Fundamentalists with a liturgy. . .

check out cartoons here: http://www.cartoonchurch.com/

I read where one convert to Rome complained that longtime RC folk look suspiciously upon converts, especially Protestants who desire to become RC priests, as arch conservatives bent on taking back all the progress of Vatican II.  Another term was much more poignant and descriptive:  fundamentalists with incense!  I am not sure about the accuracy of the terminology but I do know that few converts left for Rome because they were looking for a Vatican II church and most were attracted by something distinctly different.

It all served to jog my memory about a conversation with someone in the South who did not have a clue who Lutherans were.  After describing briefly what Lutherans believed, confessed, and taught, the Southerner replaced his knurled brow with half a smile.  Oh, he said, you are fundamentalists with a liturgy.  So that is who we are.  I am glad somebody finally clued me in.  But seriously, that was the response.  Either I did not do a credible job of describing who Lutherans were (are) or else it is so odd as to defy understanding and to require a simple caricature to define us to the Southern world of religion and faith.  I am not sure which is more accurate.

I fear that this is exactly how many within Lutheranism see themselves -- at least those on the conservative side of things.  They see us as Bible Baptists when it comes to Scripture, Reformed when it comes to identity, Methodists when it comes to piety, and semi-Roman Catholics when it comes to worship.  In other words, they do not see consistency between the faith confessed and the faith lived out on Sunday morning.  That is troubling.

Lutherans were, at least when I grew up, an odd lot of people who were duller than dull on Sunday morning (slavishly following the page numbers), led by a preacher in a black robe, subjected to 40 minute sermons on texts other than the lessons read for that morning, and a people with a high view of the sacraments yet somewhat distant since baptisms often took place other than Sunday morning and the Sacrament of the Altar was more absent than present in the life of most parishes.  If you liked this kind of church, well, each to his own, I guess.  What got me going was not the experience of being Lutheran on Sunday morning but the theology that defined us (often fairly distant from Lutheran Sunday mornings of the 1950s and 1960s).

Lutherans are not the same -- at least the confessional kind!  We are more and more insistent that if we believe it, confess it in our Concordia, we ought to live it on Sunday morning.  That is unsettling to the folks who were comfortable with the Lutheran split personality of the past but I think it is a good thing for Lutherans facing the world around us.  We will not succeed being a country club or social group or Lutheran lite version of ourselves in a world expecting and even demanding authenticity.  So we must be who we are.

This means reaching back beyond pleasant memory, reaching back even beyond institutional identity (LCMS), and reinvigorating ourselves and our life together around the Word of God and the Lutheran Confessions.  When this happens, we will outgrow the misnomer of fundamentalists with a liturgy and just maybe grow into the identity we claim for ourselves in the Confessions:  evangelical catholics!

Do you see what I see?

check out cartoons here: http://www.cartoonchurch.com/

While sitting around in an airport or a hotel lobby, I have noticed how hard we work to avoid noticing other people or paying attention to them and what goes on around us.  We try very hard to insulate and isolate ourselves from those around us.  We listen to our own music through the privacy of our ear buds and I-pods.  If a stranger tries to pick up a conversation with us, we often let them know pretty quickly we do not wish to be bothered.  We attend to our own creature comforts but find it too hard to pay attention to the comforts of others.

On one recent full flight the airline had to bribe the passengers with free booze to exchange seats so a mother could sit with her young daughter.  What is in it for me to be kind.  On another flight where we were warned over and over again there would be no free seats, the early birds on the plane insisted upon getting the aisle seats and making it nearly impossible for people to get into the empty inside seats.  In fact, the delay in getting people into their seats and carry-ons stowed caused us to take off late.

We don't pay much attention to others -- except to complain -- and are not very tolerant of others.  For example, on Sunday morning a new family slipped in and out without being greeting but they did sit next to regular members.  When I asked the regular members if they saw or met or even passed the friendship register to them to sign in, the response was "No, we did not see or notice them."  In many respects we work very hard NOT to see or deal with strangers.  Perhaps this is a reflection of our culture but it is a problem in churches.

At the same time we are avoiding contact with strangers, we also complain loudly that churches are not friendly enough, that we are all so lonely, and that nobody seems to know us or pay attention to us.  So often we live within this seeming paradox rather than take the effort to get to know so that we are known.  There is something rather sad about this.  We want to be known and noticed by others but we do not want to take the initiative to know them.

I do not think it is simply meanness or rudeness -- at least not intentionally.  But I do think we have allowed the culture of fear to enter the nave and that we have grown as a culture and as Christians too complacent about the ordinary routines of friendliness.  Now, to be sure, some folks do not want to be noticed and prefer anonymity.  I understand that.  But most of us crave personal attention.  I like the bank branch where they know me by name and call me by name.  I don't think we are all so different here.  I think those who desire anonymity are a minority.  Most of us yearn for others to know us -- even though we tend to be naturally suspicious of strangers.  Most of the time all we need is a little encouragement -- not so much from the pulpit as from our friends and neighbors in the pews.

Most of the time I am a talker -- too much of a talker for most in my family who wish I was quieter in public.  I got in naturally -- both my mom and dad are outgoing folks.  This is a helpful trait if you are a Pastor.  I would encourage you to think of it as helpful to those who are not Pastors but folks in the pew.  Open your mouth, say hello, introduce yourself, begin a conversation, and get to know the folks around you in church (whether old timers or new folks).  This is a personal campaign to end the criticism that churches are unfriendly (which is really to say that Christians are not friendly).

What do the Confessions say about worship?

Worship is a hot topic among Lutherans.  We have Evangelical wannabes.  We have those who want to be Anglican Divines.  We have prima dona pastors.  We have lay folks who want their time in the spotlight.  We have every point of view that can be had.  But what binds us are the words of our Confessions.

You can read it for yourself or you can listen to a wonderful presentation of what Lutherans believe, confess, and teach about worship. . .

Thanks be to God for Issues, Etc. and, particularly, for this presentation.

or

http://issuesetc.org/2014/11/14/issues-etc-24-myths-about-lutheranism-lutheran-worship-is-adiaphora-pr-will-weedon-111414/

It will open the eyes of many on what Lutherans have obligated themselves to say and do and what personal preference means to all of this -- both from clergy and lay!!

Patience in short supply . . .

A while ago I watched on and off as an Eastern Rite Roman Catholic bishop was installed into his eparchy.  It was a long service -- I did not watch the whole thing and the remote got a workout as I tuned back and forth to and from the rite.  It was fascinating to me because it was so long -- yet everyone seems thrilled to be there despite the length.  I was struck by the mix of ages and the fact that they stood for the whole time.  The music was archaic to the modern ear but it was well sung and well received.  The music took up a goodly chunk of the time devoted to the liturgy.  Even though an iconostas obscured much of what was going on the people did not seem to mind.

The vestments were heavy and hot but no one, including acolytes, fussed with them.  They were vested in different colors and styles (especially the headgear of the clergy).  Yet no one seemed to notice this seeming contradictions.  There was an ease about it all -- an informal formality -- so that even though it was long and they did not have a neat little service folder or hymnal to guide them, they were content.  They knew those leading the worship knew where they were going and when they would get there (and they were content to join in the journey of that liturgy).

Both in terms of rite and ritual, Western Christian liturgy is remarkably different from Eastern.  In the West we tend to focus on the words -- printing out every word spoken and then following the well scripted service from service folder or hymnal.  We tend toward more uniformity -- even rehearsing the rites so that we are all always on the same page.  We are much more concerned with and economical about the time we invest in worship -- especially as Lutherans who spare the ritual and the ceremony for a more compact and cerebral worship experience.  Sometimes I think we could learn a thing or two from our Eastern kin.    I am NOT saying we should adopt their liturgy, architecture, music, or ritual BUT I think it would be good if we would learn from their patience.

We are many things on Sunday morning but we are seldom patient.  We don't tolerate much wandering on our liturgical journey and prefer a more direct and faster paced pathway from beginning to end.  We like a quicker gait to the music and the words.  We tend to have a single focus on what happens in worship and who is going it.  We want to watch (liturgist, assistants, choir, etc.) and we expect to have something good to watch (a good show).  We like it when each one does his or her own part and things move along quickly.  We do not tolerate silence well.  If there is a pause in the action, we tend to think somebody missed his cue.

In other words, we are not very patient people in the pews -- or in the chancel.  This is not a good thing.  We tend to race through worship toward the finish line and dinner at Cracker Barrel.  If we don't, we tend to get restless.  I guess I am also guilty.  Many of us do not feel all that much guilt about demanding that things stay focused and head quickly to their conclusion on Sunday morning.  We should feel more guilt about rushing through to the finish line.

Perhaps this is merely a symptom of our problem with God.  He is patient -- even long suffering.  He has the long view always in sight while we see only what is directly in front of us.  We confuse His patience with ambivalence -- and God is not ambivalent!  I think it would be a good thing if we learned some patience from our Eastern kinfolk and paid as much attention to the middle as we did to rushing the end.

Tolerances. . .

I don't fly often -- every couple of years or so.  Most of my trips are by car.  When I go to visit my brother, parents, and middle child in Nebraska, there is no direct flight.  I drive the fourteen hours or so -- it is not much longer than flying (by the time I get to the airport in Nashville 2 hours early, layover in Chicago, and then drive the 3 hours home from the airport in Omaha, flying is not quick or easy).  Besides, driving gives me the opportunity to stop when I wish, stretch my legs without bothering the passengers next to me, and conversing freely with the other folks in the car.

My recent flight to and from LAX was not bad but it was not the enjoyable flight to which I once looked forward 20-30 years ago.  Yet, every plane was packed full of people -- not a free seat anywhere on the aircraft.  We made our way through endless lines (check in, checking bags, security, boarding, etc.) until we found ourselves butt to butt with strangers for four hours or more.  The flight was bumpy so drinks (free or purchased) were iffy.  The delicious snacks offered little choice and the quantity did little to hold our hunger in abeyance.  The cost was reasonable but not cheap.  Yet everyone fought to get on the plane, get a seat, and ride in intimate contact with strangers for more than four hours.  Children cried, some people talked too loud, a few snored, some clicked away at their electronic devices, and others tried to tune us all out with music piped into their ear buds.  We all put up with it to get where we wanted to go.  It was not ideal and everyone of us made sacrifices but we got there.

Increasingly, the opposite is true of the way folks approach Sunday morning in church.  It seems we are less tolerant of any inconvenience, restriction of choice, or compromise of comfort than ever before.  In my own parish I hear lots of complaints (it is too hot, it is too cool, it was too long, there were too many noisy kids, too much talking from the adults, too much music, too much preaching, etc...  We complain about the restrooms, about the coffee or the lack of it, the way somebody looked at us or didn't look at us, the people we did not want to sit with, the music was not our preference in style or content, etc...  In other words, we will tolerate all sorts of things we do not like in order to fly and arrive at some destination for business or pleasure but we cannot ignore any inconvenience or make any compromise of comfort or be denied any preference in order to get to heaven.  Why?  I wish I knew. . .

Could it be that we are more focused in getting from one earthly destination to another than we are on getting to the heavenly future prepared and promised for us in Christ?  Has the earthly side of our existence as the people of God become so important and so central to how we see things that we no longer yearn for, seek after, and desire the heavenly future for which Christ died and into which we were baptized?

All I am saying is that we tolerate all sorts and kinds of unpleasant and inconvenient things in order to fly from Nashville to LA and back home again but we get so very touchy about the creature comforts of Sunday morning that this discontent is often the only thing we get out of it all. . .

New Lutheran Music Internet Radio. . .

Check out our new Live365 Radio station, Wittenberg Nightingale! All Sacred Classical Music that goes along with our Katie Luther Projects!  http://www.live365.com/stations/wittenbergng
It will follow the Church Calendar with music and devotions and a few talk programs.
The music is programmed by Rev.Randy Wurschmidt of Concordia Theological Sem, Fort Wayne.

You can listen here. . .  Lutheran Music. . . what is that, you ask?  Think Buxtehude, Walther, Bach, Brahms, Mendelssohn, etc... and move on from there. . .  Think hymns, chant, and choral song... 

Meeting thoughts. . .

I doubt very much that the early church spent as much time and money on meetings as we do today.  Having come home from a week in Southern California -- occasioned by a church meeting -- it has given me time to think.

Meetings are not always or even generally bad.  In fact, they often produce great results well worth their investment of time and money.  However, it is also true that some of the agendas of our meetings involves trying to find common ground that ought to be a given.  In other words, we must work to find agreement and consensus about many things that should be foundational to our common confession, life, and witness.  That is not to say that conflict, disagreement, and distance are exclusive to the modern era.  They are not.  But what is more prevalent today than ever before is the presumption that before we can do anything else we must devote a goodly portion of our meeting time to making sure we are all somewhere on the same page.

We seem to approach nearly everything from such an individualized viewpoint that we must meet simply to learn to think and walk together.  It is typical today to think in individual terms or as a class of people (men, women, young, old, married, single, etc.).  It has become an accepted fact that men cannot represent women, marrieds do not understand singles, age and youth do not get each other, etc.  So before we even get to the important stuff of "The Word of the Lord says", we must make sure that all points of view are represented, each gets to address their own unique concerns and perspectives, and we bow together at the altar of diversity.  I am not at all sure that this was the first item on the agenda of the early church meetings.

The sad part of this is that our most common ground as sinners redeemed by the Lord, called to repentance and faith, made new by baptism, fed and nourished upon His Word and Sacraments, and set apart as servants of Christ in our various venues is either lost or forgotten in our meetings.  Yet this IS the agenda that matters, what ought to be on the forefront of the mind and heart of the church.

We so often meet to express and discuss differing perspectives and to honor those differences but these seem to take precedence over our common life as the baptized people of God.  Why is this?  My own church body has less of this than most others yet this is still part and parcel of our life together.  Some, in fact, characterize our pursuit of pure doctrine as unrealistic and unattainable.  Perhaps so.  Yet why is this common confession and life less important than making sure what differentiates or distinguishes us is honored and respected?

Diversity is great looking from the altar or pulpit in a sea of faces reflecting every ethnicity and hearing in our ears the sound of many languages in common faith and praise.  But diversity in what we read into Scripture, in whom we judge Christ to be, in how we define what Christ has done, and in what 3we understand the work to which we have been called through baptism, well, that is not such a good thing.

The creeds represent the unity and unanimity of our faith believed and confessed.  When this is lost in a sea of voices and visions seeking to re-think re-imagine, re-define, and re-invent who we are and what we believe and how we live together, it is not only Christ who loses.  We do also.

They say you cannot see the forest for the trees...  It is an old but revered expression.  Perhaps it is even more true today.  Except we ARE the trees -- our individual identities, feelings, perspectives, and egos.  We have glorified our desires and needs (either as individuals or as a particular class of people) to the point where our commonality is lost or forgotten in it all.  We miss the forest -- our common baptismal life, our common identity as sinners redeemed in Christ, our common source of food and nourishment in the means of grace, and our common ministry or service to speak the truths of God before the world in words and deeds.  Maybe if this common identity, confession, and life were more front and center, we would need and have fewer meetings and find our life together less adversarial and contentious. . . or maybe not.

To what does the Church aspire?

Reading in The Economist about women bishops soon to join the Lords in England, I came across this line:

The change was overwhelmingly favoured by the leadership of the church, the clergy (one-third of which is female), and by public opinion—which matters for a church which aspires to be the spiritual voice of a whole nation, however diverse or secular.

The author got it right.  A church which aspires to be the voice of a people, the voice of a nation, or even the global voice of a world will inevitably no longer be the voice of God.  That is the problem.  We live in an era in which churches aspire more to be that voice of the populace than the voice of God.  And who wouldn't?  To be the voice of God is to speak the unpopular and unwelcome voice of repentance.  We would much rather be the voice of the people who speak what they want to hear, who herald the progress of modernity, who insist that if we keep the course th e world will be better and you will also improve, and who tell us what we want desperately to believe -- that all is right with us, with our desires, and with our feelings.  No matter that this is always the voice that leads the unwitting to their demise.

It is much harder to be the Church that aspires to speak God's voice to the world, either the small part around you or the broader whole.  It is much more difficult to speak against the prevailing norms and habits of a world caught in sin than it is to herald the call to righteousness, repentance, and renewal.  It is much easier to get distracted by the political and social justice agendas that purport to be important and essential in creating a better world than it is to herald the world to come.  It is much harder to be the voice of God that heralds virtue and condemns sin and all its immorality of life, thought, and speech.

But you do not have to be a state church like the good ole C of E to aspire for grandeur before men -- oops, people.  Little and inconsequential church bodies are also tempted and give into a cause they deem greater and more urgent that the voice of Law and Gospel in the world.  Yet therein lies the rub.  The world has many voices to prompt its improvement and many voices to promote its agenda.  The Church was created to be captive to the Lord and His agenda by being captive to His Word and knowing Jesus and Him only, preaching Jesus Christ and Him only, and raising up the cross and the cross only before the world.

For the C of E it is perhaps too late.  But it may not be too late for the rest of us to wake up and smell the roses.  God established the Church to be His creation, to do His bidding, and for His glory.  Period.

Good ad for Advent and Christmas. . .

Roman Catholic in origin but catholic in tone -- wake, awake. . .

A couple of words of wisdom. . .

You don't come to church on your terms but on the terms of Christ. . .  and. . . You cannot commune at the altar if you are not in communion with the Church's teaching. . .

Both of these are paraphrases from Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia.  They were both casual statements that most folks probably overlooked (in his Erasmus Lecture at the First Things address:  Strangers in a Strange Land).  As is so often true, simple wisdom is seldom simple.

We are very good at drawing lines and insisting that we will only do what must be done under our own terms.  But this is surely hubris and comical hubris at that.  Like the answer of God to Job, who do you think you are?  And that is the problem.  We think more highly of ourselves than we ought.  We think that we are the mountains and that God must come to us.  Our intellect, our desire, and our feelings reign supreme -- when it comes to what we believe, how we live it, how we worship, etc...

The other statement reminds us that it is impossible to be in communion at the altar and not in communion with the doctrine from the Scriptures and the teaching of the faith that is the context of that altar.  We find it hard to let go of the idea that churches are like filing stations or fast food stops in which we get what we need while surveying the landscape of others who might be at the same place at the same time, but we do not really meet on the level of belief or conviction.  Sunday mornings find us often alone in our convictions and beliefs who come to the altar for our private time with Jesus yet without any real sense of the church larger than ourselves or of our communion with the saints of the ages and the baptized who share with us this common meal.

"I believe," says the person who insists he or she should commune.  That belief is often seen as the currency that purchases the right to be fed on what you think the food is and then you are off on your way.  How foolish we are.  Our communion is never simply an individual matter.  We come as heirs of those who went before us, as people who share a common life in baptism and a common faith in the creed, and as confessors before the world of what the Lord says (not what we think or feel).

The pastor often has the sense that he is the one who must be satisfied that the person believes correctly in the Gospel and all its articles.  That may be true of churches who come together to confess as best they may a common faith but individuals come as sinners whose lives and consciences have been examined, who repent of their sins, who remain the baptized in faith and confession, and who are captive to the Word of the Lord (especially in the context of what it is that they receive there).  Denominational membership is good and wise but it is not enough to possess a membership card.  It is never the card or the membership that makes us worthy but the faith confessed, the sins repented, the belief in Christ's forgiveness, and the desire to receive what the Lord says is there to be received.  We are not the Lord's traffic cops but the stewards of His mysteries yet we dare not take lightly this stewardship.  We must also be faithful if the faithful are to come and receive.

In the end Chaput reminds us that it is too easy for us to come to God on our own terms, with demands to be satisfied, expectations to be met, agendas to be accomplished, hopes to be fulfilled, and desires to be satisfied.  Too often none of these has much to do with what is really wrong (sin and its death), little is related to the painful distance these create (between God and us and one to another), and hardly ever is the call to repentance received well (with contrition, confession, and faith).

It is therefore entirely likely that we have grown to see Holy Communion as personal, private, and individual and therefore another of our many expected and demanded rights.  We decide not only if we commune but what it means to commune and what is or is not there for us in that communion.  We are not captive to the Word either as a people together in the Lord's House, on the Lord's Day, or as individuals who live both because of and under that Word.

Pastors and people are equally to blame and equally guilty of the tyranny of me, my thoughts, my opinions, and my desires.  The Lord is constantly at work drawing us out of ourselves and into His gracious presence. . . if only we would let Him. . .

Just some ramblin' thoughts on a couple of sentences culled from an hour long presentation. . .  and one that was worth the time to listen. . .

How horrible!

We follow the One who stood and wept at the grave of Lazarus --not surely because He was grieved that Mary and Martha wept, and sorrowed for their lack of faith (though some thus interpret) but because death, the punishment of sin, is even more horrible in his eyes than in ours.   C.S. Lewis, from God in the Dock

It is so very hard to imagine that sin and its death could be found more horrible and terrible to God than they are to us!  We wrestle with all sorts of ways to find a clear conscience and run from guilt and shame.  We invest all sorts of unrealistic hopes in medicine, technology, and natural cures to ward off death for as long as possible.  Yet we approach the season in which we see exactly how terrible sin and its death are to God -- they moved Him to send forth His Son into our flesh and blood, into our world under the law, to be sin for us.  That is what the manger witnesses -- not some fairy tale story of romance, rejection, and a happy outcome but sin, evil, wickedness, shame, guilt, fear, and death.  He came for us and to come for us He came for these.


If only we see could see this, Christmas would be far more in our eyes than it too often ends up.  We don't need picturesque scenes or quaint settings or magical stories or tearful sentiment.  We need a God who will come down to get dirty with us and for us -- so great is His love that He would take on our worst enemies and fate in the loneliness of an obedient life a world could not understand and a sacrificial death that was even more confounding and confusing to our sensibilities.

Yes, this is the God we meet in the manger and who reveals His great love for us on the cross.  We sheds the tears for sins we should shed.  He cries out for the reality of death while we try to find fake comfort in the idea that death is natural and that the brief cycle of birth, life, and death should leave us somehow content enough to celebrate life and go home with our memories.  But not Jesus.  He refuses fake comfort or fake hope and even though it cost Him all, He willingly entered into the suffering and death of the cross for us and our salvation.  This is Christmas, too!

The real decline. . . not numbers but lives of faith. . ..

One commentator on the closing of parishes in the Metro NY Archdiocese has noted:  There’s not a decline in Catholic population; there’s a decline in Catholic life. . .  Though many suggest that the heyday of Roman Catholic life in NYC has come and gone, the sad truth is that the real disconcerting numbers are those who think themselves Roman Catholic but no longer attend mass or participate in the life of the church in any meaningful way.

The same could be said of Lutherans.  We are not smaller in identity.  I venture to say that polls would find that there are nearly as many people who call themselves Lutheran as ever before but the problem is that the numbers of those folk participating in the life of the church is substantially smaller.  It is this statistic that fuels the cries for changing the church or we will die.  Our backdoor losses and the growing numbers of those who no longer sit in our pews are serious.  We cannot afford to act as if the decline is not real or not threatening.  But therein lies the problem.

Most folks have not left because of a big fight.  Most have not run off in a huff over some imagined or real offense.  Most have gradually and slowly disappeared.  Their have learned a new habit and that habit does not include attendance at the Divine Service.  They are fueled and fed by other means.  Some continue to read Scripture and pray but many no longer know the Word of the Lord as the comforting and familiar voice of their Good Shepherd and find it hard to fill more than a few moments a week in prayer.

Not a few have come to question what they once believed.  It has not squared with their experience.  It conflicts with their sensibilities.  It no longer feels relevant to them.  They have moved on.  In their minds and hearts many (perhaps most) still feel like good Lutherans but that good Lutheranism does not include the Church (except for the ordinary emergencies of life, especially death and burial).  I encounter many of them (as I would expect most pastors do).  They are not unfriendly, they are not rude, and they are generally not angry.  They are happy to have me be there for them and to dispatch the loved ones with the legacy of the faith they once participated in most intimately.  But they will probably not be back. That is the saddest of statements. 

I believe it was Lyle Schaller who once admitted that it was easier to revive a congregation with new people than to try and reclaim the old ones who had fallen away.  I have found myself grudgingly in agreement with him.  The efforts to reclaim the Lutherans who do not miss their church are difficult and show meager success --- especially when compared to those who have heard the sound of the Lord's voice and found it language of grace surprisingly new and compelling.  Yet, I am not without some guilt over the admission that it is harder to reclaim the lost than convert new folks.

From time to time I engage these folks who once were in the pews of my own parish.  Sometimes it is with official letters.  Sometimes it is with personal notes.  Often it is via phone call or message.  Even emails remind them we have not forgotten them and we pray they have not forgotten Him.  It is hard stuff to win back those who do not seem to miss their life together with us around the Word and Table of the Lord.  It is part of what pastors do even if the results are not all that fruitful.  For by seeking out those who have fallen out of the church habit, we give witness to the seeking love of God that also comes for us, when we too grow weary, tired, and unsure of the benefit of life together.  The holidays are coming and some, prodded on by old habits that die hard, will be sharing the holy day with us -- even though they have been gone for a long time.  Let us not forget to welcome them and remind them why it is good for them and for us for them to return and return often.

There’s not a decline in Catholic population; there’s a decline in Catholic life, - See more at: http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2014/11/11/parish-closures/#sthash.7yZDPIvu.dpuf

There’s not a decline in Catholic population; there’s a decline in Catholic life, - See more at: http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2014/11/11/parish-closures/#sthash.7yZDPIvu.dpuf

What Jesus believed that we find hard to accept. . .

This was sent to me a while back and I suppose it may have already made the rounds.  If we take the Gospels at face value, they point to conviction Jesus received and expressed which we modern folks often find hard to accept.  Surely the list is not complete and could be expanded.  And there will be some who presume that Jesus was not truly espousing these things but merely condescending to the accepted wisdom of the day.  I have a problem with that.  Yes, Jesus can express things in the common wisdom of the day but there is something entirely duplicitous about the Son of God who would speak half-truths or lies to us only because we found them easy to accept.  In the same way, there is something entirely duplicitous about Christians who presume they are wiser than the Son of God and have grown past Him to an intellectual achievement which transcends His words...  But you read it and see what you think...

Sixteen things Jesus believes that many American churchgoers reject:
1. That the Old Testament, down to the last punctuation mark, is God’s word and cannot be falsified (Matt 5:17-19, John10:35).

2. That God really made the first real man from the dust and the first real woman from the man and joined the first man and the first woman together in the first marriage that is the measure and definition of all marriages (Matt 19:4-6).

3. That God created the heavens and the earth (Mark 10:6).

4. That God sent a flood to cover the whole earth (Luke 17:27).

5. That Noah was a real person who built a real boat (Matt 24:37-39, Luke 17:27).

6. That Jonah was a real person who was really swallowed by a real fish and survived to preach in Nineveh (Matthew 12:40-41).

7. That human beings have all become evil by nature and deserve the wrath of God (Matt 7:11, John 3:36).

8. That no one can be saved from eternal punishment by his own efforts or strivings (Mark 10:26-28).

9. That all other proposed religious/philosophical ways and truths and lives end in destruction (John 14:6, Matthew 28:18-22).

10. That faith in him is the only way anyone will ever be forgiven and granted as a free gift, eternal life (John 3:16-36, John 14:6).

11. That the word of God is supreme over all religious traditions and especially over “the way we’ve always done it.” (Mark 7).

12. That his appointed Apostles would be his agents to communicate his word to his church through his Holy Spirit (John 14:25-26, John 16:12-14).

13. That the visible local church is the focus of his earthly activity until his return (Matthew 18:18-21, Matthew 28:18-22).

14. That the local church is called to send out disciples to make disciples of all nations even though they have their own religious traditions (Matthew 28:18-22).

15. That disciples will suffer (John 15:18-27, John 16:33).

16. That life with him is worth the loss of all things (Matt 16:25).

The face of comfort

Sermon for Advent 2B, preached on Sunday, December 7, 2014.

    We all have our comfort foods, the eats we turn to when we are stressed, sad, or struggling.  Some restaurants specialize in comfort foods – not fancy recipes but the familiar tastes of home.   The problem with most comfort food is that it makes you fat.  The food we turn to to make us feel better also leaves its mark on us with bulging waistlines and clogged arteries.
    From the Garden of Eden it was comfort that was and is our weakness.  Adam had it all but it was not enough.  Prometheus said it right: Those whom the gods would destroy they would first flatter.  It was our desire for comfort, our aspiration for greatness, and our contentment with lies that make us feel better that was and still is our undoing.  The flattery of the devil got us once and still taunts us with lies we want to here.  You deserve it.  You need it.  You are worth it.  If it feels good, it must be good.  But all the lies in the world cannot comfort us.
    St. John the Forerunner came bursting upon the scene unsettling all the comfortable and it would seem that his message of repentance was the opposite of comfort.  But it is the very comfort that delivers its promise to us.  Prepare the way of the Lord!  Get your eyes off yourselves, off the moment, and off your desires.  Wake up!  See God deliver to you real comfort.  Grace sufficient, sins forgiven, His presence for sure, a future and a place prepared for us. . . lies cannot deliver this truth.  The face of comfort is the One who can do what we need, keep the promises of the Father, and redeem us from our lost and hopeless condition.
    There is no comfort in sin.  The real comfort comes in casting off the lies and departing from the wilderness of sin and its death.  Stop your warfare against the Spirit and the Word of the Lord and begin fighting against the desires within that got you in trouble in the first place and are still your undoing.  Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins.
    Most folks wanted John just to shut up and go away.  At least the religious leaders of the day did.  Don’t rock the boat, you get along by going along, tell folks what they want to hear... You can work out your salvation, fix what is wrong with your life, and find a path to happiness, success, and pleasure.  But it is all works and it is all lies.  John had it right.  Wake up for your pathway leads to despair and death.
    Wake up to what God is doing, what God has done.  The Lord comes with might.  There is no mistaking Santa and the Lord of heaven.  The law has teeth and the Gospel works.  Wake up.  Wake up not to the might of condemnation.  No, God does not desire your death but that you live forever.  So He has acted to answer justice with mercy.
    Wake up.  God refuses to leave us to our own devices, to surrender us to the emptiness of the lies we want to hear, or to the fake comfort of words that do nothing at all.  No, our God has acted in His Son to gather His lambs in His arms.  He carries us where we cannot walk, He rescues us from the enemies we do not see or recognize, and He delivers us from the captivity of sin, guilt, shame, suffering, and death.
    The Mighty One of heaven’s glory has become our very Savior, born in flesh like us to save us from the curse of sin and from eternal condemnation.  He exchanged heaven for a manger and the manger for the cross and there we see the face of real comfort.  He saves us by His blood.  He keeps the age old promises of the Father.  He plots a new future for us that mind cannot imagine and the heart cannot dream.
    We tell ourselves lies and we listen to liars who say what we want to hear.  More money, more sex, more time, more pleasure – these will make you happy and cure the longing inside.  These are the lies of the wilderness.  But now a voice cries in the wilderness.  The Child of the Virgin is the face of our comfort.  It is truth time and the truth is that most of the places were turn for comfort do nothing but lie to us and, sadly, we seem to be okay with that.  It is truth time and Christ rocks the boat with real comfort.  There in His incarnation is our hope.
    The comfort food we need is here.  Here is His flesh for the life of the world.  Here is His blood to drink and be satisfied.  He came with real comfort, He comes today with real comfort, and He is coming again with eternal comfort none can overcome.
    Behold, He comes!  The Good Shepherd to gather us lambs in His arms... to lead us young and old home... through the gate of death and the grave... to life beyond imagination... what God has prepared for those who love Him.  Blessed be the name of the Lord.  Amen.  Come, Lord Jesus!

The nature of marriage and family. . .

We are a culture in love with love and desperate for a love story.  We all want fireworks, excitement, spontaneity, and passion.  We live in an erotic world in which desire trumps all things.  But marriage is built upon something too often considered dull and boring -- fidelity.  It matters to marriage less that you love your spouse (which I do) and more that you are faithful to your husband or wife.  This faithfulness is the embodiment of love.  We take our cue from God's faithfulness to us -- it defines His love.  His steadfast love endures forever.  It does not waver with the ebb and flow of feeling or desire.  Everyone knows that passion cannot be maintained forever.  We need rest even from passion.  But the love that God shows to us and that St. Paul connects to marriage is the faithful, sacrificial, and giving love that continues when other aspects of this love wane.  It is devotion.

The problem with the marriage wars currently being fought is that we are ignoring an unpleasant truth.  Much of heterosexuality have already given up on this kind of love -- pursuing instead a cohabitation built upon desire without the untidy and unpleasant duty of fidelity.  For as long as it lasts we love -- loving the idea of love more than its reality.  Even Christians have found it easy to cohabit (mostly without shame) rather than own up to the obligation of love that is faithfulness.  Even straight people are not so sure they want to be married if marriage means fidelity, faithfulness, and sacrifice (without counting the cost or seeking to balance out what is given with what is received).

Many, dare I say most (?!) homosexuals are less interested in marriage than equality, less desirous of a sacrificial love manifest in faithfulness unto death, than gaining a sense of legitimacy for their desires.  Perhaps this is more true of gay men than of gay women, but the truth is that homosexuals want marriage on their terms and expect to redefine the nature of marriage as much as who may marry.  There is no shortage of sympathy for this wish for an easier marriage with fewer strings and obligations.  Straight people would also like to skip the for worse, in sickness, and till death do us part.

The marriage that the Christian Church fights for is not simply who marries whom but the very heart and soul of what it means to be married.  We have for too long looked the other way at cohabitation, shrugging our shoulders at our sons, daughters, grandchildren, nieces, and nephews who have decided that there is either nothing in marriage worth its trouble or no real difference between marriage and living together. 

Children are intrinsic to this idea of marriage not because the moms and dads love large families but because, just as God's love is creative, so is the love He has placed within husband and wife for each other.  No one but a fool has children for what they can do for you.  You learn very quickly that children are by nature takers -- consuming as much as they can the time, energy, financial resources, and attention of their parents.  This is not because they are bad children -- it is inherently the nature of the child.  What parents teach their children is the opposite of what comes natural to them -- love that sacrifices, gives, serves, and is faithful long after desire has grown cold and the newness or fun has worn off.

That which makes marriage noble is not glorified desire but desire sacrificed -- the me that gives way to the other.  We have talked for so long about the egalitarian nature of marriage, of its equal partnership, and of the value of desire and passion that our children have learned to see marriage almost exclusively in these terms.  They find it almost impossible to conceive of a marriage that continues strong and loving when time and age have worn the luster off of desire.  But that is the point.  It is this fidelity that stood out among the early Christians -- not simply how they love one another but how they love their husbands and wives.  This radical sexual ethic was hard to miss in a pagan world that glorified desire in nearly every form.

I spent some time at my in-laws earlier this fall.  My father-in-law has Alzheimer's and now lives in a care facility for just such folks.  What amazes me is the love that still lives between them even when memory loss has left this man a stranger to his own wife at least part of the time.  It is this kind of love that mystifies the world.  It is daunting.  And it should be; we did not invent it.  Not that we first loved but that God first loved us.  A wife who loves her husband who cannot return much of her love and a husband who loves this woman whose name he forgets, well, that is about the most profound definition of love and marriage I know.

At times I have sat with a husband or wife who has seen his or her spouse slow slip away from them either due to physical or mental infirmity.  The devotion that these show to a spouse who cannot respond in kind represents some of the most profound examples of love I have ever seen.  I wish more folks could join me in those moments.  I believe they would learn with me to see this as the highest expression of what it means to love.  I do not mean to diminish passion or romance at all.  These are all well and good.  Life is not about fairy tale endings or movie script relationships.  It is real, it is messy, and it is a challenge.  Fidelity may not be glamorous but it is surely noble, profound, and godly.

The world may not be ready for this.  Even Christian folks find it hard to imagine such love.  Yet it is this kind of love that marks the lines of battle about what it means to be married and to love your husband or wife.  We cannot afford to settle for getting the who can marry right.  We must work with equal vigor to reclaim that which ennobles this simple word love -- fidelity, faithfulness, endurance.  In an age when we gladly exchange our technological toys once the next model has come out, fidelity to the husband or wife you gave promise to before God and witnesses may be the hardest and most godly thing we ever do.  Marriage may surely be more than just fidelity but it cannot be anything less.

Pietists and Rationalists of a feather. . .

There are many who complain (rightfully so) about the damage done to the faith by pietism.  Pietism was a movement within Lutheranism (though it had ripples well beyond Lutherans, such as Methodism).  It began in the late 17th century -- about the time Lutheran orthodoxy was also in full swing.  The movement had reached its height ini the mid to late 18th century before declining slowly through the 19th century.  Though some would say it had almost vanished by the end of the 20th century, there is no doubt that the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod's origins were significantly affected by the pietistic movement.

Pietism regarded the prevailing Lutheran orthodoxy of the day as spiritually dead. Origin of the movement is generally connected  to Philip Jakob Spener,* who published Pia Desidera in 1675 detailing his version of the renewal of the moribund (in his estimation) state of Christian faith. Among others who were part of this movement were Christian mystic Jakob Böhme; Johann Arndt, whose work, True Christianity, became the bible for Lutheran pietists; Heinrich Müller, who once characterized the font, the pulpit, the confessional and the altar as "the four dumb idols of the Lutheran Church."

Pietism agitated for a more spiritual, inwardly shaped, and individual faith and church with less emphasis upon doctrinal purity, liturgical worship, and the sacraments.  Many Lutherans still look at their faith through a partial lens of pietism.Some have suggested that Evangelicalism is itself deeply indebted to the groundwork done by the pietistic movement.  Suffice it to say that Lutherans (among others) have spent years trying to undo some of the damage done by the pietistic movement.

Rationalism, on the other hand, was exclusively an appeal to the mind and reason.  Begun about the same time as pietism, this movement was equally as destructive to the faith.  The rationalists saw reason as the ultimate authority in religion, the judge and determiner of revelation and its meaning.  It was a scholastic movement that ended up eroding confidence both in Scripture and in the ability to know just about anything with great confidence and certainty -- especially God.  Connected with the Enlightenment, rationalism was a movement of the head in contrast to pietism and its emphasis of the heart. Rationalism has also been called scholasticism and had an even more profound impact upon philosophy.  Perhaps the ultimate fruit of this movement has been the secular ideal of man's self-improvement through the tools of his reason.

While others may write more eloquently upon both rationalism and pietism, my point is to say that both are birds of a feather, that is, both proceed from the common conviction that the means of grace are insufficient for faith and life. Both movements cut through like acid on the conviction of the faith that Scripture was both reliable and clear, that the liturgy and the means of grace were the centers of faith and life, and that both the feelings of the heart and the reason of the mind were captive to the Word of the Lord that endures forever.

It might seem that the ELCA and other liberal Lutherans have given the nod to rationalism -- convinced of man's ability to self-improve and of the need for the mind to sit in judgment over what is believed, confessed and taught.  On the other hand, Missouri and other Confessional groups still labor on through the lingering effects of their own pietistic roots -- one by and large sympathetic to evangelicalism.  In the end, neither the rationalist nor the pietist understood Confessional Lutheranism and still do not get who we are.  Neither group has much attachment or priority for the sacramental life of the church nor for the idea that God's Word is alive and has the power to deliver its promise to us.  Ultimately, both desire moral improvement -- one by the subjection of the heart to the mind and the other the mind to the heart.  But the faith is more than better behavior.  

Yet that is still the Achilles' heel of Lutheranism -- we look for signs of improvement as proof positive that the stuff of faith is real.  In the end, there is little need of real faith (trust) in either pietism or rationalism.  Yet that is where we find ourselves today.  Lutherans sound like rationalists who like a certain measure of pomp and circumstance or as pietists who tolerate at least the remnant of ceremonial even though their faith is largely shaped by feelings instead of truth.

It it often seems as if we Lutherans are victims of our own history -- unhappy with our Confessions we tend to gravitate to a faith more defined by head or heart than "we believe, confess, and teach."  In any case, either ism leaves us ill at ease with Confessions which claim not to have departed from the catholic faith in doctrine or in practice.  Too many of us insist upon trying to make a Lutheranism that ignores this pivotal identity and create a Lutheranism thoroughly modern and reasonable or thoroughly evangelical and happy.  Luther and his cohort would feel ill at ease in either home.  Fight on, my brothers and sisters.  We struggle for nothing less than the heart and soul of what it means to be Lutheran!

Sons of God and Daughters of Men. . .

Many better men than I have pondered the meaning of Genesis 6 (and its counterpart in the New Testament in 1 Peter 3:18-20).  I do not pretend to know exactly what this refers to.  Some have described these sons of God as angels and others as nobles.  Interestingly, David Mills picked up Aaron Denlinger's take on Calvin's interpretation on this as the sons of God being the children of Abel and the sons of men being the children of Cain.  In other words, this is about mixed marriages with those who do not believe.


When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.  Genesis 6:1-8 ESV

Read part of it here:

Calvin adopts the view that "sons of God" is here a reference to the descendants of Seth, among whom "the pure and lawful worship of God" had thus far prevailed, while "daughters of men" refers to "the children of Cain." In part he adopts this perspective by a process of elimination: when in doubt, choose the interpretive option that doesn't entail ascribing corporeality and corporeal functions to angelic creatures or serve to absolutize a social construct like the relations of nobility to peasantry. Calvin's view also, however, has the merit of respecting its context; the chapters leading up to Gen. 6 serve to detail the genealogies and differences of Cain's and Seth's lines respectively. It is, then, most natural to read the reference to "sons of God" in Gen. 6.2 as a further reference to Seth's line, which has already been identified as proper worshipers of the true God, and so to see Gen. 6 as advancing the great drama of that conflict between the respective seeds of the woman and the serpent -- a conflict which will reach its apex in Christ's life, death, and resurrection.

The best part is his conclusion of Calvin's and his own take on Genesis 6:

Step number one for choosing a spouse, then, is this: choose a believer. Calvin's rather black and white moral exhortation, and the rather overt assumption underlying it (that single Christians are not in fact free to marry absolutely anyone they might wish), will undoubtedly prove jarring (even to some Christians) in our present day culture, which is squeamish about moral absolutes pertaining to relationships and seems particularly hell-bent on stripping away restrictions on who individuals can lawfully set their affections upon. C'est la vie, as Calvin never said. The good news for single Christians is that Calvin has no problem with you pursuing, with the intent to marry, a believing person of the opposite sex because you think that person's smoking hot (among other virtuous qualities, of course).

And therein lies the rub.  Even among faithful Christian folks, faith is seldom a high priority much less a deal breaker when it comes to choosing a spouse.  Added to this is choosing one who shares your own particular faith (example Lutheran), and it becomes even less of a priority or consideration.  Indeed, looking out on my own congregation I see many families whose sons and daughters have either married non-believers and taken on their lack of faith or who have married non-Lutherans and their babies are not baptized and they seem no longer to miss the Eucharistic food of Christ's body and blood. 

I am not writing to condemn but to suggest that the consideration of faith or its lack is not some little side issue for choosing marital prospect.  It is pivotal.  If your choice of spouse is not Christian, I think that must be a deal breaker for the Christian.  If you choice of spouse does not mirror your faith (say Lutheran, for example), then the couple ought to come to a decision about where to raise their children and which will be the church home of their family.  I have seen many marriages in which the convert (to Lutheranism) became the better member than the one raised in it.  I have also seen many marriages in which the lack of shared faith contributed to the falling away of the one who did believe.  Again, my point is not to blame but to encourage.  Faith is important in the choice of a spouse.  It ought to be a deal breaker and Christians ought to be forthcoming to their non-Christian marital prospects about this and should be intentional about seeking a spouse who can confess with them the faith in which they were raised.

Sadly I know of a few families in which the father was not even able to act as a sponsor to his own children when they were baptized in the mother's Roman Catholic Church -- even though the dad was a Lutheran pastor!  Such divisions within the fabric of the family faith are hard on families.  In other cases, I have seen the burden borne by the believing parent in being alone in church with his or her children and finding no support at all in the seemingly eternal battle for Sunday school and catechism attendance.

Wake up, folks.  Faith counts!!

We have been in our sins too long. . .

Sermon for Advent 1B, preached on Sunday, November 30, 2014.

    We start again another Advent, another season of waiting, another rehearsal for the future, the main event, that is coming.  And it all looks so familiar. . . because it is.  The blue of repentant hope, the greens of life anticipated, the candles of light that shines in the darkness and the darkness has not over come it.  It is familiar all right.
    We are still sinners awaiting the completion of what God has begun.  We are still mortals awaiting immortality.  We are still the people of God waiting for what we shall be in eternity.  We have been here before but we are not circling aimlessly as the lost who have no idea where we are going.  But we are making headway. Even though it seems nothing has changed, everything is changing.  Even though it often seems like we are not winning against our sinful desires or getting any closer to eternity, we are moving toward the day God has prepared.
    We have been in our sins for a long time.  How those works strike the truth none of us wants to admit.  We have been in our sins too long.  We deserve God’s anger because we have not improved.  We know the ways of sin like a drunk knows the familiar way home.  We are a people of unclean hearts and unclean lips and unclean lives. Misery always feels slow and long but it bears fruit if this miserable feeling drives us to contrition and repentance.
    We have been here a long time but we aim for a time without end, where clocks do not tick and calendars do not count down the days.  We are the faithful who await the day when we shall cry out for the last time: “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.”  We are a waiting people but we wait upon the Lord as the hopeful who look forward to what God has prepared for those who love Him.
    We honor the past.  Christ came once to the manger long ago and He will not return as a baby to that stable.  He has already entered the old Jerusalem that killed the prophets and papered over sin with fake righteousness.  Christ has already borne the weight of sin upon the cross and died our death so that we might live.  We do not wait for a rerun but for a whole new future.  Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.
    Yet while we wait, Christ comes to us.  He comes to us as the Lord who is incarnate in bread that is His body given for us to eat with faith and in the cup that is His blood shed for us to drink with faith.  We wait as the people who have met Christ in the waters of baptism as we have seen this morning.  And we wait as the people who harken to the sound of His voice in His Word read and preached.
    Christ came once to the manger.  He comes over and over again to us and for us in the means of grace, the Word and the Sacraments.  But He will come again in glory.  He will no more be hidden but will be obvious.  He will come not to save but to judge.  He will come in glory to finish His new creation – you and me – and open to us the places He has prepared for us.
    Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.  Every Sunday we sing these words in the Sanctus.  We do not sing them to an absent Lord but the present Redeemer.  We do not sing in melancholy longing for the past but in the hopeful address of the future.  We do not sing them because we are alone but because He is still with us, still comes to us, feeding us and giving us to drink of His flesh and blood for the life of the world.
    We have become the blessed who wear His name by baptism and faith.  We are the blessed who wear His righteousness by baptism.  We are the blessed in whom He works, in whose voices He speaks and in whose hands He works.  We are a waiting people, moving through the familiar steps of the church year even as we ascend day by day toward the future He has prepared.  But in Advent we sing this anew and with even greater conviction: Rend the heavens!  Come down, Lord! 

We are too long in our sins, too long in the days of repentance,
and we are ready to receive You and the day of redemption which will complete what You began in us and in this world.  We are ready for the finish, the outcome, the end.  Come, Lord Jesus.  Amen.

A few images of traditional church interiors

Nothing like the look, feel, sound, and smell of good church architecture and liturgical design. . . Would that we had craftsmen who could help us create anew buildings which bespoke more of God and His majesty than ourselves and our own creature comforts. . .

An ordinary life. . .

I drive behind cars whose bumper stickers proclaim that children in this family are on the honor roll and other such distinctions.  I have yet to follow a vehicle with a bumper sticker that says "My kid is a good kid."  We are relentless parents in the pursuit of our children's success.  We are helicopter parents hovering over them to make sure they do what we think is best and we go to bat for them against teachers and coaches who may not share our sterling view of their abilities.  All of this is well and good -- to a point.  But all this special attention to our special children raises unrealistic ideals about life and their place in it.  We ought to encourage our children always to their best but we must remember that even that best may not be good enough to allow them to achieve their dreams, stand out from the crowd, or achieve the notice and recognition of the masses.  Not every child is special.  Some, dare I say most, are spectacularly ordinary.  But that is great!

I live a thoroughly ordinary life.  I have no advanced degrees.  I possess no special measure of wisdom or intellect.  I do not look like a model.  I have bad eyes.  I am rather ordinary.  And, some keep reminding me, I am getting old.  But I am okay with that.  I have long ago discarded the notion that I am here to save the church or the world.  I hope merely to remembered as one who was found faithful in his life as husband, father, son, and pastor.

We do ourselves and our children a disservice to suggest to them that they all must be stars.  Wars are won not by great generals but by faithful troops who bear the wounds and who suffer all, even death, for the sake of victory.  We remember the generals but it was the grunt in the foxhole, tank, etc... who was the real hero.  We all know the names of the movies stars, politicians, and pop singers but so often their notoriety is from failure as much as success.  Some of them are one hit wonders who were lauded like the best thing since sliced bread only to disappear in a breath.  The real stars are moms and dads who love each other and their children, workers who do an honest day's labor usually for less than an honest day's wage, neighbors who help neighbors, and the solid citizens who vote, pay taxes, and generally obey most of the laws.  They are not special but ordinary and yet in their ordinary lives they shine.

We put way too much pressure on ourselves and our children to be extraordinarily happy, successful, and famous.  It spoils their joy in the little things that make life grand and noble.  God does not expect us to be superstars but merely good and faithful husbands, wives, parents, children, neighbors, citizens, and, yes, church goers.  Let us not forget that.  The folks who sit in the pew week after week, who take to heart and pray for the names on the prayer list, who bring the extra dish to the pot luck, who make sure their kids do their catechism work, who watch the calendar for the times when they acolyte, usher, do altar guild, etc.... these are the heroic figures through which God's glory shines and He does His best work.  Thanks be to God for all of you.

We often pray for a peaceable and quiet life.  Not one in the news -- but quiet, peaceable, and ordinary.  That is where most of us fit, where God does His work in, among, and through us, and where we show forth the extraordinary grace of God.  Let's hear it for all those who are nothing but ordinary.  For in that ordinary life is spectacular grace, mercy, blessing, and faith.  Do your best -- always.  Confess your sins -- faithfully.  Receive the Sacrament -- as often as it is offered.  Work hard -- every day.  Love without fear of giving or sacrificing -- here is where fearless people really live.  Read the Scriptures -- for comfort, instruction, wisdom, and guidance.  Tell and show others the love of Christ -- that you have known.  Be there -- for your spouse, your children, your parents, your friends, and your neighbors. 

“Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life. . .” (1 Thess 4:11)