Evolution into darkness. . .

Harvard University is, well, Harvard, after all.  It is a singular institution whose reputation is unsurpassed.  Even though it has boatloads of money, it still charges for its services -- especially to overseas students.  It has a cache which is worth as much as its actual educational services, perhaps even more.  Access to the network of Harvard grads is worth more than the instruction in the classroom.  Nevertheless, it is always good to pay attention to what the school says about itself.

Newly installed Drew Gilpin Faust, the first female president of Harvard defined what Harvard has become at her inauguration:  “The ‘Veritas’ in Harvard’s shield was originally intended to invoke the absolutes of divine revelation, the unassailable verities of Puritan religion.  We understand it quite differently now. Truth is an aspiration, not a possession [emphasis added]…We must commit ourselves to the uncomfortable position of doubt, to the humility of always believing there is more to know, more to teach, more to understand."

In other words, Harvard has not simply abandoned its once formative ties with a particular version of Christianity or any version of the faith, it has abandoned the idea of truth itself.  It is the pursuit more than the end, the question more than the answer, and the doubt more than the certainty which Harvard exists to promote.  That is one heck of an enterprise and price tag to find out that truth itself is an illusion or no more than a stopping point along the way in the journey to knowledge.  But what of the knowledge that has no facts, no truth, no abiding reality?  Is it worth the billions in the endowment fund and the tens upon tens of thousands in tuition/room and board to find out that the only things for sure is that nothing is sure?

It would be unfair to single out Harvard when the same thing can be found in universities and colleges large and small, notorious and anonymous.  That is the state of higher education today.  If university presidents, administrations, and faculties exist only to challenge what they have deemed the transmission of the moral and intellectual patrimony acquired over the centuries by tainted teachers and scholars who were once thought noble, why bother with the cost of such an education?  Doubt, after all, is pretty cheap and easy.  You do not need a university education to tell you to question everything.  The end result of Harvard's educational method and the same from any other institution supposedly of higher learning is not knowledge but the worst kind of privilege and elitism parading as truth.  Though it would never happen in a million years, Harvard would be better served returning to its Puritan roots and risk being labeled foolish by the educated elite than to dole out foolishness in place of facts and overcharge for it in the process.  Yet it would seem that Harvard is not really in the education business.  It is selling not a well-rounded education nor an introduction to truth but a network of contacts who share a common sheepskin more than they share a common set of values, facts, or opinions.  Yet by existing merely to challenge Harvard has joined the most elite of roles -- an expensive court jester who entertains more than he informs.  That is not the kind of university we need nor is it the kind of university we can afford.
 

 

Failures . . .

Feminism has long advocated for the idea that women do not need men and, more lately, that a toxic masculinity makes men even more unnecessary to women.  The news at Cornell must have shaken that idea a bit.  Women do need men.  They need real men and not impulsive children who do not know how to behave.  Even more than this, we all need men, responsible men, stand up men, who have learned how to act in public and in private.   A real man does not take advantage of a woman when she is drunk.  That was the rule long before feminism decided that women did not need men but somewhere along the way we stopped teaching this rule to men.  That is a sad indictment of society as a whole and the state of the family.

It is the failure of the home.  Sadly, too many boys are raised in homes without a positive male role model and either live in a vacuum without a man at all or with a poor example of what it means to be a real man.  Men do not act violently against women.  This is a failing of the home and a consequence of divorce which too often removes a male role model from the boys (or girls) in the home.  It is also a consequence of single parent families without a husband or father in the picture at all.  I am not pointing fingers but I have known of too many women who had children by several men -- none of whom has any active role to play in the lives of her children.  We have institutionalized this problem and made it appear to be normal.  It is not.

The boys so accused are not the dregs of humanity but the super achievers who are attending an exclusive university with so-called privileged backgrounds and checkbooks which brought them there.  It would be easy to condemn those from the wrong part of town or lacking any social standing but these are not the boys who apparently thought it was alright to take advantage of a girl who was vulnerable and whose judgment impaired.  That she was in that position was bad enough but that boys thought it okay to take advantage of her in that position shows how stilted and distorted our values have become.

It is the failure of a society without a common sense of morality and virtue.  When we organize society apart from commonly held values and a sense of what it means to excel, we are left with competing values or, worse, no values at all.  A common religion once taught such common values and a diversity of religions which should share in the ideal of monogamous marriage and fidelity within marriage, of children and the nobility of parenthood, and of the value of discipline and self-discipline should, theoretically at least, support this.  The track record, however, is not as good as the theory.  The sidelining of religion and the diminishing role of religion in life overall have both had their effect in accepting and tolerating a manhood which is simply a large size child with desires and wills that refuse to be ordered.

It is the failure of freedom.  We have made the goal of individual freedom so sacred that we justify and allow the worst abuse of that freedom.  Pornography is not wrong because it exposes nudity or portrays the sexual act between men and women but because it places both within the context of abuse, violence, exploitation, and every perverted idea of what sexual pleasure is or how to achieve it.  Porn is a mirror into the corrupt soul and we have insisted upon freedom in the extreme to make available even to children learning the rudiments of sex and their roles as men and women.  Little children cannot escape pornographic images or video and their understanding of themselves and others is framed less by any conversation with parents or religious figures or physicians than it is the secret images of the screen.

Our unsocial social media and the often crude and violent lyrics of contemporary music only aids in the reduction of men and women to their most base and crude selves.  Without positive role models in the home and without a religion promoting the roles of male/female and husband/wife built upon mutual respect for each other and those roles, our sons and daughters are left to exploit and be exploited without a counterbalance to the unrestrained pursuit of self.  What is there in our media that would insist that gang rape of a drunk woman is wrong in every circumstance and in every context?  If there is even a hint of doubt about the uniform condemnation of this in our media, then that media is corrupt and is corrupting us and making us more children than adults. 

As Christians we should know this better than most.  The elevation of human life and virtue is not in the pursuit of self but in self-control, living upright and decent lives with respect for others and a refusal to exploit another for personal pleasure.  There is a false sense of Christianity in which God is setting us free to pursue ourselves and our wants and desires but this fake version of the real faith is not being condemned as it should.  We are not simply our desires.  We are much more than this.  It is what distinguishes us from animals whose instincts define their behavior.  We are not them.  We are or ought to be governed by principle, by a sense of right and wrong, and by a willingness to pursue what is good and right and true and for the common good even when that conflicts with our wants or desires as individuals.  Christianity cannot guarantee that any will act in accordance with those morals and virtues but it at least provides a solid counterbalance to the desires that do what is right in their own eyes and in the moment.  It is not that this kind of thing never happened before or in the past when a sense of Christian virtue and responsibility was more universally held.  It is that without Christian virtue and responsibility there is even less to restrain us from our basest desires and the pursuit of want over goodness.  That none of these boys stopped this travesty from happening is another element of the weakness of our backbones in the face of what is tempting.  Indeed, this is one more example that what failings we have will not be improved by feminism or more competition between the sexes but by the triumph of constraint over desire and the life governed by conscience which has the power to make us do what is right even when it is not what we want. 

My greatest spiritual work. . .

In the constant and seemingly endless debate over the role of our works and their contribution to our salvation, one quote seems to stand out to me.  It was probably an off the cuff kind of remark that ended up being remembered.  It was by an Orthodox author, although I do not recall who he was or is, but it is one of those things that drives a conversation.  It does not deny our works but frames them within the only context that they can fill.  So read it and give it some consideration.  I cannot remember the exact wording of the full quote although I am pretty sure that set within it was this pithy observation;

My spiritual works accomplish nothing except to bring me to that place where I realize I can do nothing to please God and am naked before Him.

The age of self-improvement in which we live seems to insist that if we want to, we can fix ourselves.  If we don't, we can accept ourselves as we are and live with it.  Both are lies.  How many podcasts and memes presume to tell us how to make a moral improvement on ourselves or at least to make a positive change in our appearance?  Whether we are intent upon fixing global warming and repairing the climate crisis or casting off the combustion engine and fossil fuels or making robots and smart machines replace the laborer on the production line, we are filled with the illusion that we can do this if we just try.  It is no wonder that this has translated into the realm of personal identity.  If we want to be a woman but find ourselves in a man's body, we can be the woman we want to be and no one can stop us.  If we want to discard a child in the womb we do not want, we can do so with a pill.  If we want to have a child but have trouble conceiving, reproductive technology can make it happen for us.  If we want to live in isolation and work, shop, eat, and entertain ourselves within the boundaries of our homes, we can.  If we want to believe in a truth that is only as deep and wide as our perception or has a time span limited to the moment, we can and no one can do anything about it.  So why don't we presume that we can invent the God of our choice or define ourselves in such a way that conflicts with nature and the work of the Creator? 

Of course, that is the problem.  All of our works bring unintended harm even when they do some good and all our efforts in the moment cannot prevent the direction of time toward its own destruction.  But our greatest spiritual work is to look into the mirror of our soul and find ourselves wanting, without the power to please God or repair our sinfulness or atone for our sins or hide them from His gaze.  Yet this is enough.  It might end in despair, regret without hope, but the Spirit swoops in to turn this into repentance and faith which trusts in God to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves.  God delights in our acknowledgement of our weakness not because He gloats over our plight but because He knows that this is where the Gospel begins in us.  It fills the emptiness of our own failing and inability with the fullness of Christ and His work.  It leads us beyond ourselves and our despair, disappointment, and destruction to bring us from darkness into His saving light.  Although we fear that the light will only expose, it does something we never expected.  It heals and redeems, shining upon Christ even as it exposes our failing and impotence.  And in that moment, the grand gift of grace does its work and the fruits of mercy formed on a cross make alive what was dead, giving hope to those who can hope for nothing, and raising us from the death of sin to the life death cannot touch.  If this is all our works can do, they have not done nothing but the something that in emptiness allows God to fill us.  Thanks be to God! 

Now that it is over and done. . .

Politics is a game I rather abhor.  As I have said many times, I would prefer a benevolent monarchy to the mess that we call democracy.  However, that is what we have.  I am very conservative socially and politically, not a libertarian at all but neither am I militant about using the government or law to do what some would do on either side.  Laws do not make morality or even enforce it but reflect the sense of the time and that requires the Church to address the question of morality on issues less than on candidates.  

Ours is a strange system of two political parties which people seem to dislike with equal fervor and which parties seem powerless to stand for anything uniform or cohesive or coherent.  They are different more by degree than principle, more by pace of change than direction.  I have very little confidence in either of them.  Neither am I looking for a righteous person to get my vote.  I will admit to sometimes holding my nose while voting for people I do not like and would never count as friend but whose positions on the issues more closely conform to my own.  I suspect people on both sides do this and I also suspect that this is a much larger group than either party would care to admit.  I am writing this before the election so as I write I have no idea how it all turned out.  I will say this.  The civility of the political discourse in America was long gone before Trump although he has contributed to its coarseness.  Who can forget how Johnson tarred and feathered Goldwater with a mushroom cloud TV ad that lied about the man and his positions.  But America fell for it and Johnson got a landslide.  

Another thing that is missing is any sense of humor.  It is obvious that some candidates and office holders delight in casting out a joke which most folk seem to get except the media and their political opponents.  When a Texas governor said of a Bush that the poor guy was born with a silver spoon in his mouth we all laughed.  It was funny.  There is no laughter in politics anymore and most folks take themselves way too seriously (Trump is often a shining example of that).   Provocative statements are meant to provoke and this seems to be the way of things today.  In the end, how many of s trust anything a candidate says and how many of us actually expect campaign promises to be kept?  This is perhaps the most egregious result of our cynicism.  We vote without expecting all that much from those we vote for and they seem intent to give us all of that.  How sad it has become!

Yet before we rush to blame the candidates, we need to look into a mirror.  The politics of the day are mirrors into the problems of America, amplified every couple of years in the ballot box.  If the candidates can say nothing to inspire us, it just might be that we do not want to be inspired but prefer to be enraged.  If the people running for office are not sterling folks, it might be that we have rigged the system to produce exactly the folks we love to complain about.  If the politics have become nasty, well, then, follow an argument on Facebook or any other social media platform to see the nastiness multiplied even among friends and family.  If the negative ads are all we see, could it be that we no longer wish to be educated about the issues or have the attention to give to a nuanced political debate of them and prefer to get testosterone packed sound bites texted to our phones or parading across that social media?  We tend to get the kind of candidates we are as a people and probably therefore deserve.

Israel once complained that they had no king and needed one only to have a laundry list of kings they did not want or like and are remembered by no one.  It happened then and it happens now.  I have personally aided and supported good men whose political campaign made them swear off politics forever.  Sadly, that is the fruit of our poisoned atmosphere.  Good people do not offer themselves to the process or as candidates to govern.  Is that what we want?  And pastors and congregations who become the kind of naysayers of doom who add fuel to the fire are also to blame -- on both sides.  I do not want Cardinal Cupich to pick my candidate but neither do I want Paula White to.  If you do not know those names, Google them.  But it does not help to have churches and their leaders try to enter the fray with the idea that they can throw mud without getting dirty.  We all get dirty in this process.  That is the problem.  So we need to spend less time on the people and more on the issues but not as oracles of wisdom as much as voices of conscience.  Some of the worst things on the ballot are not people but issues -- constitutional amendments and other things that transgress on the sacredness of life and the solemn duties of parents and children to each other.  We surely need to equip our people to see through the fog to know what it is that is at stake there.  So I guess I have had my fun.  You are free to disagree with me but frankly I am glad it is over for at least six weeks or so before the next election season seems to start again.  It is less seasonal anymore than it is continuous.  Sigh.

 

 

 

 

 

Grok Poet

I put this up as an example.  On another medium someone asked Grok to write a poem in the manner of Nobel winning poet Anne Carson.  This is the result.

It's best to be a fragment.
I want blankness for borders.
There are things classical.
One can gloss them for years.
Then they vanish.

The shelf hums me
of your unread margins.
There are things classical.
Dust, echoes, this faint trace
of meaning.

My personal page is empty.
I do not want to be whole.
I want to be classical.
Line to line, the spareness of air.
Cool, cooling.

Earth bears no such completeness.
Who does not end up
a translation?
Read all the ancients there is.
Still new. 

Not ever having read anything written by Anne Carson, I have no idea of Grok succeeded or not.  But, presuming this is somewhat close to the Nobel winning author, I think it is as much an indictment against what passes for poetry in this modern day as it is anything to do with AI.  I wonder what Shakespeare or Homer or TS Elliot or Browning or Wordsworth or Frost or any of the others I read in school and still would think of such poetry?  I tend to believe they would wonder what as going on with modern society that this passes as something like the great works of old.  What is wrong with us?  I have nothing against Maya Angelou but I do not understand how she merits a place on anyone's list of the 100 greatest poets of all time.  I would tend to put "Cat in the Hat" by Theodor "Dr. Seuss" Geisel above her if only for popularity and the way my kids and grandkids repeat his rhymes even as I discern meanings there I never heard before.  Maybe I am the idiot.  It would not be the first time someone suggested it.  In any case my point still stands.  Is this what passes for great writing today?

Before you leave this page and dismiss me altogether, let me leave you with another offering.  Is it real or AI?

 

Forcing God to sublet. . .

I will admit up front there was a time when I wondered why churches spent so much on sacred space and why that cost could not have been mitigated with other uses which would not conflict with its holy use.  I was not quite ready to suggest that the worship space was multipurpose but did think that there were things that might be held within the sacred space of chancel and nave without detracting from its primary purpose.  I suppose I still think that sacred music might fill the wonderful acoustical sound of the church's holiest of spaces.  The issue is then where do you draw the line?  What is okay and what is not okay?  Is it a matter of how the decision is made and who makes it.  Obviously, I would be comfortable if everyone thought like me and made the decisions I would make.  But they are not.  So I guess my thinking has evolved.

While this has been brought to the fore by the news of Anglican cathedrals in the UK renting out the sacred space for everything from pop concerts and discos to art shows and craft fairs, the issue is not unique to them.  In this age of budget crunches and declining size of a parish, it is easy to justify the practice of subletting God's house to produce revenue streams, is it salutary?  It is surely about the usage itself but not only that.  Obviously there are some things which cannot be allowed to use the church building and the sanctuary in particular as a venue but what does it say about us when we treat sacred space as potential real estate income? 

Multipurpose space general does nothing well and everything rather mediocre.  That is one inherent issue.  What works for this, does not work for that and so it all means a compromise.  Is that what we want?  Is God merely one tenant subletting a space along with others?  Is the setting for the Divine Service simply what we can make do?  I am not speaking here of emergencies or even the urgencies of a mission setting but the regular and ordinary use of sacred space.  It is not about what we must do in the moment but the customary use of God's House.  More and more I am not sure multipurpose spaces help anything but the harm is more likely done to the sacred use than the other uses.  

Is there a reason we cannot build the great cathedrals of the past and why we find it so hard to maintain the structures we have?  Is it merely about revenue or resources or is it about our values?  Is worship merely one function among many within the Church?  Is it more likely that the churches are spilling over their identities into the other uses or that the other uses are siphoning off the sacredness of the worship space?  I think most of us already know the answer.  We do not value the things of God the way those generations did so long ago?  We build fast and cheap and not slow and grand.  We say it is about the wise use and stewardship of God's resources but we all know that there is something much more to this than that.  We think it wasteful to spend resources over generations to build monumental structures filled with the work of our finest craftsmen and then not wear it all out with invented uses to justify the cost.  We do not believe that the setting for the Word and Sacrament justifies anything.  We are more than minimalists but not by much.  I am not talking about being extravagant but about being wise stewards, counting the cost but committing the value to the cause.  Lets be real.  It is easier for us to make God sublet a common space than to dedicate such space wholly to His holy purpose.  That is why so many of our buildings are warehouses with a stage rather than tabernacles and temples.  

So what is the witness of our multipurpose spaces in which God is simply one user among many?  It certainly tells the world something of what is important to us and how important it is but it also tells the world that there is nothing all that unique or sacred about what happens within the Divine Service.  I would love it if we wore out our buildings for worship services or other appropriate and consistent purposes but it is a shame we are wearing them out by making them a community service venue.  It is no wonder the world seems not to notice the sacredness of the space while rocking around the clock or gawking at strange or almost pornographic things that supposedly pass as art.  They see what we do not.  If worship is not important enough to lay claim to the holy place, then it is not important enough to lay claim to them and their hearts. These things go hand in hand.  Maybe it is high time we all realized this. 

For all the saints. . .

As we observe All Saints and All Souls, now together on the calendar, we tend to look not simply at the names of those who are well remembered but to the many who are anonymous and forgotten.  This is good and salutary -- especially for those who do not canonize the saints with formal process, like Rome.  Over the years as we named in voice and in silence in our hearts the names of those whom we loved who died in the Lord, my own list was largely absent family.  Though fewer and fewer actually remember them the way I do, remembering with thanksgiving the lives of my parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, in-laws, etc., is both a highly emotional moment and a comforting one.  I suspect that as time goes on, this moment will be a different.

Too often the ripple effects of divorce is literally to eliminate one whole side of the family from the lives of the children.  As if that were not significant enough, relationships with the other side of the family is too often strained -- especially when they become aging parents no longer able to give but in need of help.  It seems the bonds of family are strained and some stretched beyond repair as we wake up to an age in which perhaps 1 out of 4 children have either no relationship or a strained relationship which is distant and lacks any regular or meaningful contact.  The drumbeat both of academia and social media seems to support those who have chosen to have no contact with their parents or siblings.  The victimhood which dominates therapy today further sanctions this distance as a essential function of needed self-support for those who hold their families responsible for the wounds they think they bear.

Of course, there are always exceptions which would justify such distance between parents and children.  No one is disputing that.  But when the exception becomes normal in the eyes of the world, we know that we live in difficult times.  How do you resolve this distance?  How do you even restore the desire for contact and relationship?  There was a time when the ties that bind lived through trouble and ease, pain and happiness, want and plenty.  Now it seems that the maintenance of family ties is dependent upon their quality   Relationship is the reward for high quality experiences not the normal pattern for these connections.  Family forever is breaking under the stress of divorce and remarriage, children who have deemed their parents abusive or unworthy of their affection, and a therapeutic culture in which individual and personal health and well-being is a higher priority than familial ties.

You see it in obituaries.  No longer do these death announcements describe much of anything of the life of those who have died.  Cost of publishing and fear of disclosing too much information leaves such death notices stark and cold.  As one who tends to read every obituary, especially, for example, those within my church body, it is as if these lives mattered little to anyone.  Even funerals are becoming the exception rather than the rule, cremains are scattered to the dust of the air without a stone or plot to mark the resting place of the deceased, and family mementos are consigned to the flea markets and thrift stores without even a cursory review of their contents by the surviving family members.  Not long ago at a flea market I saw a medal of honor for sale among other things considered insignificant by their family and even the marketers hawking these goods.  It is a sad testament to the nature of our lives and our deaths.

Part of All Souls is the solemn acknowledgement that all our lives matter to God.  He has redeemed us not because of who we are, what we did, or what we might become but solely out of love for those who saw Him as enemy and stranger.  His love was not easy but sacrificed in death so that the guilty might be forgiven, the lost returned home, the estranged reconciled, and the dead raised to everlasting life.  He did this not by divine fiat but by offering up His only begotten Son for us.  All Saints and All Souls is the celebration not of the sterling lives of the few but the common need of us all met in Christ our Savior and of the pledge and promise that this life is not all there is.  We belong to Him, citizens of a heavenly kingdom not even death can overcome.  In an age when families are estranged by anger and divorce, children and parents separated by old hurts and wounds, and people increasingly isolated and alone, the forgiveness that not only redeems us individually but marks us as members of the family of God is even more important.  In the Divine Service the family is gathered, those seen and those who presence is known but unseen, the foretaste of the eternal feast, for good and bad, the saints forgiven and bound in the blood of the Lamb.

 

 

 

The Lutheran Reformation was bad. . .

There was a time when enemies of the Lutheran Reformation would attack specific positions or doctrines or the solas.  That was enough to get people upset.  Nowadays, the easiest way to discredit the Lutheran Reformation is to blame it for every bad thing happening in our society today.  That is what one Notre Dame professor did.  According to Brad Gregory, when, on October 31, 1517, Martin Luther published his 95 Theses, he unleashed criticisms that not only resulted in a rejection of the pope’s authority and fractured Christianity as he knew it, he did worse.  Perhaps unintentionally, Luther is sort of single-handedly responsible for a world of greedy modern capitalism, polarizing politics and social instability. 

A centuries-long move toward secularization, the inability of citizens to agree on even the most basic norms important for shared political and social life, and unrestrained consumerism focusing on radical individuality and self-indulgence is Luther's legacy.  Not the bring light of the Gospel in a world accustomed to darkness and not a reform movement to address the rampant corruption everyone agrees was typical of both church and state, no, Luther was a mad capitalist who encouraged polarized politics, delighted in social instability, and a greedy and self-centered capitalism without a conscience.  My, he must have been a busy fellow.

Living some 500 years after Luther in a world facing AI concerns, our unsocial social media has become normal but the conversations Luther had are not.  So in this time of tech, Twitter, TikTok, and such, is Martin Luther worth talking about anymore?  If he is, does he merit any honest credit or simply blame?  Was the Reformation a tragic mistake or a tragic necessity?  We Lutherans will certainly beat our chests on October 31 but I am not sure we even want to talk seriously about the Reformation -- good and bad.

It might be easy to characterize the Reformation as a single event set into motion by one individual with a vendetta against the Pope.  It is another thing to actually understand this man and those who fought with him on behalf of real catholicity, honest doctrine, an efficacious and normative Word of God, and a church which had become a nightmare of abuses.  If you take the opportunity to look closer. Now is the time to get to know Luther, you would find not a freedom fighter or institutional rebel but a real man searching for a gracious God and a pastor who cared more for his people and the Church than himself and his own safety.  He took up the cause of the Gospel at a time when the Gospel was more presumed than preached or taught and when popes had institutionalized corruption within the central offices of Rome to a point never seen before.  

It is not simply Rome trying to demonize Luther but those whom Luther himself would condemn but who rode on his coattails to advocate for positions at odds with the catholic doctrine and practice Luther and the confessors of the Augsburg Confession formalized.  While some might say that Rome has been reformed and Luther would have stayed within a Roman Church now with a vernacular liturgy, bishops advocating for married priests, popes who talk to Lutherans and sign a common justification accord, and such.  Others think that the modern day rebels against creed, confessions, liturgy, and such would have a vigorous spokesman if Luther had lived today.  It might be fun to jump in and play the game but it will hardly help us understand the real Reformation.  

Luther lived on the edge with his words and criticisms but his practice and his legacy is largely a conservative one.  He was not the edgy sort of guy and the movement that bears his name was not the avant guarde kind of society of rebels that we think.  In fact, Luther would probably feel right at home in the small congregations people seem intent upon closing, making sure that the faithful heard the Word of God proclaimed in its truth and fullness and were richly served with the sacramental grace of Christ's institution.  He would not be willing to water down the confession to make it palatable for the modern ear and He would not sanction jettisoning the liturgy, hymn, and chant to make worship sound like their song playlist. 

If Luther matters today it is not because of a people who hold their breath at his every word but because of a people who hold their breath over the Word of God preached, taught, and lived out among them.  It is the honest reverence of a people who believe God's Word does what it says and delivers that of which it speaks where we find the true heirs of the Reformation.  Creativity, spontaneity, novelty, and invention in the name of saving the Church for Jesus would not appeal to Luther but saving the Church by remaining faithful to the Word of God and Sacraments of Christ would find him cheering us one wherever we might find ourselves.  The "one little Word" of his mighty hymn "A Mighty Fortress" is alive and well and this is both our legacy and our proclamation still.

 

When miracles become ordinary. . .

The truth is that we have unrealistic expectations of nearly everything in life.  Among them is the idea of certain things being special -- so special, in fact, that every time we experience them we tingle with excitement and are awestruck before them.  And then it all becomes ordinary.  We spend a goodly portion of our lives trying to rekindle the moment and the make uncommon what has become routine.  It is an endless but fruitless pursuit.  Everything special ages into the ordinary.  That is not bad.  It just is.  Life is not lived in the spectacular but in the routine, not on the occasional mountain tops but in the regular valleys.  In some way we all know this but reject it in favor of the pursuit of the raw and edgy feel of the first experience.

This is true of nature.  I grew up in a farming community in a distinctly rural atmosphere.  There is little that is more miraculous than the tilling of the soil, dropping in a seed, and then feeding the world.  When an uncle of mine passed away, the Lutheran pastor who did not know him at all suggested that my uncle had regularly dipped his hand into the soil, lifted his eyes to the heavens and praised God for the miracle.  He did not.  He regularly complained to God about too much rain or too little, costs too high and the price of corn too low, etc...  He had lived too long with the miracle a child sees when he puts a bean seed into a jar of soil and watches it split open and send forth a stalk to the sky and it was all rather, well, boring.  He was not a bad guy but it happens to all of us.  The miracle becomes ordinary.

When you first taste of a perfectly grilled steak or a lobster tail drawn in butter or bread fresh from the oven, it is a magical experience.  But if you eat these regularly, they become routine and ordinary.  It is not bad.  It is life.  Some of us spend our whole lives trying to escape the ordinary and live in the specialness of a moment forever new.  Marriages fall apart because love becomes routine and its not the first kiss or touch.  We reject the ordinary in favor of the constant pursuit of life on the edge.   Thrill seeking seems romantic at first but it is a heavy burden to place upon life and soon the pursuit overtakes the end result.  It is that way with addiction in general but it is also a specific addition to the pursuit of what was or what never was.  It is, like nearly every addiction, a destructive one.  It does not add but constantly subtracts from life.  Like the life lived behind the constant scrolling of the screen, the thing no longer matters as much as the pursuit of what might be or what is behind the next change.

This is also true with the things of God.  We want things to be constantly special.  We have prayerbooks because prayer becomes routine and without the prompting of a form set before us, we lose interest and grow bored with it all.  We have a liturgy because the routine grounds us against the constant church shopping for an experience we have not had before.  It is a necessary anchor for a people constantly shifted by wind and wave, chance and change.  We have the Word near us but a lectionary prompts us to live in it when we put it down as a boring novel or history text and appoints us with a cycle of texts in which to live, to know, and to guide us into the rest.  We have the baptismal font front and center as we enter the sanctuary so that we remember we are baptized when our infant or childhood baptism is not recalled or its significance acknowledged amid all the other things in life that claim our identity.  We have the Eucharist not as something very special but as the regular table and regular food of the people of God.  We come not because it gives us chills every time we approach the Sacrament but because we need its food whether we are hungry for it or need to be called to the feast.  God lives in the ordinary and not simply in the special, in the routine and regular of Word and Sacrament as well as in the moment when their miracle becomes impossible to ignore.

I grew up with a Lutheran Church which had forgotten itself and consigned the Eucharist to four times a year and then not all commune.  While some are shocked by this in an age of more regular Holy Communion, Roman Catholics had the Mass every Sunday but more as a spectator event than a participant by weekly Communion.  They even removed the chalice from the lay as something too special and meant only for those in orders.  But we were fools.  The special character of the Sacrament does not proceed from its occasional encounter but from its life among us as the routine and regular place where we eat the flesh once for all broken for us on the cross and drink the blood that cleanses us from all sin.  It is the foretaste of the eternal feast not because it is so special but to point us to what is coming when every thing around us would point us to other things not so routine.  The Lord never meant it to be special but routine and ordinary, as oft as you eat and drink...  

Oftentimes converts become worn down and disappointed because the enthusiasm of the first experiences in their churches do not last.  Disillusioned by the special become ordinary, they sometimes switch churches in search of the spectacular only to wear themselves out into disbelief.  But God lives in the ordinary and routine, in the boring and common.  In six days of labor and the day set apart for the Lord.  Work becomes routine and so does the Sabbath.  God's work is not to keep propping up the ego for the excitement we seek but to make it plain and obvious that God lives where we live.  When the miracle becomes ordinary, God is still there.  Amid valleys and shadows, disappointment and despair, defeat and loss, pain and suffering -- God is there with grace sufficient and life stronger than death and forgiveness greater than the sin.  Once we begin to recognize this, we relieve ourselves and our faith and our life from the impossible burden of maintaining the chills and tingles of the first even while we are experiencing the last. 

Great lines from an old classic. . .

Often what sticks with me even longer than a plot or a complete work are the great lines that seem to be bigger than the book itself.  This is true of many works but especially of the great works.  Dante is responsible for a couple of them I have written on paper and keep on my desk.

We would expect that Dante's Inferno would speak of dramatic sins but the reality is that dramatic sins are salacious but not always profound.  Adultery is a dramatic sin as is murder but it is ordinary in the way that both have been going on since the Fall and seem to be favorites of mankind.  The more profound sins are those of the lukewarm whom God will chew up and spit out, those neither hot nor cold who seem perfectly comfortable in and outside the Church.  They live in lives of moral ambiguity certain that there is no black and white but shades of grey that call the wise to be silent more than to cry out.  They tend to recede into the background of wherever they find themselves and offend no one -- not even God. 

These are those who are sheep no longer desiring the Shepherd, hearing His voice but not following, and living on the edges of the flock.  The Kingdom of God lives not simply in the dramatic moments but in the sphere of every small choice in which the Christian either manifests that he belongs to God or not.  There is, of course, the presumption that a sort of neutrality in which the soul yearns for and seeks another way without the messiness of witness might exist and this is what blinds the soul to the consequence of being comfortable neither of God nor against Him.  It is a quiet withdrawal which chokes off faith but does not quite make the sinner a dramatic force of evil.

Dante understood this and it is manifest throughout his work.  There, at the threshold of Hell, before he encounters the usual suspects of tyrants, murderers, traitors, and violent sinners who everyone knows and expects to populate the deeper realms of hell, he sees sees the souls of those who never truly chose God nor reject Him.  They simply live in ambiguity.  Their lives are, according to Dante, sanza ’nfamia e sanza lodo—“without infamy and without praise” (Inferno III, 36).  They are not alone on earth for Dante also connects them with the angels who were “neither rebellious nor faithful to God” (Inferno III, 38–39).  Perhaps they had conscience and moral strength enough to refuse great evils and yet they could not bring themselves to stand forth for good.  They live in silence rather than conviction, choosing safety and security here over truth, comfort and ease over martyrdom, personal pleasure over sacrifice, and self-preservation over faithfulness.

Why this scene is chilling in Dante is because he does not begin his sojourn through Hell with monsters and notorious evil whom everyone expects to be there but with those who insist upon belief but lack conviction, who insist upon good but live in the realm of the morally evasive. Their sin is not dramatic and would merit no mention in the tabloids that chronicle our evils but they are even more profound. They have refused the dignity and danger of choice, teaching us that neutrality is not innocence. It is as if they say, “I belong to Christ, but I will not stand with Him publicly.”  It is the realm of fear.

The Church and Christians have lived with this fear for too long and it has become usual and familiar.  The Church has become daring only insofar as this is the same edge on which lives public opinion and the direction of society.  The Church has become reluctant to call a sin a sin and lives too easily within the realm of silence for the things that the Word of God condemns.  It is not all nor everyone but it is the many who claim to be authentic and who insist that they love Jesus.  They love the idea of Jesus more than His reality and the false image of the Savior over the One who insists upon dying for sins because they cannot be forgiven any other way.  It is the quiet Christianity in which the witness is more to a conceptual love than the love revealed in suffering on the cross.  It is the silent Christianity which speaks of this idea of love while refusing to upset things by addressing the sins for which Love was born.  But Dante's witness is clear as is Revelation.  The lukewarm who live in vagaries and uncertainties and fear find the gnashing of teeth and not comfort at the day of judgment.  They have refused the cover of Christ's love in life and so it abandons them in death to reveal that their sins, not dramatic but profound, lack the cleansing of the blood because they refused to see them as sin.  

This is the affliction of modernism that brings rot to the institution of the Church.  Some are confused by righteousness to presume moral authority to judge in the place of Christ but this is no answer.  The refuge of the soul lies always in the Love that suffered and died, in the sin admitted and confessed, in the body laid in the tomb for the dead.  When this is no longer our message and we live in the convenient realm of simple do gooders who seek to improve today rather than proclaim God's tomorrow, we betray our calling as Christians and our identity as the Church.  At some point, the emptiness of what passes for Christianity will no longer be able to live in the shadows and must either stand close enough to Christ to be splattered with His blood or live in the clean clothing of the world that offers nothing of real hope.  Perhaps that day is coming soon.

 

Prayers hard to pray. . .

I will admit that too many of our table prayers have made their way into the formal or informal realm of prayer before Holy Communion.  Come, Lord Jesus, be our guest... is known and beloved to us all but it is not the sum or summit of the prayers we pray as we come to receive the body and blood of the Lord.  In fact, it is no wonder that we struggle with the idea that Holy Communion is not y'all come precisely because we do not believe that the Lord's flesh and blood can be taken for any but salutary effect.  St. Paul's words of caution in I Corinthians confuse and confound us so we explain them away.  Oddly enough, the Orthodox seem to have kept this concept although I do not know how wide spread.  Really, can you imagine any modern day Christian praying as such before receiving the Sacrament?  If you cannot, then our catechesis is not as good as we think it is.  We approach the Lord's table not with casual abandon but with awe, reverence, and a somberness that befits what we are receiving and how it can benefit us or harm us.

Take a look at the prayers below and think this over.  Can you drink of the cup of which I drink?  If this is Jesus' question to Sts James and John, then it should not be far from our minds as well.  The boundary of closed communion is not to separate us from God but to make sure we can come to Him in the right manner and receive His gift as blessing and not to our harm.  From the moment when sin corrupted our relationship with God and resulted in our expulsion from the Garden, God set up an angel at the gates to prevent us from entering in the wrong manner (and thus bring upon us an even worse destruction).  This boundary was a salutary one and not simply punitive.  1 Corinthians 11:17-34:

¹⁷ But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. ¹⁸ For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, ¹⁹ for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. ²⁰ When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. ²¹ For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. ²² What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.

²³ For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, ²⁴ and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” ²⁵ In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” ²⁶ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

²⁷ Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. ²⁸ Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. ²⁹ For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. ³⁰ That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. ³¹ But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. ³² But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

³³ So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another— ³⁴ if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.

Prayers of Holy Communion:
I believe, Lord, and I confess, that You are truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, Who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first. Moreover, I believe that this is Your immaculate Body, and that this is Your precious Blood. Wherefore, I pray to You: have mercy on me, and forgive me my transgressions, those voluntary and involuntary, those in word, those in deed, those in knowledge and those in ignorance; and make me worthy to partake of Your immaculate Mysteries without condemnation, for the remission of sins and life everlasting. Amen.

Approaching for Holy Communion, read the following verses from Saint Symeon the Translator:
Behold, I approach for divine Communion;
Creator, burn me not as I partake;
For You are Fire, which burns the unworthy.
But, rather, cleanse me from every impurity.

Then the following Troparion:
Of Your Mystical Supper, Son of God, receive me today as a communicant; for I will not speak of the Mystery to Your enemies; nor will I give You a kiss, as did Judas, but like the thief I confess You: Remember me, Lord, when You come into Your Kingdom!

Then again the following verses:
Be awe-stricken, O man, beholding the deifying Blood;
For it is a lighted Coal that burns the unworthy.
The divine Body both deifies and nourishes me;
It deifies the spirit, and wondrously nourishes the mind.

And these Troparia:
You have smitten me with yearning, O Christ, and by Your divine zeal You have changed me; but burn away my sins with immaterial Fire, and make me worthy to be filled with delight in You; that, leaping for joy, O good One, I may magnify Your two comings.

Into the brilliant company of Your saints, how shall I the unworthy enter? For if I dare to enter into the bridal chamber, my garment betrays me, for it is not a wedding garment, and I shall be bound and cast out by the Angels; Lord, cleanse my soul of pollution, and save me, for You love mankind.

And the following Prayer:
Master, Who loves mankind, Lord Jesus Christ my God, do not let these Holy Things be to me for judgment because of my unworthiness, but rather may they be for the purification and sanctification of soul and body, and as a pledge of the life and Kingdom to come. For it is good for me to cleave to God, to put my hope of salvation in the Lord.

And again:
Of Your Mystical Supper, Son of God, receive me today as a communicant; for I will not speak of the Mystery to Your enemies; nor will I give You a kiss, as did Judas, but like the thief I confess You: Remember me, Lord, when You come into Your Kingdom! Remember me, Master, when You come into Your Kingdom! Remember me, Holy One, when You come into Your Kingdom! 

Of Saint Symeon Metafrastes (Saint Symeon the Translator)
You Who have willingly given me Your Flesh as food, Who are a burning fire to the unworthy, do not consume me. No, my Creator; rather penetrate into my members, all my joints, my organs, and my heart. Burn all my iniquities like thorns; cleanse my soul, make holy my thoughts, make firm my knees and my bones as well. Illumine my five senses and make vigilant my entire being with the fear of You.  Watch over me always; shield and protect me from every deed and word which corrupts the soul.  Cleanse me, purify me, and put me in order; adorn me, give me understanding, and illumine me.  Show me to be the dwelling of Your Spirit alone, and not the dwelling place of sin; so that when You enter into the home of Your communion, every evil doer and every passion will flee from me as from fire.

A lesson learned too well. . .

The language of healing has always been a part of the Christian faith.  It is there both in the telling of the stories of God's healing grace at work to remedy the human ills of disease but also in the overall description of God's salvific work.  We have always said God is a healing God, taking what is broken and making whole and taking what is diseased and granting health.  They are good and salutary (itself a healing word) terms and descriptions of what God has done.  But at some point, the words stole the message.

Therapeutic deism did not begin recently.  It goes back to the demand of the sick for God to fix what was wrong and to the demand of the hungry to be fed without earthly labor to provide the food.  We have always found a temptation to substitute the present for the eternal.  At some point, however, it become the dominant image of God and the dominant image of salvation.  We are no longer the guilty or shameful who are searching for cleansing or the sinners in search of redemption.  We have become the discontent in search of pleasure, the sad in search of happiness, the bored in search of excitement, the lonely in search of friendship, and, under it all, the spectator in search of entertainment.  The problem with this is that you do not need a Savior, a God incarnate, or a cross and empty tomb to provide these things.  These live not in eternity but in the present, in the moment, if you will.

Though it would be tempting to place this blame at the feet of the liberals, we are all to blame.  We have so eloquently described God as healer that the people no longer look for or need a God who redeems.  They are looking for a therapist to listen, for someone to approve and commend them as they are, and for anyone to show them how they might satisfy their longings rather than reorder them according to God's will and purpose.  Christianity’s dalliance with healing and therapy has become greater than the quest for redemption, for salvation, and for righteousness.  When Jesus sent forth His disciples to heal (therapeuete) the sick, we all took Him at His word and made it into a promise that would be fulfilled now.  All of our expanded analogies using healing to describe salvation have born the wrong fruit.  We want and expect God to do more for us today than for eternity.  We want to flourish in the here and now — body, soul, heart, and mind — and this is what have come to expect and demand from God.  To quote Captain Piccard, "make it so."  

We were encouraged along the way by things outside the faith to look to our thoughts, emotions, and desires to define what happiness looked and how to live well.  We learned from society that our stories were more important than real truth and experience was more reliable than facts.  We have told ourselves this over and over again until we were convinced that this was God speaking to us and so the cultural mythology of the moment overwhelmed the Scriptural expression of need and Savior, sin and redemption, hell and heaven.  The worst evil was that which inhibited or put value judgments on those thoughts, emotions, and desires.  The best good was that which allow those thoughts, emotions, and desires to flourish unhindered by challenge or what others think — much less God.  Authenticity was to the self and the self-authenticating self desired and accepted approval only and nothing less.

When even conservatives stopped speaking of sin or of the evils of sin and began accepting brokenness and pain and disappointment as primary, we became mere puppets of the culture and weak echoes of what everybody already knew and believed.  Who needs heaven when you can expect it or find it on earth and who needs a Savior when the worst sin is not living by your unfettered desires and wants?  We ended up trying to sell the need for God in ways that made sin a sideline and the world loved it.  That is why there are so few churches and preachers speaking about sin and death, forgiveness and life, in the same terms as Scripture and why the substitutionary atonement model of salvation became a pariah to the pulpit as well as to the modern mind.  Lets admit it.  We all joined on the moralistic therapeutic deism model in some way or another and now we have to dig ourselves out of it before nothing of the real Gospel remains.

A few numbers and a thank you. . .

Since beginning this little enterprise some 16+ years ago, the readership has constantly surprised me.  So far, since the blog began, some 17 million folks have tuned in, fewer in the beginning and it has grown.  Every day some 6,000-10,000 people get on the blog for one post or another, some 60,000-100,000 monthly, and a million or so annually.  Obviously, some days more than others and some posts are better than others.  Some tune in and never come back.  Most return with varying degrees of frequency.  I deliberately have not monetized this blog though I have had tempting offers.  It was never mean to bring in the cash.  I like writing the blog posts.  I enjoy reading and my head is filled with useless information and a few decent pastoral and meandering thoughts.  Thank you for reading.  If I offend or upset, I do apologize.  If I get you thinking, I am glad because something got me thinking.  If I repeat myself, well, I am getting old.  LOL.  Cut me some slack.  Do I have familiar themes -- you betcha.  Am I always right?  Well, I think I am at the time I wrote it but I do change my mind and I have no guarantee of infallibility -- think what I could have accomplished if I had!!!  I do not know how long I will keep this up or keep up the pace of posting but it is still going strong.  And so am I.  Thank you all.  When I run into you and you mention the blog, it encourages me -- even when you think I got it wrong!  I am humbled by your kindness -- like the guy I ran into in the Denver airport who said, Are you Pastoral Meanderings as if I were somebody important.  Thank you, really, from the bottom of my heart.  And God bless you all.  

The value of our rites. . .

Recently  I read of a church and the baptismal font in which a saint of some renown who live a very long time ago had been baptized.  It suddenly occurred to me that we know not only where this man was baptized but, through the church's rites, we also know with confidence he was baptized and the liturgy that was used.  We did not have to wonder if he was rightly baptized or what was confessed.  We know.  We have the rite, faithfully preserved, and most of our baptismal rites to this day are a modest evolution of the rite used for this man.  So going back 100 or 1000 years, we know what was said, done, and confessed because we know the rites.

As a pastor dealing with people who did not come from a liturgical tradition with rites, it was often difficult to know if someone had been rightly baptized or not.  I did more than a few conditional baptisms because the person did not have any idea if or how water was applied, if the baptism was in the name of the Triune God, or anything else.  Perhaps it was a river or a tub in the front of a congregation, the rite was ad libbed and where an explanation point should have been was a question mark.  God does not mean us to live in the what ifs but in the because.  That is the gift of our rites.

This is why it is so disconcerting when you watch a worship service and the pastor is making it up as he goes along -- the spiritual euphemism is being led by the Spirit.  He does not even half to say bad things.  Because his words live only in the moment, they struggle to become the eternal Word that Christ has spoken.  When rites are published with the doctrinal imprimatur of the church's official sanction, they live beyond the moment and outside the particular space of one guy before one set of people saying what may be in his heart.  I do not judge the motives but the end result is to deprive the people of the confidence which Christ means for them to have.  That is the gift of our rites.

When the penitent comes for absolution, you can dance around it in a thousand different ways that sound great but end up leaving the person without the comfort the rite itself provides.  I forgive you all your sins in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.  Ego te absolvo.  They are not magic but they are a lifeline for the people whose sins trouble their consciences and who hearts are weighed heavy with grief and shame.  There is a place to address the folks with words to console and yet their must be the clear absolution so that the chains of what they have thought, said, and done are cast off and they can go home free.  That is the gift of our rites.

Someone will surely tell me that God knows.  God knows what happened in the ad lib by a stream or at the altar or in the confessional.  He does.  Thanks be to God!  But it is not God who needs to hear it.  It is the child or adult who comes to baptismal water without name or eternity who needs to hear what the rites say.  We are our rites.  Our confidence is not in the rites but in what those rites preserve -- the clear Word and promise of God.  It is not God who needs to hear the magic words at the altar before the miracle bread and cup appear but we do.  We need to know what it is that we are receiving, what is gifted to us in this bread and cup.  We need to know the familiar refrain of the rites which tell us that this is Christ's body given for us and His blood shed for the forgiveness of our sins.  We are our rites.  Our confidence that this is the body and blood of Christ lies not in a perfect performance but in the Word of Christ preserved in the rite as the voice to still our troubled souls with hope and peace.  God knows the sins of the penitent (and impenitent, for that matter) but it is that broken soul who needs to hear the absolution in the clear and plain words that have absolved the penitent for millenia.  We are our rites.  Our confidence is not in the words as a spell to make the magic happen but the words of Christ which tell us His blood cleanses us from all our sin -- including those named just then.  

God does not judge the form or the heart but both, not as the unmerciful looking for cause but as the God who seeks to assure us that what He has promised is, indeed, ours in this water, bread, wine, and absolution.  This is what the rites preserve.  Only a fool would attach this to some unchanging incantation secretly passed down through the ages as if ordination is the passing of the secret handshake.  No, ordination is the same thing as I have spoken before.  In the words and the rite the Church says to those whom this man serves that you do not have to imagine or wonder or decide if his ministrations deliver what they promise and bestow what they sign.  The rites and this man's serve as a man under orders tell the people in the pew that this is the case.  The rites can change but incrementally, not some mighty shift that upsets everything and makes strange what was familiar but as the careful update of the timeless.  I am not bound to one of the rites only but when the rites have the imprimatur of the church's seal upon them, any one of the rites approved, it gives to those in the pew the assurance that there is more to it than feelings.  The value of our rites is too often treated as something casual and irrelevant when those rites are very important to the faith of those who come and to those who come looking for faith.  We are our rites.  We can be more but we should not be less. 

Mortal or sinful or both. . .

Although there is much in Orthodoxy which attracts me, I remain confounded by the refusal of Orthodoxy to speak of original sin except in terms in mortality.  Sometimes modern Orthodox tend to characterize the Western definition of original sin in almost comedic terms -- criminals living out their sentence here on earth before they suffer it eternally.  It does little to help with the understanding but it does make it clear to me that for the East original sin amounts to nothing more than the presence of death as a shadow over life.  It is that, of course, but is that all it is?  Our mortality is certainly one continuing consequence of the Fall but it is not the only one.  All the talk of sin in Scripture cannot be summarized as a problem of will on the part of the mortals or else Jesus is come merely to open the door to the grave and leave the stone of sin unturned.  I do not get it.

In Western theology, it is common to all theological traditions that human beings are born with “original sin,” which, in includes the curse of death and the inability to free ourselves from either death or the sin that caused it.  But that is not all.  This also means that we suffer from the continuing consequences of what our first parents did in Eden.  We share a communal guilt in addition to a personal one and this is not something we choose or suffer because of our sins we have thought, said, or done.  It is guilt inherited from Adam and Eve and the common malady of those born of woman.  Furthermore, we are born sinful and unclean, that is, we are born as sinners.  We are neither innocent nor are we good from the moment of our existence.  Every man born of woman needs to be redeemed and this is not simply the release from death.  The East does not speak in these terms.  I would suggest that it does not speak fully the language of Scripture which does speak in these terms as well as in others.  I would suggest that the original sin which speaks of our bondage to sin of which we cannot free ourselves includes death but is not merely that we are mortal and that this is not some novel invention of the West but the witness of the Scriptures and the testimony of the early Church as well.

Indeed, it seems to imply that Jesus came to liberate us from our bondage to death but our bondage to sin is something we can handle -- at least by the choice of virtue and asceticism.  That would place everyone of us back in Eden in the place of our first parents except for the shadow of mortality which is cast over us until Jesus lifts it from us and brings us into His own immortality.  How curious it is that we can handle the problem of sin but not death!  Indeed, modernity seems intent upon testing this notion.  We as people seem to be working very hard to be masters of death, making it also a choice.  Since we have already worked to eliminate sin as a category of our fallen lives, we moderns seem poised to neither to need saving nor to need a Savior at all.  While I would agree that we in the West can sound rather dismal in the way we speak of this mortal life lived in bondage to sin, the East seems too hopeful that a good choice can fix what sin has done to us.  I wish that were true but we all know it is not.   Original sin seems to be the one truth that requires no revelation.  Every newspaper account of our wrongs and every obituary speaks volumes of what sin is and what it has done to us.  

For Orthodoxy, original sin is ancestral sin, but while we suffer the consequences of Adam and Eve's sin, such as death and a tendency to sin, we do not inherit guilt for that sin.  It is no wonder that Augustine is no favorite of the East.  For the Orthodox “original sin” refers to the “first” sin of Adam and Eve.  While those born since bear the “consequences” of sin, the chief of which is death, there is also a weakness before sin.  In the West, humanity likewise bears the full “consequences” of the “original sin” of Adam and Eve, and this includes both the “guilt” of the sin of Adam and Eve and a condition which makes us more than merely weak to sin but captive to sin of which death is the universal sign of this.  In the East man is guilty only of his or her own sin but does suffer from the mantle of death which is passed to all humanity from Adam and Eve.  As Lutherans we insist that we are both mortal and sinful, wearing the guilt passed down to us from Adam and Eve and caught in sin so that we cannot free ourselves.  While this does something to the notion of man's nobility and dignity which some might find offensive, it also reflects a higher view of Christ and the accomplishment of His work on our behalf.  

What makes us a people. . .

Nations is the word that is usually used for something that hardly corresponds to what the word means in Scripture.  The nations are clans mostly, peoples linked by ancestry, culture, language, and religion.  By that we mean something very different from the thing that has borders and territory and a place on a map defined by somebody but probably not so much the folks within those borders.  Modern nations are a construct, an invention of some minds who thought this would end some of the conflicts and violence.  Boy, that has not exactly gone as planned.  The Middle East is but one example of borders gone wild with disparate peoples who have been forged into a country but the threads of that union are being constantly unraveled by the inherent divisions within.  How does anyone decide what is in the national interest of people who cannot agree on what that interest is?

Religion is not the simple thing in this equation either.  See how Muslims of different denominations within Islam war against their kin.  Christianity is no different with the history of Europe being also a history of religious wars, or at least wars fought in the name of religion if not religious in themselves.  We often forget how fragile the ties that bind us as nations and peoples and countries today.  It is to our peril.  The grant illusions of a global existence in which such minor inconveniences such as conflicting cultures, languages, religions, and values do not matter was always the weak link in the idea.  Now with America First and its counterparts throughout the world, the whole thing is being rethought.  Economics aside, there are few proponents of such idealism as the coexist crowd wants it except those who do not believe much of anything.  So what do we do?

One of the more obvious things it to recall how important a common faith is to define a nation of people.  While there are always disparities in class, wealth, race, and ethnicity, a common faith can overcome all of them to bind the people as one even with all that differentiates them within that common faith.  However, without a common faith, the unity is not simply more fragile but, in the majority of cases, it is impossible.  There are no nations that endure over the long haul without a common faith to unite the people and contribute to overcoming all that would divide them.  Without a common faith, the answer lies in some sort of oppressive regime -- whether totalitarian such as Germany was under Nazism or is in China OR authoritarian as now exists in many of the oil rich Middle East states.  Even then, Germany found a form of religion to be helpful and fostered it and even China has brought the Roman Catholics and Christians in house churches under the umbrella of the state.  This is also true of the authoritarian regimes where religion is fostered to assist in the overall state of governmental affairs even if there is some degree of religious pluralism within the society -- the so-called civil religion.  Rome knew this and even the Soviet Union knew this but somehow we have forgotten it.

The increasing problems of Scandinavia, Great Britain, France, and so many other parts of Europe exist in large measure not simply because of immigration and refugee resettlement but because this comes at a time when the religious fabric of these nations are in decline.  Without a common faith, a nation is hard to establish and hard to sustain.  With it, the dynamic changes radically.  Even in America we are facing the problem of who we are as a nation apart from the common Christian backgrounds, beliefs, and values that once were implicit in our identity.  How can a nation long exist without the structure of a common faith to encourage and support a common value system and identity as a people?  It appears to me that this is behind some of the struggles we are having today.  Diversity looks good on paper but does not translate into a workable political system without something strong and clear to unite the diverse.  Nations are made not by borders or laws but a common language, culture, and, most of all, a common faith. 

 

A calling or a life choice. . .

I have said on this blog many times how disappointed I am over the resistance of families to their child's choice of church work vocation.  While it is true overall, it is especially true of pastors.  Many second career men have said that they might have made the ministry their first calling but did not receive the support or encouragement from their families for this vocation.  That is a real tragedy.  Undoubtedly there are a number of reasons families and friends do not encourage this calling for church work but one of them is that we no longer value nor hold in highest esteem this vocation. 

Part of it means labeling the vocation to church work, particularly the pastoral office, merely a life choice or a career move.  Reducing the ministry to a life choice that is the same as choosing any other career reveals how deeply we have lost the understanding of the profound gift and blessing of the ministry.  Our lack of reverence for many professions is telling by the lack of those seeking them, especially the helping professions.  But here it reveals that we also lack reverence appreciation for both Christ and those who serve us in His name with His gifts.  It does not diminish any other calling to raise up the pastoral vocation to its rightful and noble place among them all.  

Instead of offering pale support or hostility to a young man who is considering becoming a pastor, we should be offering them our prayers and our encouragement.  This also holds true for the man who give up on their calling and end up in the limbo of candidacy or who resign altogether.  I am saddened every time I read of those who are no longer pastors, the list of resignations that dots the official notices.  None of us knows all the circumstances under which these have been given and some of them may need to resign but many of them have been chewed up, spit out, and despair of the struggles.  It should not be that way.  If the pastoral office is noble enough to expect sacrifices from those who enter it, then it is noble enough for us to offer our prayerful, vocal, and financial support.  Nobody becomes a pastor to make a killing.  

In the end, when we judge careers simply on the basis of what they provide for us, we miss not only the particular vocation of those who would be pastors but we forget that we are all called to a life of service, sacrifice, and giving -- denying self, taking up the cross, and following Him who had neither nest nor home to call His own.  Yes, pastors give up a lot to serve but the rest of the baptized are not to judge life simply on the basis of ease, pleasure, or personal satisfaction either.  If grace is sufficient for the pastor, it is sufficient for us all.  I fear that our life with plenty has blinded us to this need to depend upon Christ and His mercy.  The way of the cross is not the unique path of the pastor or any other church worker but our common life as the people of God by baptism and faith.  

What is Canada?

There was a time when Canada and the United States were so close together on values and purposes that it was inconceivable to find a space between them.  We had similar economies, churches, resources, histories, and goals.  Then it all seemed to fall apart.  While some Canadians insist that it has to do with Trump, the lines of division began long before anyone ever imagined a Trump presidency.  I am no expert and have no crystal ball but I do think that the differences were noticed more when Canadians themselves distinguished between the French and the English heritage, between Quebec and the West.  When Canadians began to normalize the odd balancing act between the two populations, there was a distinction with a difference.  Though perhaps not causal, the distinction did seem to highlight the difference in a way that had not quite been apparent previously.

Now it is as if there is a Canada with the same name but with an identity we in the US no longer know or recognize as kin.  One of the key elements of this difference is the change with respect to religion.  Canada seems to be so far left of the US when it comes to religion and Christianity in particular that it is a foreign land to us and one we no longer understand or appreciate.  Canada is the place where military chaplains no longer are free to even mention God or practice their faith freely without restraint -- the official restraint of governmental policy.  The Canadian Armed Forces issued within the month a new directive barring chaplains and other military personnel from mentioning God, Jesus, or other religion-specific language during mandatory public events.  They have effectively banished the name of God from the public square and there seems to be no big conflict over it.  That means that the population has become either secular or religiously indifferent to the whole thing.  Even more concerning.  I read once where Quebec was once among the most Roman Catholic regions of the world.  No more.  It is now a religious ghost town in which popular opinion regards the church as more problem than blessing and seems content with the efforts to marginalize Christianity.  No wonder the rest of Canada is also a religious wasteland.  Though the Western regions of Canada are not quite there yet, it is clear they are behind but heading toward the same goal.  

The second area of difference is the respect for life.  Canada has been on the forefront of protecting abortion as a right and medically assisted suicide the same kind of right.  Canada's reported rate of abortions is probably in line with its size -- roughly 10% of the US in both numbers -- but that represents only those places required to report abortions.  Now that roughly 80% of abortions occur outside hospitals with mandatory reporting requirements, who knows how many abortions there are.  On the other hand, the medically assisted deaths make up 5% of all deaths in Canada and are growing fast.  Since the MAID laws are now ten years old, it has become normal to call upon the medical community to provide a painless and easy way to end your life.  Euthanasia has skyrocketed, surpassing even MAID deaths to some 16,500 in 2024 and statistically one in twenty deaths in the nation.  The US is not only far behind but the unfettered voices of religion in the US have challenged the acceptance of chosen or forced death.  We look to our neighbors to the North and wonder who are these people we thought we knew.  

One such example of Canada's refusal to honor life lies within the case of an 83-year-old Christian great-grandmother, Brigitte Stegemann, who was living out her final chapters in an Ontario long-term care facility with untreatable Stage IV stomach cancer.  The woman was not unclear.  She said "no" -- she did not want to be euthanized.  Her family honored her wishes until her granddaughter, Brigette Kranendonk, who had power of attorney, was away and the gears of the medically assisted death machine sprung into action, putting pressure on the woman to request Medical Assistance in Dying.  Somehow, though no one seems to know how or who witnessed it, consent was secured. The granddaughter returned to discover the irreversible has already been done.  Now months later, she still hasn’t been allowed to see the supposed consent.  The power of death in Canada is greater than the concern for life.

I could list other areas of concern for Americans.  They include the governmental policies and powers used during the pandemic -- who can forget the truckers whose convoys triggered an invasion of their lives and pocketbooks for daring to challenge the then government?  Or, as I found out from working with an agency of our church body, the insistence of Canada that Canadian money or money made in Canada stay in Canada.  It turns out we are not quite following the same rules when it comes to being each other's primary trading partners.  There are other things.  My point is this, Trump has surely brought our concerns to light though not very effectually but he is hardly responsible for creating them.  In the end our cultures are proceeding along different paths and this means that perhaps the most religiously Christian country in the world is finding it hard to know how to deal with one that is becoming a more unashamedly anti-Christian nations.  Although I do not hear many folks talking about this, this is part of the problem and a bigger part of the problem than anyone seems willing to admit.