In Christ Alone...

There's no definition for what's a hymn and not a praise song. But Keith Getty says it should be singable without a band and easy for anyone sitting in the pews to pick up. And it should say something bold.  "I think it's to the church's poverty that the average worship song now has so few words, so little truth," he says. "[It] is so focused on several commercial aspects of God, like the fact that he loves our praises."  Kristyn Getty says that some of the most popular music doesn't show God the proper reverence.  "There is an unhelpful, casual sense that comes with some of the more contemporary music," she says. "It's not how I would talk to God."

In case you missed it, Keith Getty is the responsible for what is rapidly becoming one of the most popular contemporary songs used in worship -- In Christ Alone"  --  and Kristyn Getty (his wife) is more often than not the voice that introduces these new worship songs to the congregation.

No less a medium attuned to the national pulse than NPR picked up and delivered this story.  You can read it all here.  The point of this that the popular style of contemporary worship music, with its emphasis on rhythm and sound and its characteristic 7 word lyric is meeting a challenge in the praise band and praise song congregational setting.  You might expect it to come from "traditional" worship advocates but, in this case, the words of warning about the theological vacuity and the shallowness of a musical form that relies on sound rather than text has come from one of the most prominent writers of contemporary worship music.



While I am no fan of contemporary praise music, I have to admit that the content of this song is certainly meatier than most of the genre.  I can only hope that this is the start of a revolution away from spectator church music in which the focus is on the performer(s) and from the typical trite, shallow, and casual nature of contemporary praise music designed for people to actually sing.  But... I have been disappointed before...

Regrets.... I've had a few...

A compelling word from an Anglican priest about the great regret of not preaching the Gospel.  It was not like he was preaching bad stuff.  It wasn't the real stuff.  It was not Christ, His death and resurrection.

You can read him here...  I write to quote a couple of his closing paragraphs.

For more years than I care to think I preached get-better messages. I cringe thinking about my old sermons. I regret the lost opportunities of those messages that pounded home the idea that we just need to be better, try harder, pray and give more, read the Bible every day, attend church every week, and be nicer. It was plain ole Phariseeism, works-righteousness under the guise of preaching – “an easy-listening version of salvation by self-help” (M Horton). Those who came were vaguely entertained, I think, because I am a fairly entertaining personality (so they tell me on their way out of church), but they left mostly feeling beat up and like they don’t measure up. Instead of relieving guilt, get-better sermons reinforced guilt and our inadequacies. They didn’t touch people where they need most. “Whenever you feel comforted or elated or absolved as ‘fresh as a foal in new mowed hay,’ then you know you are hearing the gospel” (P Zahl).

My conversion to gospel preaching was gradual. I don’t remember what the initial catalyst was, except that people weren’t getting better with sermons on discipline and how to improve your marriage. Those moralistic sermons doled out plenty of advice about what to do, but it totally missed what God has done for us in his Son. Christ came, not to help religious people get better, but to help sinners realize that forgiveness and salvation is outside themselves: in Jesus Christ.

St. Paul, in Romans, explains the gospel as God’s power and God’s righteousness (1:16, 17). This is exactly opposite of repairing your nature by a determined will. It is what God has done for us when we couldn’t do it ourselves. He fulfilled the law. He took upon himself our sins. He burst the bonds of death to give us new life. When this message of one-way love – God’s love without strings attached – love when we are not lovely – reaches our hearts, it causes our spirits to come alive to God and it fills us with meaning and purpose. The gospel speaks to our heart’s deepest need.

I rejoice at his "conversion" and revel in the call to the Gospel and nothing less.  Too much of evangelical Christianity is preaching the pablum of moralism and the pursuit of pleasure under the guise of spirituality.  The smiling preachers who tell us a good joke, make us laugh a little, reflect for a moment on what we should be doing, and then send us home with an intention to be more true to ourselves are the worst excuses for preachers there are.  While the Lutherans seem to be obsessed with Luther's vision of the anti-Christ, I think if Luther were here today he would raise up the names of many a popular preacher and their wannabe posses.  No, this priest has got it right and I wish more (even some Lutherans) would wake up from their oblivion to the sword of the Word and realize it cuts and is not there to look nice.

Listen to his final paragraph and his advice for those still drawn in by the pursuit of personal enrichment:

When you get to church to find out that the preacher is in the third of a 10-sermon series on “10 steps to cure depression” get up and run out of there as fast as your depressed legs can take you. It’s self-help, not the gospel. Chalk it up to a well meaning preacher who hasn’t yet realized that our real hope is in God, in the sufficiency of his work on the cross and in the salvation that is not found in get-better sermons.

Promoting liturgical art. . .

A friend passed me the name of young liturgical artist, Jonathan Mayer, a member of WELS, living in Seward, NE, who has a studio called Scapegoat and a studio blog.  I highly commend it.

He has done a triptych model for a church in Georgia, stained glass for Bethany Lutheran College, and has a number of projects worth your attention.

I know him only via his blog and some of his art I have appreciated.  Liturgical artists tend to be starving artists and there is probably more money in the sofa size art advertized on TV and available at the local motel for today only than there is in congregations who are willing to spend some real money on "decoration."  So when I find a young person who seems to have a head on the shoulders as well as a gift for art, I am truly excited to see that employed in the service of the Church and to the glory of God.

I have only begun to read his thesis and it seems promising.  Here's a shout out to Jonathan!

Missouri's Achilles Heel...

One of the things I truly despise is the use of the exception to establish the rule.  We in Missouri have done this repeatedly.  We act as if life in the Church were filled with exceptional circumstances that require us to abandon our standard operating procedure and to venture into the uncertain domain of emergency measures to deal with emergency situations.

We end up talking about what might happen on a desert island in which no one was there to baptize, no bread and wine to confect the Sacrament, and no man to serve as Pastor.  What is worse, this is not merely the domain of the curious but the infiltration of speculative theology into standard practice.

The plight of the small rural congregation, 20, 30 or 50 miles from another congregation, suddenly becomes an emergency situation so how they are served with pastoral care and the Sacrament of the Altar is an emergency solution.  Emergency solutions make terrible standard operating practices.  The so-called licensed lay deacon serving Word and Sacrament ministry to this emergency situation is our terrible emergency solution.  Oh, the tangled web of duct taped together solutions to these "emergency" situations!

Emergency does not mean inconvenient.  Emergency has nothing to do with what we prefer or do not prefer.  Emergency does not include bandaids to dying congregations that could drive a little longer, change their service times, or share a Pastor and be served by existing congregations.  Emergency means life and death.  It means when you drive around the bend in a road and find a person thrown from a crashed car and dying and you absolve or baptize that person IN AN EMERGENCY though you are neither Pastor nor (my favorite phrase to hate) professional church worker.  Even then, such emergencies do not establish standard practice.  They are always exceptions to be regularized later.  If the person survived, that person's emergency care would be regularized by the Church by the reception of that baptized individual according to the rite in LSB (at least for Missiourians).  But that does not mean the folks in the pews should be out in their cars looking for opportunities to absolve and baptize those who choose to go to play golf or shop or sleep on Sunday morning.  They constitute no emergency.

It seems that we are too darn good at turning emergency responses into regular practice.  So when Luther was asked by a congregation in unfriendly territory which had no opportunity to be served by the Gospel if they could ordain from within their congregation, Luther said "yes" neither to reflect what the Augsburg Confession states nor to violate its rule but to deal with a true emergency.  Yet, that emergency has led us to quote Luther to justify every short cut or by-pass to ordination (read that licensed lay deacon or SMP program) so that a congregation of 20 folks who prefer to  worship at 9 am in a building filled with sentiment instead of driving another half an hour or worshiping in the evening or sharing a Pastor with another congregation.  That is no emergency.  That is personal preference.  There is a difference.

Likewise the issue of communion.  To those who may not commune at Missouri's altar it is as if they were being consigned to the gates of hell or their fervent desire (emergency?) to receive the Sacrament that day at that time were being callously ignored by some stupid rule getting in the way.  Wrong.  Not receiving the Sacrament for one Sunday or one week or one month is no emergency.  It is sad and troublesome but ask any military person stationed far from a LCMS chaplain how to deal with a real emergency!

Or there are those who make regular exception to the rule and then presume that there is no more rule -- only the exceptional admission of someone to the table of the Lord who is not in fellowship with the LCMS.  Even if we make every exception to every one who comes to us to be irregularly admitted to the altar rail, the rule is still close(d) communion [close(d) is my way of hitting every preferred way of annotating that term so that I can be inclusive. . . lol].  Yet that is exactly what has happened among some of us.  The rule has become the exceptional practice.

Finally it is always wise to remember that when the emergency situation passes, so does the emergency response fade away.  We do not keep exceptional responses to exceptional circumstances in our bag of tricks waiting for the next one nor do we change the procedures because the emergency has come and gone.  Once the emergency is over, the emergency response is over.  Missouri needs to learn this one and the sooner the better.  The fellow who baptized the chap on the road is not now authorized to baptize because of a one time emergency situation.  Emergencies neither establish our practice nor does the practice with which we responded to the emergency become part of our practice.  Both disappear sooner or later.

Read Pieper for all the what ifs... or Fritz telling the Pastor how to baptize a two headed baby... or read through the often tedious legalities of the CCM or CTCR responses to the odd question...  We love emergencies or exceptional situations because without them Missouri would not know what to do on a normal day.  That is our Achilles' heel...

A surprise answer... A surprise election in the ELCA

Over in Pittsburgh where the ELCA is having a church wide assembly, an election for Presiding Bishop is taking place in which it seems the current incumbent, Pr Mark Hanson, is having some trouble.  He has served in this capacity for 12 years and the voting seems to imply some are re-thinking his future, once considered rather secure.

What I found completely surprising is one answer by one of the other candidates for the office.  They were given time to respond on a couple of questions and one question pointedly asked about the ELCA's drift and troubles.

Next question: What do you see as the major challenges in the ELCA and what gifts would you bring to this role?Elizabeth Eaton, Bp. of NE Ohio synod (College of Wooster, Harvard Divinity. Ordained 1981): My fear is that lately we've been sliding into being generic Protestant denomination. Our challenge is to regain our distinctive Lutheran voice. My gift right now is that I'm clueless and I'm in God's hands.

Now that is unusual... a candidate for Presiding  Bishop of the ELCA suggesting that their slide into generic Protestantism is a real problem and that the church body needs to regain its distinctive Lutheran voice...

I would hesitate to call this a sign of confessional rebirth in the ELCA but I do appreciate hearing words like that, even if they don't quite mean what I hope they would and even when they come from sources still a great deal of distance from a credible Lutheran confessional identity.

FWIW  Most of the other answers were typical fluff about listening more, about the gifts the ELCA has to offer, and the other drivel that is the stuff of Miss America style questions.  At least no one answered "World Peace" as their goal, hope, and desire for the future.  That said, the Presiding Bishop's job in the ELCA pays well and has a good title but ELCA is sinking fast.  Those who pay less attention to Higgins Road are doing better than those who mirror the national office's themes of diversity, social justice, and the gospel of nebulous love but they are only a little bit removed from silly stuff that masquerades as church.  With the election of a gay Bishop (who, surprisingly, did not get votes for Presiding Bishop), the ELCA has more and more institutionalized its stands on gays and lesbians and distanced itself further and further from honoring the bound consciences of those who disagree.  I do not see how those not on this band wagon can stay in this denomination but then the impetus is always with the mass at rest.  Inertia is hardly good for a church body but it seems the only thing keeping many within the ELCA.

Update... Hanson is now second in balloting... behind... are you ready... behind Eaton?!?!

Update... Elizabeth Eaton has been elected Presiding Bishop... the first woman, the first non-Minnesotan, and the first non-Scandinavian...  And she wants the ELCA to grieve over those who left... And she wants the ELCA to be more "distinctively Lutheran".... what might this mean?  I am not under any illusions about the ELCA turning back from its progressive movement into the mainline liberal Protestant camp but it may slow the slide away from Lutheranism...

BTW I believe her husband is an Episcopal priest... right?

If you are feeling low, listen

Listen, Feel Good,  It is wonderful!

Catching up on my reading. . .

I have subscribed to The Lutheran since about 1980.  It has informed me about the mind of the church of the LCA and now ELCA and I appreciate knowing what is going on among others who use the name Lutheran.  I am also confounded by much of what I read.  Sometimes I just do not get it.  Sometimes I just get mad.  Sometimes I shake my head in sorrow.  Sometimes I laugh (mostly at the jokes).  Recently I read something that made me shake my head in sadness, grieving for what kind of church body the ELCA has become.

In the May 2013 issue, public conversation among teaching theologians of the ELCA on various themes of our faith and the challenging issues of our day have taken up the issue of Trinity and Gender.  Hmmmmm.  This is the kind of thing that usually does not end well.  The series is edited by Philip D.W. Krey, president of the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia, on behalf of the presidents of the eight ELCA seminaries  but the authors of this article are John Hoffmeyer and Amy Marga, theologians of the ELCA.

Set like a conversation, the article begins:  Probably one of the most well-known phrases in the Christian faith is Jesus’ command to the disciples in Matthew 28 to go and baptize “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Does this mean that God’s only appropriate name is “Father,” “Son” and “Holy Spirit”?  Right there we begin with an issue -- the "name" of God is in quotes as if it is not really the name or not the only name or not the primary name.

As Christians we should look to the unsurpassable revelation of God in Jesus Christ to orient our naming of God.  The most important reason for Christians praying to God as “Father” is that in doing so, we are following Jesus’ practice... It follows from our being adopted into Jesus’ prayer to God the Father that we should be at the forefront of challenging all forms of male privilege.  Danger Will Robinson!  God's name is unsurpassable and every name is inadequate so we can pick and choose whatever name we prefer.  Since God and His name are relatively inaccessible and only the tip of the Divine iceberg, every name falls short and any name is about as good as another.  So.... I guess I will be checking to make sure that any folks coming my way who were recently baptized in an ELCA congregation were really baptized into the mandated name of Matthew 28 and not with a substitute name of God.  To be sure, "faith, hope, and love" or "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier" are the more common substitutions and neither is allowable by God's Word.

Certainly Jesus' understanding of the "fatherhood" of God upends cultural norms of prayer, maleness, and privilege... God finds so many different ways to reach us, many more than the human language of "fatherhood" could ever capture...  Ahhh, but is this the choice of human language or is God the Father the intentional revelation of God, His ultimate self-disclosure to us through His Son, who teaches us to prayer Our Father and the name of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?  So, in essence, The Lutheran is telling us that Hebrews has it wrong and Jesus' word and works are not God's ultimate revelation to us, once for all to save us, but merely one in a myriad of evolving shapes, names, and images.  Boy does that make you feel good!

God is a mystery who refuses to be encompassed by any name...  Well, uh, but, uh, didn't God choose this name as His self-disclosure?  Even more, the name of access that with the water creates baptism to impart new life, in the absolution acts to forgive our sins, and with bread and wine gives to us His flesh as food and His blood as drink?  I think I read that somewhere...

Christ is present to us in a variety of ways through the Spirit.  This was Luther's great comfort and its God's promise to us...  Awww... now why drag Luther into this mess of mystery language inadequacy uncertainty, and doubt that parades as a legitimate discussion of the Trinity and gender?  What did Luther do to you?  What he did for me was to point me to confidence in God's self-disclosure in the Scripture that speaks Christ's voice to us and imparts the fullness of His saving grace at the appointed places where His Word and earthly elements set apart by that Word deliver what it is they promise.  Far from being a God who is mostly mystery to us, we have confidence in His name given to us and we have access to the grace in which we stand in the water, bread, and wine that with this Name and Word bestow the fruits of His saving death and the promise of His life-giving resurrection.

Yep... another issue of The Lutheran to shed a tear over... what will come next????  Makes me glad for even a dull issue of The Lutheran WITNESS.

Fear Not!

Sermon for Pentecost 12, Proper 14C, preached on Sunday, August 11, 2014.

    Most of the time the world doesn't much care what God or the Church says.  But when a natural disaster like hurricane or tornado happens or a tragedy like a Newtown or Boston, then everyone wants to know why God would allow it to happen.  Maybe we don't want God nosing around in our private lives but we do expect answers.  So religion and God have become the place of last resort to answer what bothers us and to make sure we are still good with God.
    When we banish God from the public square except in emergency it is not God who suffers.  We shut ourselves off from the power of His grace to overcome fear.  It is not God who needs to come to us but we who need repentance – the acknowledgment of our failed and fickle will before God's gracious and good will.  What God seeks of us is not that we understand Him but that we trust Him.  We trust Him not when we have no choice but always.
    Today we heard the call of faith one more time.  Faith is not some course of last resort when all else fails but the path of life when we think we can see clearly and seem in control of our lives.  Faith not for emergencies but for life.  Abram was childless and getting old.  His hope of a future were fading fast.  He could not see how his future could change.  But in the midst of this despair, God came to him with a vision of the future Abram's eyes could not see.  It was a future he could own only by trusting in the Word of the Lord.
    Abram barely saw the Lord and he could see nothing of the future.  He was lonely and surrounded by his fears and his enemies.  He was just like you and I are.  He did not want to trust what he could not see.  He wanted to see before he took the great leap of faith.  Yet he took the Lord at His Word.  Hebrews tells us that it is precisely this that counted Abram righteous before the Lord.  And history tells us that this trust was not misplaced.  From one man and him as good as dead the Lord brought forth descendants as many as the stars of the heaven and the sand of the seashore.  Abram's eyes lived not to see the many but only to see one son yet by faith he saw the whole of God’s future because He trusted in the Lord’s promise.
    In the Gospel Jesus calls the anxious and fearful to look around.  Life is more than food and the body more than clothing.  The birds of the air and the flowers of the field are anxious about nothing and have nothing but today. Yet God feeds them, clothes them, and cares for them.  You are of infinitely greater value to him than birds or grass, so why do you live with anxiety, fear, doubt, and worry?  Do you think that God who supplies all the earth will abandon you in your need?
    Fear not, says Jesus.  The good and gracious will of God has prevailed.  He has given you the Kingdom.  He has given you the kingdom in your baptism – His greatest treasure.  Here is all you need for life and for eternal life.  God is no “what if”; He is the because of faith.  We know this God through the story of Abraham.  We saw the Word of the Lord unfold through time until the promise of a son resulted in a nation and this nation brought forth THE Son, God’s Son, and our Savior, the Son of God in human flesh and blood.  Scripture is the story of promise given and promise kept.  It is not that you have nothing to hold onto, you have the Word and promise of God, yesterday and today.  You have Abraham’s story.
    Just because you cannot see the outcome or even the hand of God at work does not mean God is absent.  Nobody needs faith or God when you can see the ending.  It is when you grope in the darkness that you need the light.  Faith is not a what if.  Faith is a because.  We trust in the Lord because His promises were kept and the promise He has given us in Christ is sure.
    This is the God whom we know in Christ.  This is the God who has cared for us in all our needs, redeemed us apart from our merits or worth, and who still acts in mercy over us and for us.  Fear does not drive us to God; hope invites us.  Each week we come here as people bidden by hope, by the story of what God has done, and the promise of our own future sealed by the Spirit in our baptism into Christ.
    Nature’s beauty lies not in the picture of it all but in the wonder of the God who cares for that which means nothing.  The beauty we see in nature is the hand of God at work, reminding us that if He cares for these things that come and go, how much more does He care for you and me, for whom Christ died and in whom God has invested the very blood of His only Son.
    God is no stranger to us.  We approach Him not with fear and trepidation – as a last resort.  No one trusts a stranger.  It is the first lesson parents teach their children – never trust a stranger.  But God is no stranger to us.  That is the next lesson we teach our children.  God is no stranger.  This is why we have Sunday school and Bible study – that we might come to know God through His Word, the God whose friendship was sealed in the blood of His Son on Calvary.  We trust in God's good will because we have seen that will – in the promises made and kept to Abraham and Sarah, in the care for the grass and flowers that are here today and gone tomorrow, and in the eternal cross on which His love shines like a beacon to fearful and lost sinners.  We know God as trustworthy friend.  We learned this from saints like Abraham.   They have taught us our faith is not misplaced.  We see it in the cross, in this font, in the voice of absolution, and in this Table.  This is the God who keeps His promises.  Trust in Him and you will not be disappointed.
    Fear not, little, flock.  For it is Your Heavenly Father's good pleasure to give You the kingdom.  As once He gave it to Abraham in the promise of what was to come.  As once He gave it through His Son, the promise fulfilled.  As He continues to give that promise in our baptism, in the absolution of our sins, in the proclamation of His Word, and in the bread and wine that is Christ's body and blood.
    He is not ashamed to be called our God.  We come here each week and by our very attendance we acknowledge that we are not ashamed to call Him our God.  Let us not exchange this confident joy for the darkness of fear, doubt, anxiety, and worry.  Let us not allow our trust to waver.  Keep your eyes upon Jesus.  Look at the world around you as Christ bids you to look –  Consider the birds of the air... the flowers of the field... the promise of God to people like Abraham... the incarnation, suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus...  Fear not, for the Father has chosen to give you the Kingdom and all things in Christ.  This is what we eat and drink with joy at this Table – the promise that is our food, our joy, and our delight.  Amen.

An external structure that will not impede the internal structure...

Having spent some quality time with Hermann Sasse and John Pless (and a dozen or so others), I have come to appreciate Sasse much more than initially thought.  I will be posting some tidbits from the class in the days to come.

One of the nice things about Sasse is the way he distinguishes the internal structure of the Church from its external structure.  The internal structure of the Church (or government or rule) is Christ who rules in His Church via the means of grace.  As Luther put it in the Catechism, In this Christian church He daily and richly forgives all my sins and the sins of all believers.  And how?  Through the Word and the Sacraments.  It does not matter what we think or do, Christ rules in His Church and He does so through the means of grace, forgiving our sins.  This is not some mere hidden truth which we must discern by faith.  This is the clear teaching of His Word.  In the Augustana we reflect this and insist that the office of the ministry and the very life of the Church is all about faith and the forgiveness of sins.

It might do well to remember that in the draft Augustana, articles IV and V were originally one article.  They are intimately connected. 

Article IV: Of Justification.

1] Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for 2] Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. 3] This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.   

Article V: Of the Ministry.

1] That we may obtain this faith, the Ministry of Teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, 2] the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases God, in them that hear 3] the Gospel, to wit, that God, not for our own merits, but for Christ's sake, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ's sake.
4] They condemn the Anabaptists and others who think that the Holy Ghost comes to men without the external Word, through their own preparations and works.

This is the internal structure or government of the Church.  The external government (be it episcopal, synodical, presbyteral, or congregational) is not prescribed by our Confessions and Lutherans have chosen various governmental structures.  What is key, however, is that the best structure is the one that reflects and does not impede the internal structure, namely, Christ's working through the means of grace to impart faith, forgive sins, and impute righteousness.

Sasse has his hand on the key here.  It is not the external structure which makes the Church work but the internal structure.  We can choose the ancient form of an episcopal structure (which I think best) but it, in and of itself, will neither guarantee apostolicity nor success.  We can choose a synodical or congregational structure but it, in and of itself, with neither guarantee apostolicity nor success.  Only Christ can do this.  However, the worst structure is whatever one gets in the way of Christ's work in the internal structure of the Church.  All of the choices have done this from time to time over the span of Christian history.  So the Church is ever in a state of reform to prevent the external government from interfering or competing with what is quite properly Christ's work.  In this way the Reformation is, as Sasse says, the Spirit working in history and not a reflection of an heroic Luther, a national zeitgeist, or the flowering of culture.

To extend Sasse's point is to see how when we lose confidence in Christ's work through the means of grace we rely solely and completely on our work.  That is the point that gets me.  We seem, as Lutherans, to have lost confidence in Christ's work internally through the means of grace and so we shuffle the structural options like a deck of cards on a sinking ship.  I am not opposed to restructuring from time to time but to think that our structure will make the Church work and give the Church success is to believe the lie of our own exceptionalism and to deny Christ's unique authority and work still ruling the Church.

And this is exactly the problem we have today.  Unsure as we are of Christ to keep the promise of the Word and Sacraments and justify, impart faith, forgive sins, and impute righteousness, we have turned to our own efforts and ramped up our confidence in our ability to determine, accomplish, and give success to the mission of the Church.  Without confidence in the work of Christ (Is. 55:11), we are left to do on our own what none of us can do.  This is the root of the problems in the Lutheran Church today.  Nothing left and nothing more.  Unsure of what the Gospel is or how it works, we have substituted works of the law and they simply cannot deliver.  Only Christ, only the Gospel, only the means of grace...

Perhaps we cannot help ourselves.  We are so enamored of our own abilities and so uncertain that God will keep His promise, we have substituted gimmicks for the Word and Sacraments and contented ourselves with success defined by numbers on a spreadsheet instead of the joy of one sinner who repents.  The office of the ministry has become about leadership or administration or enabling or therapy or teaching or mentoring or vision casting or whatever instead of preaching the Gospel so that Christ may do what He has promised.  Impatient as we are, we are in such a rush to complete the Kingdom of God that we have ended up sidelining the Lord Jesus from the very work that is only His by the means He has appointed.  That is the root of our problem.  Until we get to the root, the fruit will always be tainted at best or rotten at worst.

The autonomous self. . .

As former Congressman Barney Frank once said "what harm does it do you if me and my partner are together?"  It would seem that both the question itself and the answer "none" seems to have dominated the discussion of gay and lesbian relationships and marriage.  The question, which is not the only question nor even the primary question in this arena, is but one more example of the way we have turned freedom into the liberty to do whatever we darn please, without limit, so long as it does not hurt anybody else.  Some may suggest that it all began with the Supreme Court and the invention of the right to privacy.  Others suggest that this idea has its roots in the Enlightenment and humanism gone awry.  Perhaps there are as many ideas as there are people pondering the seemingly unabashed eruption of narcissism that has flavored nearly every moral issue of our modern times.  Of course, I could be old fashioned and call it sin.  You may recall that old Latin phrase curavtus in se from Augustine.  Or you may recall the Scriptural context of sin -- a nation and a person without a king who did what he or she determined (in effect becoming a law unto themselves).  Joshua 17:6 However you put it, we have become a people so intent upon going our own way that the only constraint laid upon us is the possibility of harm to our neighbor.  Even then, harm to the neighbor is sometimes not enough to make us pause.

Moral conviction is not so much in vogue today -- except the kind of moral conviction which affords the cover for a person to do what he wants to do, even when harm may ensue.  So former NJ Governor McGreevey was lauded by some as brave and courageous for embracing his true self as a gay man even though it caused his former wife and children hurt and humiliation for the lies they had unknowingly endured.  True to self is less the noble virtue of integrity than it is the license to do what you please until or perhaps in spite of harm or hurt it causes to others.

We have people transforming marriage from its foundation in sacrificial love to a fickle feeling that comes and goes.  We marry today not for better or worse but until we grow tired of it all.  The gay contribution to marriage may be the weakening of any concept of sexual fidelity since statistics tell us that monogamy seems to be an even more impossible chore for the homosexual than it is for the heterosexual and that liberation cannot abide restraint no matter what the context.

Everything from sexual mores to abortion are all framed by the unwelcome and unpopular intrusion of others into the privacy of the autonomous self or the real of consenting adults.  It is unthinkable that people would or should restrain their sexual desire so prevention of pregnancy and disease are essential if a person is to be fully free.  It is untenable to think that any woman's life should be unnecessarily constrained by pregnancy or childbirth and so abortion is as great a civil right as the voting franchise itself or any concept of impartial justice.

The complaint is often made that men are not men anymore.  It may be true.  But the idea of a "man" is itself the subject of serious question today.  With our interchangeable and genderless society which is more feminine than masculine, we no longer want or need a "man."  Reproductive technology has rendered the last domain of a man non-essential.  He is not man or husband or father but merely sperm donor.  With such freedom from accountability, man has become the overgrown child that always was his alter ego.  He worships at the god of pleasure without responsibility and seems perfectly content (on the outside) to be the immature adolescent he thinks he is.

Those churches which do not practice the ordination of women (or gays, for that matter) are castigated for prevention gifted women from their inherent right to express those gifts.  Why, who are you to say that I cannot use my gifts and abilities as I desire?  Yes, it is the greatest of all affronts to human kind -- the refusal to honor the autonomous self with every right to full expression that self desires.  We want a God only to affirm us, to allow us our self-expression, and to assure us that desire is always good so that we can live without regret.

Yes, I am writing somewhat scatterbrained and should be organizing my thoughts a bit more.  But that does not betray the truthfulness of my words.  The autonomous self is the undoing of society and the ticking time bomb waiting to destroy us all.  Rome was not done it by its technology or battlefield achievements but by a lack of restraint, a sense of self-indulgence, fueled by the presumption of entitlement.  It was not their failure that was their Achilles' heel but their success.  They used their prosperity to indulge themselves even more and they lived without shame or constraint.From body art to sexual expression to our manner of dress to the way we spell or the words we invent to serve as our names, we want the freedom to be me because we believe that "me" is always good.

Romans 1 describes this weakness long before the empire fell:  they became vain in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools. Could our own lack of common sense and common values be the weakness that will tear down what our forefathers' built?  It could be.  Meanwhile the Church has remained somewhat silent in the face of this all.  We have adapted to the changes in society instead of resisting them.  We have bought into our own lies about the misogyny of Paul, the oppression of women by Christianity, and the Puritanical fear of sex that has turned us into a mess of sexually obsessed prudes.  According to the media it is the Church that is fixated upon sex -- not the culture. 


Until we call the autonomous self what it is, we will be left only with our lies and our fears.  For the true outcome of giving into self is not freedom at all but a terrible bondage of fear coupled with unsatisfiable desire.  Without any real sense of shame, we are left with a morality which sees the worst sin as intolerance and righteousness as giving into self with a slight nod against harming others in the unrestrained pursuit of desire.  We do not need a church friendly to our overblown sense of self.  We need a strong and unwavering voice to call us to repentance. 

Sources of Catechesis. . .

We Lutherans love big words -- Latin are good, Greek and Hebrew better, but German, well, that is the language of God, after all.  All joking aside, we use words we should not when speaking to those outside the Church and we do not teach people the vocabulary of Scripture, Confession, and tradition once inside the Church.  It is a lifelong path of learning and this cannot and should not end simply with new member instruction or youth confirmation.

While reading a number of different sources, it occurred to me that from various sources (Baptist to generic evangelicalism to more new age Christianity) I found the same thing -- catechesis tends to come from books by popular Christian authors and not by intentional resources or programs within their various churches.  I have to admit this was a shocking revelation to me.  Not surprising but still shocking.  My fear is that much of what Lutherans get in the way of instruction in the faith (at least post new member class or youth confirmation) may similarly be from popular Christian authors (books and articles).  Although it was not specifically mentioned, I would also suggest that popular Christian music (the radio kind and the banter between the songs) probably constitutes another significant source of adult catechesis.

Surprising no, but shocking yes...  what I mean is that I am not at all surprised by this conclusion even though it is a shocking, dare I say "alarming!"  Some may be credible conservative evangelical sources (John MacArthur or Max Lucado or the like) but others are on the fringes of Christianity -- people whose orthodoxy is at best unknown or at worst downright suspect (Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, T. D. Jakes, etc...).  Yet these popular writers wield great influence over what Christians believe and how they understand Scripture and the Christian faith.  Without the benefit of a creedal or confessional identity, this means that the vast majority of Christians within the conservative evangelical and non-denominational spheres read diverse sources and are influenced by authors who may or may not reflect anything close to the theological position of the local congregation to which these folks connect.

In essence, one can no longer presume that members and attenders of a congregations are actually adherents to the faith officially confessed by that congregation (or, in some cases, denominations).  This diversity of thought is fed and even encouraged by the vast Christian marketplace of books (from the realm of inspirational to formally dogmatic) and from the popular Christian media (internet and print).  Among other things, some blogs have been talking about Calvinistic Baptists and wondering of there are such things as Lutheran Baptists out there.  As a Lutheran I am much concerned about whether there are Baptist Lutherans out there (among other strange bedfellows of Christian theology and thought.

Some years ago a fellow in my parish died and his funeral was attended by a large cross section of public employees more of the Baptists or evangelical persuasion.  In the funeral we confessed the Apostles' Creed and my members mentioned that they have friends and acquaintances who were shocked by the creed (especially the assertion "He descended into hell...").  Where did that screwy idea come from?  Is that some sort of Lutheran thingy?  One mentioned how she brought her Luther's Small Catechism to work and left it on her desk for folks to borrow because of the many questions.  For months Luther's words the and questions of the Synodical catechism made the rounds.  People were impressed by the clarity, conciseness, and Scriptural basis to this exposition of the faith.  Most of them had never read such a book before and many of them were set to thinking about what they read.

Lutheran faith and practice is not informed by the most recent gleanings from Saddleback and Rick Warren.  We are not shaped by popular Christian radio music and the the segues of CCM disk jockeys.  We are a people taught by catechism, creed, and confession.  We do not believe whatever prevails in the marketplace.  We believe, confess, and teach the Scriptures and the glorious evangelical and catholic faith espoused by our Confessions and summarized by two of those Confessions -- Luther's Catechism and the Augsburg Confession.  We have forgotten who we are and have forsaken the great legacy of the Reformation when we are satisfied by the uncertain, bland, and scandalous assertions of the latest and greatest authors or Christian celebrities.  This is not strictly a Lutheran problem but it is a problem for Lutherans in particular.  We claim a doctrinal standard which is specific and we adhere to the tenets of a faith which do not change with whim or trend.  We insist with Luther:  Here we stand.  But this may be merely a matter of words unless and until we disown the teaching magisterium of popular Christian authors in favor of the one tie that really binds.

I hate it when our laity walk around with purpose driven or best life now stuff.  I hate it when some Lutheran Pastors betray the faith by recommending and leading studies of these Christian celebrities and best selling books.  I hate it when we listen to so much pop Christian radio that we have lost our taste for the great Lutheran chorales that actually sing the faith and not simply how I feel about it.  I hate it when we abdicate our identity to the fads of Christian marketing.  We have good resources available -- solidly Scriptural, theological, and accessible.  We have a great publishing house that has these things available for reasonable cost (have you ever priced some of the Christian authors in the local bookstores?).  The real question is do we have the will and the courage to make this case to our people and live as examples (at least the Pastors) to those sheep entrusted to our care?

Just because I love them...

Some fine examples.... Gargoyles...

A more pagan Christianity to appeal to a more pagan culture???

The channels of Christian communication are filled with the buzz about "spiritual" but not religious, with those who have "rejected" traditional church, church music, worship, and dogma, and with a faith that needs to "change" or die.  You cannot avoid the talk.

The result has been a Christianity more akin to the world outside the Church than the legacy and living heritage of old.  Denominations of all stripes have dispensed with once thought essentials of faith and practice in an effort to appeal both to Christians tempted to drop out and non-Christians who might drop in.  The grand tradition of hymn singing has given way to pop music only nominally Christian, that is more for spectator than singer, and that entertains by setting a mood rather than speaking what we believe, confess, and teach.  The liturgy has been made so casual and informal that it is often hard to know who is being worshiped -- God or me.  Vestments have been ditched in favor of a new uniform of polo or tee shirt, khakis or stone washed hole-y jeans, and a edgy hair style and purposeful 5 o'clock shadow on the guys and similar trendy clothes for the worship divas leading the praise.  We talk less about what we believe and more about what we think, less about the Bible and more about the latest self-help gurus, less about God and more about success, happiness, and self-esteem -- because we think this appeals to the folks who are not breaking down the doors to get in.  Never mind that these changes have come at the same time as a steep drop in attendance and church people sneaking out the back doors of nearly every denomination.

Perhaps credit should go to the old Church of England for some honesty in this all.  They are calling their take on this appeal to the unchurched who do not want to be churched a "pagan" mission -- now, get it right, not necessarily a mission to pagans but a mission which looks, acts, and sounds pagan.  The idea here is that Christianity can regain its fervor by becoming less Christian and more pagan.  That ought to please everyone -- especially God.  Read it all here... or here....

Meanwhile some Christians are beginning to say "wait a minute..."  Rome refashioned the Mass after Vatican II and its abuse has created a liturgical mess that now requires a reform of the reform.  Lutherans who were once all on the same page (Common Service) are now all over the page and many outside the books to the point where you never quite know what to expect.  Much of evangelicalism has adopted a common worship format that masks the once erstwhile divisions in theology to make a diverse group seem exactly the same on Sunday morning.  Preaching has devolved from the application of the Scripture and the preaching of the faith to generic pep talks on how to be happy and have better kids, better marriage, better sex, better jobs, better leisure, and better finances.  The best life now has pretty much silenced all talk of a heavenly paradise so far beyond imagination that eye has not seen, ear has not heard, and mind has not imagined what God has prepared for us  -- yet many Christians and their leaders have wondered if selling your soul to the devil will create a stronger, more relevant, and more successful church.

It is not a movement to reinvent the past.  It is not a movement to mirror or mimic yesterday.  It is an honest question of how successful these changes have been and what they have bought us.  Among Lutherans, the Missouri Synod has bled off a significant number but in no way the depth and scope of the loss within the ELCA which has pretty much jumped on every trendy band wagon (from feminism to gay liberation to social advocacy to social justice to the green movement, etc...).  Even if folks feel a little squeamish about sounding a little like their grandparents, they have seen the harvest sown by the seeds of our discontent with a full bodied Christianity and the invention of a Christianity Lite which eschews nearly everything traditional.  The only ones who found a low calorie Christianity attractive are the Christians who were restless for something new and different.  Even these folks shop their faith and are nomads who go from church to church and from new thing to new thing.  We are not adding cards to the deck but merely reshuffling the existing cards into different hands.  The pot remains on the table because we are having more fun playing a game than winning the prize.

Pagans do not need Christianity Lite.  Pagans are not attracted by Christianity Lite.  Pagans, even spiritual ones, are not impressed with a faith that is ashamed or embarrassed by its true identity.  Pagans are not looking for another bible that claims to contain god's words because their bookshelves are already full of them.  But pagans are not fools.  They know whom they see in the mirror.  They feel guilt.  They fear death.  They are tested by despair and disappointment.  They need Church true to her Lord, preaching and teaching which takes seriously the full counsel of the Word of God, an anchored faith deeply rooted in its own history and not adrift on a sea of change.  They need a Church that knows who she is and who her Lord is and can speak this truth without shame or embarrassment.  They will hear once we Christians get out of the way of the message.  We are not called to share our faith but the Gospel, not to speak of ourselves but the Lord who has called us from darkness into His marvelous light, not shouting down our opponents but always ready to give account for the hope within us, and intent upon showing the good works of faith with the good words of the faith.  This would give pagans pause.  If we were smart we might just try it.... clearly we would have the market to ourselves because fewer and fewer Christians are selling this product.

The uncertain future of our children. . .

Glen Stanton at Gospel Coalition has done us all a favor with some fact checking of oft repeated truths that end up being taken as Gospel when, in truth, they are distortions of the truth at best and downright lies at worst.

Here he tackles those who put the fear of God in parents, suggesting that their children will face an uncertain future as to their faith -- no matter what the parents do.  It has sold a lot of book and been the chatter at many conferences on the future shape of Christianity.

Stanton:

A handful of Christian authors have created a bit of a cottage industry peddling the scary news that the odds are not good that our young people stay strong in their faith into adulthood. Untrue.

There are important, effective, and relatively simple things parents and Christian workers can do to substantially increase the likelihood our young people will retain a thriving faith into and through their adult years. This is revealed in very strong, sophisticated research from some of the leading sociologists of youth and religion in the world.

Influencers of Faith

In the National Study of Youth and Religion (NSYR), noted Notre Dame professor Christian Smith and his team found:
• There are relatively simple factors that "powerfully shape" faith that remains strong through life.
• The biggest influencing factor is the faith of parents themselves and the practices they employ with their teenagers.
• These practices are simpler than many parents might imagine.
Increasing the likelihood of enduring faith in our young people is not limited to super-spiritual parents. In fact, the more "regular" and human you are the better. The factors, listed by the power of their influence, are:

Parents: Parents with a vibrant and lived-out faith tend to have children who have and keep a vibrant, lived-out faith. Smith doesn't mince words: "Parents are huge, absolutely huge, nearly a necessary condition" for a child to remain strong in his or her faith into young adulthood. He concludes "without question, the most important pastor a child will ever have in their life is a parent."

Personal Devotion: Along with at least one believing parent, it is important for the child to develop some practice and habit of regular prayer, church attendance, and reading of Scripture, growing in the conviction and experience that these practices are important for a happy life with God and others. And this practice doesn't have to be perfect, only relatively consistent. If teens and pre-teens have this in their younger years, they are remarkably more likely to maintain these faith practices into adulthood. It is important that this practice be learned and developed as an organic, natural part of their lives, rather than something they are expected to do solely out of duty or parental expectation. A faith developed as one's own tends to remain one's own.

Support/Encouragement from "Satellite Adults": Young people with lasting faith have the support of other adults around them who have a strong and inviting faith practice. These "satellite adults" who hover around our children in close relationship serve in supporting, affirming, and often times adding to the faith our children experience at home. They are powerful because our children observe, "If Coach Johnson/Principal Simpson/Youth Pastor Nigel/Deacon Stevenson/Aunt Wilma are such great people and so passionate and honest in their faith, maybe there's really something to it beyond what my parents think."
Our kids need to have the faith they learn at home supported and encouraged by the larger ring of admired adults around them.

Beliefs: Not as vital as the first three, but it helps if your child has some specific strongly held beliefs and practices.

First, a commitment to sexual chastity is critical for interesting reasons. Sexuality being such a powerful part of developing in one's teen and young adult years, having strong convictions and practices here indicate the presence of other deeply held and mature convictions regarding behavior. These usually cluster with faith convictions. It strengthens what these researchers call "cognitive resistance to modern secular culture."
Second, youth with lasting faith have the ability and support in honestly wrestling with and resolving their faith doubts. This teaches them to own their faith for themselves. And one is not likely to throw away what took hard work to develop.
Third, they should also experience and recognize God's hand in their lives through his faithfulness, answered prayer, and meaningful spiritual experiences.

Curiously, also having been teased for their faith is shown to be a faith strengthener, for this actually increases resolve and conviction. It requires they wrestle with the question of whether faith is really worth it.

Strong Faith Begets Strong Faith

Smith summarizes his team's findings in plain and direct language:

"religious outcomes in emerging adulthood are not random happenstance about which all bets are off after age 18. Instead, they often flow quite predictably from formative religious influences that shape a person's life in earlier years. . . . [The] religious commitments, practices, and investments made during childhood and the teenage years by parents and others in families and religious communities, matter---they make a difference." (emphasis added)

And these NSYR conclusions are corroborated by findings from a Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life analysis of religious convictions and practices of America's youth.  Don't listen to the naysayers and pessimists. Their claims are as baseless as they say your child's faith-sustaining prospects are.

My Comments

Our problem is NOT the children raised by pious parents who practice their faith in worship will jettison their faith as quickly as they leave the house.  Our problem in the Church is that there are fewer pious parents who practice their faith.  By practice the faith I mean attend worship 3 out of 4 Sundays, go to Sunday school as adults and take their children to Sunday school, see that their children participate in worship instead of regularly ditching them in the Nursery for babysitting, pray with them each night before bed and each day at meals (minimum), read the Bible to them, regularly include faith in their discussions with their children, and bring their children to catechism class... among other things.

I am NOT trying to paint parents in a bad light and heap scorn and shame on them.  I am only suggesting that a pious and active faith regularly practiced at church, home, etc... is the key.  A once a month or less appearance at church and Sunday school and occasional prayers, etc... do NOT provide the solid foundation on which a child's faith grows and flourishes.  I do understand the stresses placed upon the American family today but I also recognize that many of these are self-inflicted.  Our children learn that faith is not important when sports and leisure activities are acceptable alternatives to the practice of the faith in church and Sunday school.  The noble intentions of parents count little in the way of raising up children in the way of the Lord and passing on a living faith to our children.

The end must be near. . .

When Gerald Kieschnick, former LCMS President, and Christian News, independent Lutheran newspaper, agree, you know the end must be near.

There are those who have long complained against the sacerdotalists in the Synod, clergy dominance, and the presumed anti-lay bias among many in the Synod today.  Normally they would tend to fall into the camp of those whose battle for the Bible in Missouri has given birth to a host of publications, some of whom continue to exist while others have shuttered their doors long ago.  Now we hear the former Pres. Kieschnick has joined this complaint.

It sounds a lot like the direction the LCMS seems to be heading these days with respect to clergy/lay relationships. Clergy dominance was particularly evident at last week’s Synod convention, even more so than in the past. In worship services, on the podium and at microphones, black shirts and white collars were abundant.

Clerical collars and the voices of many younger Lutheran Pastors at the Convention in July have become translated into a disdain for the laity.  The common fear now on both the left and the right is that these Pastors want a clergy dominated church, that they presume to know Scripture and the Confessions better than the laity, and that they are better equipped to decide thing in and lead the Church and its agencies.

But the trend toward a clergy dominated culture in the church is also currently manifested in the exclusion of laity from consideration for positions of significant leadership in our church body. That includes, for example, university presidents, significant missionary supervisors, and other leadership positions at the national level.

Furthermore, there’s a discernible aloofness and even pharisaical demeanor exhibited by some pastors, obvious during worship services and in pastoral ministry functions as well. Intentionally or unintentionally, this telegraphs a “holier than thou” attitude in both work and worship.

While this could simply be an unintended byproduct of deep and sincere piety, I don’t believe it enhances the pastoral office or represents its true nature. Pastors are called to serve, not to be served. Pastors are called to lead evangelically and collaboratively, not to dominate or domineer.

For truth purposes let it be known that the proportion of clergy to lay at the Convention was the same as always -- roughly equal.  Let it be known that the composition of the boards and structures of the Church are defined by by-law and the massive by-law changes of the previous convention were underwritten by Kieschnick and his crew.  The "balance" between clergy and lay cannot be undone by Convention when it involves changes to constitution and by-laws -- these require the full approval of the congregations.  Let it be known that we educate Pastors precisely in the hope that they will know Scripture and the Confessions better than the folks in the pew and this is not snobbery but sober wisdom and realistic expectation.  Let it be known that there are now more lay presidents of our colleges (pardon me, universities) than there were when I was a student and far more than there ever were going back even further than this.

What’s the bottom line? Some seem intent on moving us toward a clergy dominated church. I believe that’s not helpful and tends to dishonor the priesthood of all believers.

Hmmmmm.....  A clergy dominated church?  Well, we are not supposed to be voting on doctrine anyway... we are not supposed to be taking positions at odds with our Confessions on any subject...  we are not supposed to be reinventing ourselves every generation but gradually and deliberately changing (always weighted more to the past than to the present or future). 

I will go out on a limb here and say I think the concern is overblown.  If anything, we are not paying enough attention to those who speak to remind us what we believe, confess, and teach.  I would suggest that we emulate the Australian Lutherans who require than anything issue impacting upon doctrine and practice have gone through the ministerium and been approved there before it hits the national convention.  Of course, I will be accused of clergy dominance.  But why have an expensive to educate clergy anyway and then ignore their voices?  Oh, wait, but that is exactly what we did with respect to SMP and licensed lay deacons.  My problem here is not only how we voted but that we voted on something we should not be voting on -- both of these are primarily doctrinal issues and not simply practice. 

Guess I will not be the favorite of either group... but I gave that dream up a long time ago.  In either case, since both fear that same problem (clergy dominance in the LCMS), the end must be near!!

You can read another take on this here...

Hapax Legomenon

Hapax Legomenon -- a Greek word used only once and, therefore, without multiple uses, a word whose exact meaning may be difficult to surmise. . . Or, in this case, a word which occurs several times but in parallel texts, as in Matthew and Luke...

Here is a good overview of the difficulty that lies in exactly translatingΤὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον  -- "Give us today our daily bread,"  -- Matthew 6:11...  The Greek term otherwise used throughout the New Testament for "daily" is kath hemeran (καθ' ἡμέραν, "according to the day"). Epiousios was rendered as cotidianum ("daily") in the Vetus Latina and revised to supersubstantialem in the Vulgate, albeit only in Matthew's version.

HT to Msgr Pope

Within the Lord’s prayer is a mysterious word that both Greek and Biblical scholars have little agreement over or even a clear understanding of in terms of its precise meaning.  Most Christians who do not read Greek are unaware of the difficulties and debate surrounding the word. They simply accept that the most common English translation of the Our Father as undisputed. To them the problem is largely unknown.

The mysterious word occurs right in the middle of the prayer: τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον (ton arton hēmōn ton epiousion) which is rendered most usually as “give us this day our daily bread.”

The problematic word is epiousion. The difficulty is that the word seems to exist nowhere else in ancient Greek and that no one really knows what it means. Even the Greek Fathers who spoke and wrote Greek as their mother-tongue were unaware of its exact meaning. It occurs no where else in the Bible (with the exception of the parallel passage in Luke’s version of the Our Father in Luke 11:3). It appears nowhere in wider Greek literature, whether Christian or Pagan. The early Church Father Origen, a most learned and well read man, thought that Matthew and Luke, or the early Church had “made up” or coined the term.

So, frankly, we are at a loss as to the exact and original meaning of this word! It’s actually pretty embarrassing when you think of it. Right there in the most memorable text of Christendom is a word whose meaning seems quite uncertain.

Now, to be sure, over the centuries there have been many theories and positions as to what this word is getting at. Let’s look at a few.

1. Grammatical Analysis- The Greek word seems to be a compound word from epi+ousios. Now epi means over, above, beyond, in addition to, or some similar superlative. Ousious refers to the substance of something. Hence, to put these words together we have something amounting to supersubstantial, or super-essential.
2. The Eucharist – Some of the Greek and Latin Fathers thought is clearly referred to the Eucharist and surely not to ordinary food or bread. Origien for example cites how Jesus rebuked the people in John 6 for seeking bread that perishes rather than the Bread which endures unto eternal life which is Jesus’ flesh and which he will give us. (cf Origen On Prayer 27.2) St. Cyprian too, while admitting that “bread” can be understood simply, goes on to advance that the bread referred to here is more certainly Christ himself in the Eucharist (cf. Treatise on the Lord’s Prayer, 18).
3. Ordinary and daily bread – St. John Chrysostom however favors a notion that the bread for which we pray is only “bread for today: Just enough for one day….Here Jesus condescends to the infirmity of our nature….[which] does not permit you to go without food….I require necessary food not a complete freedom from natural necessities….It is not for wastefulness or extravagant clothing that we pray, but only for bread and only for bread on a daily basis so as not to worry about tomorrow (Gospel of Matthew Homily 19.5)
4. Bread for tomorrow – St. Jerome says, The word used by the Hebrews to denote supersubstantial bread is maar. I found that it means “for tomorrow” so that the meaning here is “give us this day our bread for tomorrow” that is, for the future (Commentary on Matthew 1.6.11). Many modern scholars favor this understanding as well.
5. Supernatural bread – But St. Jerome also says in the same place: We can also understand supersubstantial bread in another sense as bread that is above all substances and surpasses all creatures (ibid). In this sense he also seems to see it linked to the Eucharist. When he translated the text into Latin as the Pope had asked him to do he rendered it rather literally: panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie (give us today our supersubstantial bread). If you look up the text of Matthew 6:11 in the Douay Rheims Bible you will see the word “supersubstantial” since that English text renders the Vulgate Latin quite literally.
6. Every good thing necessary for subsistence – The Catechism of the Catholic Church adopts an inclusive approach: Daily” (epiousios) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Taken in a temporal sense, this word is a pedagogical repetition of “this day,” to confirm us in trust “without reservation.” Taken in the qualitative sense, it signifies what is necessary for life, and more broadly every good thing sufficient for subsistence. Taken literally (epi-ousios: “super-essential”), it refers directly to the Bread of Life, the Body of Christ, the “medicine of immortality,” without which we have no life within us. Finally in this connection, its heavenly meaning is evident: “this day” is the Day of the Lord, the day of the feast of the kingdom, anticipated in the Eucharist that is already the foretaste of the kingdom to come. For this reason it is fitting for the Eucharistic liturgy to be celebrated each day. (CCC # 2837) As such the Catechism attempts no resolution to the problem but simply indicates that several interpretations are possible and non-exclusive to one another.

So when we have a Greek word that is used no where else and when such important and determinative Fathers struggle to understand it and show forth rather significant disagreement, it seems clear that we have something of a mystery.

Reverencing the Mystery – But perhaps the Lord intended that we should ponder this text and see a kind of multiple meaning. Surely it is right that we should pray for our worldly food. Likewise we should pray for all that is needed for subsistence, whether just for today or for tomorrow as well. And surely we should ask for the Bread of Life, the Holy Eucharist which is the necessary Bread that draws us to eternal life and which (Who) is over and above all earthly substances.

My Comments:

I rather like that the meaning is more expansive than narrow; a little mystery there only enhances our appreciation for the meaning and the prayer prayed so often.  I do like both the ties to the supersubstantial bread of the Eucharist, Christ's body, and the eschatological  emphasis on the idea of the future bread.  Even more I like that we cannot forget that it is not merely the bread eaten by the mouth but the Bread of Life which is the Word of the Lord by which we live and breathe and have our being...

Divider or Reconciler?

Sermon for Pentecost 11, Proper 13C, preached on Sunday, August 4, 2013.

     Everyone knows how an estate can divide a family.  A little money can create tons of tension.  It is funny how money seems to bring out the worst in even otherwise decent folks.  I have seen it in my own family as I am sure you have yours.  So it comes as no surprise that Jesus would encounter two brothers arguing over their father's estate.  But instead of being drawn into it by taking sides, Jesus turns the whole occasion into a teaching moment for the Kingdom of God.  What is the true and everlasting treasure worth your full attention?
    When the unhappy brother approached Jesus, he asked Jesus to be a divider, a judge if you will, to determine what was fair.  The Greek word here is merisths.  It means divider or arbiter.  The unhappy brother was asking Jesus to enforce his legal right to a share in the estate, a legal loophole to the principle of the first son getting it all.  But Jesus refused to be the divider. 
    They did not need a divider.  The estate had already divided the family.  Jealousy and anger had already pit one brother against the other.  They did not need someone to choose sides, they needed someone to repair the breach.  What is gained by choosing sides?  What they needed was someone to bring together what was divided, a power greater than justice.
    We are divided from God and from each other by sin.  We do not need justice, we do not need someone to choose sides.  What we need is one to repair the breach and bring together what sin has separated. We need a life strong enough to bridge our unworthiness with God’s holiness, our sin with God’s forgiveness, and our death with God’s life.
    Jesus has come not to divide or choose sides but to reconcile.  The Greek word for reconciler is a letter off from the Greek word for divider.  Jesus refuses to be divider – merisths – but He is our one and only reconciler - mesiths.  Justice would mean we would be left with the consequences of sin's choice, left in death and in captivity to evil.  Mercy means hope, redemption, and reconciliation – the greater treasure in the Kingdom of God is always mercy.
    Jesus is not come to sort the righteous from the sinner.  We are all sinners and unrighteous.  He has come for the greater cause of mercy to redeem those marked by sin and suffering sin's consequences of division, guilt, and death.  The treasure of grace that He has come to give us is far greater than the treasures of the moment that divide us, that create jealousies, and that consume us with love of things.  This is not a story against wealth.  What Jesus shows us is that there is a treasure of far greater value.
    He has come to give us that which is of greater value and worth than justice, than earthly treasure, than a life lived under sin prolonged.  He has come to give us mercy.  The mercy of sins forgiven, of lives reborn from sin and death through baptism, of faith that trusts what eyes do not see, and of hope for life stronger than death .  Jesus did not come to make today our heaven but to lead us beyond this moment to the eternal moment of life without death.  This is the good and great treasure He has come to bestow by His dying and rising again.  Why are we so consumed for that which will pass away and so casual about eternity?
    When you have eternity, you can endure the next few minutes. So said Helmut Thielicke, a Lutheran preached in the confessing church in Germany resisting the Nazis.  When you own eternity, you can persevere through the struggles of this life. That is the word of Jesus to the brothers feuding over earthly wealth.  When you already own the greatest treasure, you are not consumed by the lesser.  When you have everlasting life as your treasure, you can be generous and giving with the treasures of this life.  Jesus is not trying to get you to believe that thing are worthless.  What He has come to bestow is a treasure of greater worth.  What do you gain if you choose the lesser treasure over the greater blessing?  We are not generous because we have a lot of money or things.  We are generous because we have what money cannot buy and the treasure worth more than our things.
    When we are rich toward God, we are rich in that which cannot and will not be taken from us.  When we are rich in things and poor toward God, all that we value will pass through our hands in death if not before, pass on to those who will not value it as we do or use is wisely.  As the preacher from Ecclesiastes warns, we leave this world naked of all that we worked for and it all passes to those who did not work for it.
    Heaven is not a greater version of today.  Today is but a shadow of eternity.  That is the perspective of faith.  Jesus did not suffer and die to give a bigger version of today.  He labored with His life not for a treasure that was passing, a treasure that time could devalue or inflation whittle away.  Jesus has come to give us that which remains the full and eternal treasure, the gift of mercy and the salvation ours by grace through faith.  Heaven is not a bigger version of today.  Today is but a shadow of what heaven is.  We are not redeemed for a temporary treasure.  We are set apart in baptism to possess that which no one and nothing can take from us.  If we are rich in this treasure of grace given us in Christ, giving will no be a problem to us, want of things and jealousy will not consume us.  Jesus has not come to take from us what we value.  Jesus has come to give us a treasure so rich it is beyond all value.  When we learn this, we learn what mercy is, what life can be, and how things can do eternal good. 
    Two brothers divided by things and jealousy.  Jesus offered them the greater treasure that would have reconciled these two to grief their father and stand together in love.  We come with many divisions to this place where reconciliation binds us together in the greater treasure of grace, spoken in the Word that forgives our sins, recalled in the splash of living baptismal water, and received as food at the Table of the Lord.  Our stewardship of God’s resources is not a resource problem.  It is a faith problem.  As long as our gaze is fixed upon the less treasure, we bristle with resentment and stand divided.  When we focus upon the greater treasure that is God’s gift to us in Christ Jesus, we are free to stand as one people under the banner of Christ’s love and to use God’s resources for holy purpose and eternal gain.  Amen.

Pew Isolation

Reprinted from another blog. . .

One of the most difficult things for those who are new or are single is attending Sunday worship. You walk into church  and find yourself in a pew surrounded by families on all sides, or worse, you find yourself sitting completely alone. It seems that those around you know each other but you often feel isolated.  Often, no one talks to you and no one reaches out. One of my friends said, “Sometimes I feel like I smell or something, people don’t even sit by me.”

I know the feeling. There are countless of Sundays where I sat alone, the only words exchanged between my neighbors and me were “Peace be with you”. Ironic isn’t it? The one place we are meant to be in communion – with Jesus, the church and one another – is the one place where we can feel the most isolated.

My friends and I talked about how some of churches seem to be more overtly friendly than others. Have you ever attended one of their services? You instantaneously become a friend, find out about them, and find yourself at their house the following Tuesday for Bible Study and the next Friday for a cookout. Instead of the new or single person being a pariah, they seem drawn to you as a magnet.  They understand fellowship (funny, though most of those friendly places do not have THE fellowship of the Sacrament).

The names have been changed to protect the innocent and the guilty.  I know exactly what this person is talking about.  I see it every Sunday.  It is as if the people in my parish seat apart from each other on purpose.  Perhaps it is an over abundant sense of personal space. Or shyness.  Or maybe fear.  We sit in ways that magnify the spiritual distance between us.

I wonder if this distance is not partially responsible for the way new folks seem disconnected from the Church and drift slowly away.  Sure, we could blame them.  If they were really committed they would get to know us.  OR we could confess that fellowship is often a bigger underlying issue than we want to admit.  I am NOT speaking about fellowship in the sense of the Lord's Table but the fellowship of the pew, or, rather, the lack thereof.

People are always asking me what happened to this person or that when they have missed them for a few weeks (or months).   "Have you called on them?" they ask of me.  My standard reply, "Have you???"  I know that this is a difficult subject but it seems to me that this is one common denominator in congregations that struggle with attracting or keeping new folks.  It is or it should be an easy problem to fix.  But it continues in liturgical congregations and in those that embrace decidedly untraditional worship.

Somehow we need to communicate to our people how important this can be -- if it is present it can make up for many other shortcomings but if it is absent it can take away from many other strengths.  Remember that we live in a very fractured world in which the technology available to us often diminish the value or necessity of face to face communication.  Yet it is this personal welcome and friendship that is most needed and desired by folks in our disjointed world.

We struggle with this all the time here.  I hope that other congregations struggle with it as well -- the alternative is to ignore the problem.  Our Lord reminds us several times of the importance of the welcome given to strangers (entertaining angels unawares and doing it to Christ when we welcome the least and lost).  I find that this issue as absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not the congregation uses the liturgy or has free fall worship on Sunday morning.  I have personally been at congregations with full fledged CCW and CCM in which not one soul spoke to me when I visited (sans clerical collar).  I have also been to congregations in which the Divine Service was absolutely splendid and the music wonderful but the people were equally oblivious to me and my family's presence there.  It is a very different issue than worship "style" and so it cannot be fixed by exchanging the organ with a praise band.  A welcoming congregation is not simply attuned to the visitor or new face.  A welcoming people are attuned to everyone around them, new visitors and old members, and reach out with friendship equally.  Incidentally, I find that often a "cold" congregation is not simply distant from new folks, those folks are generally as oblivious to the old members around them as well.

Something to think about. . .