Not Happiness We Question -- But Where It Comes From

Joe Carter over at First Things (you simply gotta subscribe and read it and the blogs) reminded me of the great, old H. L Menken quote.  Joe Carter suggests that many assume Christian motivation for its concerns about sexuality, marriage, etc. are from the mistaken belief "that our motives are similar to those falsely ascribed to the Puritans by H.L. Menken: that we have the 'haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.'”

It is not the prospect of people being happy that haunts Christians and the Church but the source of such happiness.  There is a difference.  Christians do not begrudge folks their happiness but are compelled to speak when that happiness is itself a false happiness -- a contentment that flows from those things which lack the capacity for real contentment.

Drugs seem to make a lot of people happy but this addiction is a false euphoria and an empty happiness which eventually destroys and steals more than it gives.  A pill or shot or toke here and there and it all seems so innocent that only a prude which speak against such harmless experimentation... except that it is like the tip of the iceberg for a heart searching for happiness and contentment in all the wrong places.  What would the Church be if she did not challenge such false notions and point out the dead end of this path?

The same can be said for those who pursue their happiness by their self-indulgence in other desires or tastes.  From food to sexuality, from booze to hoarding, we have desires that are not salutary but destructive.  They cannot bring us what we desire from them but if we would pursue them with abandon and license they may just steal our very lives from us.  So the Church would be a sham if she did not speak up, her values empty and her morality merely an exterior veneer.

Sex which has divorced pleasure from procreation, self-indulgence from commitment, is the path of contemporary culture.  What we are speaking about is not simply teenage fornication or same sex marriage but the unhooking of the values and identity of our culture.  That which distinguishes man from the rest of God's creatures is his ability to renounce his own desires, to say "no" to self in pursuit of a higher good and goal.  This is what Christians must speak to and of which these other things are more symptoms than cause.  We have given in to the tyrannical rule of our wants -- wants and desires that trump every other value that we hold as individual persons and as a culture.

Christianity heralds the radical values of self-denial, cross bearing, service, and the reigning in of my personal freedom for the sake of those around me.  It is the core value of marriage and it is the core value of Jesus' call to discipleship.  It is seem most powerfully in the cross which Jesus does not run to but neither does He run from.  He chooses it, complete with all its cost, because of what His sacrifice will accomplish for us and our salvation.  When Christians speak against the prevailing mores of our culture it is not for condemnation but for cleansing and renewal.  We do not disdain happiness but we must condemn the idea of happiness that seems dominant today -- radical individuals, self-centered definitions of goodness and truth, and a life which glories in the curvatus in se that is sin's scar upon our minds, hearts, bodies, and world.

The world may never have been Christian in the sense of this radical value of the cross dominant or prevailing among its members but a world without the voice of Christian witness to speak the radical value of the cross is a world happily skipping toward complete and utter despair and bent upon its own destruction.  The Christian loves the world too much to sit idly by or in silent submission to such folly.  As Joe Carter put it so well, we are trying, however ineffectually, to stop our civilization from replacing the Cross with a stripper pole.

What do the flowers tell us?

Sermon Preached on 8 August 2010, for Pentecost 11, Proper 14C

    Standing out in a garden in 100° weather, you might be caused to wonder – flowers or weeds... who decided and are they worth all the trouble?  The only thing I can figure is that we call them flowers because they require work from us to grow and we call them weeds because they grow on their own without any help (except God).  Now some of you might think "who cares?" because gardening is not your thing.  And some of you shrug your shoulders because these things come and go; their beauty is feeling.  Why do we waste our time on them?
    Could not God say the same of us?  We come and we go.  Our beauty fades.  We are a lot of work to this Gardener in whose garden we grow.  We might not be sure if the flowers are worth it all – OR we are worth it – but God does not equivocate.  His Son is the clearly spoken YES of grace – even to us fleeting and flawed creatures.  And there is much more to learn from the flowers of the field.  Today we explore what the flowers tell us of God and His grace.
    Scripture is clear.  God clothes the fields, flowers, trees, and, yes, even the weeds.  He clothes them and gives them their beauty and He gives them their life.  From this we learn something of the God whose grace clothes us in baptism, the God who gives us our  beauty and nobility, and from whom we receive the life that crowns this moment and the eternal life that is forever.
    What DO the flowers tell us?  God knows their needs and supplies them all they need.  It is their glory to live solely dependent upon His grace for every moment of every day that they live – even for the time of their life hidden in the ground when the seed or bulb lies seemingly dead until God's spring awakens them.
    We are the only ones of God’s creation whose minds think, who choose what we will work and do, and whose wills define what is important to us.  Yet these gifts have not given us any comfort at all.  They have only led us further from the simple peace, joy and trust exemplified in these flowers of the field.  Instead we are left only with the seeds of our anxiety and the terrors of our fears.  Oh, that we could live to fully and utterly dependent upon God’s grace as do these flowers of the field!
    What DO the flowers of the field tell us?  God declares them beautiful – they do not claim beauty for themselves.  Their worth and value are not decided by their own wills and desires and neither do they look inward for affirmation of who they are or the value of their lives.  They stretch toward the sun and their worth and value and glory are in the sun's light.  Surely I do not need to explain this to you.  It says something when our declaration of beauty or worth lies apart from God and even in conflict with His Word.  It says something of us when we seek not the light of God's Son but our own light or when our self-worth and value is shaped by something other than the light of Christ, who died that we might live and rose that we might live forever.
    What DO the flowers tell us?  God watches over their coming and going, now and always.  They are never alone, if their lives are lived out under the watchful and loving vision of the Father in heaven who made them and keeps them still.  What does it say of us when we let our fears trample over our hope, when we look around us instead of to the Lord, or when we seek the approval and care of others instead of the God whose watchful eye and loving care come to us fully in Christ our Lord.
    Think of the second lesson we heard today and its description of Abraham.  He received a promise of offspring as numerous as the stars in the sky or the sand on the shore.  He never saw it.  He only lived to see one son, Isaac.  But it was enough.  Even though he did not receive all that was promised, the promise was enough for him.
    Now who is more valuable?  Does God care for the flowers of the field more than He cares for YOU?  What DO we see in the flowers?  Trust in the Lord for what you see AND for what you do not see.  Let faith be your eyes when the ones in your head say NO.  God has said YES in Christ so that our fears may not consume us nor our sins condemn us.
    Let the Lord declare you beautiful and let the Lord determine you worthy and let the Lord decide what your value is.  Then accept His declaration in Christ and live out your life accordingly.  Live not as the people you are but as those whom God has declared you to be.  Live a life worthy of this grace and love, mercy and blessing.
    Live in the light of Christ, in the glorious knowledge of what His death and resurrection have accomplished.  Live in the light of Christ where your frailty does not condemn you and your sins are forgiven, where your weakness does not hinder you and God's strength and sufficient grace are your clothing even to eternal life.
    Live out your days and your nights knowing that your coming and going is in His hand.  Remember what we say to the children brought to the font for baptism?  The Lord bless your coming and your going, from this time forth and forevermore.  We might add, spend the rest of your live believing in this promise and the blessing of its comfort will not be far from you in trouble.
    I don’t know who said this is a flower and this is a weed?  It is all in the eye of the beholder.  If flowers are the ones that cause you trouble and weeds grow and flourish without any effort, but God loves them all, then even as a weed we can know God’s sufficient grace and loving care.  It matters not what the world labels us, but what matters is what God has declared us to be in Christ.  We come and go and the Lord's grace in Christ is our only hope and security.  The cross is the verdict of God about our worth – apparently we are worth to God the price of Christ’s blood – so in all your wonderings, worries, anxieties and fears, let this be your peace.  God has declared you worthy through His Son.
    What can you learn from the flowers?  When you look around for a sign that you are important or worthy or beautiful or of value, consider the lilies of the field, how they grow and the grace of the Lord that surrounds their brief, momentary existence.  And then look up to the cross where God has not only declared us forgiven and new but worthy and of the greatest value to Him.   The message of grace is all around you – from the flowers and weeds that come and go to the cross that is eternal.  Do not mistake their message.  In different ways they speak the common language of grace.
    But we do not have merely the lilies of the field as our teachers.  We have the cross, where God has made is as clear as blood that He loves YOU.  That John 3:16 is not just words, but truly God so loved YOU that He gave His only begotten Son for YOU that YOU who believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.  This is most certainly true.  Amen

Mainlines Moved to the Sidelines...

In the era when I grew up, Ike was in the White House and American religion was very waspish.  That was not so much true under the surface but it was certainly the perception and the reality that your eye could see.  The churches in power and visible in our culture were the Mainlines (variously described as Congregationalist,  Dutch Reformed, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, United Brethren, American Baptist (distinguished from Southern Baptist), and some Lutheran bodies.  There were more Roman Catholics than any other brand but they were not powerful and much less visible than the Mainlines.  When Ike called the nation to prayer, that nation looked very white, very Protestant, and very Northern European (except not so ethnic).

Boy, have things changed!  The Congregationalists were absorbed into the United Church of Christ and have become the most liberal of the denominations (sort of liturgical Unitarians).  The Reformed Church in America (the second oldest continuously existing American denomination) is a blip on the radar except for the shadow of its once most famous preacher (Robert Schuller and the Crystal Cathedral).  The Episcopalians are bleeding the red ink of members like the government is bleeding the red ink of budget deficits and are in danger of being severed from the Anglican Communion entirely (if African Anglicans have their way).  The Methodists have more congregations than anybody but they are largely empty and its method is no longer identifiable.  The stodgy old Presbyterians seem to have given up the doom and gloom of double predestination to join the ranks of the God doubters and social justice Christians.  The United Brethren got to hang the word "united" before Methodist when they were sucked up into that denomination.  The American Baptists herald their diversity while the Southern version heralds its uniformity but they are like a minnow in the Baptist pond.  And the Lutherans... well, the ELCA has hitched its wagon to the Presbyterians, Methodists, Reformed, and UCC while warming up to the social activism of the Episcopalians and they have bled tons of folks since their creation in 1988.  Missouri has remained fairly stable -- bleeding a few less people (after removing those who split off in the mid 1970s) but they are a denomination uncertain of their identity and in conflict over how it will all turn out.  Their focus is largely internal.

The Roman Catholic Church is still America's largest but some new kids have moved into town.  On one hand you have the Pentecostals who were confined to Appalachia but now are on Main Street -- well, make that a large suburban campus of buildings that dwarfs the size of the Mainlines.  On the other hand, you have the American phenomenon of the mega church non-denominational variety that is now the virtual second largest denomination on American soil.  What was not even in existence when I was a kid, has become the almost defining version of American Christianity (Saddleback, Willow Creek, Lakewood, etc.).

The term "evangelical" is not any more uniformly defined than mainline was fifty years ago but it is clearly the style and flavor of Christianity that dominates the landscape.  Presidential contenders stood  sat before Saddleback and their high priest Rick Warren before election day.  An association connected with Willow Creek includes congregations of most denominations and some consider these the movers and shakers of American style Christianity.

Move over, mainlines -- or more accurately, get out of the way... American religious identity is still vibrant but its shape is changing, its content is significantly different than before, and its spirituality embraces a host of religious expressions and is somewhat detached from notions of church and God.

So what shall we do as Missouri Synod Lutherans?  It appears to me, theology aside, that we have a good position in the marketplace of American Christianity.  Take away all theological discussions and look only at the people and places.  What you see is no one who is Word and Sacrament -- whose Word is efficacious and trustworthy and whose Sacraments bestow what they promise...  What you see is no one who glories in the liturgical and dogmatic heritage of the early Church and Reformation but within the context of a community who still believe its words and follow its practices... What you see is no one whose song tells the wonderful old story but without the nostalgia, sentiment, and melancholy and with the confidence that this is the only story that counts (of Jesus and His cross).

You might think that we are being pushed to the sidelines by the convoy of evangelicals and their look alikes but I say to stay the course, keep on the road, and honk the horn... we have something to say, something to offer, and something to give...  What say you??

Lets Get This Over With As Quickly As Possible...

Those who know me know that we do little to shorten the length of the Divine Service.  It routinely lasts about 70-80 minutes.  I have often joked that one of the easiest ways to get reluctant Lutherans to move to a weekly Eucharist is to make sure the non-eucharistic services last as long as the Divine Service does.  When time no longer becomes the issue, it is amazing how receptive people can be to this change  restoration.

Sadly the king of quickness in the liturgy is the typical Roman priest and parish.  Perhaps it is the shortage of priests, the limited number of hours on Sunday morning, and the vast number of Roman Catholics communing that make the Mass into a race to see how quickly we can get to its end.  I have personally been present during several attempts to break the land speed record in a Roman parish.  I watched as the Mass was said and nearly 1,000 people communed in less than 60 minutes.  Of course, music was almost non-existent, the homily was but a few minutes, and there were, literally, no breaths taken during the speaking parts.  All in all the folks in the pews seemed happy to out so soon.

Lutherans are not immune from such pressures.  I have been in Lutheran parishes in which the ordinary of the Divine service was chopped up for the sake of time so that the Liturgy of the Word was basically the collect and the lessons and the Liturgy of the Eucharist was the preface, verba, and distribution.  It was as if the last words were not "Go in peace" but "Get outta here already!"  Of course the sermon was shorted much more judiciously than the liturgy (Pastor's gotta get that last word in...).

In contrast to this stands the Orthodox Church with its seemingly timeless (meaning unconcerned about time) Liturgy.  In peace let us pray to the Lord... and again... and again and again... and again and again and again... If the attendant music is used, the whole service can easily last two hours.  Couple that with few pews and you have a completely different ambiance than in the Western churches.

Surprisingly, the one place where the rush to the door slows down a bit is in contemporary worship.  In place of liturgy and hymns, the time is filled with much longer sermons, some video, lots and lots of performance music, and lots and lots of contemporary Christian music.  In many places with a lot of standing (and, well, dancing, and stuff).  The praise band can keep a chorus going seemingly ad nauseum and it seems no one begrudges an additional riff from the bass or lead guitar.  In many places you can find contemporary worship services that last 70-90 minutes -- even without Holy Communion!

Why is it that the Orthodox and contemporary worship types seem to be so oblivious to the passage of time and the rest of us, dry old Presbyterians, mainline Methodists, Bible belt Baptists, and even lots of lackadaisical Lutherans are so time conscious?  It is as if we enter the House of the Lord with the idea that something distasteful but necessary is going to happen so lets get it over with as quickly as possible.  The way I view going to the dentist or another my view getting a colonoscopy or another might view heading to the Principal's Office...

I would plead with Pastors not to let time constraints lead to the butchering of the liturgy, the absence of the ordinary, or the justification for non-communion Sundays.  I would plead with the people in the pew to leave their watches (and cell phones) at home or turned off.  I would plead against having a clock prominently displayed in the Nave (I recall that in St. Peter's, Arlington Heights, IL, the pulpit which is shaped like the prow of a ship has a ship's clock staring the Pastor in the face through the entire sermon).

Heading God's bidding, gathering in His name, receiving His gifts, and returning to Him the thanks and praise He is due... these are not the things of duty to be measured in increments of minutes but the joyful privilege of those whom God has chosen to call His own and among whom He is present in His Word and Sacraments... Let us give God His due and relieve the Church of the constraint of the clock... The liturgy should proceed at a leisurely pace, the structure of the Mass respected, the hymns sung (all stanzas), and at the end, when the people are dismissed (Ite messe est), let their Deo gratias be the regretful tone of those for whom too soon we rise, the vessels disappear, the feast, though not the love, is past and gone, the bread and wine remove, but Thou art here..

The Title Has It Right By Me

HT to Pr Thomas Messer at Abide in My Word... although I certainly would not want to credit him with this... well... stuff...  And they say all this conflict over contemporary worship and music is just a matter of taste...

The Tyrrany of Self-Interest

Having moved from a high tax state (New York) to a low tax state (Tennessee) I found it amusing when people in the congregation complained about their "outrageous taxes."  To put it in perspective, property taxes are extremely low in Tennessee, there is no income tax, and sales tax is about what it was in New York but without exemption for food.  All in all, I would gladly choose to pay my taxes in Tennessee.

Since the school system in my community is growing, the schools build or expand a school every year.  This cost is great although they tend to pay for it with bonds that somebody in the future will be afflicted with.  With the complaints about taxes here, I also heard many retirees complain that they did not have children in school so why should they have to pay for them.  While I would dispute their perspective on taxes in Tennessee, I can understand their opinion.  Nobody likes to pay taxes.  But I do not understand the idea that since you personally do not benefit from this program or that, you should not have to pay for it.  That, to me, is the bald face of selfishness speaking -- and a short sighted selfishness at that.  Who paid for the schools these folks went to or their children?  Well, I digress...

We find ourselves at a point when self-interest has become the tyranny inflicted not only on social institutions but also the Church.  I hear people say all the time that because they don't have kids in Sunday school, they are under no obligation to teach... and the same argument is used for nursery, youth group, and a host of other areas of church life.  If I do not participate or it does not directly benefit me, why should I be expected to contribute, participate, or "volunteer"?

In addition, I get a slew of mail offering me tips on the care and feeding of "volunteers" so that they will enjoy their "volunteer" experiences, be rewarded by their service, and serve even more.  In others words, if people don't get back as much as they give or get back more than they give from their serving, they won't serve.  It is the tyranny of self-interest that raises its ugly head over and over again.  I do not understand it and I have no sympathy for it.

We do not witness to the Gospel because it helps us, we witness because of the overwhelming power of God's grace that compels us to share the hope that it in us.  We do not teach Sunday school because it is rewarding, we teach because children need to learn who God is through the voice of His Word so that they may confess Jesus Christ with their mouths and believe in Him in their hearts.  We do not have Bible study because of the reward of being in Scripture, we are in Scripture because it is the cradle of Christ and it is the efficacious Word that does what it says and fulfills all its promises.  We do not sing in the choir because we like to sing and we get something out of it, we sing in the choir because God is worthy to be praised for all that His mercy has accomplished in Christ and music is one of the means He has given us to offer Him this praise.  I could go on but I won't.  Suffice it to say that self-interest is not a motive in keeping with the Gospel.

Whether we are giving our dollars or our time, self-interest is not the gauge or measure of the success of that gift or the reason for giving.  We give because Christ first gave us (to paraphrase a favorite Bible verse).  I find myself wearied by the need to convince people to do the right thing because there is something in it for them.  I don't know if the times have changed or I have changed, but it is shocking to see how the Church must grovel at the altar of self-interest in order to wake God's people up to what they can and should be doing simply because they are God's people.  It does us no good to stoop down to the level of self-interest in order to seek people from within the congregation to do God's work and the seeds we will sow for this are the seeds of destruction that will kill the good places and good efforts of God's people to return to Him what He has given them.

It is not because it is in my self-interest that I should be a part of these things, but because the love of Christ compels me and serving Him is the joy of my heart (even though the actual things I do in this service may not be pleasing to me or rewarding).

The Intolerance of the Tolerant

I did not make up this title -- I wish I  had but I stole it from another.  It is a powerful contradiction that we see evident among those who would constitute the more liberal bent of just about anything.  These are those who would foment for diversity and a broad enough tent to allow for different thinking than the party line.  They are the ones who encourage women priests, access to abortion, and same sex marriage among all those nations and churches that discourage such things.  But it is an interesting thing about the tolerant.  They are only tolerant of what they are for and apart from what they promote they are very intolerant.

The tolerant who promote diversity and openness are, in reality, only feigning tolerance in order to press for a new intolerance that forbids disagreement.  In the end they merely substitute one set of intolerance for another and promote the same kind of rigid orthodoxy which they decry among the governmental, societal, and religious institutions around them.

It is the false premise of liberalism.  It is not liberal at all.  It is merely conservative about a different set of beliefs and values than those who oppose them.  While I speak in generalities, there are some specifics that we can address.  And while what I say may be applied in different arenas, I will direct this only to the church aspect of things...

Christians are supposed to be tolerant of other religions -- especially a religion like Islam which is so remarkably intolerant.  So, for example, we as Christians should press for the right of Muslims to enter society on every level, build mosques and Islamic centers wherever they choose, make provisions for the faithful for the five times of daily prayer, and allow for the wearing of the berka.  Never mind that this Islam we are to be so tolerant of refuses a Christian church building in most Islamic countries -- not even for the millions of Christian foreigners who live and work there.  Yet to point this out is to point out my own narrowness of thought and meanness of spirit.


Liberal Christianity promotes all sorts of practices and positions at odds with Scripture and tradition and works in nearly every way to change the stance of Christian denominations to allow for more liberal and progressive thinking.  Yet this same Christian liberalism refuses to allow those who disagree.  Liberal Christians who are so generous with a diversity of truth are opposed to Christian churches who refuse women's ordination or who would enforce doctrinal orthodoxy or who would stand for the historical and literal character of Scripture. The only truth which is to be enforced in Liberal Christianity is the uncertain truth of those who do not believe what the Word of God says, who believe that truth must be changed in each age and time to fit the prevailing mood, and who make the center of nearly everything man and his consuming quest for pleasure, happiness, equality, and justice.

In my own denomination, there are those who insist that worship need not be shaped by the faith and identity of our Confessions but can be structured differently -- as long as unity of substance is maintained and diversity of identity and practice can be allowed.  This group is intolerant of those who would press for more unanimity among the congregations when it comes to worship or more Lutheran identity in what happens on Sunday morning.  They seem tolerant of everything except that which is traditional.  The same can be said for nearly any of the hot button issues of the day -- the only view that is allowed among these folks is the view that allows their point of view.  Anything else must be challenged.

I say this because it is often hard for those who would hold to a more traditional view point since we do not want to be seen to be narrow, judgmental, and mean spirited folks.  So we often are guilted into accepting things that we know we cannot accept and into practices which challenge the very core values of our Confession.  And in doing so we generally appeal to constitution and by-law instead of arguing on the basis of Scripture and tradition.  The merits of our positions and our arguments end up getting lost when we appeal to formal documents like constitutions and by-laws.  But in doing so, we avoid being labeled by others and have our ideas and ideals stained with the terrible curse of sectarian, narrow, or judgmental.

What we need to do is to challenge this false liberalism that parades its diversity in politics, society, morality, and religion but which is not liberal at all.  It is a sham.  It is not diversity which is desired but the enforcement of the liberal ideal and ideas.  Allowing for heterodoxy or heresy is the surest way to enforce it.  Remember the so-called Neuhaus' law.  "Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed".  In other words, where Scripture and tradition are made merely one choice among many choices of truth, the genuine truth of Scripture and tradition will eventually be the one truth not allowed.

Those who might identity with what I have said might also join me in often being embarrassed at how narrow our truth sounds and how unbending our doctrine is.  So it sounds like we are anti-women when we hold to male ordination when, in reality, the most anti-woman position is to say that equality demands exchanging the uniqueness of maleness and femaleness for some gender identity which is nothing at all.  So it sounds like we are anti-gay when we hold to fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman and chastity everywhere else when, in reality, we are holding to the essential truth of natural law and order and encouraging the one basic unit of society that is universal within all of humanity and creation.  So it sounds like we are excluding people when we claim salvation by grace through faith alone in Christ Jesus when, in reality, this is the most inclusive statement of God and His love ever to be made.  So it sounds like we are excluding folks from the communion rail when we expect a unity of faith and identity from those who would meet at the same table when, in reality, it is for the benefit of those who commune and their protection against harm that we act as stewards of the mystery.  I could go on...

In the end all I want us to do is to expose the fallacy of liberalism -- it is tolerant only of those things with which it agrees.  The tolerance of the tolerant is lie that needs to be exposed.  The intolerance of the tolerant needs to be discussed so that we who hold for the truth are not guilted by our desire to be liked into positions that deny the very thing that we are for...

In the Ghetto

Probably some of the folks from the Dakotas and Minnesota and Wisconsin are going to toilet paper my lawn after this but I am going to say it anywho... (no that was not a typo though there are many in my quick posts)...

Germans have always had a big presence in America.  Scandinavians have always had a presence in America.  Therefore, Lutherans have always had a significant presence in America. But until the urban revolution and the end of the two big wars, Lutherans lived in the ghetto --  a ghetto in the sense of an area often associated with a specific ethnic or racial population often because of social, legal, or economic pressure.  Lutherans lived in Lutheran ethnic communities largely on the northern prairie but not always such.  Some Lutherans lived in the South and some in NYC but they tended to gravitate together where people shared a common tongue and a common culture.  As long as America was largely a rural nation, this only further isolated Lutherans from the mainstream.   Sure there were standouts (the Lutheran breweries and pork stores that America learned to love) but Lutherans themselves were hidden in America for a very long time.

We could say the same about the Roman Catholics who came in waves to America and each new immigrant group started on the bottom of the economic and social ladder.  The Irish, the Italians, the Poles, the Czechs, and on and on -- they all came and made the Roman Catholic the largest religious community in America long before they were accorded any recognition or a place at the table.  For Roman Catholics the pivotal events were the nominations of Al Smith and JFK for President and Archbishop Fulton Sheen on TV -- these signaled acceptance in a way that previous generations would not have known -- having lived in the ethnic, language, and cultural ghettos of so many places.

After World War II Lutherans emerged on the American scene en masse.  See the post or two below for TIME magazine's take on it all.  Lutherans were movin on up to the East Side in a deluxe apartment... oh, I got carried away...  But my point is this.  This is the age in which I was formed in the faith -- when Lutherans were movin on up in numbers, visibility, acceptance, and influence.  That is, until the 1970s.

Some internal denominational battles and mergers and social changes and now, it seems, Lutherans (at least the ones who look, act, and believe like Lutherans) are back in the ghetto -- hidden in and among but not nearly so obvious as they were in the 1950s and 1960s.  Our worship is under attack even by those who claim our name, our identity has been blurred by concordats and inter-communion agreements and radical shifts in practice and belief, and our music is like the disappearance of the classical sound from the FM band.  We are hidden in many ways and it feels weird to me.  I guess it is what we are in for over the long haul but it feels like a retreat from where we were.

Clearly in terms of language, music, and books, the confessional Lutheran is living in a foreign world and to find things amenable to the Lutheran faith and identity means escaping from the press of an American Christianity that transcends denominations but is generically Protestant.  In response to this, many confesional Lutherans have chosen isolation over engagement.  While not an altogether satisfactory choice, it is understandable given the dimensions of the evangelical movement and its American style.

BUT... living in those ghettos, Lutherans did flourish.  They were confident of their identity, confident of their confession, confident of the Christ who was present in worship through Word and Sacrament...  So perhaps a little time back in the wilderness won't hurt us in the long haul.  I am not speaking about disengaging but recouping, regrouping, and restocking... A large number of issues and events have pushed confessional Lutheranism to the sidelines of American culture and life and from the center stage of American pop religion... and maybe we can use this time fruitfully...

Judicial Activision Jumps into the Gap

Unless you live under a rock, you have heard about the federal judge in California who declared it unconstitutional to restrict marriage to a man and a woman.  This was in response to a challenge to Prop 8 which defined marriage between a man and a woman alone in California.  Of course it will end up in the appeals court and then finally the Supreme Court.  But no matter how it turns out, the process is a bad one.  Like abortion, it did not go through legislative change by state but could happen by fiat through activist judges who intervene to speed up the process much like the court system did 37 years ago.  This is bad news.  It releases elected representatives and the President from having to take a position on this -- it is out of their hands and does not matter what they think will be the excuse.  It means that America will be divided by this issue in a way forced upon the public the way the abortion ruling divided us when judges intervened to define law.  But I digress...

Charles Krauthammer, conservative political columnist and commentator, noted that the handwriting is on the wall.  Ten years ago public opinion was 62% against gay marriage in California and now about 52%.  We have seen change in libertarian Vermont and liberal Massachusetts and solidly middle American Iowa.  Whether or not the legislative tack or activist judicial ruling, the court of public opinion is moving toward accepting same sex marriage.  That is a given.  And it will put great pressure upon those churches (like the Roman Catholic and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) who will stand outside the mainstream of public opinion not only with respect to abortion but also same sex marriage.

It may be less of a challenge for Rome whose position is more insular since the papal pronouncement will define doctrine and curb the press for change there.  Those church bodies which have some kind of democratic structure will find it harder.  We used to joke that the will of God could only be overturned by a 2/3 majority vote.  It is not so funny now.

In addition, we have seen evidence from Evangelicals and others that the younger folks just coming into teenage years and young adulthood are much more open to same sex marriage than those in their fifties on up.  So perhaps in a generation or so we may find a challenge to established doctrinal positions such as marriage -- even in stodgy old churches like Missouri.

The argument is between natural law and human definition and in this sense sparks a great future of conflict as natural law seems to be going the way of the dinosaur.  I am not a fan of Cardinal Mahoney of LA but in an uncharacteristically clear and strong statement he frames the issue well:


Cardinal Mahoney:

There is only one issue before each of us Californians: Is Marriage of Divine or of Human Origin?

Judge Walker pays no attention to this fundamental issue, and relies solely upon how Prop 8 made certain members of society "feel" about themselves.

Those of us who supported Prop 8 and worked for its passage did so for one reason: We truly believe that Marriage was instituted by God for the specific purpose of carrying out God's plan for the world and human society. Period.

Every single religious faith community in our known history has held this belief since recorded history began. Every indigenous group discovered down through history also understood this belief about marriage, and carried out cultural and religious practices to sustain that belief. Marriage is of divine origin, and that belief is embedded deeply into the heart and spirit of human beings--also described as the natural law for the human family.

Judge Walker assumes that the institution of marriage is of human and civil origin, and therefore, that "marriage" can mean anything any person wishes to ascribe to the institution. Wrong.

The union of a man and of a woman in a life-long loving and caring relationship is of divine origin. No human nor civil power can decree or declare otherwise.

It is too bad that Judge Walker chose to listen to anguished voices about their perception of marriage rather than plumb the depths of the origin of this divinely inspired institution.

For many of us, we will continue to believe that God is the origin of marriage, and we will follow God's constant revelation to that effect.

So we will wait and see and, in the meantime, we have our work cut out for us...

Do ya believe? Ya..... I believe in somthin...

I could not help but smile and sigh at the same time as Joe Carter over at First Things (a very fine journal by the way) writes of selling Jesus like a Chevy.  He describes what evangelism has become -- a slimy, slick sales technique not unlike those who hawk things on the street corner or make infomercials that run in the midnight hours.  It is worth the time to read his brief critique.

One small part of his discussion hit me square on the head as a Lutheran.  That is the part where he speaks of Jesus as some disembodied idea subject to feelings of the heart or thoughts of the mind.  He posits that this is why evangelism is so difficult for Christians today.  I think he is on to something.

I cannot but return to the marked contrast between Lutherans today and the Lutherans which TIME magazine chronicled in a cover story dated April 7, 1958.  The magazine back then was filled with ads for Mercury, Ford, and Lincoln -- they have waxed and waned but found their way back.  I am not so sure for Lutherans.  The news then was the amazing growth of Lutheran churches and the converts pouring into Lutheran congregations "attracted by billboards, magazine ads, TV programs, and, in the Lutheran Hour, the most widely broadcast sermon on radio."  According to TIME Lutheran had grown by 2 million in less than 10 years.  Those were heady days.

"What do Lutheran converts find in their new churches?" asked TIME.  They find above all, two things still relatively unchanged -- liturgy and theology. (BTW I am still quoting the article).  They find disciplined thinking about the nature of God and man that is anything but typical of US Protestantism.  WOW, can we go back then???? Can we???

Pelikan (yes, the one who at the last sought communion in the Orthodox Church) said, "We are theologically specific and theologically concerned.  We are not concerned with positive thinking, with hustle-bustle for its own sake.  We are not just a chummy group.  The interesting thing is that while historic differences remain, Lutherans have begun to recognize that they are closer to Roman Catholics in many ways than they are to other Protestants."  Would that it were true today when it seems that even dyed in the wool Lutherans have more Joel Osteen in their heart than the historic mass.

I could go on, but the point is that these Lutherans were people who knew the answers to the questions before us, the answers were from the Scriptures, the answers were incarnate in Jesus Christ, the answers were accessible in the means of grace (Word and Sacraments), and the Church exists to bring these answers to the world.

I cannot speak for other church bodies, but I think I can speak for my own when I say we have had to adopt evangelism techniques alien to our identity because we were no longer knowledgeable about the Scriptures and Confessions, no longer sure of the answers they speak, no longer sure that our faith was in the person of the God-man Jesus Christ instead of feelings or ideas, and no longer sure that the Word and Sacraments conveyed what they promise, and that the Church was essential to life as a Christian and as a person.

Instead we believe but our faith is less the person of Jesus Christ than it is ideals exemplified in Him, less conviction rooted in Scripture and witnessed in history than unrealistic and disembodied hopes, less worship that meets God where God has attached Himself so that we might receive Him than a spiritual experience of something flowing from and for the pleasure of personal taste and desire...

Although this may not be descriptive of every Lutheran, it is what every Lutheran and every Lutheran denomination wrestles against in our uncertain world that delights in doubts more than faith, fears more than confidence, and questions more than doctrine.  It may be different by degree in the different Lutheran traditions but it is not different in essence.  And if we are to be as resurgent as Ford was with its automobiles in the past several years, it will require that at every level we return to our confidence in the Book of Concord that supplies answers to almost every spiritual problem the Christian soul is prone to and a vibrant worship life centered upon the dynamic of the efficacious Word and Sacraments that will redeem us from sin, death, and all our enemies.

Who's Your Daddy?

Missouri's history is a bit of a soap opera (perhaps no less or no more than the history of other Lutheran denominations or even non-Lutheran ones, but it is my history and I know it better than I know the others).  History is a wonderful teacher.  In hindsight it frames our errors and mistakes so that we can see where we went wrong.  It is not so successful in explaining why other things went right but it certainly allows us to see more clearly the sides to issues and events not always so easily seen in the heat of the moment.  I like Missouri's history both for the romance of boats leaving Germany for a new home in America and for the reality of politics, argument, conflict, and division.

One thing that Missourians tend to do with their history is to identify a figure in that history and make that individual the symbol or definition of the kind of Lutheran they are.  So we have Loehe men in Missouri -- people who identify with one of the spiritual fathers of Missouri.  To be called a Loehe man means to be identified with a respect and love for the liturgy, a passion and zeal for mission, and a high view of the office of the ministry.  Loehe had a Pastor factory in Neuendettelsau, Germany, that sent tons of men, planted a seminary in Ft. Wayne, and almost reinvented the deaconness for Lutheranism.  I have sometimes been called a Loehe man.

We also have Walther men in Missouri.  These are folks who identify with the young Pastor and theologian who picked up the pieces of a broken exodus and cast much of what Missouri is today.  He guided her through an understanding of church and ministry that is still the formal Missouri position and he helped to turn a band of a few into an outpost for confessional Lutheranism in America.  He also was extremely congregational and friendly to a democratic structure for congregational governance and this too is part of the strange paradox of hierarchy and congregationalism that is Missouri.  His work called Law and Gospel is considered by many to be Missouri's premier theological work.  Though I have high regard for Walther, few would consider me a Waltherian.

Then there are others over the ages...from those who learned preaching from Caemmerer to those who learned Confessions from Piepkorn to those who learned of Lutheran orthodoxy from folks like Jack Preus to those who learned justification from his brother Robert.  We have Koehler folks and Pieper folks and many others.  We have Scaerites (we have now traversed from the dead to the living), and, well, there is not enough room to continue the list forever.

My point is that we tend to identify with an individual and that individual tends to be our spiritual father or daddy in the faith.  Interesting, though, is that we tend to identify with those in our history but seldom outside our history or prior to our identity.  While I can understand this, I tend to think that it tends to encourage a more parochial identity among us than is sometimes unhealthy.  It sometimes narrows our vision of theology and our perspective on things as if theology did not begin prior to 1847 or as if the positions of the recent Lutheran fathers (post 1847) some possessed an authority that spanned all of history.  I say this not to diminish them but to acknowledge that, for too many in Missouri, patristics is the study of the Missouri teachers prior to 1900 (and this from a denomination whose Confessions thoroughly identify with the early fathers).

So if you want to know what kind of Lutheran a Missouri guy is, ask him, "Who's your daddy?"  It may save a great deal of conversation and help you frame that Pastor's perspective rather quickly.  In fact, I would suggest that the Synod change the Pastor's Information Form and instead of describing yourselves on the spectrum from rigid to flexible, from high to low, or from conservative to moderate, just leave a blank after the question, "Who's your daddy?"

The Strange and the Bizarre

I hesitated about perhaps inadvertently promoting something that I find atrocious... but it is the tip of the crazy iceberg.  First you can watch HERE the latest entry into the exploit the fearful category of church ware.  Don't like this version?  Compare to another competitor who preys upon the same unrealistic fears (namely that Christ instituted not a Sacrament of comfort and assurance but a germ dispensing process.  Please -- somebody -- stop Jesus in the name of health!

If you watched that and are not yet sick, then you can read on.

Can't afford the silver salad host shooter, then why not hermetically sealed hosts that each person can unwrap for themselves.  Christ in plastic.  And while we are at it, lets ditch that messy chalice and infuse the bread with wine (alcohol bakes off) and we have two, two things in one!  Ahhhh, can it get any better?

You don't want to put your hand in that dirty water and cross yourself -- why God only knows who has been there before you -- literally.  So, you know those paper dispensers in the rest rooms?  The same little eye that shoots out a towel now can shoot a spurt of water.  Clean.  Safe.  Sterile.  Don't believe me?  See it HERE. 

Still on the fence... Too expensive for you... Check out Cokesbury and they will convince you to buy:

No germs.  No spills.  No waste.  [and only $282.95 (no free shipping)]

Use this Communion Wafer Dispenser during the cold and flu season to prevent the passing of germs, or use it all year long to reduce the cost, time and personnel needed to provide communion by as much as 50 percent. Size and design enhance the dispenser’s portability, making it easy for clergy to use when visiting homes, hospitals, senior living and care centers. It can also be used in the field by military chaplains.

Beautifully designed, the dispenser, made of durable white plastic, provides for a safe and sanitary way to offer communion and also protects against airborne germs. The revolutionary Rapid Re-load System™ dispenses up to 140 wafers without having to be re-filled, while being fast and easy when you do need to re-load. It uses re-sealable clear plastic tubes of wafers. Tubes have a plastic plug to seal out air and moisture, increasing the shelf-life of unused wafers.

Somebody once shared this wisdom with me.  When you find a whole kettle full of crazy, it is best not to stir it up.  But, I hardly ever listen to wise advice.  Still  not sick?  Read on if you can stomach it...

This is one report from a parishioner.  At a previous parish, on a Sunday deemed "appropriate" by the pastor, the congregation was instructed to begin bumping elbows/shoulders rather than shaking hands, kissing, etc. during the passing of the peace.  (It was even demonstrated for benefit of those without the ability to envision such ritual.)  Beginning that Sunday the pastor no longer "touched" any parishioner -- did not shake hands or embrace at any encounter, including liturgy.  And all this was in addition to the very open use of Purell weekly where one might wash hands at the conclusion of the Offertory! I still recall the Host with the faint smell of Purell when receiving from her... not to mention the "great switch" to plastic shot glasses until Easter "just in case."  Sigh.

Gadfry... can we be any more stupid?  Christ gives us a gift and we turn it into a sacrifice that must be returned to the Father.  So we get a Reformation.  Christ gives us a gift and we let our fears explode so that we don't want it unless it comes hermetically sealed, untouched by human hands, and with every assurance that we won't have to get near that nasty looking guy with a big mustache kneeling just down the rail... okay, I am sick now...

Lutheran Summer Music

Now that summer is heading into the final stretch, I am writing to encourage youth interested in music and their parents to consider the Lutheran Summer Music program.  It is literally the best kept secret in Lutheranism.  Watch the video below to see what I am talking about.



Lutheran Summer Music will celebrate its 30th anniversary in 2011. We return to Luther College in Decorah, Iowa, June 26 to July 24, 2011 and will celebrate this milestone with special events for current students, LSM alumni, and supporters. Stay tuned for more information in the coming weeks and months.

Check out the web for more info...http://lutheranmusicprogram.org/

Listen here: Sights and Sounds

No Frills

If you look around you, you see a world that is looking for a no frills Christianity, one unencumbered with dogma, liturgy, morality, ministerial office, or building and all its accouterments.   Take a gander at the architectural style of most modern church buildings and you see a structure empty of art, sculpture, stained glass, wood carving, stonework, or pipe organ.  Instead, you see a warehouse style building that does not hide its structural members or mechanical systems.  Instead of the customary Christian adornments, an up to date sound system and video screens are the only really indulgence.  Everything else is no frills.  This architectural style perfectly reflects a faith in which doctrine is flexible, Scripture speaks what you want it to say, and the trappings of church mirror the things "in" at the moment (current technology, music, and methodology).

The resurgence of the house church (check out the news magazines and even current Christian journals for more on this) is itself the ultimate fruit of such a no frills church.  There is no building, there are no creeds, there is no confession of faith, there is no objective Scriptural truth or moral code, there is no ministerial office or ministers, there is no authority higher than the judgment of the individual.  This is seen as basic Christianity, the Christianity of the early church which worshiped in the home and preceded the actions of council and bishop to creedally define and confessional proclaim what is orthodox and true.  The only problem with this is that as quickly as it could early Christianity gladly exchanged this simple expression for buildings, ministerial office, creed, confession, hymn, and structure.

We find ourselves at a moment when people have become disenchanted with their institutions -- including the Church.  Polls tell us that younger Christians are less dogmatic, less inclined toward objective truth or morality, less defined by the creeds and confessions of the past, and more willing to remodel Christianity to fit the moment.  And why not?  For a long time, their parents have been talking down the Church, her ministry and ministers, the structures through which she does her work, the truth she proclaims, and authority she bears.  It is not that youth disdains so much the Church as youth is bearing the seeds of discontent sown by baby boomers and those since.  All of this willingly and gladly exchanged for a no frills Christianity which is generic in its confession and faith and libertarian in its expression in worship and piety.

Yet it is all a false and misleading dream.  The idea that Christianity can be distilled from Scripture in such a way that it is no longer captive to the Word is a myth foisted upon the Church by those who became disillusioned with the frailty of humanity and the hiddenness of God in weakness.  It was capitalized upon by those whose education, science, and demythologizing attempts to paint the Christianity of creed, confession and liturgy as a development foreign to the Jesus of history.  Over time this wedge between the Jesus of the Church and the supposed Jesus of history and primitive Scripture has helped fuel the illusion that a no frills Christianity, devoid of all unnecessary additions, is the genuine article (vs the hypocrisy of the Church defined by creed and confession and lived out within the parameters of human weakness and frailty).

In 1964 a relative came to my family reunion with a brand new Chevy Malibu.  People made the usual fuss about how rich he was and extravagant.  But he protested.  The car had no air conditioning or automatic transmission.  In fact, he had them remove the white walled tires and exchange them for black walls.  No frills.  Just necessities.  As a youth consumed with thoughts of cars and driving, I wondered what it cost him to have the white walls removed and for what gain.  (White walls were in then.)

Where orthodox Christianity exists, there is fullness and this fullness both draws from us our best and our highest even as it conveys to us through Word and Sacrament the best and highest God has to give us.  Where orthodox Christianity exits, there is art to express in image the fullness of this grace upon grace that has visited us in the incarnation of God in His Son.  Where orthodox Christianity exists, there is creed and confession to speak clearly the truth of the ages to a particular time and to bound the limits of what it means to believe, teach, and confess Jesus Christ as the Scriptures norm it.  Where orthodox Christianity exists, there is reverence for the legacy of the saints and the living tradition of those who have come before, to which we add the best of the present day.  Where orthodox Christianity exists, there is liturgy rich and full, faithful and catholic, bringing to us the treasures of the means of grace so that we might not only own them but respond to them with our highest for His glory.  Where orthodox Christianity exists, there is music to serve the Word and sing the truth to ears, hearts, and minds (and not as entertainment or merely something to set a mood).  Where orthodox Christianity exists, there is the fullness of the Office of the Ministry to serve the faithful with the gifts of Word, Water, Bread and Wine.  Where orthodox Christianity exists, there are structures to serve as houses of God that reflect not only His glory but the wondrous mystery that He dwells with men through His Word and Sacraments.

Remember the woman who anointed Jesus with expensive, perfumed oil?  Where is the no frills part of that story?  Where is the generic Christianity and the basic Savior?  No, where the true faith exists, there is fullness, not minimums.  It is not a matter of what we can get by with but reflecting, as best we are able, the fullness that God has given to us, sparing nothing -- not even His only Son -- for us and our salvation.

Wiki says no frills is a term used to describe any service or product for which the non-essential features have been removed to keep the price low.  Is that the Christianity we want?  A discount version of Christ, a basic Savior without all the features and fuss, or a no frills faith stripped of all the extras?  Yes, it may be what we want because we want to keep the cost low.  If the God whom we worship is no frills, than we can get by with as little as necessary (or possible) in response to His actions.  But the majesty of God is that He has hidden His glory in earthly flesh and blood through His Son and in earthly elements of word, water, bread and wine to convey what His Son accomplished for us.  But simple words, water, bread, and wine are no longer simple when God claims them as His own and makes them the means of His grace.  Here the ordinary become extraordinary and the routine become spectacular.  The result of our encounter with this lavish and generous grace is that we want more of it and we want to make it the focus and fullness of all that we are and hope to be.

So, you can keep this no frills Christianity.  I want nothing of such a basic version of what God intends to be fullness.  I do not want a church content with minimums but one whose passion is the expression back to God of all the fullness that He has shown to us... 

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall

Sermon preached on Sunday, August 1, 2010. Pentecost 10, Proper 13C.

    Everyone knows the story of Snow White.  "Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the fairest of them all?" ask the evil Queen.  And the mirror knows what is good for it, it will respond "Why, you are, of course."  Today we consider the mirrors we look into to define who we are, how we are doing, and whether or not we are happy, successful, and at peace.
    Into the sea of self-interest, self-centeredness, and self-identity, the preacher of Ecclesiastes comes crying.  "Vanity, vanity... all is vanity."  Most of the mirrors we look into in order to define who we are, whether we are happy, successful or content are vanity.  They are a sham.  If we stare into the mirror of our wallets or our watches or our priorities, what we see staring back at us is sin and all its emptiness.  Sin has taught us to think of ourselves first and others second.  Sin has taught us to see ourselves as the center of the world.  Sin has taught us that money is to make us happy, that our time is more important than others, that our wants, needs, and lives come first before everything else.
    Today Jesus invites us to see something else in the mirror of our souls and lives – the face of God.  He challenges the idea that if we put me first, we will be rich and happy and satisfied.  Instead, He directs us to the another riches – the treasure of God's grace and to the contentment borne of our awareness of what God's love has bought us and to a the joy borne of what this undeserved mercy and favor has won for us.
    In troubled times it is easier for us to admit that the things we count on are not always there for us.  The things we expect to be permanent, are fleeting.  They come and go – just like you and me.  If you came from outer space and judged all of us by the things advertized on TV, what would you think of us?
    It would be hard not to conclude that beauty and youth are the most important things of value to us.  We spend our money in the pursuit of an impossible dream of beauty and good looks.  We spare no dime for the miracles of modern science that promise to take off the wrinkles and signs that time has worn into our faces.  This life comes and goes and only the life we can count on is the life which is eternal 
    We seek after the newest and the best of technology's toys and we define our live's success according to the world's values – He who has the most toys wins – forgetting that the one with the most toys still dies.  We pursue a financial dream of living without worrying about how much it costs.  We seek a fame that can keep us alive long after we are dead.  But instead of finding these, we find only illusion and emptiness.  We are confronted only with our own vanity and the relative and fleeting goals of these illusive dreams.
    Clearly we as Christians are caught between the things the world finds so attractive and the blessed gift won for us on the cross and displayed in the empty tomb.  Jesus comes to us with a riches and treasure that do not pass away, that cannot be stolen from us, and that finally satisfies the wanderlust within us.  He give us this treasure as the gift of His grace and promises we will never be disappointed with what His suffering and death have won for us.  But this requires us to let go of the false and misleading dreams the world presses upon us and our own sinful hearts find so tempting.
    What is this treasure that stands in such stark contrast with the things of the world?  Jesus points us to the riches of His grace that provides a forgiveness bigger than all our sins.  He points us to a conscience washed clean from guilt and emptied of all our shame.  He points to us a life made new by His blood and built not for the moment but for all eternity.
    Jesus offers to us a life abundant – not because it is rich with the fleeting treasures of today but the riches of God's presence, the power of God's promise, and the purpose of God's plan.  Jesus offers to us a life that death cannot steal away from us, that the grave cannot overcome, and that no one can diminish.  This is the unfading treasure, immune to the ups and downs of the markets and not longer captive to the whims and desires of a world where things are in and out in a moment.
    Jesus offers to us a salvation that is sure – one that is not based upon our works and our own righteousness but the work of Christ on the cross and His righteousness given to us as clothing we wear by baptism.  Jesus offers to us a salvation which is not based upon the strength or size of our faith but the power of His Word to do what it says.  In our weakest moments of believing, when we look inside us and fail to see faith staring back, we are not left alone or isolated.  For when our faith is weak, His Word is strong and His faithfulness is the handle on which we grasp our salvation.
    When we look at the mirrors of affirmation and fail to see signs of improvement in us or change for the better, when the world is not becoming a better place, and when hope seems fleeting, we have Christ to hold on to.  The riches of the cross and the treasure of the empty tomb are what we cling to and in which we trust when all around us is nothing but vanity.
    The vanity of self is mirrored to us in the things of the moment that are fleeting and relative; they come and go.  The promise of the Gospel is hidden in the cross and seen only through eyes of faith promises another treasure.  The riches of God’s grace are the truest riches of all and it is this treasure that makes us wealthy and blessed.  What this world can never give us and what cannot satisfy us, God in His mercy, supplies graciously and in abundance through His Son.  He is so lavish and generous that it is beyond all reason and mortal expectation.  We are His today and eternally.  Our sins are washed away and our lives reborn for eternity in baptism.  Our faith sees Him and His Word at work in us, among us, and through us.  Nothing can separate us from the power of this love at work in Christ.  This is the true treasure of grace.
    So what will it be...  What mirror will we look into to find happiness, contentment, and peace?  Where will be find the one lasting treasure that can give us what we need and desire most of all?  Will we look into the mirror of beauty or youth, into the wallet in our pocket, into the fame of fifteen minutes in the spotlight, or into the mirror of success as the world would define it... Or will we look into the mirror of the cross?  There we are not told we are the fairest in the land but we are loved so much that He gave His only Son that all who believe in Him shall live forever... This is the true riches of His grace that give us eternal wealth and treasure that cannot disappoint us.  It sounds rather dramatic – as if it were a life or death struggle.  And that is the point, it is a life or death struggle. The mirror on the wall will always say either what we want or it will say what we fear.  That is the vanity of it all.  And that is why God calls on us to see ourselves through the lens of the cross and empty tomb, where He has provided the treasure of grace that will not disappoint us and mercy beyond all expectation.  Amen.

Where do YOU want to sit?

Sermon Preached for St. James the Elder, July 25, 2010.

    We are constantly faced with seating choices – at home we have living rooms but kitchens seem to be where folks gather; in restaurants we want a good table and not one back by the kitchen; in theaters we each have our own favorite spots... Even in Church we face a seating choice?  Pews or chairs, right side or left, near Pastor or as far away from Pastor as possible (the usual choice). Or, in case of incense, smoking or non-smoking.
    Today we consider one of two brothers who came to Jesus with a seating choice – "Lord, make us to sit at your right and at your left when you come into your glory.  James and John could not have been Lutheran because they did not want the last pew.  They wanted to be as close as they could get – down front, next to Jesus – but they wanted these seats when the cost had been paid, the victory won, and the sacrifice was over.  These were seats of glory but with such seating choices came consequences that James and John were not fully prepared for.  James would soon find this out since he was the first of the apostles martyred and the only one whose death is recorded in Scripture.
    They wanted to sit with Jesus.  Now you may not want to be this close to Jesus but you have to admire those who do.  The other disciples admired this request – in fact they were jealous of it.  Why didn’t they think to ask Jesus first for the same thing.  When Jesus cautions them, insisting that they do not know what they are asking, they jump in where wise dare to go.  They wanted to be marked for Jesus.  It is just that they were thinking only of the glory and not the suffering or death to come which Jesus had clearly spoken about.  Still and all, you gotta hand it to them.  They wanted to be next to Jesus... and I am not so sure we want the same thing today.  Oh we might say we want it, but like James of old, we are not ready for His cup or His baptism.
    To sit with Jesus means to drink His cup.  What does that mean?  Holy Communion?  Well, no, not the cup of blessing.  What Jesus has in mind here is the destiny of sacrifice for which He was born, to which He willingly cast His lot, and through which He would pay the price of redeeming the whole, lost, sinful world.  To sit with Jesus means to learn to say with Jesus: "Not my will, but Thine be done."  Are you ready for that, Jesus asked James and his brother?  Are YOU ready for that, Jesus asks us today?
    To sit with Jesus means drinking His cup of suffering and pain.  The disciples thought they had signed on for the glory road but Jesus was blunt and forthright in telling them all along that the road He would walk was the path of suffering and pain.  He could not and would not avoid the cross.  If this cup could pass from Him, He would not drink it, but if it must be drunk, He would drink it for us and our salvation... for the joy that was before Him enduring the cross and scorning its shame.
    You and I also tend to think when we signed with Jesus it was for the good stuff – for forgiveness, for blessing, for life abundant now and life eternal later... We are not so sure about the path of suffering and pain.  But the cross is in our cup just as it was in His.  Ours is not the redemptive cup whose sufferings purchase salvation but the cup of witness and discipleship through which we identity with Christ.  He calls us to stand with Him, to bear the cross, and to walk with Him – even amid suffering and pain.
    I meet a lot of people who like Jesus and even admire Him.  I do not meet as many folks who are ready to bear the burden of suffering and pain that accompanies our lives in Christ.  Saying no to self, no to the ways of the world, no to instant gratification, and no to self-indulgence is the cost of our discipleship.  Its pain is real and so is the suffering in this cup which we drink by faith.
    To sit with Jesus means drinking the cup of death and sorrow – giving up the life we have now for the new life He born in us in baptism, the life which is Christ living in us and through us.  Here is where it gets tough.  We tend to want it all.  We want a happy, carefree life, filled with all the good things money can buy and experience can provide.  AND we want heaven, too.
    We do not want to pick and choose – we want it all.  Which is why the obedience of faith is to hard for us.  We like being recipients of gifts; we do not like bearing a cross, or being marked for Jesus when it is unpopular or requires painful choices from us.
    So I ask you today.  Where do YOU want to sit?  If you sit next to Jesus, be prepared to drink His cup of sacrifice, suffering, pain, and loss.  It you sit next to Jesus, be ready to be splattered with blood – and not just His blood in which you were washed in baptism but your blood, too.  The blood we shed dying every day to the life which is at enmity with God and rising each day the new person Christ has made us to be. This is the cup we drink – dying with Christ and rising in Him to become the whole new person only He can make us.  Jesus has many admirers but what He calls us to is faith and discipleship – the faith and discipleship that trusts in Jesus for all things and walks where He has led the way.
    Christian life in this world is not the glory of the world's success story but the glory of service, putting others before self... it is the glory of sacrifice where the only thing we cannot not let go of is Jesus; where everything else comes after this relationship... it is the glory of faithfulness to Christ before the world’s approval and the glory of standing with Christ when the world rejects us as it did Him.
    We all come to Jesus ready to drink the cup of glory, but we are not so sure we want to drink the cup of pain.  Every day is this same challenge to us. How close to Jesus shall we sit?  Long ago James was heady with glory but his faith was tested by suffering and martyrdom – all because He wanted to sit close to Jesus.  Every day we face the same temptation and the same struggle.  Will we be close enough to Jesus to drink His cup and walk in His steps or far enough away so that we can avoid the consequences of belonging to Him.
    I don't understand why people sit where they do in Church.  If I had my way I would make everyone sit close together and close to the front.  But if I had my way, life in Christ would not include any suffering or pain.  Jesus was asking James of old what He asks us to day: Are you willing to pay the cost of faithfulness.  I cannot speak for you and you cannot speak for me.  Today we pray that by the aid of the Holy Spirit, our faith may be living and active, our faithfulness true and bold, our confidence and courage strong, and connection to Jesus as close as possible – for our journey of faith in this life and for the eternal victory Christ has prepared for us...  Amen.

Narrow or Wide or Neither

There are many today who would argue that the path of orthodoxy and faithfulness is a broad and wide road, with room for great diversity of belief and practice.  They see unity as a higher goal and purpose than holding to a rigid or, in their view, narrow orthodoxy that will inevitably appear sectarian to the world and to large parts of Christendom.  These are the folks who would declare communion fellowship with those who disagree about the nature and manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament.  These are the folks who would agree to disagree as long as they agree that it won't cause a problem for either side.  These are the folks who allow practices to vary as long as on paper sufficient agreement is declared.  The ELCA is case in point.  Communion fellowship exists by declaration and not by agreement and orthodoxy is wide enough to allow disparate and different points of view to co-exist.

We have spoken long and pointedly as a Synod about such a broad orthodoxy, suggesting that it betrays what orthodoxy is and ultimately forsakes what Lutheranism believes, teaches, and confesses.  Our unity as Lutherans is less a matter of agreement between parties than it is a common agreement on our Confessions, what they say and how they are lived out within the life of the Church.  I do not believe that Missouri is in immanent danger of succumbing to the broad definition of orthodoxy that is practiced in the ELCA and to the diversity of beliefs and practices that the ELCA has declared no impediment to unity with others with whom they might disagree.

But there is another side to this.  There are those who would say that the path of orthodoxy is very narrow with no shoulder along this road of belief and practice.  They would see faithfulness as always more important than unity and do not care how that faithfulness is interpreted by the world.  Some of them glory in being called sectarian and rigid.  For some of these folks, the communion fellowship they are most comfortable with is only as long and as wide as the local congregation.  They may be members of a church body but, in protest against some within that church body whose practices and beliefs differ, they refuse communion.  These folks tend to make everything a confessional issue and an article on which the Church stands or falls.

The orthodoxy of these folks must be mirrored throughout the other congregations of their church body in the very same language, form, and practice in order form them to be satisfied.  Some of them insist upon a particular hymnal or liturgical order as evidence of this orthodoxy.  Some of them refuse to accept local, pastoral discretion in decisions of who will be admitted to the Lord's table or who participates in the Divine Service (lay, men, women, etc.) and to what degree they may serve the liturgy -- assisting the Pastor.

I do believe that there are those like these within Missouri who would like to control and dominate the discussion in such a way that there is no real conversation except a willingness to agree to their terms and terminology.  I worry about those whose orthodoxy is so very narrow and who see the boundaries of fellowship as very close.  I worry about the idea that this orthodoxy must be policed and enforced and that infractions must be publicized and punished.  I worry about the lack of trust which makes people who are pretty much on the same side still suspect -- if there is but one area or one practice which deviates from their definition of what is good and right and faithful.

At the same time I would posit another choice.  I believe that orthodoxy is not such a wide path that error must be tolerated or that diversity must be allowed for the sake of outward unity.  I believe that orthodoxy is not so narrow that one particular moment in time is the glimpse of our glory.  I believe that orthodoxy is clearly and carefully defined.  That it is creedal and confessional and that this orthodoxy is wonderfully expressed and faithfully passed on in the Lutheran Confessions.  I believe that the goal of unity is inherent in this confession -- not the false unity of conflicting beliefs which are ignored but common truth which is celebrated.  I believe that these confessional documents attest to this unity not only with Scriptural passages but with the unity of early fathers of Christianity and throughout the generations who have spoken this truth with conviction but also with love.

Satis est... we say.  It is enough.  Agreement in the Gospel and its articles and the Sacraments and their usage.  We can disagree about the usefulness of structures.  Some may have bishops and some may not.  We can allow for pastoral discretion to put these in place locally.  That is not license for Pastors to do as they please but the trust of those who believe that in specific situations different choices may be made that do not break the bonds of fellowship.  We can allow for different practices with respect to worship.  Some may use bands and others organs -- as long as the common form and its content are in agreement.

I do not believe that the path of orthodoxy requires us to inform upon one another or make public the private disagreements that do arise.  BUT I DO believe that we are bound to provide and accept the fraternal counsel of our brothers and sisters in this faith when our practices and beliefs move us to the fringes and threaten the bond of unity that exist.  I do not believe that the path of orthodoxy is a given but the fruit of an ongoing conversation in which Scripture and the Confessions provide the direction and the boundaries of what will be accepted and what will not be tolerated.  BUT I DO believe that the Scriptures and Confessions are not so vague and their interpretation so wide that there is no abiding truth and stance of Christian faith and orthodoxy.  The catholic tradition of definition and practice is the legacy of faithfulness that speaks to and helps us restore what threatens our unity and identity today.  I do not believe that the orthodoxy is framed by one set of terms or one snapshot of history that we must return to in order to be faithful.  BUT I DO believe that history provides for us examples of how faithfulness was applied to specific challenges and needs in ways that can help us address the challenges and needs that arise in our own time and place.

I worry very much about those who would steal the Church away with a rigid ideal that must be conformed to by those who would walk together and I worry very much about those who flaunt their relationships with their brothers and sisters in this walk and do what they please.  All things may be possible but not all things are beneficial.  At times we restrain ourselves for the sake of the others.  I believe in, what might best be described as a generous orthodoxy -- if I can steal a term away from Brian D. McLaren.  (I am not endorsing his work or position but stealing the term from him.)

I believe this generous orthodoxy is best revealed in the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and is best characterized by a collegiality of clergy, in honest conversation, and with a shared passion for and commitment to be the people of this vibrant and dynamic confession.  It is this that I hope for in Missouri, though there are those on both sides of this path who are seeking even now to co-opt the agenda of our church body.  It is my hope and prayer that those elected in Houston will be given the opportunity to put this conversation forward, to frame our orthodoxy within the generous face of grace, while being steadfast in faith and confession.  And I believe this is the path toward our resurgence as individual congregations and a church body.

What Does the Church Do?

I can recall the time when I was walking down the Narthex hall on Sunday morning and heard a conversation between a mother and her adult daughter.  The mother and daughter had been raised in a small Baptist congregation and the daughter converted to Lutheranism after she married a Lutheran (a salutary thing to do).  Anyway, the mother was mystified by the prospect of a full-time Pastor.  She asked the daughter whether she was sure I was full-time employed at the Church.  The daughter assured her I was.  "Well, what on earth does he do?" she responded.  "I am not really sure," said the daughter, "but he is very busy."

The very same conversation might be said about the Church.  What does the Church do? (At least, apart from the obvious.)  I wonder if this has not be part of the problem we face with Christianity today.  What the Church does has become muddied both by that which is lacking in society at the moment and the fact that what the Church has done in the past is seen (by some) as irrelevant or out of date for the present moment.  In an effort to be relevant and out of a desire to be seen as necessary, the Church has migrated toward other roles and functions.

Absent the roles and functions that served in the past, the Church has been forced to reinvent herself in our age and in this generation.  The Church has moved from the basic tools of the kingdom in the Word and Sacraments toward a path of discerning the felt needs of people at a particular time and place and then meeting those needs with the resources available to her.  In other words, the world around us has begun to define what we do and because the world defines what we do, it also ends up defining who we are.

In a society in which personal fulfillment is seen as a primary goal, the Church as moved into this area, attempting to provide spiritual and personal fulfillment to the individual, or at least a guide to this.  In a society in which both parents work, the Church has moved into the areas of preschool and daycare.  In a society in which spirituality has become the generic religion of the day, the Church has adopted a variety of techniques and methodologies to help people identify with and walk a spiritual path of life amid our consumer world.  In a society in which ecology and care of the earth has become important, the Church has adopted this cause as the cause of the Gospel for this moment.  In a society in which social networking has become an electronic meeting place, the Church has attempted to use current technology to network with people (even twitter communion?!).  In a society in which knowledge is important, the Church has become another place for knowledge but in doing so has sacrificed her claim to the one and only Truth.  In a society in which self-help is the path of improvement, the Church has become the center of self-help groups (from spirituality to addiction to parenting to retirement planning).

But somehow in all of this, these things have stolen the limelight and become THE Church agenda for the Church in such a way that corporate worship, Bible study, witness, and service have either been co-opted by these or transformed to fit the needs of the moment.  In doing so, the Church has lost more than just a job description but her very character and identity.

We live in a time when faith has few specifics, when faith is distant from and even divorced from community gathered around Word and Sacrament, when spirituality is a substitute for faith, when methodologies foreign to and antithetical to the Church are use for piety, when morality has become the goal instead of life within the kingdom of God, and truth is up to the believer to define.  We live in a time when churches that capitalize upon these trends and changes seem to be growing and appear to be THE way for us to go if we are to grow and be successful.

I forget who said it but it is truer now than ever.  The Church that marries the spirit of this age will be a widow in the next generation.  Truly we see this among the younger Christians who have been raised to know the Church only through the lens of the moment.  What they long for and need most of all have been replaced with a spirituality disconnected from the means of grace, with a worship life that glorifies the moment in tone, music, and message, and with a false expectation that pleasure is the best and highest goal of life.

The Sunday morning assembly gathered around the Word and Table of the Lord, within the framework of the Law and the Gospel spoken and proclaimed, with its foundation upon the sure and certain Word that delivers on its promise, and with a life transformed by this encounter with the Lord of glory hidden in water, word, bread and wine... this is our agenda.  This is what we do.  We do not need to apologize for it or take on other causes or do make work things that fit the fad or need of the moment in order to be relevant.  Where sin and death are, there are the things that will make the Church, her message and her ministry, relevant to every people and every time.