So what does this mean?

By now some of you know that today the congregation I have served for 32 years will honor my retirement.  I wish I knew what this meant.  Some Lutherans insist that without a call, I am no longer a priest or pastor.  Others argue against it.  What does it mean to be Pastor Emeritus?   I am afraid I have no idea.  Unfortunately, retirement does not come with any more instructions than adulthood did or marriage or parenthood.  At this point, however, I am still trying to sort out what this means.

At an event a few months ago a friend and his neighbor were talking with me and the neighbor suggested that I would be even busier in retirement than I was actively working.  Believe me, that was no encouragement and no selling point for the virtues of retiring.  I certainly do not want to be busier than I have been for the last years of my full-time employment.  It is not a selling point for retirement to say that the busy only get busier -- even if more of that busyness is stuff I want to do.  I am not ready to be idle but I thought the whole point of retirement was some sort of escape from the rat race.  If retirement does not provide some diversion from the constant press of demand and responsibility, why bother?  If retirement is only idleness, then it would appear I have traded adulthood in for a childish pursuit of doing nothing (or nothing I do not want to do).  Again, neither of these prospects seems attractive to me.

Yes, I know that there are a thousand things which were postponed due to the demands of family and job and that now it the time to pursue some or most or even perhaps all of them.  So what am I supposed to do?  Stop being interested in the things that have interested me professionally and personally for the past 45 years?  Gosh, I hope not.  If so, I should have given away far more books than I did and I could have given my wife back one of her spare bedrooms instead of occupying the territory as a study.  So if you are expecting me to shutter this little proposition called a blog, I am not ready to give up having an opinion and sharing it with you if you want to read it.

I will be honest with you.  I will continue to have some strong opinions about much of what goes on in the parishes of my own and other church bodies.  I will continue to have strong opinions about the state of affairs in national jurisdictions (Lutheran and otherwise).  I will continue to have strong opinions about the state of things in our national culture and of society in general though most of them will probably be out of step with the rest of the world.  What am I supposed to do with those opinions?  Keep them to myself?  Share them with my wife?  Blab about them on social media?  The blog remains the primary place where I offload the opinions my family has grown tired of and I cannot keep bottled up inside.  I guess I will need to learn some discretion.  If I offend everyone, there will be no one left to attend my funeral when I exit this world.  Perhaps I need to include some cash in my will to cover a few paid mourners who weep and wail if there is no one else to grieve me.  When the day comes, I do expect a few folks will show up just to make sure I am dead!

So later today I will preach my last official sermon before I am put out to pasture; there will be some good eats and a few kind words before we sing some hymns, hear some words from the Lord, and pray some heartfelt words back to Him.   But after that, well, I am not so sure.  Is this something you make up as you go along?  Asking for a friend.

Collateral damage. . .

Few would deny that in the past society was ordered along more patriarchal lines.  What is in debate is whether that patriarchy was abusive or oppressive.  Curiously, the statistics seem to conflict with the stereotype.  The problem with those statistics today is that nearly all evidence of patriarchy is long gone and the reality is that the revolt against patriarchy has ended up becoming a revolt against order itself.  The collateral damage from the war against patriarchy has been marriage, children, and family, among other things.  Whether this was intended result or an unintended consequence is yet to be seen.

At least in Western societies, those distinctive traits of a patriarchal society have nearly disappeared.  Gone is the ruling despot of the patriarchal head of the family, the forms of arranged marriage in which either parent had a say or advice in the choice of a spouse, the submission of children (including male children) to much parental authority, and preference in the numbers of students in universities or doctoral programs, faculty, professions, and, in general, almost every field of social life (work, marriage, family, etc.).  In fact, it has been so successful that the father figure has largely been eradicated or at least is on the endangered species list.

The result of all of this is the collapse of order.  We live in a chaos of preference, desire, and choice without many restraints. What was it that turned the feminist quest for freedom and autonomy into an overall pursuit of a radical individualism, rampant consumerism, and the idealization of rights?  The response to the decline in patriarchy has been the adolescent male who never grows up or the hype of a feminized masculinity or metrosexualism or the angry and insecure violent male.  Curiously, in the European societies that have experienced the most success in the overthrow of patriarchy, violence against women has not declined.  It is what one author called the “Nordic paradox”, or “the fact — surprising at first glance — that violence against women, from rape to femicide, is greater in the most civilised countries (like those of Scandinavia) and that a country like Italy, where the gender gap is still relatively wide, is among the least unsafe on the European continent.”  The patriarchy, which has disappeared from Western society, today exists only in immigrant families and this contributes to the growing conflict between liberal Western values and those held by immigrant populations -- especially in Europe.

I wish that this were merely an offense against patriarchy -- actual or presumed -- but along with this  decline has come an overall decline in common values.  This is especially true of life.  With the rise of feminism and the decline of patriarchy has come the normalization of a culture of death with regard to the child in the womb, the individual who deems life no longer worth living, and the aged and infirm in institutionalized care.  The collapse of patriarchy has contributed to the collapse of order overall and the disappearance of the common values that once esteemed life, children, elderly, marriage, and family highly and which contributed to the stabilization of society.  

We must ask ourselves if wars have actually declined since feminism began to rule the day or if the violence that routinely afflicts nearly every society has increased at the same time.  If the answer is yes, we must admit that with the defeat of patriarchy has come something far more nefarious -- the end of order and the reign of chaos in which life itself is afforded no special protection at all.  It almost makes you homesick for the days in which a little oppression might not be such a bad price to pay if we came to our senses and acknowledged that marriage, family, children, life, and a common morality came with the dreaded patriarchy.  No one but an idiot or a fool or a misogynist longs for the days when abuse was normal.  Neither am I saying that.  But the collateral damage in the war against patriarchy has not produced a better society or world and may have hastened the demise of the very order that once marked us as civilized.

What to do about a wedding?

Sermon for Epiphany 2, One Year, preached on Thursday, January 16, 2025.

The wedding feast at Cana presents us with something of a conundrum.  Its miracle is confusing and almost shocking.  It is not a grand show of His power but it is a grand display of His mercy.  Jesus shows us how He plans on using His power.  He is not going to dazzle the eye but touch the heart.  The first fact is that they have run out of wine.  Why?  Why did they run out of wine?  Did they plan poorly?  Were they cheap?  Were they poor?  Were the guests gluttons?  Were they so drunk that they had continued to consume the wine long after they were already tipsy?  They have run out of wine is the report of Blessed Mary to Jesus but that is about it.

The second fact is the intention of Blessed Mary.  Was she reporting this to Jesus because His own glass was empty?  Was she giving the signal that it was time to leave and the party is over and time to go home?  Or was she asking Jesus to do something about it – saving the embarrassed couple from their shame.  In any case, Jesus says that this is not His hour of glory.  Of course it is not – Jesus has come for the glory of the cross and not to restore glory to a wedding reception winding down because it has run out of gas.

If we treated this as allegory, we would see larger meanings to this all.  The world has run out of wine.  The things that once brought gladness have been overcome by the things that cause sorrow, shame, fear, and scandal.  The world has run out of gas and the party is almost over.  The world is tilting in the balance of climate change and pollution and dwindling resources.  The world is drunk with its own sense of power and ability thinking that banning straws or building electric cars will make everything better.  Jesus says that this is not His problem.  Of course, it isn’t.  Jesus has not come to repair a broken world so that a sinful people may continue to sin and suffer the effects of that sin.  He has come to end the reign of sin once for all and this comes not by turning water into wine but by turning wine into the blood that cleanses us from all our sin.

If we think this is a miracle of the kingdom that will prompt faith from reluctant hearts, we have this wrong as well.  Faith comes by hearing and miracles do not convince the doubting heart – only the Spirit does.  We still think that a few more miracles would not hurt the cause.  No, healing does not prevent the healed from dying but it sure makes us feel better. A little more of a bad life is better than none. So what is Jesus to do?   Give them wine to prolong their stupor or make them sober up to the reality of what sin has done?  Which would YOU do if you were Jesus?  Would you give into a feel good moment or would you skip the party and head to the cross where the glory of salvation will be revealed for all people to see?

We know what Jesus did.  He did both.  He did it all in spades.  He did not give them a few more gallons of wine but hundreds and hundreds of bottles of wine – far more than a small wedding reception of people could every consume in that one occasion.  What this means is this.  Our Lord does not leave you in your misery because He will give you glory at the end.  No, He is with us always even to the end of the age.  He visits us in our troubles to gladden our hearts but not with alcohol to deaden us to the pain.  No, He gives us the joy of the Kingdom in the midst of our suffering.  Beloved you are God’s children now?  If God be for us, who can be against us?  Your glory is not to come but Christ with you now.

Our Lord comes to us in the midst of our sins and our sinning with forgiveness and with the power of the Holy Spirit to help us leave behind our sinful ways and strive to be the holy, righteous, and godly people baptism says we are.  He does not deaden our feelings but opens our hearts to the joy of the kingdom that can never be taken from us.  He sets His table in the presence of our enemies and we feast upon the cup of the kingdom, the foretaste of the feast to come.

Our Lord does that for us now even while He accomplishes all things for our salvation.  He pays the price for sin we could not pay.  He fights the devil for us because we could not win in his game of wits and temptation.  He empties the grave of its sting and steals from death its victory and raises us up with Him to everlasting life.  That is the miracle of Jesus.  He does not choose between now or forever but is with us now and forever, bestowing upon us grace upon grace that we neither deserve nor merit and bringing to completion in us what He has begun.

Yes, the party is over but that does not mean that life is only drudge and sorrow and pain.  If Christ is there, hope is there and life is there and joy is there.  That is the abundant mercy displayed in this parable.  God sent His Son into the world not to condemn the world but that the world might be saved through Him.  That means we have hope, joy, peace, comfort, and contentment even now through His grace and yet it is not quite what shall be when He comes in His glory to usher in the wedding feast that has no end, will never run out of wine or time, and will overwhelm us with joy!

Really?

It is remarkable how ignorant the news media has become and that ignorance is mirrored across social media as well.  Historic Christian symbols have become markers not of the great Christian past but of their more recent kidnapping by supremacist groups and others on the edge of society.  No where does this show up more than in the strange case of tattoos.  Those who know me know I am not a particular fan of painting up the body but that is not the issue here.  The issue here is how ignorant our society has become of ancient and clearly mainstream Christian symbolism so that as soon as somebody sees a tat that has Latin or a Jerusalem Cross, the flag of racism or bigotry is labelled against the person when it should be left square at the feet of those who just do not know or want to know Christian history.

“Deus vult” is a Latin phrase meaning “God wills it,” and is often used by Christians, and in particular Catholics, to express belief in divine providence. The motto has been in use at least since the First Crusade of the late 11th century.   No less than the once vaunted the Associated Press (AP) published an article attacking then Secretary of Defense nominee and Army National Guard officer Pete Hegseth over his tattoo of that popular Christian motto “Deus vult.”  I have no interest in defending Pete Hegseth.  I do not know the man and had not heard much of him until Trump began speaking his name.  The bone I have to pick is how easily supposedly "normal" mainstream media types raise a red flag for something they simply do not understand or want to understand and therefore got wrong.

It is not about Trump but about how news media have become so ignorant and foolish in their handling of things that have to do with orthodox Christianity.  This is no different than the Justice Department's view of Latin Mass Roman Catholic folk as potential terrorists.  Really?  How did we go from being rather informed about Christianity as a whole to being completely stupid about a faith which has been and remains woven deeply into the fabric of American history and identity?  Those on the traditional side of things are often derided as ignorant and uneducated and easily manipulated by extremists but this is a clear case of how easily those on the liberal or progressive side are themselves caught up in ideology instead of facts.  Any student of history who has spent a moment on the history of the Crusades would have recognized the Jerusalem Cross as a legitimate Christian symbol with a long and storied history of use.  Any student who made it into high school a hundred years ago could have translated the Latin into English and known exactly what that phrase meant.  The fact that we do not know history means we are even more vulnerable to those who abuse history in pursuit of ideology that based not in fact but in fear.  That is a bad day for America.

The burden of our times. . .

In his little book on Temptation, Bonhoeffer addresses the typical problems and then shifts to a discussion of desperation and despair.  These are certainly the cause of much temptation in our age of uncertainty.  We are ever so quick to complain and complain loudly upon social media.  We are also quick to lament the stresses and pressures upon us.  Indeed, as someone rightly has observed, "Everyone I know has PSD!"  Don't we all!  I wonder if many of our stresses are due to the times and not solely due to the problems and troubles of our age.  I wonder if we find ourselves stressed because we have the illusion of control but not its reality.

Hearing my grandparents and parents speak of life in the Great Depression, I did not hear the litany of complaints you would expect of them.  In fact, one of my grandmothers actual recalled not the want of the times but the way people pulled together, pooled their resources, and worked to make a way despite the lack of so many things.  She contrasted that to the modern age so rich in things and so poor in our ability to get along and cooperate for something bigger than ourselves.  I think she was on to something.

Our stress today is not from manual labor but from weary minds.  We are weary because, for all out thinking, we find ourselves less able to control what happens to us or to those whom we love.  Yet despite this we live in an age in which we are told we are in control of our lives -- much more so than the generations who went before us.  Could it be that our stress and the ills of body and mind such stress causes us is due to the fact that we are dizzied by the constant changes and by our inability to do much except catch up to it as it passes us?  I fear that this is in part why we suffer so from stress related psychological and physical ills.  We are literally worrying ourselves into an early death but for all our worries we have nothing much to show for it other than doctor bills.

I grew up in a farming area and, at that time, farmers did not seem as stressed as they are today.  Of course, they lived in dependence upon the Lord (or nature, if you do not believe).  They did not have irrigation then or the herbicides or combines that calculated the moisture content of the crop and, especially important, its value on today's market.  They just did what they could and left the rest until tomorrow.  It is probably true of most occupations today.  Our marvelous technology has left us with the illusion that we control things and therefore it is hard to shake our sense of responsibility over just about everything.  Helicopter parenting is how this works in the home.  Parents seek to control just about everything their children come in contact with (except they have a strange trust over media and screens that I find hard to get).  We work less with our bodies but cannot seem to stop our minds and in those minds fear seems to be the most powerful force.  It has created a pandemic of depression and angst that pills cannot solve.  There is a cost to making yourself the center of things.

Christianity does not offer a fairy tale happy ending but the reality of a God who fights for you and with you.  "You are not alone" is one of the most powerful statements of Scripture.  The most oft repeated phrase of the Bible is "Do not be afraid."  Technology has not solved the loneliness problem nor has it solved the fear problem.  We are prisoners to our screens, to our need for safety, to our quest for security, and to our desire to control just about everything.  It is no wonder we are unhappy.  "Come to Me," says the Lord, "and I will give you rest."  More than any other need in this modern age, we need His rest to end our fears and answer our depression with hope.

Low church liberalism. . .

While the terms low church and high church are not ordinarily categories a Lutheran might deal in, they have become broader than the Anglican usage in which they were initially used.  Low church, historically, refers to those who give little emphasis to ritual, often having an emphasis on preaching, individual salvation and personal conversion. In one sense, it is also a term for the Evangelical wing of Anglicanism although it may not be directly applicable to the Evangelicalism you normally think about in America.  The term has most often been used in a liturgical sense, leaning toward Protestantism, whereas "high church" has leaned toward more ritual and Roman Catholicism.  This is particularly true of the Anglo-Catholic wing of Anglicanism (a sort of ultra high church part of the movement).  Broad church was a term for the muddy middle doctrinally speaking although it probably was also more at home in a more low church setting than with the Anglo-Catholic or Tractarian side of things.

For Anglicanism, the low church and broad church groups have also been those more at home with a liberal or progressive view of Scripture or doctrine.  In an odd sort of way, the Evangelical wing of Anglicanism has sided with the high church or Anglo-Catholic position largely because it was also more concerned with orthodox theology and a high view of Scripture.  For Lutherans, though some would argue, the low church side of things has generally been more at home with the liberal or progressive view of Scripture and of doctrine in general.  The only exception to this would be the so-called "Bronze Age" Missourians who tolerated liturgy but only within bounds and who were and remain as suspicious of those who advocate ceremony as those who hold a low view of Scripture -- but this is a particularly local oddity.  In the same way, among the ELCA the more liturgical are often nowadays the more liberal as well -- an oddity that marks them more than Lutheranism as a whole.  Yet these two unusual groups (bronze agers and the ceremonial liberal folks of the ELCA) cannot prove my point wrong but only offer a nuance to it.

The reality is the low church tends to feel more at home with a more progressive view of Scripture and a more liberal doctrinal stand.  In fact, it might be said that those who do not attach much importance to ceremony do so precisely because they do not attach much importance to the words of Scripture.  The two views go hand in hand.   American Evangelicalism was once allied with a more conservative view of Scripture and of doctrine overall but things have changed here as well.  It would seem that the Evangelicals as a movement is drifting more and more into the circle of relativism, trying to find ways to approach culture's move to the left rather than attack it.  While historically this might not have been the case, it sure is now.

The liberals of the early 20^th century were willing to keep the form and trappings of Christianity all the while they were also stripping it of any doctrinal content and creedal identity.  This was because they found these to conflict with a rationalist view of science and the world. These early liberals desired to maintain a moral authority within the faith but without the dogmatic content of Biblical Christianity.   While there are pockets of this liberalism around, what we encounter today is simply not interested in Scripture as fact and truth nor is it necessarily interested in arguing about such things.  What it is interested in is morality.  Modern liberalism isn’t fighting a theological war but it is waging a war about what is ethical, moral, and the focus of Christian identity.  That view is decidedly on the side of sexual liberation, population control, the freedom to explore gender identity, climate change, and a view of science that requires it to surrender objectivity for ideology.  It is low church or high church or whatever because its values are not attached to liturgy or to a view of Scripture as much as they are to the cultural milieu of the day.  That said, it is certainly more at home in low church ceremonial because it is more concerned with reason and race, justice and equality, and the celebration of diversity than it is any loyalty to the forms and ceremonial of the past.

It would seem to me that the future of orthodox Christianity lies with the so-called high church.  This is true for the Missouri Synod at least and I think it is probably true for Rome as well.  The liberal wing of Rome sees the greater need for a horizontal church over a vertical one and the disdain that progressives have for the Latin Mass is born in part of their desire to be rid of ancient ceremonial constriction to allow more local freedom and inculturation.  In one respect, there is a certain kinship between those on the right of Rome and the conservative and ceremonial folk in Missouri.  Neither one helps the other in any tangible way but we both appreciate the fight each brings to its own locale.  In any case, the low church liberals have stolen most of every other denomination and jurisdiction of Christianity and left it with a hollow shell of its former missionary zeal -- preferring to argue over cultural and climate issues over Scripture, creed, and confession.