The value of our rites. . .

Recently  I read of a church and the baptismal font in which a saint of some renown who live a very long time ago had been baptized.  It suddenly occurred to me that we know not only where this man was baptized but, through the church's rites, we also know with confidence he was baptized and the liturgy that was used.  We did not have to wonder if he was rightly baptized or what was confessed.  We know.  We have the rite, faithfully preserved, and most of our baptismal rites to this day are a modest evolution of the rite used for this man.  So going back 100 or 1000 years, we know what was said, done, and confessed because we know the rites.

As a pastor dealing with people who did not come from a liturgical tradition with rites, it was often difficult to know if someone had been rightly baptized or not.  I did more than a few conditional baptisms because the person did not have any idea if or how water was applied, if the baptism was in the name of the Triune God, or anything else.  Perhaps it was a river or a tub in the front of a congregation, the rite was ad libbed and where an explanation point should have been was a question mark.  God does not mean us to live in the what ifs but in the because.  That is the gift of our rites.

This is why it is so disconcerting when you watch a worship service and the pastor is making it up as he goes along -- the spiritual euphemism is being led by the Spirit.  He does not even half to say bad things.  Because his words live only in the moment, they struggle to become the eternal Word that Christ has spoken.  When rites are published with the doctrinal imprimatur of the church's official sanction, they live beyond the moment and outside the particular space of one guy before one set of people saying what may be in his heart.  I do not judge the motives but the end result is to deprive the people of the confidence which Christ means for them to have.  That is the gift of our rites.

When the penitent comes for absolution, you can dance around it in a thousand different ways that sound great but end up leaving the person without the comfort the rite itself provides.  I forgive you all your sins in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.  Ego te absolvo.  They are not magic but they are a lifeline for the people whose sins trouble their consciences and who hearts are weighed heavy with grief and shame.  There is a place to address the folks with words to console and yet their must be the clear absolution so that the chains of what they have thought, said, and done are cast off and they can go home free.  That is the gift of our rites.

Someone will surely tell me that God knows.  God knows what happened in the ad lib by a stream or at the altar or in the confessional.  He does.  Thanks be to God!  But it is not God who needs to hear it.  It is the child or adult who comes to baptismal water without name or eternity who needs to hear what the rites say.  We are our rites.  Our confidence is not in the rites but in what those rites preserve -- the clear Word and promise of God.  It is not God who needs to hear the magic words at the altar before the miracle bread and cup appear but we do.  We need to know what it is that we are receiving, what is gifted to us in this bread and cup.  We need to know the familiar refrain of the rites which tell us that this is Christ's body given for us and His blood shed for the forgiveness of our sins.  We are our rites.  Our confidence that this is the body and blood of Christ lies not in a perfect performance but in the Word of Christ preserved in the rite as the voice to still our troubled souls with hope and peace.  God knows the sins of the penitent (and impenitent, for that matter) but it is that broken soul who needs to hear the absolution in the clear and plain words that have absolved the penitent for millenia.  We are our rites.  Our confidence is not in the words as a spell to make the magic happen but the words of Christ which tell us His blood cleanses us from all our sin -- including those named just then.  

God does not judge the form or the heart but both, not as the unmerciful looking for cause but as the God who seeks to assure us that what He has promised is, indeed, ours in this water, bread, wine, and absolution.  This is what the rites preserve.  Only a fool would attach this to some unchanging incantation secretly passed down through the ages as if ordination is the passing of the secret handshake.  No, ordination is the same thing as I have spoken before.  In the words and the rite the Church says to those whom this man serves that you do not have to imagine or wonder or decide if his ministrations deliver what they promise and bestow what they sign.  The rites and this man's serve as a man under orders tell the people in the pew that this is the case.  The rites can change but incrementally, not some mighty shift that upsets everything and makes strange what was familiar but as the careful update of the timeless.  I am not bound to one of the rites only but when the rites have the imprimatur of the church's seal upon them, any one of the rites approved, it gives to those in the pew the assurance that there is more to it than feelings.  The value of our rites is too often treated as something casual and irrelevant when those rites are very important to the faith of those who come and to those who come looking for faith.  We are our rites.  We can be more but we should not be less. 

Mortal or sinful or both. . .

Although there is much in Orthodoxy which attracts me, I remain confounded by the refusal of Orthodoxy to speak of original sin except in terms in mortality.  Sometimes modern Orthodox tend to characterize the Western definition of original sin in almost comedic terms -- criminals living out their sentence here on earth before they suffer it eternally.  It does little to help with the understanding but it does make it clear to me that for the East original sin amounts to nothing more than the presence of death as a shadow over life.  It is that, of course, but is that all it is?  Our mortality is certainly one continuing consequence of the Fall but it is not the only one.  All the talk of sin in Scripture cannot be summarized as a problem of will on the part of the mortals or else Jesus is come merely to open the door to the grave and leave the stone of sin unturned.  I do not get it.

In Western theology, it is common to all theological traditions that human beings are born with “original sin,” which, in includes the curse of death and the inability to free ourselves from either death or the sin that caused it.  But that is not all.  This also means that we suffer from the continuing consequences of what our first parents did in Eden.  We share a communal guilt in addition to a personal one and this is not something we choose or suffer because of our sins we have thought, said, or done.  It is guilt inherited from Adam and Eve and the common malady of those born of woman.  Furthermore, we are born sinful and unclean, that is, we are born as sinners.  We are neither innocent nor are we good from the moment of our existence.  Every man born of woman needs to be redeemed and this is not simply the release from death.  The East does not speak in these terms.  I would suggest that it does not speak fully the language of Scripture which does speak in these terms as well as in others.  I would suggest that the original sin which speaks of our bondage to sin of which we cannot free ourselves includes death but is not merely that we are mortal and that this is not some novel invention of the West but the witness of the Scriptures and the testimony of the early Church as well.

Indeed, it seems to imply that Jesus came to liberate us from our bondage to death but our bondage to sin is something we can handle -- at least by the choice of virtue and asceticism.  That would place everyone of us back in Eden in the place of our first parents except for the shadow of mortality which is cast over us until Jesus lifts it from us and brings us into His own immortality.  How curious it is that we can handle the problem of sin but not death!  Indeed, modernity seems intent upon testing this notion.  We as people seem to be working very hard to be masters of death, making it also a choice.  Since we have already worked to eliminate sin as a category of our fallen lives, we moderns seem poised to neither to need saving nor to need a Savior at all.  While I would agree that we in the West can sound rather dismal in the way we speak of this mortal life lived in bondage to sin, the East seems too hopeful that a good choice can fix what sin has done to us.  I wish that were true but we all know it is not.   Original sin seems to be the one truth that requires no revelation.  Every newspaper account of our wrongs and every obituary speaks volumes of what sin is and what it has done to us.  

For Orthodoxy, original sin is ancestral sin, but while we suffer the consequences of Adam and Eve's sin, such as death and a tendency to sin, we do not inherit guilt for that sin.  It is no wonder that Augustine is no favorite of the East.  For the Orthodox “original sin” refers to the “first” sin of Adam and Eve.  While those born since bear the “consequences” of sin, the chief of which is death, there is also a weakness before sin.  In the West, humanity likewise bears the full “consequences” of the “original sin” of Adam and Eve, and this includes both the “guilt” of the sin of Adam and Eve and a condition which makes us more than merely weak to sin but captive to sin of which death is the universal sign of this.  In the East man is guilty only of his or her own sin but does suffer from the mantle of death which is passed to all humanity from Adam and Eve.  As Lutherans we insist that we are both mortal and sinful, wearing the guilt passed down to us from Adam and Eve and caught in sin so that we cannot free ourselves.  While this does something to the notion of man's nobility and dignity which some might find offensive, it also reflects a higher view of Christ and the accomplishment of His work on our behalf.  

What makes us a people. . .

Nations is the word that is usually used for something that hardly corresponds to what the word means in Scripture.  The nations are clans mostly, peoples linked by ancestry, culture, language, and religion.  By that we mean something very different from the thing that has borders and territory and a place on a map defined by somebody but probably not so much the folks within those borders.  Modern nations are a construct, an invention of some minds who thought this would end some of the conflicts and violence.  Boy, that has not exactly gone as planned.  The Middle East is but one example of borders gone wild with disparate peoples who have been forged into a country but the threads of that union are being constantly unraveled by the inherent divisions within.  How does anyone decide what is in the national interest of people who cannot agree on what that interest is?

Religion is not the simple thing in this equation either.  See how Muslims of different denominations within Islam war against their kin.  Christianity is no different with the history of Europe being also a history of religious wars, or at least wars fought in the name of religion if not religious in themselves.  We often forget how fragile the ties that bind us as nations and peoples and countries today.  It is to our peril.  The grant illusions of a global existence in which such minor inconveniences such as conflicting cultures, languages, religions, and values do not matter was always the weak link in the idea.  Now with America First and its counterparts throughout the world, the whole thing is being rethought.  Economics aside, there are few proponents of such idealism as the coexist crowd wants it except those who do not believe much of anything.  So what do we do?

One of the more obvious things it to recall how important a common faith is to define a nation of people.  While there are always disparities in class, wealth, race, and ethnicity, a common faith can overcome all of them to bind the people as one even with all that differentiates them within that common faith.  However, without a common faith, the unity is not simply more fragile but, in the majority of cases, it is impossible.  There are no nations that endure over the long haul without a common faith to unite the people and contribute to overcoming all that would divide them.  Without a common faith, the answer lies in some sort of oppressive regime -- whether totalitarian such as Germany was under Nazism or is in China OR authoritarian as now exists in many of the oil rich Middle East states.  Even then, Germany found a form of religion to be helpful and fostered it and even China has brought the Roman Catholics and Christians in house churches under the umbrella of the state.  This is also true of the authoritarian regimes where religion is fostered to assist in the overall state of governmental affairs even if there is some degree of religious pluralism within the society -- the so-called civil religion.  Rome knew this and even the Soviet Union knew this but somehow we have forgotten it.

The increasing problems of Scandinavia, Great Britain, France, and so many other parts of Europe exist in large measure not simply because of immigration and refugee resettlement but because this comes at a time when the religious fabric of these nations are in decline.  Without a common faith, a nation is hard to establish and hard to sustain.  With it, the dynamic changes radically.  Even in America we are facing the problem of who we are as a nation apart from the common Christian backgrounds, beliefs, and values that once were implicit in our identity.  How can a nation long exist without the structure of a common faith to encourage and support a common value system and identity as a people?  It appears to me that this is behind some of the struggles we are having today.  Diversity looks good on paper but does not translate into a workable political system without something strong and clear to unite the diverse.  Nations are made not by borders or laws but a common language, culture, and, most of all, a common faith. 

 

A calling or a life choice. . .

I have said on this blog many times how disappointed I am over the resistance of families to their child's choice of church work vocation.  While it is true overall, it is especially true of pastors.  Many second career men have said that they might have made the ministry their first calling but did not receive the support or encouragement from their families for this vocation.  That is a real tragedy.  Undoubtedly there are a number of reasons families and friends do not encourage this calling for church work but one of them is that we no longer value nor hold in highest esteem this vocation. 

Part of it means labeling the vocation to church work, particularly the pastoral office, merely a life choice or a career move.  Reducing the ministry to a life choice that is the same as choosing any other career reveals how deeply we have lost the understanding of the profound gift and blessing of the ministry.  Our lack of reverence for many professions is telling by the lack of those seeking them, especially the helping professions.  But here it reveals that we also lack reverence appreciation for both Christ and those who serve us in His name with His gifts.  It does not diminish any other calling to raise up the pastoral vocation to its rightful and noble place among them all.  

Instead of offering pale support or hostility to a young man who is considering becoming a pastor, we should be offering them our prayers and our encouragement.  This also holds true for the man who give up on their calling and end up in the limbo of candidacy or who resign altogether.  I am saddened every time I read of those who are no longer pastors, the list of resignations that dots the official notices.  None of us knows all the circumstances under which these have been given and some of them may need to resign but many of them have been chewed up, spit out, and despair of the struggles.  It should not be that way.  If the pastoral office is noble enough to expect sacrifices from those who enter it, then it is noble enough for us to offer our prayerful, vocal, and financial support.  Nobody becomes a pastor to make a killing.  

In the end, when we judge careers simply on the basis of what they provide for us, we miss not only the particular vocation of those who would be pastors but we forget that we are all called to a life of service, sacrifice, and giving -- denying self, taking up the cross, and following Him who had neither nest nor home to call His own.  Yes, pastors give up a lot to serve but the rest of the baptized are not to judge life simply on the basis of ease, pleasure, or personal satisfaction either.  If grace is sufficient for the pastor, it is sufficient for us all.  I fear that our life with plenty has blinded us to this need to depend upon Christ and His mercy.  The way of the cross is not the unique path of the pastor or any other church worker but our common life as the people of God by baptism and faith.  

What is Canada?

There was a time when Canada and the United States were so close together on values and purposes that it was inconceivable to find a space between them.  We had similar economies, churches, resources, histories, and goals.  Then it all seemed to fall apart.  While some Canadians insist that it has to do with Trump, the lines of division began long before anyone ever imagined a Trump presidency.  I am no expert and have no crystal ball but I do think that the differences were noticed more when Canadians themselves distinguished between the French and the English heritage, between Quebec and the West.  When Canadians began to normalize the odd balancing act between the two populations, there was a distinction with a difference.  Though perhaps not causal, the distinction did seem to highlight the difference in a way that had not quite been apparent previously.

Now it is as if there is a Canada with the same name but with an identity we in the US no longer know or recognize as kin.  One of the key elements of this difference is the change with respect to religion.  Canada seems to be so far left of the US when it comes to religion and Christianity in particular that it is a foreign land to us and one we no longer understand or appreciate.  Canada is the place where military chaplains no longer are free to even mention God or practice their faith freely without restraint -- the official restraint of governmental policy.  The Canadian Armed Forces issued within the month a new directive barring chaplains and other military personnel from mentioning God, Jesus, or other religion-specific language during mandatory public events.  They have effectively banished the name of God from the public square and there seems to be no big conflict over it.  That means that the population has become either secular or religiously indifferent to the whole thing.  Even more concerning.  I read once where Quebec was once among the most Roman Catholic regions of the world.  No more.  It is now a religious ghost town in which popular opinion regards the church as more problem than blessing and seems content with the efforts to marginalize Christianity.  No wonder the rest of Canada is also a religious wasteland.  Though the Western regions of Canada are not quite there yet, it is clear they are behind but heading toward the same goal.  

The second area of difference is the respect for life.  Canada has been on the forefront of protecting abortion as a right and medically assisted suicide the same kind of right.  Canada's reported rate of abortions is probably in line with its size -- roughly 10% of the US in both numbers -- but that represents only those places required to report abortions.  Now that roughly 80% of abortions occur outside hospitals with mandatory reporting requirements, who knows how many abortions there are.  On the other hand, the medically assisted deaths make up 5% of all deaths in Canada and are growing fast.  Since the MAID laws are now ten years old, it has become normal to call upon the medical community to provide a painless and easy way to end your life.  Euthanasia has skyrocketed, surpassing even MAID deaths to some 16,500 in 2024 and statistically one in twenty deaths in the nation.  The US is not only far behind but the unfettered voices of religion in the US have challenged the acceptance of chosen or forced death.  We look to our neighbors to the North and wonder who are these people we thought we knew.  

One such example of Canada's refusal to honor life lies within the case of an 83-year-old Christian great-grandmother, Brigitte Stegemann, who was living out her final chapters in an Ontario long-term care facility with untreatable Stage IV stomach cancer.  The woman was not unclear.  She said "no" -- she did not want to be euthanized.  Her family honored her wishes until her granddaughter, Brigette Kranendonk, who had power of attorney, was away and the gears of the medically assisted death machine sprung into action, putting pressure on the woman to request Medical Assistance in Dying.  Somehow, though no one seems to know how or who witnessed it, consent was secured. The granddaughter returned to discover the irreversible has already been done.  Now months later, she still hasn’t been allowed to see the supposed consent.  The power of death in Canada is greater than the concern for life.

I could list other areas of concern for Americans.  They include the governmental policies and powers used during the pandemic -- who can forget the truckers whose convoys triggered an invasion of their lives and pocketbooks for daring to challenge the then government?  Or, as I found out from working with an agency of our church body, the insistence of Canada that Canadian money or money made in Canada stay in Canada.  It turns out we are not quite following the same rules when it comes to being each other's primary trading partners.  There are other things.  My point is this, Trump has surely brought our concerns to light though not very effectually but he is hardly responsible for creating them.  In the end our cultures are proceeding along different paths and this means that perhaps the most religiously Christian country in the world is finding it hard to know how to deal with one that is becoming a more unashamedly anti-Christian nations.  Although I do not hear many folks talking about this, this is part of the problem and a bigger part of the problem than anyone seems willing to admit. 

An oddity in Rome. . .

Although its permission has not been uniformly or evenly granted, it has become regular enough so that it is no longer rare to have the chalice offered to Roman Catholic laity.  That said, the practice since roughly 1414 AD has been for laity not to receive from the chalice and more profoundly formulated in the Council of Trent a little more than one hundred years later.  It was only after Vatican II that this changed and it did not change universally.  Apparently some bishops are returning to a more restrictive practice and attempting to change what had become a more routine practice of offering reception of the precious blood to those other than clergy.  Some bishops are suggesting that the offering of the chalice to the laity should be reserved to more "special" occasions which, for some anyway, do not include Christmas or Easter.  It seems rather odd to me as a Lutheran and I suspect for many others as well.

The decision for this is and has always been at the discretion of the local bishop.  That is one oddity.  It means that across the invisible line from one diocese to another, very different practices may be operative.  Since Vatican II, communion in both kinds moved from an impossibility since Trent to pretty much the normal practice 400 years later.  Tradition is in the eye of the beholder and even though the first 1400 years or more did one thing, from the Council of Florence on was another practice.  So the tradition here is at best about 600 years old.  Another problem I have with Rome.  Tradition here is hardly different than someone in a Lutheran circle insisting that is not the way it was in great-grandpa's church.  This is really goofy.

What is even more goofy is the insistence that this is not "more" Jesus or "less" Jesus but that Jesus received in the bread is all the Jesus there is and so no more is needed.  Except that Jesus said differently.  If Jesus' words about this can be abrogated (Trent's words have not been overturned), then why can't they be ignored or altered for other things.  The reality is that this restriction of the laity from receiving the wine was not majority or universal in the Western church until the 1400s.  Plague (read Covid in modern terms) may have justified this emergency practice but what made it normative is exactly the problem.  It should be noted that Lutherans followed the Eastern practice which never withheld the chalice.  We followed Rome when Rome followed Jesus and we departed when Rome did not.  While some of the issues with Rome may seem rather sophisticated and not altogether practical, the restriction of the chalice from the laity is an every Sunday concrete issue.  Every Lutheran would agree, this is not about how much Jesus you get (as if a bigger host or larger sip would grant more grace) but whether the words of Jesus are normative and how that normative practice since the Upper Room are the definitive word on the issue.  Nobody should make normal practice of what happens in an emergency.

Do we get to depart from Jesus' clear words or not?  Rome seems to be saying that they do.  The rest of us should give pause to embracing this idea.  Furthermore, this treats Jesus' body and blood as something the Church must protect while this is exactly how our Lord has made Himself accessible to us.  Here, some Lutherans may sound a bit like those who, when speaking of who communes, sound like they are protecting Jesus.  Close communion protects not Jesus but those whose communion may harm them and not benefit them.  We are gatekeeping for Jesus but for the sake of those unprepared or unable to receive the body and blood of Jesus as blessing.  Jesus does not need us to protect Him from those for whom He has come but those who are unable to receive a worthy communion must be protected by Jesus.  The scandal of the Sacraments is that they are for sinners.  Rome seems to try to remove this offensive generosity and make Jesus blood less accessible for sinners than His body.  If that is not offensive, it is the strangest oddity.

 

Oddly offensive misstep. . .

In what has to be one of the most tone deaf and oddly offensive actions of the Church of England, Hafiz Muhammad Tahir Mehmood Ashrafi was given the Hubert Walter Award for Reconciliation and Interfaith Cooperation.  It all happened on Friday — 11 September.  Who in their right mind scheduled this?  Whether or not he deserved it or not, it was an offensive misstep for a church body that prides itself on careful order.  He was recognized for his “outstanding work as an ambassador of interfaith harmony in Pakistan” and was described in the citation as a “prominent Muslim scholar and religious leader in Pakistan, known for his unwavering commitment to promoting religious tolerance and interfaith harmony”.   Then somebody actually looked at the guy.  After taking a deep dive into previous comments made by Imam Ashrafi Lambeth Palace had enough second thoughts to reconsider this award withdraw it.  They have so informed Imam Ashrafi that they are taking it back.

This a profound example of why churches should not presume to enter into the realm of political judgments or enter efforts to become authorities outside their sphere.  It all made the CofE and the Lady Mullally look foolish and amateurish in their efforts to promote something grand on the world stage.  It is also one more example why Americans look at the CofE and our friends across the pond with sadness.  At a time when this church body could have been leading the efforts to sink the assisted suicide bill, they were playing diplomatic chess.  Thankfully, while the CofE and its lady archbishop were messing things up, the Parliament actually got it right — at least for now.

The British Parliament voted against legalizing assisted suicide services for adults, successfully blocking a bill that was filibustered out of time before the April recess.The House of Commons voted 286-270 on the same day to deny the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which sought to “allow adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life.”  The surprise was that the lower chamber had previously approved a near-identical bill in the last parliamentary session but came to their senses at the same time the CofE was losings its bearings.

Give it a rest. . .

As if we have nothing better to do, the predictable outlets for news and commentary in the LCMS have moved on from the immediate past presidential election and convention to set their sights three years down the road.  The so-called guardians of the Synod have decided that there must be an urgent and profound effort to redefine ourselves as a Synod and come up with a leader who will not look at our past but toward the future.  I think I read somewhere "sufficient to the day is its own troubles..."  Perhaps we have reinterpreted that verse.  Everywhere we will see people mining the Scriptures to find quotes to justify the further politicizing of our means of selecting leaders and governing ourselves.  How sad.  How tragic that we seem powerless to present something more than these crude Machiavellian attempts to plan plans and prosper God's work without all that much consulting Him.  I will admit to growing so very tired of it all.  The sensationalism, the hype, the drumbeat for change (even though we are divided about what changes need to come) is both wearing and distracting.

Good leaders and good governance are blessings and worth our labors to find and assist, not to mention our prayers.  That said, do we really think the Lord has given marching orders to the Church that begin with a constant litany of navel gazing?  The statistics the Lord promotes are remarkably out of step with the world or our own Christian thinking.  Leaving the 99 alone in pursuit of the one lost, finding the pear only to bury it again so that you can secure the field, engaging laborers at all hours of the day and then paying them an inequitable wage that is described as generosity...  I could go on but will not.  Nowhere in the Scriptures does the Lord talk about graphs or charts or polls or customer satisfaction surveys.  Instead, He describes the very Gospel we problem as a stone of offense, almost daring us to be embarrassed by Him and of Him.  I am not at all suggesting that we bury our heads in the sand but neither am I saying that social theory will lead us out of this mess.  In the end, growth happens locally and not nationally, not by grand movement but by solid preaching, teaching, sacramental administration, and pastoral care.  We certainly do not need more community organizers.  We do need faithful shepherds who will care for the flock over which Christ has made them bishop with the tools He supplies.

Sheep always wander.  They are always prey before their enemies, subject to fleecing by those who care nothing for the sheep, and viewed as chops and roasts by those who would harvest the flock rather than defend it.  There is nothing new here.  The Church is always in need of being reformed but never by novelty or creative departure from God's Word, work, will, and wisdom.  Shepherds do not make sheep.  Sheep make sheep.  Faith formation happens in the home before the Church building and the primary catechesis is always liturgical, within the Divine Service, before it can happen anywhere else.  The best coffee cannot attract what the Gospel repels.  It is the work of the Spirit to call, gather, enlighten, and sanctify.  We are instruments but not the power, used by not the users, shepherds under Christ.  Good heavens, I am not saying we have nothing to learn but navel gazing and surveys and polls will teach us nothing of the means by which the Church of Christ will grow and prosper.  We trust in Christ alone.  We live by His grace alone.  The Luthers of this world are not our saviors even when God does use individuals to call us again to the voice of His Word and the power of His Spirit.  A viable church in the eyes of the world will likely have sold its soul to the devil to gain that recognition.  We are always at war and not in the least with ourselves.  It would all be wearisome and worthless except the outcome has already been determined.  Jesus wins.  If you cannot see it now with your eyes, look with faith.  Is our penchant to try new things because God has forsaken us or because we have forsaken Him and His ways?  The kingdom ours remaineth.  That is the promise.  He proved Himself trustworthy by dying as He said He would and rising as He said He would.  What more do we need? If we never learned anything new but worked diligently to be the best we are at serving the people of God and those not yet of the Kingdom with the fruits of His redeeming love, we will have done enough.  If we don't we have done too little.

Demonizing the dead. . .

As I watch some within Rome raise their attacks against no friend of mine, Annabile Bugnini, secretary of the commission that worked on the reform of the Roman Rite following the Second Vatican Council, I find it curious how easy it is to demonize the dead and forget those who were complicit in the abuses.  Both critics and proponents of the changes made to the Mass, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical practices of Rome acknowledge that Bugnini was the dominant figure in these changes.  He was not simply proponent but architect and, it seems, not even Paul VI actually knew what Bugnini had been up to until it was done.  But Bugnini was not the only member of the building committee of this flawed structure.  There were others.  There always are.  They are not always the ones who are complicit in the scheme but most of them are the silent whose objections were never raised or at least never pressed.  But they could have been.

As an outsider I have no skin in this blame game but I find it odd that some 2600 bishops who participated in Vatican II and whose documents represent a clearly different vision for the reform of the Mass were somehow forcibly silenced when what was done did not match what the Council had actually said.  Surely somebody would have admitted that the whole extravaganza in Rome was a waste if its dictates were to be ignored a couple of years later in favor of a radically different and brutal reform of the rites!  Did they?  There were some grumbles but for the most part Roman bishops fell in line.  The pope had spoken (even though he did not know what he was saying, apparently).  Done deal.  No looking back.  And now you know why the battle of the Mass is still being fought.

That said, this post is not so much about the reform of the Mass and other things liturgical.  It is to give one example of why I cannot be Roman Catholic.  It would often be nice to have a pope in a Lutheranism which seems powerless to prevent obvious foolishness and wrong but Rome has one and this does not seem to stop the abuses of the Mass so reformed.  Frankly, I would prefer a Roman Mass in which the offensive parts to me as a Lutheran were soto voce rather the loud clown car style abuses that no pope seems able to stop.  Yet when a pope in Rome was led down the garden path by a secretary of a commission, Rome seemed powerless to stop the disaster train.  If 2000 voices from the Council had stood up to Paul VI and said we were there at this Council and this is not what we voted upon! surely someone in Rome might have backed down or slowed the wholesale liturgical demolition of one form of the Mass.  But they did not.  Demonize the dead all you want but the dead were not alone.  Some could have spoken up and yet they chose to keep silent.  What else could some pope do and have people keep silent in response?  Well, look around you.  Bishops are doing all kinds of things to break with Roman theology and tradition and even the popes have said little or nothing to slow or stop this train. If for any other reason, I would find it hard to become Roman Catholic with such witless and spineless bishops.

I wish Lutheranism were better in this regard.  We are not.  While foolishness and stupidity continue to flood the internet with examples of the errors, our own equivalent of bishops wring their hands as if they can do nothing to slow or stop the idiocy.  But they could have and still can do something.  Demonize the dead but they are always complicit with the living in the problems we face.  It is never one man or even a commission of men that are the problem.  The dead cannot defend themselves but we know they did not act alone.  Sometimes the demons are right and the challenge proves that.  The rest of the time it proves that one man or even a commission cannot act in the name of the church over the wisdom of the rest of the church.  Benedict seems to have been a good man and a good pope but he left in part out of powerlessness to change what was wrong.  Francis was a terrible pope and I have no idea what kind of man he was but he played with things as if it was all a game and in the end everyone lost.  Leo may be better but so far he is a disappointment.  All of these prove the problem with Rome is not just theology but a structure in which one man can impose his will upon the rest and people either stand silent before him or get in line to follow where he is going.  That is another reason why I refuse to exchange the problems I know for the problems in Rome.  As many as have been complicit in with the problems in Lutheranism, we have not had 2600 bishops sit idly by while someone orchestrated a coup against something they had all agreed to in the end. 

What kind of Pope is Leo?

Many have insisted that Leo XIV will clean up the Francis messes left behind by a pope who is, by most accounts, one of the worst in modern times.  I suppose that is the hope but so far he has not impressed me with his words or actions.  Everyone knows of the way Francis seemed to delight in creating controversy and instituting controversial programs.  Among them was Amoris laetitia.  Cardinals submitted formal questions to Francis which he chose to ignore.  While seemingly addressing the pastoral care of families, it did far more than this.  Controversy arose almost immediately following the publication of Amoris laetitia specifically over Chapter 8 and whether Roman Catholic doctrine was changing with the easing of the  sacramental discipline concerning the access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist for divorced persons who have civilly remarried. So if this was a problem, who might Leo ask to sit down and talk about it all?  Well, the list of personal guests invited by the Pope to the meeting from October 7 to 14, progressive names in favor of the document but excludes all of those who criticized Francis’s exhortation.

So when these cardinals and bishops from around the world sat down with Leo XIV at the Vatican to discuss the family in light of Amoris laetitia, they were preaching to the choir.  Among the names of those attending at the Pope's invitation are names like Cupich, McElroy, Tobin, Cobo, Hollerich, Fernández, Tagle, David, and others who had a hand in setting the agenda of the previous pontificate on the veru questions the document addressed.  None of those who questioned it have been summoned.  While I do not have a stake in this, the glaring omission of any visible critics of the document seems to say a great deal about the Leo style and agenda when dealing with Francis' legacy.  

The document which sparked such intense debate seemed designed to allow more radical interpretations of its own words -- especially after the bishops of the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region interpreted it as allowing, following a process of accompanied pastoral discernment, access to the sacraments of reconciliation and the Eucharist for some Catholics who are divorced and civilly remarried “when a person judges that he or she would fall into a further fault by harming the children of the new union.”  Then in 2023, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith confirmed that this interpretation was the intent.  In my mind, this is one more instance when more talk seems to be code for keeping Francis legacy alive without really dealing with the objections.  I am sure that many more traditional Roman Catholics hope that this does not become the Leo way of dealing with things.   

 

Give good gifts. . .

Once I was given a very expensive leather bound floppy KJV Bible.  I had already completed three of the four years leading to my ordination.  I appreciated the sentiment but wondered if the givers had really thought about the gift.  Did I really make it nearly to ordination without having a copy of the Bible?  Or, is that what they thought?  Fortunately, some quiet diplomacy allowed me to return it and take the money to purchase a silver private communion set from Almy which still serves me to this day.  That led me thinking and asking other pastors about the gifts they were given. 

One mentioned how his whole seminary class was given an impressive study Bible from a well-meaning organization.  Another mentioned a fine leather bound copy of a book they had been required to purchase in the first year of seminary.  Another mentioned a cheap stole.  And the list of gifts neither requested nor needed went on and on and on.  I think you get my drift.  Seminarians need money for books and living expenses and the freedom to decide where to spend that money when given.  It may seem cold and thoughtless but I wonder if it is not the most warm and thoughtful gift you can give them. 

Then there is a pen and letter opener set that still sits on my desk.  It is wood and a nicer version of the usual fare but the life insurance fraternal that gave it to me thought it was more impressive than I thought.  I keep it more as a remembrance of those who thought this is what I needed than any useful purpose I might have for it.  It has joined the countless plaques given to note my (financial) support of this cause or that and the mountain of insulated jugs, mugs, and other coffee cups that I have accumulated over the years.  When it doubt, give the pastor a coffee mug or an insulated jug.  I am not trying to be mean or to disdain the obvious generosity of the giver but to suggest that other things might be better chosen to answer a real need or want on the part of the pastor.  Oddly enough, other than the candy and breath mints I snarfed from the vendors at the last Synod convention, the one thing I looked for most of all was a microfiber cloth to clean my glasses.  The rest of it was, well, not my style.  Oh yes, and do not forget the accumulation of logo adorned bags dutifully provided by vendors.  Who needs more bags?  Not me but I got at least three or four at the same convention.  I did appreciate the post-it notes, though.  Pens, not so much.  None of them were fountain pens (my choice) and I was not impressed by the soft tips used for the endless screens we are all on.  

I do appreciate the single malt scotch and gin and even the occasional rye.  Thanks to those who have braved the sea of labels to give me some liquor.  I do appreciate restaurant gift cards but some of them were to places I have never been and probably will never go.  I am still trying to figure out what to do with a $25 Uber Eats card.  Amazon cards and cash cards are always good -- not to mention Lowes or Home Depot.  I cherish the hymns commissioned from Steven Starke and set to music by Benjamin Culli.  Wow!  Those are amazing one of a kind sort of gifts.  But I am not sure I need anymore throw blankets or knickknacks.  I expect when I am gone my heirs will be fighting each other for one of those favored trinkets.  Well, maybe not.  Offer up your prayers for me.  I always covet such gifts.  Maybe I am alone in my perspective on gifts given to seminarians and pastors.  Or maybe not.  In any case, think a bit before you come up with a gift for your pastor and wrap it up in his name.   

How fragile is Rome?

I read a while ago that there are some 55 permitted places where the Latin Mass is being celebrated.  Imagine that.  There are Roman Catholic dioceses that are routinely closing more parishes than that.  Yet the mere existence of 55 or so parishes where the Latin Mass is being celebrated is apparently so dangerous that it is something which must be regulated from Rome, allowed under the most rigid of rules, and segregated away from the ordinary population of Roman Catholics overall.  Wow.  That makes the Latin Mass a ticking time bomb bigger than nearly everything else which is happening in Rome today.  More urgent and of greater threat than synodality, rogue bishops being ordained, China administering a Roman Catholic province according to its rules, the fading number of nuns and monks, priests in costume, dance and pop music used for sacred purpose, the declining numbers of those who believe the Eucharist is actually the body and blood of Christ, the diminishing numbers of children for baptism or confirmation, the scandal of priestly sexual abuse, the declining numbers of priests overall, the routine nature of merged parishes and closed churches, etc...  I could have added so many things to that number.  I am sure you could have added to that list as well.  The point is that Rome is so fragile, the worst of the problems it is facing are 55 permitted places where the Latin Mass is celebrated and the request for more.

The Vatican granted permission to a very small number of parishes to celebrate the traditional Mass-- just 55 parish churches across 33 dioceses last year-- according to the exemptions permitted by the Dicastery for Divine Worship to the restrictions outlined by Traditionis Custodes.  Yet look at the news.  Some bishops are sure that the very essence of Rome is threatened by such permissions and have attempted to restrict them further than had been.  Pope Francis repudiated Pope Benedict for his generous permission and clamped down on it like the whole of Roman Catholicism was at stake.  It does not matter which side of this issue you are on, Rome is weak and fragile if this kind of thing has become an existential threat to the largest formal community of Christians throughout the world.  And we think we have problems in the LCMS.  At least we are talking about doctrinal issues and about those who wish to jettison the forms of liturgical worship which have become the formal face of our Confessions on Sunday morning.  Rome is so fragile that those who want to restore a form of the Mass effectively the exclusive form used for 400+ years are a threat to its very existence.  Wow.  And I thought we had problems. No wonder Pope Leo seems to have no clue what to do about this despite advice being offered from every side.  Apparently if he gets this wrong, Rome will collapse.

The new religious. . .

Reading an old self-defined style of spiritual without being religious, the author suggested he was a believer without faith—a religious atheist.  At the time I read this I dismissed it.  Thinking on it again, I am not sure it is far from the truth.  The truth is that it is hard to eradicate religion and it is inherent in the persona of humanity overall and each person in particular.  We invent gods when we reject the God and even when we refuse to grant classic definition to any particular deity, we insist upon having some sort of god and some sort of religion.  It seems impossible to escape from religion or some form of god.  So we are left with believers who have no faith and atheists who are also religious.

Believers without faith are those who acknowledge the need for some kind of deity and some sort of supernatural.  They love this spiritual side of humanity and they insist that simply because they have rejected God does not mean they have also rejected some sort of religion to fill in the cracks of modern day life.  Indeed, they find the spiritual intriguing and interesting even if they refuse to grant a God the honor of their faith.  They believe in many things, some of them contradictory, and so they cannot admit to an organized religion but they insist upon being acknowledged as honestly and with heartfelt feeling upon being religious.  They like the idea of Scripture but refuse to grant to Scripture its ultimate authority and claim as the Word of God that endures forever.  They seek a bendable word which can be formed to fit the moment and the need.  They like the idea of a holy book of wisdom but are not sure it has all that much to do with salvation.  Salvation is less the redemption of the sinner than it is an accommodation to sin, at least the favorite and culturally acceptable sins of the day along with the ultimate command and goal to be true to yourself, wherever that might lead.

They are atheists, to be sure, but they do admit that religion can be important.  Symbolism and all.  Emotion and feeling.  Ritual and ceremony.  They all beg for a place without the inconvenient baggage of dogma and a God.  They admit that civil religion once filled the gap even as they also posit the old civil religion as too narrow to fit the diverse character of modern society and different people.  Global causes have eclipsed individual redemption but the person still matters if only because religion is only one person wide and one person deep.  It is sort of the same kind of attraction some have for a monarchy.  It is a good show and fills the bill for national ceremony and pride but don't take it too seriously.  It is just for show.  In the end the monarchs are as impotent and confused as the deities ascribed to modern folks who don't want to believe but who don't want to abandon religion entirely.

Honestly, I get the attraction.  The Church has disappointed us too many times and the holiest of men have acted entirely unholy in ways that make it hard to take religion seriously enough to grant it any real faith.  Which pope was it who in conversation with someone seeking to sack Rome and destroy the Church admitted that the clergy and popes had been trying to do that from the inside for years and failed so what makes this fellow think he can do it now?  If only the Church were not filled with sinners I might find some consolation for my suffering soul.  But it is.  So faith is as much as I can give it and the only thing I can offer.  My eyes are constantly drawn to the good which falls short and the evil which cannot be overcome so if I am to believe in God, religion is not enough.  Faith is required and faith in a real God who cannot be reasoned out or His mystery explained away.  He must be take with the paradoxes that our minds struggle to swallow.  Simil justus is a fairly small one compared to the Three in One and One in Three.  

I fall asleep every night wishing I had something more than faith to hold onto and every night I admit to God that it is faith alone by which I come to Him or kneel before Him.  The cross assures me that I can hope for mercy but it insists upon the paradox of the innocent for the guilty, the God/man who cannot die to expire His breath and be carried to a grave.  In the end I do not believe in a God but in the God who face I see in Jesus even with all the uncertain and unreasonable baggage that comes with it.  I wish religious atheism were enough or religion without faith but it is even more disappointing than a God who cannot be controlled, a wild God who refuses to be tamed by man but binds Himself to the blood that cleanses us from all sin.  I end up sympathetic to those who are the new religious without having a real God but I must pity them rather than joining them.  The God whom creeds confess and whose voice speaks through Scripture is not simply what I must settle for but the only God worth believing in.  Perhaps the answer to Christianity is not trying to add a little belief into the religion of atheism but challenging the spiritual to give up the semblance for a messy reality made clean only by the splash of baptismal water and the gift of the Holy Spirit.  In the end it is only faith, the great dare to trust in what you cannot see or control but also cannot live without.

O Thou who changest not. . .

One of the modern fallacies and heresies is that the Church and Scripture and, well, God should change, evolve, mature, develop, and morph -- that this is the stuff of real life and if God is real, He and the things of God should also reflect what is a characteristic of man.  I do not need to rehearse the litany of voices all over the landscape of Christianity who believe that "change or die" is the most fundamental truth of the universe.  Perhaps Darwin and his ilk created the idea and the ideal of evolution but we have turned that into the most universal truth of our age -- a truth so common that about the only thing modern conservatives and liberals disagree over is the extent and pace of change.  Change is the sacred reality that under girds nearly all of modern life. 

The problem is that change is a primal characteristic of creation -- not of the Creator.  We are captive to a changing world and we change because time cannot be paused or stopped by anyone or anything within the sphere of the creative world.  This does not quite bode the same for Jesus who is the eternal Son of the Father who once in time was incarnate, born, lived, died, and rose again.  But for the rest of us, this is who we are.  It is not who God is.

To make God captive to change or to impose upon Him the demand that He and all His being evolve is to make Him cease to be God and turn Him into a creature like you and me.  We have a beginning and an end while God is.  He just is.  He is forever.  Jesus is the alpha and omega not in some symbolic sense but in the most real sense of all.  A God who changes is not worth having at all.  A God who must evolve is the mere elevation of a creative to a higher claim of status and ends up being no God at all.  

The modern quest for God is not a real pursuit of the eternal but the imposition upon God and His being all the limitations and foibles of our own temporary reality.  We are not in search of God as much as we are on a sacred journey to dethrone God and make Him no more than us and we no less than Him.  This God changes His mind and its fickle.  The God has no eternal truth but only His truth for the moment and ends up having to reinvent Himself just as we seem bound to do minute by minute of our lives.  This God has no Word that endures forever but a voice captive to a situation and to a snapshot in time.  The facts and history associated with His revelation and disclosure are quaint but nothing more.  They are left with only the relevance we assign and the meaning we define and the value we bestow.  Who needs or wants such a worthless God?  It is the curious pursuit of a God who simply cannot be real or at least any more real than we, our thoughts, opinions, and desires, are real. 

This is the Roman problem.  If the East stops everything at one point in time, say the last of the seven great ecumenical councils, Rome does not stop it at all.  The development of doctrine is not a nod to continuing revelation or an office with a conduit to the almighty but the admission that God is really no different than we are.  We access such a God with understanding and appreciation but not with dogma that is eternal.  God's mystery is cut down to size and becomes a solvable puzzle rather than something which must be grasped by faith and confessed without definition or explanation.  Sometimes I think we Lutherans have also forgotten this.  We want people to get worship when only God does -- it is His arena and His purpose and will which unfold within the Word that does what it says and the Sacraments that bestow what they sign.  We make ourselves too big when we presume to speak for Him what He has not said once forever.  We make ourselves too important when we assume that God is a nut to crack and an idea which evolves.  In the end, it also makes God small and relatively unimportant and certainly impotent when we elevate our own experience and characteristics into His and presume that this is God.  While the creeds do not go there, those who confess the creed seem transfixed by the idea that if God is more like us, all the problems of religion and the world will be solved.  What a joke! 

Lutheran question or not. . .

In a recent podcast I heard someone who teaches at one of our LCMS seminaries define the parameters of the worship wars or worship debates before us.  This is what he said:

". . . what is worship for Lutheran and then how do you construct worship within any particular congregational context that is appropriate for the life of that Christian community within that Lutheran Christian community within that within that context. So that's primary. . . "

That seems odd to me.  Worship is pretty well defined by our Confessions.  We have not abolished the Mass.  That is what we said.  We keep the mass not simply as a historic form but with more devotion than our opponents.  We are catholic in doctrine and in practice.  Worship is not an open question for Lutherans.  Unless, of course, we consider our confessional words on worship to be descriptive rather than prescriptive.  If that is the case, then who known what Lutheran worship really is?  Can it change from generation to generation or from year to year or from Sunday to Sunday?  Who gets to decide?  Is it a manifestation of the democratic vote of the people assembled?  Is it the realm of the Pastor alone?  Who constructs it?  According to what rules or guidelines?  Are there boundaries to what passes muster or is that simply for those assembled to define?  How do you define what is appropriate for the life of the Christian community and who decides?  Is it simply preference?  Is it the will of the majority?  Does it have anything to do with the confessional standards which apply to every congregation?

My concern here is not that everyone who deviates from the hymnal doing something which flows from the ordo but with different words is terrible.  What concerns me is that some (perhaps, many) among us approach the worship question without the application of the Confessional documents which bind us together.  Worship is not an open question in which there are no boundaries.  Worship is not adiaphora, not something outside the realm of our Confession.  Our Lord did not leave the details to us while giving us broad categories in which to do it.  He established clear patterns which are fully reflected in the early church and consistent down through the ages.  Inculturate does not mean to keep the Gospel but to embed it within a rite strictly local and reflective of the culture in which the people live.  There is something much more at stake here than if a demon is being worshiped.  Jesus has given us Word and Sacrament, a pattern within His own practice of synagogue and Temple, and lifted this out of a particular context of culture to apply to all cultures and all times.  The Church through the ages has made rather deliberate and plodding movements toward more uniformity for the sake of identity and for the proclamation of the faith.  While these are not distinctly the dictum of Christ, they are not to be dismissed as simply the practice of the time or custom.  Nowhere does the responsibility or authority for this become strictly local or the realm of preference -- at least until more modern times!

The Lutheran question is not what is worship and what do we want it to look like and what will fit us.  The Lutheran question about worship is what does Scripture say and what has the Church bequeathed to us and how can that be used without violating what Scripture says.  The Lutheran question is not about what we could do but what flows from our Confessions, given their deference to the forms and patterns and words they already knew before the Reformation.  After all, Luther's Formula Missae is a set of rubrics to be set inside the missals already on the altar and not a new invention to stand in opposition to what had been.  The Deutsche Messe is somewhat different but its primary principle is to substitute hymn paraphrases for the ordinary in place of the Latin texts.  Yet neither of these, whether good or bad, was made the Lutheran order.  The principles behind them might be worth our look for any Lutheran distinctive to liturgical theology.  The explosion of church orders was not a gift to the Church but a curse upon us that, at least within most Lutheran circles was rather narrow, but within the context of the wider Reformation became a free for all.  The Lutheran question does not begin with a blank piece of paper and a series of what ifs.  It begins with the historic Western Mass.  You may not like that but that is what Lutherans expected and anticipated.  So whether or not some things done in the name of Lutheranism are extreme or unfaithful, the whole question that begins with a loose idea of what probably ought to be included and yet see it all within the realm of whatever we deem appropriate is not the Lutheran question.  

A word I am over. . .

There is a word that is woven through the fabric of nearly every aspect of the Christian Church today.  You cannot avoid it.  It seems not to matter on what side of the theological divide one is, this word is ever present.  I wish I had a nickel for every time I have read it or heard it in the past ten years.  It is the word strategic.  Of course, you will not find it on Jesus' lips.  Indeed, the only instance of the word that I can find is a peculiar translation of the word usually rendered opportune.   It occurs in the NASB (1977 and 1995) not from Jesus or His disciples or anyone we should be paying attention to.  No, it came from the mouth of Herod.  You find it in Mark 6:21:  A strategic day came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his lords and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee;  Lest some of you might have forgotten, that strategic day came with the cost of John the Baptist's head on a platter.

We seem to love that word strategic.  We do strategic planning.  We order priorities strategically.  We develop a strategic vision.  It is not as simple as counting the cost or using wisely the resources entrusted to us.  Strategic seems to imply that we have a crystal ball in which to work so that we need to depend less upon God's grace and more upon our own abilities, skills, aptitudes, and creativity.  It is the byword for the modern era in Christianity.  Maybe you grew up with the game Strategy or maybe you remember how one President Bush seemed to butcher that word but this is no game and comedy in Christendom.  It is serious business -- the most serious business of all.

So this is one of the more benign versions, obviously directed more toward an individual than a church but similar in focus;

When we speak about strategic planning, it’s crucial for us to grasp its essence as it aligns with the wisdom found in the Bible. Strategic planning is about taking thoughtful steps toward achieving our long-term goals. The Bible teaches us the value of wisdom and strategy. By aligning our plans with God’s will, we can ensure that our decisions are informed and purposeful. The scripture encourages us to approach our lives with diligence, seeking God’s guidance in all our plans. This inevitably leads us toward success, fulfilling both our life’s aspirations and nurturing our relationship with God. It’s about seeking understanding and allowing God’s wisdom to unfold in our strategic plans. Just as we wouldn’t race forward without considering our path, our planning process must be deliberate and rooted in prayer. 

It sounds like the kid who knows what he wants and plans how to get mom or dad to go along.  There is not much strategic in that as much as it reflects the age old problem of trying to get God to agree with what we want and to enlist His support so that we will be successful or have someone to blame.  In any case, I am over strategic planning.  It often seems like we have done more damage to the Church by our planning and goal setting than we have simply meeting the Lord where He has chosen to be found, telling His saving acts among the nations, and living as the people He has called us to be.  I do wish we could be more strategic in that. 

 

AI just keeps on giving. . .

Child pornography without a child.  Is it wrong?  Well, we are far removed from the time when right or wrong mattered.  Is it legal?   On August 25 of this year, Judge John Z. Lee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the First Amendment does indeed protect the right of Americans to possess AI-generated child pornography.  In Wisconsin, Steven Anderegg was charged by the Justice Department in 2024 “with producing, distributing, and possessing visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and transferring such material to a minor under the age of sixteen.”  This was not a small matter but many thousands of very realistic images.  In 2025, a Western District of Wisconsin judge dismissed Anderegg’s possession charge while allowing the producing and distributing charges to remain in place.  A few months ago, minors in TN were charged with using AI to make nude images using the faces of classmates.  It was a narrow ruling applied only to the use of possession statute 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1) in the possession charge but it does highlight the new ground which AI is plowing as our society defines what is legal and what is not in the realm of AI created images.

It did not begin with AI.  When the day came that our courts decided, probably with public opinion on its side, that pornography was protected speech, the whole world changed.  Indeed, we subjected a new generation of youth to a sexual maturity in which their desires were also shaped by pornography and often extreme violence and perverse pornographic images and videos.  So it did not take long before AI offered the opportunity to expand what was possible and that included the use of images created of children.  What we fail to realize is that even if no child is involved and the images and videos are entirely AI, these will effectively change the landscape even further and have a profound impact upon the maturing minds and desires of young people.  Simply saying something is legal does not seem to be saying much but in a time when legality stands without morality to define what people see and how that influences desires, it is enough. Things are not going to get better.  They assuredly will get worse.  In the balance lies the development of healthy youth and the easy access and alluring temptation being provided them by new technology that blurs reality and erases boundary lines.  What will we do as a society and what can we do as Christians within that society to protect our children and promote an honest and healthy environment for our kids?  That ought to be the question before us.  Not everything legal is moral.  In this case it seems fairly obvious that what some have said is legal is extremely dangerous and evil.  The use of AI in gaming as well as other entertainment platforms will only encourage its use and eventual acceptance in pornography.  There has to be a way of limiting or identifying this menace.

Rome and Trent. . .

Though there are some who object to the term Roman Catholic Church, it is a fair term and not simply a derogatory label applied by the Reformation parties and its theological heirs.  It befits us in this October month so special to Lutherans to take a look at Trent and the Roman nature of that church body which convened the council.

The Council of Trent  was held between 1545 and 1563 in Northern Italy in the city that gives it its name.  Called the 19th ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, it was the council requested by the Lutherans and was convened due to the efforts of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V more than any pope.  It was the last "ecumenical council" outside Rome and is regarded as a local council by the East.  Though the Reformation was the trigger, the outcome was more far reaching than a response to Luther and his cohorts.  The Council put into place statements and clarifications of its doctrine and teachings on an expansive list of topics, including scripture, the biblical canon, sacred tradition, original sin, justification, salvation, the sacraments, the Mass, and the veneration of saints -- as well as the requisite condemnations of Protestantism.  Though there were not many statements about the papacy, this council defined Roman Catholicism for centuries and in a way that had not been done before.  Three popes oversaw the sessions but none attended -- a condition imposed by Charles V -- so they were represented by legates.  It would be 300 years for another council and this one focused more on the papacy -- Vatican I in 1869.  It came relatively soon -- the Fifth Lateran Council had only concluded in 1517 -- but we all know what happened that same year.

The emperor intended it to be a strictly general or truly ecumenical council, at which the Protestants should have a fair hearing and safe passage but no vote.  The obvious corruption in the administration of the Church which was one of the causes of the Reformation was a primary focus of the council.  The papal legates ensured that no concessions would be made to the Protestants.  The position of the Roman Church as the sole interpreter of the Scriptures (the primacy of the Vulgate included), the rejection of justification by faith, the clarification of the relationship between faith and works, and, while abuses condemned, practices such as indulgences, pilgrimages, the veneration of saints and relics, and the veneration of the Virgin Mary were strongly reaffirmed.  Don't forget the affirmation of celibacy for the clergy.  The most enduring and profound consequences of the council were liturgical. A year after the council, Pius IV issued the Tridentine Creed (after Tridentum, Trent's Latin name), Pius V then issued the Roman Catechism and revisions of the Breviary and Missal, and the  codification of the Tridentine Mass ensured the council would live on for the next four hundred years and define Roman faith and practice unchallenged until relatively recently.  In addition, the Eucharist was defined as a true propitiatory sacrifice as well as a sacrament, in which the bread and wine were consecrated into the body and blood of Christ using the term transubstantiation but without the full Aristotelian explanation later defined by Scholasticism.  Pope Pius IV affirmed the decrees on 26 January 1564 under pain of ex-communication for those who rejected its canons.  Though England and elsewhere seemed to make no effort to enforce the decrees, the  main and most detailed theological response was the 1565–73 Examen decretorum Concilii Tridentini (Examination of the Council of Trent) by Lutheran Martin Chemnitz.

So, there you have it.  Without spending much time on the papacy per se, the council effectively Romanized the Western Church from the sixteenth century going forward.  It was to wait until Vatican I in 1870 to address the papalization of the Roman Church but the framework was already in place and the decrees of Vatican I fit well with the work of Trent.  You can complain all you want but the reality is that it would have been difficult to know the Roman Church without the work of Trent and, later, Vatican I.  That is the simple and honest witness of history.  While you may dispute whether the Lutherans live up to their claims in the Augsburg Confession to be catholic in doctrine and practice, it is very difficult to dispute the monumental change of identity within the Western Church in the wake of the Council of Trent.

Full even when empty. . .

There is no one plan for the architecture of a church.  We all know this and it has never been so.  Yet there are remarkable similarities between those church buildings which continue to invite, inspire, and include the faithful around the Word and Table of the Lord.  Despite differences, they all seem to reflect certain traditional ideals about the centrality of altar, the rising height of the ceiling, the focus of the vision from the pews, and the sense of reverence that remains even when there is nothing going on in the space.  They are full even when they are empty of people.  Folks know this even when unable to describe it.  In these spaces, conversations are instinctively hushed when no there is worship service happening.  It is the sense of the presence of God that cannot be tied to one period or style of architecture but is common to all of them.  The architecture directs the attention of the person to the God to whom the building points and whose presence in Word and Sacrament gives the building a reason for existing.  Except the modern.

Modern architecture too often is self-referential.  It relies on the building as its own expression and justification.  It points to itself in ways that even the more elaborate forms and styles of the past did not and do not.  Sometimes it is whimsy and novelty which are employed.  Sometimes it is in uniqueness that the architecture gets its purpose and goal.  Sometimes it is in the focus on the people who would gather in the building and the goal of providing accessible space for the horizontal dimension.  Sometimes it is on the lack of adornment that the building makes itself its own adornment and its own focus.  Sometimes it is the sharp corners which make it seem less friendly and less filled when full and more empty when not.  In any case, the hard judgment against so many modern buildings used for worship is that feel empty when full and when not full even emptier.  I wish I had better words to say.  The buildings try too hard to be relevant and end up being enemies of the very purpose for which they were erected.  Even when striking, the modern architecture points to itself more than to the purpose for which it was constructed and the God who is present even when the building itself is empty.

Occasionally these cold and sometimes brutal structures seem to cry out for someone to humanize the space.  I wonder if it s less the humanization of a space to make it more inhabitable than it is the loss of its purpose and reason for existence.  It does not draw the mind or the heart away from the person to the God whose house it is but leaves the worshiper cold and confused.  Why am I here?  Who is here?  Those are the two questions any architecture must answer in order to fulfill its sacred purpose.  The buildings of the past endure precisely because they answer these questions well.  The ones torn down or repurposed did not answer these questions well.  Even those outside the Church know the value of the sense of the sacred and when it is present and when it is not.  They know without being told to be quiet within this space and to reverence the God who is present even if He is not their God.  These venues work well for choral and instrumental music (especially organ, of course) precisely because they tend to do for the music what they do for the worship.  They magnify the setting so that even something simple seems profound.  In contrast to this, the flaws of too much modern architecture is that it makes what is profound ordinary.  It defeats the purpose for which the building exists and works against the sacred gathering of God's people around His Word and Table.  Even spaces which work well as lecture halls fail the Word and even spaces which work well as dining spaces fail the Sacrament.  Liturgical space has a function but it is not functional or utilitarian in the sense that too much modern architecture is.

I wish I could make this more intelligible.  It is not for lack of trying.  Sadly, even those with the most limited experience with churches and their purpose can tell almost immediately when a space is simply wrong or fails in its calling to be home to the holy.  I only wish somebody in architecture schools and on building committees could do the same.

What has changed over many years?

When I began life, everybody around me in the LCMS was in The Lutheran Hymnal and everyone around me in what would become the LCA and ALC was in the Common Service Book or the American Lutheran Hymnal.  Of course, all that changed soon.  In 1958 the Service Book and Hymnal replaced the LCA and ALC books and in the mid to late 1960s the era of Inter-Lutheran worship books was initiated leading to Lutheran Book of Worship and the LCMS version Lutheran Worship.  What could be said in the 1950s is that Lutherans may have had different worship books but they seemed to look and act and sound alike on Sunday morning more than has ever been since.  But the change has been more than simply about the worship books.

Across the more liberal bent of Lutheranism and across mainline Protestantism as a whole, the emphasis in worship, prayer, and hymns has moved to echo more nearly the primary emphasis in these churches on peace and justice and the increasing value of variety.  In the 1950s I am not sure it would be so easy as it is today to identify a sermon from the different Lutheran bodies.  Now is not much of a problem.  On the left are the themes of peace, justice, sexual identity and desire, and climate.  On the right is the cross and empty tomb, in other words, sin and forgiveness.  In the 1950s, the order was certainly very similar if not exactly alike even if some of the music was different.  Today on the left is the wholesale borrowing of the worst of Roman Catholic contemporary hymnody (Joncas, Haugen, etc.) and on the right the prevailing popular contemporary Christian music of the moment.  But, to be fair, both sides seem to presume that variety is the spice of life.

Whereas variety in the past might mean a variety of hymnals who all preserved more rather than less of the Lutheran liturgical tradition and its Western Mass form, today variety seems to mean anything goes.  I wish there was a way to go back to the way things were but I fear the genie is out of the bottle.  We may never get back to following the book or whatever book the churches have published and this is probably due to the fact that some either do not want to use any book or who insist that the causes du jour which are too avant garde to be reflected in any book.  In other words, both sides presume that books are merely suggestions and/or starting points for something that is local or ideologically driven.  It is no wonder that there is more liturgical chaos among Lutherans today than Theo Graebner ever could have envisioned going on 100 years ago.  Variety may seem to be the spice of life but we are over spiced with variety and it is killing the brand -- in ways that any number of Lutheran hymnals existing side by side never did in the past.  Even those who call themselves Lutheran do not know who we are anymore on Sunday morning.  We do not know what to say about God anymore and we cannot agree on what sin is so Lutheranism is a veritable muddle on Sunday mornings -- both to the assembly of the baptized and to the world around them watching them.  We could not have screwed things up more if we had tried deliberately.  Ok, maybe we did.  Maybe the ELCA worked too hard to look and act and sound like mainline Protestantism with all its liberal and progressive eccentricity and maybe Missouri has been watching too many evangelicals on TV.  In any case, it is killing the brand worse than just about anything else we could have done.