Just about done for now. . .

I have been hold away reading the lectionary, reading commentaries, searching hymns, and writing sermon outlines.  It is the annual post-Christmas time I set aside to outline my sermons for the next months (now complete through September), to pick out the hymns for the service (helped by CPH and the LCMS Commission on Worship and their fine support materials for LSB but also helped by the fact that I read hymn stanzas as part of my daily prayers).

I write it all out in long hand, on narrow spaced white legal pads, with a fountain pen.  I write out an introduction, an outline with notes for specific phrases or sentences I want to include, and write out a conclusion for each sermon.  As the weeks get closer to the due date, I flesh it out, refine it, write it out in full, and then on Monday of the week before, I complete the outline and send it to the Secretary for the bulletin and continue to edit until Thursday when I let it sit until early Sunday morning.  Then I hit print and read it through a half dozen times before first service and then preach it.

I do not consider myself a great preacher but I find that unless I tie myself to some discipline about sermons, they tend to sound too much alike (as if you had the same sentences but with different subjects and objects).  So about 27 years ago, I hit on this and it has proven to be a good discipline for me.  I think it has helped me improve my craft.  I read a lot of sermons.  I especially like to read the kind of sermons which are not really preachable (I suppose, for example, that Helmut Thielicke did preach his sermons, such as The Waiting Father, for example, but they read better than they preach).  I do not try to write like or even preach like others, although I do soak stuff in and it does affect me.

It is remarkable to me how appropriate the lectionary texts are to what ever comes along in the news -- in 1999 a tornado devastated the downtown of this community and I was so preoccupied by the disaster that when Sunday morning came along I looked down and found the sermon was about the providence of God when things happen that cannot be predicted, explained, or prevented.  I ended up changing one hymn (the last one) and it was as if I had written this sermon for this occasion.  I heartily recommend lectionary preaching and do not use free texts (nor do I appreciate it when preachers have me listen to one set of lessons and sing hymns appropriate to those pericopes and then stand up in the pulpit and read off another radically different text and proceed to preach on it... I consider it false advertising or bait and switch...).

I have written sermons for publication but find it hard to prepare a sermon for two years from now and to write for an unknown congregation of people without any idea what they might be facing... Some can do it, I am not so sure it is for me.  Plus, I have had mixed experiences with Doctrinal Review -- sometimes people make stylistic changes in Doctrinal Review instead of sticking with whether or not the writer got the doctrine right).  Oh, well... better than wondering if the book or sermon or whatever you buy is some outlandish fringe stuff or solidly Lutheran material.  I personally prefer to know up front that something has been reviewed for content rather than spend $25 on a book that I wish I had never read in the first place; Doctrinal Review does not make it all better but it gives you a certain confidence about what you are buying.  Have to give kudos to CPH for putting out some rather amazing stuff the last 6-8 years in particular.

Just thought I would give you an update on what I have been doing. . .  BTW, I must confess here that not all my posts are written when posted.  I do keep a store of some ready to go in case the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak and the mind is numb... Just to be honest....

Regret and Repentance

Regret is not exclusively a Christian emotion and, some argue, is not necessarily Christian at all.  We spend a lot of time with our own regrets and we look for signs of regret from others in order to determine if, indeed, they should be forgiven of their wrongs toward us.  I must admit that I am not much of a fan of regret.  I know of many times when I have regretted something but not because it was wrong.  My regret is motivated more by my frustration at the outcome of my flawed decision or poor choice.  My regret is not virtuous at all but really rather self-serving.  I regret hitting my thumb with the hammer because it caused me pain -- regret does not mean that I have dealt with my failings as a carpenter.

Sadly Christians have jumped upon the regret bandwagon along with the world around us.  We feel better about the terrible things people do if we sense in them a genuine sense of regret.  The senseless violence of a Timothy McVeigh or, more recently, Jared Lee Loughner, would be easier to deal with if we heard them express regret over their murderous ways.  In courtrooms, a sentence is often contingent upon regret shown by the perpetrator.  Indeed the ability to show regret or remorse is often tied to a conclusion that the individual was "sane" when he or she is charged with some crime (heinous or ordinary).  So often we look for this regret or remorse before we are willing to forgive people their hurtful words or actions against us.  It has become for Christians an essential ingredient to repentance.

After being turned on to a discussion and, in particular, Tomáš Halík’s book Patience with God is an extended meditation on Luke’s account of the conversion of Zacchaeus, I find this preoccupation with regret to be most unhelpful in understanding repentance or dealing with the call of Jesus to forgive others as He has forgiven us.  The author spends some time dealing extensively with the Biblical text and possible scenarios surrounding it and comes to the unmistakable conclusion that regret or remorse seems completely absent from Zacchaeus's repentance.  Indeed, it seems he was never "convicted of [his] sins at an evangelistic meeting and cry out for forgiveness, or experience protracted anguish of soul that was then relieved by finally hearing and accepting the gospel..."  He did not pray the sinner's prayer or languish on the anxious bench or even cry out for mercy in the torment of his guilty conscience.  He did not tell the story of his terrible past or point to a moment when it all came crumbling down upon him until he turned his life over to Jesus for redemption.

This got me thinking.  Page back to the prodigal and you find a similar absence of the kind of regret and remorse with which we are preoccupied today.  The condition of the prodigal had caused him to reflect upon his situation and when he stared at the food of the pigs he was slopping, it led him to a remarkably self-serving conclusion.  How many of my father's hired hands are well fed and here I am starving.  Why, I will go back to my father and tell him the words he has longed to hear -- "I was wrong; I am sorry; I am a jerk.  Let me be like one of your hired hands, okay?"  A certainly accurate assessment of his circumstance but hardly the kind of thoughtful and heartfelt remorse and regret we would hope to find.

So he headed off "home" and his father embraced him long before he had a chance to perform his well-rehearsed speech.  There is no record of a response from the waiting father in this parable -- except the directions to the servant to wash him up, clothe him, and feed him as the son he was born to be.  Again, the focus is less on the marks of his repentance than on the generous heart of the father whose welcome was more than the son deserved and, apparently, more than he expected.

Halik observes: In Luke’s account of Zacchaeus’ conversion there is no mention of contrition in the sense of “feelings of penitence” that so many homilies and pious writings have tried so fervently to foster. Zacchaeus does not agonize: when he talks about giving half of his property to the poor and compensating those he cheated fourfold, it is due to the euphoria he feels at the presence of Jesus in his home. He acts more like the man in Jesus’ parable who found a treasure hidden in a field and in his elation sold everything in order to buy the field and thus acquire his rare find. (p.183)

Again, the central emotion of the stories of repentance from Jesus is the sense of joy -- even celebration.  We do not hear so much of a tortured soul, the anguish over past failings, the angst over what will happen to the guilty, the fear of punishment, or fateful promises of never again, never again.  Could it be that we have so shifted the focus of repentance from the one forgiving to the one who needs forgiveness that we have distanced ourselves completely from the stories and parables Luke records?  Could it be that we have confused the ordinary human emotion of regret or remorse with the repentance only the Spirit can work in the heart of the sinner?   Could it be that sin only becomes clear in our eyes when it stands in stark contrast to mercy?  Ahhhh, something to think about here...

What's in a name?

A while ago there was a push for the Missouri Synod to change its name from The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.  Perhaps that it still on the agenda of some.  It may be that all our work at restructuring will postpone this discussion.  I don't know.  I have no real issue with keeping or changing the name.  But if we are going to change it, I vote something radically traditional.  The Evangelical Catholic Church of the Augsburg Confession (ECCAC or eekack, to pronounce the acronym).  I am sure people will agree with me on the eloquence and authenticity of this name and I am so sure that it will be the top choice that I am already changing my business cards to reflect the new name of this old Synod.  (Don't quote me on this.)

Just a short time ago we celebrate the Circumcision and Name of Jesus.  God gave Jesus a name.  The only real problem is that God did not name His Son Jesus.  We kinda messed up that one.  It is shocking to us that God would name His Son with an ordinary and common name -- surely He would deserve something exclusive and unique!  But He didn't.

Because it is so compact, I simply quote the Wiki paragraph on the name of Jesus:  Jesus" (pronounced /ˈdʒiːzəs/) is a transliteration, occurring in a number of languages and based on the Latin Iesus, of the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs), itself a Hellenisation of the Hebrew יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Yĕhōšuă‘, Joshua) or Hebrew-Aramaic יֵשׁוּעַ (Yēšûă‘), meaning "Yahweh delivers (or rescues)".^[39][40][41] "Christ" (pronounced /ˈkraɪst/) is a title derived from the Greek Χριστός (Christós), meaning the "Anointed One", a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Messiah).^{[42][43]:274-275.} 

You can follow the links there if you want to know more... The truth is that the name Jesus has about as strange and etymology as does the strange names that began with a recognizable one but have been customized by the parents to make their kid unique and different. The only real difference is that what we did to the name Jesus was not intended by God when He spoke to Joseph about the name He had in mind for His Son and what the parents do to their children's names is intentional.  Ah, well, I digress.

Now it seems that the Pope has warned parents against giving children celebrity-inspired names and urged them to turn to the Bible for inspiration instead. You can read all about it HERE.  I once heard a story on NPR about an American woman who gave birth in Germany but had trouble registering the birth because she had chosen a non-traditional name and the Germans have name police that prevents this.  I do not know how true this is but being half German and living around full Germans for much of my life, my experience finds this a credible story.  So the Pope is German and maybe he comes by this idea naturally.  Ah, well, I digress again.

My point here is that names do not have meaning because we attach meaning to them.  Names have meaning because they are the means by which we are connected to our culture, to society, and, even, to God.  When we try and be cute or weird with the naming of our children, it represents a desire to set them apart when the very purpose of a name is to connect.  God gave His name to Moses and this unspeakable name became the trust of a people to follow God's appointed leader to the land of promise.  Jesus is given a name because that name means something and Jesus will fulfill the meaning of that name -- He will save His people from their sins.  We would do well to remember that names do not belong to the individual who wears them but to the people who speak those names, who identify you, and who use that name to connect and relate to you.

As a Pastor I have baptized some folks with, well, very different names.  I have mangled the pronunciation of some very strange made up names and I have spoken these names over the children almost as a question more than a statement because I could not believe that somebody was actually going to saddle their child with this name -- for life.  I cannot tell you (in polite company) how awful and vulgar the names are that some folks have either deliberately or unwittingly given their children.  See me later about a couple of those stories...  And now, since I am old and crotchety, I break my silence and plead with parents to step back and think before you give your child a normal name with an abnormal spelling or an abnormal name with a normal spelling.  As St. Paul reminds us, all things may be possible but not all things are beneficial.

You may not like the Pope, a lot of Lutherans don't, but read what he said.  He has got a point.  It is time to end the madness and give our children solid, sturdy names that connect them and do not cause them to stick out.  Names are means of connecting and should not be used as a means of separating.

PS... I have no earthly idea how and where my parents came up with the name "Larry."  I had perfectly wonderful family names on both sides to choose from (Eric, Wilmer, Wilhelm, Herman, etc...) but my parents came up with Larry (not Lawrence, Laurence, Lorenz, but simply Larry).  My brother fared equally in getting a surprise name.  But at least both names are part of the ordinary body of names that are known and recognizable.  I will not even begin to explain my middle name nor give it to you here.  Suffice it to say that the angst over names I have expressed here is not theoretical but practical.

Who should, may or may not assist the Pastor?

On a variety of forums out there you can find Lutheran discussions about whether or not there can be or should be assisting ministers who are not ordained.  The Missouri Synod Lutheran perspective is broad and nuanced.  I have heard of Pastors who turn almost all of the liturgy and even the distribution over the lay assistants and they concentrate on the sermon and "prayer time" with people who want to meet with the Pastor in this way (during the distribution).  I have heard of LCMS congregations when no distinction is made between the role of men and women in the chancel. I know of many Pastors and congregations who restrict the role of assisting minister to "elders" (a peculiarly Missouri Synod lay office within the congregation of men -- and some with women -- who assist the Pastor in various aspects of his duties).  This is perhaps the largest group.  Finally, I know of many for whom the chancel and all that goes on there (from reading the lessons to assisting with the liturgy in appropriate parts to assisting with the distribution) are the domain only of the ordained Pastor.

I am not going to argue all the points here.  You can seek out and read the various perspectives.  Google it and you will have no shortage of places to go and things to read.  Rather I want to focus on what Pr. Eric Brown has identified as a "temporary" diaconal office which is assigned to "elders."  Pastor Brown has it upon one of the things that Missouri is very good at -- we adopt temporary solutions to permanent problems.  Elders are either elected or appointed for a specific term of office and many constitutions preclude more than a couple of terms before a mandated rest from election or service as "elder."  This is not the only place where Missouri has sought a temporary solution to a more permanent problem (think "lay minister" or "deacons" who are temporarily given the responsibility for the full responsibilities of the Pastoral Office -- Word and Sacrament -- by either District or congregational assignment).

I think Pastor Brown has it upon a very good point.  We need to regularize what is a temporary solution to a more long term need.  Now, in some ways, we already do that in this parish since the assisting ministers and elders continue to function liturgically as assisting ministers or in the distribution long after they have ceased to hold official office in the congregation.  It is a permanent temporary solution -- no better than a temporary temporary solution yet one that acknowledges that the role and function are not simply temporary.

Those who would believe it is just plain wrong to have any laity (meaning non-ordained) serve liturgically in the chancel often forget the realities of many parish situations.  We have two services and a Sunday school hour on Sunday morning and can barely get it all in between 8:15 am and 12:15 pm.  We do not truncate the liturgy nor cut and paste for the sake of time.  The sermon is not shortened to a few minutes for the sake of time.  We distribute the Sacrament to some120-150 at each service.  We have a large rail and can commune at least 20 at each table.  Still in all, the time saved by the use of elders and assisting ministers is probably about 10 minutes at each service.  We use them for a very practical purpose -- we would have to begin first service at 7:30 am in order to fit all of it in without the use of elders/assisting ministers and I would be even more exhausted than normal at the end of a Sunday (that usually runs to 2-4 pm in the afternoon).

Pastor Brown's idea of making regular what is an ad hoc practice is a good one.  We should require more uniform training and in more depth, we should set apart or consecrate these individuals for this role and function, and we should expect a measure of commitment from these men.  In essence, it would be better if what we are currently doing in an ad hoc manner might be made more permanent and regular.  I am all for this and this may indeed be exactly what I will be doing.  From my perspective, this solves much of the concern that some have raised about this practice.

One final note... Some of those who object to lay service in the chancel believe that it gives a confusing witness to the folks in the pew -- who serves and why do they serve.  I guess I do not have much fear of such confusion.  Those lay assistants do wear an alb but there I am in the full eucharistic vestments.  I am the one who announces "as a called and ordained servant of Christ."  I am the one who is clearly "in charge."  The acolytes or altar servers and assisting minister sit on either side of me and are always attentive to my leading.  I preach.  I close the petitions for the prayers.  I prepare the table.  I preside at the altar.  I speak the Words of Christ that consecrate the bread and cup to be the Body and Blood of Christ as His word promises.  I distribute the host and determine who communes.  They follow me -- not only in place but follow my lead.  I give the benediction.  I do not think that there is much confusion of roles here.  They do not serve by their right but by the privilege extended by the Pastor with the consent of the congregation.  No one pushes his way into the office or the chancel or usurps authority that belongs only to the ordained.

Is it the absolute best solution?  Probably not.  I would prefer to have an assistant Pastor (ordained) and perhaps several permanent deacons (employed by the congregation at least part-time).  I would enjoy having a seminary field worker or a vicar (perhaps a vicar might be possible but not a field worker -- too far from the Seminaries).  Yet it is not as messy or lax as some would suggest.  What we need is a means of regularizing what is really rather careful practice.  And I venture to say this is not only true of my parish but of many within our Synod.  Which brings me back to the point... we need to regularize what is a temporary practice...

Ouch.... Sad but true...

The accommodation of desire...

Sometimes you find a phrase that seems to sum up things that you might take pages of words to say.  Such was the case when reading a First Things post on deciding how to define marriage.  Kevin Staley-Joyce definitely got it in this single phrase.  It describes a whole lot of things -- not simply the debate over how to define marriage and family but the whole nature by which our culture approaches religion and life.  But for a Pastor, this single sentence seems to sum up exactly the descent of Adam and Eve in the Garden and the resulting impact of original sin upon the mind, heart, and nature of humanity ever since.

Now to be sure, there have been times when institutions within the culture -- religious and non -- have attempted to reign in this accommodation of desire.  Duty, virtue, responsibility, self-control, higher allegiance, etc., are all attempts to steer us away from what comes naturally (since the Fall) and move us toward the righteousness that the Law can work -- the civil righteousness that reigns in desire out of fear of exposure, guilt, condemnation, and punishment.  More than this, there is a part of us, distorted and broken to be sure, but still a part of us that knows that desire is not trustworthy, it does not ennoble us, and it can reduce us to what is base, vulgar, and crass.  This gift of God is His voice that speaks through our conscience so that we might know, even in our fallen state, that what we want, what we feel, and what burns within us is not all good.

In the sphere of Christianity, sin has become somewhat less than a hot topic.  Preachers seem to speak more of unrealized desire than of original sin that has crippled our nature and the willful and accidental sin that has kept us from what God had created us to be.  We find ourselves bombarded by worship and preaching that accommodates this desire, honors it, and even glorifies it.  The old Army slogan "be all that you can be" has become the enticement used by more and more Christian preachers and churches to pack them in and make them happy.

But accommodation of or to our desires can only compound the wrong, further alienate us from the God who made us and the place and purpose He meant for us.  It has the ability to steal community from us and isolate us within the confines of those desires so that the good we know and seek is only that which is good for us.  God made us to know community -- to live in fellowship with Him and in fellowship with one another -- but our desires break this fellowship and leave us so terribly lonely that we end up in desperation, on paths of self-destruction. 

What we need is not accommodation of and to desire but the courage to face up to the desires within us, to confront them for what they are, and the grace of God to confess them with repentance and faith.  What we need are voices who will expose these desires and expose the hearts from which they come so that we might embrace the remedy which God has provided through the gift of His own Son as our Savior and Redeemer.

In catechism class, I often tell pre-teens and teens that the least reliable voice they hear is their own voice.  This is the voice of unbridled desire, pumped up by raging hormones, set free by a culture in which few absolutes define right and wrong, and fed by a constant diet of media that cater to what us vulgar, crude, and base in us and our culture.  They need to listen to the voices of parents and Sunday school teachers and Pastors and Christians who have learned from painful experience the deceit that comes from within and can help them follow the external light of the Word and Sacraments.

What I say to those catechumens, I say to adults and to the culture at large.  Do not assume that because the voice comes from within, this voice is trustworthy and it will lead you on the right path.  Test the spirits.  Discern the heart.  Square what is within with what is without -- namely the Word of God.  We have always had this voice calling us.  In the past various means within the religious institutions and the institutions of our society sought to dull this voice and challenge it with the voice of the Law.  Within the Church we have heard the new voice of Christ who transforms the mind and is the source of all within the heart reborn in baptism, by the power of the Spirit.  Christians need to be ever more diligent today lest we turn faith into a mirror of those desires and its voice into an echo of the voice within that got us where we are.  Christians need to be ever more bold in speaking the truth in love, both Law and Gospel, so that the God-given remedy for this affliction may grant healing to our sin-sickened souls and lives.

What a powerful phrase.... the accommodation of desire...

If you are a history nut or interested in the empires that touch Bible history....

I cannot speak highly enough about this tool that puts together a time-line and an evolving map of the Mediterranean to show the various empires and the dates of their existence from thousands of year before Christ to the modern day era.

To those from my parish, this is the link I was hawking at Bible Study today... Check it out... way cool, way informative, and way to go...

Click HERE to find it all...

Baptism -- Private or Public

In my first parish I made a significant change in that baptisms were no longer scheduled outside the Divine Service (except for very good reason).  I got some flack for it.  The folks had grown accustomed to baptism as a private service for family and the congregation had gotten used to not seeing baptisms (and not having to add anything to the length of the service for adding the baptismal liturgy).

I made the same decision in this parish.  Baptisms are normally scheduled for the Divine Service (generally the late service since folks in the baptismal party like to have an extra hour or so to get everything together).  There was some flak about it at first and some folks who did not like the extra 8-10 minutes it added on to the liturgy but the folks gradually got used to it.

I have also baptized in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit and even in the Delivery Room.  These are extraordinary situations and most often accompanied by the public blessing of the baptized within the Divine Service.  I do not hesitate to do this and this is not in conflict with the ordinary practice of baptizing within the Divine Service.

In our church body, this is a practice which has been all over the page.  On vicarage the baptisms were never scheduled for the Divine Service (we had three on Sunday morning, one on Saturday afternoon, and one on Wednesday evening).  There are some who have strong feelings about this and any discussion about it can often turn into fighting words.  I am not drawing that kind of line in the sand.  I just believe that baptism is best a public act, a congregational act, and that it belongs within the Divine Service. 

When this cannot happen, then I made ajustments.  For example, I have had military dads who are deployed and are back in town for only the week day and have acceded to their request for a baptism outside the Divine Service.  I am not an ogre without compassion.  I just think that it is best for the people in the pew on Sunday morning to witness the parish baptisms and I find their own sense of themselves as the baptized people of God is strengthened by scheduling the baptismal liturgy within the Divine Service.  Finally I believe that the baptismal liturgy is itself a great teaching instrument and that merely by watching and listening, our people are educated in the faith and instructed in one of the most important doctrines of our faith.

In Luther's day public baptisms were rather rare (at least within the Divine Service).  Growing up, I did not see very many baptisms and I know men who came to seminary and had only ever seen one or two baptisms in their entire lives.  This strikes me as odd.  We need to see the invitation of the font extended and the miracle and mystery of its new birth reach out through time and eternity to claim an infant, a child, a youth, or an adult for the Kingdom.  This is a good thing, something to be celebrated, and a wonderful occasion to be lived out in the life of the congregation.

Since today is the Baptism of Our Lord, we will have an opportunity to dip our fingers into the font and recall our own baptism into Christ.  And we will witness a child received into God's kingdom through that blessed gift of water and the Word (at least at the 10:45 service).  All of this a strong and powerful reminder that baptism is a central part of our faith, our piety, and our common life together as Christians...

What is our policy on canceling church?

I looked our my window just now only to see a dusting of snow and I know that there are already people who are thinking... "Hmmmm, I guess we won't be going to church tomorrow."   It is funny how big a $20 seems when you drop it in the plate and how bad the weather looks when you really do not want to go somewhere.  Newer folks wonder if we contact the news channels to let them know we will not be holding church today or if there is a system of letting people know if worship or events will go one even when the weather seems, well, iffy.

I have been a Pastor for more than 30 years and have never canceled a worship service.  I have always been able to make it and some have also found a way to be there -- in ice and snow as well as other weather conditions. I was asked once why our congregation does NOT have a cancellation policy.  Well, first of all, we are not in the snow belt so we seldom have real snowfall -- some dustings of snow are common and sleet and even ice somewhat common but hardly ever do we get a real full-fledged blizzard.  Now you would not know this since the congregations of my community routinely close for almost any threat of bad weather.  The school system closes when the weather report suggests the prospect of bad weather.  But we do not close.  We ask our folks to use their best judgment and we promise them that if they get to the Church, the worship of the congregation will be going on as scheduled.

The funny thing is that I have often found Wal-Mart packed, Kroger a buzz with people, and even a ton of cars in the parking lot of the Mall -- on those days when ice or snow has created a "weather advisory."  Now, far be it from me to tell folks when to drive and when not to, but it does raise a question of why certain weather conditions automatically make you wonder about whether or not church should be held yet you would venture out in the same weather to go to work, head out shopping, or make it to the movie theater.  BTW the movie theater never cancels or closes, either.

I know that what we do here is not always transportable to other parts of the country.  Our weather conditions are not the same.  It worked in the Catskill Mountains of New York, however.  On one Christmas morning when I was sure that we had received enough snow to discourage folks from coming to church, I was sitting in the living room drinking my coffee in my bathrobe while our kids were playing with their toys and looked out the rectory window only to see a car full of church folks plow through the snow on their way to church.  We rushed to get ready and make our way up the long lane to the church building and I think we had a dozen or two folks who felt that Christmas Day they should be in God's House.  I laugh at myself for being a doubter on that occasion instead of a true believer.

We need more folks who are true believers in the priority of worship.  Not every little sniffle, cough, or ache should be used as an excuse for NOT being together in the Lord's house.  Neither should we look out the window in the morning for a weather related reason to justify our desire to stay at home.  Now it is true that not everyone will make the same decision in circumstances of health or weather that is not optimal, but that is okay.  As long as our hearts burn to be together in the Lord's House on the Lord's Day, around the :Lord's Word and the Lord's Table... for this is where we find the source and the summit of our Christian lives -- together as a congregation and individually as God's People.

Heading Up North

In a week we will be packing up and heading to Fort Wayne for a lovely sojourn in the cold (compared to Tennessee) for the annual Symposia -- Confessional topics, Exegetical papers, and Liturgical discourse with a wonderful schedule of prayer offices, a delightful banquet, and a ton of conversations with friends old and new.  If you are going, I hope to see you there.  It has become a January tradition in this household and I am looking forward to time off (that is time away)... Even if it is not in some warm, tropical setting.  If you have not yet decided, you still have time to register.

Lutherans in Congress

The 112th Congress, 2011-2012 includes 26 Lutherans: 11Democrats and 15 Republicans.  Fifteen are ELCA, the majority of the rest are Missouri Synod and a few Wisconsin Synod folks thrown in for good measure.

Not much newsy there.  What is interesting is that there continue to be proportionately more Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians in Congress than you find in the general population and significantly less Baptists and Pentecostals in Congress than in the general population.  Then there is the out sized slice of Jews in Congress -- way more proportionately than you find in the general population!

Some 42 Republicans and 16 Democrats are listed simply as Protestants -- whatever that means.  Often it means that they consider themselves Christians but remain unaffiliated with any denomination or congregation.

But I would like another statistic -- one I will probably never see.  How many of them attend worship and how often... Now that would be interesting, for sure!

Pray Without Ceasing

He prays without ceasing who joins his works to his prayer and prayer to his works...   Who do you suppose said that?  Origen said it on the writing called "Prayer" from the Ancient Christian Writers volume.  He makes a good point.  Prayer without ceasing is impossible for us unless such prayer takes the form of our works and our works take the form of prayer.  It is an impossible burden to pray without ceasing.  Try praying continuously for 10 minutes.  I find that my mind races from thought to thought and before I know it prayer has ended and I am just thinking, free thinking.  But, of course, this too is prayer.  When you read the Scriptures and find your mind skipping from text to text and thought to thought, this is how Scripture works.  It is not some static text that is repeated like a mantra but the living Word that engages us body, soul, and mind.

I once thought it was a terrible thing that our minds worked the way they do.  People would tell me how hard it is to remain fully focused upon the liturgy and how easy it was for their minds and hearts to run like racehorses from text to text, thought to thought.  They would ask me how to control their minds and hearts, which seemed to have a life of their own they could not compel.  I had no answer.  Now I am beginning to see that this is how it is -- how it is supposed to be, I do not know, but I know that this is indeed how it is.  Our minds and hearts are not like records which deep grooves that keep cycling through the same thing over and over again.  When that happens it is more a sign that something is wrong rather than something is right.  We move and move and move in thought and feeling.  You can no more compel your mind and heart to stop dancing through things in this way than you can compel yourself to be intelligent or moral. 

To pray without ceasing is not some impossible dream of time that slips away as our minds and hearts remain fixed in focus upon one thought.  To pray without ceasing is the joining of prayer to works and works done prayerfully so that all we are and all we do comes together and is lifted in Christ to the Father.  In this respect, prayer leads us not away from work but into the work of the Church and Christ's work and the work of the Church and Christ's work lead us back into prayer.  It is a marvelous cycle of words and actions, thoughts and deeds.

I think it was Augustine who said "Pray as if everything depended upon God and work as if everything depended upon you..."  Perhaps he inspired Jeremy Taylor who said, "Work as if you were to live a hundred years. Pray as if you were to die tomorrow..."  And I cannot recall who said "do not pray for something you are not willing to work for and do not work for something you would be ashamed to pray for..."  In all of these it is never a matter of choosing one or the other.  It is through works offered to God prayerfully and prayers lived out in our works that we understand how it is that prayer is continuous and not simply an isolated petition here and there in an otherwise distracted life.

For a long time I lamented the way my heart and mind could not be compelled by the force of my will to be still.  Now I have come to see that such stillness is an unattainable reality for mortal flesh and blood.  Better to see prayer as extending into the realm of one's words and works and one's words and works becoming prayer so that we can say truthfully and without pride that we truly do pray without ceasing.

Imparting Religious Information But Leaving Our Kids Unchurched

Every congregation has folks who make sure their kids are in Sunday school or catechism classes but who are regularly and routinely absent from worship.  It is a difficult reality which is sometimes shaped by the parents own unchurched perspective but it might also be due to divorce and custody issues or youth sports leagues or a dozen other reasons.  There is no one easy way to deal with this all yet I think we must begin by facing up to the fact that imparting religious information is not necessarily doing our kids a favor when we also leave them unchurched.

By unchurched I mean those who have an identity separate from an identity as a baptized member of the Church, who are not a regular member of the worshiping congregation, and whose faith is not nurtured by the life together around the Word and Table of the Lord.  I am not saying whether or not they may be Christians -- that is not for me to decide.  But I echo Luther's fear that persistent absence from worship, preaching, and the Table of the Lord leads to no other conclusion than the absent despise the Sacrament and are not Christian.

My point is that for a long time we have focused on personal faith more than on bringing folks into the life of the Church and having an identity as a baptized member of the Body of Christ.  Some of us do this by emphasizing Christian experience.  Whether pentecostal or decision oriented, some have attempted to arrange an experience of Christ or the Spirit -- or at least set up an arena where such experience might be expected to take place.  Some of us do this by emphasizing knowledge.  Whether the old pattern of memorization of Bible passages and the Catechism or knowledge of truth propositions that must be believed in order to be Christian, some have worked to Christianize the person by imparting a certain set of truths and have expected that consent to this dogmatic canon is what makes a person Christian.  Some of us do this by emphasizing moral behavior and a changed lifestyle as evidence that Christianity has taken hold.  Whether this is living in distinction from the world through, for example, abstinence from drinking or sex outside of marriage or the outward behavioral change of goodness, love, and compassion, some have suggested that faith is evidenced by what you see in a person's life.

I would suggest that for Lutheran Christians, we bring people into the Church less by imparting religious knowledge than by leading them into active participation in the worship life of the congregation.  Lutherans are not so much theoretical people as we are practical.  Faith is confessed within the liturgical assembly and faith is formed and nurtured in that same liturgical assembly (through the means of grace).  We do not make Lutherans by imparting religious information nor do we make Lutherans by having a shared experience.  Lutheran piety is not shaped by certain behavioral changes but in the absolution, at the pulpit, and at the table of the Lord.  We are doing our children (and adult converts) a disservice if we impart religious information (as good and needful as this is as a component of discipleship) but fail to connect them to a specific baptized people where faith is confessed, the Scriptures taught and applied, sins forgiven, and the Eucharist is the source and summit of their piety.

You can bring your kids to Sunday school and catechism and make sure they are confirmed and yet you have left them unchurched.  They have the information but not the culture and life of the Church gathered around the Word and Sacraments.  Their faith will be crippled because it is not tied to a place and a people in which and among whom the Word and Table of the Lord impart divine grace, forgive sins, restore the fallen, uplift the sorrowful, sustain the weary, calm the fearful, address dying with the Word of life, and feed the hungry with the body and blood of Christ.  They will always feel on the outside of the Church, as if they have the secret information necessary to open a door but once it is open, what is inside turns out to be foreign and strange to them.  They view God at a distance because the religious information supplied to them does not have a practical outlet -- our life together around the Word and Table of the Lord. 

I remember Archbishop Fulton Sheen saying Two glasses that are empty cannot fill up one another.  The parents who are functionally unchurched cannot help their children to be churched without themselves being filled and nourished in the means of grace.


The first and most important duty of parents is to bring their children to the House of the Lord, to prepare them for their place at the Table of the Lord, and to model their own faith in a life of prayer, forgiveness, and love.  Perhaps the reason we are losing so many folks (youth and adults) is that we have imparted all the information but left them unattached to the Word and Table of the Lord, separate from the community of the baptized gathered weekly at His bidding to receive His grace.  Naturally this is not the only thing.  Religious information must be imparted and the life of the Lord's Table extended in the way we forgive one another, serve one another in love, and pray together as one people in Christ -- even in our homes.  But these flow from our life together around the Word and Table of the Lord and not the other way around.

Just some thoughts after teaching catechism to a full room of kids -- some churched and some who get the information but do not have a clue for what purpose this information is given or what it has to do with their lives (the unchurched). . .

Pastors and Taxes

Reported from the Internet:

As tax time begins, church legal expert Richard Hammar warns ministers, pastors and clerics to be mindful of a legal battle that has strong financial implications on their personal and church taxes in 2011.  In the January 2011 issue of Church Law & Tax Report, Hammar highlights tax developments, drawing special attention to a California court case that threatens to extinguish a federal tax break which dates back to 1954, the parsonage exemption.

Many churches give their pastors and ministers an allowance to help ease housing-related expenses, such utility bills, repair and yard work costs. The parsonage exemption allows ministers to receive this money free of any federal, and in parts of the country, state taxes.  However, a lawsuit set for trial in 2011 threatens the constitutionality of sections 107 and 265(1)(6) of the federal tax code, which establishes the housing allowance for ministers.  Atheist group Freedom from Religion Foundation filed the federal lawsuit in 2009. The group asserts the unique benefit set aside especially for “ministers of the gospel” is a violation of separation of church and state.  The FFRF cites the 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock to assert that tax benefits given only to religious institutions violate the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.

FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor states in a 2009 press release that the benefit is unfair to those who are not religious ministers.  "All other taxpayers pay more because clergy receive this privileged benefit," she proclaimed.

Ahhh yes.  Those Pastors don't pay their fair share of taxes.  For those of you who might wonder about this, the "benefit" was given to clergy at the same time it was given to military and since it was new to the military, the Congress used America's good will toward clergy to help get this measure passed for members of the armed services who receive a "housing allowance." Now about this great benefit.  Pastors must keep meticulous records of every penny spent on housing to justify exclusion of any amount of income from federal income tax -- every time you buy a bottle of furniture polish or a can of paint or a box of nails.  That is a lot of bookkeeping for a few hundred dollars a year.

Pastors, however, receive no such relief from the Social Security Self-Employment Tax.  Since Congress considers clergy self-employed for tax purposes, churches do not withhold FICA from their checks nor do they match the employee contribution.  Instead, Pastors pay this whole thing themselves -- 15.3% of every kind of income from their paychecks to the housing allowance to the honorariums from funerals and weddings to the Christmas gift (anything valued at over $25).  This amounts to a much greater cost to the Pastor than the value of the housing benefit.  I, for one, would gladly exchange this "benefit" to not have to do the bookkeeping and not have to pay my whole FICA bill myself.  Maybe others feel differently, but that's where I come down on this so-called violation of church and state and great privilege given to members of the clergy.

Offering Plates Have Not Been Around Forever

As instrumentalists play or a soloist sings, as ushers file slowly down the aisles, congregants give money as an act of worship and to support the ministry of the church. If the people don't give, then the pastor goes unpaid, the building never gets built, and the missionaries stay home. When Christians go to church, most expect the collection of an offering as much as they expect preaching, singing, and prayer. Unlike preaching, singing, and prayer, however, the weekly offering did not become a fixture in American worship services until the late 19th century.

Colonial American churches did not depend on voluntary, weekly giving from their members. Instead, as had been the case in Europe, the government established churches, sanctioning certain congregations and supporting them financially. Most New England colonies established Congregational churches, while the Southern colonies along with New York, New Jersey, and Maryland established the Anglican Church. Most of the colonies could not imagine a state without an established church. A prosperous society depended on having citizens of good character, and the people expected churches to create virtuous citizens. Since churches served the public good, it made sense to fund them through public taxes and fees—such as poll and property taxes—rather than voluntary offerings.

Public funding of American churches did not cease immediately after the American Revolution. While the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibited Congress from establishing a national church, the states still supported churches through taxes. In the years following the Revolution, men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Leland fought against religious establishment in Virginia. Isaac Backus and other Baptist ministers led the charge in New England. Only in 1833, when Massachusetts rescinded its religious tax, was every state church in the Union officially disestablished. 

-  You can read the rest of the article HERE. . . 

Christianity History offers an interesting review of the offering plate. . .

From then on, churches in America have tried pew rent, pledges, assessments, free-will offerings, tithes, guilt, inspiration, and fund raising to finance the work of the Kingdom.  It is a sorry history of begging in the Name of the Lord and it remains to me one of the saddest things Pastors and congregational leaders must do -- ask people for money.  (Look at the picture... a couple of singles and a fiver... oh, yea, that'll by a lot of ministry!!)

While we assume the offering plate has been around forever, it has not.  Some churches do not have offering plates and do not take time to pass them around on Sunday morning.  They have alms boxes or offering slots and people put their tithes and offerings in them on their way into the sanctuary.  One Roman Catholic congregation was robbed but the thieves did not get the plates -- they do not use them -- the thieves ripped out the alms boxes and offering "kiosks" in the narthex.

The passing of the plate is on the verge of being challenged by "on-line giving" (which you can do here at Grace Lutheran Church by going to this secure web page and supporting God's work in this place from the privacy of your own home -- shameless plug).  This has become not an option but a necessity as more and more folks use debit cards or credit cards only and neither carry cash nor write out paper checks anymore.

One of the great things about Constantine and the status of "official religion of the empire" that followed was that he and his successors opened the treasury of the empire (and their own personal wealth) to support the Church and her work (it was never fully supported only by the Sunday offering).  Since we don't have a monarchy and since our version of nobility (the politically elite, media stars, landed gentry, and successful entrepreneurs) are not so generous (take a gander at how little Obama gives to "charity" while protesting his critics who wonder if he is Christian).

I for one wish we would go back to the tax.  That is how the tithe started out -- a God tax.  Look it up in the Old Testament.  So far as I know, Jesus never said, "Okay, now that I am here lets ditch that awful temple tax."  Instead He said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's."  St. Paul told us all that "God loveth a cheerful giver" but apparently giving is not done very cheerfully by the majority of folks in any given congregation since the IRS tells us the average family gives annually a paltry percentage of income (after taxes) somewhere around 2%.  So I vote the God tax -- no more fund raising appeals, no more guilt sessions when we don't meet the budget, no more offering envelopes, no more uncomfortable emergency calls for cash, and no more embarrassing bulletin blurbs that say how little was given last week and how much we are behind our budget... and we get to save the time it takes to pass around those plates, solemnly bring them forward, and sing about how much we really love to give (and would if we only had extra money)...

I feel better now...  I am going to sit down and write out a great stewardship sermon!!

How Maturity Is Encouraged

Recently I read something that said that maturity is encouraged and developed less by the giving of freedom than it is by the giving of responsibility.  Now there is an interesting thought.  Children look for freedom as the sign that their parents trust them or acknowledge that they have grown up.  Parents tend also to reward their children's maturity with additional freedom -- generally that means more privileges, less oversight, and expanded privacy.  In the past this may have been more benign but in this day and age it may be accompanied by more danger than opportunity.

Our children spend a great deal of time on their own and with their peers and less and less time with the family as a whole.  In part this is an unavoidable result of two income families in which parent's work schedules do not correspond to the school schedule.  Children from middle school age on up are alone for much of the day.  In my own community the school dismisses at 2:30 pm and most parents work schedules do not end until 3-4 hours later.  This leaves our kids on their own for a significant portion of the day.  They have privacy not because it is given to them but because they are alone and parents are working.  This creates a potential for great harm even more than it does provide a proving ground for responsibility.

Secondly, children do not have to leave home to get in trouble.  With the internet culture in which we live and the social networking sites that provide the primary arena for our personal relationships, our kids have privacy and opportunity without even leaving the house.  Because privacy is presumed by our kids and because not enough parents even have access to the emails or social networking sites used by their children, we have a scenario in which many children can live completely different lives on the web than their parents might recognize from the limited interaction at home.

We first put TVs in our kids rooms to prevent them from arguing over what they wanted to watch and to make it possible for adults to watch what they wanted.  This changed the bedroom from a place of sleep to a refuge or private place to separate yourself from the other members of the family.  What was once punishment ("Go to your room") has become the primary living area of modern day kids.  They are more likely to see spending time in the family room or kitchen table as punishment than their rooms.

Then we stopped eating together and our eating became the home version of fast food.  The kitchen became a place to pick up what you wanted to eat and take it with you wherever you were going.  In the end less and less family time resulted even from the ordinary routine of eating together.

Finally, we as parents felt guilty about all of this and so we compensated by reducing the level of responsibilities expected from our children and increasing our own workload at  home.  More and more of the ordinary family chores that once belonged to children were assumed by the already busy and tired parents.  Allowances that were once tied to duties around the house became less and less related to chores or household responsibilities and more and more the cash given to get the kids out of our hair for a while.

I may sound very negative here but I think it is more descriptive than condemnatory.  My point is that we did not realize what we were doing -- and we thought we were doing the right thing.  In the end, we fostered a false idea of maturity in which freedom to do as they please and privacy from others became the primary arenas in which our children saw adulthood and sought out this adulthood for themselves.  In the end we forgot that adulthood is less about freedom than about duty and responsibility, more about what you have to do than what you want to do, more about the people around you than about yourself.

If we want to encourage maturity in our children, we must change the way we see maturity and we must begin to foster and encourage them to be responsible as the highest goal and evidence of this maturity.  We must reconsider the attention given to freedom and the privacy accorded them.  We gave our kids their space and now they may resist giving back some oversight of who they are and what they do but if we do not do this, we have forsaken the most essential role and purpose of parenting.  It is something to think about...

Herods and Pharoahs cannot stop God's grace.

Sermon Preached for The Epiphany of Our Lord, Observed, on Sunday, January 2, 2011.

    Our scientific perspective often leads us to see Scripture differently than the early Christians.  We look for hard facts and historical events.  They looked for images.  Early Christians saw in the Old Testament a series of types or figures of what was to come.  From the perspective of the Old Testament these were misty and blurry but from the perspective of Christ, they were made clear.  Perhaps the most famous is Abraham and Isaac when the father is willing to offer his own son as sacrifice.  If you do not see Jesus in this story, you are missing something.  This is a type, figure, or preview of the Heavenly Father who offers His Son Jesus as sacrifice for our sins.
    As we meet the treacherous Herod and the visit of the Magi to the infant Jesus, I cannot help but be reminded of the Exodus of God's people and the Pharaoh who attempted to stand in God's way and keep God's children captive.  The Old Testament is replete with examples of how God's plan of salvation seemed to be blocked by earthly rulers and events but in every case, God's grace won the day.
    So when you think about the Gospel lesson for today, imagine the Exodus as a type or figure for what happened here.  Herod is like the new Pharaoh who holds the people captive and attempts to stand in God's way.  Jesus is the new Moses, who sets the people of God free.  My point is that we have heard it all before – those who would stand in God's way and the will of God to bring His people to freedom.  But this story is not repeated ad nauseam. What happened over and over again in the past, has now been accomplished once and for all in Christ.
    Herod the Great was a fearful, devious and evil ruler.  The Jews resented him as an Arab sitting on David's throne.  His maniacal cunning was accompanied by great aspirations and he was known as a great builder.  But he was ruthless and seemingly without a conscience.  He brutally murdered his own children and killed many enemies.  So when rumors of another pretender to the throne appeared, Herod did not hesitate to take out his competition – it didn't matter that he might be going against God.
    Herod's power was fear and God's people were as much captive to their fears as they were to the actual power of Herod, really a puppet whom Rome had placed as governor of the conquered territory of Palestine.
    Like Pharaoh of old, Herod's deviousness and cunning seemed to be an impossible roadblock to God's plan and design.  When the Magi arrived in Jerusalem and wondered where the King of the Jews would be born, Herod hatched his murderous plan to thwart the will and purpose of God.  But like Pharaoh of old, God would not be so easily dismissed nor would His saving will and purpose be compromised – no matter who opposed Him.  In Bethlehem the cries of mothers whose first born sons were murdered by Herod gave testament to his evil – but the grace of God was greater still.
    Like God appointed Moses of old to lead His people to freedom and the fulfillment of all of God's promises, so do we see in Jesus the Savior whom God has raised up to fulfill all of His promises of grace and freedom for His people held captive in their fears, sin, and death.
    Jesus is not simply a savior but the very Son of God in human flesh and blood.  Moses role as patriarch of God's people was shown by the light of his countenance coming down the mountain.  In the same way, the light of the star points us to Jesus.  This beacon of light was not simply the herald of another act of God but the signal that all time and all events looked forward to this Jesus and to His saving work.  Here is the great consummation of God's promise and the final act through which God would bring His people to freedom and to peace.  Moses foreshadowed Jesus but Jesus has outshone Moses.
    Moses began his life in the regal splendor of Pharaoh's palace but he could not do God's bidding from that vantage point.  Just as Moses had to become one with His people's captivity in order to set them free, so Jesus had to leave behind the hallowed halls of even to become one with us in our humanity.  He was born to live under the Law and to keep it for us and our salvation.  Jesus had to live as one of us, wearing our human flesh and blood, bearing the full burden of our sin and death.  Only when He had first become a captive like us, can we become free in Him.  Do not be deceived by the appearance of weakness, nothing can prevent God's gracious will from its appointed purpose.
    Herod the Great seemed invincible and it seemed the Magi had given Herod the opening to intervene and end all hope for God's salvation. But God turned what seemed to be defeat into victory, what was the appearance of the end, into a new beginning.
    As we look around us today, we find the world filled with Herods and Pharaohs who seem to be impossible barriers to God's work and purpose.  It seems like the Church is weak and powerless in the face of so many and so great a group of enemies.  But do not let the Herods and Pharaohs of this world cause you to fear.  God's grace always wins the day.
    This is no sweet little Sunday school story for kids.  When the will and purpose of God faces up against the evil and deceit of Herod, grace wins the day.  God and His Church have always faced seemingly invincible enemies who have power and opportunity.  But the enemies are never allowed to gain the last word.  God wins the day.
    So it is in our own lives.  We face Herods and Pharaohs whose earthly might and power cause us to fear and tremble.  Sometimes we fear that either God cannot or will not fight them off and we are left with only our worst fears.  But I am here to tell you that God refuses to concede any victory to His enemies and to the enemies of His people.  Grace will have the final word.  Enemies of Jesus and enemies of Jesus' people continue to rise up but they cannot prevent God's saving will and purpose.  It may not come when we choose or how we choose, but the message of Epiphany is that God will have His way.  The day of grace will not be stolen by the enemies of God's will and purpose.
    Even as a Baby in a manger, Jesus wins the day.  Herod's demonic anger can wound but cannot kill the hope that is born to reign in us in Christ.  The world and all its evils cannot steal from us what God has given us.  Do not forget this Epiphany lesson.  The Gentiles are welcomed, the Savior wins the day and even in the appearance of defeat, God's grace triumphs for you, for me, and for all His baptized children.  Amen.

The Circumcision that is no mystery. . .

Sermon for the Eve of the Circumcision and Name of Jesus, preached December 31, 2010.

    On the Eve of the Circumcision and Name of Jesus, I can't help but think of a cartoon in which a prophet responds to God by saying, "Okay, let me get this straight; you are going to give the Arabs all the oil and you want us to cut off what?" Few of us understand the wisdom of the choice of marks that God used to set apart His people.  Circumcision as God's mark of a covenant relationship is indeed a mystery to us.  But Jesus' circumcision is no mystery to us.  It is His circumcision that counts most of all for by it He takes our place under the law and fulfills all righteousness for us.
    In His circumcision, Jesus takes from all people the obligation of the Law and bestows upon us the wonderful gift of freedom.  At the cost of His own first blood shed, comes the wondrous gift of grace.  The law will not more have its way with us out of fear of the consequences of disobedience.  Rather, the people of God will learn to know the good, to delight in that good, and to do that good because God has granted them the new birth of circumcision's replacement - baptism.
    Sadly, we live with the great temptation to begin our new year not in the freedom of the Gospel but under the dominion of the law.  Resolutions to change our flawed and failed ways are nothing more than the voice of the law who thinks that we on our own have the power to change.  The resolutions of change proceed from the misconception that it is matter of will and not inability to be good, holy, and righteous.
    We are so stuck to the law that we still think that righteousness is something that can be earned, that holiness can be achieved with the right frame of mind, and that if we are rightly motivated and follow through, we can make ourselves into better people.  But this is itself a lie.
    It is the worst thing we can do to begin the new year under the Law.  Christ shed His blood in circumcision in order to take the burden of the Law from us.  By thinking that it is a matter of will and follow through, we set ourselves up for great disappointment in our failures.  By striving to make our own changes in life, we place ourselves in captivity to our worst fears – that we will screw it up again and that Christian life is an impossible task.
    The gift of God is the Gospel – the great exchange in which Jesus takes on our burden of the Law and gives to us the easy yoke of His grace.  The gift of God is the Gospel – the willingness of Jesus to be what we can never be so that the voice of the Law will be stilled and its accusation no longer condemn us.  This is why we begin the year with the first shedding of our Lord's blood.
    The year is past, like those before it.  It is not simply that we cannot go back and redo what we did wrong, for those who stand in Christ, the past is not simply over but forgiven.  Through the blood of Jesus, shed here first in His circumcision and then on the cross, His healing wounds bear upon our broken lives.
    We begin 2011 with a fresh start through forgiveness.  But this is not like the restart of a video game or a simple do-over.  The fresh start is not another opportunity to try with our own strength to become holy and righteous.  No, we begin this new year wearing the clothing of our baptism in the righteousness of Christ.  He gives us this holiness as a gift to cover the stain of our sin and to enable us to approach the future without fear and with hope.
    Just as we end 2010 under the forgiving love of God, so do we begin 2011 under the banner of His forgiveness.  We will continue to be the forgiven in all the days and weeks and months to come.  Even as this forgiveness erases the fear from our lives, it also gives us pause to learn from those failures.  We are graciously forgiven in Christ so that we might learn again that to live under the law is to set our selves up for failure but to live in grace is victory.
    So tonight we gather not to sing auld lang syne or que sera sera but "The ancient Law departs and all its fears remove for Jesus make with faithful hearts a covenant of love."   We gather not as the melancholy who are sad over what we have lost nor as the miserable who wonder how bad the future might be.  We gather to remember our lives were born again through the blood of Christ. In these first drops of blood He shed, Jesus stood in our place to carry the full burden of the Law and all its demands.  By His circumcision He has made it possible for us to begin the year in His grace and favor.  So let us give up those foolish ideas that if we just try hard enough or get more serious, we can repair what is wrong in our lives.  Instead, let us rejoice in what Jesus blood has bought us and live our lives in that freedom.  Instead of striving to become what we can never be, let us work at becoming what God has declared us to be in Christ, His holy people, redeemed by grace, for the future God has prepared for us.  Amen.

Did Pastors stop being theologians or theologians stop being Pastors?

In a great post at First Things, Gerald Hiestand talks of the great divide that has come into being between Pastors and theologians -- acknowledging that the great Pastors of the Church were also great theologians and the great theologians were also great Pastors.  You can read his posting for yourself HERE. He begins with a very provocative comment:  Pastors, not professors, should be setting the theological agenda of the church.  I have excerpted a couple of his other paragraphs.

Historically, the church’s most influential theologians were churchmen—pastors, priests, and bishops. Clerics such as Athanasius, Augustine (indeed, nearly all the church Fathers), Anselm, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Edwards, and Wesley functioned as the wider theologians of their day—shaping not only the theological vision of their own parishes, but that of the wider church. In their day, the pastoral community represented the most influential, most insightful, and most articulate body of theologians.


Who can read the fathers of the first several centuries without hearing them speak as pastoral individuals who were ever conscious of their ministry within the church setting and to the people of God?  What is more missing today except the same pastoral dimension (except for a few voices on the world scene)?

When did this happen?  Why?  Did Pastors stop being theologians?  Certainly the rise of non-seminary trained clergy among some denominations has contributed to less theological discourse.  Certainly the times are moving away from dogmatic and doctrinal conversation to the realm of feeling and experience -- more relational.  Certainly there are abundant academic resources, individuals, and works that have flooded the marketplace and many have ceded the theological enterprise to the "professionals."  But is there more?

But since the nineteenth-century (in North America, at least) the center of theological reflection has shifted from the parish to the university. The pastoral community is no longer called upon—as a matter of vocation—to construct theology for those beyond their congregations. Instead, our present context views the academy as the proper home for those with theological gifts. Those with shepherding gifts are directed toward the pastorate. And those who are gifted in both areas? Well, they’ll have to choose. But can this be right? Do we really mean to suggest that the proper home of a theologian is in the academy, disconnected from the pastoral vocation?

Wasn't it Brevard Childs who opined upon the distance between Biblical theology and preaching?  I seem to recall that he was adamant that exegetical theology and textual criticism not exist simply as an academic discipline but must relate to and be seen through the lens of the Church's witness, proclamation, and life through the Word.  Could part of this be related to historical critical methodology, to the Joseph Campbell style of seeing all religious truth as basically the same and detached from event and fact, and to the way our modern culture has replaced objective truth with subjective reality and veritas?

I think that the Missouri Synod may be somewhat removed from this debate since we have a heritage of theologically trained clergy and a seminary tradition of training Pastors who are theologians and not the other way around.  But clearly our own church body suffers from those who have abandoned the theology of things in order to adopt methods that seem to work to pack the pews and fatten the church's wallet.  We have sent many folks to places where successful and fruitful practice trumps faithful dogmatic theology such as Fuller Theological Seminary.  They have come back with many things that are foreign to our experience and vocabulary but have been adopted almost without scrutiny.  I guess you could say we know that these things are not compatible with confession so we invented the idea of separating style from substance in order to make is possible to use things we feel uncomfortable about theologically and confessionally.

The same is true of liturgical things, as well.  We have learned to leave the theological side of the brain at the door in order to use what we think will work, will get us where we want to be, and accomplish what we want done (just in case God's work through the means of grace is not as effective or as efficient as we want it to be).

I am not sure what happened first -- Pastors stopped being theologians or theologians stopped being Pastors -- but it has not been good for the parish, for the theological enterprise, or for the Church.

The Buzz About the Hand

There was, apparently, quite a stir about the change in Vatican practice on Christmas Eve.  No more would the host be distributed in the hand but only in the mouth (actually on the tongue) reverting to the more ancient practice that many thought had been fully lost after Vatican II.  According to the reports, there were actually people turned away who refused to accept the new practice and insisted upon holding out their hands to receive the Body of Christ.  Others held up the host until the communicants got the hint and dodged the ball by dropping the hand and opening the mouth.  Some have trumpeted this new, old practice.  Others lament it.  Still others, among them some Lutherans, wonder what is the big deal?

First of all, permit me a moment to gloat.  I find it utterly hilarious that Lutherans who hate all things Roman Catholic would have so quickly and joyfully adopted this practice from Rome and, especially, since Vatican II.  The same folks who choke on incense, bristle at chant,itch at vestments, gag at genuflecting, and rue ritual have adopted the "new" Roman idea of communion in the hand with nary a second thought.

Second of all, permit a curiosity.  Why is it that some folks who are so keen on not receiving from the chalice because of all those, well, you know, possible germs, choose to receive in their hand?  During the offertory I (the Pastor) go into the Sacristy and wash my hands prior to the distribution.  My hands are clean.  But where have your hands been?  Unless we all take a bathroom break in the liturgy, your hands have shared the piece, rubbed your eyes, turned the pages in the bulletin and hymnal, scratched that itch, dealt with that runny nose, and, perhaps, if you are a mom, done the same thing to all your children.  So, if you are all bent out of shape about being sanitary, why would you choose to receive the host in your hand and then put it in your mouth?  If you were really concerned about this, you would receive in the mouth from the clean hands of the Pastor. Okay, now that I got these two things out of my system, I will go on to more serious fare.

Certainly, the practice of receiving in the hand is not new. In a text of St. Cyril of Jerusalem's fifth Mystagogic Catechesis (21f), which he preached to neophytes in 348 A.D., in which he counsels the faithful to "place your left hand as the throne of your right one, which is to receive the King [in Holy Communion]."  On the other hand, not much later it appears the communion in the mouth has become the norm. Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461) is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel he speaks of Communion in the mouth as the current usage: "One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith." The Pope does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but as if this were a well established thing.

While I do not have a particular issue with communion in the hand, I do prefer a certain decorum -- one that honors the host and cup as the Body and Blood of Christ, as His Word says it is.

1. Do not pick up the host with two fingers as if you were picking a hair out of your soup.  If you are going to receive in the hand, receive in the hand and do not try to pick the host out of mid-air.
2. If you are going to receive in the hand, remember that this is the Body of Christ.  Don't plop it in the hand and then toss it in the mouth like kernels of popcorn.  Cross your hands, one over the other, and then bring both hands to your mouth and use the one to place it on your tongue.
3. If you are going to receive in the hand, then you have the perfect opportunity to respond to the Pastor who says "The Body of Christ for you" (or some other such words) with "Amen."  Yes, it is most appropriate to say "Amen" when the Body and Blood of Christ are distributed.  Faith's answer to all of God's gifts is "Amen."
4. If you are a parent, do not break off a little piece to give to little Bertha who thinks it is unfair that she does not get a snack from the Pastor.  Do not show it to you kids as if this were a teaching moment.  Let your children learn by watching you reverently receive the Body and Blood of Christ, pray in thanksgiving for His gift and for your gracious reception in faith, and acknowledge where you have been with a bow or genuflection upon leaving the altar rail.  This is the most powerful teaching you can do for your children.
5. If you have non-communing children (or adults) who have come to the rail for a blessing, have them cross their arms and hands over their chest so that those distributing know clearly who communes and who does not.  Think of how a pretzel looks and cross the arms in the same way.  Sometimes the Pastor forgets how old or how young your children may be. 

And a little decorum for those who receive in the mouth.  Please do not stick out your tongue at the Pastor.  Open the mouth and the Pastor will place the host upon your tongue and lips and you know the rest.  It can be a rather disconcerting thing for a Pastor to look down a long row of communicants -- all with their mouths open and tongues extended.  While on one level I know it is not a statement about either the Communion or me personally, I still don't like to see it...


As I see this has run a little long... we will take up the individual cups and chalice another day. . .

Church as Affinity Group vs Church as the Body of Christ

A recent article in The Tennessean points out the trend of folks to jump between denominations in search of a place to feel at home more than a place that mirrors your beliefs.  It is an interesting article and I am sure you can find many similar articles in newspapers and magazines.  The final word was from a clergyman who was Southern Baptist but now is unaffiliated and leads a non-denominational church.  In his comment, he sees the downside of the way people choose a church home as being fickle and can dissolve as quickly as they start, like un-friending someone on Facebook."At the end of the day … I can just walk away," he said.

His point is well made.  People join things today in the same way and with the same degree of commitment that they friend and unfriend folks on Facebook.  It is not only that the criteria for choosing a church home have changed -- and they have -- but the nature of the commitment to that home church has also changed.  It is universally acknowledged that people will generally accept diversity in normative beliefs over a lack of warmth or friendliness, accessible parking, and well-kept, accommodating facilities.  What we talk about less is that way in which that church commitment is also changing.  People have come to expect and even welcome the pace of change and so the church home garners about as much loyalty as their commitment to last years technological toys or cultural trends.

I do not know about the experiences of others, but I have personally witnessed how easy it is for people to leave a congregation where they have spent great time and deeply invested themselves.  Sometimes it is over conflicts or disputes with other folks in the pews, sometimes it is because of conflict or slight by the clergy or staff of the congregation, and other times it is more over wanderlust than any substantial issue that people use as grounds to leave and find a new church home.  I must admit that I am not well equipped to deal with this and find myself often at a loss to know how to respond to such situations.  In part it is because this is so far from the realm of my own personal experience and practice and in part it is because I have been trained to deal with theological issues but not so equipped for personal and personality issues.

While this change in the level of commitment is more easily made of a congregation like mine which has been around for only 50 years and does not have many families who have a multi-generational history with this parish, I suspect that is true even in places where the parish has been around for 150 years and there are a host of folks from the family tree connected to the establishment and history of that parish.

In the end I have no real prescription to offer or even a tack to take to begin to address the way folks connect to the congregation as an affinity group instead of becoming part of the Body of Christ in this particular place.  I do know that as social networking works even more to replace the face to face connections between people, this makes it even more difficult to raise the level of commitment and relationship to the local congregation.  I fear that in the future we may well find that there is even less doctrinal unity or unanimity among the people in our parishes than is the case now.  If this happens, then the denominational names and their confessions will become less and less important to identifying what it is that a particular group believes and how they live out that faith in their life together as a faith community.

What do we call it?

On another forum the question of what we call Sunday morning has provoked some interesting discussion.  Maybe it is worth a moment to reflect upon the various titles accorded that Sunday morning activity.

Historically, the Lutherans called it the Mass (Messe in German).  Luther's liturgical renovations were the Formula Missae (Latin Mass of 1523) and Deutsche Messe (German Mass of 1526).  In our Confessions the word Mass is ordinarily used of Sunday morning and its usage continued unabated in Germany well into the 18th century and still in the Scandinavian churches.  Though there are individual Lutheran parishes where this usage has been revived, the numbers are small and mass has pretty much disappeared from the Lutheran vocabulary.  Even such stalwart orthodox Lutherans as Walther and Pieper acknowledge the term but think that its association with Rome may have made it unusable for Lutherans (at least in America).  In Sweden even the term High Mass continues (Högmässa).

Eucharist or Holy Eucharist is certainly one of the most early terms for the Sunday gathering of God's people around the Word and Table of the Lord.  Eventually this became a more theological term than a practical term of usage to refer to that gathering.  In 1969 the Missouri Synod attempted to revive the term for popular usage when the Worship Supplement introduced Holy Euchairst I, II, & III.  It sparked a mini-revival and it remains a descriptive term of what takes place but not so much a short hand term for Sunday morning.


Holy Communion is another term of description that has a much wider usage.  Among Lutherans it was not uncommon to describe the Morning Service with Holy Communion as in The Lutheran Hyjmnal 1941.  Perhaps this remains the most common usage among the laity.  It is a term with a wider ecumenical usage and congregations from Episcopalian to Methodist to Presbyterian to Disciples of Christ to Baptist can be found regularly using this term.  It is a less popular term among Lutheran Pastors than it is among the laity but it is certainly fully entrenched in Lutheran piety and usage.  LBW used this term to describe the services of this attempt at bringing all Lutherans together in one book (published in 1978).

The Divine Service has a strong German flavor to us (Gottesdienst) but even the Norwegians use it (gudstjeneste).  It has always been a very important term for the period of Lutheran orthodoxy and has become a theological term to describe the difference between worship viewed as man's service to God vs the service of God to us (Sacrament) which is a Lutheran contention.  Introduced in Lutheran Worship, it has become installed as the term of choice for Missouri Lutherans, especially since the introduction of Lutheran Service Book in 2006.  It remains a growing contender to unseat all other terms for Sunday morning -- at least among Lutheran Pastors and especially among those ordained since the 1980s).  The Wisconsin Synod has also used this term in official service books but not the ELCA so its usage there is much more limited.

You can also find the generic term Liturgy being used as well as the even more generic term worship or worship service.  While there may be reason to use this for the public advertisement of regular and special services, it is generally not the preferred terminology among Lutheran Pastors and you find them often attempting to teach the people in the pew one of the mother more specific terms (such as Divine Service).

I generally use Divine Service although in preaching I often refer to the Eucharist and I use the term liturgy as the description of the form and pattern of the mass.  In catechesis I use the term mass to connect Lutherans to their heritage and the legacy we claim -- not as a new denomination but as heirs of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.  I do find myself resorting to the term worship when speaking to those outside the circle of a sacramental tradition but it is an imprecise term to describe the Divine Service and is useful only for the most introductory level of conversation.