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.  

Who is vindictive?

While all the talk of the town in Washington, DC, is about what Donald Trump may do to his enemies, the liberals have proven themselves adept at this game for a very long time.  Now, it seems, the Little Sisters of the Poor were given a Christmas gift that just might that could help them end their near-14-year religious liberty battle with the U.S. government.  Again, this is the insistence of the government that the Little Sisters of the Poor could not claim a religious exemption from the health insurance mandate to cover reproductive costs, IVF, and abortion.  While the Little Sisters of the Poor are, well, little in comparison to the government, their stand is of particular importance for all religious institutions insisting that this is really about freedom and the guarantees of the right to practice religion unimpeded by government interference.  It is a faith issue that directly impacts all of us.  So the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a notice in the Federal Register stating that it has opted to withdraw rule changes to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraception mandate.  That rule had been proposed by the Biden administration last year and would have effectively barred the nuns and other religious organizations from claiming exemptions to the ACA requirement that employers provide abortion and contraception coverage in their employee health plans.  While the HHS offered some lame excuse, so the government could “focus their time and resources on matters other than finalizing these rules,” this was one area where diverse religious groups had a common interest.  

My point here is that the government and in particular the liberals have a vindictive streak that will not let go of their will and intent to abrogate the rights of religious expression in favor of things they determined to be in the higher public interest.  They have created a giant headache for this little group of Roman Catholic nuns and doggedly pursued this through more than half a generation -- until now.  Was it due to an administration change?  Did even liberal and progressive churches see the handwriting on the wall and raised a concern?  Who knows but the battle is likely not really over, except for now.  The progressive wing of politics and religion have proven to be remarkably vindictive against the enemies of their liberal causes and abortion and contraception rights are the holy grail of their cause.  Once again those in pursuit of tolerance are profoundly intolerant of views that would have been thoroughly normal only a generation or so before.  I would remind all of us to watch how things unfold.  It is highly unlikely that we have heard the end of this.  Like a dog on a bone, this probably a momentary pause in their pursuit of reproductive rights over religious expression.

We are the ornamentation. . .

In a variety of columns I have lamented what church architecture has become.  In America it is the adoption of the warehouse as the form and shape of God's House.  In Europe it is the sterile and empty walls of designs that could be grand.  In both cases, the ornamentation of the House of God has become the people assembled.  The space itself is devoid of art -- even modern!  Instead the walls are blank.  In America the color is black so that the modern industrial look is front and center.  In Europe it is the whitewashed walls that provide the canvas for people to be the art.  In both cases, we have become adornment of God's house.

Some might insist that it is no different to offer God what we make than to offer Him ourselves as the beauty of His house.  That is not quite the same for the beauty formed with hands has always been a representation of His own Word and the focus has been on what He has done.  The art of the centuries which was both fostered by the Church and passed down through the ages within the structures of God's House was in a profound sense the offering back to God of what He has said and done.  While there is glory in the creator's art and craft, the message of the art (paint, stone, wood, and fabric) is not about us but about what He has done in Christ.  The artist is sometimes remembered but the knowledge of the artist is not required to know what is being said on canvas, in sculpture, in carving, and in weaving.  Now, however, the medium is missing so that only the artist remains.  We are God's art -- at least in modern form and meaning.

In Germany some 40 million euros were spent showcasing not art but the people of God.  Replacing a round cathedral dedicated in 1773, the new St. Hedwig Cathedral of Berlin spares no expense except on art.  Its round shape reflects the former structure bombed in World War II and rebuilt in stark and ugly style contrasting with its more classical form on the exterior.  1963 meet 2024.  It is hard to see how the hole in the floor in the 1963 rebuild could be much stranger but now there is a building with literally nothing except the people to adorn its plain walls.  Of course, you could ask why bother to build a new cathedral (it would be hard to call it a renovation) for a declining church body except that where the German churches lack people, they have deep pockets.  Perhaps the decline will catch up with the church tax but until that happens the Berliners could afford a structure which says more about them than it does about God.  Watch the video below to see what I mean.   

By contrast, the Evangelical Cathedral has wisely chosen simply to preserve the structure and its art from the 1700s.  While it is not immune from the rot of decline that has affected most of Europe, somebody decided that the building was a work of art to be faithfully preserved for its cultural heritage and so it escaped much of what the Roman Catholic cathedral now lauds.  That said, preserving a building while abandoning its Gospel is not necessarily something to be praised either.

New words. . .

I was looking for something else when I came across a stanza for God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen.  This was written for the Baptism of Our Lord and presumably translated from an Orthodox source (though I have no idea what).  Anyway, I wrote down what flashed on the screen and found it very interesting.

Into the Jordan's waters the blessed Savior came
   And offered a new life to all who did the very same
To those whose loving faith in Him
   Would save them from their sin.
O, herald of comfort and joy, comfort and joy!
O, herald of comfort and joy.

So far I have not found anyone to attribute for authorship or source.  If you can help me, I would greatly appreciate it.  In any case, it is a very nice connection between the familiar Christmas carol and the Baptism of Our Lord and our own baptism into Christ.

Tasting our way toward a purchase. . .

When I was a poor college student, we would sometimes load into a car and head to Kroger to the cheese department where they are always offering samples.  I much appreciated the samples and there were times they substituted for a meal.  In any case, they were superbly positioned to contrast with the ordinary and tasteless food then served in college cafeterias.  Because of this I have always had a deep and abiding appreciation for those who serve up food in stores.  Of course, I know they offer samples to entice a purchase but for some of us, the samples were all we were going to get.

Jump up to the present day and when I visit Sam's Club I find the sample carts and those purveying a taste of new and old which you can purchase at a discounted price right there in the club.  Costco and every other similar enterprise have versions of the same.  I do not mean to put them down.  I have walked out of the store with many items tasted at the hands of those offering me a sample.  More often than not, however, I ate because I was hungry in that moment and it smelled good.  When I went back to my cart, I did not avail myself of the sample.  It is certainly not the fault of the smiling face cheerfully offering me a taste.  It is simply because a taste was all I really wanted.

Those who complain about close(d) communion suggest that it is offensive to offer the food of God to some and not to others.  Not to mention that it is hard to get people to stay for the full deal if you refuse them this barest taste of the divine!  Instead of watching the rail, we should be encouraging any and all to come and sample their way into the kingdom of God.  The problem is that most only want the sample and do not even much care to know about anything more.  They are interested in a taste of God but not in the full meal deal.  Furthermore, unlike the samples offered in the hallowed courts of American retailers, this food has the power to harm as well as feed.  It can do harm and more harm than choking on a crumb that went down the wrong pipe.

But that is the problem.  We see religion more in the guise of the great American retailers than we do the House of God.  We see the people in the pew as consumers who must be enticed to purchase God and become a reliable customer of His grace.  We see the whole enterprise as one of choice, consumer satisfaction, and customer loyalty.  So that is how we frame worship and that is how we treat the message.  We have something to sell and we are competing for the same slice of the demographic which might be interested today if we give them a taste, a sample, and little tidbit to whet their appetite.  We no longer seem to see God in this at all.

We have our own sample servers who aid the pastors in turning the distribution into a highly efficient line of tasters of His goodness in the hopes that they might become regular purchasers.  We smile as we serve.  We talk up the product.  We hand over little bits and pieces of God as if He were a piece of chocolate or a slice of cheese.  If this is bad for those new to the Sunday gathering, it is even worse for the regulars.  We create a scenario in which the whole business of worship is rather casual, designed for our satisfaction more than our sanctification, and treat faith as of it were not much different than a consumer whim to bring home what you sampled.  Our people have learned that only too well.  We have succeeded well beyond our wildest dreams in reducing our business with God to a transaction, elevating our role as the consumer, and turning faith into a decision we hope they will not regret next week.  

As I began so let me reiterate here my appreciation for those who serve so cheerfully and politely the samples we love to taste.  They are a special kind of nice person who smiles to offer and smiles even when turned down.  God bless them.  But as much as I appreciate them, that is not what happens in the Divine Service.  We do not give people samples of God to take home in the hopes they will purchase the whole product.  It is not that the Sam's and Costco sample folk are doing something bad.  They are not.  But in the House of God something radically different is happening.  No one samples themselves into the Kingdom of God.  Instead, God calls, gathers, enlightens, sanctifies, washes, absolves, addresses, feeds, and delivers the saved into His Church by the Holy Spirit in what is the mystery of faith.  Why does the Church always want to be more like retail and less like what she alone can be?  Christianity is not a consumer movement.  No one comes except those who are called.  It is God's work even when we fully appreciate it.  If for this reason alone, we must be careful so that the things of God are for the people of God as much as we work to proclaim the Gospel so that this number may daily increase according to God's will and purpose.

Revealed. . .

There is a common misconception that God is hidden in the cross, hidden in weakness.  The reality is just the opposite.  God is not hidden in the cross but revealed there.  It is precisely in His suffering that God reveals Himself in Christ.  God has not concealed Himself in order for us to find Him but revealed Himself plainly to the world.  We do not know God apart from Christ and we do not know Christ apart from the cross.  It is for this reason St. Paul insists that we preach Christ and Him crucified.  It is for this reason that he can declare that He is crucified with Christ and in Christ so that he no longer lives but only Christ in Him.  It is in this God whose love is revealed not in words but in the cross that God makes Himself known.  It is precisely in His love willing to empty Himself in suffering that God reveals His strength.

Sometimes we are tempted to think that the cross is but something Christ endures to pay the price of our redemption or fulfill the prophecy of the Scriptures.  The cross is not simply what God endures but it is where we see God and know Him and the power of His love.  It maybe tempting to think that people can know Christ apart from the cross or to know God in some way apart from Christ but both are a profound betrayal of God's Word and the work of the Spirit in that Word.  Jews seek signs and Greeks wisdom but the only true and genuine Gospel is Christ crucified.  Christ is the power of God and Christ is the wisdom of God. 

We have but one Gospel to offer the world.  It is not a Gospel of forgiveness nor a Gospel of kindness nor a Gospel of human dignity nor a Gospel of improvement.  We have but one Gospel and that Gospel is Jesus Christ crucified.  It is this Christ who unlocks the Scriptures to us and this Christ who turns water into the water of new birth and this Christ who speaks absolution to the sinner and this Christ who gives Himself in bread and wine.  All theology is for us Christology and all Christology is the theology of the cross.  While some may think this is exaggeration, it is the most essential truth of the New Testament.  The Word of God is the Word of the Cross.  The word which we preach is the Word of the Cross.  We neither imagine God or know God apart from Christ and we neither know Christ nor imagine Him apart from the cross.

The cross is not a detour in the path but the path itself.  When we are called to follow Jesus it is the call to take up the cross and follow Him.  So therefore the cross and its denial of self and embrace of sacrifice is not an occasional detour in the ordinary happy life of the Christian but the very shape of that life.  Somewhere we lost this and we ended up with a Savior for whom the cross was but side trip on His revelation of God and we ended up with a Christian life in which bearing the cross was but a momentary diversion in an otherwise fulfilling and rich life.  It is no wonder we are always asking where God is and always wondering what God thinks of us.  We have forgotten that to know God is to know Christ and to know Christ is to know Him as the crucified One.  Perhaps the problem with modern Christianity is not only in what it confesses but what it misses.  For too much of Christianity the cross has become mere symbol and no longer the very Gospel itself.

No room in the inn...

The reality is that we presume upon the Biblical texts from our own experience and custom.  It is perfectly normal though often mistaken to impose upon the Scriptures our own overlay of normal life in order to explain or understand the Biblical word.  Nowhere is this more true than in the way we look at the proverbial inn at Bethlehem and presume the evil innkeeper cares more about high paying clientele over poor Joseph and Mary.  Even in art, the imagery over Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem is more reflective of the shape of things in the medieval culture of Europe than the actual circumstance of the time in which Jesus was born.  So we put out our stables made of wood as if this was the barn that was alone available to the Holy Family.  In this we owe a greater debt to St. Francis than to Scripture.  In many works of art of the same period, the inn looks like the tavern or hotel typical of the age.  

In so doing, it is not simply the Christmas story which suffers from the imposition of another time upon the Biblical story.  We lose out much of the many and varied connections that began with the upper room that was full and of the one place available to the Holy Family by not an uncaring innkeeper but a compassionate family member.  It all begins with that word inn.  The word Greek we translate is kataluma.  Like many words then and now, it has several meanings but at its core it simply means a place of temporary lodging -- a guest room!

Along with being master road builders and a highly mechanized and sophisticated military machine, Rome was also practical in the administration of its vast empire.  Along the Roman built roads about ever ten miles or so were relay stations much in the same way the old pony express had places where riders exchanged horses and took care of personal needs.  These were called mutationes.  Every twenty-five miles or so were larger accommodations.  These were formal guesthouses with accommodations for official Roman guests and along side were public hostels.  St Luke references these pandocheion in the parable of the Good Samaritan (also called katagōgia).  They were the Motel 6 or Howard Johnsons of the ay -- basic accommodations and meals served up cheap.  They were not always reputable and were sometimes known for the more unseemly things that went on as well.  

Bethlehem was a very small village, perhaps about 500 maximum, and so it was without any of these official or even disreputable places for the occasional traveler.  But Bethlehem would have known and valued hospitality.  What would have been available to a stranger at your door would certainly have been made available to someone coming back to his home town.  Relatives did not have to be coerced into this duty.  Of course, we know that Joseph was not the only one who went back home to register at the order of the Caesar.

The homes of the day were rather basic -- one roomed buildings made of mud brick, often next to a cave, with outdoor living space on the roof.  Often this rooftop space had the roughed in outline of another room that was to be finished when the son brought home his bride to live with the family.  This is also likely the space that St. Luke was referencing for the Upper Room Jesus sent His disciples to prepare for the Passover.  It was called kataluma and was for the son's bridal chamber or an extra room for guests. Is this what St. Luke is referencing in the Christmas story?  Not to mention that this is the word St. Luke uses for the Upper Room on Maundy Thursday.  There is another detour in the story.  Is this like “the prophet’s room” of I King 17 where Elijah takes refuge with the widow of Zarepath?

In John 14 this is flesh out even more by Jesus own word.  “In my Father’s house are many rooms and I go to prepare a place for you, and if I go away to prepare a place for you I will come again and take you to myself…”  Everyone of the day knew what Jesus was saying.  This was not some heavenly motel or stone mansion but framed in the marriage customs of the time.  It began when two families would seek to find a suitable spouse for a son and daughter.  It was not some contrived arranged marriage but a family seeking someone who was stable, honest, and good for their child.  Then a betrothal would take place in the fiancée’s home with both families present as the son and daughter consented to the union.  Then time passed as the bride and her family prepared for the wedding and dowry and the groom returned home to finish the kataluma or upper room where they would reside.  Sometimes building took longer than expected and so this was not a precise date.  When finally the wedding day came and accommodations were complete, the groom returned to bring his bride home.  Here is where the parable of the virgins comes in.  When that day came, the groom and his party processed to the bride’s family home where the bride and her bridesmaids awaited. 

Why was there no place for Joseph and Mary in the kataluma?  Well, there is that business of the registration or census and the crowd of people fulfilling their civic duty and the fact that this was not the house of Joseph's father.  Furthermore, they were not consummating their marriage and blessed Mary was already pregnant with Jesus.  But the family would not turn them away and so they offered them the lower part of the house where the animals were secured for the night or perhaps the cave that would corral the animals in the same way.  It was warm and safe and that was as good as they had to offer.  

Now you cannot connect the dots.  The Upper Room of the Last Supper, kataluma, brings to bear the bridal imagery of the Eucharist and the nuptial character to the Sacrament.  Christ is the bridegroom and the Church His bride and the Eucharist is the marriage feast -- the Marriage Feast of the Lamb in His kingdom without end that we experience in foretaste until we shall finally experience it in full when Christ comes to bring His bride to the Father's House.  The end times are then a consummation of the eternal marriage that not even death can end.   There is certainly another hint to all of this.  St. John says He “came to His own but His own receive Him not” -- a reflection of the way God framed Israel's rejection throughout the Old Testament (violating the marriage and becoming an adulterous bride) and the way Christ weeps over Jerusalem whom He would have gathered to Him by they would not.  Also according to St. John, Revelation gives us the picture of the end where rejection gives way to rejoicing and the bride and the bridegroom enter into the eternal home for the everlasting feast.  It sort of all fits.  And so does Christmas and Easter and the end of the Pentecost Season.  The connection is revealed by a word -- kataluma.

Grudging respect. . .

Let me begin by saying that I was never a fan of Jimmy Carter.  Though it is perhaps unkind to say in the wake of his recent death, his presidency was mediocre at best and perhaps worst.  It is not because he was not smart or because he had no values but because he did not understand the environment of Washington nor did he seem to learn.  As everyone has said, he was certainly a better ex-president than he was one who governed.  In fact, it is hard to remember his failings as president because his successes as former president shone so brightly.  He did not pack up his hat for the speakers podium and the fat checks that accompany the circuit (though nearly every other candidate or former president has done a remarkably good job of cashing in on their fame).  Maybe he was naive about peace when he established the Carter Center and maybe he was optimistic when he took up a hammer for the cause of houses for Habitat for Humanity but I much prefer his version of retirement to others (Democrat or Republican, it does not matter all that much).   Sure, there were times I wish he had kept quiet and other times I wish he had spoken out but all in all he earned some grudging respect from me.

The core and center of that respect was the enigma of Carter -- a pro-life Democrat.  You see how time has moved by the fact that no one could ever use those two terms together anymore about anyone.  There was a time when abortion and the sacred character of life was not a partisan issue but a moral one and it found support in both parties.  Now we have entered an era in which it is impossible to be a Democrat and be pro-life and the Republicans have jettisoned their party position in order to win elections.  Yes, I know, there are more pro-life people among the Republicans than anywhere else in partisan American politics but the reality is that it is an issue which has faded from importance.  To be against abortion is now a radical position -- as radical as it was to be for it in 1973.

As others have noted, Carter appointed a pro-life Roman Catholic to run Health, Education, and Welfare.  He continued to lament the babies lost to abortion his whole life (at least as far as I can see) and did not abandon his belief even when it was no longer politically tenable in the Democrat Party.  Perhaps people tolerated his heresy here because he was old and his retirement made it hard for them to take a higher road than he had taken.  He was the first President to live under the Hyde Amendment (Biden long ago caved in his longstanding support for its federal money ban for abortion).  Though he did not take the bully pulpit to promote the overturn of Roe or march against abortion clinics, he was a steady and stalwart voice for the sacredness of life and he did so with some measure of dignity that his critics had to respect even though they did not agree.

Though not a religious witness, I must give Carter the nod for several profound acts deregulating airline travel, the trucking industry, and the trains.  He does get kudos for having eliminated a federal agency or two when his successors have expanded the bureaucracy.  Of course, none of these helped to endear him to the liberal and progressive wing of his party and yet showed a time when a Democrat could be something other than a lefty.  To be sure, leftward was his drift in later years but mostly his problem there was in siding with the wrong side in his pursuit of his peace agenda. 

Though I take issue with him as theologian, I respect the fact that he continued to go to church and teach Bible class.  There are always plenty of excuses for former presidents to use as to why they do not attend, his practice here was exemplary.  Perhaps it was his faith or it could have been helped by his small town upbringing but Carter seemed to presume that church and life were joined at the hip.  I will give him that.  He was not one of those whose words about his faith would have to be taken at face value because his piety did not give much evidence.

So even though I did not vote for him nor did I find much in his presidency to admire, the man won my grudging respect.  Sadly, I fear that we have seen the last of his kind of Democrat and that Republicans may not be far behind the modern day Democrats in looking at abortion solely as a political issue and no longer a moral or theological one.

Some sadness. . .

I read of the passing of another Lutheran musical giant of our time, John Ferguson.  He was a prolific choral composer with more than 100 compositions to his credit -- not to mention organ works.  He came up the ranks graduating from Oberlin, Kent State, and Eastman.  He was an accomplished organist and so I always associate his name with hymnody and hymn festivals.  He had church jobs at Central in Minneapolis but it most renown for his tenure (with his late wife Ruth) at St. Olaf College and the Cantorei.  He was a dozen years my senior but our paths crossed occasionally.  For so many years I looked forward to the Christmas at St. Olaf and his own part in both compositions and conducting.  John was particularly adept at the use of instruments and organ with choir and congregation in a way that was unforgettable.

John now joins the company of those heralded individuals whose names were synonymous with good Lutheran church music.  The names of Carl Schalk, Carlos Messerli, Tom Gieschen, Paul Foelber, Paul Bouman, Paul Manz, and a dozen or more others grace my mind.  I have no organized list but was privileged to grow up in an error in which these names were well known and respected inside and outside of Lutheranism.  It was a profound moment in which it seemed that church, school, university, and publishers agreed upon the place of music and its role within the life of the Church and God's people assembled around His Word and Table.  I was happy to have known them personally and to have enjoyed their leadership of hymn, chant, choir, and organ over more than 50 years.

Honestly, I fear for the future.  Where I have served it has been my privilege and delight to have worked with fine and dedicated musical partners like Rocky Craft and now Jonathan and Katie Rudy.  This Christmas we gathered in the late Divine Service on the Eve of the Nativity to hear the choir sing Lauridsen's O Magnum Mysterium.  What a treat!  But such music is accessible only in places where the congregation has invested heavily into the music that accompanies the Word.  In musician, choir, instrument, and setting, this is no mean feat --especially in a time of declining congregational size and budget.  As we find ourselves in smaller settings and with smaller resources we will inevitably lose some of our vibrant and living heritage of song.  Bach has become a composer for the concert hall -- something he would have found personally offensive.  He was always a churchman.  This is concerning to me and should be to you.

When I went to St. John's in Winfield, KS, we had so many organ students that the instruments were literally in use throughout the night and day as people struggled to get their practice time in.  There were fine organists (Gordan Bruns remains the name I think of first) who were pursuing church careers either as pastor or musician or both.  We had good teachers (like Lee Stocker and David Fienen).  And we were among the smaller of the church schools of the LCMS.  Now there are Lutheran universities without much of any musical identity.  I lamented this when I wrote of the passing of an old friend, Ralph Schultz.  

My challenge goes to those who prepare church budgets and assign priorities to what their congregations will support.  Your parish musician should be a primary priority.  The Lutheran Church has enjoyed a marvelous and faithful legacy of music and musicians.  The preservation of the faith will not be enhanced by the rejection of or forgetting this legacy.  Thanks be to God for faithful parish musicians and those who prepared them for their service to God in our midst.