For whom the bell tolls. . .

I lifetime ago a member of my first parish had died and the family was looking for a fitting memorial.  They had a connection to an electronic carillon company and so it was settled that we were getting a carillon.  Well, it was not really a carillon but a player that played tapes of bells over a loudspeaker set up on the steeple of the church.  We were thrilled, however.  At first we had it playing every hour with a hymn and then we toned it down to a bell on the quarter hours and an extended bell on the hour with a full hymn at 9 am, 12 Noon, and 6 pm.  We thought it was great.  Apparently a neighbor did not.  Although you could not hear it everywhere, it did carry through the very small town and even out in the country.  It carried too well for some ears.  They complained.  To their credit, the town officials did not bother with the complaint.  We were hurt, however, that anyone would have the audacity to complain about a church bell.

Forward about 30 years and my last parish got two real bells on a bell tower with ropes that had to be pulled and with the sound not of a loudspeaker amplifying something but an authentic sound piercing the neighborhood.  We rang it only for worship and funerals.  It did not ring hourly nor did it sound out a familiar pattern.  Just a couple of bells at different pitches, sounding better or worse according to the guy who was pulling the ropes.  I do not know if anyone has complained.  The neighborhood is already loud with the sound of a five lane highway in front of the Church, motorcycles speeding down the asphalt, ambulance, firetruck, and police sirens, and the occasional truck using the engine to brake.  The bell probably gets lost in all that noise.  I am sure that somewhere somebody is thinking I wish they would stop ringing that dang bell.  Oh, well.

We do not hear bells much anymore.  The noises of a busy life and crowded roads have taken over and bells have fallen out of favor—even in churches.  It is secular noise without the intrusion of the sacred.  I am sad about that.  I think back to the small city of Hudson, NY, across the river by the same name from where I served.  At one point, it had 8 different Lutheran congregations (from Estonian and Latvian to German to groups that broke off for one reason or another).  Now but one Lutheran remains and it was a break off group that managed to survive.  The others do not even have buildings to remind us of their past anymore.  Once, however, they had steeples and bells along with the other Christian churches in that small but very old city.  Even the Roman Catholic parishes were divided—Italian, German, Polish, Irish, etc... Now those steeples are quiet and with that silence comes another sadness as we remember what was and is no more.  The once thriving ethnic congregations and those who broke off for real theological reasons and not simply because they could not get along with the pastor all had bells to sing out their presence.  Now there is the awkward silence of mergers, consolidations, closures, and demolished buildings. 

The sound of Christianity has exited America with the buildings and communities that once thrived in them.  We are too enlightened to let ethnicity or language or culture or even doctrine divide us anymore.  Strangely enough, the forced marriages of need or aspiration inevitably led to decline and not to success.  That is certainly the track record of Lutherans.  With all our grand plans has come the tragic reality that the bell tolls no more in most places—except in memory.  Kingdom building did not lead to victory but to defeat and Christians are struggling to remain orthodox and to remain a presence anymore.  The greater sadness is that too many who once appreciate churches and what they did are relieved by the silence and the faded echos of their presence on the streets, roads, and boulevards of America.  I wonder if it would have been different if we were not so apologetic about presence, about the sound of that presence in bells and in conviction, and about passing on that legacy more proudly to those who followed us.  I would like to think so.

There are communities still flourishing—and not simply the ones who have turned their churches into living rooms filled with people seeking entertainment along with their inspiration.  I was privileged to be a part of two of those.  They each grew during the time I was there (though I am not taking credit for that).  They were intentional communities of faith, keeping their conviction vibrant and their confession of doctrine full, along with a faithful practice of our liturgical maximums.  At this point they remain strong, filled with the sounds of people, babies crying, instruments playing, kneelers dropping, choirs singing, hymns sung with gusto, chant and, yes, with bells.  We do what we can to make sure that we are not too quiet.  I hope we are all doing that. 

 

Good camera work, great subject material. . .

I happened to run across this link to a spectacular set of photos from Peter Li whose work capturing the sacred spaces of England and other lands is simply amazing.  You can look at it here although there may be other websites to showcase his gift and the wonderful churches he photographs.  The subject material of the camera is itself amazing space.  Beauty is certainly not an end in and of itself for Christians but why on earth would beauty not be an ally and component of faithful Christian worship?

If there is a cause for beauty, is not that cause the Gospel of Jesus Christ?  At one time the Church was not simply the place for art and beauty but its patron and cause.  I fear that age has escaped us.  It is hard to justify spending money on beauty when construction budgets exceed plans and dollars are short and the urgent need for missions ever present in each spending decision.  We seem to have forgotten that we ought to be building not for a moment but for a long span of time in which the faithful will be gathered into that space, nurtured there in Word and Sacrament, and children raised up into the faith.  We seem to have forgotten that the Church is not simply another place where beauty lives but the place where an exclusive beauty lives -- the beauty of that which serves the Word in the same way music does.  The Word can have several servants and we need not choose.  The glory of song and instrument along with the glory of art and beauty (even in ceremony!) raise us up from ourselves to behold in eye what the ear hears.

While it might be nice to be able to build a space from the ground up, there is no more urgent cause than to make the structures we have serviceable to the liturgy and a gift to the eye while the people gather around the Word and Table of the Lord.  It can be done.  It is being done -- though not often enough.  We have a gift to give the world and Christ has entrusted that gift to us to preach and teach and also to present in visual form.  Let us raise the eye to God, give testimony to the voice of the Gospel in the beauty of the place where that Gospel has called us, where the Spirit works to enlighten and sanctify us, and where we receive the gifts that nowhere else can be found. 

20,000 babies or none. . .

In 2020, actress Michelle Williams stood on the stage of the Golden Globes to receive accolades for her performance and in her speech she described the abortion that had allowed her the chance to choose her career instead of motherhood.  It was heralded at the time as a political call to action for those places where abortions are not freely accessible and gave thanks that she lived where abortions were freely accessible.  Not being one to watch such events, I probably did not comment on it at the time.  It was more of the drivel that passes for feminist propaganda in a world where it has become normal among the elite, the educated, and the economically gifted.  Sacrificing children on the altar of fame, as the video put it, was and, perhaps, still is a sacred tenet of the woke.  How odd it was then when I found out after another such event six years later that an actress used her moment in the sun to laud motherhood.

Ironically, the headlines draw attention to her as the first Irish actress to win an Oscar—not to her own testament to motherhood, to her want to have more babies with her husband, and to her wish to spend her future helping her daughter discover the wonder of life.  I guess that part of it was not news but it should be.  For a long time now, motherhood has been portrayed as a curse, a drain on ambition, a sacrifice of career, and, worst of all, the loss of your very identity and personhood.  Daughters were listening and so were sons.  Now we live in a world in which the fertility rate in the US is about 1.6 children per woman (below the replacement rate of 2.1), and, lower still in most of Europe—around 1.2 to 1.5 in countries like Italy and Spain. 2026 will likely see for the first time deaths exceed births in the UK.  Nearly everywhere it is accepted that women choose not to have children, regret having them, or are embittered because of the sacrifice having a child means to their careers and perceived success in those careers.  Could it be that this is changing?  At least that the other narrative is being challenged?

There was one more thing.  The same kind of crowd that erupted in applause in 2020 for the pro-abortion speech erupted in applause for this tribute to motherhood.  Were they simply being nice or were they realizing that the old narrative was crashing down upon everything as birth rates drop and the world looks at the graying of the population as being the face of our future?  I could say a great deal about this in terms of Christian faith and life but I will let this stand for now.  

 

  

When death is merely a choice. . .

On December 30, 2025, Canadian law allowing Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) was invoked to oversee the euthanasia of 26 year old Kiano Vafaeian. The young man was in no immediate health emergency and his only medical conditions were diabetes, lost vision in one eye and seasonal depression.  Yet these conditions were enough to allow the authorities to approve the procedure.  While series, especially the diabetes, none of these conditions was at the point of death considered life-threatening.  In fact, millions of people live productive and useful lives with some form of limited vision, including losing the use of one eye, with seasonal depression, and, according to the government, one in ten Canadians over 20 has been diagnosed with diabetes.  

The Canadian government lists five conditions on MAiD.  Four are relatively pro forma: a person must be over eighteen, make a voluntary request, give informed consent, and be eligible for treatment under Canada’s socialized medicine scheme.  The other criterion is less straight forward—the patient must have a “grievous and irremediable medical condition.” The illness, disease or disability must be serious. The patient must also be in an irreversible and advanced state of decline. Additionally, the individual must “experience unbearable physical or mental suffering.”  Finally, the suffering cannot be relieved in a way that the patient finds acceptable.  It may be relieved by treatment, medication, surgery, etc., but if the patient finds the treatment unacceptable, then the disease automatically qualifies the patient for MAiD.

Since most of you do not live in Canada, you may be wondering why this matters to you.  First of all, it is a matter of degree.  What happens in Canada is, in large measure, what is under consideration in the more liberal states of the US although we are typically years behind the implementation of such.  In other words, it is coming our way.  As of 2026, assisted death, also known as physician-assisted suicide or medical aid in dying, is legal in fourteen U.S. jurisdictions: California, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. These laws allow terminally ill adults to request and receive medication to end their lives peacefully.  Things are generally moving in Canada's direction here as well.  At some point, the word terminally will be changed to reflect the judgment of the individual that whatever the illness, the treatment is deemed unacceptable to the patient and euthanasia is requested.  That day is coming and perhaps is already now having its foundation laid in public law and public opinion.  After all, we have already decided that it is okay to abort a fetus to prevent them from even being born into a life that the mother has deemed not worth living.  How long will it take to extend that privilege to those already born?

Framing the whole thing with a word other than euthanasia or assisted suicide only increases the chance of this becoming acceptable in law and in the mind of the populace.  Death with dignity is one such phrase used to mask what is really being requested and really being done.  It always helps if you use the word choice somewhere in the title or explanation as well.  In any case, it is worth keeping a look out for this issue to become normal in the thinking of people and the crafting of laws.  Imagine that -- we judge death normal but God decides it must be answered with the power of life and the resurrection!

An indecent world. . .

As if our world could not be more in need of common sense and common decency, an appeals court last month decided that biological men should be permitted to enter an all-female spa that serves a clientele of females ages 13 and up.  In Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that Washington state can indeed enforce an anti-discrimination law to allow a biological man to enter the spa if he identifies as a woman. The Korean-inspired women’s spa limited admission to females only because its services involve full nudity for Korean scrubs, communal bathing, saunas, and massages.  The Washington State Human Rights Commission then entered into the picture alleging that the spa violated the state’s public accommodation law and the Washington Law Against Discrimination.  Whereupon, a three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit dismissed the spa’s First Amendment arguments for free exercise of religion and freedom of association in a May 2025 ruling.  Then, in March, the 9th Circuit this week denied a rehearing in the case by the full bench.  One dissented from this denial, insisting that the “supposed adults in the room have collectively lost their minds.”  I might add, so has the Washington State Human Rights Commission and anyone who holds with them.  It is the triumph of absurdity and stupidity in the name of an ideology masquerading as civil rights and has pretty much sealed the deal that we live in an indecent world in which such absurdity triumphs over decency and common sense every day of the week.  In a decent society, it is common sense that women and girls require privacy in their intimate spaces. 

I am amazed that this had to be argued under the cause of free exercise of religion and freedom of association.  Whether that is the law or not, there was a time in which decency was presumed and that was enough to prevent minors from being exposed to nudity without their consent or the consent of the adults in whose care they reside.  But not now.  It would seem that the Washington State Human Rights Commission and the 9th Circuit have decided that there is no such thing as decency or the protection of the minor and that the supposed female in possession of male genitalia has rights greater than any other in such a case.  I am not pointing this out so that people can be outraged -- I am writing about this because it proves the absurdity of our legal system without a hint of reason, common sense, or decency in pursuit of an absolute ideal that would require the surrender of all of this for the sake of male genitalia.  In other words, the supposed female with male genitalia has a right to be seen that is greater than the rights of anyone to privacy.  Again, truth is always stranger than fiction.  While I am fairly certain this will be overturn, the mere fact that it could be decided almost proves the entire point of the problems we have with the American judicial system today.