O Thou who changest not. . .

One of the modern fallacies and heresies is that the Church and Scripture and, well, God should change, evolve, mature, develop, and morph -- that this is the stuff of real life and if God is real, He and the things of God should also reflect what is a characteristic of man.  I do not need to rehearse the litany of voices all over the landscape of Christianity who believe that "change or die" is the most fundamental truth of the universe.  Perhaps Darwin and his ilk created the idea and the ideal of evolution but we have turned that into the most universal truth of our age -- a truth so common that about the only thing modern conservatives and liberals disagree over is the extent and pace of change.  Change is the sacred reality that under girds nearly all of modern life. 

The problem is that change is a primal characteristic of creation -- not of the Creator.  We are captive to a changing world and we change because time cannot be paused or stopped by anyone or anything within the sphere of the creative world.  This does not quite bode the same for Jesus who is the eternal Son of the Father who once in time was incarnate, born, lived, died, and rose again.  But for the rest of us, this is who we are.  It is not who God is.

To make God captive to change or to impose upon Him the demand that He and all His being evolve is to make Him cease to be God and turn Him into a creature like you and me.  We have a beginning and an end while God is.  He just is.  He is forever.  Jesus is the alpha and omega not in some symbolic sense but in the most real sense of all.  A God who changes is not worth having at all.  A God who must evolve is the mere elevation of a creative to a higher claim of status and ends up being no God at all.  

The modern quest for God is not a real pursuit of the eternal but the imposition upon God and His being all the limitations and foibles of our own temporary reality.  We are not in search of God as much as we are on a sacred journey to dethrone God and make Him no more than us and we no less than Him.  This God changes His mind and its fickle.  The God has no eternal truth but only His truth for the moment and ends up having to reinvent Himself just as we seem bound to do minute by minute of our lives.  This God has no Word that endures forever but a voice captive to a situation and to a snapshot in time.  The facts and history associated with His revelation and disclosure are quaint but nothing more.  They are left with only the relevance we assign and the meaning we define and the value we bestow.  Who needs or wants such a worthless God?  It is the curious pursuit of a God who simply cannot be real or at least any more real than we, our thoughts, opinions, and desires, are real. 

This is the Roman problem.  If the East stops everything at one point in time, say the last of the seven great ecumenical councils, Rome does not stop it at all.  The development of doctrine is not a nod to continuing revelation or an office with a conduit to the almighty but the admission that God is really no different than we are.  We access such a God with understanding and appreciation but not with dogma that is eternal.  God's mystery is cut down to size and becomes a solvable puzzle rather than something which must be grasped by faith and confessed without definition or explanation.  Sometimes I think we Lutherans have also forgotten this.  We want people to get worship when only God does -- it is His arena and His purpose and will which unfold within the Word that does what it says and the Sacraments that bestow what they sign.  We make ourselves too big when we presume to speak for Him what He has not said once forever.  We make ourselves too important when we assume that God is a nut to crack and an idea which evolves.  In the end, it also makes God small and relatively unimportant and certainly impotent when we elevate our own experience and characteristics into His and presume that this is God.  While the creeds do not go there, those who confess the creed seem transfixed by the idea that if God is more like us, all the problems of religion and the world will be solved.  What a joke! 

Lutheran question or not. . .

In a recent podcast I heard someone who teaches at one of our LCMS seminaries define the parameters of the worship wars or worship debates before us.  This is what he said:

". . . what is worship for Lutheran and then how do you construct worship within any particular congregational context that is appropriate for the life of that Christian community within that Lutheran Christian community within that within that context. So that's primary. . . "

That seems odd to me.  Worship is pretty well defined by our Confessions.  We have not abolished the Mass.  That is what we said.  We keep the mass not simply as a historic form but with more devotion than our opponents.  We are catholic in doctrine and in practice.  Worship is not an open question for Lutherans.  Unless, of course, we consider our confessional words on worship to be descriptive rather than prescriptive.  If that is the case, then who known what Lutheran worship really is?  Can it change from generation to generation or from year to year or from Sunday to Sunday?  Who gets to decide?  Is it a manifestation of the democratic vote of the people assembled?  Is it the realm of the Pastor alone?  Who constructs it?  According to what rules or guidelines?  Are there boundaries to what passes muster or is that simply for those assembled to define?  How do you define what is appropriate for the life of the Christian community and who decides?  Is it simply preference?  Is it the will of the majority?  Does it have anything to do with the confessional standards which apply to every congregation?

My concern here is not that everyone who deviates from the hymnal doing something which flows from the ordo but with different words is terrible.  What concerns me is that some (perhaps, many) among us approach the worship question without the application of the Confessional documents which bind us together.  Worship is not an open question in which there are no boundaries.  Worship is not adiaphora, not something outside the realm of our Confession.  Our Lord did not leave the details to us while giving us broad categories in which to do it.  He established clear patterns which are fully reflected in the early church and consistent down through the ages.  Inculturate does not mean to keep the Gospel but to embed it within a rite strictly local and reflective of the culture in which the people live.  There is something much more at stake here than if a demon is being worshiped.  Jesus has given us Word and Sacrament, a pattern within His own practice of synagogue and Temple, and lifted this out of a particular context of culture to apply to all cultures and all times.  The Church through the ages has made rather deliberate and plodding movements toward more uniformity for the sake of identity and for the proclamation of the faith.  While these are not distinctly the dictum of Christ, they are not to be dismissed as simply the practice of the time or custom.  Nowhere does the responsibility or authority for this become strictly local or the realm of preference -- at least until more modern times!

The Lutheran question is not what is worship and what do we want it to look like and what will fit us.  The Lutheran question about worship is what does Scripture say and what has the Church bequeathed to us and how can that be used without violating what Scripture says.  The Lutheran question is not about what we could do but what flows from our Confessions, given their deference to the forms and patterns and words they already knew before the Reformation.  After all, Luther's Formula Missae is a set of rubrics to be set inside the missals already on the altar and not a new invention to stand in opposition to what had been.  The Deutsche Messe is somewhat different but its primary principle is to substitute hymn paraphrases for the ordinary in place of the Latin texts.  Yet neither of these, whether good or bad, was made the Lutheran order.  The principles behind them might be worth our look for any Lutheran distinctive to liturgical theology.  The explosion of church orders was not a gift to the Church but a curse upon us that, at least within most Lutheran circles was rather narrow, but within the context of the wider Reformation became a free for all.  The Lutheran question does not begin with a blank piece of paper and a series of what ifs.  It begins with the historic Western Mass.  You may not like that but that is what Lutherans expected and anticipated.  So whether or not some things done in the name of Lutheranism are extreme or unfaithful, the whole question that begins with a loose idea of what probably ought to be included and yet see it all within the realm of whatever we deem appropriate is not the Lutheran question.  

A word I am over. . .

There is a word that is woven through the fabric of nearly every aspect of the Christian Church today.  You cannot avoid it.  It seems not to matter on what side of the theological divide one is, this word is ever present.  I wish I had a nickel for every time I have read it or heard it in the past ten years.  It is the word strategic.  Of course, you will not find it on Jesus' lips.  Indeed, the only instance of the word that I can find is a peculiar translation of the word usually rendered opportune.   It occurs in the NASB (1977 and 1995) not from Jesus or His disciples or anyone we should be paying attention to.  No, it came from the mouth of Herod.  You find it in Mark 6:21:  A strategic day came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his lords and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee;  Lest some of you might have forgotten, that strategic day came with the cost of John the Baptist's head on a platter.

We seem to love that word strategic.  We do strategic planning.  We order priorities strategically.  We develop a strategic vision.  It is not as simple as counting the cost or using wisely the resources entrusted to us.  Strategic seems to imply that we have a crystal ball in which to work so that we need to depend less upon God's grace and more upon our own abilities, skills, aptitudes, and creativity.  It is the byword for the modern era in Christianity.  Maybe you grew up with the game Strategy or maybe you remember how one President Bush seemed to butcher that word but this is no game and comedy in Christendom.  It is serious business -- the most serious business of all.

So this is one of the more benign versions, obviously directed more toward an individual than a church but similar in focus;

When we speak about strategic planning, it’s crucial for us to grasp its essence as it aligns with the wisdom found in the Bible. Strategic planning is about taking thoughtful steps toward achieving our long-term goals. The Bible teaches us the value of wisdom and strategy. By aligning our plans with God’s will, we can ensure that our decisions are informed and purposeful. The scripture encourages us to approach our lives with diligence, seeking God’s guidance in all our plans. This inevitably leads us toward success, fulfilling both our life’s aspirations and nurturing our relationship with God. It’s about seeking understanding and allowing God’s wisdom to unfold in our strategic plans. Just as we wouldn’t race forward without considering our path, our planning process must be deliberate and rooted in prayer. 

It sounds like the kid who knows what he wants and plans how to get mom or dad to go along.  There is not much strategic in that as much as it reflects the age old problem of trying to get God to agree with what we want and to enlist His support so that we will be successful or have someone to blame.  In any case, I am over strategic planning.  It often seems like we have done more damage to the Church by our planning and goal setting than we have simply meeting the Lord where He has chosen to be found, telling His saving acts among the nations, and living as the people He has called us to be.  I do wish we could be more strategic in that. 

 

AI just keeps on giving. . .

Child pornography without a child.  Is it wrong?  Well, we are far removed from the time when right or wrong mattered.  Is it legal?   On August 25 of this year, Judge John Z. Lee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the First Amendment does indeed protect the right of Americans to possess AI-generated child pornography.  In Wisconsin, Steven Anderegg was charged by the Justice Department in 2024 “with producing, distributing, and possessing visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and transferring such material to a minor under the age of sixteen.”  This was not a small matter but many thousands of very realistic images.  In 2025, a Western District of Wisconsin judge dismissed Anderegg’s possession charge while allowing the producing and distributing charges to remain in place.  A few months ago, minors in TN were charged with using AI to make nude images using the faces of classmates.  It was a narrow ruling applied only to the use of possession statute 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1) in the possession charge but it does highlight the new ground which AI is plowing as our society defines what is legal and what is not in the realm of AI created images.

It did not begin with AI.  When the day came that our courts decided, probably with public opinion on its side, that pornography was protected speech, the whole world changed.  Indeed, we subjected a new generation of youth to a sexual maturity in which their desires were also shaped by pornography and often extreme violence and perverse pornographic images and videos.  So it did not take long before AI offered the opportunity to expand what was possible and that included the use of images created of children.  What we fail to realize is that even if no child is involved and the images and videos are entirely AI, these will effectively change the landscape even further and have a profound impact upon the maturing minds and desires of young people.  Simply saying something is legal does not seem to be saying much but in a time when legality stands without morality to define what people see and how that influences desires, it is enough. Things are not going to get better.  They assuredly will get worse.  In the balance lies the development of healthy youth and the easy access and alluring temptation being provided them by new technology that blurs reality and erases boundary lines.  What will we do as a society and what can we do as Christians within that society to protect our children and promote an honest and healthy environment for our kids?  That ought to be the question before us.  Not everything legal is moral.  In this case it seems fairly obvious that what some have said is legal is extremely dangerous and evil.  The use of AI in gaming as well as other entertainment platforms will only encourage its use and eventual acceptance in pornography.  There has to be a way of limiting or identifying this menace.

Rome and Trent. . .

Though there are some who object to the term Roman Catholic Church, it is a fair term and not simply a derogatory label applied by the Reformation parties and its theological heirs.  It befits us in this October month so special to Lutherans to take a look at Trent and the Roman nature of that church body which convened the council.

The Council of Trent  was held between 1545 and 1563 in Northern Italy in the city that gives it its name.  Called the 19th ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, it was the council requested by the Lutherans and was convened due to the efforts of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V more than any pope.  It was the last "ecumenical council" outside Rome and is regarded as a local council by the East.  Though the Reformation was the trigger, the outcome was more far reaching than a response to Luther and his cohorts.  The Council put into place statements and clarifications of its doctrine and teachings on an expansive list of topics, including scripture, the biblical canon, sacred tradition, original sin, justification, salvation, the sacraments, the Mass, and the veneration of saints -- as well as the requisite condemnations of Protestantism.  Though there were not many statements about the papacy, this council defined Roman Catholicism for centuries and in a way that had not been done before.  Three popes oversaw the sessions but none attended -- a condition imposed by Charles V -- so they were represented by legates.  It would be 300 years for another council and this one focused more on the papacy -- Vatican I in 1869.  It came relatively soon -- the Fifth Lateran Council had only concluded in 1517 -- but we all know what happened that same year.

The emperor intended it to be a strictly general or truly ecumenical council, at which the Protestants should have a fair hearing and safe passage but no vote.  The obvious corruption in the administration of the Church which was one of the causes of the Reformation was a primary focus of the council.  The papal legates ensured that no concessions would be made to the Protestants.  The position of the Roman Church as the sole interpreter of the Scriptures (the primacy of the Vulgate included), the rejection of justification by faith, the clarification of the relationship between faith and works, and, while abuses condemned, practices such as indulgences, pilgrimages, the veneration of saints and relics, and the veneration of the Virgin Mary were strongly reaffirmed.  Don't forget the affirmation of celibacy for the clergy.  The most enduring and profound consequences of the council were liturgical. A year after the council, Pius IV issued the Tridentine Creed (after Tridentum, Trent's Latin name), Pius V then issued the Roman Catechism and revisions of the Breviary and Missal, and the  codification of the Tridentine Mass ensured the council would live on for the next four hundred years and define Roman faith and practice unchallenged until relatively recently.  In addition, the Eucharist was defined as a true propitiatory sacrifice as well as a sacrament, in which the bread and wine were consecrated into the body and blood of Christ using the term transubstantiation but without the full Aristotelian explanation later defined by Scholasticism.  Pope Pius IV affirmed the decrees on 26 January 1564 under pain of ex-communication for those who rejected its canons.  Though England and elsewhere seemed to make no effort to enforce the decrees, the  main and most detailed theological response was the 1565–73 Examen decretorum Concilii Tridentini (Examination of the Council of Trent) by Lutheran Martin Chemnitz.

So, there you have it.  Without spending much time on the papacy per se, the council effectively Romanized the Western Church from the sixteenth century going forward.  It was to wait until Vatican I in 1870 to address the papalization of the Roman Church but the framework was already in place and the decrees of Vatican I fit well with the work of Trent.  You can complain all you want but the reality is that it would have been difficult to know the Roman Church without the work of Trent and, later, Vatican I.  That is the simple and honest witness of history.  While you may dispute whether the Lutherans live up to their claims in the Augsburg Confession to be catholic in doctrine and practice, it is very difficult to dispute the monumental change of identity within the Western Church in the wake of the Council of Trent.