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.

Updating the wardrobe. . .

We all desire to change things up a bit every now and then.  That is not so bad.  Even liturgical change is not all wrong.  But like the person who has tired of the clothing in their closet, the problem us what shall we wear when we change things up.  In the past, liturgical change has historically been slow, plodding, and incremental.  There were few times of urgent or disconnected change when the linear progression did not show or the future lie in discontinuity with the past.  But sometimes it is hard to contain ourselves.

Hidden away in the changing room, we pull out the clothing of youthful indiscretion and adolescent naivete.  We put on the clothing never meant for us -- not for our age or our bodies.  We want to be young or at least to feel that way.  We want the willful desire to be unconstrained by what was to pursue what might be.  Every kid has felt the rush of enthusiasm and desire as they tried to make a break with their parents and their generation.  The clothing chosen in such a moment seldom lasts.  They were always a fad or trend that was great in the blink of an eye but terrible in the span of a decade or a generation.  Adolescence was never meant to be the goal but merely a momentary passage.  In our age in which the glory of youth is about the only glory left anymore, we have forgotten that.  The aged want to be kids and have the money and freedom to abandon responsibility and respectability to do just that.  So also the Church has been tempted and succumbed from time to time.

Liturgical renewal always had a sense of this same youthful desire for self-expression.  Vatican II and the Mass formed in its wake was in part a rebellion of youth against the staid traditionalism of their fathers.  It was also the same for us Lutherans.  We wanted something new and fresh and something what was all the rage.  What we did not realize is how badly some of what we wanted would age -- leaving us widowed in the generation to come.  So we indulged ourselves.  We shut off the pipe organs and made vestments to resemble Picasso's art and built buildings that resembled anything and everything but their purpose as a liturgical assembly.  Worse than this, we tried to make everything about the here and now -- forgetting that it is the eternal which is God's gift and not some heightened sense of self or a pregnant moment.  

In the past, the Church was able to move more slowly and did not get as caught up in the signs of the times but the advent of the copier, word processor, and internet allowed us to slip the surly bonds of taste in favor of the excess of self and the minute on the clock.  Because we did not want to be proven wrong, we burned our bridges to the past until they could not be used again.  Liberal Protestantism and Progressive Catholicism united to rewrite liturgy and morality and to raze any of the structures that might return us to our past.  For Rome it was the death of the Latin Mass that had to happen.  For Liberal Lutherans, it was the adoption of the sexual desires and genders of the moment.  For the Progressives of any stripe it was transforming the Gospel into a principle instead of a cross and turning the faith into a grand self-help and therapeutic endeavor designed for our happiness more than God's.  

We need church leaders who will visit us in our changing rooms and tell us what the clothing really looks like and, ever so important, what it looks like on us.  Then we need someone to fetch us some sensible duds from the racks we chose never to visit so that we will look good and respectable.  One day the sagging big legged pants will be ditched because they make us fall and we will come to our senses.  One day we will look in the mirror and realize that the vulgar saying on our t-shirt is not helping us to hide our beer bellies.  The Church that marries the spirit of the moment will be a widow in the next generation.  Grief is exhausting.  Maybe we will soon realize it.  By investing in the moment, we think we are looking smart but we are looking like slobs and fools.  Onslow always looked like a bum on Keeping Up Appearances and Richard always looked good.  Our sympathies seemed to lie with Onslow but when we laid in the coffin, we would hope to look like Mr. Bucket.  Perhaps the day will come again -- not soon enough for me -- when we will learn that we are not only not adolescents but should not try to be.  Then the Mass will be revered for its reverence instead of for its relevance and the restless soul within will find some peace.  At least I hope so. 

Sinners need not apply. . .

The pressures upon clergy are mighty these days.  Engaged with the success or failure of the congregations they serve and serving within the constraints of a world set on edge with fear of failing to us the right pronouns more than faithful preaching and teaching, pastors seem to invite a greater burden upon them today than ever before.  I am not saying that those who minister in Christ's name should have it easy but neither should it be made so difficult that they leave or none applies to become a pastor in the first place.  There was a time when known public sinners became notable pastors and bishops -- at least before the time when it was expected that those who serve need forgiveness less than anyone else.

Think here of mighty men of God who came into the office with scars and blemishes.  I am thinking of St. Augustine.  He was not shy about his indiscretions nor discreet about his sins.  His book, Confessions, outlines those very things that would today prevent him from being considered by any seminary -- much less denomination.  He admits to thievery so how would we trust him or those like him with the earthly treasures of the Church?  He readily confesses he went full throttle into pagan religions, trying out faiths like one might put on a suit coat to see if it fit -- how well would that look on an application or resume for one seeking to be a pastor in any church today?  He admits to dalliances with those to whom he was not married and even to have fathered a child from one of those affairs but even in our liberal culture we would wince at the prospect of his kind on our clergy rosters.  He was a disappointment to his family and earned every one of their prayers to God to fix his broken life.  Even a mom today would struggle to figure out how to support her son's desire to serve given the poor choices he had made before. What would we do with him today?

I will admit that I am not inclined to look more favorably on such as him than anyone else but I do wonder if we have become too focused on what disqualifies and not focused enough on forgiveness that gives the sinner another chance.  Perhaps we are responsible for our own declining numbers of those seeking to become a pastor since we seem adept at forgiving and then remembering their sins when it comes time to consider them for work in the Church.  Or, perhaps, there is something else at play here.  Could it be that this is also what has happened in a time when people resign, write a tell all book, and then come back as clergy of another denomination?  Could it be that we are hard because their are so many choices available to those who want to do their thing for Jesus and they do not have to repent, confess, and amend their sinful lives?  Could it be that the lack of repentance on the part of some has soured us on the grace of forgiveness?  I am not saying this is justified.  Lord knows how many times I come to the cross confessing the same, tired, old sins and God meets me there not with demands but with the blood of Jesus to wash my sins away.  But the grace of forgiveness -- especially for those who have held the high office of pastor and fallen -- is hard to show when it seems sinners want understanding more than they want forgiveness and offer justification for their sins more than contrition.

So I do not know where exactly I end up today.  On the one hand I would lament the loss of a guy like Augustine who today would be disqualified by not only his sinful past but his open admission of that past.  On the other hand, I am not sure which sinner is an Augustine and whose contrition and repentance are honest and forthright.  It almost makes me think that those who aspire to a position where they have to sort this out are suspect from the get go.  I wish I were but I am no Solomon.  I fear that among the ranks of DPs and Bishops there are not many with his wisdom and even fewer who lose sleep over it. 

Maybe they know something we don't...

Most pastors I know are curious types.  They want to know what they don't know.  Most of us have at one point in our lives or another presumed that there are secrets, hidden wisdom, and better ways to grow the Church than what we have been doing -- no matter what we have been doing.  There is a certain assumption that others might know something we don't and so we watch and listen in the hope of discovering their secrets or finding out their hidden wisdom, or developing our skills.  Then the Church will grow.

It happens when we are confronted by growth even in those kind of congregations we typically disagree with on just about everything.  So Lutherans turn up their noses at the theology of the evangelicals but we listen in almost reverent attention when they talk about how much they have grown.  We want to know how they are doing it so that we can do it too -- even if it might involve a little questionable theology.  After all, we are failures if we do not grow.  We all know that.

For most of us as Lutheran pastors, explosive growth is a thing of our dreams that will never happen.  Sure, we might bring in a dozen or more folks in a good year -- some of them even adult confirmands.  But for most of us, these numbers will never happen — even on a great year!  We hope and pray we do not decline and, if we do, we pray that contributions will go up even if the bodies in the pews remain the same.  It is not simply true for us Lutherans.  Most congregations have less than a hundred real members and typically the average is about 60-70 or so — despite what our membership numbers say.

We typically sell down the theology and would gladly sell out if it meant we could reverse the decline in our congregation, district, or Synod.  It is great to have theological integrity and all but it would be better to fill the empty spots on Sunday morning.  How many do you worship?  We have our price.  All of us.  For most of us, the price of growth has been to lose confidence that the Word will do what it says and that the Sacraments will deliver what they sign.  In other words, Sunday morning is the venue which is most open to change in order for us to get the perceived growth we want.  We will not change the creed or the confession but we will change the methodology and practice.  That is where much of the talk lies in Missouri — not in changing doctrine but loosening up practice in everything from the way we train up pastors to the way we worship and preach.

We are in the boat we are in not because Lutherans are dull or not very creative.  Well, we may be dull and we just might mimic others more than think for ourselves, but the reality is that the best ideas, in our minds, seem to be coming from those who are living on the edge of our reality more than the middle.  Ours is not a crisis of creativity but of confidence in God's Word to do what it says and His Sacraments to deliver what they sign.  Nobody would be abandoning the liturgy if we were growing and growing by big numbers.  But since we are not, the liturgy seems to be the first on the chopping block, so to speak.  We are idiots.  If our theology cannot even muster the power to inform and shape our liturgy and practice, how do we expect it to help us bring new people in?  Worship wars are the most natural things on earth precisely because they are bring the most obvious things into conflict — what we believe and how we worship.  As if the evangelicals and giant big box community churches figured out how to get it right.  Grow up, Missouri.  Stop letting us think the problem is a lack of creative, novel, and inventive means and admit this is a faith problem first and foremost.  All of this navel gazing is hardly helping anything.  To allow us to question what we should be confessing is literally to invite people to abandon who we are to become the illusive church the secular world really wants.  Maybe the inventive growth gurus really don't know anything at all or know less than we do?  You will not fill the gas tank by staring at the gas gauge.  Know who you are and let it be enough that who we are flows from Scripture and things may change.  Borrowing what is not us from people who do not even want to be us will empty the seats even faster.

Moral squint. . .

 

"If you could see facts straight on without that horrible moral quint...."  Those were memorable words from the inestimable movie A Man for All Seasons.  There are actually tons of good lines in this.  "He's been to play in the muck again," says Cardinal Wolsey as King Henry comes to confess his immorality with Anne Boleyn.  And then this from Thomas More.  "I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their countries by a short route to chaos."  Ah, yes.  Good lines.  Not simply because they are well written -- because they are -- but because they are so true.  The great temptation is to see facts without moral constraint, to play in the muck and then come back to confession to wash your hands so that you are not constrained by guilt for the things you wished to do and did, and, finally, to separate the private man from the public one.  By all these we make ourselves and our faith shallow and weak and then wonder out loud why the world is such a mess.  Indeed.

I do not know which is better for the nation  A man without the presumption of faith and morality who indulges in the forbidden for his own purpose or the man with faith and morality who can justify the forbidden for the sake or urgency or expediency.  You tell me.  For the Church, it is certainly the latter.  We have had great faces of morality and integrity who have done great evils behind the scenes or simply refused to let their morality and faith interfere with their public duties.  Some of those are in Congress right now.  I think less so it is true of our current President.  We have also had those who seem to wear the muck without much hesitation for the job they believe needed to be done and whose judgment had no moral squint to it.  They were not better but for the sake of the faith, they did not take Jesus with them into the dirt.

I also do not know if a righteous man availeth much in the public square.  We in the Church would laud him but we would also criticize for it seems that righteousness has become less a moral position than a moving line in the sand.  We have become rather good at excusing and justifying our way out of the commands of the Lord and we strive for a host of other goods before we give ourselves to the cause of holiness.  I do not mean to remove myself from the shame of it all.  We are all complicit.  The gift of a clear conscience is not meant to leave us off the hook, so to speak, but to free us from the guilt so that the Spirit might work in us the good work of holiness, righteousness, and purity.  Slow it is, the pace of this progress, and too often hidden to us but it is apparent to God and often to those nearest and dearest to us.  The prayers of a righteous man availeth much except we pray for so many other causes and needs and wants besides purity of heart, righteousness which reflect Christ's own, and holiness which flows from God's own holiness to those who belong to Him.  And that is its own problem, now, isn't it?

Expedience wins many friends but faith and morality seem lonely.  It is not new.  It has always been that way.  We surrender ourselves to our guilty pleasures only to be washed up for dinner with forgiveness.  Thankfully, God does not condition such forgiveness upon such a track record of change but He does enable and expect that forgiveness lives within the transformed desires of the mind and heart to love what He loves and do what He does.  In the play, Wolsey was certainly the crafty one -- at least until it all came undone when even diplomacy and negotiation could not undo the evil Henry had done.  Thomas was the good man -- too dour for our taste and too righteous for our company but an honorable man who really was ready to be true even to death.  I am thankful I am no advisor to kings or presidents nor do I have official cause to give any the advice so readily upon my mind and tongue.  But I do know the great tension between the holy and the expedient and none has to be a shadow in the halls of power to know it and feel it in their lives.  It is a wretched tension but a good one which forces the simple to be difficult and the difficult to be simple.  Without it we would not need nor know God at all. 

Strange but true. . .

As we are now in the holy season of great decoration, I have noticed a rather peculiar phenomenon.  Where I live the Halloween decorations seem to have reached the heights of Christmas and perhaps eclipsed them.  House after house had towering skeletons or ghosts along with giant sized spiders and speakers that sent loud spooky laughter into the night.  These were not the domain of the well to do but on meager homes and yards even more.  They had been up for a long time prior to Halloween and after the trick or treat day was gone, some of those folks merely thrust a Santa next to the skeleton or put a baby in a manger before the ghostly figure or turned the scary troop into a marching band for Christmas.  Strange but true.

I do not know what to make of this all.  When did Halloween graduate from pranks and candy and dress up to a full fledged decoration day?  The motorized blow up craze surely helped but they are still pricey and hard to store.  When did it become normal to clutter your hard with homage to the devil or fake tombstones or spiders big enough to eat Manhattan?  Is it the same way where you live?  The weirder colors of Halloween lights somehow evolve into red and green or other more Christmassy colors but it is fairly obvious that the spooky stuff has taken prominence.  Do church goers also engage in this kind of dance with demons on All Hallows' Eve or is this a sign of the growing size of the nones or dechurched population?  I wish I knew what to think of it all.

I also find it amazing that there is a growing business of folks who will put up your decorations for you (and, I presume, take them down when the season is ended although I see a lot of them up year round).  Is the quest for self-expression so great that if you have no time, you will pay somebody to do it for you?  Have the decoration stores been so successful in touting their wares that if you don't put something up because you are too busy you feel obligated to have somebody do it for you?  I wish someone would explain to me how all of this came about.  It seems rather sudden.  One day there were a few oddballs who had a skeleton here or there and the next it was pandemonium.

Is this some sign of the darker side of things beginning to show itself in the light of day?  Are people owning up to feelings and thoughts they had before but did not feel able to express them?  Or is this merely the success of marketing and sales?  I well recall the time my younger son had a storm trooper costume and sat in a chair on our porch to give out the candy.  As soon as he moved, the kids screamed and ran away.  Some parents thought this was over the top.  Baby, they had not seen anything yet.  Perhaps the most troubling to me is that it has all become somehow oddly normal.  Wow.  What a world! 

The best way to start your day. . .

It probably does not matter much whether you are a morning person or awake into all hours of the night, a cup of coffee is in your cards.  In fact, coffee consumption is up (as if the ubiquitous presence of all those drive through coffee places had not already alerted you to this).  In the past twenty years, the number of American adults who enjoy a daily cup of joe has jumped 37 percent to the highest level in decades.  The daily drink of Americans is hardly a new invention but has its source to 850 AD, to the Arabian colony of Harar near present-day Ethiopia, where it seems the brew began.  It spread across to Mecca and through the Arabian continent but took its time to get to Europe.  Only in the 1600s did Europe really begin to notice the blackish brown beverage we would call coffee.  In the 17th century, the Roman Catholic Church condemned coffee as a “Muslim drink,” leading to a temporary ban on its consumption in some European countries -- until a pope tried it and liked it.

About the same time, coffee hit the Americas.  By 1689, there were coffee houses in Boston -- the precursors of Starbucks, Dutch Bros, etc. -- though with a more limited fare on the menu. Two out of every three adults in the US start the day with coffee -- Americans consume about 400 million cups of coffee per day!  It became so popular in the late 1770s that coffee replaced the daily rum ration for soldiers.  Ever since our armies have run on coffee just like the industry.  Nashville is home to one of the coffee dynasties -- the Maxwell House family brand.  Folgers is known far and wide.  At home the brand of choice seemed to be Butternut (is it even still around?).  At every meeting of pastors, there is always a very large pot brewing (followed later in the day with some other libation!).  In 1966, America got its first real coffee chain — Peet’s Coffee  — starting life as a small storefront in Berkeley, California.  There has been no looking back since.

I will admit to drinking a lot of coffee.  From a better blend in the pod machine to French press to a big drip machine to my nostalgic favorite -- Swedish egg coffee, there is not much I do not like about coffee -- except for those drinks that are coffee in name only but really caffeinated milk shakes or such.  I am not a fan.  No cream, no sugar, no flavors from a bottle — just hot and black and strong.  Alone or in a koffee klatch, every day begins with coffee.  It is the one unchangeable part of my breakfast.  I drink less now that I am retired but seldom less than two cups.  I do love tea but not first thing in the morning.  That prime place and time is reserved for a good cup of java.  Indeed, I find it hard to image anything without the start of coffee.  Staring into the deep brown steamy liquid seems to get my devotion started, my blog juices going, and whets my appetite for reading.  If it is morning when you are reading this, I hope you are enjoying a great cup of coffee today.

They are the same. . .

The premise behind everything from the style and substance can be different to those who advocate for a contemporary form of worship borrowed from evangelicalism more than the church catholic is that liturgy and ecclesiology are different.  One does not imply another and they can not only be distinguished but can be intentionally different.  That is an idea that is patently false.  Ecclesiology and liturgy are the same -- at least in the sense that to change the liturgy is to change ecclesiology and to change ecclesiology is to change liturgy.  It is a slightly different version of lex orandi, lex credendi.

Let me illustrate from Rome.  The liturgy of the Latin Mass (following from Trent) and the Mass in the wake of Vatican II are not the same and neither is the ecclesiology.  Rome is fighting about this now although it would seem that the Vatican II side has pretty much won and Pope Leo is not showing any sign that this is not true.  Some are trying to say that what was promulgated in the wake Vatican II is the same form, merely updated in language and style.  Everyone who has been to a Latin Mass knows this is not true.  The post Vatican II Mass is focused much more on the people side of the equation.  It is not simply that the priest faces the people but that the whole thing is focused more on the nave than it ever was in the Latin Mass.  The most glaring abuses of the new Mass are not abuses of the form so much as they are taking the whole idea of that new Mass and pushing it to the extreme.  

Reverence and the focus on God's work and the people's work to God has been replaced with the idea that the focus is horizontal more than vertical and the the relationship of the people to each other and the people's work in the liturgy are central in the new Mass.  What has changed is not merely liturgy but ecclesiology.  That new ecclesiology has been pushed to its limits in the idea of synodality (even though this was given the imprimatur of a pope who acted more like a dictator than nearly any other in modern memory).  Synodality deposits the authority in the process and conversation even more than in the creed and doctrine.  It invites people to invest these with their feelings and to change them as needs determine.  So in Rome the natural outcome of the new Mass is to begin talking about changes in marriage, morality, the role of women, etc...  These things are connected.

Okay, so lets talk about Lutherans.  Tinkering with the liturgy is often seen as a technical thing which does not have that much to do with the body of belief.  I think it is just the opposite.  The great divide which has resulted from and fostered even more the worship wars of old was not simply about doing things differently but doing different things in worship.  It is not merely about worship but the church -- it is about ecclesiology and the pastoral office and the sacraments and a host of things.  We end up arguing about whether this pop gospel song is good or if a Lutheran chorale is better but it is a debate at the fringes.  It is not about taste.  It is about what we believe, teach, and confess.  It is also greatly about how we see the church and what we believe the church is about.  It is the great divide between mission and confession except it is played out on Sunday morning.

My point here is not to definitively solve or define this but to challenge us to see that we are not simply talking about what we like to do on Sunday morning or what kind of music hits our souls.  Things have legs and consequences.  Contemporary worship is walking us into another kind of church and the consequences of ditching the historic ordo and abandoning the liturgical form which has accompanied our confession since the get go have consequences.  We are becoming a different church because we are using different forms of worship and because even where the historic form is retained the way we view it has evolved to the point where we no long bind liturgy and confession nor connect worship and ecclesiology together.  That is why our conversations are so difficult and so difficult to resolve.  We focus on one thing but are really talking about another. And, by the way, Christology is not far behind!

A quiet mind. . .

Compline's opening versicle bids the Lord grant us a quiet mind and peace at the last.  In one of the older prayers of the Church we ask God to grant grace to those who rule that we may lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty.  In one of the bidding prayers of the Church we pray that we may serve Him in peace and quietness.  In an evening prayer we beg the Lord to shelter us in the quiet hours of the night that those wearied by the changes and chances of this passing world may rest in His changeless peace.  In one of the prayers for good government we ask God to graciously regard those in authority over us that we may be governed quietly and peaceably.  We pray for the gift of a quiet sleep.  There is no shortage of collects in which we pray for godly peace and quietness, to serve Him in all godly quietness, and to serve Him with a quiet mind.  We pray in the collect for peace to live in peace and quietness.           

These are prayers to be released from anxiety, to be sure but not simply so.  Freedom from anxiety is not the absence of trouble but a heart which rests upon Him in whom such quietness is to be found.  To live with the peace of a clear conscience is to live within the grace of forgiveness and to forgive those who sin against you. The sacramental grace of absolution is not merely an external one but internally acquaints the heart with peace and quietness in a conscience troubled with sin and guilt and shamed by them as well.  One does not go to confession to fulfill some perfunctory ritual obligated to us but to enter into that precious state of peace and quietness which the world and the devil works to steal.  It is also the fruit of our participation in Christ's redeeming work, receiving the gift of His mercy in the Holy Eucharist.  As once we prayed in the embolism:   Deliver us, Lord, we pray, from every evil, graciously grant peace in our days, that, by the help of your mercy, we may be always free from sin and safe from all distress, as we await the blessed hope and the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ.  It is quite literally a tossed in prayer summarizing all the petitions -- as common to the praying of the Our Father in the Latin Church as the doxology is to Protestantism. 

Peace and harmony and therefore quietness are in short supply today.  It shows in the statistics for depression and anxiety that have made these epidemic.  It is revealed in the way we close ourselves off from each other and from the world because we do not know how to deal with our discontent.  But this is an elegant grace and a generous gift to a people who live in a world of change -- dizzying change.  Some of it is by our own making and absolution promises us some peace for these.  Other of it is beyond our ken.  We are like the small boat upon the mighty waves.  We beg the Lord for some peace, for a place in the storms of our lives, and for quietness to catch up on it all before it all overwhelms us.  God help us in this.  The haunts of yesterday's sins and the quavering heart before temptation will surely steal from us every last ounce of our peace unless we rest in the Lord and in Him rest all that would taunt and trouble us.  It is not simply okay to pray for peace and quietness -- it is exactly this for which we pray at God's bidding and promise.  He will not turn away.