly state that we hold to catholic doctrine and practice or will gladly change our belief and our usages.  But that is largely gone and it has been replaced with a strange distance from what we said we believed and one that would allow us to deny the core of that belief.  I wish someone could say of us Lutherans I have too much respect for you as Lutherans to deny what you believe and welcome to the Lord's altar those who believe nothing is there but a snack.  Yet that is the problem.  We instinctively believe that withholding the Sacrament from those who believe there is no sacrament is somehow unwelcoming and unfriendly.  It is just the opposite.

The most unfriendly thing we can do is to deny what is our core conviction for the sake of some feigned friendliness or fake hospitality at the altar rail.  We actually do believe what the Scriptures say.  Baptism now saves you.  Whatsoever sins you forgive on earth are forgiven in heaven.  This is My body and this is My blood.  Scripture is not an opinion but that voice that decides our opinion.  We believe those things.  Why are we so quick to deny our belief and invite those who do not hold to infant baptism or water that saves?  Why do we act like confession and absolution are some kind of ancient and long ago abandoned superstitious practice?  Why do we insist that everyone gets to decide for themselves what the bread is or is not, what the wine is or is not, and if they feel like consuming whatever it is or is not?  Why must we apologize for what Scripture clearly teaches about salvation by grace, God's order in the family and home, the worth and value of children, the creation of all things and their redemption, and the Gospel that is not do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

Do we really think the radical Protestants have more integrity than we do?  Do we really believe that our doctrine is private and should be kept a private matter while welcoming those who argue against what we believe, teach, and confess?  Do we really believe that God's will is the reconciled diversity in which there is no truth or the compromised Biblical order of life in which gender is fluid and sexual desire simply repackaged lust and sensuality?  If we do, then we need to wake up and smell the roses.  Integrity says that what we believe is formed by Scripture and how we practice flows from what we believe.  Anything other than this is a falsehood or, worse, a lie.  I am not saying we need to be mean about it.  But I am also not saying that we should feel so uncomfortable about the whole thing that we would deny the once and eternal truth for the sake of somebody's feelings.  We ought to have at least the theological integrity of the Baptists who know they should not be standing at the font holding a baby. 

AI wins again. . .

According to Billboard’s "Country Digital Song Sales" chart, the No. 1 song in the U.S. is "Walk My Walk" by Breaking Rust—an artist that was created by artificial intelligence (AI).  There have long been suspicions and concerns about the use of generative AI in music and a host of other creative arts.  There have been many conversations in the wake of protests in Hollywood from the writer and actor guilds.  Some wrote these off as disputes over money.  It is surely that but also much more.  The public release of ChatGPT and other similar AI sites were not fully understood until the dollars entered the conversation.  There is a large list oof concerns about the use of this the new technology and its implications.  I would like to add one more.  What does it say about us?  What does it say about the consumer?

One study estimates that 34% of the songs uploaded onto streaming services are AI-generated.  We have not even begun to talk about news, other entertainment media, books, and scholarly pursuits.  What does it say about us that we cannot tell the difference, do not seem to care about the difference, and our interest in even competing with the AI generated content?  We have become dolts and dullards who seem not to be able to tell when the source is AI or when it is human creativity.  Like the old movie Soylent Green, we have become addicted to what is not real and can no longer tell the difference.  Furthermore, we do not seem to care.  If you will pardon another movie reference, there is a scene from National Lampoon's Vacation when Imogene Coca munches away on sandwiches the dog relieved himself on and she shrugs her shoulders.  Have we come down to this?  Even when we know something is not right or not real, we do not care?  For a very long time it was hard to know if the reality scenes or reels you watched were staged or actual spontaneous events but now we know that AI has generated the content and still we are addicted to watching it.  Indeed, the indictment against us is that we have effectively given up even trying to compete.

That is the saddest part of this all.  We have given up caring about the content or caring about the fact that we prefer what is not real to what is, what is generated by artificial intelligence to what is created by real, thinking people.  Others have suggested that this is the last leg of the surrender of our humanity.  We are admitting that machines can do it better than we can -- not the mundane and mind-numbing assembly line work of the factory but film, music, and print.  Former Google CEO Larry Page may have said it most clearly -- “digital life is the natural and desirable next step” in “cosmic evolution.”   In his mind, any restraint or limitation of the digital minds would be wrongheaded.  According to the guy who led one of those companies heavenly invested in AI, it is time to let them off the leash and see what they can do.  In his mind, and in the minds of others, it is survival of the fittest.  So let the best minds win. 

This is the natural end to evolution.  It is the survival of the fittest and it does not matter if the fittest are not human.  It is the end that matters.  There is no room for morality here.  The end justifies the means and the end is all that matters.  Here is where religion is not simply necessary but makes a compelling contribution to the modern devotion to technology.  People matter.  Lives matter.  Abortion is not wrong simply because it causes pain while killing the fetus but because it is the abandonment of our own humanity.  Assisted suicide is wrong not simply because there might be a few who do not meet all the criteria and are allowed to choose the time of their painless death but because any are allowed to befriend death and justify their choice to end their lives.  The cause of Christianity is not a timeline in Genesis but a purposeful creation by an ordered God who made things according to His will and design.  The cause of Christianity is not to relieve pain but to preserve God's creation and gift of life.  The cause of Christianity is not to relieve sin of its stigma or consequences but to confront sin with the only things more powerful -- forgiveness written in the blood of the Lamb.  

We are the only voices left to say that God so loved that He gave His only-begotten Son.  The Gospel is compelling not because we judge it to be but because of the cost the Son was willing to pay so that our lives would not be discarded like trash, compared with machines, and defined by our basest desires.  We are not better than AI and the digital reality because we have proven ourselves to be better but because by design God says our lives matter -- more than the sparrow who falls to the ground or the marvel of nature's beauty or the value attached to scarce metals or stones.  It is a value that has been set in blood.  The world needs to hear this now more than ever.

I'm okay, you're okay. . .

Last month, an ABC news anchor, a minor celebrity among the media, did something surprising.  He returned to the Roman Catholic Church of his baptism and was confirmed.  Ordinarily this would not have been either surprising or a news story.  That it was both of these is due to this.  The confirmand—Gio Benitez—is openly gay, civilly married to a man, was confirmed with his “husband” as his sponsor, at St. Patrick's  Paul the Apostle in Manhattan, by the LGBTQ+ friendly priest, Fr. James Martin.  (I stand corrected.  However, the location might just as well have been St. Pat's since it is governed by the same episcopal throne.)There you have it.  But this is not simply about the sexual orientation of the man being confirmed.  It is about the state of the Roman Catholic Church, the moral compass of that communion, and the nature of confirmation itself.

I suppose it would be easy simply to dump on Rome for this strange situation.  I would rather, however, look at the larger question.  What is the state of Rome?  We all knew its state when Francis was pope.  Confusion and obfuscation were the norm in his tenure.  He seemed to love to warm up to those on the fringe and to tick off those in the middle.  Fr. Martin was his sort of guy.  Now we have Leo but it does not seem that Leo is all that much different except that he seems to have made his peace with the accoutrements of the papacy (vestments to papal apartments).  For many it seemed the Leo was a return to normalcy in Rome, to the middle from the edge.  It would seem that this has read too much into his choice of garment or address.  Unless and until there is a shift, Leo is simply giving a traditional look to the more radical direction of his direct predecessor.  Am I wrong?

In addition, the moral compass of Rome seems to be turning toward the prevailing view of things in culture.  Here an openly gay man, married to another man, is confirmed in the faith and, it would presume, makes his pledge to live in accordance with that faith, all the while his husband is acting as his sponsor.  For all the talk about a return to the prevailing notions of moral integrity, Leo has shown his hand more than once in accepting the Francis effect as the new norm for his own papacy.  Furthermore, he has not shown any willingness to discipline anyone who goes further than the norm in accommodating the faith to the prevailing social norms of culture and society.  Will either Cardinal Dolan or Pope Leo offer any words about what Fr. Martin did?  Don't hold your breath.  

Finally, the question of what it means to be confirmed is now a more open question than it was.  After all, the effect of this sacramental act is to grant not simply approval but blessing to the lifestyle of the man confirmed.  He is submitting to the faith, so to speak, but he is also forcing Rome to submit to his shape of life.  Is that what confirmation means in Rome?  You say the right words about what you believe but you get to keep on living as you live even if that conflicts with doctrinal positions and the explicit statements of the Catholic Catechism.  There should be no shortage of folks who want to be confirmed under that kind of deal.

Lutherans first rejected confirmation and then, because of the social importance of this as a rite of passage, brought back the idea.  It would seem that we could not withstand the pressure put by those who wanted confirmation but without some of its baggage.  What once marked the initiation and confirmation of a person's faith and life within the discipline of the Church has become merely a symbol of their status and a sign of their lives having reached some level of approval or acceptance within the community of the faith.  What is the future of sacraments conferred upon those who chose not to accept the discipline of belief or life that accords with the faith in which they are confirmed?  Baptism has become the formal acceptance of those who believe they have a gender different from the one given them in birth or reflected by their reproductive organs.  We baptize them as they are (or as they deem themselves to be) and so it goes.  Why shouldn't they be then confirmed as well?  It would seem that confirmation has become the I'm okay,m you're okay liturgical theology Rome.  It already was that way in the ELCA.  Will it ever take hold of Missouri?

One Little Word. . .

For a very long time I guess I have missed the obvious.  When Luther penned his mighty hymn, he wrote One little Word doth fell him...  That was all it took.  The devil and all his evil horde were taken down by one little Word.  As we celebrate Christmass, the meaning is obvious.  The day when we rejoice in the Word made flesh, the Baby laid in the manger, it is this Word that fells the devil and brings to naught all his might.  One little Word.  Nothing could be smaller than the little Word taking flesh in the womb of the Virgin by the power of the Spirit.  Nothing could be less threatening than a pregnant mother and the child within her waiting to be born only to be delivered in weakness.  Nothing could be more easily dismissed than a Child meant to be seen but not heard.  Except this Word made flesh.  He would shake the foundations of the world through Him made and deliver from its bondage to evil and death the men who embraced their captivity willingly by a simple choice.  Indeed, one little Word.

We mistake the manger and the creche for something sentimental as if its power lie in the minds and hearts of those who appreciate its emotional rush and teary eyed poignant moment.  It is not weakness that was born but the mighty Word of God.  Hidden in flesh but not empty of His power, the Word goes forth.  He is not obvious as power or might but revealed.  He is strong enough to forgive and has the courage to step up to pay the cost for that forgiveness.  He is like us in every way except sin and we become like Him, clothed in His very righteousness and given new birth in the womb of the font.  He comes to us that He may bring us to the Father and present us as His cherished possession, worth nothing less than His ultimate sacrifice.  He enters into our death so that we might be raised from death to the life death cannot touch.  He is the Word made flesh but only little when you forget who He is.  Herod and the devil knew the score.  The Child was more than a sweet baby.  They conspired to send to the death all those male children who first opened the womb in Bethlehem at the time He was born.  They knew.  One little Word could not be dismissed.  He must be dealt with.

How sad it is that we dismiss Him.  We put Him away like the decorations that herald His birth.  We leave Him at the Church as if He could only live there and not with us or in us.  We dismiss Him as worth our tears but not substantial enough to change our values or transform our way of living.  We make Him small not in size but in power when we presume that He can do nothing for us unless we call upon Him or invite Him into our hearts or make a conscious decision to yield our wills to His.  The devil knows that the Baby must be dealt with and tries to kill Him before He becomes the Man born of woman to fulfill the promise.  Herod knows that this threat to his earthly power is great enough to merit an insane murder of children.  But we know a Jesus who content to live on the sidelines of our lives, who cannot fulfill the promise of His words and turn water into a saving bath or bread and wine into His flesh and blood, and who can be bought off with an occasional personal appearance, a few bucks tossed into a plate, and promise to show up again next year.  How odd it is!

One little Word.  Big things come in small packages.  We say it all the time but especially as gifts pile up under a tree.  The biggest of all came among us in the weakness of our flesh and blood, in the Baby born of the Virgin, and of the One who takes up arms not with weapons of might but His body crucified and broken.  Luther got it.  One little Word.  The Church got it.  The Gospel of Christmass Day telling of the Word made flesh.  Do we get it?  If we do, then we cannot remain apart from its power to save and its glory to rescue us from our self-imposed prison of sin and death.  The Word compels us not with threat or fear but with love -- love strong enough to forgive, to die, and to give His life away to those who deserve it least and who have done nothing to merit its goodness.  One little Word, indeed.  It was always that way.  The promise given voice over and over again down through the ages until Eve's hope for herself was born for all of us of the new Eve.  One little Word.  As St. Jerome put it, The Word was made flesh so that we might pass from flesh into the Word...  A blessed Christmass to you all! 

 

 

O Come Let Us Worship Him

 A blessed Nativity of our Lord

 

O God, who didst send Thy messengers and prophets to prepare the way of Thy Son before Him: Grant that our Lord when He cometh may find in us a dwelling prepared for Himself;

through the same Jesus Christ our Lord, who came to take our nature upon Him

that He might bring many sons unto glory, 

and now with Thee and the Holy Spirit liveth and reigneth,

ever one God, world without end.  Amen.

Either we are catholic or we are not. . .

It is curious to me that those who tilt toward the evangelical side of things and those who are progressive share a common reservation about things Lutheran.  It is as if the Confessions are being taken too seriously by both.  Take it easy on those Confessions.  It is as if being Lutheran were somehow offensive.  Now if you would posit a Lutheranism that is distinctively Lutheran, then I would agree.  But it is precisely the misreading of the Confessions that allows for either false idea -- that being Lutheran matters most of all or being Lutheran matters nothing at all.  In our Confessions we begin with assertion that we are catholic in doctrine and practice and, if you can show where we are not, we will change.  Along with that is the assertion that being catholic in doctrine and practice means being deep in Scripture.  Both are connected and both are key to Lutheran identity.  Except now.

We have some who complain that sending a guy to seminary might result in him being too Lutheran for the congregation that sent him.  In other words, Lutheran is not that important but being a buddy of Jesus is.  The dilution of Lutheran identity or at least living on the fringes of that identity instead of square within its stream are the concerns of those who see Lutheran and catholic and Scriptural as being one in the same.  On the other hand, those who are comfortable on the fringes of liturgical and confessional Lutheran identity and practice insist that our job is to bring people to Jesus and not to make them Lutheran.  I would agree to a point except that the competition or mutually exclusive character of Lutheran and Christian represent a hill too far.  Either we are catholic or we are not.  It really is as simple as that.

For those who define their Lutheranism less by what we confess in our Book of Concord than by what they learned, knew, or experienced growing up, there is another problem.  The liturgy is for them less than a reflection of this catholicity and Scriptural confession and life than it is just something Lutherans do but as simply as possible and with as little attention possible drawn to the ceremonial and the external.  Growing up I found that Lutheranism in theory was held very high but there was no real concern about or desire to fix the gulf between what our Confessions say of our faith and worship and what we were really doing.  Our quarterly reception of the Sacrament, lack of mention of private confession, abundant use of preaching texts instead of the lectionary readings appointed, and an almost embarrassment at vestments betrayed a Lutheranism that had grown disconnected from its Confession -- if not in theory than at least in practice.

The Lutheranism I learned to know is not at all bothered by being called catholic by the masses of Protestants nor is it wary of living out its life in the richer expression of the liturgy.  It was not a matter of correcting the theory of what I had been taught but encouraging us to actually practice it in daily life.  The bulk of the liturgical movement among Lutherans has been less about tinkering with rites than it has been restoring those rites to the core and center of our life together.  In this way it has been an incremental movement toward being comfortable again with the idea of our Confessions -- we are the catholics Rome is not and the Protestants are not.  By catholic, we mean a thoroughly Biblical faith living out not in novelty but within the chain of those to whom the sacred deposit was first given and in whom it is now preserved.  Either we are catholic or we are not and, if we are not, then who are we at all? 

How odd it is. . .

For a very long time in Missouri, people complained that those who lived up to the liturgical practices consistent with our Confessions were valuing adiaphora and ceremonies above souls.  It was often put to me in this way.  If you could save even one person by ditching the liturgy, giving up the Lutheran chorale, leaving vestments in the closet, and replacing the ornate with the simple in architecture, rite, and ritual, why would you not?  In other words, those who hold to the liturgical practices of our past and our customary identity were valuing these things over the people, over their salvation, and over growing the Church.  

While it is not as obvious as it once was, the feeling persists in Missouri.  It is evidenced by those who gladly and willingly exchange the church for a warehouse, the organ for the guitar, the hymnal for a pop-gospel playlist, the lectionary for the inspiration of the moment, the liturgy for entertainment, vestments for jeans and a t-shirt or polo and khakis, and such.  Missouri no longer fights the worship wars so vehemently because we have largely retreated into our own camps.  One, it is said, loves ceremony, and the other, it is said, loved people and Jesus.  Or, on the other side of things, it is said one loves faithfulness and the other loves numbers.  Perhaps there is some truth to the characterizations but as long as we keep to our own, Missouri seems happy with the calm.  Or, it could be a sign that some have decided Missouri is not worth it anymore and are preparing either to permanently hide or to leave.  I have no clue.  What is true is that the Bo Giertz idea of evangelization and liturgy has fizzled -- except where it is actually working and bringing new people into the churches which practice a vigorous catholic worship with a vibrant confessional witness.  Some of those who chart the stats on this tell us that Bo Giertz was right after all.

What is odd, however, Rome is the opposite.  In Rome, the traddies are asking simply for some space to do their thing and they are getting none of it.  The bishops who are shutting down everything from altar rails to Latin Masses to ad orientum postures are more strident that anyone in Missouri ever was.  They refuse to give the traddies anything -- not even the time of day.  In fact, they are perfectly willing to ditch these folks from their churches at a time when attendance at Mass is pathetic.  I am waiting for someone to say "If you thought that even one soul could be saved by allowing a little space for the traditional Latin Mass and its kind of piety to survive, would you?"  Apparently there are many like the Bishop Martin's of this world who gladly say "no."  In Rome, the value of a stripped down architectural and liturgical style and the base options of the post-Vatican II model are the conditions of staying.  Otherwise, leave.  How odd it is that in Missouri it was once the evangelicals who wanted some space to ditch the liturgy while in Rome it is the traditionals who plead with a little room to keep it with all the frills.

Honestly, I do not know what to make of it all sometimes.  It is like the world have been turned on edge.  Rome and the new Pope are firmly in the Francis wing today while in Missouri the complaint is the opposite.  Yet, in Missouri anyway, we seem to each have our own spaces -- for now.  In Rome, the cardinals and bishops who would like to have the Latin Mass and its ceremonial allowed have to keep silent or they may lose their apartments.  What a day!  Will it resolve?  How will it resolve?  I have no idea but Bo Giertz was not simply correct for Lutherans in connecting our witness to our worship.  It is true for all.  It hearkens all the way back to lex orandi lex credendi.  It was always true.  You cannot bring them in by giving them less on Sunday morning and you cannot give them more on Sunday morning without bringing them in.  Sell your soul to the numbers game of musical chairs practices by the evangelical style folks and you will lose it all.  Sell your soul to culture and its prevailing views on whatever and you will lose it all.  They go together.  Whether in St. Louis or Rome, it has always been true.  But some in churches near and far insist that we need to try one more time to be who we are not and it just might work to revitalize the faith.  When will we wake up and smell the incense.  Be who you are and make sure that who you are is reflective of Scripture, catholic tradition, and creedal/confessional integrity. 

Restraint rather than enhancement. . .

I have long thought about this but never formally worked it out.  It is something that I am sure many would argue against and yet I am more and more convinced that this is the way of things.  We have come to think of the Church Year and of the feasts and festivals as being gussied up days with the Sundays and minimal ceremonial being regular and routine.  It is not unlike the way we dress or observe holidays.  The normal or usual way of things is enhanced.  We do not wear work clothes but dress up for church or weddings or funerals or a meeting with our banker.  The ordinary work clothing is normal and the rest is special.  For special holidays we take out the fancy china and good silverware to set the table and work to provide additional foods for the festive table because we are doing something special, out of the ordinary and apart from the routine. 

In this argument, minimal ceremonial is normal and the special days afford the opportunity to pull out all the stops and do things not normally done.  Liturgically, this means reserving certain things for the special days (like processions or incense or choirs) while the ordinary is, well, ordinarily more bland and less, well, special.  I suppose most of us think of things in this day.  Ceremonies become like the Christmas decorations in the Church -- something short term and used rather sparingly so that they remain special.  The poinsettias and lilies used for Christmas and Easter also give credence to the idea that some things are not normal but special and other things are normal and routine.

Let me turn this upside down.  I think we ought to consider Easter and Christmas and all the other high and holy days the normal and anything less to be a restraint which takes away certain things.  This is very different in perspective than the idea of adding this in to make them special.  The end result may be the same but the path there and the idea of how you get this is completely different.  We all recognize that there are times when it is necessary to make the service somewhat shorter than the full Divine Service.  It is, however, the fuller Divine Service which is the norm and the exception is restraint.  Liturgies, it should be understood, are not intended to be bare bones outlines to which we add things either seasonally or locally.  Instead, the fullness is the norm but for good and careful reason sometimes we pare down from the fullness to meet the requirements of the site or season or circumstances or celebration.

Not all Sundays are alike in solemnity and character.  On Easter Sunday, for example, the liturgy remembers Easter as the Queen of Sundays and Seasons.  It is of necessity the day in which we do not pare down or restrain the ceremonial precisely because it is normal.  In this way we admit that Easter is not some oddity and we also acknowledge every Sunday as a mini Easter in some real and profound way although not the Easter.  The Second Sunday of Easter, part of the Great Fifty Days, is distinguished by taking away some, but not all, of the richness of Easter Day itself.  After Easter, in one of the green Sundays of what some call ordinary time, we are even more restrained.  We have no brass or great choir but we might not also have the full complement of acolytes or assisting ministers.  It is not that we add to the green Sunday to make Easter special but we pare things from Easter for the sake of necessity and the resources at hand.  The solemnity of the day remains but in a reduced form. 

It is not utilitarian to be conscious of the length of a service or those who attend.  It is good pastoral care to work within such constraints to provide the fullest celebration.  In this way it is not a matter of taste and creating something that is unrelated to Easter but of Easter in a restrained format. At the core of the Divine Service is the Ordo -- the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Meal.   Early in the history of the liturgy's development an Entrance Rite, or gathering rite was constructed to be as elaborate as needs required or as restrained as required.  After the the Entrance Rite came the Liturgy of the Word proper -- the Collect, Readings, Sermon, Creed, etc...  So it is not that we add onto the Entrance Rite for festive purpose but may omit parts of the Entrance Rite, except the Collect of the Day.  

The Confession and Absolution, with its historical place in Lutheran sensibilities, is not technically part of the Entrance Rite as much as it is its own separate identity and rite.  This was originally a private or part of the individual piety and devotion for the Christian and only after the Reformation being added to the Entrance Rite.  While there may be pastoral reason for its inclusion there is no theological or liturgical reason which requires its use at every celebration.  The Confession and Absolution is omitted, for example, on Passion (Palm) Sunday when it is replaced by the Procession with Palms.  It may be omitted when a baptism begins the liturgy.  Although a general confession and absolution may serve a godly and commendable and even pastoral purpose, it is not the only act of preparation for the Sacrament and was never ordinary until much later than the Reformation.  That said, I would agree that few congregations would be well served by its regular omission.  If omitted, a fitting petition ought to include a prayer for forgiveness and a worthy reception in the Prayer of the Church.

It is essential for every congregation to be accustomed to the full rite as the normal experience.  The pastor should never be placed on the spot to justify what is added to a normal Sunday celebration but should be held accountable for the opposite -- why is this omitted today?  The people must have a sense that the norm is everything but the absence of certain elements happens because of necessity, resources, time constraint, or the more restrained character of the day or season.  The full rite must first be seen as "normal" or the more economic rite will become the end all by which the festive is judged.  It should be the other way around.  It is not that the service is too long but sometimes we must go without the fullest form.  The use of an abbreviated service on a regular basis is both impoverishing to the people and gives the false impression that less is more.  Worship leaders should not have to apologize for the fullness of the rite.  The liturgy ends when all we need to do is done, not when the hands on the clock say the hour is complete.  In the same way, the impetus is on the more that sometimes must be pared rather than why we  have the more at all.

Moderate progressivism. . .

It has been my long held belief that conservatism has lost its soul.  The goal of the conservative seems less to preserve or conserve the past but to slow down the pace of change, to make it manageable or acceptable to the whole.  The conservative is at war with just about anyone who does not fit mirror his own judgment, belief, and values.  The progressive has never met a change they did not like but are pragmatic enough to realize that sometimes you have to slow the pace to reach the goal.  I am not sure there is a goal for conservatives today.

What passes for conservatives politically seems to be the Republicans but they are all over the page -- not only in what they hold and advocate for but who they are willing to work with.  There is little stomach for others unless there is absolute agreement across the board and most refuse to make any deals to get much of anything and will toss out the leader who does.  They seem to eat their own, as the expression goes.  In the end, they are not in charge of the steering wheel but the brakes.  They can slow the pace of liberal change but seem unable to reverse much of it.  Perhaps they are hindered by the so-called deep state and the bureaucracy but they are also disorganized and nitpick at each other constantly.  Their Pyrrhic victories seem to come at the cost of both public understanding and support.  They seem to be just as unpopular at winning as they are when they lose.

This is also true in culture.  The conservatives seem unable to stop the pace of liberal values and programs in everything from education to social mores.  They seem to have lost the battle even when the cause is common sense and most Americans should support them.  Our society grows increasingly coarser in language and the media consistently pushes the boundaries of good taste.  PG has become PG13 and PG13 has become R.  Prime time is not immune from the social cause that rules the story or monologue and it never puts conservatives in a good light.  Even though from news to talk radio the conservatives have a large following, it does not seem to translate into much when it comes to shaping the values of our age.  Even when abortion is removed as a constitutional right and the judgment left to the states, the numbers of abortions increases.  Go figure.

It is also true of religion.  Think here of the consternation in the papal apartments over what to do with the tension between the Latin Mass and the post-Vatican II Mass.  The pope cannot bring himself to say the Mass that Rome used for some 450 years was wrong or deficient but neither can he bring himself to say that the New Mass is wrong or deficient.  Nobody will be happy no matter what he does.  So he will find some mediating position which will slow down the push for the Latin Mass, ad orientum celebration, kneelers, communion on the tongue, etc., but allow the Paul VI Mass to be the norm.  He might even caution some of the outspoken folks on the lunatic fringe to stop with the clown suits and idiot stuff currently being tolerated.  In the end, the Bishop Martins and Cardinal Cupiches of this world will have to get along and so will the Cardinal Burkes and Bishop Stricklands.  Calm is the goal.  Conservatives should be prepared to settle for a light foot on the gas pedal of change and be happy.  Will they?  Who knows?

For Lutherans, it often seems the same.  We fight over bylaws instead of doctrine and over personal taste instead of the worship soul of our confession.  We seem content to slow the pace of change but are not equipped to reverse it.  We look with fear at what has happened to the Methodists and Anglicans but neither do we want to be like the Wisconsin Synod -- a small and almost insignificant denomination outside itself.  So we preserve the status quo.  We find a way to get along.  Sometimes we are distracted by court cases and school closings but the rest of the time we do not have the stomach to bleed too much of our sacred membership numbers or our way of doing things.  We find an accommodation.  Sure, we have folk who like to stir things up but most of the time the leaders are just trying to put a lid on things, to contain the problem as much as solve it.  Even the way we deal with differences seems to be designed more to reconcile and resolve.

It is probably left to the local situation and the individual congregation to preserve our Lutheran identity in any form resembling our Confessions.  That is not new.  It has pretty much always been that way.  Whether Missouri or Rome or whatever, it is the people and pastor gathered around the Word and Table of the Lord where the real stuff happens.  We are probably better off when viewed from this perspective than from the bird's eye view of the whole.  I suspect Rome is too.  We all are.  The great levers of change on the big scale require more of our soul than the local.  The problem is when the local also becomes content merely to slow the pace of progressivism and slow things down.  Then there will be little hope left.  A moderate progressivism maybe what works but it will be just as damaging to the Church in the long haul as liberal gains that are unchecked.  Worse, it may mask what is really going on.

We just need to trust each other. . .

There are those who insist that our problems politically, culturally, theologically, and even liturgically are because of a lack of trust.  Curious.  Trusting in each other is the game of the cliched psychology exercise.  Fall back and trust in those around you to catch you before you hit the ground.  Trust but verify is the old Russian proverb Reagan tossed back to the Soviets.  I find it hard to posit the problems of our world, community, family, and church on a lack of trust.  Indeed, the Scriptures seems to warn us about misplaced trust. 

The not so good news prophet Jeremiah warned against it explicitly:  “This is what the Lord says: ‘Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who draws strength from mere flesh and whose heart turns away from the Lord.'” – Jeremiah 17:5.  In the Psalms is the famous aphorism:  “It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in humans.” – Psalm 118:8, and, “Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save.” – Psalm 146:3.  Trust in your self is the ultimate foolishness according to Proverbs:  “Those who trust in themselves are fools, but those who walk in wisdom are kept safe.” – Proverbs 28:26.  Perhaps we are all stunned by the bluntness of Isaiah:  “Stop trusting in mere humans, who have but a breath in their nostrils. Why hold them in esteem?” – Isaiah 2:22

As far as I can see, this is not about the obvious warning against trusting self or others apart from Christ for your salvation.  It is a general warning.  Psalm 116:11, states “I said in my alarm, ‘All mankind are liars.'”  This does not mean no one is trustworthy except God but it does lend credence to the need to check things, to verify, and to "test the spirits."  That is in short supply -- even as short as the supply of honesty and integrity.  AI threatens to make this even harder.  How do you sort out what appears to be true and appeals to your own sense of reason or justice against the lies that are regularly paraded as truth?  You cannot trust what you see or hear or read.  The warning is given not to make you trust no one at all but to urge you to test what is before you.  Theologically, this accords with the square of the Word against which all crookedness is exposed.  Culturally, this accords with natural law against which all lies are revealed.  Politically, this accords with the intellect and reason that most sort out the truth.

We have a serious trust problem in our world.  That is an obvious statement.  It is because people do not keep their word and promise and integrity is not even as common as common sense.  The answer is not to start trusting but to have the tools to discern truth from error, fact from fiction.  In our cultural and political world, this means you cannot afford to listen in the echo chamber of your own prejudice.  You must have objective truth to sort out the claims of truth by those who seek your support or your vote and certainly those who take your tax dollar.  In theology and liturgy, this means you must have the tools of God's Word, creed, and confession to keep you from falling trap to those who would deceive you with wit or wisdom apart from the sacred deposit once delivered to the saints.  The folks listening to sermons have to know Scripture and the catholic tradition well enough to sort out what they are hearing -- not just error but also shallow and weak preaching.  In the same way, they must know that liturgy and belief are inseparable and you must know the faith to determine worship that is faithful to it.  How many times don't we rely either on feelings or emotions and what we did growing up to decide if something is true or false?  Lutherans got so accustomed to generic Protestantism in worship that they became embarrassed by and apologized for what their critics called catholic -- not realizing that this is who we are confessionally and not simply by taste or choice.

The lack of trust in our world will not be rectified by calls to trust.  Instead, it will require us to know our facts -- historically, politically, culturally, theologically, and liturgically.  Only then will we know who is speaking truthfully to us and who is not.  When someone walks up to you and asks you to trust them, that ought to scream "warning" to your soul.  Finally, there is only One who cannot lie.  God cannot lie just as the devil cannot tell the truth without turning it into a lie.  We stand in the middle.  When we speak what God has said, we speak unassailable and eternal truth.  When we speak the devil's truth, we echo his lies.  Our country and our Synod do not need people to trust people more.  They need people who are well-equipped to discern truth from error.  Test the spirits.  It is the best advice we have been given.  Have the truth of the Scriptures, the wisdom of natural law, and the informed and reasoned mind to be able to test what we have been told.

     

What is the Lutheran problem. . .

I am certainly not the first and I suspect I will not be the last of those who wonder why it is that Lutheranism does not fare as well as I think it should in the marketplace of American religion.  The sad truth is that the mess that is Anglicanism seems to do better in attracting converts than Lutheranism.  The ACNA is sort of a train wreck and yet I read of fairly prominent names defecting from evangelicalism or fundamentalism not to Lutheranism but to this mix of conservative and liberal Anglicanism.  Even the Presbyterians seem to attract folks whom I would have thought more theologically in step with orthodox and confessional Lutheranism.  There are hardly any Reformed left and yet some visible folk among the defenders of orthodox Christianity have found a home there and not among us.  What is the Lutheran problem?

Some suspect it is the theology.  We have a fairly specific Confession, as it were, when most of these others are looser and less precise in what they believe, teach and confess.  It could be true.  It might be possible to be an evangelical in the ACNA or Presbyterianism or the Reformed denominations and like a more reverent worship and you can do that to a higher degree than you can with Lutheranism.  After all, we do ask you upon joining to confess that the Lutheran Confessions are true to the Scriptures in every way and you would rather die than walk away from them.  For those coming with a broader theological boundary, this specificity is somewhat startling and, perhaps, off putting.

Others suspect it is the liberal Lutheran fringe that is confusing those who might consider becoming Lutheran.  I get it.  You say Lutheran but what kind of Lutheran do you mean?  LCMS or ELCA?  Yet this same division is represented among the Anglicans and Presbyterians and Reformed.  We are not alone in having a blurred image of what it means to be Lutheran.  In fact, we are rather alone in having a very detailed and specific confessional identity which those on the liberal fringe seem adept at ignoring.  It is not so simple as a matter of interpretation but an acknowledgement that the liberal fringe has largely rejected who we are and who we were (even according to their own reckoning of history).

Others suspect it is the worship.  Loosen up the formal liturgical setting with some music with a beat and some hand clapping to the rhythm and ditch the vestments and people will feel more at home.  That has largely driven the worship wars in Missouri.  If you love Jesus enough to share Him, then love Him enough to ditch the worship style that is keeping people from entering into our fellowship.  Sounds logical but we have built a parachurch industry of resources for those trying to abandon the name, ambiance, worship style, and music of Lutheranism and it has not exactly stemmed the bleeding of members.  In fact, studies have shown that the more catholic the worship and orthodox the theology, the more likely the congregation is to grow and retain members.  

Others say it is technology.  We historically were adept at adapting to the changing technology and the opportunities to speak the Gospel (Lutheran Hour, This is the Life, etc...).  Our problem is that we have not fully adapted to the digital age with online worship and sacraments and such.  That does not seem to be true either.  While folks appreciate some of the technology, the digital church is not filling the gaps for those who are lonely, disconnect, and disappointed with the artificial.  Perhaps we have adapted too much to the digital age and there is little compelling need left to bridge the gap between the techno world and its reality and the real world and its more profound reality. 

Others say it is preaching.  We think we are good preachers but we are resting on our laurels and in actuality preaching is neither as faithful nor as vibrant as we think.  I suspect there is truth to this but I do not know how it actually affects people considering Lutheranism or who refuse even to consider it.  I have witnessed some of that decline.  You can preach a good justification sermon but do you need to preach it every week or in the same way?  The lack of a clearly identifiable Lutheran piety seems to suggest that we are great at preaching the forgiveness of sins but not so good at preaching how then to live as the forgiven.

Others say it is our ethnicity.  We are too German or too Norwegian or too Swedish to attract generic Americans.  Odd, since no less than 2/3 of all Americans have German ancestry and we are less German than we have ever been.  We tell Ole and Lena jokes but that is inside the ballpark humor and most of us could not distinguish a bratwurst from a smoke sausage and the sale of sauerkraut is not exactly setting records.  I know ethnicity was once a key to our growth in America and that some drone on ad nauseam that the boats are not coming anymore and yet this seems a red herring.

Could it be that we are doing most things right or pretty close and still people are choosing other options?  Could it be that orthodox doctrine and catholic liturgy are not the problems but a world in which truth has no facts and facts very from person to person?  Could it be most of us simply don't want to hear any Gospel which begins with sin and our guilt?  The Gospel has always been a hard sell.  Living in a world of abundant sexual preference and gender identity amid the option of scheduled painless death and the unpopularity of marriage and children are also part of the problem?  I don't think it is one thing or even a combination of a couple of things.  I think there are plenty of reasons that could be given for why we seem to be a less attractive option than others but I wish those out there who are looking at options would tell us which ones matter most.  I am not saying I think we should change who we are but it would help to know what the offense is for those who have looked at Lutheranism and said no.   

Feeding the monster. . .

Over the years I have commented here and there on the seemingly insatiable appetite for technology for electrical power.  It should not surprise the reader of my interest here.  Some of this was before AI became a force in the market.  All of us should be concerned now that the required diet of AI in its various forms requires.  The electrical grid is not the only problem but the ability to feed that grid when you have some with requirements so out of proportion with the whole.

The truth is that AI in all its various incarnations demands the US alone bring an unbelievably massive 100 gigawatts a year online simply to feed the AI boom.  Now, it is worth remembering that AI has yet to turn a profit for anyone.  At this point, it is only the hope or guess that the demand for electric power which AI will need should be worth the investment.  We have no guarantee.  It is not even sure that such a demand for power is generous in its estimate and it may turn out to be conservative and well shy of what the hunger will be by this small part of the whole of US industrial demand.  Indeed, some have insisted that a third of that total is what is required simply for AI to remain on idle -- much less for the demand once it gets up to speed.

Let me put this into perspective. This number, 100 gigawatts, would fuel some 100 million households!  That is more than six times the demand for the homes in California.  Data centers and AI centers are not exactly welcome neighbors in a world already accustomed to power outages and brown outs because of demand greater than we can generate.  We have a Google data center where I live and I do not know if the approval for the server farm was accompanied by any real estimate of what it would cost in power to keep the thing going.  I suspect I am not wrong when it comes to other places where such centers have been built.  In fact, the purveyors of such data centers and server farms are paying for power generators to be built for their exclusive use.  They are contracting for all the power these sources might provide.  

We are not competing with China or anyone else here.  Only a fool would suggest that China is ahead of the US in power generation.  We are not in global competition as much as we are fighting within ourselves over the power demands of AI and the server farms within our own borders and to satisfy our own demands.  Only then can we look to the impact of all of this upon the political and societal structures across the world.  No, my concern is the morality of such a pursuit.  If AI threatens to steal away many jobs and reshape the marketplace and occupational life of individuals and families, is it morally right and good for us to divert so much power to something which has warned us already that things will never be the same again?  This is where the Church must enter into the argument.  What is good and right and salutary?  AI simply as a massive consumer of power resources, quite apart from what AI does or says, must be judged within the context of what is good and right and beneficial to society as a whole, including those most vulnerable within that society.  Can we feed the monster without starving the children and will feeding the monster provide us with enough tangible benefit to justify the sacrifice?  Obviously, this is beyond my pay grade but it should not be far from the agenda of the churches and their ministers going forward.  It is one thing, often easier, to give up the resources of others while preserving your own but it is quite another to surrender your own.  To put it in farm terms, it is one thing to contribute an egg to the table but quite another to provide the bacon.

 

A Christmas present of death. . .

Halloween provided a ghoulish gift from the Illinois legislature to the people of Illinois.  They passed a bill seemingly to deal with food safety concerns but which was rewritten to become an assisted suicide bill.  It effectively allows qualified terminally-ill individuals to receive an “aid in dying” prescription from a physician in order to “die peacefully.”  The vote follows the example of Canada and a few other states in the US to provide a right to die and a right to die without pain.  It claims all the usual hurdles to prevent people from abusing the right before the law but we all know that willing accomplices are the weak links in every assisted suicide provision.  

It is not hard to see the logic or sentiment in this.  Who wants their loved ones to suffer or would remove a remedy to end such suffering?  Poll after poll tells us that we as Americans fear painful death more than merely fearing death.  In other words, we want to provide a preemptive strike against the prospect of such suffering.  Here were are not only talking about physical pain but a lost of a certain quality of life which the people suffering claim makes life not worth living.  It is, as always, a purely subjective judgment in which the hoops to such an aid in dying are less spelled out in concrete than allowed to the judgment of those involved -- from the ones suffering to their physicians.

We have come to the conclusion that either we live life on our terms or we want an opt out option.  This would be laughable if it were not so universal.  Who among us lives life on their terms?  Frank Sinatra might have such of a life in which he must be himself whether that means success or failure but we as people are help captive to the idea of happiness and to the elusive character of such happiness.  Poll after poll says we are not so much in search of success as we are happiness (a word defined differently from individual to individual).  We want to live the life we want or not at all.  The problem with that is, of course, who will guarantee such a pleasing life?  Here, the government is taking on the role of guarantor of happiness by guaranteeing the right to bring an unhappy life to a painless conclusion.  While some seem comfortable with the idea that the government decides, most of us are too painfully familiar with all the ways our government has failed in its promises to its citizens to trust such a government to be the definer and guarantor of happiness.

The consequence of a society with a plethora of religions and a shallow knowledge of those options has left even some Christians vulnerable to the idea that quality of life is the main issue.  Such Christians find it a short journey to admitting sympathy for those who live with daily disappointment and seek an out rather than suffer the pain to go on.  We are not united against abortion, to be sure, but neither are we united on the issue of assisted suicide.  The romance of it all leaves even Christians vulnerable to taking into their own hands what belongs to God alone. It will take less time to find more universal acceptance for the idea of an "aid in dying" than it did to accept the norm of birth control and abortion.  Death with dignity is the mantra.  Death with love is less spoken of because it requires of the living compassion and mercy toward those who suffer.  Sometimes the greater love is to reject and deny what desire and want seek.  If the adults in the room are willing, they will tell us to grow up and stop acting like children.  Life is messy.  Death is messy.  God said it would be so but He also did something radical -- He rescued us apart from our own will and delivered us through His suffering to suffer for Him now until all suffering ends.   

The wedding garments. . .

Although it may seem foolish to talk about clothing in a world where people where sleepwear to Wal-Mart and casual clothing, often revealing, everywhere, there remains the story of the wedding garments the host provided and the one without who was cast out into utter darkness. 

While we all know of the spiritual application of that garment to the white robe of righteousness Christ has supplied to His people and of the faith that receives with joy His gift, there is a material application as well.  On the one hand, it says something to the way we dress for the worship services of God's House and on the other it says something of those who lead those services in the stead and name of Christ.

I have repeatedly lamented that it is not a complaint for those who have no other clothing but precisely of those who do but do not choose to wear such clothing.  Clearly the man in the text is not singled out for his earthly poverty and the text reminds us that the host has supplied the wedding garments so that all have an equal stature to be there and sit at the table.  It would be foolish of me to suggest that a dress code should be applied of those who cannot afford or do not have anything better than what they are wearing.  It is, however, equally foolish to presume that choosing to dress down, so to speak, for the worship of God's House is devoid of meaning.  When we have better clothes in the closet or drawers but wear something intentionally casual or informal for the formal setting of God supplying His gifts to His people, we are saying something about what is going on in God's House and our attitude toward it all.  But I have spoken of this before.

What about another application?  If the people are expected to dress according to the significance and esteem held to be in the presence of the Most High and receive His gifts, surely those who minister in His name would have similar expectation.  Why then is it acceptable for those in liturgical churches to routinely disdain the ordinary vesture of priests and ministers of God's gifts to His people in favor of a dressed down casual attire?  That is what I find so conspicuous.  Those who represent the Most High in delivering His gifts to His people eschew the ordinary uniform of the ministers of God's House over their favorite casual attire are making a statement of sorts.  It is even more noticeable than the statement made by those with better attire at home but who chose to dress down for God.  Is this not also a way in which we reject the gift or at least signify it holds less value than our comfort or preference?  It is not about the display of riches or showing off our opulence but about violating the very nature of what it means for God to visit us in His mercy and bestow upon us the gift of His grace.

This happens in more than attire.  When we treat the solemnity of God's House as a stage to display our humor or to entertain, we are saying the same thing as when we dress down to be in the presence of God.  Lest anyone mistake my meaning here, it is not about showing up or showing off but about reverence.  What does it cost us to show reverence?  What does it cost us to participate?  What does it cost us to sing?  What does it cost us to bow our heads?  What does it cost us to kneel?  What does it cost us to prepare a sermon well ahead and to give the preacher of God's Word our attention?  Honestly, why are we so resistant to this?  Does this not betray a hint of the attitude of the one who rejected the wedding garment and came in his lawn mowing clothing to sit at the table of the King?  In the same way, when pastors lead worship casually, clowning or goofing off in some way, it only says to the people that this thing called worship is no big deal and certainly nothing worth sacrificing anything of our pride or preference.  

It begs the question of what Jesus would do if it was our church He came to visit when He cast out the money changers, upset their tables, and upset the business side of God's House.  Would He dump out our designer coffee in our giant decorated insulated cups and insist that we have made the House of the Lord into a casual family room where we are the focus of everything that happens there?  Would He smash our cell phones sounding off in the most solemn moments and insist that we take our eyes off our screens to cast a gaze upon His presence so we might receive His gifts?  Would He displace the priests who insist they are not the appointed ministers of His house but simply entertainers performing a monologue of witticisms and happy music instead of delivering the heavenly gifts to God's people on earth?  It is something to think about.  Read the Parable of the Wedding Garment found in Matthew 22:1-14 and then look at yourself -- those on either side of the altar rail.