The comfortable gospel. . .

To be sure, the worst that could be done to Christianity happens not from the outside pressing to get in but when the inside has corrupted the true Gospel and turned it into a false panacea for everything good, easy, and comfortable.  This is the good news which has no good news in it.  It deludes us with falsehoods that we all want to hear and it sounds so good we find it hard to resist its sugary promise.  In this comfortable Gospel, suffering is replaced with happiness.  This fake gospel is so enticing because it asks little of us and promises everything but most of it for the here and now.  It was once called the health and wealth gospel or the prosperity gospel but it has evolved even more dangerously into the comfortable gospel.

In this false gospel, happiness is the highest good and God's love is measured by how happy we are, how good life feels, and how easy it is.  The mission of Christianity is less to save than to protect you from suffering or hurting -- especially the suffering or hurt that comes from self-denial.  It has no power to correct what is wrong but is so weak it can only affirm and support what we deem to be good or right in the moment.  It cocoons the Christian so that they never have to suffer the pain of turning down any desire that proceeds from the heart, any thought that proceeds from the mind, or any words that proceed from the lips.  This is not a gospel of repentance or penance but a gospel of "it's all good so go for it." 

The god of this gospel is not strong enough to bear the sins of the world or anything at all but is a tethered pet who must tell us the lies we want to hear and preserve us from anything we don't.  In this gospel we are always blessed and never in want or need or sorrow or pain.  The god of this gospel is not a god at all but a coward invented by cowards who think that what is soft and easy is always good and what is hard and difficult is always wrong.  In this gospel there is no mortification of the flesh, no denial of any of the desires within, and no call to repentance.   In this comfortable gospel, suffering is seen as failure, bearing a cross is a curse, and the best death is one without pain that comes when you think it is time.  God is merely a slave to such desires.

This is not a Gospel that saves but a therapeutic gospel that consoles the sinner to become comfortable in his sinning ways.  In this gospel: “God loves you just the way you are."  In this gospel, you are urged to flee from anything that might compromise this self-indulgence for surely Jesus would not want you to do anything but be happy.  The enemy in this gospel is not the devil, the world, or the sinful flesh but any one and any thing that would prevent you from getting what you want, doing what you want, or saying what you want.  You will not hear much of Jesus in this gospel nor of the cross, and certainly nothing of St. Paul and his call to live holy, upright, and godly lives.  Where Scripture is used, it is cherry picked to avoid any unpleasant and offensive talk of sin or hell or of a Savior who must suffer and die so that the sinner might live.  

Often I hear people complain about the churches that have nothing to say to sin except repent and believe the Gospel.  I hear the grumpiness of those who insist that some churches have nothing to talk about except sin and redemption.  I hear of those who were offended because someone in church had the nerve to mention their pet sin or fail to affirm their sinful desires as good or insist that only way to cleanse sin is with the blood of Jesus the righteous.  It is not a feminine gospel but a soft one and it repels those seeking unchanging truth and a solid foundation.  While there are those who complain, there are signs that some are being drawn into the true as if the cross were a magnet.  Remarkably, where this strong Gospel is proclaimed, young men are being drawn in.  They are looking for something strong enough to suffer for and strong enough to die for.  They are looking for a love strong enough to confront sin and a Savior strong enough to suffer and die for it.  They are looking for a Savior who calls you to deny yourself, take up your cross and follow Him.  Is that what you are looking for as well?

To chant or to sing. . .

There are many who have reduced “chant” to a generic term simply meaning “to sing.”  I suppose it is an easy enough confusion of terms.  Chant in this way encompasses everything from, well, real chant to hymn singing to the ballad singing of contemporary Christian music.  It is as if they were all the same in the most basic form or expression.  I guess it is also a reflection of how far we have come from the roots of congregational music in Gregorian Chant -- which is not merely a form of chant as a genre but its source and foundation.

Chant is wedded to the text in a way that no other church music is.  Most of us know music that is wedded to a melody or tune and a meter or rhythm.  There is nothing wrong with this but this is not chant.  Think of it this way.  Could you imagine singing a Lenten text to a Christmas tune?  Have you ever tried to put a meter to free texts either from Scripture or your own imagination?  It is not easy.  Meter and rhythm are difficult task masters.  Chant is the only way to let the text dominate.  It is free from some of those demands of rhyme, rhythm, and meter.  You hear the difference when you sing the 23rd Psalm to a hymntune -- even in a setting that is pretty much straight forward Psalm text -- and when you sing that same Psalm to a chant tone.  Of course, chant is still rhythmic speaking or singing, characterized by repetition and a limited range of pitches, but it is definitely not metrical nor does the melody lead the words in the way they do in a hymn or popular song.  Chant maintains the single tone as the dominant note on which the words are sung.  It is not monotone but the single tone is the focus of the bulk of the words.  It is repetitive but not as a chorus might be.  It has limited notes or range though even this may be stretched.

While I do not mean in anyway to diminish the value and blessing of the hymn with its meter and melody that predominate, the place where the text rules is in chant.  It is a wonderful thing when the text and tune of a hymn come together into almost one singular reality in which neither the words nor the melody dominate but both work together to support what is being sung.  It is a wonderful thing but it is not necessarily common to all hymns.  In fact, we all know this and have sung hymns in which the words and the music seem to battle a bit with the words winning some of the time and the tune the rest of the time.

Chant is different.  Take the Psalm tone.  I will not, by the way, defend all the choices made in LSB with respect to the Psalms and the places where the tone changes in those Psalms.  But when the body of the Psalm is chanted on one note with beginning or ending flourishes, you can readily see how the text or Word predominates.  Chant is not necessarily only a single note but can be voices in harmony.  Think here of the difference between Gregorian Chant and the Anglican style Psalm settings so rich and elegant.  They are some of my favorites.

We have become addicts of through composed liturgical music in which the melody is dominant, of paraphrases that force the texts into a specific meter sung to a specific tune, and of music that is appreciated more for its sound than its ability to sing the words.  Part of me laments this.  I have often said that the Fryxell setting of the Common Service in the 1958 Service Book and Hymnal remains a favorite of mine.  It is exclusively chant.  It was never widely popular and easily dropped when the next book came along but I fear we have lost something in finding our comfort solely in rhythmic music in which tune and meter dominate instead of chant.  I wish we had a ghost of a chance to recover what we have lost.  

Just a reminder than not every kind of music is chant and chant is not simply rather specific but also preferred over time for the singing of the liturgy in the Church.  Alas, we may have a rich heritage in this regard but I am not sure we even know what chant is anymore -- much less Gregorian Chant.

Growth. . .

Every Christian wants the Church to grow.  We have been hit over the head with the hammer of the Great Commission for so long we both lament the lack of growth and feel guilty about the decline of the numbers of Christians.  Polls are not very accurate when it comes to religious matters since it treats those who claim to be members and those who actually attend regularly as almost the same.  Even then, it seems like an excuse to write off the terrible numbers while salving our guilt a bit.  God loves converts.  Heaven rejoices over every sinner who repents.  So why should we not rejoice and celebrate good statistics?  Except that it is easy to forget along with the call to grow the size of the Church there is a call to grow in holiness.

This is a word Lutherans seem uneasy about.  It is easier for us to deal with membership numbers good and bad than to talk about sanctification.  Scripture talks about this more than we do and because of that we ought to talk about this more.  We print all kinds of books but not so much on growth in holiness and we preach justification with great enthusiasm but do not preach holiness of life -- conduct and speech.  Although it might be tempting to think of this in terms of quality, the Church does not win if we have fewer but better disciples of Christ.  We are called to both even though Lutherans tend to neglect the topic of growth in holiness more than they neglect the growth in numbers.

None of this mattered all that much in the time when I grew up.  Government and society were much more friendly to the Church than today, morality was held more in common by those inside the Church and those outside, and we were putting up new buildings and filling them with people as fast as we could handle it all.  Now the world is less than a friend and almost an overt enemy of nearly everything Christian.  The government is stepping over backwards not simply to avoid the appearance of favor but to erect a mighty wall between church and state.  The pews are emptying rather than filling and the Sunday school rooms are a ghost town.  Holiness matters less today because we are so very happy to have anyone walk through the door on Sunday morning and drop an offering in the plate.  It seems almost rude to question their integrity, their righteousness, or their desire to be holy as God is holy.  Justify them and let them go home and eat lunch, right?

Perhaps the Church is failing not simply in her efforts at witness but also because she no longer stands out from the world.  She has become a compromised woman whose virtue is also compromised.  Why bother to belong if the Church is merely another gathering of sinners?  Why bother to belong when the Church asks so little of those who belong?  If you put something for sale on Marketplace and mark it free, nobody wants it.  You need to price it high enough to make it desirable but low enough to make it sell.  So the Church has set the bar for entrance low but the bar for staying inside even lower.  You do not have to attend or contribute and you certainly do not have to believe -- that is a private matter.  This is not the nature of the early Church growing amidst a decidedly more antagonistic government, society, and culture.  For them, virtue mattered and growth in holiness was expected of all and spoken about regularly.

Jesus says we shall be known by our fruits.  St. Paul constantly urges us to live holy, upright, and self-controlled lives, walking worthy of our calling as the children of God.  He is not afraid to set up lists of qualifications for bishops and deacons.  Words of warning are issued about associating with those who have fallen into error and refuse the counsel of God's Word or the call to repentance.  Yet in the Church today we are more tempted to say who am I to judge?   We find it easier to offend God than to offend people in the pet sins and their favorite moral failings.  How long has it been since the Church was ever accused of being a group of holy people?  Even pastors are quick to admit they are sinners as well practiced and comfortable in their sins as anyone.  The convents are empty and the monasteries emptying now so who is left to be accused of holiness?  Who even tries to be holy or to grow in holiness?

I wish it were said of us Christians that we constantly labored to be holy and to grow in holiness.  I wonder if that might help fill the pews if the world saw us truly aspiring to become more Christlike in our words and works.  I would delight if polls would actually pick up even a slight difference between the righteousness of those inside the household of God and those outside.  While some pietists might suggest that growth in holiness is the only real growth, I am not there.  Real growth is both and, without both, one or the other will suffer.

Sharing the stage. . .

Churches that are in decline seem to have little in common since both those on the left and those on the right are suffering an exodus from the pews and a graying of those who remain.  It is hard to find any who are righteous among the many players on the Christian stage.  Among Lutherans my own Lutheran Church Missouri Synod has been bleeding off people like the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, perhaps not as much or as fast but still.  So it is not from some smug position of self-righteousness I write.  I lament the emptied pews, the bitterness of disappointment, the loss of confidence and hope.  It has extracted a great price from those who remain and who continue to gather and work, witness and give.  It is for those still there and for the many who may come back or walk though the door for the first time that I write.

When churches allow Christ to share the stage with anyone or anything or any cause, the result is that Christ is diminished and the other raised up to be like Christ or take the place of Him.  Each side has its own temptation to raise up someone or something to share the stage with Jesus.  For the left it is the causes of the day identified and deemed sacred by the culture.  When Jesus and His cross shares the stage with climate change or social justice or sexual desire or gender identity or any other cause, the cause becomes bigger and Jesus becomes smaller.  In the end, there is little need for radical heresy.  It is enough for Jesus to be equated with the cause and then it is not only Jesus or merely Jesus.  It is something else and the something else always wins.  When churches allow Christ to stand with political cause or candidate or economic system or anything else of the conservative causes of the day, Christ is made smaller and the cause gains stature merely be them being together. 

It always ends badly.  If the the cause is successful, there is no need for the Jesus of Scripture, creed, and confession.  If the cause is not, Jesus is blamed.  In any case, the spirit of the age and the cause of the moment ends up replacing Jesus as the focus.  You do not need to be liberal to replace the Gospel of the cross and empty tomb with a counterfeit gospel.  Unyielding persecution and violent threat were never able to do what churches have done willingly by simply allowing others to share the stage with Jesus.  

Parts or whole. . .

Sermon preached at the Fall Mid-South District Pastors' Conference, 8 October 2025.

 Ephesians 4:11–16

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

This is a popular text.  It shows up in the appointed readings for no less than two apostles, Proper 13B, and parts are read for ordinations and installations.  It has also taken on a life of its own in controversy over the emphasis.  Is the work of those so mentioned to equip the saints AND do the work of ministry or is it to equip the saints so that THEY may do the work of ministry.  That debate will have to wait.  The thing in this text that seems to be over looked most of all is the unity spoken of by St. Paul.

Some may remember the 80s and Wendy’s “Where’s the beef” commercials.  I think of “Parts is parts” when Wendy’s poked fun at McDonalds mashed chicken formed into nuggets.  That was the byword of the 80s.  Parts.  It is still fashionable for us to divide things up into parts.  The ministry is one but parts of it are doled out to different offices and different folks.  The body may be one but the real issue seems to be giving the parts the dignity and recognition they think they deserve.  Parts have become more important than the whole, perhaps reflecting the divisions and polarizations within our culture.  We want our share of the pie, our fifteen minutes of fame, our measure of respect.  Jesus refuses to go there and so does St. Paul.  It is not about parts or functions of the office or the different people in that office.  It is about Christ and the whole body of Christ.

The text is not concerned with honoring individual parts but the unity of the whole.  The parts have honor and purpose because they are part of the whole.  It is not about me and Jesus but about our lives knit together within the body of Christ, the Church.  It is not about me but about the whole.  Divided we fall, united we stand.  Abe Lincoln said it, learning it from Scripture.  Lone ranger Christians and lone ranger pastors are equally vulnerable.  One does not prosper while another falls without the whole of the body being wounded.  One does not suffer alone while the rest of the body goes its own way without the whole being weakened, divided, and lost.  One does not succeed but the whole prospers.  We are in this together, brothers.

The goal is not for me to shine or you but for us all to attain to the unity of the faith of the knowledge of the Son of God.  The goal is not for me to succeed to all to attain to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.  The goal is not for me to grow up but for none of us to be children any longer. 

The greater danger to the faith is not from the enemies without but from within – our concern for self alone and our isolation from others.  We live in dangerous times and in these times when we ought to be pulling together, we are falling apart.  It is no wonder that we are tossed to and fro by the waves our doubt and fear, carried about by every wind of doctrine, more enamored by our own ingenuity, creativity, and novelty than the truth of the Word that endures forever, and caught up in schemes instead of living holy, upright, and godly lives around the Word and Table of the Lord.  We are not mature but children.  Brothers, it is killing us.  Even worse, it is crippling the Church.  Parts is parts – just parts.  Together they are more.  They are the body of Christ. 

We have learned to sidestep the controversial parts of Scripture out of fear of offending anyone and everyone and so we have offended the Lord.  We have allowed it to become normal that you can belong without actually being together where the Word is preached and the Sacraments administered.  Whether it is online church or people who just don’t go, we have allowed this to develop into the norm for every congregation and every pastor. We have plush membership rolls but empty pews.  We have defined our success by everything except faithfulness and find our comfort in numbers instead of doing Christ’s bidding as He directs us.

Do you think we are not growing because we are too much like Christ or are we not growing because we have become too much like the world?  That is the question that ought to plague us.  The truth of which St. Paul speaks is not a weapon but a bridge.  We get no joy from those who go away in a huff or those who hide away until they are forgotten by the congregation.  Our joy is over every sinner who repents.  Or is it?  We are to grow up but not in the ways of worldly wisdom or marketplace expertise.  We are to grow up in every way into Christ who is the head.  Christ is the head who gives life to the whole body.  Joined together until its individual parts are hard to identify or separate and working together in unity for the same purpose, the body grows and grows up in love.

Sadly, in Charlie Kirk one so eloquent in his Christian witness was recently taken from us.  There should be countless voices to replace him.  This body should be mass producing such faithful Christian witnesses to speak the truth in love and then the lost and wandering will be brought home into the life of Christ.  It should start with you and me.  We are the pastors who teach, to whom has been given the office of Word and Sacrament to build up the body the Church.  We are those who by word and work exemplify the words of St. Paul about the blessing of unity, of the knowledge of Jesus, the Son of God, of grace that forgives and food that grows us together, and to a life worthy of our calling as His people by baptism and faith.  

We need to stop acting like children, like individual parts, and instead grow together and grow up together to manifest the stature of the fullness of Christ, mature men of reasoned judgment, honor, character, and love.  We need to stop putting our hope in programs and trust in the Word that effects what it speaks and the Sacraments of life and worship that deliver what they sign.  We need to stop tearing things down and focus on building up in love by the Word of Truth and the means of grace.  We delight in doing our own thing as if the thing the Church lacks is creativity or individuality and instead become together the servants of the Word and of the liturgy we say we are.  We are gravely tempted to be warriors against a secularized world so at odds with Christ when what He needs and those whom He calls are marked by love and zeal for Him, for His Word, for His House, and for His neighbors.

Right now it seems like there is no body at all.  Only bits and pieces and parts fighting for glory and flopping around until the life in them fades away.  Christ is calling and St. Paul urging us to be one in Christ – not in the unity of compromise but in the strong unity of conviction and truth.  I believe that the body may seem hidden for now, now a time of discernment and winnowing, until a body stronger than today rises up to speak Christ to the nations and wash them clean in living water, to absolve the sinner and remind them of Christ’s righteousness they wear, and to feed them so that they may grow up in righteousness and holiness.  And where we take heed to Christ our head, tune into His voice and follow where He leads, the body will no more be hidden nor held captive to fear or what people think.  It will be only about what Christ thinks.

Pray with me today then that His words be the mark of this new day, doing the work of ministry, fostering our unity in Christ, and living in love toward one another and those not yet of the Kingdom.  Steadfast as mature adults with a renewed sense of awe and wonder at the power of His love and mercy, growing up and growing as the body of Christ, the head and our life.  In the holy name of Jesus.

Lord God, heavenly Father, we offer before You our common supplications for the well-being of Your Church throughout the world. So guide and govern her by Your Holy Spirit that all who profess themselves Christians may be led into the way of truth and hold the faith in unity of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life. Send down upon all ministers of the Gospel and upon the congregations committed to their care the healthful spirit of Your grace that they may please You in all things. Behold in mercy all in authority over us. Supply them with Your blessing that they may be inclined to Your will and walk according to Your commandments. We humbly ask Your abiding presence in every situation that You would make known Your ways among us building up the body by the proclamation of Your Word. Preserve the traveler and all in any need, according to Your mercy and gracious will; through Christ Jesus, Your Son, our Lord, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever.

An easy target. . .

I put this off hoping it would simply go away.  It didn't.  We have a female woke Archbishop of Canterbury.  She has entered the world's stage at a moment in which Anglicanism appears to be fading off that stage.  Of course she was chosen because she is a woman and has all the right pedigrees and positions for the day.  She did not graduate with a theological degree but was a nurse before donning the collar.  She is one of those who have been busy waiting for this day to come -- it took about 10 years or so to make a woman bishop and now to have had her cook enough to be ready for the big table.  She does not have much of a future.  The Progressive Anglicanism she espouses is weak and dying.  The Africans and Asians will not warm to her but the liberal West certainly will.  

She looks like an aging Vicar of Dibley and her glasses and hairdo come out of a BBC production.  In her first address, Mullally thanked the women that had gone before her. She also spoke of the "quieter and stronger" hope offered by the Anglican church in an "age that craves certainty and tribalism".  Good luck on that.  Though she vehemently opposes assisted death, the recent positions of the Church of England seem to have put that into place as their primary program -- help us die as a church by distancing ourselves more and more from the Scriptures.  

At age 63, she is married with two children, spent over 35 years in the NHS and became the youngest-ever chief nursing officer for England in 1999.  She has been a priest for 24 years and Bishop of London since 2018.  Obviously, she was not chosen for her long record of service but maybe a hospice nurse is exactly what the C of E needs now.  Slow the death, ease the suffering, administer the painkillers, and let the patient die in peace -- what more could you want? Maybe she could join Pope Leo in chipping off enough of his blessed ice block to make a decent gin and tonic and they could talk shop.  Or maybe she could paper over the cracks in the C of E enough to give the body in the coffin the appearance of once having been alive.   

The American leader of the Episcopal Church said this of her:  she is “a wise and steady leader, a faithful advocate for the leadership of women in the church, and a bishop who will be committed to safeguarding vulnerable people and victims of abuse.”   Well, there you have it.  As long as she safeguards the vulnerable and advocates for victims of abuse, what need is there to know the Scriptures or preach Christ crucified and risen?  It is surely enough that she is against all the sins currently unpopular and for al the ones that are, isn't it?  

Mullally will take office at a tough moment for the Anglican Communion, poised to consider changes to the archbishop of Canterbury’s leadership role in the communion and the whole way that Anglican provinces relate to one another.  In two proposalsto be taken up next year by the Anglican Consultative Council, how the  42 Anglican provinces relate to each other will be changed resulting in the de-emphasis of the Church of England and the archbishop of Canterbury while emphasizing more the geographically diverse global leaders of the Anglican and Episcopal churches.  That should be fun.  As one wag put it:  "Everybody in the Church of England will be polite to her, but few will listen to whatever she has to say…"

Okay, enough snark for today.  As you can see, I am not a fan.

A seat at the big table. . .

The image of the day is largely of a big table and of the need for everyone to be represented with a seat at the big table.  It has become almost inconceivable to think that anyone can be represented by someone who is not just like that person.  Woman alone can represent women, gays alone can represent gays, Blacks alone can represent Blacks, etc...  At least that is the current wisdom that prevails today.  The table has gotten very large and, in some respects, has become, in reality, many tables though tables of equal value and worth.  So in Rome Synodality has mirrored this idea in an ecclesiastical setting but other churches have long ago adopted this not simply as the ideal but as the minimum.  So in the ELCA a quota system was put in place to make sure that this cardinal rule was never violated.  In the end, we vote less for the most qualified and more for those who fit the bill -- the right sex, skin color, sexual orientation, economic status, etc...

What goes on in that big table or the many tables gathered together is largely talk.  I might call it conversation but it is hardly conversation with so many involved.  It is largely single voices and a small pool of those voices that tend to dominate.  Even if there was a real conversation, what is the point of that conversation?  If it is to give a voice to those who have not had one, that certainly is a legitimate cause for a governance in a political sense but it does not necessarily fit with a Church whose ultimate authority is not with what people think or want but with what Scripture says, creed professes, and confession bears witness.  In fact, the image of the big table in which everyone has a seat and a voice is largely an ideal in which consensus is the goal -- not the discernment of truth.  There is, to be sure, truth[s] that from time to time change but guard the outcome.  Today that is largely guided by the Woke agenda but it has been guided by other agendas at other times some of which were better or worse.

The resolution of conflicts or tensions is often given as a goal or even the primary goal of the big table and its many representatives and its grand conversations.  While that might deal with facts, more often it tends to deal with opinions and lives more in the realm of feelings than objective facts or truths.  I can well imagine that if Nicea were to happen today, the chief goal of that council would be to make sure every voice was heard, every oppressed minority was given a chance to sit at the table, and some sort of vague language adopted so that Arius and the others allied with him could live with the outcome as well as the orthodox Christians.  It would never have resulted in the creed that we know today nor would it have ever resulted in people confessing the outcome of that council at every Divine Service.  If the modern day ideal of the big table had been used at Nicea, there would never have been a Creed universally confessed in the Church today -- even, in some cases by non-creedal churches.  Rather, at Nicaea, the tensions, disputes, and conflicts in the Church were not resolved dynamically or by consensus but definitively:  what does Scripture say.  The Arian denial of Christ’s divinity was not dealt with by majority vote or even by consensus of the orthodox but rather on the basis of what the Scriptures say.  I wish I could say that this actually entered into the synodality conversations in Rome or the tables governed by Protestant quota systems or anything else.  Sadly, it is what is lacking.  Nicea was not interested in consensus or even peace (though perhaps the emperor was).  Nicea was interested in what the Scriptures say.

As much as it has become a tenet of the modern ideal, the big table are the great conversation around it should not and should never become about us and what we think and what we can live with and must always be simply about what the Scriptures say.  If that were the case, we might actually have some legitimate fruits of the consensus movement and its big table.  Because it is not, the fruits of the constant conversation without the norm of Scripture has born very few fruits of any real value.  Hopefully Rome has learned this and the rest of us should learn it sooner rather than later.  Ours is not a task of finding consensus but standing for the truth yesterday, today, and forever the same.  I am not trying to be mean or rigid but it is the one and only rationale for our gathering together, for our common life around Word and Sacrament, and our common witness before the world. 

 

AI and the great sucking sound. . .

Like any fad, AI is a splurge into a unknown but it has some downsides in addition to the traditional ones.  On the one hand, the technology is sucking the capital from other projects and the sheer amount of money being poured into this one area is creating a shortage of funds for the development of other promising ventures.  Perhaps it will end up bankrupting some and dragging the overall market down with it.  Who knows?  In the meantime, it is commanding a greater and greater share of the capital funds available.

Second, AI is an energy hog.  It is literally sucking electricity off the grid and increasing demand more than any other sector of the utility market -- even electric cars.  The electrical demand of server farms and the infrastructure necessary to fuel the AI segment of technology threatens to steal our power away from other needs.  Utilities are scrambling to put up small nuclear power generators, solar, and wind sources to keep up with this demand and some of those who are investing in this research are contracting for that demand as fast as it comes on line.

Third, AI is stealing talent away from the many other possible advances in technology and science.  We are more and more borrowing our best talents and minds from other projects and putting them to work in an effort to lead instead of follow this trend.  While that may be great for AI, it means that many other worthy avenues of discovery are being ignored or slowed down because we simply do not have the people with the skills to do everything.  

Finally, AI is stealing our hope.  We have heard artificial intelligence talked up so much we have invested too many of our hopes and dreams in the promise of a smart world which can leave us to our leisure and the pursuit of things entertaining.  What need have we have religion or a savior if we think that code and devices can solve the riddles of all that is wrong and supply the answers to all our questions and take over all our work?

I have warned that AI may also be good at stealing our humanity as well as our jobs but these are not the only things that threaten our future under the guise of a promising technology.  Who are we if we have no work or purpose?  What will become of our idle minds and our idle hands?  How will this corrupt us until we become the servants of those we designed and built to serve us?  Religious questions abound on the nature of our humanity and the shape of our human identity going forward.  This is, of course, on top of many other issues.

Free to pursue if you want. . .

In Roman Catholic understanding, celibacy is considered higher than marriage in part because it allows individuals the freedom to dedicate themselves fully to the Lord and His service without the distractions and responsibilities that come with marriage and family.  Lutherans say something similar in our own Confessions.  Celibacy is the higher gift.   It undeniably is the teaching of the Lutheran Symbols that virginity is a higher state than matrimony.  Both can be and are pleasing to God when lived in chastely (though chaste here obviously means something different for the celibate than for the married).  This is one reason why I cannot endorse the change from chaste to sexually pure in the most current version of our Catechism.  That said, it might seem that Rome and Wittenberg are on the same page here but it is quite clear they are not.  By the way, this is not merely about the requirement of celibacy for the priest but about the esteem we hold both the gift of celibacy and the gift marriage.

How this plays out is the issue.  A friend sent me a link to a Roman Catholic post entitled:  Celibacy is better than marriage—don’t be threatened by this truth!  Pope Pius XII: “Virginity is preferable to marriage then, as We have said, above all else because it has a higher aim: that is to say, it is a very efficacious means for devoting oneself wholly to the service of God, while the heart of married persons will remain more or less ‘divided.’” The author continues:  It is of course better, subjectively, to live the life one is called to. Yet it is not enough to say that celibacy is better for some while marriage is better for others. Celibacy is better than marriage, absolutely speaking. In fact, in the long run, we are all called to celibacy.  While the author goes on to suggest that no one should be upset by the promotion of a higher good over lesser goods and insists we will all be celibate in heaven, the point here mistakes the reality of God's creative order as mere utility rather than gift.  You are free to pursue marriage if you want but it is not itself a vocation.  Really?

Celibacy certainly is a charism, that is, gift from God.  Luther's and the Lutheran's point is that the gift cannot be required of those who serve since it is a gift from God and not simply personal or churchly discipline.  Rome admits that celibacy is a discipline of obedience for priestly service.  While Rome has centuries of tradition on its side, Lutherans have the Scriptures and a clear attestation that both priests and bishops were married (at least according to no less an authority than St. Paul).  In defending his own decision to marry, perhaps Luther went off the rails by going to the opposite extreme and saying that celibacy is contrary to nature.  It is certainly true that in the time before the Reformation, marriage and family were discouraged and even denigrated -- not in the sense of telling people they could do what they wanted but in the sense of saying that only the celibate had a vocation and implying only the celibate had the blessing of God upon their estate.  All of this while at the same time proclaiming marriage a sacrament!  How odd!

What this has become, however, is a toleration of marriage and family more so than the promotion of both as having God's plan and blessing attached to them.  In reality, we have gotten down to the point where marriage and family are merely options along the way and the single life (not celibate) is the pursuit of self with the presumption that this is the highest good (at least for the individual).  The reality remains that the gift of celibacy is a gift which is not enjoyed by many nor has it ever been.  St. Paul admits this and insists that the gift is not meant as a life lived in the torment of the desire of the flesh burning inside.  To this St. Paul advises marriage and not as something to be tolerated but as the answer to this longing.  To be sure those with the gift of celibacy will have moments of burning or tortured desire for another and yet they are able to live contentedly within the grace of God without being consumed by this desire.  God bless them.  The single estate today hardly accords with such a picture.  Instead it is the unbridled pursuit of self with the agreement that marriage and family constrain this desire and are therefore not good.

Rome's problem is in saying that God wants us all to be celibate.  Luther's problem is in saying that God wants all of us to be married.  In this, it is probably more accurate to agree with Luther's exaggeration than Rome's.  After all God made man for woman and woman for man.  Marriage was not an afterthought for the constraint of passion but God's intent from the beginning.  Living singly is often the result of a sinful world in which our wants and desires even for good and salutary things are left unmet and we bear the burden of that disappointment.  Living as the celibate is not simply being unable to find a wife or husband along the way but the gift realized and lived out by grace through faith for the glory of God.  Both are to be lived chastely and no one gets a pass from this.  That said, our kids have heard from us and learned that marriage and family are messy and put a damper on your self-indulgence and therefore might and perhaps should be avoided.  This is people doing what they think is right in their own eyes.  It is sin as bad as and even worse than forcing celibacy upon those without the gift or marriage upon those who do have it.  Let's be honest.  There are some who might have the gift or charism of celibacy but the ordinary shape of all our lives is marriage and family -- not as a good less than virginity but as a different good and, perhaps, one requiring a greater surrender to the will and purpose of the Lord and so higher in that sense.  

For Rome, admitting that marriage is an equally lofty path to holiness as celibacy means glorifying sex.  I am not sure how you end up with this.  Sex is not what is being glorified in marriage but God's good creation and our entrance into that creative order.  The world is saying it is all good -- whatever you want.  Marriage and family are not saying that.  Perhaps the preponderance of birth control and the prevalence of abortion have tried to make it about the sex and, if the churches have followed this path, then we have corrupted God's purpose as well by suggesting it.  You cannot read God's creation without also reading how God in His will and purpose made them male and female, ordered their life together, blessed them with children, and intended this till death us do part.  God was not tolerating this but commending this as good and by its goodness insisting that we live in it the holy, upright, and godly lives we are called to live.  Forgiveness makes this possible and our righteousness never commends our salvation but that does not mean this is not good, right, or salutary.  The shape of our human lives is ordinarily marriage and family and this lens is what we have failed to impart to our children and grandchildren so that even Christian people today view it as merely one among many choices.  That is not how Scripture says it.

A coarseness that diminishes. . .

Life is hard.  There is no denying it.  Life can also be demeaning.  Sadly, we often add to that which diminishes us as people and makes even less than common our noble humanity.  One of my pet peeves is the coarseness of our language and the hardness of our speech.  We seem to have presumed that if we have nothing to say, expletives will give the emptiness of our words force and eloquence.  We are sadly mistaken.  Our coarse and vulgar speech has done nothing to elevate us and everything to steal whatever nobility that might have been claimed for us and our humanity.

In today’s culture, bad language has become normal and nobody winces anymore at sound of it.  It is all around us -- in movies, in music, on TV, in the workplace, in the home, at sports events, and everywhere a person goes.  The foul sound has become so normal it no longer demands much notice from us.  I would think it impossible for just about anyone to get through a day without hearing some fort of profanity -- whether you are in preschool or high school, at a church event or digging a ditch, it is all around us.  SWe have defiled ourselves so abundantly with the coarse and vulgar character of our conversation, that we are utterly desensitized to it.  It seems to cost us nothing to be profane.  We use our foul language in the public square and behind closed doors with nary a cost to pray for our coarseness.  In fact, few even call it a problem.  

Quite apart from religion, our use of and acceptance of vulgarity, profanity, or obscenity is still a big deal. The obscenities that flow from our lips either by habit or slip of the tongue or with malice against others has helped to create the climate of intolerance, bitterness, selfishness, and violence we lament today.  If we cannot control our tongues, why would we expect to control guns or knives or any other weapon.  That is the point.  We are using words as weapons, agents of malice that not only hurt others but diminish us as well.  How much of the gift of communication is squandered by the use of language designed to draw attention but which has become normal to our ears?  By letting vulgarity, profanity, and obscenity define our conversation, we have allowed the baser and cruder side of our humanity dominate everything we are and everything we hope to be. 

The Bible warns us against this.  In Matthew 5:10-11, Jesus insists that “it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” Earlier in the very same Gospel, Christ warns “on the Day of Judgment, people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”  In the letters of St. Paul this is reinforced.  Ephesians repeats our Lord's words of warning, reminding God's people to “let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.”  The book of Proverbs says that 'Death and life are in the power of the tongue.'  James warns us of the tongue and its shamefulness in one moment while used to praise God in the next.

For a religion of the Word made flesh who speaks in His Word (the Scriptures), we are not simply reducing our credibility but making a mockery of the means by which God addresses us with the voice of life and we share that voice with others.  How do we expect to be taken seriously when we succumb to the power of vulgarity in our speech and conversation?  While the commandment is clear about the use of God's name, the rest of our vulgarity and profanity that does not quite fit under this prohibition is no less vile and defamatory.  While this is worse in the world around us, it is a problem in the Church and for the people of God.  Though some may suggest we are being honest or earthy in our conversation, it is the hardest side of our humanity and in this climate virtue and nobility seem to have been banished in favor of a profanity that honors no one and accomplishes nothing.  For the world this is a problem.  For the Christian this is a crisis.

It is no laughing matter.  It is not a joke to hear a small child mimic parents or other adults in the use of such vulgarities.  In fact, we have created for our children a climate in which they have become utterly desensitized to obscene and offensive language.  This is not simply about the profanity but about the difficulty we have created for honest communication in general.  If we cannot make a point without being crude, how do we expect to build relationships, unite the disparate, and forge unity in any meaningful way?  If we are resorting to such talk inside the church, how can we expect Christians to stand up and apart for the sake of the baptismal name of Christ placed on them in water by the Word?  I wish we learned to be as offended by such coarseness as we seem to be over the trifle of a person misgendered or whose pronouns have not been honored.  Yet that is the point.  We no longer notice how coarse and ugly we have become in our poverty of language that uses profanity where wisdom and cleverness once made the point. 

Somewhere out there. . .

Just because God is everywhere does not mean He is not somewhere.  Sadly, we treat God as if He were a hidden or disguised deity who must be found and unmasked and then convinced to do what we think is good and right.  It is no wonder that prayer is a labor.  If prayer is directed to a God who is somewhere out there, it is hardly intimate or personal in nature but a word that searches for Him as much as expresses the heart of the petitioner to Him.  In addition, it fails to regard where God has placed Himself for us and in our weakness to know where He is always to be found.  That is another connection too often lost in our prayers.

In truth there is no somewhere out there.  God may be less than fully accessible to us on our own because of sin but that hardly consigns Him to a place far removed from where we are.  Like the pair of glasses or the cell phone carelessly laid down and then missed, we carelessly treated God and His Word and awoke in the midst of sin, longing for Him but fearful of Him and uncertain of Him.  It was not God who was laid aside but has remained there among us though we were blind to Him and to His mercy.  So He undertook to reveal Himself in words and actions throughout time and history, not far off but near, so that we might be prepared to receive Him when He came as one of us.  

God is never somewhere out there except in the human imagination clouded by sin.  For the Church and for the Christian God is near, not brought close by any of our wish or will or works but because He has never left us.  Such is the character of His mercy.  He is not the distant deity who must be bidden but bidden or not God is here and this is one of the more profound distinguishing characteristics of the Triune God over the gods of Islam or other human imagination.  Indeed the language of Scripture is always of the God who is present, even in time of trouble and even when we do not seek or want Him.  This is a reflection of the God whose Law always accuses.  We do not want Him around unless He is nice to us and acts as we please but our conscience cannot escape His judgment against our sin and our death cries out to Him for mercy even when we have made our peace with it.  

We have to be taught to pray not because it is a complicated art or skill to be learned but precisely because in our hearts we constantly face the temptation to fear Him and the job of prayer is to summon the feared one and put Him in a good mood.  Think of the damage we have done to our children by teaching them to think of the God who is somewhere out there!  Instead of learning from Scripture, we have continued to foster the illusion that God is lost and we must find Him, angry and we must tame Him, reluctant and we must convince Him to mercy.  Instead, we should have been pointed to all of those places where God is without question -- the living voice of His Word that is efficacious as well as true, the water of baptism that churns with life for all the dead who are placed under that water, the absolution that actually lifts sins from our shoulders and renders our consciences call clean, and the bread and wine that allow us to feast upon Christ as the food for today and foretaste of eternity.  Then they would grow up with the God who is near and maybe their whole mindset of themselves, their place and purpose in this world, and their relationship to God might be different from the get go.

Alas, we are too comfortable with the God who is somewhere out there and find it hard to let go this false idea even for the true comfort of God's nearer presence in Word and Sacrament.  It fits us.  We meet Him at Church, we go to Church, and we leave Him behind to return to the world of our domain to do as we please -- inviting God in when we need Him but conveniently having Him at an arm's length when we do not.  This is also the part of the heart that needs to be converted.  When it is, prayer will be easier and no longer begin with us but with the God who always hears, always answers, and always bestows more than we ask or dare imagine.  In this we can to little more than to pray God be merciful to me, a sinner and Thanks be to God... 

What are you going to do with your life?

There was a time when certain things were automatic answers to that question.  There was a time when parents and children presumed that this might have been more about an occupation than vocation but now it would seem both have become interwoven.  What are you going to do with your life?  For starters, marriage and family were almost automatic answers to that question and so did not even need to be said.  When I began as a pastor, I also began asking catechism students if they planned to marry and have children.  At first it was a joke.  Well, duh.  Of course.  Some fifty years ago this was presumed.  While those of that age may not have a clue as to their major in college or their profession or where they might end up working, they at least knew this.  They would marry and have children as their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents had done before them.

When I last asked this question while teachings a year or so ago, the question of marriage and family was not so universally chosen and certainly not presumed.  Part of that question of what they were going to do with their lives was precisely a question of it they would marry and if they would have children.  While not yet at the point where it was presumed they would be single and without children, it was already at that point when marriage and family were on the table but not yet decided.  How strange it is that in addition to sorting out the maze of college or trade school, major or minor, profession or occupation, now our kids have to figure out if they are gay or straight or some other point on the spectrum of desire, if they are male or female or one of the other letters of the alphabet with respect to gender, if they would consider marriage and if they would ever consider a child.  In other words, what were presumed and unsaid about nearly all kids a generation or three ago has become the big question.

In addition to the whole question applying to things that were once pretty much a given, it seems to imply that the answer is a puzzle to be solved.  What are you doing to do with your life is not some mystery which we must explain or solve, it is simply a question.  Its answer lies not in some heartfelt longing but in the concrete of aptitude, skills, and advice.  We know what we are good at and what things come easy to us.  Our parents and family and friends also know us and they can often see things we do not see in ourselves.  It may not be glamorous or romantic but it might be as simple as looking at ourselves and seeking the advice of those around us.  Though some folks and even Christians sometimes speak of what we do with our lives as some great puzzle or mystery to be solved, it need not be that difficult.  Guided by our aptitudes and skills and armed with the advice and counsel of those who know us best, it can be rather easy.  Occupations do not have to be meaningful to be filled with meaning -- sometimes they are ordinary and routine but they accomplish great things in the support of a spouse, children, and an extended family.

What are you going to do with your life?  As a Christian we already know the answer to that question.  We are to live holy, chaste, upright, honorable, generous, giving, and servant lives -- living in our life what we see in Jesus.  If we can't see this, we will not be able to see anything else.  I could have been a plumber like my dad or any one of a thousand things.  I ended up a pastor.  It was not so much a personal goal as it was being moved along by interest, encouraged by family and friends, and the work of God in and through them.  I will say this -- I did not expect to marry and have a family because I presumed it.  Yes, there are those whose desire for marriage and family are not realized or are realized late in life.  Of course.  God bless them.  But that is not the norm.  The norm is marriage and family.  Everything else may be up for grabs but we need to do our kids the service of encouraging at least this as they unpack their lives and what they plan to do with them.  

 

Color me surprised

I have not had a moment to look at the counters but now that I have taken a glance, color me surprised.  Since this blog began, more than 12 million of you have clicked to see what has been on my mind.  I thought it might die out but in the last month, more than 1.4 million of you tuned into this blog and on one day alone 200K gave this blog a look see.  It seems to be growing.  I do not know what to say.  It amazes me that something as antiquated as a blog still works in this age of new and better things.  I am immensely grateful for your interest and your loyalty.  I have no plans to cease this little endeavor but will have to work out how it all looks going down the road.  Thank you for your many words of encouragement.  I make no claim to know everything but just enough to be dangerous and my mind continues to be piqued by the journals, online articles, and books that fill my days.  There are a few more meandering thoughts in this pastoral mind waiting to be set free.  While I pray I have not offended you, I do hope to have triggered your own consideration of the things posted and unleashed your own meandering thoughts.  Thank you.

Don't just give them the idea of Jesus. . .

I am rather sick of the bywords of the progressive or missional churches.  The whole idea of slogans is somewhat degrading and reducing Jesus or the Gospel or even the Church to a slogan is pathetic at best.  But that is about where we are.  Whether conservative or liberal, we build our houses of straw on the weak foundations of slogans that mean little to us and even less to those whom we serve.

Nearly every congregation I know would say of themselves, “We’re a welcoming community.”  What is the world does that even mean?  I have been to plenty of welcoming communities that did not even notice me when I walked through the door.  That would seem to be the minimum.  Notice who comes in.  Of course, it means more than mere notice.  There ought to be some sort of welcome which is not reserved for those whom you call friends.  In reality, the term "welcoming community" ends up meaning that this church does not stand for much.  They do not have any standards which means that anyone can enter but it also means that you do not need to change either.  "Come as you are" is a way of telling people that who they are is just fine with the church and with God.  "God loves you just the way you are" has become code for God must accept me for whom I am, for all my sinful predilections, for all my uncharitable judgments against others, and for my own self-designed sexual, moral, and gender identity.  By the way, a rainbow is not the sign of welcome.  It is the sign of God's rightful and just judgment which is set aside not because the sin is okay but because God is merciful.  Furthermore, this kind of talk is a tacit admission that if you did have standards or bothered to call a sin a sin, people would get snippy or complain or, worse, leave and stop giving.

Nearly every congregation would say, “We meet people where they’re at.”  Of course you would.  In our wear what you like and live how you want world, we all have to meet everyone else at the altar of their own preferences and desires.  Why should it be different for a Christian Church or a Lutheran one?  This says nothing.  Of course God does not demand we go to Him.  He comes to us.  That is the whole thing about the incarnation.  Furthermore, it is the incardinated statement of Lutheran doctrine --I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him. Duh.  But that is not all we say.  But the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith. In the same way He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth, and keeps it with JeBus Christ in the one true faith. In this Christian church He daily and richly forgives all my sins and the sins of all believers. On the Last Day He will raise me and all the dead, and give eternal life to me and all believers in Christ. 

Unless you have a plan for leading people once you meet them where they are at, it cannot be called evangelization or mission or witness or any of those big or fancy words.  The reality is that we often do not have any plan.  We think we can give them Jesus without giving them the Church.  Fat chance.  Jesus is where He has promised to be -- in the Church.  There, where the called are gathered, Jesus and the Spirit of Jesus are working to accomplish His purpose.  It means leading people to the voice of God speaking through His Word, washing them with the water of everlasting life, absolving their sins of the penitent, and feeding them upon the very bread of His flesh and the cup of His blood.  Don't just give them the idea of Jesus or a passing feeling of Jesus or an emotional high of Jesus.  Give them the Jesus where Jesus has promised to be.  If you are giving them Jesus without bringing them to the worship services of God's House, catechizing them in the creeds and catechism, giving them the new birth of the baptismal womb, hearing their confession and absolving them, and setting apart to give out His flesh and blood in the Holy Eucharist, what are we giving them at all?

What's in a name?

Islam is taking over Europe in deep and profound ways.  On the one hand, look at the choice of baby names.  In Belgium, for example, the growing immigrant culture is revealing itself in the choice of names for babies born there.  Traditional names long identified with the Belgium and European culture are giving way to Muslim names.  In Belgium and across Europe the demographics and cultures have changed until in Brussels Mohamed has edged out all others as the most common first name for newborn boys, followed by the second most popular Mohammed.  Jean and David share the top five with Ahmed while among girls Fatima is making its way into the top five.  This is not limited to first names.  Among surnames,  Peeters, Janssens, and Maes are most common nationwide, in Brussels, Diallo, Bah, Barry, Sow, and Nguyen reflect how the capital’s demographic landscape continues to change.  Maybe you think this is no big deal, right?  After all, what's in a name?

How about this, then?  In Germany an asylym seeker who was convicted of manslaughter was given a lesser sentence after the court took into account a Shariah and tribal custom of a payment for "blood money" to the victim's family.  In June of 2024, Abdi A. stabbed his childhood friend Abdihannan M. after an argument over the level of noise in their building.  It came after a drug-fuelled weekend of partying.  The state courts sentenced him to a lighter sentence after taking into account the payment of some $100K by the guilty man's family to the victim's family.  Under local Ethiopian custom and Islamic law, the receipt of blood money means that relatives of the deceased should forfeit any claims to ‘blood vengeance.’  In this case it is not about a name but the bending of the German legal system to accommodate Islamic law and an African custom in which money changed hands to ease the prison time of the perpetrator of the crime.  Who would have thought that such a thing could have happened in a Western nation in which the rule of law is claimed and blind justice dispenses punishments regardless of the economic status or religion of the guilty?  There you have it.

The point of immigration was to incorporate those who migrated into the life and culture of the host country.  People were supposedly immigrating in order to find a better home amid the protections of law and under the freedom designed to welcome others into their national identity and culture.  Now it would seem that we are seeing a different point of view.  Immigration is transforming the culture and identity of Europe in ways that will effectively erase a former national identity in favor of the identity of the immigrant people.  For Europe, a baby's name is a sign of the vitality and fruitfulness of those immigrant families and in Germany it is a sign that even justice is not immune from the power of Shariah law and tribal custom.

The question is not whether immigrants should be welcomed.  The question is whether immigration should be allowed to transform a national identity in such a way that a nation no longer exists and a new nation is born.  While there may be less a danger of such happening in America, all across Europe the graying of the people and the economic need for an immigrant workforce mean that what once was is in real danger of disappearing and a new flag flying over places like Sweden and Belgium and, perhaps, even Germany.  It is something to think about since it represents the shift away from the values and identity of the West rooted as it was in Christianity to an Eastern identity rooted in Islam.  No one but a fool would deny how immigration contributed to the economic and cultural vitality of America but what drew those immigrants was the desire to find a home within that economic and cultural identity -- not to replace it.  What would America have become if the desire of our forefathers had been to create their own distinct and separate identity in culture, life, and even before the law?
 

Honor the Honorable. . .

The job of the Church is to honor those who honor the faith.  The job of the Church is not to honor those who do good things with one hand and things which conflict with the faith by the other hand.  At least that is my narrow view of things.  Perhaps it is outdated and old fashioned but it makes a mockery of the Church when anyone other than an individual who has confessed the faith receives some sort of commendation.

That said, Rome, apparently, has a different opinion.  The already rather notoriously liberal Cardinal of Chicago, Cupich, has offended in a variety of ways and seems to delight in turning a blind eye to what Rome has stood for in order to curry political or cultural favor.  It was his intent to bestow an award on Sen. Durbin of Illinois. The Archbishop of Chicago, Blase Cardinal Cupich, was to bestow a lifetime achievement award on Sen. Richard Durbin through the archdiocese’s office of human dignity and solidarity at their November 3 fundraiser at St. Ignatius College Prep.  Durbin is Roman Catholic, according to his own insistence, but also one who has deviated from Roman Catholic teaching on a variety of subjects including abortion.  Pope Leo said, “no one is exempted from striving to ensure respect for the dignity of every person, especially the most frail and vulnerable, from the unborn to the elderly, from the sick to the unemployed, citizens and immigrants alike.”  Durbin disagrees and yet he is seen as fit to be honored as an honorable Roman Catholic man.  I am certainly not in any position to tell Rome what should be done but it is worth noting that it is precisely an inconsistency like this that undermines Rome's stand and its integrity on an issue so central as the sacredness of life from conception to natural death.

Durbin is not even within Cupich's diocese nor does he fall within his pastoral care.  That might be a topic for another day but it illustrates the blatant desire for political and cultural relevance over the concern for faithful witness and confession.  I am in no place to render judgment upon the soul of Richard Durbin but that does not mean that we who confess the sacredness of life when it comes to the unborn should refrain from signalling our discontent when an honor is bestowed upon a dishonorable person.  While we have come to expect such things from Roman Catholic institutions, remember the honor bestowed upon then NY Governor Andrew Cuomo by Notre Dame, it does not make it any more palatable when churches compromise their doctrine and faith in order to curry such cultural or political favor.  

Oddly enough, there was a time when Durbin was actually the pro-life choice and the Republican was pro-choice.  On January 17, 1982, then candidate Richard J. Durbin was the master of ceremonies for the Springfield Right to Life committee’s annual March for Life event in the Illinois capital. He won and was, for a short time anyway, a self-proclaimed supporter of the right to life.  He was on record opposing abortion on demand and in favor of overturning Roe v Wade -- at least until 1985.  Then he voted against a provision to the Equal Rights Amendment that specified that abortions not be funded by the taxpayer, failed to support the Kemp-Kasten Amendment, which would have excluded groups performing or referring for abortions from receiving federal funding, and finally introduced the Durbin Amendment to require groups to perform abortions in order to be eligible for any federal funding funding. By 2023, his personal reticence seems to have gone completely, “Abortion is a fundamental right.”

Leo, of course, has his own problem with elevating people who have demurred from Roman Catholic teaching to positions of power and leadership.  Consider how Francis gutted the Institute for the Family created by John Paul II by naming Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia as its head or the scandal when he named Archbishop Victor Fernandez as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -- someone previously more known for steamy and sultry comments than catechesis.  Honor the honorable with recognition and with leadership and do not experiment with people whose track record is uncertain at best or flawed at worst.  Now it seems, the opposition of some bishops, the behind the scenes reluctance of others, the news this has created, the conflict that has ensued made it impossible for Cupich to withdraw his offer but Durbin at least knew enough to decline it.  That is one more example of a political way out of a problem that should not have arisen in the first place

By the way, Lutherans are not exempt from their own problems here either.  There have been cases in our own past when we preferred the illusion of access to power as when one of our own is elected or appointed to high office but then tends to overlook or ignore inconvenient teaching.  So this is not for Rome only.  It is also for Lutherans.  We should honor the honorable whose life and witness has not compromised doctrine and faith and leave it at that.  Not to mention the audacity of giving a living person a lifetime achievement award while that person still has time to renege on even more of the faith for political expediency.  It would not have cost Cupich a dime to skip over Durbin and honor someone else worthy of such recognition.  To withdraw the honor now would cost Cupich everything and making him appear either weak or a coward.  I am not saying he is neither except to say that once announced it is nearly impossible for him to reverse himself and deny Durbin the award no matter what the Senator from Illinois might say or do.  And that is the problem. 

A little visit. . .

A Reformed pastor visits Wittenberg...

“First, the Introit was played on the organ, accompanied by the choir in Latin, as in the mass offering. Indeed, the minister meanwhile proceeded from the sacristy dressed sacrificially [in traditional vestments] and, kneeling before the altar, made his confession together with the assisting sacristan. After the confession he ascended to the altar to the book that was located on the right side, according to papist custom.

“After the Introit the organ was played and the Kyrie eleison sung in alternation by the boys. When it was done the minister sang Gloria in excelsis, which song was completed in alternation by the organ and choir. Thereafter the minister at the altar sang Dominus vobiscum, the choir responding Et cum spiritu tuo. The collect for that day followed in Latin, then he sang the Epistle in Latin, after which the organ was played, the choir following with Herr Gott Vater, wohn uns bei.

“When it was done the Gospel for that Sunday was sung by the minister in Latin on the left side of the altar, as is the custom of the adherents of the pope. After this the organ played, and the choir followed with Wir glauben all an einen Gott. After this song came the sermon, which [Martin] Bucer delivered on the Gospel for that Sunday in the presence of Luther and Philipp [Melanchthon]. After the sermon the choir sang Da pacem domine [Grant Peace, We Pray, in Mercy, Lord], followed by the prayer for peace by the minister at the altar, this in Latin as well.

“The communion followed, which the minister began with the Lord’s Prayer sung in German. Then he sang the words of the Supper, and these in German with his back turned toward the people, first those of the bread, which, when the words had been offered, he then elevated to the sounding of bells; likewise with the chalice, which he also elevated to the sounding of bells.

“Immediately communion was held. Pomeranus [Johann Bugenhagen] went first, then Fabricius Capito, and after him Bucer. During the communion the Agnus Dei was sung in Latin. The minister served the bread in common dress but [the minister who served] the chalice dressed sacrificially [in traditional vestments]. “They followed the singing of the Agnus Dei with a German song: Jesus Christus [unser Heiland] and Gott sei gelobet.

“After the sermon the majority of the people departed. Even Luther himself, because he felt dizzy during the communion, had to leave attended by Philipp.

“The minister ended the communion with a certain thanksgiving sung in German. He followed this, facing the people, with the Benediction, singing “The Lord make his face to shine on you, etc.” And thus was the mass ended.” (Wolfgang Musculus, from his travel diary describing the mass he attended in Wittenberg on May 28, 1536, as quoted in Herl, Worship Wars in Early Lutheranism, pp. 195ff.) 

A  couple of points I think could be made of the above.

• This was not early on or even in a transitional period of the Reformation but well after Luther issued the liturgical forms of both the Formula Missae and Deutche Messe -- the Reformation approaching middle age.
• This was not the report of Lutherans attempting to make a theological statement about what could or should be but the observed practice of the heart of the Reformation by an outsider taking notes.
• This was a form and practice of the Mass not at all unlike or fearful of being labeled papist but reflecting the catholic claims and practices of the Augustana.

Now a couple of points we might imagine of such a visit today.

• While in some parishes of the LCMS the same visitor would find organic unity to what had been observed in Wittenberg, this is not the universal case and, indeed, perhaps the majority of those larger congregations of the LCMS. 
• The irrational fear of being labeled papist and the irrational embrace of things evangelical would have left such a visitor in confusion as to what a Lutheran was in many parishes of the LCMS.
• Most Lutherans have come to judge the practice and order of worship to be simply adiaphora which has come also to mean whatever is desired in local usage and not simply those things about which absolute rules or laws can be made. 
• Even among those places where the organic connection between then and now has been kept, most Lutherans are loathe to suggest that it could or should be the norm for all -- thus preserving the right of all to decide as they wish what happens on Sunday morning in a particular place.

Just a curiosity, then, as to whether we are nearer to what was happening in Wittenberg a generation or so after the posting of the 99 Theses or farther from that practice.  That ought to be a question on the minds and in the hearts of those who would be strangers from such a Mass and it ought to be a question on the minds and in the hearts of those in charge of such worship services.  And once again I note that the Formula Missae was not written as a stand alone ordo but as a set of rubrics to be used with the existing Latin missals the Reformers found on the missal stands of the parishes where they served.  Rubrics do matter.

Our Babel. . .

Technology in the broader sense and artificial intelligence in the narrow are the saviors of humanity in the eyes of many.  They will take over our menial jobs, provide for our needs, entertain us, and help us achieve more than we could without them.  Or maybe they will become our Tower of Babel.  We have tried to assign to them feelings, worth, intelligence, and a sort of soul and in so doing have ended up looking more like wannabe gods than people in search of an improvement for our lives.  I fear that this will end up about as happy as they guy who was holding the building plans for a tower long ago when the languages divided people and they left to pursue other things.  Was it purely God's judgment or was it God acting like a Father to spoil the spoiled plans of His children -- for their good?

We are in quite a spot.  It turns out that for all the hype the AI we thought so highly of is better at writing code and mining data than any real intelligence or creativity.  It may turn out that AI has done us no favor by stealing labor from our lives and leaving us with little more than a life of leisure.  Idle hands, you know.  What about idle minds and hearts?  The first stage of AI was our dependence upon screens for knowledge and understanding.  Addicted to the screen, it is but one more small step before not AI but those who control it are in control of us -- what we think, what we do, and who we are.  That is the real danger.  AI is a tool, just like technology, and it is not always a benign or beneficial one.  Sometimes it hits the finger instead of the nail.

Pope Leo XIV has taken up the warning call against making a god out of technology or AI, against a digital reality that replaces the wonder of God's creation and the miracle of His redemptive love at work in Christ.  It is time that the rest of us begin to utter a word of caution in a world in which the technology is heading where even the brave dare not go.  Oddly enough, there are many within the fold of Christianity who think that AI and screens are the answer and not the problem.  Pastors are foregoing the work of sermon prep and preaching sermons largely researched and written by AI.  Some are suggesting that more and more of the work of the pastor could be aided and assisted (jargon for taken over) by technology and AI.  I reported some years ago of the absolution bot who went around hearing confession and pronouncing forgiveness.  Americans have enjoyed too much making worship into the spectator sport of those in sleepware and drinking coffee while laying in bed or sitting on the couch.  Our vulnerability is our laziness -- much like those who wanted to make Jesus into a bread king instead of a Savior.  

If we can, we might adapt too well to the technology that promises everything and the AI which seems to be about as smart as we are.  Given the state of the world today, that is not a compliment to our intelligence and could very well be an indictment against our morality.  Wars and violence far and near and a tool like the internet which has been successfully turned into a mega porn site more than anything else is telling.  It is easy to fight wars conducted by drones controlled by folks far away from the destruction and bloodshed.  Too easy.  Our technology allows us to succumb to our baser desires with the impression that we won't get dirty in the process nor will we be more than anonymous.  That is its greater danger to us and the moral shape of human life and society as a whole.

I love some of what technology has given us but I tire of Siri and Alexa listening in and then providing me all kinds of things they think I want to see or hear.  I love technology for what it can do, like this little blog, but I am weary of trusting those whom I do not know as the directors and controllers of this digital world that accompanies the real one.  I love what technology can do but I am reminded how a simple Amazon search is a maddening scroll through things I do not want and am not interested in while simply trying to the one thing needful to me at that moment.  The AI gods of this world presume too much and we are too willing to give them their due.  Tools are great until the tools rule at the hands of the few who think they know best.  Maybe this is our Tower of Babel and maybe what we need is a warning against the end of the world as we know it and the beginning of one in which we are given the freedom to do nothing but indulge ourselves with the presumption that we are almost gods in our own right.