Lapses Unintended...

One of the things I dislike about the Lutheran Service Book (or about any hymnal) is that often it detours from old and familiar word patterns.  It is not that I have a particular issue with some of the wordings in the liturgy, collects, etc. (well, that's wrong, I do with some) but that most of the time I have grown accustomed to other wordings and so, if my eyes glance away from the page as I am speaking, the old forms come out.

For example... all availing sacrifice may be a fine way of putting it but I guess I have too many years of saying all sufficient... so I inadvertently embellish upon the printed text by usually saying all sufficient where all availing is printed.

It is the same way when it comes to the pericopes and particular versions.  I like lively hope in First Peter and I like I am persuaded in Romans.  These things have become familiar to me by use and sometimes I cannot help myself.  It is for this reason I often slip up and go into King James on Christmas Eve while reading Luke 2.  It is nothing particular against what is printed but a stronger voice within me that cries out to be spoken.

Now don't get me wrong -- I am not adverse to change.  Sometimes I think it is well past time for us to learn a new version of the Our Father and to let trespasses be sins and holy be God's name.  I wonder why we welcome so many other changes and hang on to this.  Again, this is not a point I am pushing -- I am relatively content either way.  Part of me wonders how many more centuries we will isolate the language of the Our Father more from the conversational vocabulary of most folks.  But even as I am content with the Our Father as is, I am also curious about the lifespan of certain turns of a phrase.

Which brings me kind of to a point in all of this.  In one sense no particular version of Scripture of setting of the Divine Service is fully embedded in anyone's mind.  We have cross fertilized to the point where we are multi-lingual in liturgy and in Scripture.  At times I find myself pasting together old and new and varied translations of Scripture and settings of the Divine Service into one thought.

I understand why for example, my mind continues to say "And also with you" even though in my heart I want to learn "And with your spirit."  Or, why I continue to use several of the Eucharistic prayers (of Worship Supplement, Hymnal Supplement 98, LW, and LSB) even though part of me likes the idea of one canon of the mass. Or, why I find it harder than ever to speak from memory familiar words that have undergone several versions in succeeding translations of Scripture or editions of the Divine Service.

I vividly recall the noonday Eucharist around the altar in Kramer Chapel at the old Senior College -- especially when Dr. Walter Wente presided.  His eyesight being rather bad, the texts were not exactly rendered as written though often undeniably eloquent.  He could quote Edgar Goodspeed word for word or Irenaeus paragraph by paragraph but sometimes the word patterns of the ancient fathers were so entrenched in his mind that the words of the page had to give way.

It is not a bad thing -- it just is.  Such inadvertent lapses are hardly problematic except by the rubric police who insist that it must be word for word as printed.  Such is the domain of how language in worship changes... a mix of the old and a blend of the new that together becomes the current song of the Church, owing to its heritage in the past and even now shaping what the future will be.  This is a fluid process and not neat, step by step process of change.  We move the way a river does... carrying with it the water from its source while being added to by every rain and stream and brook that empties into the mighty course.  We need to be accepting of this even as we need to be careful that it is not wholesale adaptation or ad lib monologue of the MC that takes over and renders the texts themselves unrecognizable...

Just a few thoughts after a few flubs last Sunday...

The Beauty of the Law

When Lutherans read through the Psalms and the Old Testament, we find an appreciation for the Law (the commandments of God) than somehow has escaped us.  We remember those hours of catechetical instruction in which we were drilled on the commandments and their meaning, on the three uses of the law (curb, mirror, guide), and of how the primary use of the law is accusatory.  Who would think that the law could be good or beautiful -- as long as it points its withered finger at me I am no fan of its rigid demands.  Or am I?

Robert Farrar Capon has a wonderful line in which he describes the Law of God as a vision of true beauty.  I will admit to stumbling over that line a few times.  But he is right.  The Jews had it write.  It is a vision of true beauty -- the beauty of holiness, of purity, of obedience, of virtue...  These things are good and holy and beautiful.

Remember that line in Amadeus when Mozart wanted to write an opera in German about a man building his marriage bed?  The leaders said no to an opera that spoke of the mundane -- opera was supposed to speak of virtue and that is why the mythological gods of Greece and Rome and the fight between good and evil, were good subjects.  Mozart countered that who would not rather listen to the gossip at the hair dresser than to think about virtue and the stories of the gods.  Sin has turned our hearts from the beauty of the law and its virtue to the scintillating details of immorality.

I would add to Capon that the law is beauty -- a true vision of beauty -- but it is unattainable beauty.  We see its impossible to attain beauty clearly only from the vantage point of faith in Christ and then the work of Christ becomes all that more beautiful.  Apart from Christ the Law is like the fine art in a museum.  We love to go and view its beauty but it is a beauty distant from us, separated from our daily lives like the ropes separate us from the paintings in the museum.  We walk around it and ooh and ahhh but then we go home and turn on the TV where the juicy details and forbidden humor of immorality and vulgarity fit us more than the beauty of the law ever could.  Until Jesus intervenes to change us and by the Spirit we learn not only to appreciate the beauty of the law but to desire its beauty and to be surrounded by its beauty all the time.  It is this fruit of Christ's redeeming work that we seek the things that are above and the law becomes for us not only the pointy finger in accusation or the curb to keep us in line.  It also becomes the good and glorious path that the redeemed of the Lord, whom He has declared to be holy and righteous, desire and follow (within the limits of fallen, human frailty to be sure).

The Law of God is good and wise, says the hymnwriter, and sets His will before our eyes... We don't have to run past the beauty in order to always see the law as accusatory.  In Christ we can also see its beauty.  And in Christ we learn to echo the words of the Psalmist: I delight in Your statutes.... I will run in the way of Your commandments when You enlarge my heart...I find my delight in Your commandments which I love...Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day... I love Your commandments above gold, above fine gold...

The Scandal of Grace

Another bit from Capon. . .  His point is that grace is still scandal to us and we feel instinctively more comfortable with the law.  Who can argue that?  His questions are pointed.  Why do we pay more attention to the prodigal's confession or the elder son's resentment than we do the waiting father's love?  Why do we pay more attention to the inequity of those who worked from dawn till dusk and the late comers to the vineyard who all received the same wage instead of the generosity of the vineyard owner?  Why?  Because we identity with the law and not with grace.  Grace is a scandal to our mind.  We constantly look in Jesus' parables for something that would justify the grace shown or merit the mercy given.  So the confession of the prodigal makes it understandable why the father welcomes him and frames the bitterness of the elder brother.  So we rationalize away the grace of God has less than justice but still better than nothing -- as if God were fair with some and generous with others.

Capon reminds us that parables are not teaching devices meant to help us imitate God but rather a means to show to us the scandal of grace.  We are not supposed to moralize the prodigal son story so that we all become more like the waiting father.  We are meant to stand in shock and awe of such love, such forgiveness, and such raw grace -- unearned, unmerited, and undeserved.  In the face of such grace, we can only admit that we are unworthy.

Our problem with the parables is that we insist upon putting ourselves into the story and moralizing the story so that it has more to do with us than it has to do with the scandalous grace of God.  We are not to learn how to forgive as the waiting father forgave or how to be fair to some and generous to others who need more as we assume the vineyard owner was.  We are meant to scratch our heads and confess this is not reasonable, it is not moral, and it is not comprehensible -- it is grace.  Grace cannot be understood or explained -- only accepted and this is why the Spirit must unlock the heart to the wonderful grace that it may be a comfort to the heeart even as it is also a scandal to our reason.  We are not given to say "now I get it" but simply "Amen" to the grace Jesus shows to us.

In another place Capon asks why Jesus insisted upon healing the man on the Sabbath (Matthew 12).  After all, it was a second slap in the face of the law and the Pharisees.  Jesus had already harvested and eaten on the Sabbath.  The man in question had know the misery of his withered hand for years.  It was not life threatening.  It was not urgent.  What was the big deal in waiting until sunset?  Capon points us to see that if Jesus had waited, the Pharisees would have seen and understood the healing as a good dead occasioned by and the fulfillment of the commandments.  It would have been approved in their eyes as a moral act and shown Jesus to be a moral teacher.  That is not what Jesus wanted.

Jesus offended the Pharisees because His act of healing trumps the law and grace trumps the law every time. The scandal was not the scandal of the broken law but of grace -- how could you argue that this healing was good and yet why would God give it on the Sabbath and break a history of understandings about what the law said and required?  Because Jesus was not acting as an agent of the law but of grace -- the scandalous kind.

The same can be said of the analogy of the old wine and the new wine.  New wine is not smooth and mellow but pungent and sharp.  It is not the predictable flavor imparted slowly, over time, but the raw taste of something new and shocking.  New wine is volatile and still fermenting while the old wine is done -- it is waiting only to be drunk up and finished.  These are characterizations of law and gospel according to Capon.  Jesus proves to be the volatile and pungent taste of grace -- the new wine which is scandal and surprise.  If He had healed after sunset, Jesus would have been identified with the old wine of the law which Jesus was not here to bring.

Yes, there is much in Capon to make you think.  His writing is as raw and unpredictable as the grace he describes.  This is not the kind of stuff where you read and say yes to everything (it is not doctrinally pure or morally comfortable) but it sure opens some doors to your mind and gives us a powerful appreciation of the scandal of grace.

Supporting My Ministry or Supporting THE Ministry?

I have been thinking about being in one parish for now, well, a few weeks shy of 18 years, and some of the things I have been thinking about a scary to me.  Now, don't get me wrong -- I believe in long pastorates.  I told them at the Sem when talking about placements, "I have only a couple of moves in me..."  Those words have been borne out in the history since (two parishes in 30+ years as a Pastor).  And now I look at my age and the tight call situation of our Synod and have accepted the fact that it is highly unlikely I will get another call before the time I retire.  There are many who are thankful about that and I am not resigned to it -- it would be fine for me and, I believe, a good thing.

Except...   Except that I am beginning to wonder about what is and is not happening at this parish.  I find, not unlike other parishes, that even though our membership is growing, our attendance on Sunday morning is not.  Even though we have tons of kids on the rolls, the number of children in Sunday school, catechism, and youth group is not going up.  Even though we draw from many different economic classes, our general fund income and our support of missions has not changed much in 5-6 years.  Even though we have celebrated a great history of 50 years with passionate speakers who helped us give thanks for this past and look to the future, we have not faced the future with the hope that we should as a congregation and a people in Christ.

Sometimes I wonder if it is me... Have I done what I need to in order to make the focus on THE ministry instead of on MY ministry?  It is often easy to give the impression or for people to assume that their job is to support the Pastor in HIS work instead of seeing THEIR work of worship, witness and service.  So, I am doing some thinking about this and what I can do to help instill the proper understanding of the work of the kingdom in this place.  It is not MY ministry that the folks who sit in the pew are to support but my ministry of Word and Sacraments to help them in their own baptismal vocation to the world as instruments of the Word  in witness and in service to Christ's through their acts of mercy and compassion to the people around them.

I want people to be passionate about support wholeheartedly the work of the Kingdom.  I don't want their passion to be directed toward me only or my ministry as their Pastor.  I want people to understand what I do as Pastor not as the end goal but as the very means to their own sacrificial self-offering as the baptized doing the work of the Kingdom -- carrying what gathers the assembly on Sunday morning into the places where they live and work during the week.  The congregation that I want to serve is not a support group to the Pastor.  Long ago I remember saying to someone that our goal was every member of Grace in worship and Bible study and Christian service every week.  It was not phrased all that well but the goal remains the same.

In a sense I am reassured by the three fold emphasis now being used in Synod: Witness, Mercy, Life Together...  This is what we need to hear not only on the national level but in the congregation.

The Visiting Mechanic View of the Atonement

A while ago I finished reading Robert Farrar Capon's Between Noon and Three and found it an interesting read -- more like a conversation in words than a novel or non-fiction work.  It is where I got the quote in the Reformation Day sermon.  I have written up a bunch of stuff prompted by this book but I am releasing it only in dribs and drabs here.

In one section he speaks of the way we often limit ourselves to a childish understanding of things -- the God who made all things and then went away to see how things would unfold, only to have to return and fix what went wrong.  Creation is kind of like a big wind up toy and when it runs down, God descends to wind it back up, but this time with enough oomph to keep it going.

In this understanding of things God is always distant from His creation.  It might be better to say that God is rendered inaccessible due to sin but not distant from His creation -- even a sinful one.  Capon suggests that we generally see the Bible story as God making the world, letting it go out of whack, then managing to repair it by coming back down out of heaven.  It is sort of like putting in a fuse to repair a dead circuit or having a valve job done on an engine that no longer runs and even then the repairman or mechanic goes away and the fixed item is left to hum along on its own.

But Capon suggests that makes God ultimately a foreigner to His own creation -- visiting it like some cosmic road service come to repair what is wrong and then heading back to whence He came.  This is not how Scripture speaks of God.  God has always been here and His repair was not a reaction to a road hazard but "before the foundation of the world was laid."  Capon suggests that God intervened  before the damage was done (creation was sealed to its doom of death and despair).

I certainly understand the problem Capon is addressing.  We come to Church to find God but most folks - even church going Christians - feel a bit alone in their lives and do not know or realize the presence of God (I do not mean in some vague spiritualized sense but concrete and real as the Sacraments impart).

According to Capon He was always present but hidden until in Christ He makes Himself known to us -- not as a visiting mechanic to repair a broken car but as the Lamb of God who from the foundation of the world was its Redeemer but once in time was incarnate.  In this sense the New Testament is not a separate story but the final chapters of what God was doing all along.  I am surely putting words in Capon's mouth here, but the point is that Christ is not some johnny come lately Savior but the unity of old and new, of prophet and fulfillment, of prophecy and saving event.

This is one of the things so missing in the way most of us as Christians view the Scriptures and its one (not many) story and this is one of the reasons we feel so distant from God and the cross merely an event in history.  This Capon makes you think... and this book was written in the mid-1970s.

Pharisaical Pride. . .

At least on the outside, the Pharisee desired to be completely religious.  He ordered his behavior to conform to the standard of religious behavior (in the case of the Jews, the commandments).  He shaped his life so that in every way possible it would appear that he had kept the requirements of God and was holy and righteous.  So it is natural for the Pharisee to look with disdain upon the Publican whose life was so outwardly immoral and unrighteous.  The Pharisee believed his pride to be the rightful pride of accomplishment that God meant for him to know and enjoy -- was this not the whole purpose of the Law?

The Pharisee was completely religious down to the smallest details (the tithe even of the seeds harvested from the garden plants).  It was a consuming passion -- to be religious and to be seen as religious.  The only problem with this is that the very thing that consumed the Pharisee's life was itself grave and gross sin -- the sin of pride.  In the end, the Pharisee's attempt to avoid the worst of the sins made him the bed partner of perhaps the worst of them all (if there was a hierarchy of sin).  Pride is, after all, the anti-God sin since the pride insists that being holy is achievable with effort and it is worth the sacrifice to be better than your neighbor.

No less than C. S. Lewis suggests that all the other vices are but "flea bites" in comparison to the gaping wound of pride and conceit.  Such pride is far more than delighting in the approval or commendations given by others.  It is at its root competition with God to earn what Christianity insists can only be given.  Humility is not the shrugging off of compliment and honor given by others but the honest belief that God is all (recall the faithful words of St. John the Baptist who said, "He must increase, I must decrease."  False humility and pride are two leaves on the same plant.

It seems that pride is often the offense registered against those who would strain and cleanse the Church from error in proclamation, structure, practice, and mission.  Not a few have felt Missouri rather prideful in comparison to other Lutherans.  I will not deny that there has been more than enough breast beating in Missouri that delights that we are not like the Publican (ELCA, or fill in the blank of the evil being described).  Todd Wilken calls it the Missouri particularism that glories in our history and sees no wrong even in the face of grave errors -- because we are Missouri.  In this, those who insist that Missouri has no doctrinal divisions are about the same as those who insist that Missouri has no doctrinal unity.  We insist in our writings that Missouri is not without sin but we sometimes act like it.  We do not like litmus tests and yet we administer them all the time.  Take a look at the letters Herman Otten writes to those whom he has accused of sin or error.

If there is anything to the words that began Pres. Harrison's time as LCMS President, they will serve as a needed corrective to an orthodoxy strong on right belief but weak on love.  When he first addressed the convention after his election, Pres. Harrison said that Missouri had kept its perfect record of electing sinners as its President.  In his words before that election, he had spoken often and eloquently of the need for repentance (not the perfunctory repentance that regrets the wrong but fails to work for the right but an honest contrition and effort at the amendment of our sinful ways).

I am hopeful that Missouri will lose the triumphal streak that so often makes it hard for anyone to love us and learn honest humility.  I certainly do not want it to come at the expense of a concern for right believing, but as an accompaniment to that orthodoxy and not a replacement for it.  I once heard Richard John Neuhaus say that he believed there was a hell but hoped and prayed that no one was in it.  This was not universalism but the genuine hope and desire to see all people saved and come to the knowledge of the truth who is Jesus Christ.  It is not often that we hear a passion for the lost and for the work of mercy that walks hand in hand with orthodox believing and worship.  Now may be the time to see us renounce our sinful pride and to learn some compassion and humility while at the same time contending for the faith and faithfulness to the faith once delivered to the saints.

Pride is love of self.  This is why the Pharisee went home without God's regard and the Publican went home clothed in mercy.  If we are to find room in our hearts for God's favor, we must empty our hearts too full of ourselves.  This is the Spirit's work.  God, help us.  We need the reform and renewal of the Spirit as LCMS Lutherans so that we may maintain the rightful focus on orthodox belief while at the same time adding to it a compassion and love that marks both our witness to those outside our gates and the way we interact with those from among our midst.

What About Those Who. . .

I brought up what a profound difference when the congregation sings the Our Father as opposed to it being spoken and was surprised at the responses.  Several versions are listed in Lutheran Service Book (in particular I was referring to the traditional or plain song setting, 957).  Most all are familiar with Malotte's setting, so common to weddings or funerals (why are they so often together -- weddings and funerals).  Anyway, I thought I would find people interested or curious but instead I found people almost instantaneously against singing the Our Father.  I was surprised.  As the conversation ensued, I saw a pattern developing...

What about those who cannot or do not sing?  The point was made that every time we sing something in the liturgy (in addition to the hymns) we eliminate from the assembly those who cannot or do not sing.  Singing excludes people, in other words.  I was struck by this because I found just the opposite.  Singing joins us together and unites us.  But that was not the perspective I heard here.  Singing is not something essential to the Divine Service or to worship in general -- it is optional and for those who can or like to sing.  Wow.  What an eye opener.

As the conversation continued, I saw the pattern of this conversation continue even further -- now remember this was a conversation among Lutherans and particularly Lutherans who sing from beginning to end on Sunday morning.  In fact, about the only texts we do not sing are the Creed (well, we do that occasionally) and the Our Father.  The point being made was easily transportable to other areas and issues.

That is why some were opposed to installing kneelers in the pews -- what about those who could not or would not kneel?  There were many who were not opposed to kneelers but felt that if we did install them, we would be excluding those with bad knees (a very small minority) or those who did not choose to kneel (a larger number than those who could not kneel).  By the way, when we first moved into our new worship space, it was not fully complete and we went without an altar rail for a time and some folks began to question why we were getting one anyway -- what about those who cannot or do not want to kneel at the altar?

When it comes to things like incense, well, you know where that conversation is headed.  What about those who could not attend where incense was used (again, a very small minority of people are actually allergic and that mostly to perfumed incense and not to real frankincense) or what about those who would not attend (again, a much larger number than those allergic)?

We already discussed a while back what to do with those who were intolerant of gluten or alcohol and their participation in Holy Communion.  Our primary concern, according to some, ought to be what about those who cannot or would not commune under bread with gluten or wine with alcohol.  Again, the primary issue is not allergy or physical intolerance but rather choice.


We should stop sharing the peace because of the flu and what about those who might catch something by physically contacting others in the eucharistic assembly.  We should stop the common cup (chalice) because of what people might catch from it or because they just don't like it.  And the list of changes goes on and on...


I guess we are left with the real question of what you are left with after you remove all those things that a few cannot tolerate or accept or the larger number of those who do not want to accept?  It seems that this is, after all, the path secular society is following.  We remove the peanuts from the planes because of the very few who might be impacted... we remove the toys from Happy Meals so that kids will give up fatty foods... we tax soda so that people will give up sugar... all because of our concern about those who...  And so the Church has adopted the same methodology.  We act on the basis more of minimums than fullness, on broad acceptance as the chief criteria for what should or should not be used in worship.  Some have even gone so far as to say that anybody off the street who has never been in worship before should be able to feel at home in the Lutheran Divine Service (at least some watered down version of that Divine Service).

My point in all of this is where will it end?  And why do we need to walk down that path at all. Why do we seek to find that which appeals to the most instead of that which is most faithful?  Historical?  Biblical?  Is it because it is less trouble to offend the fullness for the sake of the vocal particular?  Well, just some deep sighing today as I reflect upon one simply conversation...

Who Moved My Cheese???

With over 5 million copies cold, this little book seems to have just the answer to what ails the Church.  We have been creatures of routine, doing the same things over and over again and then we wonder why we do not get different results.  This little story of Hem and Haw (little people) and the mice (Sniff and Scurry) is amusing and not without its moments but as a device to repair what is wrong with the Church, it is sorely lacking.

The moral of the story is this:

Change Happens

They Keep Moving The Cheese

Anticipate Change

Get Ready For The Cheese To Move

Monitor Change

Smell The Cheese Often So You Know When It Is Getting Old

Adapt To Change Quickly

The Quicker You Let Go Of Old Cheese, The Sooner You Can Enjoy New Cheese

Change

Move With The Cheese

Enjoy Change!

Savor The Adventure And Enjoy The Taste Of New Cheese!

Be Ready To Change Quickly And Enjoy It Again

They Keep Moving The Cheese.

In the name of moving the cheese, Lutherans have been urged to ditch the liturgy, skip the hymns of old, ignore their Confessions, dump vestments, rearrange the furniture in the sanctuary, and, in short, give up on those things that make them Lutheran.  The goal is, of course, to win converts for Jesus and the enemy of that goal is everything that stands in the way of making those converts (like doctrine and practice).  But then again, you know where I stand.

Let me put it another way. . . The Roman Catholic Church announced that five bishops are leaving the Church of England (Anglican) and becoming Roman Catholic.  As one wag put it, Anglicanism and Rome were once fairly close together.  Who moved?  (Who moved the cheese?)  Rome has stayed fairly consistent although Sunday morning looks different in Rome than it did in 1530.  Anglicans don't look much at all like the people they used to be.  Again, who moved?

The ELCA and Missouri are often framed as Lutherans on a different path (rightfully so) but the truth is that once the paths were very close together (Common Service, Galesburg rule, moral stance, etc.).  Missouri is sometimes accused by the ELCA to having changed (and there is a bit of truth to it) but who really changed?  (Who moved the cheese?)

Presbyterians were once thoroughgoing Calvinists and now it is hard to find a real Calvinist anywhere.  Arminians have taken over the Church of Calvin and Knox.  There are still the Heidelberg Catechism and the Confessions of Westminster and Dordt among others, but who pays all that much attention to them today.  Who moved?  (Who moved the cheese?)

I could continue but my point is this.  What is the cheese in all of this?  It appears as if the "cheese" is the doctrine and practice of these churches and that it is a movable object subject to shifts of interpretation and meaning which the theological heirs of these faiths are free to move or change as they feel necessary.  I fear that the problem is not that somebody moved the cheese but we have been moving it around so much, we don't even know what the cheese is or why it is still important.  Change has become the new fashionable god of politics, culture, and religion.  The cheese is not important but the moving is -- change is object of our infatuation.  We change doctrine, practice, morality, and truth because we like to change them and we want to change them.  It has less to do with the desire to be effective or efficient as much as it has to do wanting to reinvent ourselves on a regular basis.

Who moved the cheese?  It seems to me that the cheese does not move and the whole goal of Christianity is to stay close to the cheese.  It seems to me that those churches who have moved the cheese are the very ones who have lost their Christian identity.  Does a Joel Osteen bear much more resemblance to creedal orthodoxy than the Mormons?  I don't know anymore.  Does a church so enamored with the cusp of moral change bear much more resemblance to the classic Christian identity than Islam confesses Christ?  I don't know anymore.  Does a church which delights in breaking all the rules and tearing down the bridges that connect us to our Christian heritage (Tradition) bear any resemblance to the Church Jesus Christ said hell could not overcome?  I don't know anymore.  It seems to me that the rule we have forgotten is that the cheese never moves.  We change and stay the same.  The world changes and remains the same.  The needs of people change and yet are consistent from age to age.  The Church does not need to jump on the bandwagon of change but to offer the world a, well, to quote an old phrase from LCMS history, changeless Christ for a changing world.

Prayers for the Unfolding Changes in Synod

It must be awkward -- Pres. Harrison did not want or welcome the Synodical restructuring that the Convention adopted (by the slimmest of majorities) yet he is the one who is charged with fleshing out those changes for our Synod.  It is a task fraught with the potential to inflame and disappoint.  Already a Mission Planters Conference that was to take place while the pow wow was going on in Nashville in mid-November (CoP, LCEF, etc.) has been canceled (due in large measure to staffing changes put into effect as the Synod restructuring required).

It leads me to imagine what structure works best... I do not know if there is a real answer to this.  It seems that if you have good people, they can make up for the limitations of a bad structure but if you have anything less, the weaknesses in that structure are only magnified.  In addition, we have people on both sides throwing stones because either they were not the ones who get to implement the changes they voted for or because they are not the ones who get to implement the changes they did not vote for... Ah, the irony of it all...

I was not in favor of most of the changes -- the only one I felt was worth while was the switch to a four year cycle instead of a three year one and this change did NOT pass.  I confess to being bored by the endless by-law changes that each convention has to vote upon.  I am not a structure person.  I am not sure I am a process person either.  I am not sure what kind of person I am.  But I am not excited about the changes in the Synod constitution, by-laws, and organizational chart.  I guess it is a good thing, then, that I have confidence in Pres. Harrison, his staff, and many of the good folks who were elected. I just hope they are more interested and excited about this stuff than I am.  And that they can make more sense of it all that I can...

Who are you? What will you become?

Sermon Preached for All Saints Observed, on Sunday, November 7, 2010.

    I confess that I have never been able to look into the face of a baby and see which member of the family that child looks like.  So I just nod and smile when somebody says little Heinrich looks just like Grandpa Herkimer.  But I have looked into the faces of babies and wondered who they will become.  Who hasn’t gazed into the faces of your own children when they were small and wondered what kind of people they would turn out to be. But who can know?  Life is so full of unpredictable twists and turns, the future is not only unknown to us but unpredictable to us as well.  The child will always be ours no matter what.  So we can only guess and wait and watch for the mystery to unfold before us of who those children will become.
    So it is in faith.  None of us can see or accurately predict what the future will be.  None of us sees the outcome of our life of faith.  But seeing is not everything.  We know the comfort that comes from being God's children now – His saints by baptism – and we are encouraged by the promise of a future that is locked, sealed, and wrapped in Jesus Christ.  We do not see the ending but only the unfolding image of what is becoming and yet, if we look to Jesus, we see the future that God has prepared for us.
    Listen to St. John’s words from the Epistle: “Beloved, you are God's children now.” Who are we?  We are God's children now.  We are God's children not because we want to be or have asked to be.  We are God's children because the Father has called us to be His own through baptism, declared us to be His children, and equipped us with faith to answer this call.  He looked into our faces and loved us still and this love could not leave us without a future or a hope.  He sent His one and only Son to be our Savior. In baptism He marked us with the death and resurrection of Christ and when the Father looks at us, He sees Jesus – the righteousness of Christ and His perfect holiness.
    The Father’s love for us in Christ bridged the gap of time and eternity, sin and righteousness, death and life.  Saints are not born but born again, not made but declared by grace.  Beloved, we are God’s children now – the saints whom He has called, cleansed, and marked to be His by the cross of Christ.  We do not always see this – when we look into the mirror we see our sin and guilt but faith sees through the lens of Christ and trusts in what God has said and not in the futile end that sin laid upon us.
    The world sees us as we are – sinners no better than anyone else.  The world sees all our defects, our hypocrisy, and our failures.  It does not understand us or the God who claims us as His own.  Only faith can know the promise of His presence now and the future He has made possible.  The world rejects us as it rejected Christ because the world does not see with the eyes of faith.  The world cannot call us saints but God delights to call us His own - the saints whom He has created in grace.
    But none of this answers the question of who we shall be.   Where our lives on earth will lead and how they will end are known only to God.  We walk not by sight but by faith – seeing and trusting by faith what our eyes and minds neither see nor understand.  And the promise of our future lies in Jesus Christ.
    What will we be like becomes the question of who we shall be like.  Here John gives us much to hold on to – we shall be like Jesus – just as He is.  We shall literally be like Jesus – glorious in body and eternal in life.  The saints are those whom God has declared His own now and those on whom He has bestowed the future that Christ has prepared.  Jesus is the first born of the dead, the down payment of what we all shall be, the pioneer and prototype of who we shall be when the baptismal miracle is complete in us.  Look to baptism and see who you are.  Look to Christ and see who you shall become.
    What does this mean “we shall be like Jesus?”  He rose on Easter Sunday not because there was some doubt about the outcome of Good Friday or because He needed the vindication of Easter’s triumph.  Jesus rose in order to display for the future that He has prepared for us – the glorious body that holds the promise of our own glorious body and the eternal life that holds the promise of our own immortal future.  Not only who we are now and who we will be are all answered in Jesus Christ.
    For now we see only in part, as St. Paul put it.  We see clearly temptations, doubts, and fears but only dimly the promised future we have in Christ.  But not for long will our vision be hindered; soon we shall see Jesus as He is – without any of His glory hidden.  When we see Him as He is, the scales of doubt and fear will fall away from our eyes and we will see Jesus and Him only – like the moment of glory the disciples saw on the Mount of Transfiguration.
    For now we live not by sight but by faith.  But this is not some blind faith in some mysterious and unknowable promise.  This is faith in Christ, who died never to die again and rose to live out in full the divine life that is His to live.  Our futures are not only made possible by this Christ, but our futures are wrapped up in Christ.  What He is, we shall be.  No more barriers shall separate us and no more troubles or trials shall afflict us.
    Here on earth we see glimpses of this future.  Think what we just sang in the canticle: This is the feast of victory for our God... Here in this Holy Supper we taste this future as the foretaste of what is to come, the appetizer to the full and complete meal in the marriage banquet of the Lamb.
    His joy and His blessedness will become our joy and our blessedness. For now they are mere glimpses, as lights that flash for a moment in the dark world where sin and death still seem to dominate.  But then we shall see its fullness, know first hand its incomprehensible joys, and experience its transcendent glory.
    Saints are those who belong to God because He claims them, because He washes them in baptism, He gives them new birth into His everlasting life, He marks them with the cross of Christ, and He imparts the faith to trust in this pledge and promise of what is coming but is not yet.  Our present life and our future flow from that same font.  It is from there we know who we are now as the children of God.  It is there we behold the promise of what is coming to us as the children of God.  Our present identity and the shape of our future flow from its living waters.  No more hindered or wounded by earthly afflictions or limitations, we shall see Jesus as He is.
    When He comes again we shall not only see Him as He is but we shall see ourselves in Him, for all eternity.  He holds in His hands the promise of our future as well as our confidence for this present moment.  Who are the saints of God, except those who know this truth by faith and who cling to it for forgiveness, life and salvation.  This is what it means to be His saints now and this is the future for the saints of God  – abiding in Christ by faith we have this pledge and promise now and abiding in Christ we have it for all life that is to come.  Once God looked into our faces like a Father looking into the face of a child, but unlike us whose vision is not clear, God saw us as we are and loved us still. Then He loved us even more so that He might forge a path for us to obtain all that is missing from today and all that only Jesus could fulfill.  Amen.

Borrowed and Love It...

After the Pax Domini, we added similar words to what the Roman Catholics will begin saying in Advent 2011.  I say:  "Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.  Blessed (Happy seems kind of, well,  light here) are those who are called to His Supper."  And the people respond: "Lord, I am not worthy to receive You, but only say the word, and I shall be made whole (may still switch to healed).

We have used a seasonal sentence here before (Easter:  Christ our passover has been sacrificed for us...) so it is not brand new to the people.  I had a lot of people stop at that point and speak much more deliberately these words.  I will try it for a while.  I never did like the response:  "And also with you."  It was the wrong response at that point.  But I also feel that to end simply with the "Amen" is also a little quick and abrupt end.  So we will take a look at this and it may just encourage some pre-reception prayers along that line... Who knows?!

Awkward End of the Church Year...

November is the final count down on one Church Year and the start of another one.  It brings up again the problem in knowing how to close down one year of grace.  LW chose to adjust the calendar so that we had three last Sundays in the Church Year -- each one moving us more and more into the final things, second coming, eschatology frame of mind.  The problem with that is we find the same themes in Advent and so we kind of glaze over at all the talk of judgment, accountability, return of Christ, etc...  Since most congregations substitute the pericopes for All Saints on the first Sunday in November, it kind of screwed it up anyway (unless it was one of those Novembers in which we had four Sundays after Pentecost).  In addition we have Thanksgiving in there and it still kind of plays with the mix in the wrong sort of way.  We  have a school break and vacation period there that often means the last Sunday in November (be it Christ the King or Sunday of the Fulfillment or the Last Sunday after Pentecost or even the First Sunday in Advent) tends to be a small Sunday (in terms of attendance).  That kind of takes the wind out of your sails.

I have tried a number of the pericopal options (one year, LW three year, LSB three year) and am still left a bit unsatisfied.  All in all I wish we had more options.  I do not blame those who tried.  They tried.  I wonder if it is not sort of like a mine field -- what with the pre-Christmas press and all.  Oh, well... Here we go again... limping out of one Church Year and sneaking into another. I just wish there was a bigger bang at the end of one and a bigger splash for the start of another.  Any of you feel the same???

Got My Thrivent Calendar And...

Was oh, so disappointed, when I realized how few saints days fall on a Sunday (in the section of the church year known as ordinary time).  I love it when in the midst of the loooooonnnnnnggggg green season we get a dose of red (or white, occasionally) to remember the Biblical heros whose life and confession have supplied us with such witness.   Sadly, 2010-2011 is not a good year... perhaps I will have to transfer a few of those days... hmmmm... Yes, we have the technology, we can make it better than it was before! (For a whole lot less than $6M, too)...

Does All Our Information Make Us Wise?

We live in an information age.  No great revelation there -- all of us are literally swamped with information.  From the child entering school where the amount of information multiplies many times to graduation to those in the last years of long life literally dizzied by the amount and face pace of information and change, we live in an age of information explosion.

But for all the information we have at our beck and call due to the availability and low cost of books, cd-rom media, and the internet, we are not necessarily growing wiser.  In fact, some would argue we are less wise than those who came before us.  Many of our choices are downright foolish, our vision marred by a refusal to see only the here and now, and our focus mostly on ourselves.

This is also true in the Church.  Our mailbox is inundated with programs, resources, and methods to explore to raise more money, recruit, care and feed volunteers, increase exposure, welcome guests, build facilities for the information era, exploit the resources of technology in the Church, etc...  For all the information, I wonder if we are doing a better job at these tasks or if we are so swamped with possibilities and choices that we are more paralyzed in information overload than programmed for action.

We have more Bible study choices available to us than ever before and yet we face a growing and critical problem of Biblical illiteracy both inside as well as outside the Church.  We have more Christian music available to us than ever before and yet we hardly know the first stanza to anything from Christmas carols to the sturdy hymns of old.  We have access to the great books of the past and to a library of new Christian books published every year and yet our people seem less informed of and confident of their church's teachings and faith.

Does the Church need this encyclopedic knowledge or does the Church need wise and faithful leaders?  It seems we are conflicted here.  We are dazzled by those who can spin off facts and pump our PowerPoint presentations -- especially if they come from outside the Lutheran circle and tell us what we need to ditch (liturgy, hymns, organ, hymnal, etc.) in order to grow.  We are dazzled by these thinkers but are we enamored of their wisdom or merely distracted by the layers of information they spout?

It seems to me that what we need in the parishes of our Synod and in the leadership offices of Synod are wise leaders -- who may or may not have an encyclopedic knowledge of things or be current on every technology but who are definitely confident, well-schooled in the faith, experienced in Christian living, and secure enough not to jump on every train that passes by.

I believe the same is true in our culture -- we are swamped with information and short of wisdom -- the practical and even methodical wisdom of those not blinded by the winds of change but not oblivious to them either.  It wouldn't hurt if we found a few folks like this to serve on school boards, city councils, county legislatures, statehouses and state legislatures, and in Washington, too.

The world will not slow down -- little chance of this -- but we do not have to be moved by every wind of change or every doctrinal fad or worship trend or technological toy.  Wisdom.  It was the call to listen to the Gospel in the Orthodox Divine Liturgy.  Maybe it is the call for us today.  Wisdom!  Attend!  There is something more important than information -- the Word of the Lord speaks and the Kingdom of God is here.

Hallelujah Chorus Erupts at Macy's in Phillie

Watch and see how the politically correct gestapo messed up... and what a wonderful event followed...

Roster Used by Bishop Against Traditional ELCA Pastors and Parish

Little did I know that the issue of roster and control would be so timely... HERE is a link to the goings on in Clear Lake, Iowa, where the NE Iowa Bishop is using the roster to discipline and even eject ELCA Pastors who disagree with the position the ELCA has taken with regard to sexual orientation and the Church and sexual orientation and the clergy.  The parish itself passed a first vote to leave the ELCA and narrowly lost the second vote to leave but did join one of the organizations providing a fall out for such traditional ELCA parishes (LCMC).

Personality and Office

While teaching catechism on the Pastoral Office, a discussion ensued over personality and office (though the catechumens did not frame it in those terms).  In the end we got a handle on it by identifying the way vestments diminish the personality of the Pastor in order to draw attention to the Office.  It was a pretty interesting class.  It set my mind a thinking...

Now I do have a personality.  My family would agree with this statement although they would not necessarily view it as positively as I might.  But the truth is that during most of Sunday morning I purposefully try to hide that personality so that the Office is center stage.  Sometimes I am more successful than others.

We had a neighbor with whom we were close --a large family, the husband in the Army.  We became good friends.  They knew I was a Pastor but they were not Lutheran and had never seen me function in the pastoral role.  Finally one Sunday they showed up for worship -- completely surprising me and my family.  After the service, she said she had never seen me so, ah, reserved.  "What happened to you?" she wanted to know.  Some conversations later, there was some understanding but the mom still was not sure why I could not be the joking guy I was at home in the pulpit or at the altar.  Fast forward.  Surprise, surprise, surprise.  After they had moved away, they returned for a visit and informed us that they had become Lutheran.  Now it was not just the difference between personality and Office -- I am sure the Gospel and the Spirit had something to do with it ;-).  But it was a factor in distinguishing the Ministry from the man -- something in their church history which had always been intertwined so that it was difficult to know where one began and the other ended.

It occurs to me that we Lutherans are moving more and more into the direction of confusing the personality of the person of the Pastor with the Office of Pastor.  In the push toward non-liturgical services in which the Pastor is not vested, we tend to emphasize the personality of the individual both for the form and content of what takes place on Sunday morning.  The shift may be subtle but it is profound as the Pastor moves from the presider to the MC, the parts of the liturgy to monologue, and the sermon from explication and application of the Gospel (drawn from the pericopes) to story teller, motivator, and entertainer.

Recently we saw the Crystal Cathedral enter bankruptcy in part over the problem of shifting from the person of its aging founder to a new generation.  It is not alone in this trouble.  Billy Graham's work has found its own struggle in passing the baton.  D. James Kennedy's Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church is still in some turmoil over such a transition (even though it is not a non-denominational setting more prone to these troubles).  The point is that when the personality of the Pastor becomes center stage in the life of the congregation and on Sunday morning, problems will inevitably ensue.

Do not mistake what I am saying.  I do not believe it is possible for a Pastor to mask all his personality nor should he.  What I am pointing to are the ways in which that personality becomes the central focus and therefore the people are left with an understanding of the Office that is intertwined with that personality so that there is no distinction.  This often happens with mission congregations.  This can happen when Pastors serve their whole ministries in one place.  But it does not have to be and it should not be.

It seems to me that on Sunday morning the personality of the Pastor needs to be less front and center and the focus more upon the Office of Pastor as bringing of the Word and Sacraments to the people of God through the vehicle of the Divine Service.  Even in the pulpit, personality is evidence but not predominant.  The Word of the Lord is center stage.  It is for this reason that we often say, "Do the red, say the Black" or "Stick to the Script."  Sunday morning is not an improv theater and the pulpit is not the place where Larry Peters is to shine.  We have a script in the Divine Service and we have the Gospel as the Word to be proclaimed -- when we get this right, our personality fades and the work of Jesus Christ and Him crucified has its proper and central focus in the lives of the people and in the life of the parish as a whole.

Who Owns the Roster?

A friend in the ELCA told me that the clergy roster there was shifted from the Synods and the Bishops to the Secretary of the ELCA.  All the paper work as well as ownership of that roster was moved from the local regional or state arena of that church body to the national office and with it have come some serious questions about the way things will be done in the future.

Let it be said that the call process has always been different in the ELCA than in Missouri.  In the AELC and ALC, the process was similar to Missouri's practice.  A calling congregation suggested candidates for the call list to the district office and the district office prepared a list of candidates --drawn from both the suggestions of the parish and the knowledge of the district staff of both parish and pastors.  Often a self-study was completed to aid in this knowledge of the parish and the history, needs, potential, and desires of the people in that congregation.  Generally this call list had between six and a dozen names -- all people whom the district believed to be a good "fit" for the parish's needs and its potential.  The congregation's own call committee reviewed the names and generally narrowed the focus to a few names from whom an election would produce a Pastor.

In the ELCA (and somewhat from the LCA background) the Bishop presents generally one name to the calling congregation.  The Pastor presented to the parish by the Bishop had already agreed to accept the call if the congregation agreed and the only people in the "dark" were the people in the calling congregation and the folks in the congregation of the Pastor whom the Bishop recommended.  If the congregation agrees, the Pastor's move happens relatively quickly -- as quickly as it may take to inform the current parish and pack up and go.  With a few names or one name presented to the calling congregation, the role of the Bishop is enhanced in this process and he or she wields great influence over who will be the Pastor of that congregation.

If I have this substantially wrong, then I encourage my readers to correct these characterizations.  But I believe this to be accurate.  Now I am not advocating for either process.  I personally see benefits to both and I also see that the key to this all is ultimately the DP or Bishop and how they exercise the pivotal role of presenting candidate or candidates to the calling congregation.  What I question is the role of the national church office in overseeing the roster of clergy and the seemingly natural tendency for centralization to control what it is responsible to administer.

That said, I will admit that things have changed a great deal over the years.  I have personally never served as a Pastor to a congregation that interviewed me prior to the call.  In fact, both parishes I have served called me completely unknown to me and I was a pretty unknown quantity to them as well.  In the first parish, they trusted the DP/Bishop, Ron Fink, who obviously knew what he was doing since I stayed there 13 years.  In my current parish, they trusted whoever it was who put my name on that list (still have not found that one out) since it is 18 years and I am still here.  So I am not so sure that the move to interviewing and phone surveys and written questionnaires has helped this process and I am fearful that it has hindered the expectations of the people and the Pastor and tainted the process enough to make it more difficult and not less for people to accept their new Pastor and for the new Pastor to accept the new parish.

I also am fully aware that the call process has been used by Bishops and DPs to make sure that the "right" kind of Pastor is placed in a congregation.  Sometimes that means that these leaders want to move a congregation toward a goal and will place on the call list names of those who will move the parish toward this goal.  In my own District there is talk of two call lists -- one of those Pastors who are agreeable to the church growth agenda and one made up of those who do not.  I know that the Transforming Congregations process has the potential to create a two tiered call list of folks who agree with the methodology and the goals of that process and those who do not.  I know that there are confessional groups out there who offer confessional congregations aid and assistance in getting a confessional Pastor.  There are individuals and groups, aided by the Internet, who work to promote their own agendas throughout the call process.  I am suspicious of these efforts even where I may be sympathetic to the outcome.

In the end it revolves around the question of "who owns the roster?"  Does it belong to the congregations, does it belong to the regional church (Synod or District, depending upon your affiliation) or does it belong to the national church office?  It seems to me that we are moving in a direction in which centralization is the great temptation and it threatens to gobble up things in the causes of efficiency and effectiveness.  Neither of these is particularly a high priority for me when it comes to call lists and calls.  I would rather see this process return to the an era when Pastors were not courted like businesses go after executives, when agendas were not the primary pursuits of those who have a stake in it all, and when the prayerful work of the parish and their DP or Bishop, led by the Spirit, resulted in the "it seems good to us and to the Holy Spirit" outcome.  It is flawed because we as people are flawed but its flaws are less dangerous to the Church as a whole than agendas, centralization, and manipulation. 

Lay Pastors

On another forum I read where the number of "laymen" serving as de facto "pastors" because they are charged with Word and Sacrament ministry in our Synod is about 200.  At least that is a number some have arrived at through looking at the Synodical figures.  As far as I know, these do not include any District programs and deacons certified by Districts (not as a Synodical program) who may also be serving in Word and Sacrament situations.  So the number may be higher or even much higher.

1) Functioning nearly or completely autonomously in providing preaching and Sacrament ministry, with only occasional communication with a supervising pastor: 60
2) Functioning under direct supervision, and serving as the regular provider of preaching and Sacrament ministry: 81
3) Functioning under direct supervision, and serving as the regular provider of preaching (not Sacraments) ministry: 13
4) Functioning under direct supervision, and serving as a part-time provider of preaching and Sacrament ministry: 90
5) Functioning under direct supervision, and serving as a part-time provider of preaching (not Sacraments): 71
6) Functioning under direct supervision, and serving as the primary provider of non-preaching, non-sacramental care (e.g., Bible studies, devotions, visitation, youth ministry, etc.): 24
7) Functioning under direct supervision, and serving as a part-time provider of non-preaching, non-sacramental care (e.g., Bible studies, devotions, visitation, youth ministry, etc.): 196
TOTAL 540 non ordained "lay minister" or deacons, 255 providing preaching and/or sacraments.
This is a serious issue for a Church that confesses quia:  Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called (rite vocatus implies examination, call, and ordination). 

I am not going to rehearse the history of this here but simply to say that when we have such a big issue before us, we do not have time to twiddle our thumbs.  We need to act.

Seminary education, like catechism instruction, has become the holy grail that prevents the LCMS from regularizing these "laymen" in the office of the Pastoral Ministry.  We don't want to rush into ordination because we are afraid somebody might not follow through on the instruction so we piddle our time away while this gaping wound leads its infectious poison more and more into the system.  It is like a consultation about reconstruction surgery before the surgery to correct the cancer has been done.

We in Missouri do this in other ways as well.  It is sort of like those who insist that confirmands demonstrate a certain head knowledge of the faith (or the pietists who want the person to have a relationship with Jesus) but fail to teach them the pattern of worship in which their life in the Church is shaped and fed.  We get them right with Jesus and forget to assimilate them into the Church and so they fall or run away when they get the chance.  We give them a relationship with Jesus only to omit what they need to be related to the Church where the Word and Sacraments feed, nourish, nurture, and equip the baptized for their priestly vocation.

With respect to the "lay ministry" situation, it seems to me the answer is pretty clear.  We need a couple of hundred ordinations pronto and then we need to establish an instructional process that will allow these men to retain their roster status as recognized ministers of Christ and enable them to be eligible for a call to another place should that call ever come...

I am not against instruction and education at the Seminary but it seems to me that this is not the big issue right now -- the breach of Augustana XIV; the longer this stands the worse off we are.  It seems from St. Paul's words to Timothy provide a Biblical context for ordination.  There is an implication of instruction and examination but the form of a seminary is not spelled out as obviously as the case for ordination as the conferral of the office IS spelled out.

Dr. John Kleinig put it this way:  People argue that the New Testament does not speak of ordination. That is true if we turn to the modern translations of the New Testament, because none of them uses the verb ordain or the noun ordination as a technical ritual term. Instead, they speak about the laying on of hands (1 Tim 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim 1:6). But it is not true if we turn to the King James version where it is used quite deliberately and technically in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5. The English verb ordain comes from a rather nondescript Latin word which means to appoint a person to do a task. This Latin word was used in the early church to translate the Greek verb cheirotonein (to raise hands). It was used for the election of a person communally in a public assembly by the raising of hands. That is how it is used in 2 Corinthians 8:19. But in Acts 14:23 it is used for the choice of presbyters by Paul and Barnabas. From its use in Acts 14:23 this rather general word became a technical ritual term in the early church, as is shown by the textual addition to Titus 1:9, the subscriptions to 2 Timothy and Titus, and its use in Didache 15:1 for the election of bishops and deacons. It seems that the early church deliberately chose this term because it had no pagan religious connotations.
Even though the word had by the time of Reformation acquired hierarchical connotations of order, rank, and status, it was not rejected by the Reformers but was used in two ways. On the one hand, it was used rather generally for the whole process of making a person a pastor, from the initial self presentation for service to the installation in a congregation. On the other hand, it was also used more narrowly for the liturgical act by which candidates were received, appointed, and commissioned as pastors.  [Full paper is HERE.]

It is my personal hope and prayer that the LCMS will worry more about those who have been authorized without ordination the authority to do what ordination confers than about the shape of the education and training which will follow it.  I would also hope and expect that the new President of Synod is also concerned about the quickest way to end this abnormality in the church's order since these are not emergency situations but economic band aids applied to deal with the growing number of permanently vacant congregations no longer able to afford the cost of a full-time salary, housing, and benefits.  It has become a situation in which saving a few bucks has caused us to act in such way that our whole house is threatened.  In the end, this situation is far more costly than it first appears.

Outside the Church there is no salvation. . .

God can save whom it pleaseth God to save.  How He does that apart from the sacraments and formal membership of the Church is a mystery to me.  All I know is that if someone can be saved at all, he is saved solely through the merits if Christ’s Sacrifice.  The merits of Christ’s Sacrifice, all graces, everything for our salvation is mysteriously mediated through the Church Christ founded, the Catholic Church.  Any person who doesn’t belong to the Church but comes to salvation nevertheless receives whatever was sufficient through the mysterious mediation God has willed through the Catholic Church.  In that sense, outside the Church there is no salvation.  So saith the insightful Fr. Z at his What Does the Prayer Really Say blog...

All in all, it is a pretty good statement.  I surely would not equate "Catholic Church" with Rome here, as he does, but it does help me as a Lutheran deal with the relationship between the Church (gathered around the faithful confession, the Word and Sacraments, with the Pastoral Office) and those who insist upon exploring how possible it might be to be saved without being a part of this community of faith.  No, I would heartily agree with Fr. Zuhlsdorf that God can and, indeed, will save whom He pleaseth, that how this happens apart from the Church and the Word and Sacraments is a complete mystery to me, and that if someone is saved at all, it will be solely through the mediation of Jesus Christ and the all sufficient merits of His once for all sacrifice on the cross.  That said, if there are those who are saved without membership in this Church (by baptism) and without participating in the life of this Church (by Holy Communion on the body and blood of Christ), it is nonetheless through this Church that he or she hears the Word through which the Holy Spirit works to impart saving faith.  A mystery to me how this takes place, I therefore would not encourage people to explore the fringes of this possibility but to embrace the fullness of Christ's divine life and participate fully in the saving Mystery of Christ through the channels God has created and intended for us all -- the Word and Sacraments.  As they say in Tennessee, "'nuff said."

Not different interpretations but different Gospels...

Sermon for Reformation Day, preached on October 31, 2010.

    Not so long ago I had a conversation with a Christian who wondered about those Lutherans, especially their educational programs.  I told him about us and related about Sunday school and Bible study, but he did not seem interested.  Then I talked about catechism class and confirmation and it was catechism class that caught his interest.  He saw it as an indoctrination (negative idea) in which we told kids the answers when we should have been equipping them to think for themselves and choose their own answers to life's big questions.  I responded that catechism was indeed indoctrination – not to the teachings of men but the embrace of God’s Word and the teaching that alone imparts forgiveness, life and salvation.
    This man saw the truth of God's Word as many truths, taught by many different denominations, and the Christian's purpose to find the version of truth that fits you.  We all find temptation to see matters of faith as less about truth than about interpretation – as if God's Word were sufficiently vague to make it impossible to know whose take on that Word is genuine and true.  We all find certain attraction that we get to decide what Scripture says and what is truth.
    I am here today to tell you that this is baloney.  The different ways people read God's Word are not merely variations on a theme but radically different Gospels.  The Reformation of Luther is not about competing interpretations but about the one Gospel which is true and others which are false.  If you read St. Paul's letters, you hear him warn the people against departing from the truth that He delivered to them.  He was not offering one version of the truth but the only truth that saves — the truth of Jesus Christ. We face exactly the same challenge today.
    Christianity is not the domain of differing but equally true ideas about God.  Christianity is not some umbrella religion of many different truths that all claim to be right.  Christianity is about the one, true Gospel that has the power to forgive, save, and give eternal life.  The other gospels are false gospels that are powerless to do anything for you.  Luther's battle was not with a pope or a council but with a false gospel which had robbed the Church of the Word that does what it says, delivers what it promises, and bestows what it speaks.
    Lutheran identity is not rooted in an opinion of a man named Luther but in the rediscovery of this one true Gospel at a time when it had long been hidden and distorted by false teachings that deprived it of its power to do what that Gospel promises to do - to forgive our sins, redeem us from death, and impart to us eternal salvation.  Lutherans do not proclaim a Lutheran Gospel but the one, true, unchanging Gospel that St. Paul insists is the only truth at all.  What is this truth?  The article on which the Church stands or falls is justification – how are we saved.
    We are saved by grace as the free gift of God in Christ Jesus and not by our works.  The truth is that much of what you hear on TV and the popular books hawked as Christian today is nothing less than a religion of works.  If you are good enough, you get happiness, health, and wealth today and if you are not, you have to fix what is wrong so that God can give you these things.  This is not the Gospel of the cross, of sin and forgiveness, of death and life.
    We are saved through faith – not a faith which is the fruit of our reason or intellect or the warm fuzzy of our feelings but the faith that only the Holy Spirit can plant in us, working through the Word and Sacraments, so that we might grasp hold of the cross and trust in Jesus Christ alone.  This faith is not about your decision but about God's declaration, not about knowledge or understanding but about trust.
    We are saved in Christ – not as one of many messengers whom God has sent whose names may be Moroni or Mohammed but as the one and only Son of God, incarnate by the Virgin Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit, who suffered as the innocent for the guilty, died a death that was ours to die and rose to impart to us the life none of us could accomplish for ourselves.  Jesus, Jesus, only Jesus – not a teacher or mentor or role model but the Savior whom the prophets promised, who kept the commandments for us, and who alone has the power to cloth us in righteousness and holiness.  Without this Jesus, the whole Christian religion falls apart and there is nothing left to hold on to or hope in.
    It is not that we Lutherans have an exclusive claim to this truth – we do not.  But apart from this exclusive truth, there are no Christians.  We gladly affirm those who came before us and those who may not bear the name Lutheran but who confess this saving truth.  Yet we also warn that apart from this saving truth, there is no truth that saves, no hope for life over death, and no good but the fleeting pleasure of the moment.
    Lutherans confess that this Gospel is the message of Scripture and no other.  It is this message that is confessed from Genesis to Revelation.  It is this Gospel of Jesus Christ, this Gospel of the cross and empty tomb, and this Gospel of forgiveness, life and salvation that is the one message of the Bible.  Scripture cradles the Christ of the manger and cross and empty tomb and without Him its words speak nothing to us.
    This is the truth that saves – it is not a consolation for the bad things you have to endure in this life but the hope that sustains you today because by baptism and faith you confess the eternal tomorrow Jesus prepare for you. This is the Word that sets us free from sin, free from fear, and free from the impossible task of being good enough to fix what is wrong with you.
    What is the Lutheran difference?  In reality, there is none.  In our confessions, Lutherans hold in trust the one, true, saving Gospel which is the promise for all but which is always under assault.  We are not Lutherans to be different but Lutherans to be faithful to this one saving Gospel.  We celebrate the Reformation history because this Gospel could not be silenced, because of the faithful who confessed before the world the faithful truth that still sets us free.  We call ourselves Lutheran only because of this heritage of faithfulness and we pledge to do nothing less than faithfully raise up this Gospel and this Christ in our own time.
    In our Lutheran Confessions is not our interpretation of the Bible but embodied for all the one truth that belongs to all in Christ.  This is the ecumenical truth that alone reforms and unites and saves.  We exist as Lutherans for the sake of this one authentic truth in Jesus Christ, to proclaim it to the world and to live it out within the community of God's Word and sacraments.  The truth that endures forever!
    Robert Capon wrote of this truth in vivid terms in his book From Noon to Three: “The reformation was a time when men went blind, staggering drunk because they had discovered, in the dusty basement of late medievalism, a whole cellarful of fifteen-hundred-year-old, two hundred proof grace -- of bottle after bottle of pure distillate of Scripture, one sip of which would convince anyone that God saves us single-handedly.  The word of the gospel -- after all those centuries of trying to lift yourself into heaven by worrying about the perfection of your bootstraps -- suddenly turned out to be a flat announcement that the saved were home before they started...Grace has to be drunk straight boys: no water, no ice, and certainly no ginger ale; neither goodness, nor badness, nor the flowers that bloom in the spring of super spirituality could be allowed to enter into the case.”
    God help us to stand for this truth today with courage and confidence, to drink deeply of his sweet grace, not to dilute it in any way, nor to allow it ever again to be cast aside in favor of something which is powerless to reach into the abyss of our sin and death with forgiveness and life.  This is what the Reformation is about.  Then and now.  Amen.

With Great Sadness...and My Prayers

Mason Beecroft has an unlikely name for a Lutheran Pastor but an unusual Pastor he was and is.  His parish is the antithesis of the prodding of church growth techniques.  His preaching has been blunt and yet eloquent on behalf of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  His church has been blessed with an impressive outreach to those whom so many say cannot be reached by the liturgy, hymnal, and tradition.  He has taken a leave of absence to help deal with some of the wounds he has borne for his faithfulness.  It is not uncommon for uncommonly gifted Pastors to face depression, stress, and burn out.  I know that there are many who have found themselves in need of such time apart and believe it is good and healthy when parish and Pastor see the need and provide such essential respite.  So I am sad for him and the wounds he carries even as I pray for him, for his healing, and for the time when he can return to the pastoral role at Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church (LCMS) in Tulsa, OK

The Prayer of the Church

I will admit that I have grown to love the old "General Prayer" with its long monologue of petition and supplication.  Growing up, I detested it.  It was just so darn long and I hardly ever paid much attention to its words.  Maybe it is about youth and a little ADD.  Maybe not.  But I have reconciled with the General Prayer even though I do not believe it is good practice to use such a pastoral monologue of prayer on a regular basis.

The reason I have grown to appreciate the General Prayer is probably because of the poor responsive prayers so often heard in Lutheran congregations.  One problem is the wordiness.  It seems that some Lutherans really do feel the more words, the more likely God is to grant their prayers.  Clarity is important when you are asking people in the pew to voice their "Amen" to the Prayer of the Church.  Clarity can co-exist with eloquence and, in fact, it is often associated with eloquence (in secular terms think of the compact eloquence of Lincoln's Gettysburg address and the muddiness of longer orations).

Another problem is trying to put too much into each petition.  The petitions become like the omnibus resolutions of Congress and end up being so filled with "stuff" that it is hard for the people in the pew to voice their "Amen" to these prayers.  Petitions in the Prayer of the Church need to cover one issue per petition.  Without printing these out, people are left to their ears to hear, understand, and offer an "Amen" to the Church's prayer.

The Prayer of the Church is prayer and not proclamation or sermon.  This is another issue with the Prayer of the Day.  It is often that the Pastor uses the Prayer of the Day to reinforce or get one more shot at the points being made in the sermon.  The Prayer of the Day is surely connected to the pericopes and the homily but not one more avenue for lection or sermon.

The Prayer of the Church should not be used to announce things.  When we add dates and times to the things we pray for, the prayers have ceased to be directed to God and have become announcements directed to the people in the pews.  Are we asking for their "Amen" or for them to mark these events on their calendars?  The same must be said about mentioning the reason for the petitions for individual people.  Do not describe in detail why people have been place on the prayer list.  It is unnecessary.  God knows their needs.  We lift them to the Lord not with our directions for what He ought to do but because we know His good and gracious will and that He will bring only eternal good upon His people.  Mention the name.  That is enough.

The Prayer of the Church is the place where the church's concerns are addressed to the Lord -- we always pray for the Church, the proclamation of the Gospel, the Pastors whom God has placed among us, the leaders of our Synod and District, the catechumens, etc...  We always pray for these causes because these are the causes for which the Church exists.

The Prayer of the Church always includes petitions for the government, those elected to serve as our political leaders, and those who judge and enforce our laws.  I love the expression "those who make, administer, and judge our laws" because it covers them all.  We also remember not only the cause of justice but the cause of mercy for the weak unable to speak or defend themselves.

Finally, if you have trouble writing these petitions, you have options.  Use the General Prayer but break it up in petition form to allow congregational response.  Use the petitions put out by the Commission on Worship -- they are generally very fine.  Remember that these prayers are instructional for the people as well as the prayers of the assembly -- they ought to inspire and inform the prayer life of the individuals even as they reflect the prayerful concerns of the gathering of God's people around the Word and Table of the Lord this day....

All Saints Musings

I could not help but watch as B16 canonized John Henry Newman.  It is fascinating to me what machinery is at work in this long process.  The Church, under the aegis of the Pope, recognizes certain steps in the beatification process until finally it is complete and the person declared a saint of God.  I have no particular issue with Newman, per se.  I simply find it very strange -- this whole canonization methodology.  I guess if that is the way Rome wishes to define it and to accomplish it, well, okay.  It is their choice.  But I cannot help but think that something is obscured in this process which should be central to it all.

Saints may be declared by the Church but saints are made by God.  Here on earth a hierarchy of saints may be evident and there are those who stand out from the crowd, so to speak.  Even Lutherans acknowledge the Biblical saints as something set apart if not set above others whom God would call His own and declare righteous in Christ.  Certainly the Church and Christians need heros, heroic figures in whom the grace of God was clearly at work and who faithfully endured struggle beyond measure.  I do not argue that point and in fact believe that the Church suffers today from a lack of knowledge of the stories of the saints of old and so we are weaker and more prone to question ourselves and God because of this lack.  It is just that this process of canonization means that the focus seems to be more on the individual than on God.

We have a practice in the All Saints liturgy (this year Nov. 7) in which we stop for silence and then allow the people in the parish to name before the Lord those "saints" whom they hold dearest and through whom they learned the faith.  It is by nature a very emotional moment.  I speak aloud those who have received Christian burial since the last All Saints and then come the often halting, emotion filled names from the congregation.  For some it is the first time they have spoken aloud within the Church the names of loved ones whose recent death is still an open wound of grief.  For others the years have passed but the loss remains deep and painful.  For others the wounds have given way to a joyful thanksgiving for God having given to them these individual to know and love and who now rest from their labors in the peace of Christ.

When I think of saints, I first recall those individuals who served as mirrors of Christ's love and beacons of His light to teach me of Him.  I think of those extraordinary individuals who were largely anonymous yet whose faithfulness to Christ and loving service to His Church continue to humble me to this very day.  This year I will add one more name to the list.  Bob Knapp.  He died October 20 after a long life of more than 90 years.  Bob was a quiet man whose faithfulness and dedication made a huge impact on this young Pastor when he arrived as his first parish more than 30 years ago.  As far as I know there was no obituary but the impact of his life is measured in more than words.  Two days before his death I spoke with him for about 15 minutes when he was a patient in the critical care unit of the local hospital.  He was the same man I met so long ago.  His conversation was about my family, our favorite but now sainted Mary Schellhorn, and the Church.  And so it was for his life... family, friends in Christ, and the Church.  His life begun in baptism came to its completion and he was received into the arms of His blessed Redeemer.  This is what it means to be a saint, called by God, marked as His own in baptism, nurtured at the Table of the Lord, instructed by His Word, and declared His own for now and for all eternity...

So, I am glad that Lutherans never invented any mechanism to make or declare saints.  Better to let that to God, I think.  We each recognize those saints whose own lives intersected with ours and in whom we saw the light and felt the love of Christ.  At the All Saints liturgy this year, I will join those who speak out loud the names of the saints through whom God worked in our own lives... with faltering voice and emotional heart... Bob Knapp... For such a great cloud of witnesses, what can we say but Te Deum Laudamus!!