I covet all the prayers I can get...

I had a fellow stop by the church for one reason or another.  I forget why.  Anyway, the guy turned to leave and said, "now you pray for me, brother.  I know God listens to you.  I ask everybody to pray for me.  You know who God will listen to.  So I covet all the prayers I can get from anyone and everyone.  Thanks, now..."

I know what he meant but I also know what he meant.  On the one hand his was a typical comment made often to all kinds of clergy -- suggesting they are closer to God than others and therefore have more sway with the Almighty...  But on the other hand, he was also saying it matters little which deity you pray to as long as the prayers get answered.  The more the better.  The more diverse the pray-ers the more likely the prayers will be answered -- as you like.

I get this all the time.  I am sure every Pastor does.  But it has taken on a new meaning.  With the diversity of religious expression now cultivated as well as found in America, the prayers and blessings of a breadth of people, religions, and deities are treated much the same way we might have welcomed the prayers of Christians of different denominations in the past.

So it took on new form when I read of a multi-faith baccalaureate service in which all the holy folk got up to raise their hands in blessing and impart the good wishes of a multiplicity of religions and gods upon those attending.  How could you go wrong with so many folks prayin for ya!  Indeed!!

 Read it and weep:

Western Nevada College held a unique Multi-faith Baccalaureate Service on May 20 in Carson City, the first in its 41 plus years of existence.
According to religious statesman Rajan Zed, co-organizer of this Service along with Douglas Diversity Student Club of WNC; faith leaders belonging to Christian (various denominations), Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Baha’i and Native American traditions blessed the graduates with their respective prayers in this Service. Dance and music also formed part of this ceremony and a representative of non-believers also addressed the Service.
Religious leaders who participated included Saint Teresa of Avila Catholic Community Carson City Pastor Father Charles T. Durante, Carson City 1st United Methodist Church Pastor Reverend Dixie Jennings-Teats, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Quorum of the Seventy Member George Marion Keele, Northern Nevada Muslim Community President Doctor Sherif A. Elfass, Universal Society of Hinduism President Rajan Zed, Reno Buddhist Center Priest Reverend Jikai’ Phil Bryan, South Lake Tahoe Temple Bat Yam Rabbi Evon J. Yakar, Baha’i teacher Catherine B. Thayer, and Paiute Elder Ralph E. Burns. Patrick J. McCarthy from Reno Freethinkers (atheists, agnostics, skeptics, humanists, etc., promoting secular values) also addressed Service held at Carson City Community Center.

The only problem with this is that any deity worth his or her salt would be offended by being treated as merely one of the cafeteria choices available.  The only problem with this is the God of Gods who has sent forth His Son refuses to be counted as merely one of many options and is a jealous and exclusive God who shows mercy inclusively through one Savior and who hears the prayers of His people.  When we multiply the prayers and blessings to and from a variety of deities, we end up diluting the meaning and power of the whole thing.  Faith is not a what if but a because.

Perhaps it is my fault.  Instead of merely smiling as people asked my prayers along with the prayers of every religious and religion they encounter, I should have confronted this honestly.  Perhaps we are not reaping our rewards for a tacit approval that presumed it to be a wholehearted endorsement of religious pluralism.  Now we are caught.  When we defer from such a kumbayah we sound arrogant, when we refuse to join the fun, we sound aloof, and when insist upon that which offers integrity to the Triune God, we sound exclusivistic.... all the while we are merely trying to be faithful...   Indeed!

Sombody will...

"If we do not feed the poor, someone will. If we do not cloth the poor, someone will. If we do not preach the Gospel to the poor, no body will."

That statement has had a long history but it is true.  The nature of the social ministry enterprise is often that it substitutes good works for preaching the Gospel.  Ideally, we do not have to choose.  We preach the Gospel through works that accompany our words.  But today, especially when the government is toting the financial freight of our good works, it is increasingly true that we much choose.  The sad truth is that too many church operating social ministry organizations and enterprises have decided to silence the spoken word for the sake of the works.  Whether it is the requirements of silence or of acquiescence to government policy, we are severely tempted to believe that the work is too important to be hindered by the refusal of the government to allow us to speak the Gospel or be faithful to its truth.

Now, I am NOT saying that we should not do social ministry.  What I am saying is that perhaps we need to get off the government's dime so that we can speak and act faithfully, so that our words can accompany our works on behalf of the poor and those in need.  I am NOT suggesting that our charity be contingent upon folks listening to our spiel first as some do.  I am NOT suggesting that every ecumenical endeavor must be abandoned.  I am saying that we are in a time of sifting, sifting to determine what we can do faithfully and what we cannot.  This faithfulness is not primarily designed to keep ourselves pure but to make sure that Christians do good not as do gooders but as those whose good flows from Christ and is itself witness to the good that Christ has done for us and for the sake of the whole world.

This is what faithful Christian churches and ministry must do.  We no longer have the option of letting the status quo continue.  From scouting to social service agencies to social work, the world is pressing down upon Christians to step up but shut up.  This cannot be accepted as the shape of our future service in the caring and compassionate ministries so richly attested to in our history.  But the cause is not only the impingement of the government.  It is also our laziness and complicity to the aims and rules of secularization.  We have grown fat on the teat of the government and it is time that we bellied up to the table with all the financial and people resources needed to be effective in the areas of feeding and clothing the needy, providing medical care to the sick and suffering, housing for the homeless, support for the pregnant out of wedlock, adoption, etc...   These will and always remain the domain of the Church but in more recent times we have convinced ourselves that the only way to do them was to do them with the federal or state government signing the check.  That is a false assumption.  It may mean we do less and it may require us to do more with less but the less we do will more recognizably show the hands of Christ reaching out to those in need....

Just sayin....

Who thought this one up???

According to one of the resolutions coming to the Convention, if a person nominated and elected does not pass a background check, that office is declared vacant. [Perhaps someone with a better memory than I possess could give me the resolution number from the Proceedings book?] We could spend a lot of ink on the reason for background checks but the more important issue is who wrote this misguided resolution?

If you must have background checks, they belong at the time of nomination NOT after election.  If something of a confidential nature is revealed at the background check, that person is publicly exposed when his or her election is declared null and void and another is appointed to fill the spot.  That betrays the very nature of pastoral discretion that is the hallmark of good pastoral judgment.  Never make public that which need not be made public.

Those nominated already fill out several forms.  Why not authorize a background check at that point?  If the person does not wish the background check, the nomination is withdrawn.  That does not mean that issues found out on a background check or the circumstances that may lead someone to decline one are simply forgotten.  It means that they are handled as they should be -- with quiet discretion and pastoral judgment.

Whoever wrote what is in the proceedings has obviously not thought this through and left us with the terrible circumstance of having to announce to the Church that a person did not pass the background check and therefore cannot be placed into the position to which he or she was elected.  Really?  That is the best we can do.

Well, if you read it in a newspaper it must be true, right?

From The Des Moines Register:

The debate about marriage equality often centers, however discretely, on an appeal to the Bible. Unfortunately, such appeals often reflect a lack of biblical literacy on the part of those who use that complex collection of texts as an authority to enact modern social policy.

As academic biblical scholars, we wish to clarify that the biblical texts do not support the frequent claim that marriage between one man and one woman is the only type of marriage deemed acceptable by the Bible’s authors.

The fact that marriage is not defined as only that between one man and one woman is reflected in the entry on “marriage” in the authoritative Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000): “Marriage is one expression of kinship family patterns in which typically a man and at least one woman cohabitate publicly and permanently as a basic social unit” (p. 861).

The phrase “at least one woman” recognizes that polygamy was not only allowed, but some polygamous biblical figures (e.g., Abraham, Jacob) were highly blessed. In 2 Samuel 12:8, the author says that it was God who gave David multiple wives: “I gave you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom. … And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more” (Revised Standard Version).

In fact, there were a variety of unions and family configurations that were permissible in the cultures that produced the Bible, and these ranged from monogamy (Titus 1:6) to those where rape victims were forced to marry their rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) and to those Levirate marriage commands obligating a man to marry his brother’s widow regardless of the living brother’s marital status (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Genesis 38; Ruth 2-4). Others insisted that celibacy was the preferred option (1 Corinthians 7:8; 28).

Although some may view Jesus’ interpretation of Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:3-10 as an endorsement of monogamy, Jesus and other Jewish interpreters conceded that there were also non-monogamous understandings of this passage in ancient Judaism, including those allowing divorce and remarriage.

In fact, during a discussion of marriage in Matthew 19:12, Jesus even encourages those who can to castrate themselves “for the kingdom” and live a life of celibacy.

Ezra 10:2-11 forbids interracial marriage and orders those people of God who already had foreign wives to divorce them immediately.

So, while it is not accurate to state that biblical texts would allow marriages between people of the same sex, it is equally incorrect to declare that a “one-man-and-one-woman” marriage is the only allowable type of marriage deemed legitimate in biblical texts.

This is not only our modern, academic opinion. This view of the multiple definitions of “biblical” marriage has been acknowledged by some of the most prominent names in Christianity. For example, the famed Reformationist Martin Luther wrote a letter in 1524 in which he commented on polygamy as follows: “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not oppose the Holy Scriptures.”

Accordingly, we must guard against attempting to use ancient texts to regulate modern ethics and morals, especially those ancient texts whose endorsements of other social institutions, such as slavery, would be universally condemned today, even by the most adherent of Christians.

About the authors: Robert R. Cargill is an assistant professor of religious studies at the University of Iowa. Kennthe Atkinson is an associate professor of history at the University of Northern Iowa. Hector Avalos is a professor of religious studies at Iowa State University.  

It seems they would tell us a couple of things.  One is that we dare not pay much attention to ancient culture or religious text in our modern debate about marriage.  Second is that the Bible does not say what we think it says.  On both counts the authors have made their points well -- except, of course, that they are wrong.  They ignore most of Scripture to cite a Bible dictionary, diminish and dilute what Scripture does say, point out things that would seem to support their point except that they draw the verses out of context and distort what is said there, and then cite Luther as a, what, "reformationist"  (again taken out of context).  Just goes to show you not even the Des Moines Register can be trusted at face value.  The authors may be well educated but they have let their bias shape their reading and their conclusions.  Such is not scholarship at all but merely the presumption of learning. 

Classical education. . .

Check it out!

A visit with a shut in ended up talking about education (the person had been involved in education for most of the adult life).  It ended up with a lament that too much emphasis is placed on vocational education -- simple training to do a job.  Now this person understands the fact that education, especially secondary, has become expensive and often peripheral to job openings and employment possibilities, but this person also insists that a liberal arts education (could we call it "classical" education) should not be allowed to disappear.

The person spent a life in literature and sadly reflected upon the fact that you can hardly find a book in his kids homes -- even though they are well educated and economically successful.  They do not read -- not paper or digital.  The shut in found this tragic for the adult children and the grandchildren (some of whom graduated from ivy league schools).  They seem oblivious to the great body of literature which has become the hallmark of learning (at least in the past).

I related a conversation about the movie "Gatsby" in which a twenty something young woman suggested that the movie was so great she wished that it had come out in book form.  Duhhhhhh.  As a child growing up in pre-politically correct times, even the cartoons were replete with references to great literature, opera, music, and history (cannot forget Bugs Bunny massaging Elmer Fudd's scalp while Rossini's Barber of Seville played in the background).  Today it is much more likely that children's videos and programming has little to draw them into the tremendous body of classical literature and music, much less history!

That led me to a new book by Cheryl Swope called A Beautiful Education for Any Child.  According to one reviewer:  Classical education is best-known for its powerful academic chops, for its cultural richness, and for its compatibility with the Christian view of the world.  You can Google her and the book or buy it here on Amazon.  It is a wonderful book -- accessible for the general public, born from a home schooling experience, and addressing the whole way we view education at large.

Another fan:

Cheryl Swope ostensibly writes about special education, but she also makes one of the clearest and most compelling cases for classical education in print. The first argument of the book is that academically-challenged students are human beings too, and they deserve an education commensurate with that fact. While current special education doctrine favors compromising on content, Cheryl proposes only to moderate its measure. If a child cannot accommodate the amount or depth of knowledge of most children, it is not less, but more important that what they learn be of the highest quality. She implicitly understands St. Thomas Aquinas’ principle that the slightest knowledge of the greatest things is greater than the greatest knowledge of the slightest things. Her second argument is that it has been done and can be done. How many people know that Helen Keller had a classical education? And if a person who was blind and deaf could achieve what she achieved, how much more can a student do who faces less severe challenges? Cheryl shows how, in an important sense, classical education can open the eyes of the blind and unstop the ears of the deaf.

I heartily commend it.

A Word of Explanation. . .

A comment on another post brought up the fact that our bulletin does not follow the liturgy in LSB exactly. Okay. That is correct. Since these comments have become a question, I am attempting to respond to the questions raised...

• The bulletin does not include liturgical options NOT being used on that Sunday.  The bulletin does include a thin column which lists Scriptures and brief explanations of those parts of the service.  
• The creed used is the text of the Nicene Creed proposed for LSB but, at the last minute, changed by the LCMS Convention to ditto what was in LW.  Since I knew that "catholic" and the plural "we believe" might be an issue, I taught this and introduced it prior to our review of the hymnal -- mostly to separate these issues from the new book so that the new hymnal would NOT be rejected because of these changes.  As I said, this began long before it was shipped in the late fall of 2006.  This is in line with the official text of the creed from the councils more than 1500 years ago and actually reflects Luther's creedal hymn Wir glauben all or We all believe.  The word Christian is a late medieval substitution which was done by some in Germany long before Luther was even born and has become a shibboleth for anti-Roman sentiment among many Lutherans even though it has nothing to do with any Reformation dispute.  In fact, it is NOT a good substitute for catholic since it means something very different.  Funny how Lutherans find it hard to swallow but other denominations, especially those whose confessions (if they have them) and practice never claim to be catholic, use the word without an issue but Lutherans, whose confessions explicitly claim catholicity are uncomfortable with the word in the creed.  As far as inconsistency is concerned with respect to an infrequent funeral bulletin, occasionally I screw up and use a template from an older time -- accidental and not devious and definitely unintentional.
• We add an "announcement of the day" in which a few sentences about the day in the church year, the theme of the liturgy, and a word about the lessons gives context to folks who have trouble relating to the church calendar.
• We substitute a Eucharistic Prayer for the naked Words of Institution.  The EP is taken from one of the prayer forms already in LSB (but set as a prayer of thanksgiving apart from the Words of Institution or divided up in the general prayer or hidden in some other way in the book) or in one of the other previously published books by our church (Hymnal Supplement 98, LW, Worship Supplement, Worship in the Name of Jesus, English translation of El Culto Cristiano, among others).

Why do we print it out?  I have been in this parish for going on 21 years.  In the beginning we did not print out the full liturgy.  What I watched from the chancel were the numbers of people who did not open the book AND did not open their mouths.  When we tried printing out the liturgy portion only (not hymns), I found that the participation level increased.  We print out the lessons because people complained about not being able to hear or wanting to follow along.  We print out an outline of the sermon because people desired to have it.  Personally, I dislike outlining my sermons for the bulletin and wish our people knew the liturgy by heart.  But I have acquiesced to the fact that printing out the liturgy portion has increased participation and answered some objections.

Some complain about the cost of it all (actually about the cost of two reams of legal size paper per week or about $15 worth of paper, about $5 worth of ink, and about $40 worth of secretarial time).  So for about $60 per week, the whole bulletin is printed.  We print less than the number of people in worship since the first service folks keep one copy though they used several in worship; they recycle them for use at second service.  We also recycle any leftovers at the local paper recycling center.  We are very green!  So we spend

Are there folks who do not like the practices outlined above?  Sure.  Are there folks who love them?  Sure.  Are there folks, most of them in fact, who have no strong feelings either way?  Sure.

Now for the issue of preference.  The truth?  If left to my own devices I would probably end up doing a pretty bad job of a combo comedy/inspirational monologue each week instead of the liturgy.  What I do is guided not by personal preference but by liturgical conviction born of Lutheran confessional identity.  All through our Confessions we insist that we have not abolished the Mass, we keep all church usages, ceremonies, and traditions which do not conflict with the Gospel, and our practice is guided by our Confessions and not by anything else.  Can I help it that we Lutherans forgot what we confessed for a few hundred years, choosing to live as pseudo-Protestants on Sunday morning?  We Lutherans cannot claim the Confessions as a heritage.  We confess them anew in every age.  They are not theoretical documents but the practical and defining confessions that inform our Sunday morning.  Lutheranism is, as Sasse said, "the lonely way" of those who are neither Roman nor evangelical (modern sense).

Some of us Lutherans prefer to be like generic American Christians who follow a book on Sunday morning.  Some of us Lutherans prefer to be like generic evangelicals who mirror the entertainment and cultural values of the moment on Sunday morning.  Some of us Lutherans prefer all the smells and bells on Sunday morning.  Then we act as if congregationalism means that each Lutheran congregation either chooses to be one of those (or chooses to be all of those but at different times on a Sunday morning).  But our Confessions accuse us when preference is the criteria for worship practices.  Our Confessions accuse us when we are shamed or embarrassed by a liturgical identity that is consistent with our confessional one.

Adiaphora means those things which cannot bind our conscience with respect to salvation (man made rules or tradition or hoops of human creation which we must jump through to be saved) but now it has come to mean personal preference.  Adiaphora does not mean we are free to do whatever we like.  Adiaphora still insists the Gospel is the criteria and what serves the Gospel and is faithful to our catholic identity is what we do.  Our Lutheran Confessions say that the Mass (sacrament and not sacrifice) and all the historic ceremonies, church usages, ritual, and tradition which do not conflict with the Gospel (again not a personal determination in terms of what this means for me but genuine catholic and evangelical and confessional practice) are kept among us. 

Walther, the guy who founded our Synod, insisted that these catholic worship practices (note small c) become our confession when people insist that we cannot or should not use them.  In other words, this is not a contest or competition over wills or preferences but our worship practices are shaped by an evangelical spirit and a catholic identity which says less is not more, ritual and ceremony actually confess the faith in addition to words, and consistency over the long haul (not simply from one hymnal to another) is highly desirable.

I am not trying to insult or demand or offend but to honestly explain the why behind the what we do.  I hope it helps.

Baptism the rear view mirror or front windshield?

A whole bunch of talk about baptism in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod -- the theme of our Convention this year, the topic of a Lutheran Witness and For the Life of the World edition... and timely...

John Pless writes that baptism is never the rear view mirror for Christians.  But that is exactly the point.  We are vulnerable on baptism precisely because it has become an event, in the past, that may be recalled but is not definitive of our present reality.  Pless suggests that just as the question "Were you married" is off, so is the question "were you baptized?"  You ARE married and you ARE baptized.  If you said "I was married" people would assume that you are not married any longer.  If we say "I was baptized" it means in our minds that this was just an event and that it does not affect who I am.  In this way we have pretty much swallowed evangelicalism lock, stock, and barrel.  We talk about faith but not about baptism, about our faith but not about who we are as the baptized people of God.

Baptism is in our rear view mirror and many of us can tell you exactly when we were baptized.  But when Lutherans are asked how or in what way this baptism impacts their present day life and piety as a Christian, you generally get vague answers that attest to the reality that we either do not know or have never thought about it.  This is a glaring weakness in our catechesis and preaching.  Baptism remains is the lens through which we see our future as well as in our rear view mirror.  I am baptized.  Read Luther's catechism about the power, promise, blessing, and nature of these words.  It is from baptism that the daily drowning of contrition and repentance flows and through which the new persona is raised up by faith in righteousness, holiness, and godliness forever.

I also picked up on a phrase from Dr. David Scaer.  He cites the old phrase from the catechism (baptism is not simple water only) but reminds us that water is never plain, simple, or ordinary.  As we make our way through summer we are constantly being told to keep hydrated, especially children and the aged.  We recall the surging waters of the seas and the great damage they have done as well as the summer storms that have caused flooding and tornadoes.   No, Dr. Scaer is absolutely right.  Water is neither plain nor simple -- ever.  But as true as that is for the water we drink, we wash with, and we use to water the ground, it is even more true of baptism.  The water of baptism is the water of life.  It does not merely symbolize or recall, it bestows the life it promises.  It is the water of God's purpose, connected with His Word, that delivers what it says.

Everyone remembers Genesis and the Spirit that hovers over the water.  The water of creation is not a small part of God's unfolding creation and continues to nurture all things.  But baptism is also the water of creation -- the water of the new creation through which we die and are made alive in Christ.  So St. Peter can say that baptism is the ark that saves us just as Noah and all his family were saved.  This is the reference that we cannot escape when Luther's "flood" prayer is used in the baptismal rite.

No, if there is confusion about baptism it is not because we talk too much about it.  It is because we speak about it too little.  It has become something we see only in the rear view mirror and because of this we are susceptible to the challenges of the modern and unScriptural idea that baptism is a symbolic act best suited for those who can appreciate its symbolism.  Without a baptismal piety, we are tempted to pit what is entirely reasonable (believer's baptism) against what is thoroughly Biblical (infant baptism) and further banish baptism to the periphery of our piety and faith.  That is something that dare not happen.

Sadly it seems that those bent upon modernizing Lutheranism are also those who appreciate and talk about baptism the least.  Watch some of the sermons from those kind of "missional" churches in the LCMS and you will find sacramental themes and words banished from the weekly preaching and teaching of the people.  It is for this reason we need our own baptismal renewal as a church body so that we remember the past not as event but as identity and ground our piety and preaching upon this life altering event that now defines us.

He who hears you, hears ME...

Sermon for Pentecost 7, Proper 9C, preached on Sunday, July 7, 2013.

    In the movie The King’s Speech, the teacher works with a stuttering king and in one scene goads him until the king insists that he must be heard because he has a voice.  So often we think that is perhaps what the church needs – someone to teach us to get past the stammer and hesitance and speak authentic witness, with our own voices.
    Perhaps the most shocking thing Jesus does not speak His own voice.  He insists He is come not to speak His own words but to speak the word of the Father in heaven.  The Father makes Himself known in Christ or not at all and Christ speaks to us His Father’s saving Word.  In the incarnation the Father speaks of Jesus to us: He who hears Jesus, hears me. The glory and work of the Lord Jesus are not independent of the Father nor does He manifest a will and power independent of the Father.  Jesus has come to do the Father's bidding.  As witnesses, we must learn that we are here to do His bidding.
    He who hears you, hears Me, says the Lord.  We know God through His Word, the Word made flesh in Christ and the written Word that speaks Christ to us.  Jesus is the Word of the Lord.  In many and various ways God spoke to His people of old through the prophets but NOW He has spoken through His Son.  God has not spoken various messages to various people.  God has spoken His one saving voice in Christ Jesus.
    Children growing up often learn that it is easy to pit one parents against the other, to get different answers from different dad or mom.  There is no such division in the Lord.  Christ is the Word who fulfills all the promise of the Father.  If we attempt to pit one part of Scripture against another, we have the whole word wrong.  Christ is the message of and the very key to the Scriptures.  It is all about Christ.  There is no word of God apart from the Word that is Christ.
    You and I are not sent by God to tell the world what we think or feel. Opinions do not count in the call to witness.  The authority of God lies in His Word.  The only authority that we have, indeed the only authority that matters, is the Word of the Lord.  He sends us forth to speak not what we think or feel but what He has said.  The Word is the Lord IS our message.
    Likewise, as tempting as it is to make it all about us, the reception of the Word is due to the work of the Spirit.  The rejection of the Word of the Lord is not a personal rejection of us but the refusal of the grace God has made known through His Son.  The great personal weakness of every Pastor is his desire to be liked and his great temptation is to soften the edges of God’s Word to make the Pastor more likeable.  The same is true of you, the witnesses whom the Father has sent to the world.  You like to be liked and it bothers us when it seems people reject us.  We are gravely tempted to soften or be superficial in witness out of our fear of rejection.  But this is not about you or me.  We are merely the messengers – the Word is the Lords and the witness is His.  The voice may be the Pastor’s here and it may be our voices speaking in the world, but the Word is always Christ’s or we have nothing to say.
    When the Word of the Lord is rejected, it is the Father who is rejected.  When we faithfully speak God's Word and it is rejected, we are not being personally rejected but Him who sent us – the Lord Jesus and the Father in heaven.  We do not have anything to speak but Christ for there is no other word that forgives sins, builds hope, and bestows life.  It is Christ or no god at all.  It is the Word of the Lord or nothing worth saying.  His Word is our message, our power, and our glory.  There is only one word that speaks salvation and that is the Gospel of Christ.
    Part of us often fears witnessing because we do not know what to say.  If we do not know what to say, it is because we do not know the Word of the Lord.  There is no magic formula to witnessing.  We speak God's truth in love, as it was spoken to us in Christ by those who taught us the faith.  The greatest danger to the Church today is not that people will faithfully speak God's Word in witness and nothing will happen.  The greatest danger to the Church today is that we will substitute our own words for God's Word and our own message for the Gospel.  But the outcome will be the same – nothing will happen.  If anything is to happen, we must faithfully speak the Word and trust in the Lord whose Word it is to bring about the results.
    We only worry about the message because as the messengers we do not want to be rejected.  How effective can a witness be who is motivated by fear?  The disciples whom Jesus sent forth in the Gospel reading for today had the authority of His name, the Word of the Kingdom, and guess what – it was enough to make Satan fall like lightening.
    Even then the disciples were tempted to glory in the what instead of the who.  Jesus pulls them back to earth by saying your glory is that the Gospel is for you, that your names are written in the book of life.  This is our joy.  When numbers and success become the criteria for witness, the witness itself is corrupted and its value is lost to the Lord who sends us.
    We are always trying to make it more about the messenger than the message.  We always try to make it personal as if we made people believe or we prevented them from faith.  Our confidence lies in the fact that the Spirit works through the Word to make known Jesus Christ who reveals to us the Father.  We are sent forth to proclaim THIS word.  This Gospel is what we proclaim, motivated by the joyful knowledge that we belong to the Lord by baptism and faith, and in confidence that God works as He has promised, He works through His Word.
    We neither apologize for Christ nor make His Word more palatable to the ear.  We speak it faithfully, from the conviction of those who know its joy in sins forgiven, lives reborn, and death overcome.  We dare not get in the way of speaking this saving Word to the world nor should we allow ourselves to become for focus of what we speak.  The Word is the Lords.  The Gospel is His.  The fruits of our witness are His.  This is our glory and no other.  The Word that saves is Christ our Lord.  Amen

The chicken or the egg...

Which came first?  The chicken or the egg?  As hard as it is for some to decide on that question, the question of which came first -- the decline of the family or the decline of the Church -- is germane and worth some pondering...

Elizabeth Scalia, in her Tuesday column On the Square, reflected on the idea that the decline of the family precipitated the decline of the Church.

I quote her quoting Mary Eberstadt:

In her excellent book How the West Really Lost God, Mary Eberstadt argues that the sharp decline in religious belief (and the waning influence of the churches) in the Western world is related directly to the decline of the traditional family.

The Christian story itself is a story told through the prism of the family. Take away the prism, and the story makes less sense. We men and women, whether inside the churches or not, are only at the beginning of understanding how the fracturing of the natural family has in turn helped to fracture Christianity.

Citing a study conducted with over 1,400 children of divorced parents, Eberstadt excerpts an interview in which a young man, asked if God is like a parent, mush-mouths his way through a puzzled response and then gives up, admitting, “I’m drawing a blank. I’m just drawing a blank.”

Family illiteracy, Eberstadt says, “breeds religious illiteracy.”

Whatever answer you choose -- famiily decline or the decline of the Church -- her point is well taken.  They are connected, related, and the strength or weakness of one contributes to the strength or weakness of the other.  There is no denial in this.

The wages of family decline have certainly cost the Church in many ways.  From the volunteers once so prevalent from women not working outside the home to the phenomenon of weekend visitations for children of divorced parents and its impact on the Sunday school to the rise of two income families in which the children are either non-existent or left to day care or others to raise, we can all see how the decline of the family has impacted the Church.  But the other side is equally true.  As the Church has become more and more embarrassed by and hesitant to speak of the family (especially in the wake of social change, the rise of cohabitation, and the incidence of divorce), the home has less and less to ground it, support it, and define it in ways that mirror all of human and specifically Judea-Christian history to this point.

In my Sunday Bible study we hit Mark 10 and I jokingly said that maybe we should skip that portion of the chapter where Jesus is asked of divorce.  Not so jokingly I admitted that it is one of those sections of Scripture read less and preached on even more infrequently because we preachers like to be liked and we know that everyone in the parish has divorced family members and friends or is divorced themselves and we don't want to offend.  But that is the point.  It becomes an offense not because we preach faithfully the Word of the Lord but because we fear doing so.  That is the greatest offense of all.

Scalia in her column mentions a section of Tobit.  Granted we Lutherans barely read the Apocrypha and the Roman Catholics and Orthodox only a bit more while the rest of Christendom is wondering what on earth I am talking about.  But the words are worth hearing as we try to figure out not only which decline came first but what we can do about it...

Raguel [Sarah's father] then promptly handed over to Tobiah his wife Sarah, together with half of all his property: male and female slaves, oxen and sheep, donkeys and camels, clothing, money, and household goods.

He saw them safely off. Embracing Tobiah, he said to him: “Farewell, son. Have a safe journey. May the Lord of heaven grant prosperity to you and to your wife Sarah. And may I see children of yours before I die!”

Then he said to his daughter Sarah, “My daughter, honor your father-in-law and your mother-in-law, because from now on they are as much your parents as the ones who brought you into the world. Go in peace, daughter; let me hear a good report about you as long as I live.” Finally he said goodbye to them and let them go.

Edna also said to Tobiah: “My child and beloved kinsman, may the Lord bring you back safely, and may I live long enough to see children of you and of my daughter Sarah before I die. Before the Lord, I entrust my daughter to your care. Never cause her grief all the days of your life. Go in peace, son. From now on I am your mother, and Sarah is your sister. Together may we all prosper throughout the days of our lives.” She kissed them both and saw them safely off.

 

The perfectly sized parish. . .

We hear all sorts of things from folks who indicate that too many Protestant congregations are too small to support full-time clergy and are, in essence, dying a slow death.  We hear it from our own Lutheran sources that too many of our LCMS parishes fit that bill and that is the whole point of the deacon program -- to supply with Word and Sacrament ministry those too small for regular ordained clergy.  Our district, like the Synod, has had mega church conferences to bring together the leaders of these mega congregations (though, in reality, ours are a bit smaller than the size usually termed a mega church by evangelical standards).  It is assumed by many in our church body that these folks are the most creative, effective, skilled, and visionary folk in the entire Synod.  If truth would be told, many leaders in our church body seem to think that all the small churches should grow up and be like these big boys.  It is no different than the argument for big box retailers and against the mom and pop stores that once supplied American homes and businesses.  Unless you are of a certain size and offer a certain array of programs, you cannot compete in the religious marketplace of America.  Or so they say...

At the same time, many Roman Catholic parishes have no choice but to become mega congregations.  In my own city of 140K there is ONE Roman Catholic congregation that serves something like 4-4500k families!!!  A priest, a couple of assistants, a couple of deacons, and some lay folks administer a parish that would dwarf many of those we Lutherans call mega congregations.  From them I hear no glory talk about how great it is to be big.  Just the opposite.  Because of the clergy shortage in Rome, they have few options but to build big buildings that seat thousands and run them a couple of times a Sunday just to keep up.  They long for the days when priests knew their people well and parishes were small and stable enough to be more than peripherally involved in the daily lives of their people.

One Roman Catholic blogger put it this way:

I do not know what the perfect size for a parish is. And even if I say a number, vocations to the priesthood are simply going to be a factor. As for me, I have 900 registered families and about 550 on a Sunday morning. For me, this is a perfect number. It is large enough for us to be financially viable, indeed we do very well, money wise. It is also large enough that I can have a fairly diverse cadre of volunteers to accomplish needed tasks. Yet is small enough for one priest to handle and even can get to know many people well. It is small enough too that people know each other well and people are missed when the drift away. But this model cannot be sustained diocesan-wide. We just don’t have enough priests to staff enough parishes at this scale.

I find myself resonating with many of his thoughts.  A parish of 500 on a Sunday morning is about as big as a parish should get and the Pastor know his people and the people know each other.  We have invented all sorts of things to try and compensate for the anonymity that largeness allows.  Small group strategies are merely attempts to turn a mega congregation into a group of small congregations that occupy the same facility at the same address and share the same clergy.

Let me make a few things perfectly clear.  The only reason some of our parishes cannot afford clergy is that they are not tithing, not offering first fruits, and not returning cheerfully from the abundance God has given them.  We are a church of unholy keepers more than holy givers.  Yes, some of our folks are mighty faithful and generous -- God bless them!  But many of them, the majority of them, give token gifts occasionally rather the tithes and offerings joyfully and regularly given proportionately to what God has supplied them.  Yes the cost of clergy is higher than it used to be but the incomes of our folks are also higher (even those who live on "fixed" incomes -- like who doesn't!).  Some honest growth in stewardship would take a number of these congregations off the list.

Second, I am not glorifying bigness.  It is a truth, however, that to be good financial supporters of District and Synod and to be able to support faithful missions and missionaries directly requires resources more than enough to cover the parish operation.  I see it in my own parish.  We are able and delight in supporting missions directly to the tune of about 8% of our total income in addition to about 8% of our total income going to Synod and District (these include a school in Africa, Siberian Lutheran Mission, the local pastoral counseling center, food ministries, Lutheran World Relief, a local mission congregation of our District, etc...).
Some small congregations are also incredibly generous to causes beyond the local need but others are so strapped for funds they think charity begins at home.

Third, as I make my way mid-way through my 21st year here, I see the benefits of pastoral longevity in a parish.  Despite the fact that we have about 300 families, I just about know them all by name, call them by name at the rail, and know them as part of the extended parish family.  At one recent funeral of a not very active member I was able to recount the first time I met this woman, 20 years ago, and describe her life within the parish over that time.  Financial stability and generosity are great; so is pastoral stability and generosity of spirit.

Fourth, at our current size and with the mobility of people in the community where we are, we are at the limits of what one Pastor can do.  If I had not been here since the parish was barely a hundred in worship, it would be harder than heck for me to come in at this point and not be overwhelmed by the constant moving in and out of people.  As a result, we are working on an assistant Pastor position to provide some continuity for the day when I either leave or retire and to make sure that the needs of the parish are well met both now and in the future.  We have a small staff of a part-time visitation Pastor, part-time DCE, full-time Cantor, 1 full-time and 2 part-time office staff, and those who work in the preschool.  Even though this is a small staff, the needs and attentive a staff require can almost distract and consume the resources of a Pastor from the work He is called to do with His people.  Large parishes with large staffs mean that the Senior Pastor spends more of his time with the people on the payroll than the folks in the pew.  This may be necessary but it is not optimal for either this man or his congregation.

Big is not beautiful.  What is beautiful in the parish is the ability of a Pastor to know and serve His people, a congregation large enough to prevent finances from consuming too much attention, and small enough to be effective in caring for each other as well as welcoming the stranger.  What is that number?  I cannot give you a figure but bigger than 500 in worship and I think we might be too big...  Time to daughter another parish.

Not necessarily a good thing. . .

As you may have heard, author and sociologist Ft. Andrew Greeley died.  In one of the obits I read of him that he had few unpublished thoughts.  So far as I know, Greeley was not a blogger, did not tweet, but published books (granted they are available electronically as well as on paper).  But the barb still stings.  He had few unpublished thoughts.  By the way, that was not a compliment, either.  It was a tacit admission that perhaps he wrote too much.  If you have read his novels, you might wonder how a celibate priest could write such steamy sex scenes.  Perhaps it just goes to prove Jesus words about desire within being the greater problem than the sin without.  In any case I have spent a few weeks pondering on the criticism.  He had few unpublished thoughts.

Perhaps that is the great danger of our age.  We have few to no unpublished thoughts.  From the social media to the blogosphere to tweeting to texting, we leave little to the imagination.  We pass thoughts and pictures and videos on as if they were meaningless and that is often what they become.  When the medium becomes common, the thoughts expressed on the medium can also easily become common.

I write this only to suggest to you that it may be necessary for you, the readers of my blog, to tell me from time to time when to turn off the spigot.  Not every meandering thought in this pastoral mind is worthy of being shared.  I know that on an intellectual level.  In a practical way I try to prevent most of the chaff from being shared here.  But you know better than me and do no be afraid to tell me when it is enough or too much.

Confession is good for the soul so I must admit, contrary to the appearance of this blog, I do not blog every day.  I do not even blog every week.  Blogging is not my vocation; it is but a hobby.  I squirrel away some time now and then and binge blog -- from reading to writing.  I keep a notebook, affectionately called "my thought book" with me and jot things down for later use.  I program them to be published (well, not all of them, some are rather timely and are published in a timely manner).  If I died today, you would have a month or two of blog posts to ease the pain of your grief (or torment you, depending upon whether or not you like what you read here).

Anyway... I cannot forget that line from an obit...  he had few unpublished thoughts.  I hope it will not be said of me...

We don't make this up as we go along. . .

While cleaning out some things from a stack on my desk (only one of many, I am sad to admit), I came across the newsletter of a Greek Orthodox parish where former Lutherans attend (a guy a year ahead of me in elementary through high school years and his wife).  I could not help but resonate with the words the parish priest had written in December of 2011.

We Orthodox Christians don't "make it up as we go along," either in our corporate worship or in our personal Christian lives.  Neither do we conduct constant liturgical experiments or offer Sunday morning entertainments as some others do.  Rather, following the Apostle's instruction that in our worship "all things be done decently and in order" (2 Cor. 14:40), we strive to be faithful to the sound pattern of worship that has been handed down to us by the saints...

The priest is making a needful and salutary complaint against the worship has become an activity in which spontaneity, experimentation, novelty, and entertainment value are the chief criteria for success.  As one who has grown up with the constant (and, in my mind degrading and false) joke about how many Lutherans it takes to change a light bulb -- what change?!?!?!  Why it doesn't take anyone to change a light bulb.  We don't change.  That light bulb was good enough for Opa and Oma so why would we change it now?  I am sad to say that the mythology of no change has given way to one in which some Lutherans come to church every Sunday awaiting, anticipating, expecting, or dreading "what'll it be this week?" idea of worship.

Liturgical experimentation is generally the realm of those who believe that nothing is sacred and nothing is all that important, either.  Change has become its own by-word.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it has become instead if it is working, break it and break it so often that nobody will recall how it was...  Seasonal and festival differences are just not enough for us; we want more.

The claim of Lutheranism is that this faith believed, confessed, and taught is not the realm of trend, fad, or novelty but that which was and is believed.  We are not merely Christians, we are catholic Christians whose faith and practice was, is, and ever shall be the same -- not in some mechanical sense but in the familial sense as something that cannot but bear the strong family resemblance of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ the chief cornerstone.

In worship and in piety, the orthodox Christian faith is timeless (note there I am saying orthodox and not Orthodox).  It is as comfortable in one age as in any age and does not have to be re-invented for every generation, culture, or era.  It must simply be faithful.  The particular Lutherans who sent me this newsletter (should I say former Lutherans) were Augustana folk who suffered through one merger after another the church they are bore no more than a hint of resemblance to the church they were.  But it does not need to be this way nor should it.  It is to our poverty that too many have given up on Lutheranism only because Lutheranism as it claims to be is not practiced.  Ample evidence again that the problem was not that we tried being Lutheran and it did not work but that we have yet to try being Lutheran....

We have a winner!

The Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison has been elected to his second term as president of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Harrison received 4,262 votes, or 66 percent of the 6,432 ballots cast. Of the other two nominees for president, the Rev. Dr. David P.E. Maier received 1,906 votes, or nearly 30 percent, and the Rev. Dr. Herbert C. Mueller Jr. received 264, or 4 percent.  Votes were cast by some 78 percent of the total 8,201 district delegates who were eligible to vote.

Though some think the 30% for Maier a significant vote against Harrison, I disagree.  Many congregations are not at district conventions so that diminishes the number of eligible voters already.  I think 78% is credible for a rather radical shift from convention election to parish centered one.  This was also the first electronic election and there may have been tech issues for some voters.  I also disagree that Maier had no PR in this campaign since the point of his nomination seems less to win than to steal a margin of victory from Harrison.  Also those for his election did not seek a national campaign with direct appeal but to rally their (moderate/missional) base -- which they did under the radar mostly.  I think Harrison can take this as a mandate to continue his direction but I expect a more serious challenge 3 years from now unless the climate changes.

Powerful imagery...

I cannot help but be moved in witnessing the ordination rite in a Roman Catholic diocese.  There is something striking to see those being ordained to the priesthood laying prostrate before the altar, in submission to Christ and His Church.  Oh, I am sure that someone will comment negatively about this or about the way I react to that symbolic posture.  Sure, we don't have to do it but we don't have to eat like we do or live in nice homes or drive nice cars or take up expensive hobbies, either...  So, if you will, grin and bear it.  My point here is not about Rome and not about the priesthood and, no, I am not planning a swim across the Tiber.  I just like the powerful symbolism of men whose posture of prostration befits the posture of the office they will bear.

Postures have meaning.  We stand when the flag goes by, we put our hands over our hearts for the national anthem or the pledge of allegiance.  We used to stand when a woman entered the room (I still think it only polite).  We do all sorts of things we do not have to do and we do them because of the symbolism.  That is not a bad thing.  In fact, it is not only not bad, it is a good thing.

Funny how it is that we could evolve from a Judaism in which postures, gestures, and ritual would be so common to a Lutheranism in which less is more.  Honestly, I think it has less to do with our dislike for things katholisch (which is no small matter) as it has to do with the fact that we don't like doing anything that is not convenient, comfortable, easy, and fits our whims.  We complain all the dang time about how often we stand up, sit down, kneel, stand up, sit down, kneel, stand up, sit down, and kneel -  all the while the stats say our lifestyle is too sedentary, we exercise too little, and we are too fat.

I sometimes lament how cerebral worship has become (I am not excluding emotion from that word though some do).  It is cerebral and feeling oriented as well as me centered.  Perhaps that is why I find the image of priests laying prostrate while being ordained a compelling visual symbol of the undying devotion to the Lord which should not be reserved for the ministers but should belong to all the baptized.  Maybe it is just me but sometimes I think we act as if the faith were mere window dressing on our lives and not the central identity of us as people.  We take things so casually -- except the things that relate to ME.

If I said to folks we were to kneel without cushioned kneelers, the complaints would not end.  If I suggested that we might lie prostrate before the Lord, folks would bolt the church as fast as possible.  Now, mind you, I am not saying we should, only lamenting that we all find it easier to express a piety which fits our likes and stays within our comfort zone.

As an example, we had a couple of baptisms and a confirmation one Sunday a while ago.  Two children from the same family and a youth whose parents were moving before the regularly scheduled day of confirmation... so, yes, it did add about 10 minutes on the length of the service.  Funny thing was that I had two different people comment that we said the Our Father twice that Sunday and we confessed two creeds -- a waste of time in their minds and not very efficient.  Once was deemed more than sufficient!  Ah, yes, we would not want to over exert ourselves... not even for Jesus.

Well, I have finished my rant and turned down the snark.  We can all breathe easier now.... but I still find the photo compelling.... as I think back to the Sunday 33 years ago to this very day when I was ordained...  Wow, I was barely 26 years old and now the anniversary is 33 years!  God must be patience and merciful to have accepted the service of one as flawed as me.  If you have a young Pastor or one new to the office of the ministry, say an extra prayer for him today... and for me, if you can spare the time...

The problems of Christians in Islamic countries. . .

Though there are Islamic countries who tolerate the presence of Christians, one of the real problems for those Christians is finding a place to worship and being secure in that worship space.  Remember that all the Islamic nations of the Middle East had large and thriving population of Christians long before Islam began.  Some have tolerated those communities and even some church buildings but Christians in these nations are far more likely today than ever before to be without a worship home.

Some of those Christians are guests (workers who are there temporarily, business people and their families, and even members of the diplomatic community).  Most of them, however, belong to the long history and heritage of Christians who have called these nations home since the advent of Christianity itself.  Many of those nations have witnessed the Christian population decimated either as casualties of the wars and violence of the area or by the active or tacit approval of Islamic governments unfriendly to religious toleration and intent upon the persecution of non-Muslims.

The Roman Catholic Church faces the termination of its leased property in Kuwait in 2016, is looking for funds and approval to build a cathedral and building complex in Bahrain, but has found it difficult, if not impossible, to retain historic facilities and ministries within many other countries of the Middle East.

Perhaps they believe, as it appears some Americans do, that religious freedom means merely the liberty to believe privately and personally without the right to worship and the full exercise of that religious conviction within the public square.  In any case, this is a situation of abuse and a history of persecution that has not gotten its fair due in the media.  Perhaps religious discrimination can only be done by Christians and not to Christians -- at least according to the media.  In any case, this is a story Christians need to hear and we should all champion the rights of our persecuted brothers and sisters not only to the right of private belief but secure and the full exercise of worship and catechesis without fear and in every nation.  Period.

Happy 4th

Gimme a break, Jesus!

Sermon preached for Pentecost 6, Proper 8C, on Sunday, June 30, 2013.

    The Gospel for today records the turning point in the whole book of Luke.  Jesus has set His face toward Jerusalem to meet what awaits Him there. The cross is no mere stop over but the defining event of salvation, the hour for which Jesus has come into the flesh.  In the Gospel we heard of a Samaritan village that rejected the Savior for His cross appointed destiny.  Jesus’ disciples wanted to punish those who rejected Jesus but our Lord rebuked them for the distraction that He refused to consider on His way to fulfill His holy purpose.
    Jesus also deals with a couple of volunteers and one whom Jesus calls to follow Him.  They are ready to follow Him, to a point.  But first a few loose ends need to be cleared up.  One is ready to follow Jesus as long as it is comfortable but he is not ready to forsake home and family.  Another is ready to follow Jesus as long as Jesus gives Him time to take care of a few things at home.  When all is done and his life is in order, then he will follow Jesus.
    It would seem that our Lord was unnecessarily harsh upon these folks.  If you are like me, you winced a bit at hearing such blunt words to a couple of fellows who seemed ripe for the Kingdom of God and who seemed to plead only for a small accommodation from Jesus..  Maybe we fear Jesus' words here because we all know how much of our own lives are consumed with earthly concerns and matters.  Maybe we should feel uncomfortable.
    The Gospel is compelling.  It does not compete with earthly cares and needs but reorders our lives before them.  Our Lord rejects anything and everything that competes or distracts from the central focus of the cross.  He insists that the Gospel is above all cross shaped and that we meet our Lord there by faith.  Jesus refuses to share us.  It is all Christ or no Christ, all cross or no cross.  Certainly this is hard to hear for a people accustomed to compartmentalizing our lives, handling a variety of responsibilities at the same time, and used to prioritizing things.  The Gospel and the cross are not a priority; they are the one and only thing.  Not just for Jesus but for you and me as well.
    The times and seasons of this mortal life must all give way to the heavenly purpose of God reveals in the cross.  Earthly regrets give way to God's purpose and the promise of Christ which is both the ground on which we stand now and the path to our eternal future.
    Our sinful self is not so sure...  We are gravely tempted by the prospect of a less compelling Gospel, a more accommodating Savior, and a God who will share us with other thing.  We fear a God who is jealous of our time, attention, and devotion – who refuses to share us with equally weighted earthly cares, concerns, and circumstances.  So the cross is as much a scandal to us and to the values we have placed upon our lives and our things, as it was frightening to the Samaritan villagers so long ago.
    We would prefer a Savior who did not have to die for sins that are not so bad.  We prefer a faith that can take second place when the urgent matters of life press upon us.  We prefer a Gospel which understands we have lots of things to deal with.  We prefer a Sunday faith, or one for emergencies, but Jesus insists that just as the cross is the focus of His life, so it is the focus of our lives by baptism and faith.  Faith defines us and the cross is the center of that faith.  He is resolute in this so that we might be resolute in Him.
    Such a radical Gospel can easily frighten us.  Foxes have holes and birds have nests but the Son of Man has nowhere...  No one who looks back is fit for the Kingdom of God.  The point here is that the Gospel is compelling, that faith is defining, and the cross is everything.
    We may yearn for a more flexible and accommodating religion but that is not the religion of Christ.  If faith is less than satisfying, is it because we have embraced it with too much fervor or is it because it has remained on the fringes of our identity and our lives instead of defining them?  There is only the Gospel and that Gospel is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God incarnate, who suffers for our sins and dies for our redemption.  This is the one and only Gospel  that offers forgiveness, life, and salvation.
    We look around and wonder why we are not in better shapes as Christians or doing better as a church.  We think that they key may be in loosening up the faith a bit and making it easier to believe and easier to follow Jesus.  In other words, we think a less compelling Gospel might make it easier to believe but everything about the cross is compelling.  We seek a religion to affirm us and what we are doing but the Gospel is about death and resurrection, about the you who is gone and the Christ in you who lives eternally.  We want a God who is more accommodating to us and our schedules but the Gospel is about God’s time and embrace that transcends all other time and reality.
    In contrast to the easy and broad way, Jesus leads us on the narrow path – the one He has walked for us to the cross so that we might be a cross bearing people.  God has called us to live by faith, a cross eyed faith, a faith without fear even in the midst of enemies, persecution, and temptation.  This is the radical Gospel of the cross, as St. Paul insists, in which we know Jesus Christ and Him crucified or no God at all.  Amen

Enough... sufficient... for now

One of the perspectives in the Missouri Synod is that we have sufficient truth, enough unity of doctrine and practice, so that we can shift our focus from pure doctrine and faithful practice on to a larger issue facing the church in this day, namely, that of outreach.  To be sure, none of those who advocate for the missional idea in which the burden is placed on the door of the church to eliminate any needless barriers and impediments to easy and ready acceptance, have ever said pure doctrine is bad.  What has been said is that we have sufficient unity of doctrine and practice so that we can ease our pursuit of the same.  What has been said is that we need to shift the focus from our strength, doctrinal purity and unity, to our weakness, methodology and strategies for church growth.

There is a constant struggle in our church between those who uphold doctrine and those who pursue mission.  It is as if we have come to believe that our church is incapable of more than one focus, cannot balance liturgy and mission, doctrine and outreach.  We have been told this so long that most of us actually believe it.  Those who advocate for doctrine and liturgy speak as if our limited attention span should be solely focused on keeping faith with the tradition instead of missional paradigms of outreach.  Those who advocate for outreach and mission speak as if keeping faith with our Confessions and worshiping as Lutherans are mere distractions from the larger cause of telling people about Jesus.

In fact, that was the tack taken by those sought, unsuccessfully I believe, to frame the election of the Synodical President.  Harrison was seen as the candidate for those who love liturgy and doctrine and Maier the candidate for those who want the church to grow.  It is as if the person who occupies the office of Synod President has the same one track mind as our church body.  So we have lists for other offices in the church that practically say the same thing.  The United List is for those who think the most important thing in the Church is NOT to change and the Missional List is for those who think that the most important thing in the Church is TO change with both insisting that the other side is the kiss of death for Lutheranism.

Hermann Sasse wrote in 1934 that Of those time in which the life of the church was not very much disturbed by concern for pure teaching and by alarm concerning false teaching, it may be said that they do not belong to the great ages of the church.  On the contrary, the church is always in danger of dying when it ceases to wrestle with the truth and to pray that the Lord may guard it against the devil's wiles and false teachings.  (Here We Stand, p. 90)

The great ages of Christianity are not characterized by a choice.  They are marked by a passionate pursuit of truth as well as a passionate desire to share this truth.  It is precisely because we take the truth seriously that we are interested in sharing the truth.  Otherwise, it is merely the pursuit of numbers, of earthly success, of kingdom building, instead of about the Gospel.  There is something inherently wrong when we believe that the church must chose between one or the other pursuits.  A dying church chooses.  A living church embraces the truth with such passion that this church cannot settle for anything less than the full truth, pure doctrine, and faithful worship.  A living church embraces this faithfulness not as an aesthetic but as the practical and working purpose of being the church.  The church is not an idea.  The church is not a goal. She is a living entity whose life is derived from and serves the truth which is Jesus Christ.  I, for one, refuse to use "it" to refer to the church.  The church is a she.  We can afford to be cold and indifferent to doctrine and to mission as long the church is simply an "it."  But we can afford no such thing for the Bride of Christ.  She deserves our full attention to the truth that is her life and she deserves our full attention to the cause for which she exists.  She does not have a one track mind.

My problem is that too often we sell the Church short.  We presume that she is so weak and fragile that at best she can handle only one thing at a time.  We are so sure that it is a matter of which thing is chosen that will determine her fate.  We sell our leaders short as well.  We presume that every choice is a choice between those who know the truth and those who know how to speak it.  As long as we believe this and act this way, no amount of koinonia will unite us and we will die in possession of the Truth that we have shared with no one or we will die because we share everything and anything but the one thing worth nothing less than purity and faithfulness.

Just a few thoughts while waiting to head to St. Louis...

It ain't worship if...

Some rather serious and wounded words to those who think that contemporary Christian music and the advent of the praise band, worship diva, and drum set center stage is a good thing...

Read the germane points below or the whole article here...

1. If we, the congregation, can't hear ourselves, it's not worship. Christian worship is not a concert. In a concert (a particular "form of performance"), we often expect to be overwhelmed by sound, particularly in certain styles of music. In a concert, we come to expect that weird sort of sensory deprivation that happens from sensory overload, when the pounding of the bass on our chest and the wash of music over the crowd leaves us with the rush of a certain aural vertigo. And there's nothing wrong with concerts! It's just that Christian worship is not a concert. Christian worship is a collective, communal, congregational practice--and the gathered sound and harmony of a congregation singing as one is integral to the practice of worship. It is a way of "performing" the reality that, in Christ, we are one body. But that requires that we actually be able to hear ourselves, and hear our sisters and brothers singing alongside us. When the amped sound of the praise band overwhelms congregational voices, we can't hear ourselves sing--so we lose that communal aspect of the congregation and are encouraged to effectively become "private," passive worshipers.

2. If we, the congregation, can't sing along, it's not worship. In other forms of musical performance, musicians and bands will want to improvise and "be creative," offering new renditions and exhibiting their virtuosity with all sorts of different trills and pauses and improvisations on the received tune. Again, that can be a delightful aspect of a concert, but in Christian worship it just means that we, the congregation, can't sing along. And so your virtuosity gives rise to our passivity; your creativity simply encourages our silence. And while you may be worshiping with your creativity, the same creativity actually shuts down congregational song.

3. If you, the praise band, are the center of attention, it's not worship. I know it's generally not your fault that we've put you at the front of the church. And I know you want to model worship for us to imitate. But because we've encouraged you to basically import forms of performance from the concert venue into the sanctuary, we might not realize that we've also unwittingly encouraged a sense that you are the center of attention. And when your performance becomes a display of your virtuosity--even with the best of intentions--it's difficult to counter the temptation to make the praise band the focus of our attention. When the praise band goes into long riffs that you might intend as "offerings to God," we the congregation become utterly passive, and because we've adopted habits of relating to music from the Grammys and the concert venue, we unwittingly make you the center of attention. I wonder if there might be some intentional reflection on placement (to the side? leading from behind?) and performance that might help us counter these habits we bring with us to worship.

 

My words:

 

It reminds me of St. Paul's admonition about the need to say "amen" to the prayers.  Clearly the entertainment ambiance is more pervasive among Evangelicals than Lutherans but the direction Lutherans are heading means we need to pay attention to this heart-felt cry to those sure that CCM and CCW is the best thing since sliced bread...

Nothing Says GLBT Celebration like things African

According  to Juicy Ecumenism (doncha jus luv that name) the following celebration took place:

Washington National Cathedral officials hosted a special service for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) persons the day of U.S. Supreme Court rulings that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and effectively overturned California’s voter-approved Proposition 8.

Advertised as “a service of thanksgiving celebrating an increase in compassion and equality,” the June 27 ceremony sought to place the Supreme Court rulings within the narrative of liberation struggles.

A congregation of approximately 300 clustered at the front of the Episcopal cathedral, still undergoing repairs from a 2011 earthquake. Chairs were arranged to face the procession. While the congregation was overwhelmingly middle-aged whites, songs were often African in origin, such as “Siyahamba” in which participants declared “we are marching in the light of God” accompanied by djembe drums. Several congregants enthusiastically waved rainbow flags emblazoned with the word “equality” as choir and clergy processed in to the Zimbabwean song “Uyai Mose” (Come, All You People).

What I do not get is why a GLBT would use African drums, rhythms, and songs to celebrate something which the African Christians largely eschew and disdain?  I thoroughly understand though do not agree with the desire to link up the civil rights movement with the GLBT "liberation."  What I find odd is that these folks would celebrate their seeming victory from SCOTUS to the sound of music drawn from one place where the GLBT movement has heard a pretty resounding "no" from the African churches.  Maybe they are convinced that the addiction to liberal cash will change the minds of these African Christians but so far they have not moved much from the solid front of opposition against the redefinition of marriage and the acceptance of the GLBT social agenda as a Christian goal. 

But.... what do I know...

In case you ever wondered...

Wondered.... what gay and lesbian spouses can teach straight ones about living happily ever after.  Well, that is one of the things you might find in this Atlantic article entitled The Gay Guy to Wedded Bliss....

According to Atlantic:  Research finds that same-sex unions are happier than heterosexual marriages. Hmmmmm.  Well, I think you know where this article is headed.  What is most amazing is that the author seems intent upon ignoring most of the unpleasant things about gay and lesbian marriage, spinning the whole idea in a positive light that defies statistics, reason, and facts.

Some of the facts...

• male same-sex marriages break up at twice the rate of heterosexual marriages...
• the break-up rate for lesbians is a stunning 77 percent higher than that of same-sex male unions...
• after four years, 88 percent of married opposite sex couples are together, 67 percent of opposite-sex cohabiting couples, and only 37 percent of same-sex cohabitors. After eight years, those numbers fall to 82 percent, 60 percent, and 25 percent, respectively...
• the cessation of sex -- so common among lesbians that it has a name:  lesbian bed death...
• while only 4 percent of male/female couples allowed extra marital sexual relationships, 40 percent of gay men in legally recognized unions and 49 percent in long-term cohabiting unions allowed them...
• the frequency of sex outside gay relationships ranged from two to a whopping 2,500 separate incidents. The median was 41.5 extracurricular incidents since the relationship’s beginning. Frequency in the last year ranged from zero to 350 occurrences of outside sex, with a median of eight incidences in the last twelve months...
• the "stifling gender stereotypes" that predominate heterosexuals is largely missing from same sex marriages... except that the high value placed upon child care among lesbians tends to threaten the relationship and male same sex marriages tend to fight over who has to stay home with the kids...   

But you can read a better review of Atlantic's puff piece here.... 

My point is this.  Gay marriage does not seek to have what heterosexuals have.  Gay marriage seeks to redefine marriage in ways that consistently challenge and undermine the very foundations that have characterized marriage form the beginning.  This is not a small thing but a grave consequence of the decision to recognize same sex marriages.  If you want to know where we are headed in America, take a look at some of the studies done of the European nations where same sex marriage has a longer history.  It ain't pretty.  Unless, of course, your whole desire is to finish the job of removing children from any definition of marriage, eliminate any sense that marriage is for worse as well as for better, or any restrictions upon the whims, desires, and behaviors of those who are married.... if that is you choice, then the impending changes being thrust upon straight marriage by gay marriage are right down your aisle...

A Little Preconvention Humor for the LCMSers

HT To Hans Fiene!

You bad, we bad, its over... or maybe not...

From the Huffington Post:

Senior Roman Catholic and Lutheran officials announced on Monday they would mark the 500th anniversary of the Reformation in 2017 as a shared event rather than highlight the clash that split Western Christianity.
The Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) presented a report in Geneva admitting both were guilty of harming Christian unity in the past and describing a growing consensus between the two churches in recent decades.
The 500th anniversary of Martin Luther's 95 Theses, the doctrinal challenge that launched the Protestant Reformation, will be the first centenary celebration in the age of ecumenism, globalisation and the secularisation of Western societies.
"The awareness is dawning on Lutherans and Catholics that the struggle of the 16th century is over," the report said. "The reasons for mutually condemning each other's faith have fallen by the wayside."
They now agree belief in Jesus unites them despite lingering differences, it said, and inspires them to cooperate more closely to proclaim the Gospel in increasingly pluralistic societies.
"This is a very important step in a healing process which we all need and we are all praying for," LWF General Secretary Martin Junge said at the report's presentation in Geneva.
"The division of the church is something we cannot celebrate but we can see what is positive and try to find ways towards the future together," said Cardinal Kurt Koch, head of the Vatican's department to promote Christian unity.

For the life of me I cannot understand either the LWF seeking Rome's participation in the 500th anniversary of the Reformation or Rome's desire to minimize the differences.  This is false ecumenism.  It will reap no lasting rewards.

We have a history of glossing over differences when we want to and generally this leads to disappointment and a unity which is in word only.  If the Reformation deserves anything, it deserves an honest appraisal of the claims made in the sixteenth century, the counterclaims of Rome, and whether the situation today is sufficiently different to change the relationship.

Let me say unequivocally that I believe that Lutheranism and Rome are kissing cousins and stand seemingly together in the face of a liberal Protestantism that isn't sure what it believes and an evangelicalism devoid of God's presence except in feeling.  However, that said, the integrity of both sides requires that we face the differences honestly and openly and not paper over them for the sake of an anniversary.

I long for the day when Rome will repent of its errors and name the Augustana as a catholic confession.  I long for the day when Lutherans in name only will have enough integrity to be the Church they confess to be in their Concordia.  I long for the day when characterizations and vitriol can be replaced by honest theological dialogue.  I believe that Lutherans will have some apologizing to do as well (less so for the Confessions than for things written and said in the name of Lutheranism outside those Confessions).  Nothing could be better than a true unity of confession, built upon the Scriptures, faithful to the catholic tradition, maintaining the careful distinction between Law and Gospel.  There is more work ahead of us than just meetings of the leadership.  In parish and practice both Rome and Wittenberg will have to live up to their positions and that will require internal reform as well.  At this point I see too much on Rome's plate to see this happen effectively from their point of view and a fractured Lutheranism that offers Rome a less than authentic dialogue partner.  So a little anniversary party might be nice but it is not going to get either side from here to there.

A personal note here... I fail to see how Rome thinks that the LWF is the accurate face of Lutheranism.  For all of Missouri's problems and inclination to ignore Rome, Missouri remains closest in faith and practice to the confessional expression of Lutheranism.  It would seem to me that both Missouri and Rome might be the best voices to begin to address the rift.  Many, if not most of those involved in the Lutheran World Federation ordain women and gays and believe at best the Bible contains a few words of God among the many words of man.  If I were Rome, and I am not, I could not get past this to begin talking to anyone at the level of LWF.

A mixed marriage that endures. . .

So very interesting.... HT to Atlas Obscura

Despite the religious divide of the lives and cemeteries, the gravestones of Colonel J.C.P.H. of Aeffderson and noblewoman J.W.C. Van Gorkum clasp hands across the divide.

In the 19th century, the Dutch lived with Pillarisation, a policy which seperated public establishments by religious and political affiliations. Yet Colonel Aeffderson was a Protestant, and Van Gorkum was a Catholic, were married for 40 years, a union that likely caused some scandal in the 19th century Netherlands.

The Protestant husband died first, and then Van Gorkum. They wanted to be buried alongside each other, but the policies of Pillarisation made that impossible. Instead two stone hands were added to the back of their gravestones, clasping across the wall that separates them.