Tuesday, May 14, 2024

Ascension sermon. . . one of them

I had forgotten to post the Ascension Sermon (this one from the morning service) and was reminded.  Here is the earlier sermon (different from the evening one).  I pray it will be a blessing to you.

Sermon for the Ascension of Our Lord, preached on Thursday, May 9, 2024, at the morning service. 

God is gone up with a shout!  The Lord with the sound of the trumpet!  God IS the king of all the earth and sits upon His throne of holiness.  So says Psalm 47.  Far be it from an escape, the Ascension of our Lord is a sort of enthronement.  No, the Lord does not need us to make Him king.  We do not make Him Lord nor do we establish His reign in us or in the world.  God does all these things without our help but we pray that we may behold this wonder and believe it.  So the Holy Spirit establishes Christ to reign over our hearts and minds and we acknowledge this with the “amen” of faith.  

We are not give the command to tame the nations and turn them into God’s Kingdom.  God reigns over unbelievers as well as believers but those without faith neither know that reign nor enjoy its blessing.  For Islam the job of the faithful is to be warriors on earth and command the infidel upon the pain of death to confess Allah as god.  It was and always will be a militant faith with an agenda for earthly rule and rulers to compel the reign of Christ.

That is not the way of Christ, the only legitimate and authentic God.  He comes not by might or force but as the incarnate God in our own flesh and blood.  He comes not to condemn the world but that the world might be saved through Him.  His kingdom is in the world but not of it.  It is where Christ is in the Word and the Holy Sacraments so His kingdom is not strictly spiritual but as concrete as the splash of water, the voice of His Word, the taste of bread and wine.  But His kingdom is not OF nor is it FROM the world.  He does not win the kingdom as a monarch who marshals his forces to battle but as the lonely soldier who gives Himself to death that we might have life.

Ascension Day is a liturgical day, a day in which the reign of Christ as King and Lord is acknowledged by His disciples then and now.  The Ascension of our Lord is the triumph of the humility which laid aside what was His right in order to take up the burden of our sin.  The Ascension of our Lord is the triumph of death that pays once for all the cost of sin.  The Ascension of our Lord is the triumph of life that the grave cannot contain.  Jesus ascends as King but He is not a different person than He is as Savior.  And that is why we are here.  We are participate as the people for whom He is crowned King and among whom He reigns through His Word and Sacraments.

Ascension Day is the triumph of the humanity of Christ in accomplishing all that the Father gave Him to do and with His humanity all of us are raised up to be with Him.  For us, it is now by faith.  For Dave Williams it is in His nearer presence on high.  For all who believe in Christ and who have loved His appearing, it will be face to face, on the holy ground of God’s presence, forevermore.

He goes to prepare a place for us.  He does not ascend to bask in the glory of His accomplishment for His work continues in us and through us until that day when time itself will end.  He goes to prepare a place for us so that we may be eternally with Him and He with us.  In that sense, the means of grace are transitional.  But that is exactly how the Scriptures describe them.  The Word of the Lord is forever but it is mediated to us through preaching and teaching only until we stand before the Word made flesh to hear from His own lips His voice.  What the water of baptism accomplishes is eternal but here it is mediated through water, received by faith, and lived out within the tension of sins confessed, absolution granted, and the baptized sinner restored.  The Table of the Lord is without end yet here it is known not in its fullness but in the foretaste – the taste of bread which is His flesh and the cup which is His blood – until He comes to usher in the full meal.  This is Jesus preparing us a place.

It is not about cleaning rooms or dusting off furniture or make beds with fresh linens.  It is about His work not up there but down here – through Word and Sacrament.  Here Jesus is doing His preparation for us, in us, and through us.  That is why we gather today.  It is not to remember an absent Jesus who has gone onto to bigger and better things but to celebrate the Lord who remains with His people, bringing forth in them the fruits of His atoning work, through the Word, the water of Holy Baptism, the voice of absolution, and the Holy Communion of His body and blood.

We call Jesus King not by shouting it out to the world or among ourselves but by kneeling to confess our sins, by remembering the gift of baptismal new life, by listening to His Word preached and taught, and by eating and drinking His flesh and blood.  Every Sunday and Thursday we gather to meet the King where He has promised to be, not the Savior who dies over and over again, but the dead whose death is our forgiveness and whose life is our hope.  We meet the King with heads bowed in prayer, confident that our merciful High Priest hears and answers those prayers.  We meet the King in grace and mercy, restored and kept to His coming.

Jew, Gentile, Gay, Straight. . .

Roman Catholic and Jesuit moral theologian James F. Keenan was quoted as saying: I do not think that the present anxiety about recognizing the 'gay' [Roman] Catholic is unlike the first-century anxiety regarding the Gentiles becoming Christians.  Thus you find the state of moral and Biblical theology among those sometimes regarded as an elite of theologians in Rome.  Jesus sees the problem of multiple sexual orientations and gender identities as the unfolding of the same wall that once kept Gentiles from among the faithful.  Hmmmm, anyone see anything slightly off in this colorization of Jesus and the contemporary situation?

But that is the problem, isn't it.  The liberal and progressive position presumes that all you need is time and the once forbidden things of yesterday will become the new normal for today and tomorrow.  The problem is that they are largely correct.  The sins of the fathers become the virtues of their sons and daughters (and every other gender), it would seem.  Once you begin with that, it is a short hike to God blessing the sin and vindicating the sinner by placing the blame on the narrow minded judgmental folk who refuse to go where God is leading.

The state of affairs in Rome has deteriorated rapidly under Pope Francis.  In his own Harper-Collins autobiography soon to be released, Pope Francis says this:

"It is right that these people who are living the gift of love can have legal coverage like everyone else. Jesus often went out to meet people who lived on the margins, and that's what the Church should do today with people from the LGBTQ+ community, who within the Church are often marginalized: make them feel at home, especially those who have received baptism and are in effect part of God's people. And those who have not received baptism and wish to receive it, or those who wish to be godparents, please let them be welcomed."

Rome offers many things appealing to Lutherans stuck between a rock and a hard place -- the liberal Lutherans for whom the faith is barely more than an excuse and justification for cultural liberalism and progressivism and the conservative forms that too often degenerate into a congregationalistic church which grows smaller by the day.  What Rome does not offer is a refuge against the strides and progress of cultural and moral liberalism.  Indeed, it would seem that Rome finds itself incapable of saying anything remotely close to what Jesus has to say about LGBTQ+ and its culture of desire or the fluid gender identity defined simply by feelings.  If for this reason alone, Rome offers us even less than what we struggle with in the problems of our own communion.

Monday, May 13, 2024

The other Lord's Prayer. . .

Sermon for the Seventh Sunday of Easter (B), the Sunday after the Ascension, preached on Sunday, May 12, 2024.

When you mention the Lord’s Prayer everyone in Christendom knows exactly what you are talking about.  Even many who have never been Christian and certainly those who have fallen away know the Lord’s Prayer.  It is a common heritage even deeper than the creeds though with a little trifle over words like debts or sins or trespasses.  We call it the Lord’s Prayer but it is not really His.  He gives the prayer to us.  Perhaps it would be more accurate to call it the Christian’s prayer.  In some liturgies that is how it is introduced.  As the Lord has taught us, we are bold to pray...  Even in our liturgy this prayer is introduced with its own prayer:  Lord, remember us in Your kingdom and teach us to pray...

Today we heard part of another Lord’s Prayer.  It is not at all as universally known or appreciated as the Our Father.  But it is no less the Lord’s Prayer.  The exegete calls this the High Priestly Prayer of Jesus.  What we heard is but a snippet of the entire 17th chapter of John in which our Lord prays alone in the Garden before He is betrayed to His voluntary sufferings, dies, and rises again.  Jesus prayed for Himself in that Garden – that if possible the cup pass from Him but nevertheless the Lord’s will be done.  But this farewell prayer is not only about Jesus or what is to come in the next hours or day.  It is mostly about you and me.

This is a prayer of intercession.  He pleads to the Father not for Himself but for those whom the Father gave Him out of the world – those who belong to Him and have kept the Word of the Lord by faith.  Jesus conspicuously does not pray for the world but for the ones the Father has given Him –  for God’s baptized people of faith.  Jesus prays because He will no longer be in the world as they are and yet their well-being remains His burning concern.  Jesus has lost only one – Judas – whose heart was overcome by the devil and who, in despair, would choose death over repentance.  Jesus prays for us so that His joy may be full.

Jesus prays for our unity of faith.  The Church needs this prayer because we have used all kinds of things to divide us.  While division over doctrine is regrettable, it is necessary to preserve the truth.  Division over other things is a scandal.  Jesus knows that both divisions will come – the necessary division in order to maintain the truth and the sinful divisions caused by pride, preference, personality, and place.  So He prays that we will be united – not as negotiators bring disputing parties together but as a people joined in the Word, sanctified by that Word, and living in that Word.

Jesus does not pray that God remove us from the world.  This is no prayer for a safe and easy escape but for the courage, strength, conviction, and endurance to live within the tension of being in the world but of Christ, being in Christ while resisting the impulse to live as one belonging to the world and all its values.  Jesus prays because it is not simply against flesh and blood but principalities and powers that we battle.  Satan may be defeated but he will go down fighting to steal us from our Lord and from the future Christ has appointed.

He prays that we be sanctified in the truth.  There is some history here.  Jesus says He is the truth.  Pilate asked Him what is truth.  Our Lord insists that truth is not in the mind of the beholder nor subject to personal interpretation.  Truth is not yours or mine – it just is as Christ is whether you believe in Him or not.  He does not change.  The Jesus who is yesterday, today, and forever the same speaks a word that is eternal.  Its message is not adjusted for the times nor is its truth changed to fit the preferences of people or a culture.  What Jesus prays to the Father, the Spirit brings forth as our confession of faith and our witness to the world.  God’s Word is truth.

The doctrinal controversies of the past and present are not simply about doctrines but about the Word of God.  The Christian world has come to believe that the Scriptures are only partly God’s Word and partly man’s.  When they speak of salvation, the are true, infallible, and without error.  When they speak of other things, who knows?  We do not contend for doctrines but ultimately every doctrinal controversy is about Scripture.  Is it God’s Word?  Is it without error?  Is it dependable in every age and time?  Is it the Word that does what it says and saves us?  No Lutheran would risk dividing Christianity over anything less than the truth of God’s Word but neither would a Lutheran fail to insist that God’s Word is what God says it is and it does what God says it does.

The Lord has consecrated His life and purpose to you and me.  He has become flesh and blood for you and me, lived the holy and righteous life for you and me, suffered and died upon the cross for you and me, rises and lives never to die again for you and me.  This is the message of the Scriptures which in our ears becomes faith by the power of the Holy Spirit.  Christ has consecrated Himself for us in life, in death, and in the resurrection from the dead.  Now He prays that we may be so consecrated in this truth as well.  Most translations use sanctify – the word that means to make holy – and the word consecrate interchangeably.

So what does it mean to be sanctified or made holy or consecrated to the Lord?  How sad it is that we tend always to rush to behavior.  God wants us to be good.  Well, sure He does.  But that is not what these terms mean here.  God could have accomplished good behavior with the force of the law and the threat of punishment but God’s purpose is to change your heart.  To be made holy is to be made pure – with pure thoughts, pure words, and pure actions.  Pure means good but it also means honest, genuine, authentic, and without deceit.  Our Lord seeks to undo the hypocrisy of good works which have no heart behind them and hearts which cannot muster themselves to do the good they think.  To be pure is to be of one heart, one mind, and one will – Christ’s heart of forgiveness, Christ’s mind in His Word, and Christ’s will for salvation.

You have heard Christ consecrate Himself to you and to the purpose of bringing you at last into His everlasting presence on high, wearing the new and glorious flesh He wears, and living no more with sin or suffering or disease or death.  So what is it that you will consecrate yourself to?  Though we talk in highfalutin words it is not so dense.  Be here in the Lord’s House every Sunday.  Be in the Word of God together in the Church and at home.  Pray not only for yourselves but for others as our Lord intercedes for you.  Serve without counting the cost and forgive without counting the cost.  There is one more thing.  As Christ’s consecration to you has brought Him joy, so does your consecration to Him bear the fruit of holy joy in you – joy without fear or anxiety or bitterness or envy to put a damper on things.  It is not why we are sanctified but joy is the fruit of His sanctifying work.  Part of that joy is the gift of a clear conscience through absolution.  Part of it is our absolute confidence in the Lord’s unwavering love and will for our salvation.  Amen.

No room for vices. . .

The cultivation of virtues is not an end in and of itself.  We are not pursuing a righteousness which no longer needs the righteousness of Christ.  We are not seeking to be self-sufficient before the throne of the Almighty.  There is a practical reason for the extra devotions of Lent and the encouragement to reading the Word, more worship services, increased prayer, and alms giving.  The cultivation of virtue leaves less room for vices.

I wish we would recover such a clear and blunt rationale for these good works and devotions that usually accompany Lent.  In the end, it is just the other way around.  We tend to struggle to find room in our busy lives for anything godly at all.  With regular church attendance now meaning once or twice a month and the choice as substitute the online versions that are more easily fit between the appointments and duties and interests of our lives, anything that might approach devotion, Bible reading, corporate worship, catechesis, prayer, and good works must compete to find either the time or the energy left to pursue such Christian virtues.  God is under the gun to find room on our calendars and in our hearts.  Lent draws attention to this and calls upon us to make the world schedule the appointment and give priority to the things of God.

The reality is that we run out of energy for the good and godly things that belong to faith simply because the rest of the activities of our lives (not all vices and most simply secular and ordinary) steal away all whatever oomph we have left.  Truth be told we cannot tear ourselves away from our screens or stay awake long enough to pray much less to develop the Christian virtues under the Spirit to displace some of the room given to routine stuff and the places where temptations lie.

So if you are not already, give priority to the things of God this Lent.  There is still time.  There are still vices to resist and leave behind in pursuit of that which is true and good, godly and beautiful, noble and worthy.  Just a few quick thoughts this morning. . . 

Sunday, May 12, 2024

Fasting and feasting. . .

I have a doctor who routinely fasts for health purposes.  I know of people who fast for mental health purposes (meditation).  I know of Christians who fast both seasonally (like during Lent) and who fast during times of devotion and prayer during other times.  Fasting is a good and salutary practice.  Lutherans who are essentially adverse to anything approaching a rule must be reminded from time to time that Jesus did not say if you fast but when and therefore presumes fasting is part of our prayer life and disciplined life of faith.  I could spend pages of digital ink on the subject of fasting but there is another aspect to this.  Fasting from the ordinary food of mortal life only emphasizes the feasting upon the food of everlasting life.

The contrast of fasting is not between a full plate of your favorite vittles and and empty plate without them.  It is between the emptiness of the food of this mortal life, good as it is from God the giver, and the fullness of the food of everlasting life -- also a good gift from God the giver.  Nobody is called to fast without the feast.  Sure, there may be times in our lives when circumstance or geography prevents us from receiving the Eucharist regularly and we may still fast during those times as part of the obedience of faith, the clear contrast here is not between the food that makes our mouths water and none but the food of this life (as wonderful or ordinary as it might be) and the food of everlasting life (the foretaste of the eternal in the bread which is Christ's flesh and the cup of His blood).

I fear we have lost this connection.  The bookends of this life are not fasting and feasting from food at our tables at home but the fasting and feasting between the food that we must eat to live another day and that food that feeds us to eternal life.  The food that satisfies is not simply the food that meets our appetites in the moment but that provides the food that alone satisfies our hunger and quenches our thirst.  This is clearly a contrast between the earthly and the heavenly.  It is not about food being good or bad.  The food of this life that feeds our bodies is good and a gift from God.  It is not bad because it cannot do what it was never made to do.  The good of everlasting life is good and a gift from God.  It is good because it does what it promises to do.  Both are good.  Fasting only helps us sort out the line between them and gives us perspective.

Fasting never says that we must abstain from the Eucharist when we fast from earthly food for our bodies.  Indeed, this is the great mystery.  While we abstain from earthly food for our bodies, we are fed the heavenly food for body and soul.  Unlike those who wait until evening hours to eat, we feast upon the Body and Blood of our Lord when it is offered and our fasting is itself a preparation for the feasting upon this Eucharistic food.  It is not symbolic eating and drinking but real.  The food is not for the imagination but for body and soul.  It is real food for real hunger in real people.  Fasting serves to highlight the gift of the Eucharist, acknowledging what the ordinary food for the body can do and what the extraordinary food which is Christ's flesh and blood do for us body and soul.  Maybe if we emphasized the connection, the self-denial would not have to be justified by medical benefit nor would it seem like we have given up everything.  Perhaps this might explain why, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus cautions against a fasting which looks sad.  Our fast is not from His feast and therefore we rejoice and are glad even in the times of self-denial.

Growing up we did not eat breakfast on Sunday.  It was a fasting enforced not by rubric or rule but by hunger for the Lord's Body and Blood.  It was, I learned, a way of acknowledging that man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord and that the food which satisfies our every hunger was nothing less than Christ's flesh and blood in the Eucharist. 

Saturday, May 11, 2024

A pastoral office. . .

The office of bishop has become in the minds of those inside and outside the church a largely managerial one.  That is part of the evolution of the office that has, in my mind, destroyed some of its best character.  The office of bishop is a pastoral one.  It is not some neat and tidy distinction that we use now to refer to pastors or priests and the presidents or bishops who administer regions instead of locales.  Indeed, the way we use pastor today has also forgotten its roots.  Pastor is less an office than a relationship and the pastoral relationship was in the New Testament bishop and elder/presbyter.  I would suggest that bishop is the ordinary word that is synonymous with pastor and that his office has been distorted over time and decidedly unpastoral.  We have bought into the managerial patterns of the civil realm and the business world to rob the office of bishop of what ought to be his most distinctive and visible role -- pastor, presiding in a place, preaching, teaching, and administering the Sacraments.

Scripture is insightful in sometimes seemingly hidden ways.  In the New Testament things got a bit blurred because the same people held different offices, complementary ones to be sure but different nonetheless.  The first bishops of the Church were the apostles.  They did not cease to be apostles when they became the bishops of the Church.  Jesus ordained them as bishops on the evening of that first Easter, breathing upon them the Holy Spirit and conferring upon them the Office of the Keys.  So after Judas hanged himself and the eleven found themselves with a missing man, they looked to Scripture and found not simply justification but the command to fill the office - another bishop. Luke speaks of this in Acts 1 and cites Psalm 109:8, Luke writes, "Let another one take his office."  In some respects, it could and should be said that they were not electing an apostle, so to speak, as they were electing a bishop.  Matthias was not called as they were by the Lord but they, as the council of bishops, filled the spot of Judas so that they were united as Christ intended in their episcopal service to the Church.  Their duties (bishop/elder/pastor/teacher) were not theirs to discern or invent but were rooted in the Lord's teaching and sent forth to act in His Name to call to repentance, to baptize, to absolve, and to preside at the Lord's Table -- in addition to preaching -- this is what we read in Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20, among other places.  We affirm that Jesus Himself instituted this office when he sent out the apostles as the church's first bishops, pastors, elders, and presbyters.

Both in the New Testament and in common usage today, we speak of the one office using various terms.  They are not different offices but different titles applied to the same office -- bishop, elder, pastor/teacher, (even evangelist).  By human distinction we confer on some specific responsibilities but this is not a divine distinction.  So when we give to some bishops (pastors) the responsibility of episcope over other pastors (and church workers), we are not conferring on them a different office but giving them different jurisdiction.  In the same way, apostles had universal jurisdiction and even Paul had jurisdiction beyond a single parish or geographical location while the elders (pastors or bishops) he appointed in the various congregations he established along the way had local jurisdiction.  The office was the same but where and how the office was carried out was different.  What is odd is how Missouri has made the office of district president to be less than a bishop in some respects (without altar or pulpit) and yet conferred a larger jurisdiction for the episcope (over a district of many bishops and congregations).  In effect, the district president is a bishop without pastoral authority.  How strange!  The repair of this lies not in more bylaws or regulations but in the simple act of restoring altar and pulpit to these men. 

Friday, May 10, 2024

Buzzwords. . .

Both the Church and the world are filled with the buzzwords of the moment.  I admit it.  Even such terms as confessional, liturgical, and sacramental are buzzwords.  Of course, I would argue that they are not only buzzwords but are careful and deliberate expressions which do not simply provide cover for the user but educate and elucidate.  The obvious truth of this is not lost on those progressive and liberal Christians (also buzzwords) who do not use terms like confessional, evangelicals who do not use the term liturgical, and Protestants who generally do not use the term sacramental.  But there are buzzwords we all claim.

The buzzwords common to most Christians are words like ministry, mission and evangelism (or evangelization, to use the current form of it).  These are the happy buzzwords of a Church not simply surviving but engaging and working to fulfill the Lord's own bidding.  Conveniently, however, they are suitably vague -- vague enough to sound more useful than they are. These terms are vague precisely because the theological underpinnings of these concepts are also vague or, more likely, left unexplained.  It is, after all, much easier to use a term which can mean whatever you want it to mean than to be forced to abide with the meaning assigned to them.  

There was a time in which ministry referred more specifically to the ministry of Word and Sacrament, a ministry which is an office and which has a charism.  Now everyone worth their salt has a ministry and everything one might do is ordinarily called a ministry.  We have food ministries and healing ministries and teaching ministries and administrative ministries and, well, just about every kind of ministry you could ever imagine.  It is fun to take what we do and call it a ministry but that does little to inform or describe or mark the boundaries of it.  It just makes it sound better -- more noble!

The same could be said of the term mission.  We have missions, we are in mission, we are missional, and we have mission statements.  It is glorious.  The term means whatever we choose it to mean and applies however we choose it to apply.  In the end, it is a rather noble and profound way we describe what is our work for God.  Most of the time these missions exist to improve things, to make things better, and to make us better.  What kind of mission would do the opposite?  We have missions for the poor, for victims of injustice, for racism, for misogyny, for gender identity, and just about everything else under the sun -- except missions to speak the Gospel of Christ crucified and risen to those who have not heard, so that they might believe, and to bring them from outside into the family of God that is the Church.  It is almost offensive to think that our missions would be bound to be God's mission.  

The same could be said for evangelism or evangelization.  It is less about God's Word than our words, less about the truth that endures forever than it is what we currently think (or feel), and less about bringing people to Jesus (in Word and Sacrament) than it is about bringing Jesus to them (so that they have a good feeling about Him).  Buzzwords are so popular precisely because they mean whatever we want them to mean and most of all they make the ordinary and routine sound like it is special and significant.  This is, in many ways, a mask we wear to make our part of the work of the Kingdom seem bigger than even God's.    Why, we can make the Kingdom of God happen by what we do and we can stymie God by what we don't.  It is almost like God needs us more than we need Him.

The mission of the church is helping people, the ministry is how we carry out the help, and the evangelism is what we say or do to help them (our version of the Gospel).  Do you see how easy it is to more the barometer of such buzzwords away from God and nearer to us?  Do you see how easy this degenerates into political issues, causes, and processes?  Do you see how little it all ends up having to do with such things as being Christ's witnesses, speaking His Word faithfully, and drawing the people of the world to know Christ where He makes Himself known in the Word and Sacraments?  Or, maybe, that is the whole point of these words we love to speak but seldom want to define or clarify.

Thursday, May 9, 2024

It was a banner day in the ELCA. . .

Just in case you missed it, in the space of one day the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America elected not one but two homosexual bishops.   First elected was Pastor Bryan Penman to be bishop of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod (SEPA).  A quick journey across a few states and Pastor Jen Negel was elected bishop by the Minneapolis Area Synod.  A couple of bio quotes shows that bishop-elect Penman believes that Jesus Christ is calling the church to be a tad more fabulous and quotes RuPaul in support of self-love.  Not be outdone, bishop-elect Negel believes that her experiences as an LGBTQ+ leader in the
church and as a parent in a transracial family have equipped her for nimble leadership even though she is a white bodied person.  I am not making this stuff up.

The elections are rather a joke since neither has a wealth of pastoral experience unconnected to their stance on sexuality and gender and it is clear that both were elected in part because they are LGBTQ+ of some form or another.  In fact, it has become an asset for advancement in the ELCA where diversity has come to be exclusively associated with sexual preference and gender identity but conveniently prevents someone from disagreeing with the ELCA on just about any political or sexuality issue.  In fact, there is no room within the ELCA for anyone who holds to the position of that church body as recent as 1993 (when the ELCA Council of Bishops formally refused to provide a rite for same sex marriage).  In little more than a generation the ELCA has become a church body captive to culture.  This is no less true of the current student demonstrations in support of the Palestinian cause against Israel and the overt ELCA support for such students and their demonstrations.  

Just in case you missed it, this is not your grandfather's ELCA and proudly so.  Also, in case you missed it, there is little room in the ELCA for a gospel of death and resurrection, sin and forgiveness.  Just so you know, the ELCA youth gathering is all about this stuff.  In fact, today the ELCA is officially kicking off their pride bracelet project.  I am sure it will become official wear for all ELCA bishops and pastors -- coming to a church near you.

And we think Missouri has problems.  Oh, my.

Wednesday, May 8, 2024

What opens up the text. . .

I was listening to something on my computer and the pastor (Lutheran but not Missouri Synod though that hardly matters) was talking about fresh ideas for sermons.  I was not paying all that much attention but I heard the pastor say that to start the sermon this person reads the text from The Message, "a version for our time—designed to be read by contemporary people in the same way as the original koine Greek and Hebrew manuscripts were savored by people thousands of years ago."  Translated by Eugene Peterson, The Message strives for the spirit of the original manuscripts—to express the rhythm of the voices, the flavor of the idiomatic expressions, the subtle connotations of meaning that are often lost in English translations.

Okay.  I am not all that familiar with The Message.  It might be fine.  But the idea that sermon prep begins with a read of the pericopes from The Message -- itself a read from the original languages -- only makes this odder than odd.  It may not be The Living Bible but it is still a very personal perspective designed to bring the spirit of the words into a contemporary idiom.  It could be one of the things you read but is it the first place where you begin?  I find this ever so curious and concerning.  If we Lutheran preachers need help from a readers version of the Scriptures to get a fresh look into the text, something has gone wrong.  I am not even aware of a Lutheran review of The Message but any cursory look will tell you that word substitutions used in that version are concerning.  Imagine any version of the Bible that has largely eliminated the word Lord and replaced it with Master or some other substitute?  Perhaps our problem is that we are no longer comfortable with the vocabulary God uses and so we have as many problems with its message as we do with its syntax and language.

Lutheran preachers ought to be equipped to bypass the middle man and go directly to the Greek and Hebrew.  Even then, Lutheran preachers ought to know which commentaries are not simply digging into the text but useful for the preacher.  Even more, Lutheran preachers ought to be hearing and reading sermons on those texts (from the fathers to those exemplary preachers of today).  There was a time in which Lutherans were generally viewed as more than competent preachers.  I fear that this is a reputation which is no longer reflective of who we are today.  Part of that concern is built upon what I hear from my people when they travel, from some of those tasked with pastoral formation, and from pastors who visit other congregations.  Now I know that pastors are harder critics then they probably should be but the criticism is telling.

In order to pick hymns for a Sunday, you should not rely on the hymn guides available from a variety of sources.  As helpful as they might be, there is no substitute for knowing the hymns in the hymnal, reading them, and praying them until they become a part of you.  If that is true of hymnody, it is no less true of the Scriptures.  We need to rely less on mediated commentary and know the Word directly to aid us in our preaching task.  We need to know how the faithful preachers who have gone before us handled these texts when applying them to the lives of their people.  Even if The Message were the best translation out there and one we always consult, part of the preacher's task and growth is building the knowledge of the text within himself, through his own study, and by his familiarity with the preachers who handled those texts before him.  Fresh ideas are not in and of themselves bad but they are not a substitute for faithfulness.  I suspect the real reason we look for short cuts is that we think we either do not have the time or we do not have the desire to put that work in for ourselves.  This may be what is really wrong with Lutheran preaching today.

Tuesday, May 7, 2024

Both are wrong. . .

I came across a quote that could very well fit the Missouri Synod.  It is about the Roman Catholic Church and the liturgical changes post-Vatican II but it could just as well as been about the Missouri Synod and their Lutheran views of the liturgical movement and its impact upon us.  Some claim the [Roman] Catholic Church effectively ended in 1962. Others act like the [Roman] Catholic Church didn’t begin until 1962. There it is in a nutshell.  The impact of the liturgical movement in both churches has been either blamed or credited with more than its share of the reason why you think things are worse or better than they were.  It is a convenient straw man for both communions.

It is possible for the Novus Ordo to be celebrated in a reverent manner that both honors its predecessor and accomplishes some of the goals and purpose for a liturgical renewal envisioned by the canons of Vatican II.  That happens all the time and many parishes and priests should receive the credit for doing just that week after week.  It was not simply the change to the mass that caused Rome's problems and that may not have been even a primary factor.  Instead, the liturgical abberations that have plagued Rome are inventions neither contemplated nor called for by the framers of Vatican II.  Furthermore, you cannot simply blame the language or reverence of the mass for the decline in mass attendance, the decline in priestly ordinations, and the gulf between what Rome teaches and Roman Catholics in the pews believe.  A pretty big component here has got to be the cultural and familial changes in American society and ultimately the failure of catechesis.  That does not mean to let off the hook the leadership failures in Rome that have climaxed in the confusion surrounding Pope Benedict's resignation and Pope Francis' exercise of the office.

Many in Missouri seem to feel the same way about The Lutheran Hymnal as Roman traditionals feel about the Latin Mass and equate the decline of Missouri with liturgical experimentation and change in the same way.  It is a convenient target but hardly the real reason behind our own failings as a church body.  We also suffered with the decline of the family (in size alone!) and the growing gulf between what we say we believe and what the folks in the pews actually believe.  It is also a crisis of catechesis and of leadership (here thinking the debacle in Missouri which happened long before the actual explosion of a seminary).  We did not have our hands on the tiller as we should and Missouri woke up one morning to find out we did not know what our seminaries were teaching but we at least knew it was a change from what had been taught.  We need a bit of honesty here.

Not to mention the fact that the liturgical movement for Missouri has brought great blessings.  One of the most important is the restoration of a more intentionally sacramental piety and practice.  We have the Eucharist more often now than ever in our history!  We see baptisms on Sunday morning more than we ever did in the past.  We talk more about private confession than we ever did in the decades and centuries prior to the liturgical movement.  If you want to blame the liturgical movement for the problems, at least you must begrudgingly admit those blessings.  Christianity lost its way in a maze of issues led by a lack of catechesis and it was this that allowed both liturgical aberration and accommodation to the culture at the expense of the integrity of the faith.  Rome could have kept the Vetus Ordo and Missouri her page 15 and all that went wrong would have still gone wrong.  It was our fault and not simply the fault of our rites.  While it is certainly true that we are our rites, we are not only our rites.

Monday, May 6, 2024

Love is His choice. . .

Sermon for the Sixth Sunday of Easter (B), preached on Sunday, May 5, 2024.

American religion believes that God is a commodity, available in the supermarket of religions and churches, and purchased on the basis of recommendations and ratings by others.  In fact, you can vote on the best church in Clarksville and every day people vote with ratings and reviews on Google, Facebook, and all kinds of other social media.  This has become normal to us.  We presume that church shopping means finding a church home and a faith that matches up with your own preferences, opinions, and choices.  When first you find a good match, everything seems wonderful but it does not last.  In the end, something will wear thin and the feelings will fade and the enthusiasm flag until you are back hoofing it across town in search of a better match.

We are the most fickle of creatures.  Why are we loyal fans of losing teams but walk out the door never to return if the pastor offends us or somebody fails to call us by name or looks at us funny?  Why will keep old familiar things long after they are worn out but tire of a spouse and family life because it gets old or does not fulfill all our dreams?  Why are we lonely and complain nobody loves us and then want to get away for some peace, quiet, and solitude?  Why do we feel compelled to judge others but are outraged if people judge us either rightly or wrongly?

Into this, Jesus prays words well worth our hearing.  “You did not choose Me but I chose you.”  There is no god worth having who has to be chosen.  The only God worth having is the God who chooses you.  There is no religion worth having in which you are in the drivers seat.  The only religion worth having is that religion in which God is incomprehensible and too big to fit our minds.  We presume that once we choose a God, He will become our equal.  Our friend and companion who will echo our opinions and agree with us over everything.  This is not the God who created all things from nothing and it is certainly not the God who became incarnate for us in order to be our Savior.  This God is not understandable and so we must pray “Thy will be done.”  This God is not our pet but we are His sheep.  This God is meets us not where we want but where He has chosen to be found.

Now this might sound off putting.  This does not sound like a very friendly God.  In fact, it sounds like a God who does not want to be friends.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  We may not know what friendship is, but the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ does.  The work of the Spirit is to make us know this friendship – not as our gesture but as His choice, even at the cost of the cross.
Because you did not choose God and He chose you, your relationship is not fragile or weak but as strong as the love that made the promise of salvation while the sting of Adam and Eve’s rebellion was still fresh.  Because you did not choose God and He chose you, your relationship is not an infatuation for the moment but the steadfast love that unfolded the plan of salvation down through the ages until finally Christ was born.  Because you did not choose God and He chose you, your relationship is not imagined behind the image you choose to project but as real as the sins He knew when He loved you even to death on the cross.  Because you did not choose God and He chose you, your relationship with Him does not end in a cemetery or at a grave but is raised from death to everlasting life.

The Scriptures reveal to us the depth of a love that is not a matter of words or even a choice but of a commitment tested by suffering and death.  That is the love of God for you.  When God calls you friends, this is not something weak or fragile like the friending and unfriending we do on social media and the faded friendships that end simply because we put no more effort into them.  The friendship of God is revealed by the cross.  The friendship of God endures through our whims and fancies that take us away from Him but never take Him from us.

So when He calls us to love as He has loved, to love the things He says, to love the things He commands, He is not placing a condition on His love.  He is offering to you the love that will fill you and define you and direct you throughout your life and even into heaven.  You are not His servant but His friends because He has revealed to you everything about His love for you.  You are His friend because in you He has planted this love and His Spirit so that you will bear the good fruit that lasts.  You are His friend because He has given you the promise that He will hear your every prayer and love you enough to give what is good and right even when that is different from what you want.  You are His friend so that you will become in Christ an instrument of this love that forgives and restores and does not quickly judge and does not count the cost of loving.

How sad it is that we have made God the object of our choice and forgotten what it means to be called, elected, washed anew, set apart, and raised up to be His sons and daughters!  How sad it is that have learned to be satisfied with a weak joy that expects to receive more than we give!  How sad it is that we have put the worst construction on the words we hear and the actions other take!  Are we happy or content or at peace in this?  Of course not.  We are lonely and fearful and sad.

The Lord has invited us to something unimaginable to us until the Holy Spirit opens our eyes to Christ, to a God who chooses us not one a whim but as an everlasting covenant of love and fidelity, from a God whose love for us is not a matter of mere words or symbols but of a body suffering and a life outpoured upon the cross.  Here is a God whose mercy gives to the unworthy and the undeserving all that cost Christ His all and who does it generously and extravagantly.  Here is a God who teaches us what real friendship is and who invites us to learn from Him to friend one another as He has us.  Here is love – not that we loved Him but He loved us first and still and forever.

The love we have for one another in Christ is like Christ’s love for us – it chooses to love despite the unworthiness of those whom we love, bears with their failings, and endures because of forgiveness.  The Scriptures tell us to bear one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of love in Christ.  Maybe law seems like a bad word but love is the fulfilling of the law.  It was for the Christ whose love kept every command so we could be counted righteous and whose love fulfilled every prophetic promise so that we could be redeemed.  As the Father has loved Me, says Jesus, so have I loved you.  This love is not a choice.  It is a commitment unto death.  Abide in His love for you and this love and the God who gives it to you will never let you down.   

What "God bless you" can also mean. . .

Years ago there was an aging Roman Catholic priest in town.  He was well know, especially to those working in the hospital where he often visited.  He was full of smiles.  He would pull into a hospital room  Baptists and non-denominationals and those whose faith was not yet determined and bid them to pray with them.  It was a sight to behold as people who probably had not prayed for a very long time somehow mustered up the memory to speak with him the Our Father.  He told everyone he saw:  God bless you!

Most of my memory of him is that he was kind of embarrassing.  He presumed too much and did not speak as clearly as I would have liked.  He seemed to me a parody of a priest instead of a real one.  Over time I came to feel rather affectionate toward him.  He just rolled in and did his thing and did not seem to be concerned about or worried over how he was received.  In some respects, he was exactly the kind of priest who could go where others could not and stand as a reminder of God's presence and His steadfast love.  I also learned something from him.

All those times when it seemed he was routinely dispensing God's blessing to any and all who happened to be in earshot, he was not implying that God approved of them or everything they were thinking of doing.  To say God bless you is not to say that God loves you just the way you are and wouldn't change a thing about you.  That would make the cross a joke.  Inherent in the words God bless you is the expectation that God will do what God must do in order to bring you to repentance, plant faith in you, and nurture that faith to bear fruit in this life and to bring you to everlasting life.  Sometimes to say God bless you is to invite God to convict your heart concerning sin and righteousness and judgment.  That is the Spirit's work, after all.  The best blessing God can bestow upon you is not His approval of or disregard for your sin.  No, indeed, the best blessing God can bestow upon you is to bring you to repentance, convict your heart regarding your sin and unrighteousness, and raise you up in faith to know, believe, and rejoice in the Gospel.  Ours is not a God of second chances but a God of redemption, rescue, and renewal.  He does not raise us up and stand back just so we can screw it all up again but restores us out of love so that we might learn and know who we are and whose we are.

I am not saying that when we behold sin we can pop by and drop a God bless you on the sin and the sinners and walk away.  What I am saying is this.  I do not know the condition of your heart.  I only know what I see and hear.  But God does know.  To impart God's blessing is to ask God to work in you that which is pleasing in His sight and beneficial for your salvation.  That may mean bringing you low as you come face to face with your sin and guilt.  The Lord never leaves the penitent there but to bring us to penitence we must pass through the valley of the shadow.  So when I say God bless you, I am not saying you are good to go as you are.  What I am saying is this.  God's blessing is realized first and foremost by faith which believes in Christ crucified and risen, repentance which lives daily in your heart, and renewal working to shape your heart to desire the things of God most of all and your mind to entertain them in your thoughts.  In contrast to this, the idea of God's blessing that would say only God likes you and wants you to be happy is a pretty shallow idea of blessing and one unworthy of the God willing to send His Son to suffer and die and rise again.

God bless you is not reserved for those who have finally gotten it all together.  It is the reminder to those in whom everything is falling apart that God is also your hope and your salvation.  I write this not to a particular cause or issue but to remind me and every Christian that God's blessing is not His stamp of approval but the prayer that God will work in us that which is well-pleasing in His sight.  That begins with bringing us to repentance, renewing our faith, and restoring us through the means of grace.

Sunday, May 5, 2024

Its Easter!

While it is still Easter for those in the West, for those in the East, Easter is today.  While most years the distance between the dates is smaller, this year it is very significant.  In 2024, the Christian world of the rest celebrated Easter on March 31 but the Orthodox celebrate Easter today, May 5.  The difference is due to the fact that most Orthodox churches use the Julian calendar introduced by Julius Caesar in 45 B.C. and the West uses the Gregorian calendar introduced by Gregory XIII’s 1582 papal bull Inter Gravissimas (“Among the Greatest Concern”).  Developing an accurate calendar is not a simple task since the time it takes the earth to make a complete revolution around the sun cannot be neatly organized into days and months. Such a revolution takes nearly a quarter of a day longer than 365 days, so every calendar has had to adjust for this difference or be increasingly off year after year.  Both the Julian and Gregorian calendars were efforts to account for the movements of the sun and the moon, with the Gregorian calendar being the more successful effort to do so.

Easter, the celebration of the resurrection of Our Lord, is the most important feast of all liturgical times but from the earliest centuries, the Christian churches celebrated it on different dates. The First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea of 325 determined to resolve the issue by decreeing that the universal Church would celebrate Easter on the first Sunday after the full moon following the beginning of Spring.  By this reckoning, the earliest possible date for Easter could be March 22 and the latest April 25.  The Julian calendar used at that time missed the calculation of the year by 11 minutes and 14 seconds.  Although the Church was aware of this fault, they attempted to follow the Council of Nicaea anyway.   To correct the problem, Pope Gregory XIII removed 10 days from the calendar in 1582 so folks went to bed Oct. 4 and woke up Oct. 15.  The Julian calendar trails behind the Gregorian calendar about 13 days (slowing increasing to 14 days in 2100).

Roman Catholic countries tended to follow the new calendar right away; Protestant countries began adopting it in the 1700s, including colonial America in 1752.  The holdouts in the East included Russia, which remained on the Julian calendar until 1917, and Greece, which remained on the Julian calendar until 1923.  No one likes the difference.  Both Pope Francis and the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew seem to be supportive of a common date but the problem is exacerbated by divisions within the Orthodox church community (in 2018 the Russian Orthodox Church severed ties with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople after Bartholomew sided with the independence of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine).   If it does progress toward an agreement, it is more likely that it will unfold step by step with different Orthodox jurisdictions instead of everyone jumping on board at the same time.

Thought you might want to know. . . 

 

 

 

Saturday, May 4, 2024

Boggles the mind. . .

I read this and put it aside because I could not wrap my head around the size and scope of it all.  Maybe you can comprehend it all.

The debt load of the U.S. is growing at a quicker clip in recent months, increasing about $1 trillion nearly every 100 days.

The nation’s debt permanently crossed over to $34 trillion on Jan. 4, after briefly crossing the mark on Dec. 29, according to data from the U.S. Department of the Treasury. It reached $33 trillion on Sept. 15, 2023, and $32 trillion on June 15, 2023, hitting this accelerated pace. Before that, the $1 trillion move higher from $31 trillion took about eight months.

How much is a trillion dollars?   If you were to spend $1 million every day, it would take approximately 2700 years to spend one trillion dollars.  A trillion is a million million for both American and modern British English definitions. A trillion dollars is a million dollars multiplied by a million. Or if you prefer, a thousand billion. It has 12 zeroes: 1,000,000,000,000. Makes your eyes cross, doesn't it?  A trillion seconds is 31,688 years.  If $1 million in $100 dollar bills stacks up to 40 inches (3.3 feet: kind of underwhelming to look at, really!), and $1 billion is 40,000 inches (that's 0.63 miles high: much more impressive!), $1 trillion in $100 dollar bills is 40,000,000 inches high, which is 631 miles. On an average annual income of around $50,000, saving a trillion bucks (with no expenditures) would take 20,000,000 years.

Oddly enough, there are people who think that God is not real because you cannot understand Him.  Gosh, how do understand a trillion dollars?  Does that mean it is not real, either?

Friday, May 3, 2024

The Sign of the Cross. . .

 I have had a number of folks insist that the sign of the cross is not quite Lutheran standard practice and represents a restoration of something Luther did not intend to keep.  Well, read it and weep.

Martin Luther on the Practice of
Making the Sign of the Cross

In the morning, when you rise, you shall make the sign of the holy cross, and you shall say: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Then, kneeling or standing, you shall say the Apostles’ Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. (“Prayers for Daily Use,” The Small Catechism, An Explanation of Dr. Martin Luther’s Small Catechism [Mankato, Minnesota: Evangelical Lutheran Synod, 2001], p. 26)

In the evening, when you go to bed, you shall make the sign of the holy cross, and you shall say: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Then, kneeling or standing, you shall say the Apostles’ Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. (“Prayers for Daily Use,” The Small Catechism, An Explanation of Dr. Martin Luther’s Small Catechism [Mankato, Minnesota: Evangelical Lutheran Synod, 2001], p. 26)

To defy the devil, I say, we should always keep the holy name upon our lips so that he may not be able to harm us as he would like to do. For this purpose it also helps to form the habit of commending ourselves each day to God – our soul and body, spouse, children, servants, and all that we have – for his protection against every conceivable need. This is why the Benedicite, the Gratias, and other evening and morning blessings were also introduced and have continued among us. From the same source comes the custom learned in childhood of making the sign of the cross when something dreadful or frightening is seen or heard, and saying, “Lord God, save me!” or, “Help, dear Lord Christ!” and the like. (Large Catechism I:72-74, The Book of Concord, edited by Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000], pp. 395-96)

[Psalm 118:]5. Out of my distress I called on the Lord; the Lord answered me and set me free. ... You must never doubt that God is aware of your distress and hears your prayer. You must not pray haphazardly or simply shout into the wind. Then you would mock and tempt God. It would be better not to pray at all, than to pray like the priests and monks. It is important that you learn to praise also this point in this verse: “The Lord answered me and set me free.” The psalmist declares that he prayed and cried out, and that he was certainly heard. If the devil puts it into your head that you lack the holiness, piety, and worthiness of David and for this reason cannot be sure that God will hear you, make the sign of the cross, and say to yourself: “Let those be pious and worthy who will! I know for a certainty that I am a creature of the same God who made David. And David, regardless of his holiness, has no better or greater God than I have.” There is only one God, of saint and sinner, worthy and unworthy, great and small. Regardless of the inequalities among us, He is the one and equal God of us all, who wants to be honored, called on, and prayed to by all. (“Psalm 118,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 14 [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1958], pp. 58,61)

This is how it works. You denounce a man for his unbelief and greed, and you hold the First Commandment up to him (Ex. 20:3): “You shall have no other gods before Me.” That is, “You shall not attach your heart, your desire, and your love to anyone else but Me.” And he refuses to hear that denunciation or to stand for it. He starts ranting and raving against it, until in his heart there is bitterness and venomous hatred against the Word and its preachers. That is why the text of the Ten Commandments contains the threat (Ex. 20:5): “I am a jealous God, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children of those who hate Me.” He is talking about these very same greedy bellies and Mammon-servers, for Scripture calls greed “idolatry,” or the worship of idols (Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:5). And yet, as we have said, they lay claim to titles like “the greatest of saints” and “enemies of idolatry and heresy”; and they absolutely disclaim the title “haters of God.” But they are convicted by their inability to hear or see the Word of God when it attacks their greed, and by their insistence that they get off without any denunciation. The more they are denounced and threatened, the more they deride and mock, doing whatever they please to spite God and everyone else. Now, is that not a horrible disease and an abominable sin, one that should terrify us so that we hate Mammon from the heart, make the sign of the cross against him and run away as from the devil? Who would not be terrified to fall into this and to hear this judgment spoken over him? (“The Sermon on the Mount,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 21 [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1956], pp. 190-91)

...God does not desire that you should learn from the dead and seek the truth from them. He wants to be your living, abundant, and satisfying teacher himself. You must cling to his word. He knows well what he ought to tell you about the living and the dead, for he knows all things. What he does not tell you or refuses to say, you should not seek to know, but do him so much honor as to believe that he realizes it is neither necessary nor useful nor good for you to know. So you should happily and gladly cast to the winds all this swindle of the spirits and not be afraid of them; doubtless they will then also depart from you in peace. If you should have a poltergeist and tapping spirit in your house, do not go and discuss it here and there, but know that it is not a good spirit which has not come from God. Cross yourself quietly and trust in your faith. (“Sermon for the Festival of the Epiphany,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 52 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974], pp. 178-79)

...how do I approach this Savior and Redeemer? By means of cowls or monastic orders and rules? No! Just cling to the Son in faith. He conquered death and the devil, and He slit the devil’s belly open. He will reign and rule again, even though He was crucified under Annas and Caiaphas. Therefore attach yourself to Him, and you will tear through death and devil; for this text [John 3:15] assures us: “Whoever believes in Him shall have eternal life.” Accept the truth of this miracle of God’s love for the world, and say: “I believe in the Son of God and of Mary, who was lifted up and nailed to the cross.” Then you will experience the new birth; for death and sin will no longer accuse, harm, and injure you. Whoever believes in the Son will have eternal life. Cling to His neck or to His garment; that is, believe that He became man and suffered for you. Cross yourself and say: “I am a Christian and will conquer.” And you will find that death is vanquished. In Acts 2:24 St. Peter says that death was not able to hold Christ, since deity and humanity were united in one Person. In the same way we, too, shall not remain in death; we shall destroy death, but only if we remain steadfast in faith and cling to death’s Destroyer. (“Sermons on the Gospel of St. John,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 22 [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1957], p. 356)

I have also read of a number of people who, when persistently assailed by the devil, crossed themselves and spoke these words: “The Word became flesh” [John 1:14], or the equivalent: “I am a Christian!” with the result that the devil was beaten and put to flight and their peace of mind was restored. And I believe this to be true, so long as the words are spoken from a believing heart. Little is gained against the devil with a lengthy disputation; but a brief word and reply such as this is effective: “I am a Christian, of the same flesh and blood as my Lord Christ, the Son of God. You settle with Him, devil!” Such a retort would soon make him depart. It is certain that if anyone could speak these words “And the Word became flesh” in true faith and with strong confidence in hours of the greatest temptation, he would be delivered from his trouble and distress; for the devil fears these words when they are uttered by a believer. I have often read and also witnessed it myself that many, when alarmed and distraught, spoke these words “And the Word became flesh” and at the same time made the sign of the cross, and thereby routed the devil. Belief in these words was so powerful that it overcame the world and the devil. (“Sermons on the Gospel of St. John,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 22 [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1957], p. 106)

...we dare not trifle with the sacraments. Faith must be present for a firm reliance and cheerful venturing on such signs and promises of God. What sort of a God or Savior would he be who could not or would not save us from sin, death, and hell? Whatever the true God promises and effects must be something big. But then the devil comes along and whispers into your ear, “But suppose you received the sacraments unworthily and through your unworthiness robbed yourself of such grace?” In that event cross yourself and do not let the question of your worthiness or unworthiness assail you. Just see to it that you believe that these are sure signs, true words of God, and then you will indeed be and remain worthy. Belief makes you worthy; unbelief makes you unworthy. (“A Sermon on Preparing to Die,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 42 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969], pp. 109-10)

...we know and have no other sacrifice than that which he [Christ] made on the cross, on which he died once for all as the Epistle to the Hebrews [9:12,26] says, and thereby put away the sins of all men and also made us holy for eternity. That, I say, is our gospel, that Christ has made us righteous and holy through that sacrifice and has redeemed us from sin, death, and the devil and has brought us into his heavenly kingdom. We have to grasp this and hold it fast through faith alone. ... Now if this gospel is true, then everything that offers another way or another sacrifice must be false. But in the mass the papists do nothing but continually ride the words “we offer up, we offer up” and “these sacrifices, these gifts.” They keep completely quiet about the sacrifice that Christ has made. They do not thank him. Indeed, they despise and deny his sacrifice and try to come before God with their own sacrifice. ... The good Christ is not pleasing to the Father unless the holy canon comes and makes him pleasing, in that the offering reconciles him with God. And so again Christ is dead and of no avail, since only the work is supposed to forgive sins and obtain favor with God so that he is gracious to Christ and to us. You see, there you have heard the holy secret mass, so that you may know what it is and may be shocked by it and may cross yourself as you would before the devil himself. ... Therefore, dear Christians, let us flee from such an abomination... (“The Abomination of the Secret Mass,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 36 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959], pp. 313,327-28)

... I am not contending against the sacrament but against the mass, and would like to separate the sacrament from the mass so that the mass might perish and the sacrament alone, without the mass, might be preserved in its honor and according to the ordinance of our dear Lord Jesus Christ. May God grant to all devout Christians such hearts that when they hear the word “mass,” they might be frightened and make the sign of the cross as though it were the devil’s abomination; on the other hand, when they hear the word “sacrament” or “Lord’s Supper,” they might dance for pure joy, indeed, in accordance with genuine spiritual joy, cry sweetly. For I am very fond of the precious, blessed Supper of my Lord Jesus Christ in which he gives me his body and blood to eat and to drink even bodily with my own mouth along with these exceedingly sweet and kind words: “Given for you, shed for you,” etc. I am the more hostile and angry about the mass, because the papists have thereby arrogated the holy sacrament to themselves alone, have taken it from [Christians] and robbed Christians of it, and have made a business of it and yet have woven both into one another so inseparably when they provide it for Christians at Easter time, that the common man is unable to distinguish between the mass and the sacrament. ... Yet they are not one and the same thing. It is the mass when I sacrifice the sacrament to God for my sins and the sins of others as a work performed by human beings (whether they be evil or godly). This they have to acknowledge. It is the sacrament when I receive from the priest the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine. (“A Letter of Dr. Martin Luther Concerning his Book on the Private Mass,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 38 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971], pp. 226-27)

I only desire to have the conscience free and to have all Christians make the sign of the cross against a faith which believes that the pope is right in his rule. For such a faith destroys faith in Christ and drowns the whole world in nothing but sin and destruction. The pope and you papists are the pious heirs of this sort of thing. You, who do no more than propagate such superstition, seduce the world, destroy Christian faith, and lead all souls to the devil when you should believe only in Christ and preach freedom from human laws so as to remain “ministers of the Spirit” and not “of the letter” [cf. II Cor. 3:6]. (“Answer to the Hyperchristian, Hyperspiritual, and Hyperlearned Book by Goat Emser in Leipzig,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 39 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970], p. 202)

...Peter says, “You are Christ, the Son of the living God” [Matt. 16:16]. Now blessed is he who has this confession of Christ. Reason cannot come this far. This is made known by Christ Himself when He answers Peter and says, “Blessed are you, Simon, son of John. Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in Heaven.” And He says further, “You are Peter (that is, a rock) and upon this rock I will build My church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” [Matt. 16:17-18]. ...that rock is Christ and his Word. For Christ is known only through His Word. ... Upon that Word I then build. ... Therefore “rock” here means nothing else but the Christian evangelical truth, which Christ makes known to me here. By this I ground my conscience upon Christ and against this all other might is ineffectual, even the gates of hell. Without this rock and foundation no other can be laid. As Saint Paul says to the Corinthians, “No one can lay any other foundation apart from that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus” [1 Cor. 3:11]. ... Therefore Christ alone is the rock. Where any other foundation is laid, then make the sign of the cross over yourself, for surely the devil is there to lay it. For this passage cannot be interpreted in any way but only that it speaks of Christ. (Sermon for “The Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, the Holy Apostles,” Luther’s Festival Sermons [Dearborn, Michigan: Mark V Publications, 2005], Church Postils, Summer Section, pp. 89-91)

...clandestine betrothals...deprive God and parents of the obedience due them... Therefore, I am determined that no clandestine betrothal shall be approved, even if the father gives his consent, because that only confirms the work of the devil. From the beginning of the world, the only true way of doing this – among the Gentiles, the papacy, and among us – has been for the parents on both sides to come together and give their children in marriage... Whatever is contrary to this is against God, who has forbidden it, and this method prevailed until the present day among both the Gentiles and the Jews. Afterward came the devil’s head at Rome with his other way of doing it, the devil’s way, which is this: because the son intends to do something honorable, namely, get married, he can do this without the knowledge and consent of his parents, whether father or mother. That is such an evil thing that one can scarcely say it aloud. God says, “Honor your father.” The pope says, “That is not necessary if your intention is to do something honorable.” Consider whether it is God or the pope who speaks properly. God says, “Honor.” The pope says, “No, but I say that you may well [do otherwise],” etc. There make the sign of the cross. (“Sermon for the Second Sunday after Epiphany” [1544], Luther’s Works, Vol. 58 [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2010], pp. 83-84)

In Haggai 2[:6-9] we read: “For thus says the Lord of hosts: once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land; and I will shake all nations, so that the consolation of the Gentiles (chemdath) shall come, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the Lord of hosts. The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, says the Lord of hosts. The splendor of this latter house shall be greater than the former, says the Lord of hosts; and in this place I will give prosperity, says the Lord of hosts.” This is another of those passages which pains the Jews intensely. They...take up and crucify the expression “consolation of the Gentiles,” in Hebrew chemdath... They insist that this term does not refer to the Messiah, but that it designates the gold and silver of all the Gentiles. Grammatically, the word chemdath really means desire or pleasure; thus it would mean that the Gentiles have a desire for or take pleasure and delight in something. ... What do the Gentiles desire? Gold, silver, gems! ... Further, how does it happen that such very intelligent teachers and wise, holy prophets do not also apply the word “desire” (chemdath) to all the other desires of the Gentiles? For the Gentiles desire not only gold and silver but also pretty girls, and the women desire handsome young men. ... Why, then, do the Jews not interpret this verse of the prophet to mean that such desires of all the Gentiles also will shortly come to Jerusalem, so that the Jews alone might fill their bellies and feast on the world’s joys? For such a mode of life Muhammad promises his Saracens. In that respect he is a genuine Jew, and the Jews are genuine Saracens according to this interpretation. ... Therefore, dear Christian, be on your guard against the Jews, who...are consigned by the wrath of God to the devil, who has not only robbed them of a proper understanding of Scripture, but also of ordinary human reason, shame, and sense, and only works mischief with Holy Scripture through them. ... For anyone who dares to juggle the awesome word of God so frivolously and shamefully as you see it done here...cannot have a good spirit dwelling in him. Therefore, wherever you see a genuine Jew, you may with a good conscience cross yourself and bluntly say: “There goes a devil incarnate.” (“On the Jews and Their Lies,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 47 [Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1971], pp. 209-14) Note: When Luther speaks of “a genuine Jew” and “a devil incarnate,” he is not saying that Jewish people as a racial group are devils, but he is referring to the demonic “spirit” that he perceives to be dwelling within false teachers and false prophets (whether Jews or Gentiles) who “juggle the awesome word of God so frivolously and shamefully.” The fact that Luther also calls Muhammad “a genuine Jew” demonstrates that he is using this phrase as a description of someone who adheres to a certain kind of belief system, and not as a description of someone who belongs to a particular ethnic group. At the conclusion of the treatise from which this quotation is taken, Luther says (in regard to the Jews) that he wants his readers “to understand not only that their belief is false but that they are surely possessed by all devils.” He then immediately goes on to express this prayerful wish: “May Christ, our dear Lord, convert them mercifully...” (p. 306).


ADDENDA:

Among all the ancient writers there is indeed frequent mention of the sign of the cross. ...at the time of Tertullian and afterward the Christians with their fingers formed a transverse figure like a cross in the air, and in this way identified themselves. It was...a profession and reminder that they believed in Christ crucified, and that they were placing all their hope and confidence in Him. (Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part IV [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1986], p. 94)

If you are tempted, hasten to sign yourself on the forehead against the devil, provided you make it with faith, not for men to see but knowing how to use it like a breastplate. Then the adversary, seeing the power that comes from the heart, will flee. This is what Moses imaged forth through the passover lamb that was sacrificed, when he sprinkled the thresholds and smeared the doorposts with its blood. He was pointing to the faith that we now have in the perfect Lamb. By signing our forehead and eyes with our hand, we repulse him who seeks to destroy us. (Hippolytus of Rome, “The Apostolic Tradition” [ca. 215 A.D.], in Lucien Deiss, Springtime of the Liturgy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1979], p. 153)

There is a lot of information on the Internet about the practice of making the sign of the cross. Those who write about this practice from a distinctly Lutheran perspective include C. F. W. Walther, Adolph Spaeth, Paul H. D. Lang, Harold L. Senkbeil, John M. Dreyer, John M. Dreyer again, Richard A. Krause, Karl Weber, Eric Andersen, John Bombaro, and Seth B. Kasten. The Ukrainian Orthodoxy web site, the Signum Crucis web site, Byzantines.net, Virtualology.com, the Christianity Today web site, and Conservapedia offer some interesting historical background on the sign of the cross. The Defenders of the Catholic Faith web site provides many patristic citations on the subject.

HT Angelfire 

Thursday, May 2, 2024

The magisterium of the screen. . .

I wish it were only true that we were captive to our screens for amusement but we are also indebted to them for other things -- some good and some bad.  We can all lament how the noble invention has become a tool for our most prurient interests displaying pornography far more evil that the magazines of old printed on paper.  On the other hand, it is possible for people in remote areas or without immediate access to an in person visit to be seen by medical personnel.  There is another use perhaps more pernicious than images and that is our ability to find the most obscure and odd bits of information and presume because of the screen that we have stumbled upon the greatest wisdom of all.  The reality is that we have come to depend upon the screens as our primary source of information, facts, and opinion -- something even more likely with the increase of AI.  Yet we have not figured out how to weed out the straw from the kernel of grain that has real value.  It is left to each of us to muster our own rationale for why what we read is correct or false and, in most cases, it is less an informed judgment than it is one formed from preference and that which agrees with our instincts.

Nowhere is this more true than when it comes to religious knowledge.  I cannot tell you how many questions come to me because somebody was reading something on the internet and it contradicted catechism and creed but seemed so very authentic and did fit with the questioners own doubts and concerns.  In other words, I thought I might be a heretic until I read something on the internet which agreed with me and know I know I am probably correct and the Church has been wrong for a couple of millenia.  Of course, that is so logical and reasonable that it must be correct, right?  But the fallacy of the internet is that is offers what is presumed to be of equal value with creed and catechism but is merely an oft rehearsed and resurrected heresy that refuses to die.  Or it offers us practices which should be called oddities and aberrations and sets them up as equally reliable with catholic practice.  It does not hurt if the practice accords with what the person knew growing up and so personal experience also weighs in for the value of that piety.   In any case, it is left to the individual to decide what is good, right, and salutary.

Liturgically this works like this.  Every practice over the course of Lutheranism is set up as an equally valid and legitimate one and then the individual picks and chooses among them what fits that person.  The problem is that practices are not always exemplary but may indeed reflect a decline or undo influence from another tradition.  So, I grew up first with Holy Communion quarterly and then monthly before discovering that the Augustana says our practice is weekly -- every Lord's Day.  So which is a more accurate reflection of Lutheranism -- practices that became aberrations to our confessions but normal or those which reflect our primary confession and yet may be a minority today?  Are they all equally valid and Lutheran?

Doctrinally it works like this.  The explanation of the Trinity is either a simple narrative based upon the leaves of clover or the parts of the egg or the apple and its tree or it is seen as an invention foreign to the Old Testament and invented by later Christians.  Is a more modalist or partialist explanation which fits our reason a better way of approaching the mystery of the Godhead or do we dispense with the explanations in favor of none?  I grew up when such images of the Trinity were commonly used to explain the mystery of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and the one God and they seemed perfectly reasonable except that they were wrong.  There is no reasonable explanation for the math of the Holy Trinity no matter how much we want to find one.  Yet we are loathe to let go of the images that fit our want to make God comprehensible simply because they are wrong.

In both of the above cases, we can find an abundance of internet sources to justify why we can choose the error and still be correct.  Then, along comes a pastor who tries to tell us that what we think we know well is not correct and he is the one in the wrong.  The internet cannot lie to us and we believe we have done our homework to figure it all out and besides it fits so well with what we want to believe.  Hmmm, what could be wrong with this picture?