What is Canada?

There was a time when Canada and the United States were so close together on values and purposes that it was inconceivable to find a space between them.  We had similar economies, churches, resources, histories, and goals.  Then it all seemed to fall apart.  While some Canadians insist that it has to do with Trump, the lines of division began long before anyone ever imagined a Trump presidency.  I am no expert and have no crystal ball but I do think that the differences were noticed more when Canadians themselves distinguished between the French and the English heritage, between Quebec and the West.  When Canadians began to normalize the odd balancing act between the two populations, there was a distinction with a difference.  Though perhaps not causal, the distinction did seem to highlight the difference in a way that had not quite been apparent previously.

Now it is as if there is a Canada with the same name but with an identity we in the US no longer know or recognize as kin.  One of the key elements of this difference is the change with respect to religion.  Canada seems to be so far left of the US when it comes to religion and Christianity in particular that it is a foreign land to us and one we no longer understand or appreciate.  Canada is the place where military chaplains no longer are free to even mention God or practice their faith freely without restraint -- the official restraint of governmental policy.  The Canadian Armed Forces issued within the month a new directive barring chaplains and other military personnel from mentioning God, Jesus, or other religion-specific language during mandatory public events.  They have effectively banished the name of God from the public square and there seems to be no big conflict over it.  That means that the population has become either secular or religiously indifferent to the whole thing.  Even more concerning.  I read once where Quebec was once among the most Roman Catholic regions of the world.  No more.  It is now a religious ghost town in which popular opinion regards the church as more problem than blessing and seems content with the efforts to marginalize Christianity.  No wonder the rest of Canada is also a religious wasteland.  Though the Western regions of Canada are not quite there yet, it is clear they are behind but heading toward the same goal.  

The second area of difference is the respect for life.  Canada has been on the forefront of protecting abortion as a right and medically assisted suicide the same kind of right.  Canada's reported rate of abortions is probably in line with its size -- roughly 10% of the US in both numbers -- but that represents only those places required to report abortions.  Now that roughly 80% of abortions occur outside hospitals with mandatory reporting requirements, who knows how many abortions there are.  On the other hand, the medically assisted deaths make up 5% of all deaths in Canada and are growing fast.  Since the MAID laws are now ten years old, it has become normal to call upon the medical community to provide a painless and easy way to end your life.  Euthanasia has skyrocketed, surpassing even MAID deaths to some 16,500 in 2024 and statistically one in twenty deaths in the nation.  The US is not only far behind but the unfettered voices of religion in the US have challenged the acceptance of chosen or forced death.  We look to our neighbors to the North and wonder who are these people we thought we knew.  

One such example of Canada's refusal to honor life lies within the case of an 83-year-old Christian great-grandmother, Brigitte Stegemann, who was living out her final chapters in an Ontario long-term care facility with untreatable Stage IV stomach cancer.  The woman was not unclear.  She said "no" -- she did not want to be euthanized.  Her family honored her wishes until her granddaughter, Brigette Kranendonk, who had power of attorney, was away and the gears of the medically assisted death machine sprung into action, putting pressure on the woman to request Medical Assistance in Dying.  Somehow, though no one seems to know how or who witnessed it, consent was secured. The granddaughter returned to discover the irreversible has already been done.  Now months later, she still hasn’t been allowed to see the supposed consent.  The power of death in Canada is greater than the concern for life.

I could list other areas of concern for Americans.  They include the governmental policies and powers used during the pandemic -- who can forget the truckers whose convoys triggered an invasion of their lives and pocketbooks for daring to challenge the then government?  Or, as I found out from working with an agency of our church body, the insistence of Canada that Canadian money or money made in Canada stay in Canada.  It turns out we are not quite following the same rules when it comes to being each other's primary trading partners.  There are other things.  My point is this, Trump has surely brought our concerns to light though not very effectually but he is hardly responsible for creating them.  In the end our cultures are proceeding along different paths and this means that perhaps the most religiously Christian country in the world is finding it hard to know how to deal with one that is becoming a more unashamedly anti-Christian nations.  Although I do not hear many folks talking about this, this is part of the problem and a bigger part of the problem than anyone seems willing to admit. 

An oddity in Rome. . .

Although its permission has not been uniformly or evenly granted, it has become regular enough so that it is no longer rare to have the chalice offered to Roman Catholic laity.  That said, the practice since roughly 1414 AD has been for laity not to receive from the chalice and more profoundly formulated in the Council of Trent a little more than one hundred years later.  It was only after Vatican II that this changed and it did not change universally.  Apparently some bishops are returning to a more restrictive practice and attempting to change what had become a more routine practice of offering reception of the precious blood to those other than clergy.  Some bishops are suggesting that the offering of the chalice to the laity should be reserved to more "special" occasions which, for some anyway, do not include Christmas or Easter.  It seems rather odd to me as a Lutheran and I suspect for many others as well.

The decision for this is and has always been at the discretion of the local bishop.  That is one oddity.  It means that across the invisible line from one diocese to another, very different practices may be operative.  Since Vatican II, communion in both kinds moved from an impossibility since Trent to pretty much the normal practice 400 years later.  Tradition is in the eye of the beholder and even though the first 1400 years or more did one thing, from the Council of Florence on was another practice.  So the tradition here is at best about 600 years old.  Another problem I have with Rome.  Tradition here is hardly different than someone in a Lutheran circle insisting that is not the way it was in great-grandpa's church.  This is really goofy.

What is even more goofy is the insistence that this is not "more" Jesus or "less" Jesus but that Jesus received in the bread is all the Jesus there is and so no more is needed.  Except that Jesus said differently.  If Jesus' words about this can be abrogated (Trent's words have not been overturned), then why can't they be ignored or altered for other things.  The reality is that this restriction of the laity from receiving the wine was not majority or universal in the Western church until the 1400s.  Plague (read Covid in modern terms) may have justified this emergency practice but what made it normative is exactly the problem.  It should be noted that Lutherans followed the Eastern practice which never withheld the chalice.  We followed Rome when Rome followed Jesus and we departed when Rome did not.  While some of the issues with Rome may seem rather sophisticated and not altogether practical, the restriction of the chalice from the laity is an every Sunday concrete issue.  Every Lutheran would agree, this is not about how much Jesus you get (as if a bigger host or larger sip would grant more grace) but whether the words of Jesus are normative and how that normative practice since the Upper Room are the definitive word on the issue.  Nobody should make normal practice of what happens in an emergency.

Do we get to depart from Jesus' clear words or not?  Rome seems to be saying that they do.  The rest of us should give pause to embracing this idea.  Furthermore, this treats Jesus' body and blood as something the Church must protect while this is exactly how our Lord has made Himself accessible to us.  Here, some Lutherans may sound a bit like those who, when speaking of who communes, sound like they are protecting Jesus.  Close communion protects not Jesus but those whose communion may harm them and not benefit them.  We are gatekeeping for Jesus but for the sake of those unprepared or unable to receive the body and blood of Jesus as blessing.  Jesus does not need us to protect Him from those for whom He has come but those who are unable to receive a worthy communion must be protected by Jesus.  The scandal of the Sacraments is that they are for sinners.  Rome seems to try to remove this offensive generosity and make Jesus blood less accessible for sinners than His body.  If that is not offensive, it is the strangest oddity.

 

Oddly offensive misstep. . .

In what has to be one of the most tone deaf and oddly offensive actions of the Church of England, Hafiz Muhammad Tahir Mehmood Ashrafi was given the Hubert Walter Award for Reconciliation and Interfaith Cooperation.  It all happened on Friday — 11 September.  Who in their right mind scheduled this?  Whether or not he deserved it or not, it was an offensive misstep for a church body that prides itself on careful order.  He was recognized for his “outstanding work as an ambassador of interfaith harmony in Pakistan” and was described in the citation as a “prominent Muslim scholar and religious leader in Pakistan, known for his unwavering commitment to promoting religious tolerance and interfaith harmony”.   Then somebody actually looked at the guy.  After taking a deep dive into previous comments made by Imam Ashrafi Lambeth Palace had enough second thoughts to reconsider this award withdraw it.  They have so informed Imam Ashrafi that they are taking it back.

This a profound example of why churches should not presume to enter into the realm of political judgments or enter efforts to become authorities outside their sphere.  It all made the CofE and the Lady Mullally look foolish and amateurish in their efforts to promote something grand on the world stage.  It is also one more example why Americans look at the CofE and our friends across the pond with sadness.  At a time when this church body could have been leading the efforts to sink the assisted suicide bill, they were playing diplomatic chess.  Thankfully, while the CofE and its lady archbishop were messing things up, the Parliament actually got it right — at least for now.

The British Parliament voted against legalizing assisted suicide services for adults, successfully blocking a bill that was filibustered out of time before the April recess.The House of Commons voted 286-270 on the same day to deny the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which sought to “allow adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life.”  The surprise was that the lower chamber had previously approved a near-identical bill in the last parliamentary session but came to their senses at the same time the CofE was losings its bearings.

Give it a rest. . .

As if we have nothing better to do, the predictable outlets for news and commentary in the LCMS have moved on from the immediate past presidential election and convention to set their sights three years down the road.  The so-called guardians of the Synod have decided that there must be an urgent and profound effort to redefine ourselves as a Synod and come up with a leader who will not look at our past but toward the future.  I think I read somewhere "sufficient to the day is its own troubles..."  Perhaps we have reinterpreted that verse.  Everywhere we will see people mining the Scriptures to find quotes to justify the further politicizing of our means of selecting leaders and governing ourselves.  How sad.  How tragic that we seem powerless to present something more than these crude Machiavellian attempts to plan plans and prosper God's work without all that much consulting Him.  I will admit to growing so very tired of it all.  The sensationalism, the hype, the drumbeat for change (even though we are divided about what changes need to come) is both wearing and distracting.

Good leaders and good governance are blessings and worth our labors to find and assist, not to mention our prayers.  That said, do we really think the Lord has given marching orders to the Church that begin with a constant litany of navel gazing?  The statistics the Lord promotes are remarkably out of step with the world or our own Christian thinking.  Leaving the 99 alone in pursuit of the one lost, finding the pear only to bury it again so that you can secure the field, engaging laborers at all hours of the day and then paying them an inequitable wage that is described as generosity...  I could go on but will not.  Nowhere in the Scriptures does the Lord talk about graphs or charts or polls or customer satisfaction surveys.  Instead, He describes the very Gospel we problem as a stone of offense, almost daring us to be embarrassed by Him and of Him.  I am not at all suggesting that we bury our heads in the sand but neither am I saying that social theory will lead us out of this mess.  In the end, growth happens locally and not nationally, not by grand movement but by solid preaching, teaching, sacramental administration, and pastoral care.  We certainly do not need more community organizers.  We do need faithful shepherds who will care for the flock over which Christ has made them bishop with the tools He supplies.

Sheep always wander.  They are always prey before their enemies, subject to fleecing by those who care nothing for the sheep, and viewed as chops and roasts by those who would harvest the flock rather than defend it.  There is nothing new here.  The Church is always in need of being reformed but never by novelty or creative departure from God's Word, work, will, and wisdom.  Shepherds do not make sheep.  Sheep make sheep.  Faith formation happens in the home before the Church building and the primary catechesis is always liturgical, within the Divine Service, before it can happen anywhere else.  The best coffee cannot attract what the Gospel repels.  It is the work of the Spirit to call, gather, enlighten, and sanctify.  We are instruments but not the power, used by not the users, shepherds under Christ.  Good heavens, I am not saying we have nothing to learn but navel gazing and surveys and polls will teach us nothing of the means by which the Church of Christ will grow and prosper.  We trust in Christ alone.  We live by His grace alone.  The Luthers of this world are not our saviors even when God does use individuals to call us again to the voice of His Word and the power of His Spirit.  A viable church in the eyes of the world will likely have sold its soul to the devil to gain that recognition.  We are always at war and not in the least with ourselves.  It would all be wearisome and worthless except the outcome has already been determined.  Jesus wins.  If you cannot see it now with your eyes, look with faith.  Is our penchant to try new things because God has forsaken us or because we have forsaken Him and His ways?  The kingdom ours remaineth.  That is the promise.  He proved Himself trustworthy by dying as He said He would and rising as He said He would.  What more do we need? If we never learned anything new but worked diligently to be the best we are at serving the people of God and those not yet of the Kingdom with the fruits of His redeeming love, we will have done enough.  If we don't we have done too little.

Demonizing the dead. . .

As I watch some within Rome raise their attacks against no friend of mine, Annabile Bugnini, secretary of the commission that worked on the reform of the Roman Rite following the Second Vatican Council, I find it curious how easy it is to demonize the dead and forget those who were complicit in the abuses.  Both critics and proponents of the changes made to the Mass, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical practices of Rome acknowledge that Bugnini was the dominant figure in these changes.  He was not simply proponent but architect and, it seems, not even Paul VI actually knew what Bugnini had been up to until it was done.  But Bugnini was not the only member of the building committee of this flawed structure.  There were others.  There always are.  They are not always the ones who are complicit in the scheme but most of them are the silent whose objections were never raised or at least never pressed.  But they could have been.

As an outsider I have no skin in this blame game but I find it odd that some 2600 bishops who participated in Vatican II and whose documents represent a clearly different vision for the reform of the Mass were somehow forcibly silenced when what was done did not match what the Council had actually said.  Surely somebody would have admitted that the whole extravaganza in Rome was a waste if its dictates were to be ignored a couple of years later in favor of a radically different and brutal reform of the rites!  Did they?  There were some grumbles but for the most part Roman bishops fell in line.  The pope had spoken (even though he did not know what he was saying, apparently).  Done deal.  No looking back.  And now you know why the battle of the Mass is still being fought.

That said, this post is not so much about the reform of the Mass and other things liturgical.  It is to give one example of why I cannot be Roman Catholic.  It would often be nice to have a pope in a Lutheranism which seems powerless to prevent obvious foolishness and wrong but Rome has one and this does not seem to stop the abuses of the Mass so reformed.  Frankly, I would prefer a Roman Mass in which the offensive parts to me as a Lutheran were soto voce rather the loud clown car style abuses that no pope seems able to stop.  Yet when a pope in Rome was led down the garden path by a secretary of a commission, Rome seemed powerless to stop the disaster train.  If 2000 voices from the Council had stood up to Paul VI and said we were there at this Council and this is not what we voted upon! surely someone in Rome might have backed down or slowed the wholesale liturgical demolition of one form of the Mass.  But they did not.  Demonize the dead all you want but the dead were not alone.  Some could have spoken up and yet they chose to keep silent.  What else could some pope do and have people keep silent in response?  Well, look around you.  Bishops are doing all kinds of things to break with Roman theology and tradition and even the popes have said little or nothing to slow or stop this train. If for any other reason, I would find it hard to become Roman Catholic with such witless and spineless bishops.

I wish Lutheranism were better in this regard.  We are not.  While foolishness and stupidity continue to flood the internet with examples of the errors, our own equivalent of bishops wring their hands as if they can do nothing to slow or stop the idiocy.  But they could have and still can do something.  Demonize the dead but they are always complicit with the living in the problems we face.  It is never one man or even a commission of men that are the problem.  The dead cannot defend themselves but we know they did not act alone.  Sometimes the demons are right and the challenge proves that.  The rest of the time it proves that one man or even a commission cannot act in the name of the church over the wisdom of the rest of the church.  Benedict seems to have been a good man and a good pope but he left in part out of powerlessness to change what was wrong.  Francis was a terrible pope and I have no idea what kind of man he was but he played with things as if it was all a game and in the end everyone lost.  Leo may be better but so far he is a disappointment.  All of these prove the problem with Rome is not just theology but a structure in which one man can impose his will upon the rest and people either stand silent before him or get in line to follow where he is going.  That is another reason why I refuse to exchange the problems I know for the problems in Rome.  As many as have been complicit in with the problems in Lutheranism, we have not had 2600 bishops sit idly by while someone orchestrated a coup against something they had all agreed to in the end. 

What kind of Pope is Leo?

Many have insisted that Leo XIV will clean up the Francis messes left behind by a pope who is, by most accounts, one of the worst in modern times.  I suppose that is the hope but so far he has not impressed me with his words or actions.  Everyone knows of the way Francis seemed to delight in creating controversy and instituting controversial programs.  Among them was Amoris laetitia.  Cardinals submitted formal questions to Francis which he chose to ignore.  While seemingly addressing the pastoral care of families, it did far more than this.  Controversy arose almost immediately following the publication of Amoris laetitia specifically over Chapter 8 and whether Roman Catholic doctrine was changing with the easing of the  sacramental discipline concerning the access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist for divorced persons who have civilly remarried. So if this was a problem, who might Leo ask to sit down and talk about it all?  Well, the list of personal guests invited by the Pope to the meeting from October 7 to 14, progressive names in favor of the document but excludes all of those who criticized Francis’s exhortation.

So when these cardinals and bishops from around the world sat down with Leo XIV at the Vatican to discuss the family in light of Amoris laetitia, they were preaching to the choir.  Among the names of those attending at the Pope's invitation are names like Cupich, McElroy, Tobin, Cobo, Hollerich, Fernández, Tagle, David, and others who had a hand in setting the agenda of the previous pontificate on the veru questions the document addressed.  None of those who questioned it have been summoned.  While I do not have a stake in this, the glaring omission of any visible critics of the document seems to say a great deal about the Leo style and agenda when dealing with Francis' legacy.  

The document which sparked such intense debate seemed designed to allow more radical interpretations of its own words -- especially after the bishops of the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region interpreted it as allowing, following a process of accompanied pastoral discernment, access to the sacraments of reconciliation and the Eucharist for some Catholics who are divorced and civilly remarried “when a person judges that he or she would fall into a further fault by harming the children of the new union.”  Then in 2023, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith confirmed that this interpretation was the intent.  In my mind, this is one more instance when more talk seems to be code for keeping Francis legacy alive without really dealing with the objections.  I am sure that many more traditional Roman Catholics hope that this does not become the Leo way of dealing with things.   

 

Give good gifts. . .

Once I was given a very expensive leather bound floppy KJV Bible.  I had already completed three of the four years leading to my ordination.  I appreciated the sentiment but wondered if the givers had really thought about the gift.  Did I really make it nearly to ordination without having a copy of the Bible?  Or, is that what they thought?  Fortunately, some quiet diplomacy allowed me to return it and take the money to purchase a silver private communion set from Almy which still serves me to this day.  That led me thinking and asking other pastors about the gifts they were given. 

One mentioned how his whole seminary class was given an impressive study Bible from a well-meaning organization.  Another mentioned a fine leather bound copy of a book they had been required to purchase in the first year of seminary.  Another mentioned a cheap stole.  And the list of gifts neither requested nor needed went on and on and on.  I think you get my drift.  Seminarians need money for books and living expenses and the freedom to decide where to spend that money when given.  It may seem cold and thoughtless but I wonder if it is not the most warm and thoughtful gift you can give them. 

Then there is a pen and letter opener set that still sits on my desk.  It is wood and a nicer version of the usual fare but the life insurance fraternal that gave it to me thought it was more impressive than I thought.  I keep it more as a remembrance of those who thought this is what I needed than any useful purpose I might have for it.  It has joined the countless plaques given to note my (financial) support of this cause or that and the mountain of insulated jugs, mugs, and other coffee cups that I have accumulated over the years.  When it doubt, give the pastor a coffee mug or an insulated jug.  I am not trying to be mean or to disdain the obvious generosity of the giver but to suggest that other things might be better chosen to answer a real need or want on the part of the pastor.  Oddly enough, other than the candy and breath mints I snarfed from the vendors at the last Synod convention, the one thing I looked for most of all was a microfiber cloth to clean my glasses.  The rest of it was, well, not my style.  Oh yes, and do not forget the accumulation of logo adorned bags dutifully provided by vendors.  Who needs more bags?  Not me but I got at least three or four at the same convention.  I did appreciate the post-it notes, though.  Pens, not so much.  None of them were fountain pens (my choice) and I was not impressed by the soft tips used for the endless screens we are all on.  

I do appreciate the single malt scotch and gin and even the occasional rye.  Thanks to those who have braved the sea of labels to give me some liquor.  I do appreciate restaurant gift cards but some of them were to places I have never been and probably will never go.  I am still trying to figure out what to do with a $25 Uber Eats card.  Amazon cards and cash cards are always good -- not to mention Lowes or Home Depot.  I cherish the hymns commissioned from Steven Starke and set to music by Benjamin Culli.  Wow!  Those are amazing one of a kind sort of gifts.  But I am not sure I need anymore throw blankets or knickknacks.  I expect when I am gone my heirs will be fighting each other for one of those favored trinkets.  Well, maybe not.  Offer up your prayers for me.  I always covet such gifts.  Maybe I am alone in my perspective on gifts given to seminarians and pastors.  Or maybe not.  In any case, think a bit before you come up with a gift for your pastor and wrap it up in his name.   

How fragile is Rome?

I read a while ago that there are some 55 permitted places where the Latin Mass is being celebrated.  Imagine that.  There are Roman Catholic dioceses that are routinely closing more parishes than that.  Yet the mere existence of 55 or so parishes where the Latin Mass is being celebrated is apparently so dangerous that it is something which must be regulated from Rome, allowed under the most rigid of rules, and segregated away from the ordinary population of Roman Catholics overall.  Wow.  That makes the Latin Mass a ticking time bomb bigger than nearly everything else which is happening in Rome today.  More urgent and of greater threat than synodality, rogue bishops being ordained, China administering a Roman Catholic province according to its rules, the fading number of nuns and monks, priests in costume, dance and pop music used for sacred purpose, the declining numbers of those who believe the Eucharist is actually the body and blood of Christ, the diminishing numbers of children for baptism or confirmation, the scandal of priestly sexual abuse, the declining numbers of priests overall, the routine nature of merged parishes and closed churches, etc...  I could have added so many things to that number.  I am sure you could have added to that list as well.  The point is that Rome is so fragile, the worst of the problems it is facing are 55 permitted places where the Latin Mass is celebrated and the request for more.

The Vatican granted permission to a very small number of parishes to celebrate the traditional Mass-- just 55 parish churches across 33 dioceses last year-- according to the exemptions permitted by the Dicastery for Divine Worship to the restrictions outlined by Traditionis Custodes.  Yet look at the news.  Some bishops are sure that the very essence of Rome is threatened by such permissions and have attempted to restrict them further than had been.  Pope Francis repudiated Pope Benedict for his generous permission and clamped down on it like the whole of Roman Catholicism was at stake.  It does not matter which side of this issue you are on, Rome is weak and fragile if this kind of thing has become an existential threat to the largest formal community of Christians throughout the world.  And we think we have problems in the LCMS.  At least we are talking about doctrinal issues and about those who wish to jettison the forms of liturgical worship which have become the formal face of our Confessions on Sunday morning.  Rome is so fragile that those who want to restore a form of the Mass effectively the exclusive form used for 400+ years are a threat to its very existence.  Wow.  And I thought we had problems. No wonder Pope Leo seems to have no clue what to do about this despite advice being offered from every side.  Apparently if he gets this wrong, Rome will collapse.

The new religious. . .

Reading an old self-defined style of spiritual without being religious, the author suggested he was a believer without faith—a religious atheist.  At the time I read this I dismissed it.  Thinking on it again, I am not sure it is far from the truth.  The truth is that it is hard to eradicate religion and it is inherent in the persona of humanity overall and each person in particular.  We invent gods when we reject the God and even when we refuse to grant classic definition to any particular deity, we insist upon having some sort of god and some sort of religion.  It seems impossible to escape from religion or some form of god.  So we are left with believers who have no faith and atheists who are also religious.

Believers without faith are those who acknowledge the need for some kind of deity and some sort of supernatural.  They love this spiritual side of humanity and they insist that simply because they have rejected God does not mean they have also rejected some sort of religion to fill in the cracks of modern day life.  Indeed, they find the spiritual intriguing and interesting even if they refuse to grant a God the honor of their faith.  They believe in many things, some of them contradictory, and so they cannot admit to an organized religion but they insist upon being acknowledged as honestly and with heartfelt feeling upon being religious.  They like the idea of Scripture but refuse to grant to Scripture its ultimate authority and claim as the Word of God that endures forever.  They seek a bendable word which can be formed to fit the moment and the need.  They like the idea of a holy book of wisdom but are not sure it has all that much to do with salvation.  Salvation is less the redemption of the sinner than it is an accommodation to sin, at least the favorite and culturally acceptable sins of the day along with the ultimate command and goal to be true to yourself, wherever that might lead.

They are atheists, to be sure, but they do admit that religion can be important.  Symbolism and all.  Emotion and feeling.  Ritual and ceremony.  They all beg for a place without the inconvenient baggage of dogma and a God.  They admit that civil religion once filled the gap even as they also posit the old civil religion as too narrow to fit the diverse character of modern society and different people.  Global causes have eclipsed individual redemption but the person still matters if only because religion is only one person wide and one person deep.  It is sort of the same kind of attraction some have for a monarchy.  It is a good show and fills the bill for national ceremony and pride but don't take it too seriously.  It is just for show.  In the end the monarchs are as impotent and confused as the deities ascribed to modern folks who don't want to believe but who don't want to abandon religion entirely.

Honestly, I get the attraction.  The Church has disappointed us too many times and the holiest of men have acted entirely unholy in ways that make it hard to take religion seriously enough to grant it any real faith.  Which pope was it who in conversation with someone seeking to sack Rome and destroy the Church admitted that the clergy and popes had been trying to do that from the inside for years and failed so what makes this fellow think he can do it now?  If only the Church were not filled with sinners I might find some consolation for my suffering soul.  But it is.  So faith is as much as I can give it and the only thing I can offer.  My eyes are constantly drawn to the good which falls short and the evil which cannot be overcome so if I am to believe in God, religion is not enough.  Faith is required and faith in a real God who cannot be reasoned out or His mystery explained away.  He must be take with the paradoxes that our minds struggle to swallow.  Simil justus is a fairly small one compared to the Three in One and One in Three.  

I fall asleep every night wishing I had something more than faith to hold onto and every night I admit to God that it is faith alone by which I come to Him or kneel before Him.  The cross assures me that I can hope for mercy but it insists upon the paradox of the innocent for the guilty, the God/man who cannot die to expire His breath and be carried to a grave.  In the end I do not believe in a God but in the God who face I see in Jesus even with all the uncertain and unreasonable baggage that comes with it.  I wish religious atheism were enough or religion without faith but it is even more disappointing than a God who cannot be controlled, a wild God who refuses to be tamed by man but binds Himself to the blood that cleanses us from all sin.  I end up sympathetic to those who are the new religious without having a real God but I must pity them rather than joining them.  The God whom creeds confess and whose voice speaks through Scripture is not simply what I must settle for but the only God worth believing in.  Perhaps the answer to Christianity is not trying to add a little belief into the religion of atheism but challenging the spiritual to give up the semblance for a messy reality made clean only by the splash of baptismal water and the gift of the Holy Spirit.  In the end it is only faith, the great dare to trust in what you cannot see or control but also cannot live without.

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.

Full even when empty. . .

There is no one plan for the architecture of a church.  We all know this and it has never been so.  Yet there are remarkable similarities between those church buildings which continue to invite, inspire, and include the faithful around the Word and Table of the Lord.  Despite differences, they all seem to reflect certain traditional ideals about the centrality of altar, the rising height of the ceiling, the focus of the vision from the pews, and the sense of reverence that remains even when there is nothing going on in the space.  They are full even when they are empty of people.  Folks know this even when unable to describe it.  In these spaces, conversations are instinctively hushed when no there is worship service happening.  It is the sense of the presence of God that cannot be tied to one period or style of architecture but is common to all of them.  The architecture directs the attention of the person to the God to whom the building points and whose presence in Word and Sacrament gives the building a reason for existing.  Except the modern.

Modern architecture too often is self-referential.  It relies on the building as its own expression and justification.  It points to itself in ways that even the more elaborate forms and styles of the past did not and do not.  Sometimes it is whimsy and novelty which are employed.  Sometimes it is in uniqueness that the architecture gets its purpose and goal.  Sometimes it is in the focus on the people who would gather in the building and the goal of providing accessible space for the horizontal dimension.  Sometimes it is on the lack of adornment that the building makes itself its own adornment and its own focus.  Sometimes it is the sharp corners which make it seem less friendly and less filled when full and more empty when not.  In any case, the hard judgment against so many modern buildings used for worship is that feel empty when full and when not full even emptier.  I wish I had better words to say.  The buildings try too hard to be relevant and end up being enemies of the very purpose for which they were erected.  Even when striking, the modern architecture points to itself more than to the purpose for which it was constructed and the God who is present even when the building itself is empty.

Occasionally these cold and sometimes brutal structures seem to cry out for someone to humanize the space.  I wonder if it s less the humanization of a space to make it more inhabitable than it is the loss of its purpose and reason for existence.  It does not draw the mind or the heart away from the person to the God whose house it is but leaves the worshiper cold and confused.  Why am I here?  Who is here?  Those are the two questions any architecture must answer in order to fulfill its sacred purpose.  The buildings of the past endure precisely because they answer these questions well.  The ones torn down or repurposed did not answer these questions well.  Even those outside the Church know the value of the sense of the sacred and when it is present and when it is not.  They know without being told to be quiet within this space and to reverence the God who is present even if He is not their God.  These venues work well for choral and instrumental music (especially organ, of course) precisely because they tend to do for the music what they do for the worship.  They magnify the setting so that even something simple seems profound.  In contrast to this, the flaws of too much modern architecture is that it makes what is profound ordinary.  It defeats the purpose for which the building exists and works against the sacred gathering of God's people around His Word and Table.  Even spaces which work well as lecture halls fail the Word and even spaces which work well as dining spaces fail the Sacrament.  Liturgical space has a function but it is not functional or utilitarian in the sense that too much modern architecture is.

I wish I could make this more intelligible.  It is not for lack of trying.  Sadly, even those with the most limited experience with churches and their purpose can tell almost immediately when a space is simply wrong or fails in its calling to be home to the holy.  I only wish somebody in architecture schools and on building committees could do the same.

What has changed over many years?

When I began life, everybody around me in the LCMS was in The Lutheran Hymnal and everyone around me in what would become the LCA and ALC was in the Common Service Book or the American Lutheran Hymnal.  Of course, all that changed soon.  In 1958 the Service Book and Hymnal replaced the LCA and ALC books and in the mid to late 1960s the era of Inter-Lutheran worship books was initiated leading to Lutheran Book of Worship and the LCMS version Lutheran Worship.  What could be said in the 1950s is that Lutherans may have had different worship books but they seemed to look and act and sound alike on Sunday morning more than has ever been since.  But the change has been more than simply about the worship books.

Across the more liberal bent of Lutheranism and across mainline Protestantism as a whole, the emphasis in worship, prayer, and hymns has moved to echo more nearly the primary emphasis in these churches on peace and justice and the increasing value of variety.  In the 1950s I am not sure it would be so easy as it is today to identify a sermon from the different Lutheran bodies.  Now is not much of a problem.  On the left are the themes of peace, justice, sexual identity and desire, and climate.  On the right is the cross and empty tomb, in other words, sin and forgiveness.  In the 1950s, the order was certainly very similar if not exactly alike even if some of the music was different.  Today on the left is the wholesale borrowing of the worst of Roman Catholic contemporary hymnody (Joncas, Haugen, etc.) and on the right the prevailing popular contemporary Christian music of the moment.  But, to be fair, both sides seem to presume that variety is the spice of life.

Whereas variety in the past might mean a variety of hymnals who all preserved more rather than less of the Lutheran liturgical tradition and its Western Mass form, today variety seems to mean anything goes.  I wish there was a way to go back to the way things were but I fear the genie is out of the bottle.  We may never get back to following the book or whatever book the churches have published and this is probably due to the fact that some either do not want to use any book or who insist that the causes du jour which are too avant garde to be reflected in any book.  In other words, both sides presume that books are merely suggestions and/or starting points for something that is local or ideologically driven.  It is no wonder that there is more liturgical chaos among Lutherans today than Theo Graebner ever could have envisioned going on 100 years ago.  Variety may seem to be the spice of life but we are over spiced with variety and it is killing the brand -- in ways that any number of Lutheran hymnals existing side by side never did in the past.  Even those who call themselves Lutheran do not know who we are anymore on Sunday morning.  We do not know what to say about God anymore and we cannot agree on what sin is so Lutheranism is a veritable muddle on Sunday mornings -- both to the assembly of the baptized and to the world around them watching them.  We could not have screwed things up more if we had tried deliberately.  Ok, maybe we did.  Maybe the ELCA worked too hard to look and act and sound like mainline Protestantism with all its liberal and progressive eccentricity and maybe Missouri has been watching too many evangelicals on TV.  In any case, it is killing the brand worse than just about anything else we could have done.

Owners or renters. . .

It is often said that we do not do a very good job recruiting, encouraging, and rewarding volunteers in our churches.  I suppose there is truth to this and it would not be wise to suggest otherwise.  But the care and feeding of volunteers presumes that the volunteers need to be rewarded to give of themselves toward their cause.  The volunteer needs to get something out of it in order to justify volunteering.  Except that the Church is not a cause and those who "volunteer" are not really volunteers at all.  If it does not belong to you, then you are a volunteer but if the Church is yours, if you belong to it by baptism and faith, then the questions remains, in what sense are you a volunteer?

We all know the drill.  Before or after the Divine Service, someone (usually the pastor because he has more authority or pull) will stand up and go over the list of activities going on and how desperately in need of volunteers the parish is.  Inevitably, there is a sign up sheet somewhere to jot down your name and let folks know you are stepping up.  In some parishes, a QR code means you can volunteer by smart phone.  In the end, a few folks are guilted into signing up, maybe a couple of others are called out by name and end up agreeing to serve to avoid being nagged anymore.  Some will sigh and give in only to keep the litany of pleading announcements from going on one more week.  But most folks will end up shuffling uncomfortably in their pews, avoiding any direct line of sight with anyone involved with the activity, practicing their excuses, sure that the old regulars will take care of it and staff the Sunday school or coffee hour or fellowship committee or maintenance group or yard sale.  If the Church had a draft, such a means would be employed to fix what everyone thinks is embarrassing and irritating.  

I fear the problem is that most folks do not really believe that the enterprise that needs the volunteers is really either urgent or necessary or at least not urgent or necessary enough for them to actually sign up and do it.  They are what might be called renters.  Renters rent because someone else takes care of the major stuff and all they have to do is the little stuff.  It is a vastly different enterprise than ownership which comes with a constant drain of time, money, and effort to keep up appearances.  The Church is filled with renters and has too few owners.  Renters occupy a pew but do not feel obligated to more than paying the monthly rent on their space.  Owners feel the responsibility to show up and cough up time, money, and skills to keep the place open and operating.  Renters have to be enticed to volunteer but owners know they have a duty and responsibility to the place.  They may not like it but the Church is theirs and so they show up bidden or not, whether they signed up or not, and do what must be done whether they like it or not.  Oh, they complain about those who are not there but they know the complaints change little or nothing and they just keep showing up and doing the work.

It might be tempting to complain but the reality is that the solution to this problem is not more complaints or more guilting folks into volunteering.  We would be better off trying to build a sense of ownership over the parish and its work.  That is not to imply that it is not God's House or His work but that we have been called into partnership with Him in the Gospel.  We each have our own callings and vocation as the baptized children of God and each of us is called to offer ourselves as living sacrifices.  This is our reasonable service and our stewardship.  The vocation as the children of God who belong to the Lord and whose labors are also for Him and to Him is precisely the thing that often seems missing.  When we treat the Church as belonging to a small group that excludes us, we are doing more than failing to volunteer.  We are renting God's house as if that was all there was to it.  It is not a better job of enticing folks to serve that we need but a stronger identity as belonging to God and His House as our own home.  

Growing up in a small congregation and then serving in a small parish right out of seminary, I can see where fewer numbers makes it harder to presume that a person is not needed.  There does seem to be a cohesiveness to a smaller parish that is sometimes missing in a mid or large size congregation.  But, again, it is not about the urgent need but about the identity we have as children of God who live out our lives in response to His goodness, with thanksgiving.  I will not suggest I was good at this but I do think it is something we all need to work at.  The Church has, in that sense, no volunteers but only those who have a sense of ownership and those who need to develop one. 

What kind of horse?

The pastoral ministry has always included a variety of horses in its stable.  A few of them are the stars, the race horses whose names are know by all.  Hopefully, most of them are the draft horses who do the work but are largely invisible.  You see what they have done but they seem to fade away, neither sleek nor handsome but solid.  Hopefully, a very few of them are wild and  unbroken, lazy and unproductive, and eat more than they work.  Of course, this is true of most professions.  It is not up to the seminary alone to discern which is which but those who commend someone to the seminary.

Nearly everyone focuses on the race horses.  They are sleek, fast, and impressive and command the attention of the eye and the mind.  We think we want every pastor to be a race horse.  The problem is that the rest of us cannot keep up with the race horse.  We end up being left behind in the dust or forgotten around the next bend in the road.  In reality the Church cannot stand too many race horses.  A few are okay and offer inspiration to the rest as well as their gifts to the whole but we would be in terrible shape if all our pastors were race horses.  

Most of us, me included, are draft horses.  We pull wagons and plow fields and carry riders and do whatever is needed to get the work done.  We know the route and do not need much attention to the reins but we have someone watching over us and our work just in case.  We eat a lot but we produce more than we consume – energy and effort given to the work we are here to do.  We can be a bit ornery sometimes but are mostly easy going.  We are probably rather ordinary in everything including appearance but strong, with faith enough to loan to those struggling.  We know the field and do not look behind us to count where we have been but plod along the path in the present, looking to the future, sure that the work we are doing will bring forth the fruit appointed.  We are solid and sturdy and look alike under the blanket and harness of clerical clothing and vestments.  We are not meant to stand out and shine but to labor where the Lord puts us for the work the Lord has given.  It is enough to be faithful.  Occasionally, we might shine.  The older ones who know the path and the field well train up the younger and the younger who are strong and impatient carry the weight while us older ones carry part of the burden and help to keep things in check.  

Of course, we all know about those who refuse to be tamed or ridden or wear a yoke.  They buck and snort, complaining about the work they never do.  They tend to be loaners or insist upon being at the head of everything, long enough to be noticed but not there to carry any weight.  They eat but do not produce and they are lazy and reluctant to be part of the stable or share the yoke.  We know about them also.  They are in the headlines for their screw ups are newsworthy and the leave blood and tears in their wake.  They break wagons and axles and turn them over spilling the fruit they were given on the side of the road as if it were less important than their own happiness or pleasure.  They dominate, sort of like wannabe racehorses, but their attention does nothing for the Church and makes every other horse in the stable look bad.  Yes, we have a few of those kind of pastors.  If God is gracious, not too many.  If we are faithful in our task of recruiting and nurturing young men for the ministry, we will not commend to many to the seminary to tame.  They will consume too many resources and will likely never be there to do the work the pastor is called to do.

For a long time now, we have not been doing the job we should in identifying, attracting, and retaining strong, stable, solid, and faithful men.  The fault lies with many – from pastors to lay folk to seminaries to bishops.  We have lately been doing better at the task of finding and commending men for the pastoral office.  But it is good to remember that we do not need to find the race horse or stallion in every pack.  We need draft horses to do the work without drawing undo attention to themselves  Think about this.  Good, solid, faithful, Lutheran men are exactly what we ought to be looking for to recruit for the pastoral ministry and sending to the seminary.  Bright, solid, attentive, teachable men with a deep and abiding faith are the prime candidates for the pastoral office.  This is who we ought to be focusing on instead of trying to find the next Kentucky Derby winner.  Someone who is in it for the long haul and who can carry the weight and do the work – that is our kind of guy.  You know some of them.  Find them.  Encourage them.  Pray for them.  Commend them to the Church.  And then welcome them back with open arms when they take up the yoke in your own field.  God help us, we need just these kind of men.

St. Augustine reminds us that a priest’s holy life can itself become an eloquent sermon.  I refer you to Book 4 of De doctrina christiana.  Augustine talks about the fruits of preachers of different levels.  Some wind up being celebrities and others saintly though less flashy.  Right now we need saints not celebrities, draft horses not race horses.  We need a deep bench and cannot afford to send the older ones out to pasture or fail to yoke them with the younger.  This is a team, a stable, and not a competition for greatness.  The battle in every pastor is inside himself, to be the best man God can make him to be for the sake of the Lord and the people given over to his care. 

Too short?

I know there are folks who will howl with laughter or frown in disagreement over me saying so, but the brevity of the Western Mass is something that seldom gets enough said about it.  Even with full choir and pews full of those to commune, the Divine Service or Western Mass does not take very long.  Count up its words in comparison to any of the Eastern Divine Liturgies.  The West has the shortest liturgy in regular use.  Aside from a few preachers who may compete with the brevity of the Western Mass form, even with sermon it does not take very long.  Between an hour and an hour and a half -- depending upon the extras sometimes introduced and the speed of the chanting and speaking -- and then you are packed up ready to go home.  It is shockingly short -- the time we spend meeting God where He has promised to be and responding to His generous grace supplying the gifts of forgiveness, life, and salvation!  It is, dare I say it, too short?!?!

Our age loves to shorten things and reduce nearly everything down to a set of Cliff Notes (remember those) or and an AI summation.  We immediately presume that the liturgy is too long, too complicated, and to imposing.  We need to figure out how to shorten it and how to dumb it down to the attention span and interest level of the average third grade child.  Or do we?  Is the problem the Mass is too long or the Divine Service too complicated?  I would venture to say that the liturgy is rather compact, a great deal packed into few words said and sung, and actions which say much with simple yet elegant ritual and ceremony.  Indeed, nearly everything explained takes more words and more time than the actual thing itself.  This is surely true of the liturgy.  Commentary and commentators use so many more words and so much more time to try and tell us what the liturgy says and what the ceremonies confess.  We do not need more words but we do need to pay attention to the words, rubrics, and ceremonies we have. 

Indeed, one of my complaints about most contemporary worship services done in what should be liturgical churches is that they consist of too many words and too many of the wrong words.  The discipline of the Divine Service is two-fold.  It is an economy of words but it is also a prime example of the right words.  That is worth noting at a time when the liturgy gets painted with false charges and contemporary worship services get a pass.  We are the inheritors of a rich liturgical legacy in the Western form of the mass and it is both profound in its brevity as well as profound in what it includes.  Before complaining about it, a word of caution.  Can you really do better?  Can you do better week after week after week?  And then there is the question of who checks up on what you are replacing the Divine Service with and if it meets muster?  If you cannot come up with something better or if coming up with something better means more words and more music, perhaps you ought to give the Western Mass rite another look.  It may even be too short -- not in the sense of too few words but not enough appreciation for its brevity and eloquence. 

Not a math problem. . .

Nearly all the explanations of the Holy Trinity treat the mystery of God as if it were a math problem.  Even the doxological stanzas of hymns seem intent upon talking in the same language.  Three in One and One in Three.  But I fear that this shallow and inaccurate way we speak of the Trinity has overwhelmed the mystery.  Yet the creeds do not speak of numbers or in numerical terms.  The creeds are essential, at least in part, because they refuse to make the Holy Trinity into a math problem with a mathematical solution.

The Nicene tradition expresses the mystery of the Trinity but without the math.  Its language is not in numbers but in terms of origin.  So we confess the Son begotten, the Spirit proceeding, the Father without any origin at all.  The reality is that saying God is “three in one” or "one in three" actually says nothing at all about the Trinity.  So all the ordinary metaphors are false because they begin and end with the math -- water as vapor, liquid, or solid or the three clover leaves.  We like the math.  Equations are solvable.  The goal of the Trinity is the make comprehensible the incomprehensible, to break down to size the larger puzzle of who God is so that we can understand Him, approach Him as more equals than creatures, and meet Him on the ground of reason.  But that is the problem.  God is mystery -- known only how and in so far as He reveals Himself.  The creed admits this.  Indeed, the Athanasian Creed makes it plain.  There we talk more about who God is not than who God is.  But none of us really cares for such a creed.

The soft underbelly of Protestantism and Evangelicalism is the desire and, could we say insistence, to forsake the creedal statements in favor of systematic statements about who God is.  When we make God a puzzle, we presume that puzzle is solvable.  When we begin to find words about who God is, we presume that you can reduce God to words.  When we begin to turn the Trinity into a math problem, we presume that we can come up with the answer and theology becomes simply showing our homework.  Though some would lump Lutherans in on this, I suspect that the problem with Lutheranism to the rest of Christianity is that we are not systematicians but exegetical theologians, theologians of the Word in which grand explanations are cast aside for the paradoxes that form much of the Lutheran vocabulary.  It is satisfying to no one and probably not even to Lutherans but when we simply accept the Scriptures and confess the mystery we are closer to the earlier church fathers than anyone else.  Protestants have Calvin and his ilk.  Rome has Aquinas and his kind.  Luther's works are largely exegetical and sermonic.  And most of the time we long for more.

Eternal subordinationism and all the rest of the giant words used to try and define the mystery of God all fall short.  We are, in the end, like blind men feeling along something we have never known before but trying with all earnestness to figure it out, name it, solve it, understand it, and explain it.  If we are smart blind men, we will know enough to simply confess what has been revealed and leave it at that.  God is who He says He is.  It may not add up at all.  It may not fit into any reasonable box.  It may not be explainable to a world looking for simple answers.  If we confess it, however, we will have done all that can be done about the Holy Trinity.  And it will be enough.  Some wax poetic about the day when God will answer all the questions we have of Him.  I have long ago concluded that we are not waiting for the answers but for the questions to go away.  When that day comes, I will rejoice and be glad.  When the questions go away, only God will remain.