The lectionary is a tool. . .

Within the battles over the lectionary (historic or three year) one point often gets lost.  The lectionary is a tool.  It is only as useful as the one who preaches from it.  I am by no means an authority on any lectionary but neither am I convinced that one or the other will make or break anything.  It is all in how it is used.

Growing in the era of preaching texts, nearly every Lutheran pastor I knew did not preach from any of the appointed readings from the so-called historic lectionary then in almost universal use.  Instead there was a cycle of preaching texts that was generally used as the basis for the sermon.  So every Sunday we would hear a set of readings appointed by the lectionary but then hear a sermon based on none of them.  This is a perfect example of how the lectionary as a tool was of little use to the congregation.  In the same way, there was a time when sermon series based on something other than the appointed readings for the day was common practice.  Again, the people either heard Scriptures which would never be addressed by the sermon of the day or perhaps did not hear them at all.  Under these circumstances the lectionary was a tool without any useful purpose. 

As a pastor who has preached 2-3 sermons per week for some 44 years, I have grown to appreciate the use of the lectionary and have become even more suspect of preaching from other texts or sermon series.  There is a value in the people hearing the Scriptures and having had a chance for them to soak in a bit before the sermon addresses them to the people of God.  I used the historic for many years (exclusively) and then the three year lectionary (exclusively) for many years and have had the practice of preaching on the three year on Sundays and the one year on Thursday for many years.  I am sold on lectionary preaching but I am not sure which lectionary is as important as using one and sticking with it.

I will say that one aspect of a lectionary which is not all that important to me is its ecumenical significance.  The truth is that the three year lectionary is not quite in common and we do not use the Revised Common Lectionary in the LCMS.  That said, the churches using that lectionary in common are already well divided by their doctrine and practice so that even if the same readings are used, they are generally preached very differently.

What is important to me and, I would suggest, to the folks in the pews is the careful choice of hymnody to connect what is heard in the Scriptures appointed for the day and what is sung.  If you are using the lectionary, your job is not simply to preach from it but to know the hymnody of the Church faithfully enough so that you hear the readings in the hymn stanzas of the hymnal and pick hymns that connect well with what is heard.  Do not depend upon hymn selection guides or lists of hymns someone has suggested for the day.  Know the readings and know the hymnal and spend time connecting the two.  Your people will be better off for it and your preaching will be more effective.  These things are tools and in order for them to do their job, they have been used by someone skilled in their use.  When that happens the readings and hymnody and the sermon are woven together into one fabric and it is marvelous.  So preacher, pay attention to the lectionary and pay attention to the hymnal as you prepare your sermon.

Competence vs Dependence

I did not grow up with technology.  Technology grew up with me.  I grew up before a dial phone and in the days of the proverbial party line.  I grew up when the news was first from paper and radio.  I grew up when devices meant to make your life better were exclusively mechanical.  I grew up with the first TV being brought into the home and watched a couple of hours at night as a multi-generational family watched and listened to exactly the same content.  That said, I enjoyed the first personal computer (the IBM PC) before it was even on sale to the general public (we had people who worked for IBM).  I juggled two floppy floppy discs to provide program and memory for word processing (a brand new term).  I have a smart phone and tablet, a laptop and a desktop, and stream movies into my home.  I listen to podcasts, blog, and get my news from a host of sources -- none of which is a newspaper and only one of which is a TV.  I shop online and our bills are paid online.  There is not a Luddite in our household.

The great technological divide was once conceived as between those who are conversant with technology and those who are not.  For a time that might have sufficed.  Now I am not sure this definition is worthwhile any longer.  Instead, it is a divide between those who are servants of their screens and those who are not.  Notice, that I did not say those who were servants and those who were masters.  Indeed, those who are servants of the screens are much more masters and exploiters of technology than I am.  The difference here is no longer competence but dependence.  There are increasing numbers of people among us who cannot live without and who cannot put down for a moment the ever present screens that have come to define us and our lives.

We have all watched in restaurants as the folks eating together are occupied individually on their screens, taking full advantage of the complimentary WiFi supplied by their hosts.  It is a study in contrasts as they are together at the same table but divided not only by the food they ordered but by their occupation with the screens they cannot put down.  How many church services or solemn events are interrupted by the sound of texts being received, outlandish ringtones announcing a call, or the sound of social media memes and reels which they forgot to silence?  We cannot let go of our ever present need to be in contract with someone or something.  Not even God can command our attention and these devices have become a danger to us as we try to drive and do other dangerous things with half our attention and eyes on the screens.

There is another element to this.  We cannot put down our screens not simply because we don't want to put them down but also because we cannot function without their aid.  The apps on our phones monitor our health, record our transactions, connect us to our friends, calculate figures, and stream entertainment to us.  What would we do without them -- literally?  Could it be that as they become more intelligent, we become less so?  Could it be that we no longer know how to do what the generations before did almost instinctively?  Have these screens actually aided in the education of our young or have they become an excuse for failing to learn or memorize what prior generations did with ease?  Could we find our favorite Bible passage without Google search or sing the lyrics of our favorite hymn without a screen telling us the words?  

I do not need my screens and sometimes I find them an enemy to my health, peace, and well-being.  It bothers many of my friends and family but I turn them off or silence and forget them all the time.  I would urge you to do the same.  Life will not get worse without them but just may improve not only your mental and emotional health but also your joy.  Imagine a week without checking to see what people said about you on social media or said about people you know on social media.  Imagine becoming so immersed in a book that you lose track of time.  Imagine your whole family exchanging their individual playlists to listen to the same song and artist.  Imagine sitting through an entire worship service without hearing the sound of something on a screen.  I resist becoming the slave of a technology that is supposed to serve you.  You should, too! 

 

Trotting out the same old failed ideas. . .

A while ago I complained that the same old suspects were identified by some and by some of a certain generation in particular, as the reasons for our decline in numbers as a church body.  Today let me complain about the same old failed ideas that are being promoted as ways for us to begin to grow again.

1- Non-Denominational Churches are Experiencing Growth.  The reality is that the non-denominational churches are not growing from converts but from dissatisfied Christians who shop around from what is new and trendy.  Studies have proven that this growth is not real growth but a mere reshuffling of people from one church to another....

2- Need to focus on felt needs over doctrine.  Felt needs are a moving target but the real needs have not changed since Eden -- how to deal with sin, how to find a purpose in life, and how to answer the reality of death.  Felt needs are the shifting sands of the moment and part of the purpose of the Church is to reveal what is real in the face of what is imagined or desired.

3- Pastors need to be pietistic/evangelical.   Pietistic and evangelical are general code words for flexible and willing to sacrifice what is believed for the sake of making belief easier.  This presumes that the goal is to win over the heart and mind of people with either a war of ideas or of good feelings when the reality is that no comes to God except the Spirit call him and the Spirit calls through the voice of the Word.

4- Church autonomy is a must.  Does anyone know what this means?  Autonomy in what areas?  Our church body is not hierarchical in the sense that leadership from on high dictates how a congregation governs itself or how it spends its money or builds/cares for its property.  We do not do this.  What binds us is our confession of faith and our desire to be united as possible in the practice of that faith and in the shape of worship.

5- We must be humble.  We are already so humble that we would rather offend God than people, work to make the Church and her worship as palatable as possible to the social mores and values of the moment, and as comfortable as possible to people (looking more like shopping malls or entertainment venues than real churches).  You do not need to be proud to bear the authority of God's Word -- our boast is not in ourselves or what we have done but in Christ alone.

6- We need to allow the freedom to implement American Evangelical Worship.   American Evangelical Worship is code for whatever people want and whatever works to fill the seats (and the offering plates).  As the days unfold, it is more clear now than ever before that Evangelicalism is devoid of doctrinal integrity and, while it may be late to the party, is willing to adjust to fit the cultural and societal patterns of accepted truth, morality, and behavior.  To adopt such worship forms is to abandon our confession and faith.  We cannot say we believe the same and look radically different on Sunday morning.

7- We must elevate the role of the laity in the church.   This presumes that the divinely appointed role for laity is in the church and forgets that the most important venue for laity is in the home, the workplace, and the neighborhood.  The laity go where pastors would never be allowed to go and to give witness to the hope within them where clergy would never be allowed to speak.  While there is certainly a place for laity in the governance of the church, it is foolish to overlook the most profound role and place for their service.  The fact that marriage, family, home, and the public square are suffering so is a fairly obvious example of how we have neglected this arena of service.

8- Laity must be more involved in church service.  This idea presumes that unless you are doing something in a visible and leadership way, you are not doing anything.  How strange!  Are the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving from our lips, the prayers of the faithful, the attention of heart and mind, and the tithes and offerings we bring nothing important or valued by the Lord?  Giving people little jobs to make them feel important is demeaning and, worse, rejects the godly duties of the faith to pray, praise, and give thanks to the Lord -- which is why the pastors serve the people with God's gifts so that they may do these joyfully.

9- We need to elevate and enhance the role of women in the life of the church.  We have got to stop pandering to the causes of gender or age.  Youth ministry and women's ministry sound good on the surface but the reality is that we are all the body of Christ by baptism and our service to God and to our neighbor is defined by God and ordered by His Word.  We ought to be inclusive here rather than separating out people from the whole as if their needs are different from any other people's needs.  We are here for the same gifts -- forgiveness of sin, strengthening of our faith, eternal life, and salvation.

10- We need to be more open on communion.   It is the height of arrogance to presume that the ancient and catholic practice of closed communion, manifested in Scripture and out of love for those communing, should be set aside for the sake of friendliness.  I would rather be excluded because of concern for my soul than be welcomed without regard to what I thought I was receiving.  But love can always be misunderstood.  Should love then be set aside for something less?  Closed communion is and never was about who cannot commune but about those who can receive for the benefit.

11- Hell should keep us sober and alert about the urgency of the church.  Fear of hell saves no one.  We are not saved from a fate we fear but for a future God has prepared.  The threat of hell is the law and it cannot inform the heart to believe the Gospel anymore than it should drive what we do.  Now, to be sure, there are many Christians today who speak of hell as if no one will end up there.  They do so not in faithfulness to Scripture but merely as an expression of their own desire.  We can no more ignore the reality of hell nor warn people of it than we can assume that such a warning will regenerate their heart.

12- We must keep ‘missions’ as the church’s primary focus; we must look out, not in.  Looking at the statistics, we are two-thirds smaller on Sunday morning than in our membership rosters.  Perhaps we should not pit out against in or the other way around but do both.  Our strength and life as a church body expects that the people of God will be present where God has made Himself accessible at least every week.  Have we been as diligent as we ought in reminding our people that this is God's expectation and not simply our goal?  At the same time, it is inherent to our lives as Christians that we display the hope within us by word and deed so that we always giving witness to Jesus Christ.  This encourages those in but it addresses those outside with the very Gospel by which they can be saved.  A church going people will be a people concerned for those not yet of the Kingdom.  Those concerned for the folks outside the Kingdom will manifest this concern by their own presence within the assembly of the faithful on Sunday morning.  Is there a choice here?

Live in the moment. . .

Listening to some voice from pop culture, I heard the person give advice to children.  "Live in the moment."  It is the worst advice ever given.  It is precisely living in the moment that gets us into trouble.  The moment tells us to forget our principles and act deceptively.  The moment encourages us to set aside our values for what feels good.  The moment entices us with what we know is wrong but choose to believe will not hurt us or be found out.  The moment breaks down trust and destroys affection.  It is exactly the moment in which we should not live.  We need to have a thorough knowledge of our past and we need to have a solid promise of the future or the moment will become the worst prison we could ever know.  Do not ever tell children to live in the moment -- or adults!!

Living in the moment is the reason why husbands and wives betray their spouse for the inkling of desire.  Living in the moment is the reason why honorable people do dishonorable things in business and in life.  Living in the moment is the reason why children reject parental words for the sake of personal want.  Living in the moment is the reason why drugs entrap us and steal away the future we would hope for.  Living in the moment is the reason why we spend money on things we do not need and cannot pay for the things we do.  Living in the moment is the reason why pornography is the primary resource of our great internet technology.  Living in the moment is the reason why the send button or post button allows us to judge and hate and condemn with impunity (over email and social media).  Living in the moment allows us to consume the world and ignore the things of God without thought for accountability or judgment.  The list could go on and on.  You get my drift.  We are in the position we are in because we think only of the moment and live only in it without thought for what went before or what will follow.  Scripture puts living in the moment in different words -- everyone thinks, says, and does what is right in their own eyes.  Which, in case you missed it, was not a good thing and is still not a good thing.

Why anyone would say to kids (or adults) to live in the moment is beyond me.  It is the same foolishness as trust your feelings.  We come up with these pious platitudes which turn out not to be pious at all and instead diminish us individual people and as a society.  The mark of Scriptural maturity and the reign of the Gospel over us is not living in the moment but self-denial, sacrifice, and service to others.  But no one would tell kids to do that.  It does not have the same hollow ring of relevance that living in the moment does.  And there you have it -- the mark of sin is that we choose us over others, the moment over eternity, and the gods we manufacture over the One God revealed to us by His own saving will and purpose.  But what do I know. . . How has living in the moment ever built up our dignity or the nobility of human life or improved the lot of the needy or promoted the cause of virtue or made the world a better place?  Even by these worldly needs and standards living in the moment is poor advice.  How much worse is it when we would dare to put such trivial sentiment in the mouth of our Lord to make holy our self-indulgence?

If they like us, they will come. . .

Before anything else I must admit that I grew up in a nice community in which niceness was cultivated.  It was a small town in which everyone was your neighbor, the polite thing to do was the right thing to do, the right thing to do was the polite thing, and we found a way to get along.  Now those theses were tested from time to time by folks who did not play nice in the sandbox and by the political and religious tenets around which we were gathered, but it was a nice place to grow up and is still a pretty decent small town.

The problem is that some have decided that niceness is the key to growing a church.  We just need to be nicer and folks will throng to our doors and fill our empty pews.  Aren't we nice already?  Apparently not.  We need to be nicer and niceness means not judging, being willing to surrender doctrine for success, and fitting in to the world around us.  We should not talk about the things that might divide us and concentrate on talking about the things that unite us.  If they like us, they will come.  Right?

We are in the midst of turmoil not simply because we do not cultivate niceness (and we don't) but because there are fewer and fewer things that unite us.  We were once on the same page with the bulk of our values even though we were still fairly diverse.  Now we cannot agree on what is right or wrong or even what a woman is or is not (or man) -- so how can we agree on other things if we cannot even find basic things in common?  That is the fallacy in the idea that the Church must become more like the world in order to succeed.  Which world?

We are more divided than ever before on the basic meaning of life and the important things that support this life.  We have become more thin skinned than ever before and take offense where none was meant simply because we can.  We actually enjoy being victims because it gives us cover to respond in kind.  If this is true within the social and political realms of our lives, it is also true within the religious spheres of our lives.  Besides this, we insist that no one can tell us we are wrong about anything and if they do that means they hate us.  Hmmmm.  How would Jesus fair in such a world?  Imagine telling a mind your own business kind of woman that she has had many husbands and the man she is now living with is not her husband?  What kind of Jesus would say tell a woman of a different ethnic group or religion she was a dog?  What kind of Jesus would tell a rich and successful lawyer to sell everything and then come back to talk about God?   Oops.  Jesus was not being very nice.

The Church does not grow because we are nice people and because we smile a lot and do not judge.  The Church grows because the Holy Spirit works through the Word of the Lord to call her into being, gather her from the ends of the earth, enlighten her to everlasting life, and sanctify her to become more like God.  It is the Spirit's work.  Nobody says that this justifies us being rude or unwelcoming or hard to get along with.  Nobody.  But the Church does not grow because people like us or we are nice to them.  The truth raises up the faithful, endures the days of trouble, and saves to everlasting life.

I think we should be nice.  I do not think our victim culture or our willingness to hit post or send before thinking about it are good things.  I do not think that the Church should be unfriendly.  But I also do not think that the Church lives or dies because her people are not nice.  Niceness is not a mark of the Church -- faithfulness is.  So if you are reading this, God does not countenance you being a jerk but neither did the Lord ever say that the Church will grow if you are nicer.  Be faithful and the niceness will come.  Listen to the Law.  It cannot save you but it does reveal to you the way life should be.  Don't make a program out of being nice as if it will substitute for the other things we should be doing to evangelize.  You cannot program niceness.  It is the fruit of the Spirit's work -- an overall term for the many fruits of the Spirit.  Part of being nice means being of the truth.  Part of being nice means speaking the truth in love.  Part of being nice means speaking the truth in love because God is truth.  But the Lord grows His Church not where we are nice or polite but where His Word is preached in its truth and fullness and the Sacraments of Christ administered in accordance with His command.  We should not need to be told to be nice but it won't hurt to remind us to be nice even if it will not buy us the kingdom or result in a bigger Church.  Nice sometimes means speaking forthrightly the hard truth that you wish you did not have to say.

Offered life but prefer bread. . .

Sermon for the Twelfth Sunday after Pentecost, Proper 14B, preached on Sunday, August 11, 2024.

John chapter six is truly worthy of at least three Sundays.  It begins with the feeding of the five thousand and unfolds into a profound discourse on Jesus, on the miracle manna provided in the wilderness, on the living bread come down from heaven which is Christ’s flesh for the life of the world.  Through it all Jesus is offering the people of God what they do not seem to want and failing to give them what they desire.  And so there is a lot of grumbling going on.

If Jesus can manufacture food out of nearly nothing, why are we working so hard to put bread on our tables?  If God can do this, why doesn’t God just do it and take away the burden on us to provide for ourselves?  It is the same failing of Eve in the Garden of Eden and it has been our failing ever since.  We are sure we do not need Jesus as much as we need other things – bread, bread with dollar signs, health, rich experiences, an emergency pull cord, and a thousand other things that seem so urgent in the moment.  To us it often seems like God is giving us what we do not want and withholding what we do want.

So there is a lot of grumbling going on...  There was a lot of grumbling going on when Jesus fed them food for the belly and then was nowhere to be found when they were hungry again.  There was a lot of grumbling going on by those who said Jesus words were nonsensical and could not possibly mean His flesh is bread.  There is a whole lot of grumbling going on still to this day by people who think doctrine gets in the way and we should have the right to our own opinions about God and the things of God.  There is a whole lot of grumbling going on when we heed the Lord’s Word and insist that those who commune actually share the same faith.  There is a whole lot of grumbling going on by those who think a taste of bread and a sip of wine is hardly an answer to our need or to our prayers.

Jesus is blunt.  The bread you spend so much money on and work so hard to fill your bellies with cannot prevent your death.  Not even the miracle bread given to the Israelites in the wilderness could stave off the weakness of old age, the infirmity of illness, and the threat of death.  They ate and they died.  And so will you.  As good as the food and things of this mortal life are, they cannot provide you with what you need even though they seem to be pretty good at satisfying your desire.  Jesus does not promise to make your life better or you happier or to bring you success or make things easier.  What He does promise is this.  If you eat of the bread of His flesh, you will live forever.

Therein lies the rub.  We are happy enough to get eternal life as long as it comes at the end of a rich, happy, and rewarding life now.  But if we had to trade, most of us would rather be happy and satisfied today than pin our hopes on the eternal life to come.  This is the grumble.  We want other things more than we want what Jesus gives and we want what Jesus gives less than other things.

It is the reason that throughout the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod about 30% of those who claim to belong show up on Sunday morning.  It is the reason that here at Grace half our people and our pews are empty every week.  It is the reason why we love to be forgiven but hate to forgive.  It is the reason why we think the little sins we do are not that big of a problem and the big sins others do are shameful.  It is the reason why we always have money for what we want but find it hard to give to the Lord what He is due.  It is the reason why church is boring and our phones occupy our every minute.  It is the reason why a big church like Grace struggles to find people to give their time and energy to serve as officers over years and to volunteer for an hour.  It is the reason why we know everything about our favorite actors, singers, or sports figures but very little about the big names in Scripture.  You know it and I know it and Jesus knows it.

The miracle here is that our Lord is patient and kind, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.  Where another god would have packed up his mercy and found himself a people who would pay attention to it, our Lord keeps serving up the fruits of His redeeming work in the Word preached and the Eucharistic bread and wine eaten and drunk week after week after week.  The miracle here is that He gave once and that He still gives us His flesh in this bread to fill us with life now and eternal life to come.  The miracle is that He is not stingy with His grace but lavish to a fault with what He gives to us – even though we do not value it as we should.  Our Lord forgives the same tired old sins we confess week after week after week.  He stands like the waiting father with arms open every Sunday to welcome us prodigal sons and daughters home, set this feast in our presence, and put back on us the perfect robes of His righteousness that we have soiled over and over again.

As spouses and parents we are always placing limits on our love.  Only the Lord loves without limit, giving to the unworthy and the undeserving the most precious gifts He can give – His flesh for our life and His blood to cleanse us from all our sins.  We live with an embarrassment of riches from our Lord here every week.

We are called by the Spirit, gathered by the Spirit, enlightened and sanctified by the same Spirit.  The Father has elected us to salvation and the Father sent forth the Spirit to bring the elect into His presence, here around the Word and Table of the Lord, and there in eternity.  Our Lord will not leave us to bandaided bodies that cannot hide their frailty but will bestow upon us new and glorious bodies just like His when He raises us up on the last day.  There will be no pharmacies or urgent care centers where He will bring us and we will leave behind here on earth all our memories of sin and its death, of pain and its sorrow, of despair and its fear.  He will swallow up death forever.  And everyone who looks in faith upon the Son will have this eternal life – not because they are good or worthy but solely because God will give us what we do not want and do not think we need and will work in our hearts to transform our desire so that we can be satisfied in Christ.

This is the mercy of God and His steadfast love for you.  Do not grumble about what you think is wrong with your life or your family or your church.  Marvel at the goodness of the Lord who continues to offer you what you fail to value as you should.  If you are hungry and thirsty, He will give you the food and drink of eternity.  This food satisfies not because of how much we eat or drink but because of what we eat and drink.  Taste and see that the Lord is good!  Blessed are those who take refuge in Him.  Amen.

An old canard. . .

There are those who quickly and easily dismiss every question or challenge to the alphabet soup of gender and desire by saying that it is a hypocritical valuing of some sins over others.  I am sure that there are those who do that.  Hypocrisy is one of the cardinal sins that define our humanity since the Fall in Eden.  That said, it is not quite that simple.  It is not simply looking at some sins and say "ish, how awful" while turning away from the horror of other sins.  It has to do with consequences.  Some sins have greater consequences than others.

We rightfully single out child abuse of every kind as intolerable and horrible.  That is not because one sin is greater or worse in the eyes of God but that the consequences are different.  The abuse of children is not simply something that goes away with confession and forgiveness but marks an open wound in the hearts, minds, and lives of those children so affected by this heinous act.  Of course, it is tempting to say that this sin is worse than any other -- of course, worse than the sin of skipping church on Sunday.  But that is not the point of comparison.  Some sins have consequences far beyond the one who commits them (or, in many cases, the one against whom they are committed).

The offense of the alphabet soup of gender and desire is not the sin but its consequence.  The unraveling of gender is not a private issue but has had far reaching consequences.  The sad reality is that as a culture we are no longer in a position to define what it means to be a man or a woman (except, of course, that the man is worse in our current culture).  By making gender fluid and leaving the definition up to the individual, we have robbed our culture of the very idea of maleness and femaleness and this on top of the affront that has been made to God's creative order and purpose.  It is a challenge to the Christian faith, to be sure, but it is no less a problem for our society, for the family, and especially for our children.

The fruit of the pernicious idea that sex is for pleasure, that it does not require or presume any love or commitment, and that a child is the exceptional outcome has been furthered even more by the notion that any and all consensual sex acts are morally the same, have the same essential purpose, and offer the same benefit.  The fruit of our culture has been that marriage and family are more at risk than ever before and those who suffer this most of all are those who have rejected the Biblical and moral foundation for marriage and family and the children raised in such families.  The whole conception of a valueless approach to sexual exploration and pleasure has given rise to a burgeoning pornographic industry that competes with healthy relationships and distorts them at the same time.  This is not simply a faith problem but a challenge our culture and society are facing and whose poisoned fruits we are eating in the decline of mental health, stable marriages and families, and our appreciation for children.

No one but a fool would admit that the legalization of same sex marriage has not changed marriage itself.  In fact, it has contributed even more to fragility of marriage.  Marriage is transformed not simply for same sex couples but for every couple as its definition shifts further and further away from the life long union of a man and a woman and their children.  Exceptions have always existed.  But the norm of a flexible and open relationship in which fidelity and family are first has moved away from the center and foundation of what marriage is to mere ideals or even old fashioned and outdated concepts that get in the way of happiness.

The point of this is to admit and accept the fact that things have different outcomes.  Christians who identify the alphabet soup of gender and sexual desire as a sin are not saying this is a worse sin than the ones they commit but looking at the ripple effects of and the consequences to these behaviors and their normalization.  Can anyone look at the state of our mental health, our relationships, marriage, and the family and say that the exploration of gender and desire has improved anything?  It is not hypocrisy for Christians to say "no, these movements have not improved anything and caused great harm to us..."

The waning value of civil religion. . .

Besides the earth shattering win by the Labour Party in England, there is another sobering statistic.  Andrew Copson, chief executive of Humanists UK, has said: “For the first time ever, the number of those affirming versus swearing an oath has come close to reflecting the beliefs of the population as a whole. We’ve known for a while that the UK is one of the least religious countries in the world. We now have one of the least religious national parliaments in the world, too.”  For those who want more, about 53 per cent of people in Britain say they belong to no religion, and 42 per cent do not believe in a god.

While the late Queen was consistent and often quite eloquent in her witness to her own faith, she was even more a reminder of the Christian and religious character of English history, values, and identity.  Her successor is less so inclined.  He would rather be the protector of all faiths than the defender of one and his own personal ambivalence to the traditional role of the monarch has only made it quite fashionable as well as safe to cast off the remains of civil religion there.  It does make you wonder what the future of all those religious national songs and hymns might be or will people sing them out of nostalgia?

The function of civil religion has been to increase that which unites a people but it has also been reflective of the values that define them.  In a culture in which diversity is promoted over unity, the need for civil religion has declined.  In the face of a society in which values are that which are in conflict, civil religion is increasingly impossible.  I do not know of any real Christian who wants Christianity to become a civil religion though I suppose there are some.  Faith becomes a legacy value, a tie to a past honored but no longer believed in or affirmed.  It is nostalgia and not confession.

Some have suggested that the final remnants of dying civil religion include the role of public prayer.  Of course, we are dutiful in our affirmation of diversity to make sure that no prayer is the final word and every deity is treated the same.  But I did notice a slight difference when an LCMS pastor prayed from our hymnal as benediction at the Republican National Convention.  Of course, he was followed by a Sikh prayer but before we get to that it was worth nothing that at the invocation of the Holy Trinity and the orthodox and typically Lutheran prayer, the presidential candidate, the vice-presidential candidate, and, from what I could see, most of the arena had heads bowed in the obvious posture of prayer.  Not so for the Sikh prayer.  Could it be that we are missing civil religion a bit more than we once thought possible?  Could it be that prayer itself, especially one with clear and identifiable Christian and Trinitarian identity is still an object of respect in our diverse and more secular age?

This was an extraordinary moment.  A past president seeking to return to office who was only days before in the cross hairs of a would be assassin.  A nation now somewhat soberly reminded that diversity and division are not without some cost and liabilities.  I am rightfully wary of any civil religion -- especially one that is a pale and impotent imitation of a real and true faith.  Yet, I would like to think that every now and then people remember why faith is important and why the orthodox and catholic faith just might be worth a second look.  At least I can hope so.  In the meantime, I will take comfort that we are not quite where our friends across the pond are in our willingness to cast aside the remnants of a one rather profound faith and religious identity.  At least not yet.

Catechesis is not a class. . .

The older I get the more uncomfortable I have become with the way we routinely equate knowledge with faith.  Nowhere is this more true than when it comes to catechesis.  It has become a largely cerebral activity rather than one located in heart and life.  We think in terms of how much or how little people need to know to become members of this congregation instead of rooting and planting them where the means of grace nurtures the growth and brings the fruit to bear through them.  This is profoundly revealed in the way we teach the faith to youth and adults -- as if we were imparting merely a set of answers or a body of knowledge.  Catechesis not simply passing on a body of knowledge but it is infusing their lives with the Holy Spirit through their life together around God's Word and Sacraments.  Apart from this, teaching the faith by teaching a body of knowledge accords with the rampant individualism that marks us Christians today and makes it easier to believe by making it about how much you believe instead of who.  We are not saved by what we know but by whom we know and who is known to us as He has promised.  Finally, it encourages the hidden faith that lives in sincerity or words or feelings instead of by the revealed Lord present among us by the means of grace.

For us Lutherans this has resulted in an ever growing small catechism that seems to expand with every edition and along with it the body of knowledge that must be conveyed.  It has become a book to memorize rather than a devotional entrance into the faith and a life long pattern of learning and growth.  It is manifest in the question of how much we must convey to adults who seek to join our fellowship.  It ends up with a decision instead of a confession.  The reality is, of course, that catechesis is not the domain of the classroom but within the Divine Service.  It is less instruction than it is entrance into the holy mystery of God's saving love and mighty work of redemption imparted to us by His Word and Sacraments.  Within the liturgy we find our home and the vagabond people of God rest.  Through the ordo the Lord bestows upon us our identity as His own baptized people and beckons us to follow Him along His way.  Our life together in song does exactly this.  Our prayers raised together do this.  Our ears hear the Word preached and taught into our hearts not as an idea but the God and man Jesus Christ who accomplished all things for our salvation and for the salvation of the whole world.  Our communion upon the Body and Blood of Christ is not a private moment or act but the family meal gathered around the family table.  Catechesis is not a class but our life together in worship.

New member instruction is less about what information needs to be supplied to them than it is a faith introduced and a new life together with the people of God begun.  Sadly the fruits of our desire to impart knowledge without connecting the catechumen to a life of worship and prayer have betrayed us.  It ends up that people do not stay nor do they find the need or desire to be present with us around the Word and Supper of the Lord.  Participation in the Divine Service becomes optional while embracing the knowledge ends up taking center stage.  Membership becomes a name on a piece of paper rather than a people confessing, praying, and receiving Eucharistically within the fellowship and life of the body of Christ.

If the appeal is only to the mind, the heart and life will suffer and the people will be swallowed up by the promises that appeal to them instead of seeing how they fit into those promises.  If the appeal is to the mind, the heart and life will suffer.  If it is only to the heart it will not take root.  I am not saying that doctrine and instruction do not matter or that we should stop such classes.  What I am insisting is that this must be accompanied by a devotional heart fixed upon the Word and Sacraments of our Lord.  The Jesus whom we follow is not an idea but the real Son of God in flesh within His sacramental gifts.  Those who follow Jesus do not admire Him nor do they seek to understand Him.  They believe Him.  The followers of Jesus are not His groupies but a people seeking to live faithfully as a steward of God's creation and as a receiver of His sufficient grace.  They are not admirers of Jesus but hearers, believers, and followers who have been wooed and won by His loving Spirit into a life together that not even death can overcome.  If we give those who join us information without rooting their lives around the Word and Table of the Lord, we give them a small glance and a skewed image of our life and faith.  As true as this is for those new to the faith, it is no less true for those who have been around for a while.

Could it be that we never had those we lose?  Could it be that we imparted faithfully information but did not incorporate them into the life of the Church in the living fellowship of His Word and gifts?  Could it be that we were too worried about making sure that we told them everything that we told them nothing?  Could it be that we gave them tacit approval for the idea that Jesus is an idea to be held rather than a living Lord to be known and from whom the grace of life proceeds?   Could it be that we tried to nail down every possible contingency without dealing with the elephant in the room -- why we worship, how we worship, and what happens there?  Pastors, we must do better.  Not for our sake only but for theirs and for the sake of the Kingdom in which we have been given stewardship of the mysteries.

Knowing from comparison. . .

There are those who would suggest that any knowledge of anything must proceed from the thing itself.  In this idea, comparison is a false source of knowledge about something or at least an incomplete one.  Odd, because knowing by comparison is exactly how Scripture treats knowing.  We know ourselves in comparison to God, for example.  The knowledge of self and the knowledge of God arises from a comparison.  Remember when Job addressed his questions to God?  He did not get the answer he expected.  Instead, God compared Job to Himself as if to say to Job there are limits of what you can know or what can be revealed to you because you are not God and I AM.  Culture as well as much of Christianity has rejected this and presumed that the most authentic knowledge of self proceeds from within.  We know ourselves by knowing God.  That is not a fruit of the fall into sin but a dynamic present from the first moments of creation.  The rejection of God or knowing self by knowing God leaves one left with a question of where to begin and how to know yourself.  It is this that has left us with the pursuit of of self that is exclusively internal and not in relation to or in comparison to another.  Even Christians sometimes talk as if God were a little added extra instead of the means by which we know who we are, why we are, what we are to do.

This is also an important idea in knowing not only self but what it means to be male and female.  Even in ordinary speech we refer to our spouses as the opposite sex,  That is not a joke.  Maleness and femaleness arise from our relation or in comparison to each other.  Of course, our modern ideas have rejected this and thus has arisen as normal the perfectly odd idea that being a woman is a choice or a conclusion to be arrived at -- just like being a man.  It bears not upon DNA or chromosomes or reproductive organs but upon a feeling formed by the self without any real input or question from outside the person.  Though some fear that such a relational or comparative identity will result in division, conflict, confusion, or inequality, it is the exact opposite of this.  The relationship identity or comparison begs for clarity and unity and a certain equality born not of decision or reason but of basic need.  Male and female are not complete without the other.  The Scriptures do not say that man may, if he wants, leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife but for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and they shall be one flesh which no one can divide.

Of course, this is messy but it is whole lot less messy than where we are now.  When we have arrived at a point where we cannot describe or define what it means to be a man or a woman, we have created a situation of extreme poverty and want that will certainly prevent us from knowing who we are as well as knowing others.  It is the fruit of a radical individualism in which only the self matters and only myself.  Marriage becomes not simply optional but no longer essential or necessary.  Man and woman are joined as one not simply for the sake of the other but for their own sake.  This is how they know who they are, their purpose upon this earth, and the future ordained for them.  Marriage is not an impediment to this realization but in one profound sense its facilitator.  Though we live in an age in which life has devolved into a reality based upon feelings that cannot be challenged or denied, we were ordered for marriage and for family and to cast off these constraints is to keep us from knowing our place, purpose, or completion.  

Nowhere is this more true than in the manifold ways that Scripture uses marriage to describe the relationship of the people of God to God Himself, the people formed in Christ by baptism with the Christ who is their bridegroom to them, the bride.  This is not simply an image but the shape of reality.  Christ has not come to transcend this but to fulfill it so that it might be ours and we might belong to Him forevermore. 

A different spirit?

According to persistent rumors, there is a move underway to further restrict the Latin Mass within the already constricted boundaries where its celebration is allowed.  Ah, Rome.  Always good for something interesting.  The Prefect for the Dicastery for Divine Worship, the Cardinal in charge of worship, English Cardinal Arthur Roche, seems to have made his position clear.  He has put forward the idea that the Latin Mass is of a different spirit than the post-Vatican II mass, that it a different liturgical theology than the Novus Ordo. There are those on both sides who would agree with this.  There are some who would also insist that the TLM by itself implies a rejection of Vatican II and that Vatican II implies a rejection of TLM. Many have surmised that the pope holds this view -- though Francis seems to be able to hold various and conflicting views in his mind and mouth at the same time. All of this is more curiosity to Lutherans than anything else after all, we do not have a dog in this fight.  Or do we?

Lutherans do not have a Latin Mass (well, we really do but that is a bit beyond the ken of normal Lutheran thought and practice now isn't it).  What we have is the Common Service of 1888 within the various formats, one of which is the Divine Service of The Lutheran Hymnal pretty much transplanted word for word into Lutheran Service Book as Divine Service 3.  It has become our version of Trent, for good or for ill.  Like the Latin Mass for Rome, it has become the distinguishing mark of the conservatives versus those who are progressive or liberal over theological matters and not only liturgical.  There are differences between Rome and Missouri -- all kinds of them -- but in this matter one of the distinct differences is that there is a far larger contingent of our churches and pastors using and promoting the Common Service than there are those in Rome encouraging TLM.  It may also be said that the Common Service as it has been used in Missouri has never suffered any kind of official sanction against its use and has always been an option (though one distorted by edit in Lutheran Worship to dissatisfy nearly everyone!).  

My point here is to ask a question.  Does the Common Service (Divine Service 3 represent a different spirit from the other Divine Services in LSB and is it a fair and valid supposition that this is the same kind of dividing line which exists in Rome with respect to the division between Vetus Ordo and Novus Ordo?  

My view is that the Common Service and the products of the Lutheran liturgical movement are clearly connected and the other Divine Services (1 & 2) are so intimately bound to Divine Service 3 that it represents an conservative evolution of text (music is worthy of another discussion) and form.  Where this thesis is tested is particularly in the context of the canon and the move away from the bare Words of Institution to include a fuller thanksgiving as a context for the Verba.  Even then, however, it must be noted that additions to replace what Luther excised have been included in Lutheran Church Orders all the way through our particular history and starting from the earliest days of the Reformation and its heirs.  This includes Lutheran Church Orders from outside of Germany.  I know that there are those who would agree with me but having grown up with and used page 15 from The Lutheran Hymnal, and having introduced Lutheran Worship, Hymnal Supplement 98, and Lutheran Service Book, I am even more convinced of the truth of the gentle evolution of these orders.  It is certainly not simply possible but the norm that each of these orders can be used faithfully by a confessional Lutheran pastor and congregation and it is equally true that the use of one or the other does not translate into the theological labels so inherent in the Roman argument over who is the true Roman Catholic.  

I would suggest that the use of both at the recent LCMS Institute on Liturgy, Preaching, and Church Music shows that this is indeed the case and that there is more that binds these two rites together than there is anything which would divide us according to rite.  But you are free to disagree....

A uniform tells who you are. . .

For the life of me I do not get those folks opposed to a clerical collar.  It is a group of folks divided by other things (doctrine among some of them) but united in their desire for the pastor not to stand out but to mirror the look of the culture.  Then, this morning, I watched a truck drive by with this on it:  A uniform tells who you are.... 

That is my whole point.  A uniform DOES tell who you are.  That is the whole point of it.  We put players on the athletic field or court with differing uniforms precisely so that the team can tell their teammates apart from their opponents and so that those watching from the stands know who belongs to whom.  We put some folks in uniforms so that the rest of us will know who they are when they are protecting us (police) or fighting fires (firemen) or taking care of us (medical personnel) or defending our liberty (service men and women), and so on.  We as pastors should consider wearing the uniform that tells the world around us who we are in part so that folks will know what "team" we play on and also so that those in need will know to whom they can turn in time of need.  

The uniform does not tell people that pastors think they are better than everyone else (which no pastor I know thinks or has ever thought) or that they are perfect and not sinners (which no pastor I know thinks or has ever thought).  The whole point of the uniform is to identify who we are to the world -- whether that reaction is good or bad.  I have had both.  Once someone sitting at a wedding reception near me cursed me under his breath and called me a blood sucking leach.  Wow.  And I thought I was rather ordinary!  Once I had someone insist that I was worthless because I refused to fill his car with gas while I pumped my own.  Guess that is all a pastor is worth.  But most of the time hospital and nursing home patients cry out to me asking for a blessing or a prayer or a simple touch to know that they are not alone and that God has not abandoned them (like many of their family members).  I love it.  I have met troopers at the side of the road in time of accident and people questioning God in airplanes and people who were reminded that they have been absent from the Lord's House too long.  I did not say much but uniform said it all.

A uniform tells who you are.  Unless you do not want to be known as a pastor?

The dark side of things. . .

Let me begin by saying I believe capitalism is the best of the options before us but it is ripe with flaws when sin steals the framework of morality from the raw pursuit of profit.  Nowhere is this more true than in the radical reshaping of medicine from a healing art to a commodity to be bought and sold with little regard for truth or good.  The once noble healing professions have been turned into mere technicians and sales people hawking the last goods from big pharma.  Insurance gurus from Medicare to Blue Cross call the shots about what gets treated and how without ever having a medical degree -- they do it by assigning a dollar figure to the affliction and its remedy.  Patients have become health care consumers who do their own research and are guided by ads that sell medicines they cannot purchase without a prescription.  The problem is who pays.  People cannot afford it, businesses do not want to shoulder the cost, and government is ripe to intervene because, well, government always knows best, right?

The days of community or religious hospitals in which mercy was the chief value have long ago given way to big corporate medicine in which the patient care and medical standards are balanced by the need to generate profits.  The days when physicians were free to practice as they felt best for the patient have been replaced by the need to see dozens of patients each day and to depend upon technology to know who it is they are seeing.  I am not blaming the hospitals and medical centers who sold out or the doctors who practice within the large corporate practices (often with more employees in billing than in patient care).  What I am blaming is that we set aside values for the sake of an investment in technology that we presumed would improve everything.  We began to care less about the morality of it all than its profitability or its efficiency.  This is true of a nation and society and not simply of those in the medical professions.  We sold our souls to the rule of the dollar.

In my own family's experience I have found hidden charges and surprise bills, claims denied or delayed because they were trying to cost shift from my insurance carrier to somebody else, threats of sending my bill to a collection agency because the insurance was taking too long, and the use of technology in an obnoxious way (like 17 text messages in a week about a very small outstanding balance).  I have "good" insurance and my wife has had a career in critical care nursing from floor to management.  I have it better than most but I still spend hours and hours on the phone trying to figure out why this is covered and that is not or why this was paid but that was not or why these hoops are required of us before we get to that treatment.  The health care industry has become a marvel of business, money making, and oversight but could it be at the expense of the medical care?  Furthermore, it seems that when capitalism is applied without the values of mercy and the sacred character of life, it becomes indistinguishable from any other industry and even, perhaps, less focused on people and even more focused on profits, liability, efficiency, and technology as ends more than means.

The truth is I long for the days when care was focused on the patient, when dollars did not rule the day, when nuns ran the hospitals near my home and Lutherans ran one in Ft. Wayne where my wife grew up.  I long for the days when the health care providers either knew you or tried to know you as much as they knew the right diagnosis codes or reimbursement formulas or copays for your visit.  I long for the days when values drove the dollars and not the other way around.  It is my lament for many areas of life but especially for medicine.  Honestly, I feel like Amazon is more concerned about me than the health care providers I rely on.  Further, a good urgent care center sometimes is more responsive than the monolithic corporate structure that tells my primary care doctor what to do, how many minutes to spend with me, and how to farm off every possible thing to a specialist (except for the vaccines, of course, which some think is the cure to every ill of life!).   I have not even begun to complain about the maze of apps you must have to negotiate the path through it all.  What has your experience been?

Warriors assemble. . .

In contrast to the often aimless violence of the modern video games, the old call issued to boys was to become dragon slayers and to offer them dragons to slay.  Sure, it was the imagination that was being engaged but it was not only that.  The old order offered a solemn assessment of the state of things in the world and also offered the youth and young man a purpose and challenge to pursue in order to make it better.  There is a certain morality in this that is missing too much today.  We need it back.  We do not need to rob young boys and young men of their masculinity but to direct it and to push them to pursue the noble caused of virtue in a sinful world.  Because of this, it is not simply a religious cause but one that cuts through the whole specter of our society and the harm we have done to men and thus to ourselves as a society.

We tell men all the time that they need women and yet we live in a culture in which we tell women that they do not need men.  It is no wonder that our boys are confused and defeated.  They have been singled out as toxic and their masculinity berated as poison when the sins being described are not masculinity or the boys but a cruel stereotype and caricature of masculinity that serves no purpose but to elevate some by tearing down others.  We seem to be saying to them that the only boys and men worth anything are those who deny their maleness and become more feminine in their demeanor, behavior, and thinking.  It is no wonder that boys are struggling more than girls.  Don't believe me?  Look at the statistics of who is going to college, graduating from college, who are graduating with honors (on any level), and who are filling the ranks of graduate schools and university faculties (as well as boardrooms across America).  

Dragons are threats to the world, to the civilized order of morality and truth, to the well-being of the innocent and oppressed, and to the home and family.  The mere identity of dragons is a subtle admission that all is not as it should be in the world, that sin has carved its mark upon our humanity and upon the sacred institutions of that humanity.  Giving young boys and young men dragons to slay is to give them a purpose and to raise their cause from the aimless entertainment of their baser desires to the higher plane of virtue and its pursuit of the right, the good, and the noble things that raise humanity instead of tearing it down.

The mythological framework of the old stories and some new (Harry Potter) is morality, truth, and goodness against the immoral, the lies, and the evil that threatens to swallow up us all and steal from us the very hope that marks the good life.  Some people are worried that these stories will secularize our youth but I fear that without these stories, without the imagination of good slaying evil, and without the enlistment of youth in the noble causes of life, we will do far worse as a nation and as a culture.  C.S. Lewis, who loved fairy stories, once wrote that “sometimes fairy stories say best what needs to be said” (indeed, the title of one of his essays).  Such stories of dragons and their slayers give to our youth a far more realistic impression of the world around them than the brutal reality we tend to thrust upon them in modern literature and video games.  Stories of children who encounter trouble at school or who are focused inwardly upon their desires or identity and who find acceptance and tolerance seem noble but they do nothing to prepare that youth for the real world.  As we all know, the world does not value truth telling or truth tellers but only those who do not question the sacred tenets of modernity.  Instead, the old stories of dragons and dragon slayers tell children how to recognize, confront, and overcome their enemies toward the pursuit of a higher good than recognition and the accolades of their peers.

When we work to sanitize the world and rid the child’s mind of such things as death, violence, wounds, suffering, heroism, and good, we also prevent them from finding ways through this darkness to any real light.  In this case, what we are doing to protect our children harms them -- especially the boys.  By teaching them of brave knights who battle dragons with heroic courage, we give them hope to confront the evils around them.  So let us admit that there are cruel enemies, wicked kings, monsters who fly through the skies, dungeons that hold captives in darkness, giants who need to be brought down to size, and villains who need to be confronted.  The more we do this, the more our young boys and young men will see their purpose and their place and this will benefit not only them but the women who really do need them. 

Lament and longing. . .

Most of the time lament is equated with complaint -- with the whine of a people discontent with the state of affairs in their lives, in their families, in their work, and in their world.  There is not doubt that we are unhappy.  Every poll known to us in the past decades points to an ever increasing number of people who are depressed or in despair over the state of things at home and everywhere else.  Polls tell us that people are by and large unhappy with politics, the nation, the police, the media, and even themselves.  Their lives are not what they wanted or expected and certainly not what they think they deserve.  But this litany of discontent is not quite lament.

Lament does not begin with how bad things are but with a vision of what should be.  Lament is borne of those who know what they were promised and what will come, eventually.  Lament is less complaint than it is longing -- the longing for the more you have been promised but which is not yet.  It is the ache of a people who know what they have been promised but who see around them no sign of that promise and every evidence of what is wrong.  In contrast to that which the world confuses with lament, this is not mere dissatisfaction.  It is the vision of a people for the fullness of God's promise but without evidence that they can see which would signal the world or they are moving toward that promise.  Complaint may be legitimate and heartfelt but it is not lament until that which is longed for is known and that which prevents is also known.

The Christian laments not out of despair but as the hungry who desire to eat but it is not yet ready, not yet the time to feast.  They lament what they know is coming but is not yet.  They can smell it it and have its foretaste upon their lips but even with the table set and the food cooking they know it is not yet time to eat.  While the hungry may simply find this to be torture, for the Christian it is the joyful anticipation of what is to come lived out within the tension of what already is but disappoints.  The Christian who laments is not so much expressing disappointment as he is wanting with limited patience the fulfillment of the promise and the replacement of the temporary with the eternal.  

The Christian does not put hope in the world, in its powers and authorities, or in the might of its power.  The Christian does not reject the world simply as bad but acknowledges it as God's gift spoiled not because of God but because of u.s.  It is God's gift through which hope is given of life restored.  We are raised up in hope, sealed in this hope, sustained by this hope, and finally delivered by this hope promise to the hopeful.  We are not complaining but, like the child, so longs for what is to come that we are always asking the Lord, are we there yet?

The Christian know that in this lament the object of his hope is not delayed by a dilly dallying God nor is it lost to a God who has changed His mind..  No, we know full well that what is hoped for is distant to us because of sin and we have caused our own grief over the question of who we are and who we shall be.  Sin has caused the grief of this tension between what we see and what we hope for and for the distance between this hope and its fullest realization.

The Christian also knows one thing more.  God has not left us with just the disappointment we caused ourselves but has delivered us from all our troubles.  This deliverance we know now by faith and not by sight.  It is hidden but not unknown.  It is just not yet.  We know of it by faith.  We see it through the lens of the cross and empty tomb and we receive its promise through the means of grace.  There we are delivered up to God and the gifts of God delivered down to us.  We do not lament because the world is very evil and we may be lost but because we want the ending instead of abiding by faith in the promise.  

The Lord grants us this lament not as punishment we must bear but as the cross borne by those who know what should be and what will be but do not yet see it.  It is the tension of faith.  We long for the full and yet we also rejoice in our sufferings now because we are the incomplete longing for completion.  Unlike the world that does not know what it wants or believes or values, we know and God has revealed it to us.  Real lament proceeds from faith and flows to God's ancient and abundance promise to deliver His people from their sin and to everlasting life.

If only. . .

The problem with foolishness and error is that it sounds so good.  I read over the quote several times wishing I had the ability to turn a phrase.  The only real problem here is that the words betray what the Scriptures say about Jesus and what Jesus says and does about Himself as recorded in those Scriptures.

Jesus did not come to be a model but constantly insists He has come to save sinners.  We are not guilty of worshiping a God in flesh who wanted to be emulated but of failing to worship the God in flesh who came to be our Savior.  Again, the old canard of behavior rises up to become the chief purpose of His incarnation, life, death, and resurrection.  Jesus has come to make us better people.  Surely no one would find fault with that.  Well, except for Jesus.  He has not come to improve us or our world but to take us out of a world that is dying so that we might be raised to the life that cannot die.

Jesus did call out those who worshiped Him but not because He did not want that worship.  Rather, He called them out because their worship was cheap and empty.  Where does it ever say in Scripture that we are transformed and our world is transformed by mercy and love?  Jesus did not say that.  He has come to suffer, die, and rise again so that by His suffering the price of sin might be paid, that by His death death itself overcome and by His resurrection we be raised to new and everlasting life.  Jesus is precisely the One who transforms us -- not mercy in general or love that accepts it all.  All of these pious sounding memes are vehicles of distortion that betray the faith and the Jesus whom they seem to esteem.   Do not be deceived by them.  

What is real worship?  Is real worship modeling Christ's values and message in this broken world or is it gathering around His Word and Sacraments where He has promised to be and to what He has pledged to do for us?  What we do is not real worship at all but only what Christ does for us and in our midst through the means of grace He has established.  Now the real zinger is this.  Worshiping the Lord where He has made Himself accessible does not take away but only encourages even more the practicing of the virtues of His new life in us for the sake of our neighbor in love and in witness to the world of what He has done (and not what we are doing).

How sad it is that these little memes garner more attention from us than the solid teaching of the Word of God and the Catechism!  We are driven by such seemingly noble sentiment to be put back under the yoke of the Law and to destroy the cross of Christ by seeing it as mere example rather than real redemption.  It is sad beyond measure that the folks who refuse to pass through the door to the place where His Word is preached and His sacraments administered in His name will find comfort and solace in the idea that their good works are what are really important.  
 

A big announcement. . .

Though the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is not part of the Lutheran World Federation, this will be of interest to any and all who watch the great divide between East and West and its focus on the Filioque.  What is most interesting here is that the path chosen is to withdraw the Filioque rather than deal with its theological meaning and significance. 

The LWF and the Orthodox Church have issued a joint statement on the Filioque clause in the Nicene Creed, which could have impact on relations between churches in the Eastern and Western traditions.

Renewed focus on original wording of Nicene Creed will “contribute to the healing of age-old divisions” 

(LWI) - The Lutheran World Federation (LWF) and the Orthodox Church have issued a joint statement on the addition of the Filioque clause to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, a theological issue that has divided the Eastern and Western Church traditions for almost a thousand years.  

The word ‘filioque’ (‘and the Son’ in English) to describe the procession of the Holy Spirit, was added by the Latin Church to the Creed centuries after its composition to counter Arianism but the Eastern Church has always protested this insertion. 

In a Common Statement of the Joint International Commission on Theological Dialogue between the LWF and the Orthodox Church, both partners “suggest that the translation of the Greek original (without the Filioque) be used in the hope that this will contribute to the healing of age-old divisions between our communities and enable us to confess together the faith of the Ecumenical Councils of Nicæa (325) and Constantinople (381).”  

The Commission developed the statement at its 18th Plenary Session held in Cairo, Egypt, in May this year. The Commission emphasized that the Creed is a foundational liturgical and doctrinal statement and expressed hope for a renewed focus on Trinitarian theology in the life of churches. “We both affirm the full divinity and personhood of the Holy Spirit, which was expressed in different ways in the eastern and the western traditions.” 

The Common Statement is the result of over 40 years of dialogue and ecumenical commitment between the LWF and the Orthodox Church. It is offered as a sign of reconciliation for the 1700th anniversary of Nicæa in 2025. It also marks a hopeful step toward greater theological understanding and unity between Lutheran and Orthodox churches. 
 
Read the full Common Statement [Translation into German, French, Spanish, Italian and Greek will follow]

The Joint International Commission on Theological Dialogue between The Lutheran World Federation (LWF) and the Orthodox Church first met in 1981 in Espoo, Finland, initiated by Ecumenical Patriarch Demetrius. This ongoing dialogue involves representatives from LWF member churches and various Autocephalous Orthodox Churches. They have produced several theological texts on topics such as ecclesiology, Holy Scripture, sacraments, and ministry. These efforts aim to foster understanding and cooperation between the two traditions, promoting mutual respect and theological enrichment. 

Steps in Australia. . .

After repeatedly failing to achieve the required majority to change the practice of the Lutheran Church of Australia and ordain women, the 21-23 Way Forward set a plan in motion to be one church but with two different practices of ordination.

RESOLVED: That General Synod direct the LCANZ General Church Board and the College of Bishops to:

a) Work through the theological, constitutional, and governance requirements to operate as one church with two different practices of ordination and establish a detailed framework through which this could be accomplished, such as one or more existing LCANZ Districts becoming Districts that teach and practice the ordination of both women and men to the office of the public ministry or by establishing a non-geographical LCANZ ‘District’ that does so.

b) Submit the fruit of this work in the form of a proposal that should be discussed by the LCANZ General Pastors Conference for Convention of General Synod 2024.

c) It is the expectation of this General Convention of Synod that both women and men will be ordained in a District of the LCANZ during the 2024-2027 synodical period.

You can read the summary of the Way Forward plan here. 

Now that movement to ordain women has created a separate Lutheran Church body in Australia -- those who reject the change:

On Monday 22 July, the General Church Board (GCB) and the College of Bishops (CoB) notified LCANZ pastors and congregational leaders that a new Lutheran church body called Lutheran Mission – Australia (LM-A) has been established.

Pastor Matt Anker, who has been serving the LCANZ as Assistant to the Bishop – International Mission, has accepted a call from LM-A to be its inaugural pastor-president.

At their 19 July meeting, CoB and GCB received Pastor Anker’s resignation from the LCANZ and granted him a peaceful dismissal from the Roll of Pastors, effective from 24 July 2024.

LM-A President-elect Anker’s call was not issued under the oversight of the LCANZ or by any of its bishops. This means that LM-A expresses itself as a new Lutheran church, and Pastor Anker has acknowledged that this is correct.

The GCB-CoB letter states: ‘The LCANZ receives LM-A as sisters and brothers in Christ who are faithful to the Scriptures with us, and who preach, teach and confess the doctrine of the Lutheran Confessions with us, but who are now a separate Lutheran church body.’

LCANZ Bishop Paul Smith and LM-A President-elect Anker met together on 15 July with respectful engagement for the establishment of a proper relationship between the LCANZ and LM-A.

Since late April, representatives of the LCANZ have been in discussions with LM-A President-elect Anker and other representatives of LM-A, formerly known as Lutherans Confessing Christ. These conversations are continuing and will need to address the steps for recognising a relationship between church bodies, as prescribed in our LCANZ statements.

‘As in any separation, we work through the pastoral and respectful processes for peaceful dismissal and pathways for any who might seek to depart from the LCANZ to join LM-A’, the GCB-CoB letter says.

LM-A President-elect Anker said, ‘I am grateful for the way in which Bishop Smith and other LCA leaders have assisted me during this time of transition and for their commitment to peaceful and godly engagement with LM-A into the future’.

A key matter for LM-A President-elect Anker and those who have formed LM-A is the Way Forward resolution of the 2021-23 General Synod, which has been the focus of work across the LCANZ since the Convention. LM-A has stated in its confession as a new church that the pastoral office is for ‘men who fulfil the biblical requirements for the office’.  (Emphasis Added)

In its letter, GCB-CoB said it was praying for ‘all our sisters and brothers in Christ of the LCANZ and for those who have formed the LM-A’, and was asking ‘the Lord of the church to join our voices as one, that together we might glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for the witness of the gospel to the ends of the earth’.

All of this is a solemn reminder that the decision to ordain women is not a change in practice but in doctrine and that it is impossible for one church to have two understandings of ordination and who is to be ordained.  Pray for our brothers and sisters in Australia who have made this move in an effort to preserve their theological integrity and pray that this new groups comprises the majority of Lutherans in Australia and New Zealand.

 

The vote. . .

Much ink has been spent on the topic of who should vote and what items we should vote upon in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.  There was a relatively brief history behind the decision to allow women the franchise in the voters assembly.  As recently as 1965, the LCMS decided that women cannot vote only to decide in 1969 that they could.  The change was not simply a change in practice but in our understanding of the thing.  Did we vote to change our doctrine?  Some say we did.  Others are not so sure.  Since then there have been moves on both sides -- one to restrict the franchise once awarded to women and the other to enlarge it to the point of nearly advocating the ordination of women.  I suppose I could rehash the history here but I have a bigger concern.  That concern is the vote itself and not simply who votes.  

Since Missouri invented the voters assembly, it has tried to find Biblical warrant for the idea that voting in the Church is God's active and not simply His permissive will.  In fact, that is the issue.  The vote is not mentioned in Scripture nor envisioned in church history until Missouri encountered its own difficulty with a bishop deposed and a question of its own legitimacy as a church.  To be sure, I am not necessarily saying that it is wrong to vote on purchasing property or borrowing money or deciding to carpet the sanctuary (always the wrong decision).  But these kind of votes are not regular or even routine and many congregational constitutions require a super quorum to do some of these things.  The problem lies with the difficulty in keeping from voting on things that rightfully belong to our creed and confession, what Scripture says, what doctrine we believe, and what belongs to the authority of the pastoral office.  It is in this that the whole idea of the vote becomes a problem.

Of course, we say we do not vote on such things but in what sense do we not vote on them when we either vote to accept or continue or change what we believe or practice.  What does it mean if we vote by the slimmest of majorities to uphold that which we have taught and confessed over the ages?  What does it mean if we should ever fail to vote by a majority to uphold what we have taught and confessed over the ages?  Would that mean that we no longer believe and confess and practice what we have in the past?   I suppose there is a slight comfort in the fact that such changes must come front and center for a vote instead of by the back door of error or change that becomes normal yet I still feel entirely uncomfortable with the whole idea that we are voting on such things -- even to affirm that we still believe and intend to practice what we have.

Should congregations vote on how often the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood are offered?  Should the people of God who on how often or how long the sermons are?  This is perhaps the crux of the matter.  If we vote to affirm we can also vote to deny.  Then where are we?  It seems to me that we need to be much more careful about the whole matter of whether we vote and not simply who gets to vote.  Voting always makes winners and losers.  The real way we deal with such things is by teaching and preaching our people into the truth.  If the congregation or the Synod will no longer abide the Word of God or practice faithfully in accordance to it and our Confessions, we have a bigger problem than who voted in the elction to depart from the way.