Four and Twenty+ Blackbirds

Banished Words/Phrases

2012-01-08T16:48:00.003-06:00

Epiphany greetings to one and all in the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.
Every year Lake Superior State University publishes a list of words that need to be banished. The link to this list is http://www.lssu.edu/banished/current.php

I think this is a fun idea and I think we should do the same.
Here are a few words/phrases I would not mind seeing "banished" from use in the church.
"I am not religious I am spiritual"
"Heartfelt needs"
"But we are in love"
"I am a Lutheran I just don't believe what they do."
"I don't have to go to church on Sunday because God is everywhere."
"Jesus doesn't care which church you go to as long as you go to church."

I could go on and these are more phrases than words but it is open for all.
Have fun,

The Consecration and the Conduct of the Holy Communion: A Bibliography

2011-10-16T20:25:00.008-05:00

I've been doing my homework in preparation for a presentation on "Consecrationism vs. Receptionism" at the Indiana District Fall Church Workers' Conference (17-18 October).

The particular significance of this topic came to my attention a couple of years ago, in a conversation with my District President, the Reverend Dr. Daniel May. I am grateful to President May for asking me to address the topic, now, at our Indiana District Conference. Thanks, also, to the various brothers in Christ who have encouraged me in my preparations, to the dear people of my congregation for remembering me in their prayers in the course of these endeavors, and especially to my fellow Blackbirds, Paul Beisel, Gifford Grobien, Alan Ludwig, David Jay Webber, and William Weedon, for their helpful input and suggestions along the way.

The following is not an exhaustive bibliography, but it is a fairly complete list of the resources I have found most interesting, significant, and useful in my preparations. In addition to other comments, I welcome any further resources that readers might recommend; especially because, as the Spirit of Christ enables, I am inclined to write up some manner of article, blog post, or essay on this topic (though obviously not in advance of my presentation).

Beisel, Paul L. To Mix, or Not to Mix: The Sacramental Character of the Reliquiae. Unpublished paper, presented to the Iowa District Fall Pastors’ Conference, 2007.

Burnett, Amy N. “Basel and the Wittenberg Concord.” Archive for Reformation History 96 (2005): 33–56.

Chemnitz, Martin. Examination of the Council of Trent, Part II. Tr. Fred Kramer. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1978. (Especially “Concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist,” 217–332.)

Chemnitz, Martin. The Lord’s Supper: De coena Domini. Tr. J. A. O. Preus. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1979.

Chemnitz, Martin. Ministry, Word, and Sacraments: An Enchiridion. Tr. Luther Poellot. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1981. (Especially “The Lord’s Supper,” 120–32.)

Green, Lowell C. “Article VII: The Holy Supper.” A Contemporary Look at the Formula of Concord. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1978.

Hardt, Tom G. A. The Sacrament of the Altar. Tr. Erling T. Teigen, 1998. (Condensed English version of Hardt’s doctoral dissertation, Venerabilis et Adorabilis Eucharistia, 1971.)

Hardt, Tom G. A. “The Saliger Sacramental Controversy.” Lutheran Quarterly IV, No. 4 (Winter 1990): 405–18.

Harris, Paul R. “The Angels Are Aware . . . and We Are Too.” Logia IV, No. 1 (1995): 21–29.

Killinger, Keith. “Domesticating an Untamed Sacramental Rule.” Lutheran Quarterly VII, No. 4 (Winter 1993): 401–24.

Kittelson, James M.; and Ken Schurb. “The Curious Histories of the Wittenberg Concord.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 50, No. 2 (April 1986): 119–37.

Luther, Martin. “The Adoration of the Sacrament (1523),” tr. Abdel Ross Wentz. Luther’s Works, Volume 36, ed. Abdel Ross Wentz (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 271–305 (esp. 290–98).

Luther, Martin. “Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper (1528),” tr. Robert H. Fischer. Luther’s Works, Volume 37, ed. Robert H. Fischer (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961), 151–372 (esp. 180–94, 303–41).

Luther, Martin. “The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ—Against the Fanatics (1526),” tr. Frederick C. Ahrens. Luther’s Works, Volume 36, ed. Abdel Ross Wentz (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 331–61 (esp. 341–51).

Murray, Scott R. "The Sacrament of the Altar and Its Relationship to Justification." Logia IX, No. 3 (2000): 11-16.

Peters, Edward Frederick. The Origin and Meaning of the Axiom: “Nothing Has the Character of a Sacrament Outside of the Use,” in Sixteenth-Century and Seventeenth-Century Lutheran Theology. [Th.D. Thesis, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, 1968.] Fort Wayne, Indiana: Concordia Theological Seminary Press, 1993.

Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics, Volume III. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1953. (Especially “What Constitutes the Lord’s Supper,” 365–73.)

Piepkorn, Arthur Carl; and Charles McClean. The Conduct of the Service. Fort Wayne, Indiana: Redeemer Press, 2006. (Especially “The Service of the Sacrament,” 21–35.)

Saar, David P. “Still Another View of Consecration.” Lutheran Quarterly IX, No. 4 (Winter 1995): 473–85.

Sasse, Hermann. “Consecration and Real Presence (1957).” Scripture and the Church: Selected Essays of Hermann Sasse, ed. Jeffrey J. Kloha and Ronald R. Feuerhahn (St. Louis: Concordia Seminary, 1995), 272–317.

Sasse, Hermann. “The Lutheran Understanding of the Consecration (1952).” We Confess the Sacraments, tr. Norman Nagel (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1985), 113–38.

Sasse, Hermann. This Is My Body: Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar, Revised Edition. Adelaide, Australia: Lutheran Publishing House, 1977.

Schmeling, Gaylin R. “Review Essay: The Lord’s Supper in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz.” Lutheran Quarterly VIII, No. 3 (Autumn 1994): 321–7.

Stephenson, John R. The Lord’s Supper. St. Louis: The Luther Academy, 2003. (Esp. Ch. 5, “In His Person and Name,” 83–109.)

Stephenson, John R. “Reflections on the Appropriate Vessels for Consecrating and Distributing the Precious Blood of Christ.” Logia IV, No. 1 (1995): 11–19.

Teigen, Bjarne W. “The 1959 St. Louis–Springfield Faculty Statement in the Light of the Saliger Controversy.” Logia XIV, No. 1 (2005): 11–18.

Teigen, Bjarne W. “The Case of the Lost Luther Reference.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 43:2 (October 1979): 295–309.

Teigen, Bjarne W. The Lord’s Supper in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz. Brewster, MA: Trinity Lutheran Press, 1986.

Teigen, Bjarne W. “Martin Chemnitz and SD VII, 126.” A Lively Legacy: Essays in Honor of Robert Preus (Lake Mills, Iowa: Graphic Publishing Co., Inc., 1985), 164-172.

Teigen, Bjarne W. “The Nihil Rule Revisited.” Lutheran Quarterly VIII, No. 3 (Autumn 1994): 269–85.

Teigen, Bjarne W. “Views on Reviews.” Confessional Lutheran Research Society Newsletter, No. 10 (Easter 1988).

Teigen, Erling T. “Luther and the Consecration” Mysteria Dei: Essays in Honor of Kurt Marquart. Fort Wayne, Indiana: Concordia Theological Seminary Press, 1999.

Walther, C. F. W. Pastoral Theology. Translated and abridged by John M. Drickamer. New Haven, Missouri: Lutheran News, Inc. (Esp. Chapter 17, “The Administration of Holy Communion,” 130–145.)

Wengert, Timothy J. “Luther and Melanchthon on Consecrated Communion Wine.” Lutheran Quarterly XV (2001): 24–42.

Ziegler, Roland F. “Should Lutherans Reserve the Consecrated Elements for the Communion of the Sick?” Concordia Theological Quarterly 67, No. 2 (April 2003): 131–47.

The State of Illinois and Cook Co., IL., V. Sophia M. Ball

2011-09-20T18:11:00.002-05:00

We just got back from ACE Hardware where I had to pick a few things up for husbandry duties - three children in tow.

Sophia had brought along $1. She had earned this money by pulling weeds from her mother's garden. She found that $1 doesn't really buy $1 worth of goods.

I had to explain to her that even though the price said $1 she would have to pay taxes to the State of Illinois and the County of Cook totalling 10cents and that she would not have enough money to make her purchase.

This was worth a total tantrum - tears aplenty in the van ride home and the need of a hug from mom.

Big government ruining the day of a child.

Her mom did tell her though that if she lived in Montana she would not have to pay sales tax.

To kiss or to refrain

2011-09-20T13:02:00.003-05:00

As a vicar I had an off site supervisor who aided me in things such as weddings as I was not ordained. He taught me and the couple to be married that they were not to kiss at the altar but rather to wait until they had crossed from the nave into the Narthex. His reason for this was good order and to not change the decorum of the worship service from one of reverence to one more like that of the reception with whoops and hollers at the newly married kissing.

There were two weddings during my time as vicar and that was the practice established by him through me. Over the past seven years there have been other weddings and I have continued with this policy and there has been little friction in that regard. (I serve at the same congregation where I was vicar.)

I have been asked however, to rethink or reconsider this. I do not have a problem with rethinking things and in the process of such rethinking asking my brothers in the Lord's service for their input and opinions and practices and the why's of those things. Of course if the conventional wisdom is that this policy is not good or salutary, I will have to work through the complaints of those who have had it other wise. To my knowledge no one has been divorced because they either did or did not kiss at the altar.

So dear brothers, I humbly ask your input. What do you do and why? Is there an historical point that I am missing? There is nothing in TLH, LW, or LSB agenda's that call for a kiss or have words to that effect. In fact what it says in the general notes of the LSB agenda is, "5. As in all worship in the house of God, the rite of Holy Matrimony invokes the presence and blessing of God. Therefore, it should avoid triteness and empty sentimentality." In this light "Here comes the Bride" is never played as well as various other selections. The bride and groom do not write their own vows. And thus, I was taught that kissing was also not done.

I eagerly await you wise and thoughtful inputs.

Evaluating a Lutheran Sermon

2011-08-11T14:20:00.000-05:00

I am privileged to be a part of the education of young men for admission to the pastoral office of the Lutheran Church of Haiti. I just returned from teaching a class on the first part of the Book of Concord. In the class one question repeatedly asked in various ways, I answered in this way:

God established the preaching office for not only the announcement but also the conveyance of the benefits of the Holy Gospel's proclamation of God's grace through Christ's sacrifice on the cross. In evaluating a Lutheran sermon one must ask one question for each of the fingers and the thumb of the hand. I share them with you.

1. Where is the cross, specifically?
(we preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified)

2. Where is the blood?
(without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness)

3. How does it describe sinners?
(every inclination was only evil all the time)

4. Does it clearly identify the means of grace to which the sinner is directed?
(i.e. arise and be baptized; taste and see His goodness; confess your faults that ye may be healed; the Gospel is the power unto salvation)

5. Does it point you all the way to a glorious heaven?
(if we believed in Jesus only for this world...)

A good sermon covers all five. Emphasis may be placed on any but to eliminate any one turns the sermon into a lecture.

I offer this five fingered evaluative tool.

Pasteur Georges Williams

Truth and Practice

2011-06-12T10:17:00.002-05:00

On this Pentecost Day, our hymnody teaches us to pray to the Spirit that our Doctrine and Practice would be one.

Plenteous of grace, descend from high
Rich in Thy sev'n-fold energy;
Make us eternal truths receive
And practice all that we believe.
Give us Thyself that we may see
The Father and the Son by Thee.
The Lutheran Hymnal 236 stanza 3

Baptism in Divine Service

2011-06-08T11:04:00.000-05:00

I have been having a marvelous discussion about the concept that we would never let the sin of sinful parents (semper peccator) prevent Christ's administration of the life giving Sacrament of Baptism.

But this discussion has brought into clearer focus a question that I have become aware of in the past years. For many faithful Lutheran pastors Baptism is viewed as an ecclesial action emphasizing the congregational aspect of the act and requiring or at least effecting the administration of Baptism during some type of corporate worship. For some it is Divine Service but for others it can be a daily chapel service at a parochial school.

Others of us have grown to realize that the shift from the immediacy of Baptism to the "public" ceremony occurred in the Reformed/Pietistic era. I was taught that Baptism should be done ASAP because of Augustana II. There should be no delay in the administration of the appropriated means of grace because apart from the church's use of the means of grace there can be no salvation (extra ecclesiam nulla salus).

The emergency of the complete poison of original sin mandates the urgency of Baptism. Given my preference I will and have done several, not all, baptisms in the hospital taking the waters of deathly mother and making them the waters of life-giving mother. I teach this, instruct my pregnant mothers of the protocol of baptism in the absence of a Pastor when death is imminent.

Where the called man of God is and while performing his sacerdotal actions the entire church of God is mystically present. Even in a hospital setting, the baptism is in ecclesiam.

I always function with the question "what hinders baptism". If it's to wait for a ceremony on Sunday morning or the convenience of Grandma and Grandpa to come or the conjoining of the Baptism with another family activity to increase attendance at the Baptism or to use it as a catechetical show and tell, I cringe. I want to as fast as I can have Christ rip out of that dead child its dead heart, cold and rotten, and replace it with a living, beating, loving God-given heart.

The Augustana II Georg

When should the funeral not be in the Church?

2011-05-26T12:01:00.002-05:00

I am writing as I would like a bit of help to clarify when or who should be buried from the Church and who or when the funeral should take place in a funeral home.

To make things a bit easier, I would always bury a person who was a regular attendee of the Divine service from the Church. The same would hold true for that person who was at least fairly regular i.e. several times per month or at least every month.

But at what point would you say to the family of the deceased that the funeral for their loved one will not be in the Church but rather at the funeral home and then graveside? Do you make such a distinction? How do you or have you expressed that distinction? Have you written about it before hand in the monthly news letter or specifically to those who are inactive so that they will be aware that when they die, if they have remained away from the Church that they will not be buried from the Church?

As all things teach and all things are to be done in an orderly way and as all should be done such that the Gospel is not confused, I presume that there is some point of consistent non-attendance after which one is not granted a funeral from the Church.

A member of Christ's body (Baptized and a communicant) who has, for whatever reasons (provided they are not medical and not unable to come) left the body, refused the calling of the Spirit to repentance and rejoining the worshiping and communing body, are they to be denied a church funeral? What does such denial tell the worshiping congregation, the family of the deceased, the community at large?

I do not want to be legalistic nor do I wish to "kick" people our or exclude them however, I desire to know what is faithful practice regarding those who have by choice absented themselves from the means of grace and the body of believers. I do not in this presume to know hearts or to be able to definitively speak of faith or unbelief on the part of such a person.

Thank you in advance for your help, guidance and insight in this matter. I do hope that some of you brothers who have served a long time will weigh in as well :)

Natural Law as a Theology of Glory

2011-05-24T08:03:00.001-05:00

(As no one has posted in a while, and I'm in a bit of a tissy, it's time to play the dissatisfied grouser again)

Let me say at the beginning - there is much in Natural Law that is true -- there are points that some people claim as Natural Law that I would quibble with, there are applications I would object to - but there is a Natural Law.

However, I fear that it's current upswing in popularity is coming from a Theology of Glory point of view (a point of view I think it can be attached to quite easily... pre-reformation Catholicism was the domain of the theology of Glory).

Now, why do I say this? Because Natural Law is being viewed as a means of changing the world, of improving this world, of making this place a better place, as though this world isn't being prepared for destruction and renewal. Natural Law is being viewed as the last, best hope we have for keeping society from spiraling off into chaos, for making people moral.

Here's the problem.

Natural Law is God's Law.

What is the first commandment? Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
What does this mean? We should fear, love, and trust in God above all things.

If one is an unbeliever, who by definition neither fears God nor trusts Him, why in the world would you give a (insert euphemism of your choice) about God's Law?

Seriously. Why? Will someone who denies that we were designed by God care about our arguments that stem from God's design? Will someone who thinks that we choose to be whatever we wish to be care about the "laws" of nature that he, as a fallen creature, delights in ignoring anyway?

But, but, but if we just show the Law, and show it well... then they will be better.

"It was a false, misleading dream, that God, His Law had given. That sinners could themselves redeem and by their works gain heaven" -- even a heaven on earth. "The Law is but a mirror bright, that brings the inbred sin to light, that lurks within our nature." Natural law does nothing to deal with *our* fallen nature.

But, but, but if we just get good laws passed.... then they will be better.

"Trust not in princes, they are but mortal. Earth-born they are, and soon decay. Naught are their counsels at life's last portal, when the dark grave doth claim its prey. Since, then, no man can help afford, trust ye in Christ our Lord!" This world is sinful, through and through. All around us we see nothing but death. The Law will not change that - the Law does not give life.

But, but, but the law works as a curb! That will make them better.

Eh... perhaps. If they listened. But how does a curb work? Only with threats of punishment - that things will be bad if you transgress. And arguing from a perspective of "natural law" doesn't do that. Natural Law appeals to what is right... not to punishment.

The lost must be shown that they are lost - that by giving into their sinful desires they receive no peace, no comfort, no joy. That sin offers nothing but false promises that do not deliver. The thing about sin is that, while it sounds good, it is bad. Show the consequences... not the back story behind, the reasons why. Sinful, selfish man doesn't care about nature, what should be... he cares only for what he wants to happen to him.

And even then... apart from Christ, that only leads to a slightly more gentle crushing, a slower, slightly less painful death. Apart from Christ, we only give people moral morphine, dulling the pain as they remain dying people in a dying world.

"My own good works all came to naught, No grace or merit gaining; Free will against God's judgment fought, dead to all good remaining." Apart from Christ, people are dead. Even if they play nicely, even if they bother me less and less, they are still dead. And all their works, however nice, however moral, however seemingly in accord with natural law they are, come to naught.

Of course, this was the point of Luther's Heidelburg Disputation - point number one:

"The law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him."

Or as the hymnist sings - "From sin our flesh could not abstain, Sin held its sway unceasing. The task was useless and in vain, Our guilt was e'er increasing. None can remove sin's poisoned dart Or purify our guileful heart - So deep is our corruption."

Law will not save the world. It might curb some things... but only when people are convinced that what they want is actually bad for them (at least when we have people voting on laws). Otherwise, it all comes crashing down.

Life in the Sacrament of the Altar

2011-03-30T09:57:00.004-05:00

In the Holy Supper of our Lord He gives us life and salvation. His life. The salvation that He has earned by the shedding of His holy and innocent blood and His bitter suffering and death.

Avoiding all secular arguments about precious metals, alcohol content of the wine and even medical studies, the question is this: Can or would Jesus as He is pouring His very medicine of immortality into our bodies also give or allow us to receive human sickness or even death?

Can the Blood of Him who died to all sin, death, devil and hell even contain or be contaminated by these things of man's illnesses as the Chalice is moved from one forgiven sinner to the next?

Are the concerns about being infected or passing infections concerns because of either unbelief or weak faith or are they legitimate concerns that can be born out in historic example?

Although individual cups have crept into the Church because of unbelief first on the part of those who do not believe in Christ's true physical presence in the bread and the wine, they have also made their way into the churches of confessing congregations. Must they remain for the sake of the weaker brethren or may they be removed after appropriate teaching, visitations, and example?

As Celebrant, I always consume all the relique and although there are those who drink who are ill, have sores on or in their mouths, I have never gotten ill. Does it not truly come down to the truth of what it is that we are receiving? The very blood of Jesus, Son of God and son of Mary! I do not believe that He can or would give me illness or even death in the eating and the drinking of Him. Yes, because of sin in the world and my own sin I will sometimes be ill and I will die unless He returns in glory first. But to believe, teach or confess that in the Holy Supper of the Lord one could or would be made or allowed to become ill or die is not something I am able to fathom because of what it is that we receive.

Please, speak to me if I am wrong, correct my teaching if it is in error. Thank you brothers. Blessed Lent to you all.

Liturgical Chaos in Catholicism

2011-02-25T11:39:00.002-06:00

If you want to see a bit of the cooky stuff that happens in the Roman Church (and some Episcopals), check out the video. I do not in anyway subscribe to the thank you given to the pope at rome at the end of the show.

HT: Bad Vestments

A Question for one of Better Hebrew than I

2011-02-16T08:54:00.002-06:00

Okay,

So, I have been doing some studying, and I've come across a few sources who seem to think that in Genesis 34 that Dinah is not raped, but rather that when she is "taken" by Shechem it is a willing thing - that it is not "seized" her but, takes her as a wife, but they aren't married yet. Thus the dishonor and humiliation isn't rape but rather pre-marital sex.

Now, here I must admit - my Hebrew is... well, let's just say I've learned to hate the BDB with a passion. The Greek just has "labOn" - which is take. What nuances come out in the Hebrew - וַיִּקַּ

Anyone know? Okay, I'm sure one of you know - could you lend any insight this way?

Music and Hymnody as Catechesis, Confession and Pastoral Care (Audio & Video Recordings)

2011-02-09T06:31:00.004-06:00

For those who may be interested in checking it out, there are audio and video recordings from the Faith Lutheran Church, Plano, Texas, Free Conference on Music and Hymnody now available on their website. In addition to my presentation, Dr. Christopher Boyd Brown gave an excellent and edifying paper on the role of hymnody in the 16th Century Lutheran Reformation. Check it out.

Because I said so

2011-02-07T21:46:00.002-06:00

How much do principles of parenting apply to the pastoral office? This is a question that I have pondered much. Luther does say that those who teach the Word are a "third kind of father," i.e. spiritual fathers in the Large Catechism. Elsewhere I have written about the value of learning to understand ourselves as such "spiritual fathers" in relation to our congregations. But how does this look in practice?

For example, as a parent, there are times (many, in fact!) when the children want to know why we say "yea" or "nay" to something. It is not always beneficial to them to explain everything, especially if they are younger. Sometimes it is best to tell them, "Because I said so." Because I am the parent. That is why. Because this is the way I want it. It does boil down to personal preference. The reason you are to be home by 9:00 even though your friends can stay out until 10:00 is because this is what I prefer.

Sometimes I wonder if we wouldn't save ourselves a lot of headaches when it comes to matters of adiaphora (true adiaphora, that is) to simply appeal to our pastoral authority. Why do I only allow boys to be acolytes? Because I said so. Because I am the pastor. I can give you several reasons explaining my preference, but none of these would likely matter in the long run.

Of course, I realize what people will say: "Herr Pastor!" "Grabauite!" "Domineering in the Office!" "Lording it over his flock!" But is it? Where in the Scriptures does it say that all matters not commanded or forbidden by a Word of the Lord must be decided by a vote of the people, or simply by the preference of the congregation, without the input of the pastor? What would be so wrong with pastors exercising some of that fatherly authority and saying, "Because I said so. This is how I want it. I am the pastor," particularly in cases where the people have become unruly? Is this a violation of the pastor/sheep relationship?

This is the way most questions on the S.E.T. are asked: "What is your preference regarding ___________?" Mostly they don't want reasons or explanations, just to know what your preference is. Why would there be anything wrong with a pastor explaining to the congregation that this is just his preference, offer explanation as to why it is, and ask that they would honor that preference? Maybe I am just an idealist.

How Does the Conservative Reformation Guide Us Today

2011-02-07T06:31:00.003-06:00

Pastor Weedon gives and excellent look at Lutheran Cathedral services in 1613 at his blog - something well worth looking at. Weedon essentially points out that the services listed shows "the catholic principle of the Lutheran Reformation, that they rejected in the tradition that which CONFLICTED with the Gospel, but accepted that which could be harmonized with it."

I think that is an excellent summation of the catholic principle.

Now, how is that principal to be applied today? How do we who are in the Lutheran Church almost five centuries after the Reformation, on a completely different continent, apply this idea?

I see two, I don't know if I want to call them streams of thoughts, but maybe concerns or responses to that principal. I'll call one the restorative approach and the other the "harmonizing" approach.

1. The Restorative approach. I find that many Lutherans, when finally studying the Reformation in detail, are amazed at how much was retained... and upon seeing how much has been lost among us seek to restore the richness and fullness of that which we had generations ago. (I'm going to assume that to a greater or middling extent, the Blackbirds will have strong leanings this way). That when the the Lutheran Church of the Reformation (historically speaking, not the little modern synod) is viewed, that it ends up being the "ideal" that is striven for, that is aimed for.

Now, of course, different folks will latch on to different aspects to strive for. The Churches in different places had different "flavors" if you will... some might strive more for Magdeburg, some might strive more for Luther -- and on occasion those who strive for slightly varying ideals might bludgeon each other repeatedly in brotherly debates.

But what remains is a principal that there needs to be change - that what we are doing now is lacking and that what was lost needs to be restored.

2. The Harmonizing approach. There is another aspect or approach that can play in very well with this principal - and that is the harmonizing approach... that we retain what can be retained as long as it harmonizes with the Gospel. Here, rather than seeking to restore some lost ideal of the past, the present is observed - and what can be maintained, even if it isn't necessarily classic or traditional.

For example, take the pastor who arrives at a congregation that has individual cups. Are they ideal... probably not. However, can they be maintained without conflicting with the Gospel. One can most definitely argue yes... and so one taking more of the harmonizing approach could thrust that issue to a back burner and not worry too much about it, or even feel a need to try to change the practice.

I'd argue that this is taking that catholic principal and applying it not to the time of the Reformation but to the current, modern day. The reformers were willing to live with much for the sake of the Gospel, so shall I.

3. The Licentious Changers Now, keep in mind, I am making a distinction between those who *introduce* new things to the Church in an attempt to... whatever they are attempting, and those who simply come upon what they have received. We do have those who are much more radical in their efforts for change and who will attempt to introduce anything they think they can put a Lutheran sheen on.

This is how we have much of what we have received. We put a Lutheran spin on things - which is why the lifelong Lutheran can say, "I love the hymn Just as I am" while the convert from 7th Day Adventism has his eyes bulge out. Historical, at least in America, there has been, especially in the 20th Century, a tendency to Lutheranize things... sure, we'll sing Amazing Grace, but we'll just drop that verse out about grace teaching the heart to fear. Sure, the schools will have the "Christian Flag" even though it was created to assert that people who held to distinctive doctrines (i.e. Lutherans) were stupid troublemakers.

Time tends to sanitize.

We see today many who aren't even waiting for time to sanitize but are rather aggressively introducing enthusiast-style practices into the Church willy-nilly, and of course, all for the sake of reaching people with the Gospel (note: there is a vast different between "for the sake of the Gospel" and "for the sake of reaching people with the Gospel." One sees the Gospel as truth to be proclaimed, the other sees it as a product to be trussed up and sold).

+ + + + + + + + +

Now, what does this mean? I think it is clear that I think the 3rd option is right out and un-faithful. It's the radical reformation, it's the worst parts of pietism and rationalism, it's the New Measures. 2nd verse, same as the first. Let me be clear that I am not advocating the random introduction of an "anything goes" approach... so please, no slippery slope arguments, no "two has to lead to three" because, for one, it doesn't, and two, if it does then you have to concede to anyone who says that the first approach automatically means you want to become a Roman Catholic. If one side of the hill is slippery, there's a good chance the other side is as well.

But, to what extent are the restorative desires balanced with harmonizing desires? I think that sometimes it seems as though we will put up with things until we can restore them to the reformation ideal we tend to like... a 1 automatically trumps 2 approach. Are there some things that we should simply let be, that have been introduced, and while they aren't necessarily good or idea, it's okay that they were introduced?

(But... don't you know why that was introduced! Individual cups were brought in to parrot protestants... and Latin was introduced in lands where people didn't understand it simply to maintain institutional power - yet Magdeburg was able to maintain an awful lot of it. Not every practice that has become cherished was introduced for lily pure reasons. And even if *I* know... how many people know, and is that what they are thinking of when they see the practice. The Christian flag annoys the tar out of me because I know it's history... but when little Aunt Bertha sees it, I doubt she's thinking "Let's start having open communion" - or if she is, it ain't because of the flag.)

The second seems to me to be more of what the reformers did in their own day -- should that also be the guide for our actions, or should we seek more to restore things unto what the reformers had? (Shoot, now I'm going to have that power ballad "Don't Know What You've Got 'Til It's Gone" running through my head... perhaps in mentioning it I can at least let Pastor Stuckwisch share my misery.) Have we started doing things the Reformers, in their conservative approach, wouldn't have done, and if so is that necessarily a bad thing? And does the "catholic" part of the principal really mean that you try to do things like other people do... did Wittenburg really care what Magdeburg did in her cathedral... as long as it wasn't in gross error.

Just things to ponder whilest humming a 20+ year old song this morning.

Sorry

2011-01-31T21:37:00.001-06:00

If you just received two posts with Ball children in them, sorry about that. One of the dangers of being on a few blogs is that you can post erroneously. I just sent you two posts intended for our family blog. Hope you enjoyed them anyway.

Who said that?

2011-01-23T20:58:00.000-06:00

"Who said that?.... Was it you?" ~ Gunny Hartman (heavily edited)

Here is a counter-cultural quote from a Lutheran theologian (the name mentioned in the quote has been removed to increase the difficulty factor). So, who said it?

"We should stop stabbing at pietism. It is always misunderstood, so that one would think that we disdain conversion and lack a sense of the factor of personal responsibility in Christianity.... Personally, I am convinced that the portion of pietism, which is found in *****, is useful for salvation, not to mention necessary."

Or else...?

2011-01-13T08:45:00.003-06:00

Over the last year or so I have had a few couples approach me to be married within the church. We set up a time to have a meeting, so we might be able to work out some of the details. This initial meeting also gives me the chance to ask questions of the couple and have them ask me anything. At all these meetings I discover that each couple is living together in a cohabitation relationship. When this is brought up I ask if they see that this act is wrong and against God’s Word and Will. All of them have said yes. Since they answer that they see what they are doing is in fact sinful, I walk them through what is laid out in the Lutheran Study Bible “God Blessed Marriage”.
1) Separate with no plans for marriage.
2) Separate until marriage.
3) If at any time during the process they wish to marry, the pastor will do so via a private ceremony (A concession by the congregation and pastor).
4) Get married by a justice of the peace immediately and have a consecration of the marriage in church at a later time.
I have yet to have one of these couples take me up on any of these options or come up with a viable one on their own. At the end of our meeting they leave and thank me for my time and then simply find another church/pastor who will marry them. I have to confess that it is disheartening that none of the couples return, they do not ask for more instruction/information, nor do they try to argue with me or ask why what they are doing is wrong and when I try to follow up I get the polite brush off or simply no response. As I said it is a little disheartening when God’s Word is spoken, and it is ignored first of all by the couple, but then it is reinforced by whatever church or pastor ends up performing the marriage rite. I will openly admit that I do not know where the couples who have come to me end up going to get married, or who performs the marriage rite and the pastor may have been able to do what I was not, convince, and show the need for repentance and only after catechesis of God’s Word were these couples able to marry. Again I do not know and do not want to paint the picture that I am the only Pastor in this area holding to the truths of Scripture concerning God’s Blessings and Desire for marriage.
What practices do the congregations in which you serve or worship have concerning cohabiting couples who seek to marry? Do you have any who have heard the word of God, repented and then lived chaste lives until their wedding night? What are we to do when other congregations will openly marry those who do not repent of their sins?

Reading the Junk E-mail can be interesting

2011-01-05T19:03:00.001-06:00

So, I got the following in a junk e-mail -- it's 10 things I can do to transform my congregation (from "Group" - I have no idea how I got on there).

I just thought I would see what, if any reaction or amusement or insight is taken from this (or social commentary). And for some reason I don't think 10 is suggesting adopting the Eastern Orthodox practice, but hey, I could be wrong.

+ + + + +
1. Banish the "stand and greet your neighbor" time in the worship service. I know your intentions are good, but it's forced, fruitless and goofy.
2. Forget everything they taught you about three-point sermons. You're wildly successful if you can get across one point. Just one point. Then sit down.
3. Get out and spend time with real people. Schedule lunches at your members' workplaces and schools. Listen. Get a feel for how real people live.
4. Encourage regular evaluation. Use comment cards. Ask us what we remember from last week's sermon. Then take us seriously, and adjust.
5. Crank down the volume of the band. Allow us to actually hear the voices of the flock.
6. Burn the fill-in-the-blank sermon guides. They're insulting, distracting and ineffective. (Can you imagine Jesus using them? Let's see, "Feed my _______.")
7. Show hospitality. Encourage people to enjoy a cup of coffee-during the service.
8. Let us participate. Entertain our questions-during the service. Let the real people around us tell how God is working in their lives.
9. Relax. Make some real friends. Spend more time with your family. Don't schedule every evening with church meetings.
10. Get rid of the pews. Really.

Liturgical interuption, innovation, and the classic form of idolatry

2011-01-03T22:36:00.002-06:00

So, I have been involved in a good discussion at the Gottesdienst Blog concerning, depending upon who you ask, the Confessions, Children's Sermons, Liturgical Innovation, and other various and sundry things. However, it has gotten me thinking on something.

Two frequent complaints leveled against children's sermons are that they are unnecessary innovations that don't fit in the service and that they disrupt the service.

Now, the point that they aren't "necessary" doesn't sway me much -- I'm more concerned with whether or not something may be freely done, not whether it *must* be done. However, it is a common concern for many, and I have been pondering it. Also, the idea that the 3 or 4 minutes a children's sermon takes also causes some consternation. Again, I'm not sold -- once any rite becomes established in a place, it becomes part of the flow of the service. I don't think my predecessor used the Gradual with regularity - I do. This was disruptive for a bit; now omitting the gradual would be disruptive. However, many people view the service as having a specific movement and flow that can be easily disrupted.

Offhandedly I had made a comment that, if we must eliminate anything that disrupts the service, we should remove the Offering, as this is an innovation that also disrupts the service. It was meant to be an argument... not of absurdity, but of comparison. There is no furor raised over the offering - it is accepted. Hence, something that is likewise disruptive could be accepted.

Then I saw a news promo this night. A Roman Catholic Parish in Oklahoma City was robbed -- and what does the promo show? Not offering plates, not a safe - but collection boxes.

Think about it. No break in the middle of the service. No pony show. No paying attention to what someone else might give - is it an envelop or just a few bucks from the wallet. No parade of cash to the front of the Church. Rather, when people give, quietly, out of the way, in the back of the Church, on their own time, with no one the wiser. No trumpets, no musical fanfare - when you give, let your giving be in secret.

And this is a new innovation - A Christianity Today article puts it really coming into vogue in the 19th Century. And mainly a protestant innovation (another bugaboo).

Why do we allow this? How is it beneficial? How does taking a collection in the middle of service support the idea that this is Divine Service, that worship is about the gifts that God gives us? We stop the service so everyone can see the money brought forward.

Now, I'm not going to say that have a collection for home mission work is wrong (although, when we have had special collections, we do just put a plate or basket in the back of the Church... and I don't do the LWML mite blessing - I think many would say that is uncouth). It really, though, when we think about it, seem odd. It seems much more odd to stop the flow of the service to focus on that old idol of cash than it does to pause to devote time to teaching children.

Yet the later raises fervor and fury among some as one of the signs of the utter decay of the Lutheran faith -- yet in nothing do we seem to borrow more from the reformed than when it comes to offering, tithing, and "stewardship" drives.

Just something to make one ponder.

Any thoughts from the Blackbirds? Have any of you had any qualms with our practice of the Offering?

Sunday School Blooper

2010-12-12T18:57:00.000-06:00

This is from today's Sunday School materials concerning the birth of John the Baptist. Okay, what's wrong with this picture? Hint: it has nothing to do with the little name-tag with "Leo" on it. Bonus hint: the good sisters of the CSPP might be able to provide the answer...

Forbid them not?

2010-12-03T10:40:00.002-06:00

A brief history is required before the question is posed for discussion.

About five years ago I began going to one of the Bethesda homes in our area and having a weekly service with the residents. The residents of this home are for the most part fairly low functioning with the exception of two residents who speak a bit, one more than the other. Those two had at some point in time and in some manner been catechized and are communicants. One of them had resided at Watertown for a long time and thus received very regular catachesis.

These visits to the home were not usually marked by great attention on the behalf of the residents and those who worked there were oft times in pursuit of one resident or another.

Three years ago they all began to come to the church on Thursday afternoons for the service. They would walk or be wheeled in and sit in the front pews of the sanctuary. I would vest, light the candles and use an abbreviated liturgy for the service. (Invocation, confession and absolution, readings, Apostles creed, homily, Lord's prayer, words of institution, holy communion, prayer of thanksgiving, benediction and an opening and closing hymn-the same each week)

They paid attention, they were for the most part quiet. There were reactions to the Word, to the singing, to their presence at the Lord's table. They were different. Most notably, the one resident whom I Baptized was more expressive during his time at the rail. They continue to come every Thursday and on most Sundays to the Divine service as well. Three of the women who work with these residents have been catechized and have joined the Church as well.

So now to my question. Two of them are communicants and four are not. Bethesda has some catechetical materials but they are not practical for those who do not communicate. I believe that by the demonstrated change from being at the home to being in the house of the Lord, from being inattentive to paying attention, this is reflective of a change wrought by God in them and they have been prepared over these years to receive the Lord's Supper.

I am interested in your ideas and opinions. I will say that there is not the time and/or proper manner to teach them more or to examine them. I also have one little girl who is very handicapped and unable to speak whose parents bring her faithfully to church. Her siblings all commune except for the 6 year old who will soon. I believe I should be communing this 12 year old girl with handicaps as well. What say you brothers?

What The Sem Recruiter Doesn't Tell You

2010-11-30T15:52:00.002-06:00

Is that you could end up on something like this. Blessed Saint Andrew's Day.

Pop Worship

2010-11-24T08:39:00.001-06:00

Pop worship is like a meth riddled rave. Everyone loves it, it warms your
heart, everyone(even straight laced liturgists) can open up and love, it's
addictive from first use, has to be increased in frequency and amplitude
and makes the producer much money.

Oh! and by the way, it's deceptively deadly.

Pr. Georg Williams

Heaven Erupts at the Food Court

2010-11-23T17:02:00.000-06:00

HT: Stacy McDonald

The Pastor-Penitent Privilege: A Case Study

2010-11-18T14:02:00.012-06:00

Some months ago, an interesting theological conundrum reared its ugly head regarding the seal of the confessional and pastoral counsel. I want to share this story with my fellow pastors on this blog, and hopefully the reader may be edified in our theology and practice of the Christian faith.

From the title I have given this essay, you can already tell that this whole discussion must be sensitive to matters of privacy. With the permission of the senior pastor I work with, the Rev. James Woelmer, and his review of this essay, I want to share with you what we have learned in this ordeal.

There was a clear cut, publicly acknowledged leaving of a spouse, with an unscriptural divorce. Thus far, I am sharing public knowledge, and this is as far as I go.

The counsel from God’s Word given by me and our senior pastor, and our listening to and discussion of the details of what happened, is and always remains sealed. If our pastoral care does not remain totally confidential, then how will Christians ever trust me or any other pastor to come for help and spiritual counsel? Not to mention, we have made a vow before God not to divulge the sins confessed to us. These principles stand on clear passages of Holy Scripture.

As the divorce case came to trial, certain details could not be agreed to between the two parties, and amazingly enough, in Texas, issues in a divorce can be put to a jury trial to be settled. As far as we can tell, this seems to be unique in our country. As this trial by jury came up, suddenly, out of nowhere, the senior pastor and I were subpoenaed to testify in the trial.

We were advised to call the lawyer (of the offending party) who had subpoenaed us and ask for clarification. When we talked to the lawyer over the phone, we asserted that we could not testify publicly nor would we speak to our confidential pastoral care, but nevertheless the lawyer refused to release us from the subpoena. Why not? “You have information in your private counsel with our client that will help our case, and my client has released the rite to privacy and confidentiality.”

Get that? The penitent – or, person we want to be penitent – has “released the rite to privacy and confidentiality” for the sake of somehow winning the case.

I replied to the lawyer, “Excuse me, but I do not care what your client says. Our counsel to your client as one of our flock is always privileged and confidential. There’s no way we are going to share anything discussed here. We have pastor-penitent privilege.”

The lawyer replied: “We’ll let the judge decide what you will or will not say in court.” And with that, the phone line basically went dead. It was clearly a threat. If the lawyer convinces the judge to go against our privilege as pastors with our flock, then perhaps it would come time to make the good confession of the faith, obeying God rather than man, and face the temporal consequences.

The senior pastor and I consulted with a fellow LCMS pastor whom we respect. He advised us to read “The Pastor-Penitent Relationship, Privileged Communications” – a 1999 document of the LCMS CTCR.

Does the CTCR document give the penitent or the person giving confidential information permission to divulge their confidential counsel with the pastor? No! The CTCR gives no such advice. If one looks on page 13 of the CTCR document under “Summary Principles and Practical Guidelines” one can see the summary of all of the previous discussion of this issue in the document: there are no circumstances, as far as the CTCR document is concerned, under which a Lutheran pastor need give away confidential information whether in the confessional or just in private pastoral counsel and aid.

We see the position of the mistaken lawyer in footnote #27 of the CTCR document, which notes the position of the ELCA. The ELCA constitution and bylaws say that the person giving confidential information can give the pastor permission to divulge confidential information, no distinction being made between the confessional or other pastoral communication. However, the CTCR merely notes this position as “interesting” and it is obviously in contrast to their summary principle #2: “Historically, the Lutheran church has consistently and resolutely maintained the seal of the confessional, that is, the confidential nature of confessional communications. The Lutheran church expects its pastors to maintain this position.”

Further, the CTCR’s principle #4 recognizes that although there may be a distinction between communications to the pastor in the confessional and those that are offered for other reasons, “communications to a pastor as pastor… are to be held in strict confidence as privileged communications.” (Pastor-Penitent, CTCR, 13) The CTCR document leaves very small room for breaking this principle, “except in the most extraordinary of circumstances” – and even then, it does not detail what such might be. One might call that the only weakness of the CTCR document.

Doing further research into the matter, we found the “Ethical Guidelines” of our LCMS Texas District written in 2005. (http://www.txdistlcms.org/downloads/Guidelines_for_Ethical_Conduct_of_Called_Servants.pdf)

This document refers to the CTCR document; yet, it contradicts it and seems to come down on the side of the ELCA position, note my emphasis added:

“5.1 Goal of Confidentiality

A called servant maintains the strictest standards of confidentiality in order to provide an opportunity for people to confess any and every sin and to receive forgiveness; to permit discussion of matters of the utmost personal importance; and to protect the good name of Christ’s holy people from malicious gossip and slander. The called servant also has a responsibility to the welfare of the community, which requires reporting information to legal authorities when life and health are discovered to be at risk.

5.2 Confession

An ordained servant of the Word does not reveal those matters that have been revealed to him as a consequence of the confession of an individual. (See CTCR Document, The Pastor Penitent Relationship.)

5.3 Privileged Communications

A called servant regards any entrusted information as privileged communication to be held in the strictest confidentiality. The person divulging the information, not the called servant who receives it, owns the privilege. Entrusted information should be revealed with the full knowledge and consent of the individual. However, in situations where the health and welfare of other people are at risk, or where it is required by law, the called servant will comply with the legal stipulations except for matters under the confessional seal. (See 5.2) When such revelation occurs, the called servant should inform the individual as soon as possible, consistent with the circumstances as legally allowed.”

Somehow, some theologians have found a “responsibility to the welfare of the community” that is nowhere backed up with Scriptures or the Confessions. The Texas document is quite muddled, you are to retain confidences, but you are not if the community needs to know, but you are if under the confessional, but maybe or maybe not if the penitent says so, one can’t tell what to do.

Did Jesus die to defeat and cleanse us of the sin and the corruption of the world and the devil or did He not? God “remembers” our sin “no more,” Jeremiah 31:34. The sins repented of are gone “as far as the east is from the west” in God’s view, Psalm 103:12. Likewise, all of the circumstances and hurtful events that surround, lead to, and follow those sins!

So, who are we to reveal anything given over to God and His forgiveness on account of the blood of Christ? Does our preaching and teaching of God’s Law and Gospel as pastors in private also belong to God? Are we only acting in this office in His stead and by His command? Who are we, whether pastor or penitent, to share publicly what Word of God has or has not been applied in private for the sake of the cure of souls? Further, do we or do we not trust God to protect “the welfare of the community” without one of His pastors divulging what does not belong to them to divulge?

To this humble pastor, no human “owns the privilege” of receiving or giving the counsel of God’s Word – the Bible simply does not acknowledge or leave room for such a position. I ask: is the idea that the penitent “owns the privilege” based on current American legal situations, current cultural views, or one based on a theological argument? This question remains unanswered and undocumented where such an opinion comes from, I saw no documentation in the Texas District ethical guidelines. (I admit, I have not researched the origins of the ELCA position…)

One excellent piece of advice was to consult with a retired judge and LCMS layman who advised the CTCR on the writing of its document in 1999. His advice to us pastors was crystal clear. Under all circumstances, there are no judges in the United States who will not recognize at this time the “Priest/Pastor - Penitent Privilege” in court. The retired judge told us to absolutely maintain confidentiality, and that the lawyer who threatened us was issuing so much hot air.

It turns out, these subpoenas were a scam on the part of the lawyer to keep us pastors out of the courtroom and out of the view of the jury, from sitting behind and in support of our faithful member who has been abandoned. Since we were sworn-in by the judge as witnesses (a new experience for me!), we could not sit in the courtroom. We were excused and never called back to the courthouse, much less to the witness stand. It did make for two days of fearing the ring of our cell phone, the judge telling us he could call us in at anytime to take the stand!

The day may come soon in our country when judges may threaten to throw the pastor in jail over refusing to testify in a divorce trial. One never knows. The whole circumstance, however, certainly worked to sharpen our theology as pastors on this important area of pastoral practice.

Does anyone know where these foreign ideas to the theology and practice of our church come from? Is anyone else not surprised that the ELCA finds the right of the individual to be as or more important than God’s choice and gift to forgive and retain sins and cure souls? Does anyone else find comfort, at least in this CTCR document, that the LCMS stands on the scriptural side of Christian theology and practice in this matter? I realize there is a lot more to say on this, a lot more history and practice good and bad even in our own LCMS. Feel free to comment or criticize.

Rev. Jacob Sutton

Halloween Controversy

2010-10-30T14:53:00.000-05:00

Every year the debate rages among Christians: celebrate Halloween or not.

Lutherans typically wave off any unease about Halloween, unlike some other Evangelical communions who eschew any and all involvement with Halloween. I have always found Halloween to be an innocent time of costumes and candy. And even though some of the costumes have always been over the top - either sexually inappropriate or violent - Halloween is mostly about being silly and getting goodies.

There is, however, an increasingly disturbing darkness and fascination with evil as well as a pushing of the modesty envelope. Concerning the increasingly occult element is this article from the Times-Picayune that juxtaposes family fun with gore, Satanism, and mockery of Christianity. An few excerpts:

In the 1990s, protesters picketed, decrying the place (House of Shock) as Satanic. Some even broke in and scattered holy water over the sets and props, which included a decapitated statue of the Virgin Mary....

Almost nothing stopped him (Larry Breaux) — except his wife, Brandi, the mother of his young twins, who told him she didn’t want him to spend all his family time in a place like that. If he wanted to be part of the House of Shock, he knew he had to figure out a way for his family to be part of it, too....

His next role did nothing to persuade Brandi, a Catholic, that the House of Shock was a legitimate family hobby: Breaux became the sullen-faced preacher of the haunted house’s Satanic Church.

Standing atop a pulpit holding a microphone, Breaux, clad in all black, taunted patrons with his deep, raspy voice: “Hail Satan!” “Where is your God now?” “Join us!” “Feed me your soul!”

Actresses portraying bloodied girls in white communion dresses rushed guests, reached out to them with their arms and shrieked, “Help me! Make it stop!” Demons with heads of cow skulls and evil altar boys wielding fake swords pretended to drag the maidens by their hair, lift them off the ground and choke them....

The children asked to join the cast. Brandi thought they were old enough, and Larry secured them gigs – in his “church.” Strawberry-haired Brianna became one of the victimized communion girls. Gage, his dark hair growing past his shoulders, became an altar boy....

Brandi explained, “Larry is not in barrooms. My kids aren’t running the streets with God-knows-who. If this is what it takes to bring our family together, so be it.”

While my family does indeed celebrate Halloween, I can foresee a time when Christians may want to opt out of entirely. It's getting pretty disturbing when "trick or treat" has been replaced by "hail Satan" and the jack-o-lantern has given way to the pentagram.

--- Rev. Larry Beane

Addiction or Disease; Sin or nature; Confession or rehab

2010-10-27T10:50:00.002-05:00

I went to a seminar yesterday that appeared promising by its invitation. It was to be about drug addiction and how the Church might help to not only stem the tide, but aide those who were addicted to drugs and alcohol. There is a new organization here in Porter County that was putting on this seminar and their object is substance abuse recovery exclusively for young adults. This is a commendable objective and Porter County, IN has a very high incidence of Heroin addiction beginning with young children.

Although I was not able to stay for the entire seminar, I was there long enough to hear the primary speaker talk about addiction as a disease not unlike cancer. The more he spoke the more he emphasized this point and the more and more distant would become the help of the Church. With all of his psycho speech and inclusive language designed to not stigmatize those addicted to drugs, there became no room for confessing the use of drugs as a sin.

The language used made using drugs not a matter of sinful choices but rather problems with nature and nurture. Although there was talk about the guilt and shame an addict might feel or experience, that was to be solved by including them in church, welcoming them and not ostracizing them. There was no place for confession and absolution.

There were many lay people from non-Lutheran denominations in attendance to whom the idea of confession and absolution would be either entirely foreign or "Roman" and in either case would in their opinion make for more guilt rather than relieving guilt and shame in the absolution.

I found this to be very sad, and with the exception of a brother LC-MS pastor who stated that they were making a two legged stool (biology and psychology) that was missing the third leg, theology, there were none who saw the Church's place as one of reconciliation, forgiveness, or peace apart from inclusiveness. They all missed the point that Christ removes sins, grants peace and gives us a clean conscience before God in the absolution.

Although there may be some pre-disposition to alcohol abuse via heredity, I do not believe there is such a thing for drugs with the possible exception of those who have been exposed to them while in utero. Taking drugs or drinking alcohol is a choice and choices come with consequences. All sin has consequences. Sometimes severe, hence we have prisons and jails, sometimes less severe thus we have rehab facilities and support groups. But they are sins none the less and confession and absolution is or should be an integral part of any recovery or rehabilitation plan. The same would be true for those addicted to pornography.

As a brother spoke about that yesterday he said that for all of these there must be a resignation to a great deal of hard work and discipline to eliminate these addictions from ones life. There was no intimation that such things would be easy but I believe that he would also agree that these are not diseases for which some medical or psychological remedy is the real answer but rather confession and absolution followed by a mixture of medical and or psychological helps, self-discipline and of course a regular diet of the gifts of God in Christ Jesus.

I must say that I was disturbed by the direction this presentation went. Am I missing something or is this just another work of Satan to lead men away from the mercy and forgiveness of sin in Christ and into self-help, societal blame and tolerated inclusion of unrepentant sinners.

I am not insensitive to this problem nor to those who are faced with it as it is devastating to families and communities as well as hard on the Church. Yet I believe we must keep things in proper focus and call a thing what it is. We know that all that is not good is the result of sin in the world. Not necessarily the sin of the person afflicted but the result of sin and all that God might be given the glory and not men. Confession and absolution puts these things in the proper perspective. We are sinners in need of forgiveness.

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the Truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His Word is not in us." First John 1:8-10

Let us begin here, confessing our sins and receiving His absolution and then move from that place of a good conscience with God to strive to do better. But let us always return to confession for we daily sin much. Yes, I have inherited sin and inherited depravity from my first parents. May I never deny this or presume that somehow it has been removed and thus I can be good by myself by my own desire. Our disease is sin and Jesus is the cure. All of these other things are symptoms, manifestations of our sinful nature.

A Warning From Sasse

2010-10-19T07:50:00.002-05:00

Herman Sasse writes the following:

"This word [reformation] had a long history before it was first applied to the movement which had its origin in the posting of Luther's Theses. For more than two centuries before, a reformation of the church in the sense of both a moral-religious and a legal-organizational renovation (renovatio being synonymous with reformatio) was being demanded. Theologians and humanistic scholars, clergymen and laymen, prelates and heretics, reform councils and popes, statesmn and monks had formulated theories for such a reformation and had tried to put them into practice. This was the problem which all of them had in common: What can be done in order that the church might once again become what it ought to be according to God's Will? All of them also had in common the conviction that there are ultimate authoritative norms according to which the church must again get its bearings after it had strayed from the right path; that there are commands which it must again obey; and that this obedience, this heeding of the ultimate authority, and the doing of what this authority requires, represents the reformation, or renovation, of the church. Councils and popes, the theological exponents of conciliarism and curialism, the Hussites, the monastic reformers, the humanists, Erasmus and Zwingli, Calvin and Bucer, Carlstadt and Munzer, together with the reform popes, the Anabaptists of Munster, and the Council of Trent - all of them agreed in this. . . " (Here We Stand, pgs 63-64)

This is the danger. Reform is not a matter of simply finding the right rules and all agreeing to follow them. Reform is not accomplished when we kick the louts out, when we all agree to just say the black and do the red. Even if these are good and salutary, they are not reform. Reform is not a specific "act" that is accomplished, that we agree to, and then we can all go home happy and content for having "won" the battle. Rather...

"Lutheran theology denies this characterization [reform as simply a return to Scripture] of the nature of that great event of church history which makes it a reformation, hits the mark. A renovation of the Church through a return to the Scriptures, through a renewed consideration of what God tell us in the Scriptures - this is by no means the essential characteristic of that event of the 16th Century. Reformation, so understood, is a continuous process. It is a continuous process not only in the sense that this renewal from the Word of God ought to take place again and again, but also in the sens that it is actually happening all the time. Every real sermon contributes to such a renewal. This kind of reformation takes place every Sunday - every day, in fact. For the church literally lives by the Word of God. It would not exist any longer, if it did not experience a renovation by the Word of God again and again. (Here We Stand, pgs 65-66)

And what is this Word that we live by? Is it your rules and laws to keep the wicked out as the reformed would say? To make people behave better - either in service or out? Sasse says no.

" For the church does not live by morals, by the knowledge and observance of God's law. Nor does it live by religion, by lofty experiences of the divine and an awareness of the mysteries of God. It lives solely by the forgiveness of sins. Hence reformation does not consist, as the Middle Ages beleived, and as has even been believed in wide circles of the Protestant world, of an ethico-relgiious correction, of a moral quickening and a spiritual deepening throughout the chruch. It consists, rather, according to its own peculiar nature, of the revival of the preaching of the Gospel of the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake. That such a revival of the church's message must have important consequences also in reviving the life of its members and in renovating the external forms of the church is only natural. But these are only consequences." (Here We Stand, pgs 69-70)

If you want the Church to be a better place - quit trying to come up with new standards and guidelines. Quit trying to figure out who doesn't make it into your holy club, whatever your standards of your own personal holy club are. Simply this. Proclaim Christ for sinners slain. When something doesn't point to Christ for sinners slain, say, "That is off focus - our focus is to be here - upon Christ winning us forgiveness."

Then let the chips fall where they may. It is God's Church, He will tend to it. As for you - proclaim and confess Christ. Be not a new Moses yourself, for you are not called to be one. Be a new John, pointing to the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Let your own wants and desires decrease, that the focus on Christ may increase.

You will not make the Church perfect. You will not make people perfect. But you are called to proclaim Christ Jesus, who does justify, and who does make perfect on the last day.

Simply to Work, or Because of a Need?

2010-09-28T07:38:00.002-05:00

There is an assumed, unspoken idea that Pastors need to get people more involved in "Church" - where "Church" refers not specifically to worship and bible study, but to activities and volunteer opportunities. The idea is that if you have more and more people volunteering and showing up to Church over the course of the week, that this is ultimately good. Get them doing something.

Why?

I don't mean this is a pejorative way, but simply as a call to reconsider our thinking. Why? Why do we do this?

Let me explain what got me thinking about this. A friend of mine told me that he was asked to do some work with college aged youth at his church. This is brilliant - if he were attending my Church, I'd try to put him to work too. He's a diligent, intelligent, devout man, and would be a great example to folks he interacted with. Great! So I asked him, "What are they going to have you do?" His response: they don't know yet.

...

Now, the simple Germanic Planner in me is revolted by this. Why wasn't there brainstorming done, why wasn't there at least a rough outline of what was going to be done? So I asked if he was going do x or y, things I knew were going on at the Church. Nope - they've got that covered, and it goes well, but they'll want to put him to work with something else that is as of yet to be determined.

Again, this isn't me being critical - because if he were here at my congregation, I'd want to FIND something to put him to work doing. But why?

If there is no need for someone to do something, why do we think we need to find something for them to do (okay, for this guy, I'd like to ship him off to the Seminary, but that's another point entirely)? Do we approach volunteering in the Church on a basis of a need to accomplish some goal of service, or is it a matter of simply putting people to work?

I think that we end up assuming that a person volunteering for something will make them better members of the Congregation, will enrich their spiritual life. That's the assumption - that if you show up to Church during the week, you will be a better person for it.

I don't know if that is true. I have plenty of people who are active in the service life of this congregation, who do their elected or volunteer roles faithfully... and I can't remember the last time I've seen them on a Sunday. I don't think simply having someone work with X makes them more spiritually focused.

And perhaps there is another downside to this. How are we approaching the very idea of "work" within the Church? Is it a matter of we as Christians showing love as love is needed, wherever and whenever - or is it more a matter of almost a backdoor "works-are-what-makes-the-Christian" sort of approach? Do we have people thinking that they have done their time at Church... that Church is about the service I give and do rather than receiving Christ's love and then reflecting that love to others?

So what about it? Why do we try so hard to get people to do things? Is it self-serving (if they work, maybe they'll give more offering -- which is actually probably backwards)? Is it backdoor Pietism where there are Christians and then the "Good Christians" who help out at Church? Is it just trying to get people to attend service without simply saying, "You should be attending service"? And have we lost a focus on the works of the Church truly being works of mercy and service to those in our midst and those without?

In Praise of Deconstruction

2010-09-27T07:35:00.002-05:00

(Simply because I haven't given anyone a heart attack in almost a month)

I admit that I find postmodernism fascinating - and I'm sure that this is partially because I despise modernism and rationalism with full fervor. Post-modernism is designed, above all else, to point out the foolish, arrogant, and even damnable assumptions rationalism makes about anything and everything.

The tool that is used for this is deconstruction. What is it to deconstruct? To demonstrate that a perceived truth is not a universal truth, but rather something specific to the moment. For example, if you were to ask the typical American how criminals are (in theory) supposed to be punished, the answer is that they go to jail (and if you ask a liberal they might add "to be rehabilitated"). This is a perceived truth, but it is not a universal truth. In many places today the default punishments are not prison terms but corporal in nature. More over, historically, this wasn't true in the US either - go back 200 years and our own use of prisons were vastly different. That which is perceived to be capital T truth is show just to be a cultural construct, a particular adaptation of our own society.

While we might not want to admit it, we use deconstruction all the time. It is the basis of Lutheran apologetics, where all we are doing are breaking down the false, preconceived notions people have about themselves, the Christian faith, and the world. And this is nothing new. To disabuse someone of false notions of reality is precisely what Christ does over and over in the New Testament. "You are right in saying, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband" is deconstructing this woman's idea of what it is to have a husband.

But why is this idea of deconstruction or postmodernism so scary to us as Lutherans? Because the rampant, crass postmodernists have started deconstructing the Church. So we freak out and run in terror - when the very language of postmodernism and deconstruction shows us how we can defeat them.

The key is this - to successfully deconstruct, you must show how a perceived truth is not true in all places and in all times. Hmmm... let's think about that, do we as Christians have a word to describe something that is true, is real in all times and in all places. . . hmmm.

To assert the catholic nature of the Church is to assert that, according to the standards established by postmodern thought and deconstruction, the doctrines of the Church are true and more sure than any individual perception or thought.

"That's just your truth!" No, actually it is not mine, it is not one of my own deriving, it is one I have received, one I confess with Christians of all times and all places. It is not unique to me, but it is Universal. Do individuals botch and abuse it - sure, of course - and the catholic faith teaches that all are sinful, so of course individuals are going to mess it up. But there is reality in this faith. There is reality in this service. And it goes beyond what our eyes can see, what our minds can comprehend (take that rationalism!), it goes beyond what you or I determine for ourselves (take that, dumbed down Postmodernism!).

The counter to any claim of a social construct is catholicity.... After all, what is "contemporary" worship but an abandoning of catholic structures to construct something that one thinks will appeal to society?

Don't be scared of deconstructionism. Don't let the postmodernist scare or intimidate you. Deconstruct them. Show how their perceptions fall short of the catholic truth - and then maybe they will see.

PMI: Maybe Not TMI, But MTP and TWI

2010-09-23T11:21:00.003-05:00

Missing The Point and The Wrong Inquisition

I'm wondering how much TLCMS, Inc. has already "invested" in postage for this Spanish inquisition, the proper name of which I cannot recall (because the blizzard of mailings I've received on it are in a pile at church). "Preparedness for Ministry Inventory," or some such thing, is what it is called.

When I got the first request, this past spring, to participate in a trial run of this new instrument, purportedly advocated by the seminaries, I was reluctant to do so. I've frankly lost my confidence in anything from the Corporation's Capital City pertaining to the pastoral ministry or the actual life of the church, though I am optimistic for the future now that we have a pastor and a theologian in the office of the president. We shall see.

Anyway, I was reluctant to participate, but I asked my board of elders and church council for their input, opinion and recommendation, and they suggested that it might be helpful to the synodical boards and seminaries to have some input from a solid confessional congregation like ours. They encouraged me to participate, and I agreed to do so.

Since then, I've received at least five other mailings about this thing, thanking me, reminding me, thanking me, reminding me, letting me know it was almost on its way, then the thing itself, and then another thank you and reminder. Somebody's functions have certainly survived the summer, clearly enough, and TLCMS, Inc. is doing more than its share to support the U.S. Postal Service, too. Kudos, I guess, to those who are finding such ways to keep busy and to spend money we don't have.

President Harrison certainly has his work cut out for him.

But what is it that the Corporation is spending so much time, energy and postage promoting? This instrument is intended to evaluate the preparation of pastors for, well, presumably for the pastoral office, but apparently for the position of some kind of program director and social coordinator, part politician, part schmoozer. It seems the authors of this survey may want pastors to be some kind of pansies, too, if the leading questions of this Spanish inquisition are any indication.

Not that I've seen the actual survey that I was asked to distribute to half a dozen or more lay members of my congregation. Trust the mortal princes and do as your told, or so the policy goes, leastwise where the previous synodical bureaucracy was concerned.

The accompanying survey, which I was asked to complete as the pastor, dealt not with the means of grace, nor the preaching of the Gospel, nor the catechesis of the Word of Christ, nor pastoral care, nor anything pertaining to the actual life of the Church, but with community demographics and sociology. I was not asked how often I hear confession, nor whether I go to confession with my own father confessor. I was not asked how often the congregation is gathered for the Word of God and prayer. I was not asked about visitations, nor the piety and practice of the Holy Communion, nor the observance of the Church Year and the celebration of the Divine Service.

Now that the laity who were given the sealed instrument to complete have been fulfilling that task, I'm hearing about the sort of things they were asked. At least some of them were quite put off by the character and content of the questions (I haven't heard from the others). Since I was not privy to the actual survey, I can only go on what I've been told, but it evidently has more to do with program development and direction than with the pastoral office and ministry. That doesn't surprise me, 'cause it's the same ol' same ol' thing that I've been hearing from the Corporate Capital for the past decade. But, still, it makes me downright sad. Not for me and my congregation, who are living and growing in the joy of the Gospel. But it makes me sad for the fellowship of the Church on earth; for my brother pastors who are beleaguered and wearied and driven to exhaustion and despair by misguided and wrongheaded expectations and criteria; for the dear people of God who are given propaganda and marketing strategies instead of pastoral care and catechesis; and for the faithful seminary professors who are surely more interested in preparing real pastors for Christ's Church instead of program directors for the Corporation's clientèle.

How long, O Lord, how long, until the called and ordained stewards of Your sacred Mysteries are encouraged to be faithful in that stewardship, and are helped and supported in that stewardship, by their fathers and brothers in office, instead of being cajoled and corralled into misguided enterprises and wrongheaded undertakings of human devising?

How long, O Lord, how long, until the actual Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, that is to say, the pastors and congregations of Your Church who share this fellowship in a common confession and administration of the Gospel, set their hearts, minds and bodies on doing just that: namely, confessing and administering Your Gospel, in the confidence of Your Cross and Resurrection?

Pastors are prepared for the pastoral ministry by the pastoral care of the pastoral ministry: which isn't about marketing or propaganda, but comprises the preaching of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, the ongoing catechesis of the Word of Christ unto faith in His forgiveness, the hearing of confession and the absolving of sins in His name and stead, and the regular reception of the Body and Blood of Christ. Where those things are not at the center, neither is Christ Jesus. Where those things are the heart of who we are and what we do, there Christ is our true treasure, and we live by the grace of His Gospel, unto the life everlasting.

Kyrie eleison! Christe eleison! Kyrie eleison!

Ethics on the Road

2010-08-27T06:53:00.003-05:00

Well, I'm on the road, and the hotel doesn't have free wireless - but thankfully I'm in the Pacific Time Zone and no one here in their right mind is up at this time so the "business" center is open and free (the joys of being a early riser two time zones west who collapsed from driving 6 hours yesterday, including through LA rush hour -- I will not complain about Enid traffic, I will not complain about Enid traffic, I will not complain about Enid traffic. Oklahoma drivers may be foolhardy, but at least they are few). I ended up in my flights and travels cracking open a few "ethics" books - and I think I do understand why my appeals to Christian love set off all those situational ethics alarms in peoples' minds. So, I thought I would posit a few statements, thoughts, etc. here for discussion and reflection.

1. Ethics is not morals. In saying this, I know that I am bucking whole generations of discussions on ethics and morality, but I think we must and ought make a distinction between morality and ethics for one simple reason.

You are a sinner, and thus you are NEVER in this life going to act morally.

Simple as that. If we let ethics become a discussion over what is "morally right" we will simply let ourselves fall back into the false, misleading dream of the law. If morality is the standard, every option is sin, for "the heart has not the pure desires the spirit of the law requires." Every act you make, every thought, every breath is intrinsicially sinful. You cannot escape it - not even through the ethical life. I think making a strong separation between questions of "morality" and how we attempt to slug through our sinful life in this fallen world helps to safegaurd us from being clanging gongs and noisy symbols, and partially because I think any attempt to divide "what is moral" from "what is love" not only ends up becoming a backdoor way of justifying the self (and showing self-love), but also belies the fact that in making that false dictomony you show that you know neither morality nor love.

(But hey! Didn't you just want to make a dichtomy between morals and ethics, and you define ehtics as showing love! Yes - but at least I'm not being a self-righteous prig about it. Actually, the point I'd be making in my distinction is that morality tends to be self-focused. . . am *I* doing right, am *I* a good person, rather than being focused on the neighbor, as biblical love must be. Also - morality ends up dealing with rules, with mores. I'm not interested in trying to create some moral system with rules for every occurance - just give me a guide I can try to apply simply and quickly so I can act, repent, and get on with life, praying that Christ return quickly.)

2. Speaking of Graded Absolutes is fine - but Love is the Highest Absolute. In making an appeal to love, I am not denying other moral or ethical absolutes - indeed, they exist. However, I do think that the easiest way to understand them is in view of love (in view of? Stinking Ohioan!). What do I mean by this? Consider the statement, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." This is not to say that we are not obligated to offer up our proper sacrifices... rather this, to show mercy and to offer up right sacrifices to God are both acts of love - both happen because one fears and loves God so that. . . . However, consider them in terms of love, and you will see that one of the grades has misapplied or broken love. If your so called and flawed love of God leads you to neglect mercy, the love of the neighbor, then you have wandered astray of love. Love is shown both in sacrifice and in mercy, but if your sacrificial love causes you to neglect mercy, is it really a sacrifical love anymore? The answer, in view of love, is no.

Again, this ties into my whole contention that when we consider our actions one of the first things we assume must be that we are doing something wrong, that we are doing something flawed. Which ties into the third. . .

3. While a Christian is to do nothing but show love, your view of love is flawed. Simple as that. What you think qualifies as love is going to be constantly off base, because you are sinful and your flesh will twist and turn outward facing, neigbhor focused love onto self love. Hence, when discussing love, it must never be what you think, feel, or "know" love is - but how love is defined in the Scriptures by God. Whenever we forget that we are sinful and that we are not perfected in love, we will just stray further and further off course.

4. To learn ethical behavior and how you ought to strive to live is to study and contemplate the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. This is the whole point of passages like Phillipians 2, where we are to have among ourselves the mind of Christ - we are to strive to approach things in a Christ like way. This is the point of Ignatius of Antioch's admonition that we are to be subordinate to the bishop as he is subordinate to Christ -- that way we may seek in all things to constantly align ourselves with Christ. When you are constantly checking yourselve with what Christ has done (I'm not just saying pull our your WWJD braclet and think about what your hip Buddy Christ would do - I'm dealing with concrete historical, real, and salvific acts here) in His showing of love to you and to the world, you are moving closer and closer to the perfection that you will never obtain in this life. Point yourself to the Love of Infinite One who became Finite to save you.

Thoughts from the road entirely too early for the West Coast.

Distribution, time, personnel, vestments

2010-08-18T11:08:00.002-05:00

Here's another question/problem/dilemma.

We have at my congregation these men called "elders" who are laymen and not elders in the Biblical sense of the word. Of course they do various things and one of their functions before I got here was that of assisting in the distribution of the Holy Supper. When I arrived one elder would distribute the host, the pastor would distribute the chalice and the other elder would distribute the individual cups.

I changed that order to be, Pastor distributed the host for he alone can welcome/admit someone to the table and he alone is accountable to God for such admission. Then the elders distributed the Blood by either chalice or individual cups. As of this summer I have gone to distributing both the host and the chalice and one elder has then distributed the individual cups.

There has been a comment made that this takes to long and some members are leaving after receiving the holy supper and remaining for the balance of the service and the Lord's benediction (one of my member's pointed out that that was like giving the finger to God).

I have also gotten to the point where I believe that those who serve within the chancel should be vested i.e. the elders, the acolytes and of course the pastor who is already vested. Concerns have been voiced that "vesting" the elders in something other than coat and tie makes them appear as clergy or as our vicar and that might cause further confusion about the office. I have seen it done by faithful brothers both ways but would like to have some further input.

Of course to be able to do things as the historic church always did and as those brothers who have regular clergy in attendance and don't have laymen as elders would be wonderful. Looking for some discussion and helpful critique on this matter. Thanks in advance.

A question of Holiness, so to speak

2010-08-18T10:57:00.002-05:00

I have been having an on going conversation with a member that goes something like this, "The altar is the holiest place in the church for it is where God resides and from where He comes to give His people His gifts." The question then is asked, does that mean that the balance of the space is not as holy and then by default that the gathered saints are not as holy as say, the pastor or others who might serve within the Chancel? The answer I give is that all is made holy by God's presence and His gifts bestowed, i.e. holy absolution, preaching, Holy Supper but they are certainly not as holy as God even though He makes His temple within them and washes, speaks, feeds them holy.

I am not saying this well to reduce some concern and thus would one or several of you clarify this for me. I say that the altar is the most holy place, the chancel being the space in which the altar stands is also most holy and thus the pastor vests to come into the most intimate presence of God. The nave is holy for God goes out to His people to make them holy. When they come to the altar rail to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus they are in the most holy and intimate relationship with God this side of glory as in His Supper heaven and earth come together.

Does this somehow make them less holy or others more holy? How might this be said in a better way or more clear and proper way. Please help! Thank you.

What Am I? I know, but do you?

2010-08-18T09:16:00.003-05:00

For your consideration and discussion.

What am I? I am a parish pastor of the LCMS. When discussing Church and Ministry, what really am I? American Lutheranism has a convoluted grouping of theories and explanations to try to describe what exactly is going with the office of the Public Ministry -- even amongst where the various Blackbirds come from.

I know what I am. I am a bishop.

Plain and simple. I am a bishop. I am the overseer of the Christian Community of Lahoma, OK. I have an altar which I am to attend to - by virtue of my own call to my office as bishop. I am what 1 Timothy 3 is talking about when Paul says, "If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task." It's bishop, it's episcopos.

But here is the problem I see - we have lost the understanding of a bishop as fundamentally a pastor tending to a flock of Christians and substituted the later development of a bishop as an overseer of a bunch of priests and congregations. A bishop isn't an administrator, a bishop as described by Paul isn't a paper pusher - a bishop isn't the person who shuffles the priests under him around, exercising earthly, structural power in the Church. A bishop is one who is the chief steward of the mysteries of God in a place.

Should I ever have an assistant pastor, who can do all the things I can, but is subordinate to me at this congregation - then he would be a presbyter (or a priest, if you will). He assists.

If there were to be one who serves as a member of the clergy who is appointed to do works of service, to aid in distribution, and perhaps even to learn the art of preaching so as one day to hold the office of presbyter or bishop - this would be a deacon (you know, either a stand alone deacon, or a seminarian).

These are the Scriptural categories - and the problem is our language, our terminology doesn't match up. And of course, the reason things don't match up is because we are so concerned about who gets to put people into what office. We need to have some "superbishop" putting folks in - no, we need a majority vote - no we need a consistory or synod of bishops who tend to themselves -- to which I say, I don't care. Let a man be mediately called into which ever office it is peaceably, in good order, and with the consent of those being served. But when they are properly called - they are what they are - bishops, or presbyters, or deacons, with the duties and obligations placed upon them by the Word of God.

We do not need some overarching structure to reintroduce "bishops" - we have proper bishops already. We don't need to have a congregational polity to protect us from the tyranny of bishops - we have proper bishops already. We aren't arguing about the ministry - we've abandoned the scriptural idea of the ministry to fight over the table scraps of earthly power attempting to impose our sinful will over others.

Tend to your altars, you who are bishops! You who are assistants and thus presbyters - assist your bishop in the service for the people! You who are deacons, serve with care and compassion, and if you are studying, study diligently!

But, what of "Associate Pastors" -- eh, you have co-bishops. Awkward, but hey, share and play nicely.

But what of cities where there are multiple congregations - can't there only be one bishop? If the congregations are one entity, sure. If they are separate houses - no, each gets a bishop. Now, if we wanted to be organized amongst ourselves where there would only be one bishop in the town (or region) and only one proper congregation with multiple locales of worship each headed by the presbyter - so be it. But if we are separate congregations - eh, lots of bishops - and there's nothing wrong with that.

But how can you be a bishop without clergy to oversee. . . because a bishop's oversight is of the sheep, first and foremost. That's what it is to be a bishop - and this is what we have forgotten. Be bold in your office, and point to Christ who is the true bishop.

Pre-Seminex Cinema

2010-08-11T22:04:00.005-05:00

Here is some video from the 1973 LCMS convention at New Orleans, with some narration.

It sure is interesting.

HT/The Rev. RLHIV

The Communion

2010-08-11T07:50:00.002-05:00

Offered for your consideration, comment and correction:

The communal nature of the Sacrament does not derive from the communal gathering of the Church; but, rather,

The communal nature of the Church derives from the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament.

Wisdom and Eloquence Conference

2010-08-10T10:01:00.000-05:00

The "Wisdom and Eloquence" conference offered last week by Father Petersen was wonderful. It is a cross between a Higher Things conference and a weekend Bible retreat. For three days we worshiped, studied and played. It was wonderful to see so many children as I am certain they out numbered the adults 4-1. Worship three times each day with the Sacrament every day was very refreshing and healing. The plenary with Father Bender was not only enlightening but it enhanced ones own ability to teach the Catechism. The sectionals provided a wide variety of topics that brought forth lively discussion and learning. The evening "fun" brought home simple yet fun ways to enjoy the family and family time.

All the way around it was done well and I highly recommended it for those who can get to Ft. Wayne for three days in August as I hope and presume it will be again next year. Check out Father Petersen's blog at http://redeemer-fortwayne.org/blog.php and you can see what went on.

Thanks again Dave, it was a pleasure and a privilege.

Marriage in 2010

2010-07-25T21:18:00.003-05:00

If you want to get a sense of that the world considers to be marriage with a bit of religion thrown read this. It is a nightmare on so many levels, one does not even know where to start. This is the world, and it is a mess.

A Bible Recommendation

2010-07-08T22:27:00.002-05:00

One would think that the last thing we would need is another Bible - especially given 2008's being nicknamed The Year of the Study Bible. The LCMS was only slightly late to the party with CPH's well-received The Lutheran Study Bible (TLSB) being released in 2009.

But the Apostolic Bible, 2006 edition, edited by Charles Van Der Pool, is not a new translation nor a "study Bible," but rather a reference tool that I have found very helpful. It weds the Greek New Testament to the Greek Old Testament of the Septuagint.

The Septuagint (LXX) is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament made by Greek-speaking Jews around 250 BC. For the most part, it is the version of the Old Testament that is quoted by the New Testament (which was also written in Greek), the version in use in the days of the early church. This early Greek translation is a huge help to understanding the Hebrew Old Testament - which can often be open to various interpretations. The LXX is a window into how the Jews who awaited the Messiah, as well as the Christians who proclaimed Him, read and understood the Old Testament.

A well-known illustration involves Isaiah 7:14. This is a Messianic prophecy that speaks of a virgin giving birth. The Hebrew word rendered "virgin," however, literally means "young girl" or "maiden." Technically speaking, עַלְמָה (almah) doesn't really mean "virgin." Some critics claim that Christians are reading into Isaiah's text and finding a prophecy about Jesus that doesn't exist.

However, we can see how Jews from even before the borth of our Lord interpreted almah in this context by how it was rendered into Greek: παρθένος (parthenos), which does mean "virgin" in the literal and technical sense.

Another example, given in the Apostolic Bible's introduction, involves 2 Cor 5:21, in which St. Paul describes Jesus becoming "sin" for us - which can certainly cause Christians to scratch their heads. The Greek word is ἁμαρτία (hamartia), which, when cross checked into the LXX, such as in Num 6:14, we see the word being used not only for the word "sin" but also meaning a "sin offering." This helps us understand how St. Paul understood the word in a Christological sense.

The Apostolic Bible is actually several resources in one. It has a helpful introduction, the Septuagint Old Testament (without getting into all the nitty gritty about which texts were used - you can read about all of that here), the Greek New Testament (I thought it was the Nestle-Aland text, but it doesn't actually identify it as such), an English-Greek index, and a Lexical Concordance.

Remember, this is a reference work, not a Bible one would tend to pick up and read. It is an interlinear - which means that under each Greek word (or word group) is a literal English word-for-word translation. In addition, a modified word-numbering system (a variation of the Strong system) is used. Some may balk at the interlinear, but once again, this is a reference work, not a "reading Bible" - though the English text does include helps so that it could be read as a cogent translation in a pinch. The numbering system helps people not familiar with the Greek alphabet to navigate the Lexical Concordance. I find it a nice feature that will hopefully encourage the study and use of the LXX by everyone and that people are not put off if they have not studied Greek.

The English-Greek Index allows one to look up an English word and locate the Greek word or words - along with their numbers - that correspond to the English. From there, one can locate the word in the Lexical Concordance to locate all uses of that word - in both the Old and the New Testaments.

By making use of seven columns, the Lexical Concordance contains a head-spinning amount of entries. Words appearing 50 times or more do not appear in the Lexical Concordance (and they are listed on page xiii of the introduction). At a glance, the Lexical Concordance shows where, and how often, such words are used. It makes it easy to cross between the testaments and draw them together.

I have found the Apostolic Bible to be invaluable for preparing for Bible class and sermons. It not only helps narrow down often-subjective Hebrew words, it helps illuminate the Christological continuity between the Old and New Testaments.

You can download the entire book - Introduction (14 pages), the Old Testament (1242 pages) , the New Testament (372 pages), the English-Greek Index (88 pages), and the Lexical Concordance (366 pages) for $15. The format is an easy-to-navigate (and read) PDF. You can print a page or two, or even the whole thing, as you see fit. And when you buy the download, you get a $15 off coupon to purchase the print edition (which makes the download a freebie if you buy the book).

The basic paperback (which I find to be quite rugged) is $40. If you desire, you can get various leather covers - and the prices are not bad. I went with the basic format, and find it to be just fine for my purposes.

On the downside, I have two gripes: 1) No Apocrypha. The LXX includes the Apocryphal books, but the Apostolic Bible omits them, and sticks with the canonical order of the King James Version. 2) The Greek letters do not include the typical accents (nor the breathing marks over initial vowels), but instead places a dot over the stressed syllable.

But all in all, this is a fantastic resource. It is useful beyond what I imagined, is priced right, includes the PDF format that resides on my computer, and is a quality-made book that (as far as I can tell so far) is fastidiously accurate.

--- Rev. Larry Beane

A Question for the Blackbirds

2010-06-19T21:16:00.002-05:00

With apologies for not passing this on sooner:

With respect to pastoral care of couples engaged to be married, should both the bride and groom be communicate memembers before the pastor marries them, or may a pastor appropriately marry them if only one is a communicate member? In the latter case, is it necessary that the other person at least agree or promise to attend the next new member catechesis class?

Bizarre Random Question of History

2010-06-10T09:21:00.000-05:00

Alright, bizarre random question of History. How does the idea of clergy wearing hats (the Bishop's Miter in particular) develop, especially given that whole idea of men not covering their heads in worship? Does anyone know this bit of history?

Gospel fail

2010-06-09T16:40:00.003-05:00

--- Posted by Rev. Larry Beane

Blackbirding a Blackbird on Polity

2010-05-20T13:07:00.004-05:00

Another Blackbird, the Rev. Tim May, has an excellent reflective essay on his blog regarding polity in the life of the church, especially in light of the upcoming convention of the LCMS.

It is not to be missed!

So, I hope Fr. Tim doesn't mind his blog being blackbirded by a fellow Blackbird. And lest the grammar police come knocking at my virtual door, according to Messrs. Merriam and Webster the word "blackbird" can indeed be an intransitive verb.

Thoughts upon editing an Ascension Transferred Sermon

2010-05-16T06:37:00.001-05:00

I think I have keyed upon the main difference between American Protestants and Lutherans - how to tell if you are thinking like a Lutheran.

The Protestant will read the Scriptures to see God the Father - what He wants them to do, how He wants to bless them, etc.

The Lutheran will read the Scriptures to see Christ Jesus - that He must die and rise for our forgiveness as we hear in Luke's account of the Ascension.

And here's the test. When you hear "God" - do you think first of Jesus or the Father? When you hear "Lord" - do you think first of Jesus or the Father?

We ought think first of Jesus - He is the Way, the Truth, the Life. No one goes to the Father but by Him. Protestant theology pays this lip service too often - Lutheran theology strives to delight in this.

Thoughts?

Seminex Cinema

2010-05-14T21:59:00.003-05:00

If you have 25 minutes to kill, watch the video and see how royally messed up Seminex was. It seems this was a recruitment/fundraising movie. Check it out and notice Tietjen's sermon (also quoted at the end) that they train "community organizers"! They even got the guy from the Waltons to be the narrator. Good night John-Boy - enjoy studying the documentary hypothesis tomorrow and doing the ministry of nursing home ombudsman! Makes me wish I could have gone to school there for sure!

Topic for discussion

2010-05-14T11:44:00.003-05:00

Is human nature getting worse as time moves forward, or is it simply the case that things just seem worse with every passing generation? In other words, is the decay of the universe on a descending curve or has human nature been consistently as weak as it is now since the fall?

Tawk amungst yaselves...

Gottesdienst Online: Update: A District President speaks forthrightly

2010-05-12T13:16:00.000-05:00

Gottesdienst Online: Update: A District President speaks forthrightly

Extraordinary Christians in Russia

2010-05-10T20:32:00.001-05:00

There is a video that you simply must see. I know some of our Blackbirds have taught at Novosibirsk.

Weedon's Blog: Thoughts on the Corrective Function of the Symbols

2010-05-04T17:35:00.000-05:00

Weedon's Blog: Thoughts on the Corrective Function of the Symbols

Shut-in Communions

2010-05-02T21:48:00.003-05:00

Question to my fellow bloggers and responders:

Do you commune with your shut-ins sometimes, all the time, never? Is there any historical or theological argument for against communion with shut-ins?

Some history. In my previous parish, I had very few shut-ins. I communed with them every time. If I saw three shut-ins in one day, I received the Lord's Supper three times. It never really entered my mind not to commune with them. Christ was present, offering His body and blood, and I thought that it would have been strange not to commune when Christ was present with his Church, offering his body and blood for the forgiveness of sins.

I now have several more shut-ins where I currently serve, and the question has come up in my mind several times, "Should I commune with them every time?" I see no law against it, yet my conscience (or something) is telling me, "This is too often, you really should (or could) wait until Sunday." What I have started to do is this: if I have multiple shut-in Communion visits, I commune at the first one of the day, and then not at the others. My fear is not "having too much forgiveness," but treating as common what is holy and sacred.

I'm curious as to what others do, why, and if I need to modify my practice to reflect a more Biblical and Confessional mindset. Does anyone else struggle with this?

Gottesdienst Online: Bring Church to Them

2010-05-01T14:13:00.000-05:00

Gottesdienst Online: Bring Church to Them

"A Relationship With Jesus" or "Going Through the Motions"?

2010-04-29T08:51:00.013-05:00

Being in an area dominated by Roman Catholicism, and in teaching in our parochial school that has only 7% Lutheran students, I have an interesting window into a particular part of American Christianity. In fact, though not entirely accurate, I could quip that I can tell who the non-Lutheran students are since they are the ones crossing themselves.

A lot of our school's families are Roman Catholic, and many are only nominally so. A good number of our students identify themselves as "Catholic" but have no idea what parish they belong to because they never attend church. At least in this region, Roman Catholicism has a great hold on people who tenaciously cling to the label into middle and even old age, though they have no real bond with any Christian community nor attend services anywhere - perhaps not even for decades. They have no idea who their pastor is, and can't remember the last time they went to confession. Some even come to church with his or her Lutheran spouse more often than attending Roman Catholic Divine Services.

Along with Roman Catholicism, there is another brand of Christianity that is very popular in this area: Non-denominationalism.

"Non-denominational" is really a misnomer, for even an independent church that shuns a label or affiliation with a national church body believes in something. They accept neither the pope nor the patriarch as the head of the Church, so they aren't Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. They do not practice infant Baptism, so they aren't Lutheran or Anglican or Reformed in their confession. This basically makes them either Baptists or Pentecostals - depending on their congregation's teachings regarding the Holy Spirit and "spiritual gifts."

And the Non-denominational churches in our area do tend to have a lot of former Roman Catholic converts in their ranks. I've heard the same testimony from a lot of people: raised Catholic, "christened," "made my communion" - perhaps attended Mass on occasion, but never read or learned the Bible, and, most of all: "never had that personal relationship with Jesus." Their previous Christian life was all about "going through the motions." Then the person, having visited a Non-denominational church with a friend, heard the Bible and the Gospel for the first time, and only then entered into a "relationship with Jesus."

And thanks be to God that these folks and their families now have that trust in Christ and that communion with the Most Holy Trinity. Thanks be to God they immerse themselves in God's Word and are raising their children to be Christians, not mere label-holders. Thanks be to God that they are no longer "just going through the motions."

But it is also with sadness that I hear these stories. For I think they've missed something important, something that they overlook in their assessment of their lives as Christians - the role of Holy Baptism. So much emphasis is placed on their acceptance or their faith as adults that they forget that they did not initiate the relationship. God did. And He did so when they were at their most helpless and dependent on His grace.

I don't like the word "relationship" because it is a flabby word, laden with all sorts of modern connotations. Everything these days is a "relationship." It's become an Oprah-Doctor Phil word. We have lots of "relationships" - everything from spouses and siblings, to sports teams and to our favorite soft drinks. What we have with God and with our fellow Christians is koinonia - which is "fellowship" or "communion." These words ("fellowship" and "communion") are not only more historical and churchly, they also tend to remind us that our relationship with God is not like a boyfriend/girlfriend thing, not "brand loyalty," not something driven by emotion or felt needs, - but something unique and mysterious, transcendent and eternal. Jesus is indeed our "friend" - but He is not our "buddy," "homeboy," or good luck charm.

But be that as it may, the "relationship" that converts to Non-denominationalism have with God was not initiated by them, nor by their brothers and sisters at church, but rather by God Himself - "before the foundation of the world." God knew them in the womb and called them to a vocation in this life according to His plan. And God Himself saw to it that they were "born again of water and the Spirit" and washed them in the "washing of "regeneration" (literally "re-birth") when they were baptized as infants in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

People who leave nominal Roman Catholicism (or Lutheranism) and join active Non-denominationalism do indeed re-spark that dormant relationship they had with God, the one God established eons ago and delivered personally through water, from the hands of a servant of God, and by way of the holy name of the Trinity. Unfortunately, people who find this particular path back to the Holy God and the Holy Church are typically compelled to deny or downplay their Holy Baptism, either by describing it as a hollow ritual or by re-creating it by going through the motions of being "baptized" now as a "believer." The implication is that their first church was not a real church, their baptism was not a real baptism, that they were not previously "believers," and that they never had a "relationship" with God until now.

Sadly, this denies not only baptism, but also God's Word insofar as that they were already believers as baptized children, as churches that do not baptize infants deny that children can be believers. It says to God: "You never established a relationship with me until now." It is a denial that God called them long ago, and denies that they, not God, estranged their relationship. For in reality, it was they, not God, who became the prodigal.

And though returning to an active life of hearing the Word, walking in faith, praying, striving to keep the law, enjoying the forgiveness of sins and a new life that will never end is a thing to celebrate and thank God for, I think it would be more helpful, humble, and honest to understand and confess that God initiated the "relationship" long before, and He never abandoned them - but rather the opposite. God used baptism to give them new birth, and their latter conversion was only necessary because they left God, not because God left them.

And I believe there are lessons for those of us raising children in the Lutheran tradition of Catholic Christianity.

Parents have the responsibility to raise their children as Christians - not merely drag them to church once in a while, run them through the motions of baptism, Sunday school, confirmation, first communion, and then consider it all done. We Christians are disciples - discipuli - that is "students." We finish studying and learning, struggling and growing - when we die. God calls us, predestines us, baptizes us, offers us Word and Sacrament, and holds us in the palm of His hand until we enter into the fullness of communion with Him face to face in eternity. Parents who do not bring their children to God's House, to hear God's Word, to set the example of receiving God's body and blood, and grasping hold of God's forgiveness every Sunday as their top priority are teaching their children that their "relationship" with God is a low priority, that the Christian life is a hollow, ritualistic "going through the motions" that must simply be endured.

Parents who fail in their responsibility to teach their children the basics of the faith, to live in the newness and richness of the Gospel, to pray, to assemble with the saints, and to seek forgiveness are setting their kids up to leave the safety of the holy ark of the Church for the unholy floodwaters of death and destruction. And the ark that preserved Noah and the Eight is a type of the very baptism through which our Lord claims us as His own child.

It is especially crucial for those of us who belong to historic communions within the church catholic that we not only baptize our children, but nurture our little ones who have been born again - day by day, year by year - lest we allow their "relationship" to cool and their communion with God to become a "bruised reed" or a "faintly burning wick" - something that will make it easy for them to wander away from. There is no excuse for Christian parents who, because of their own inattention to the faith, allow their children to lose their faith, so that these children must rediscover their faith later, and at the expense of the comfort of being able to look at a baptismal certificate on the wall, knowing that they were saved by grace alone, making the sign of the cross, hurling their baptism at the face of Satan, and acknowledging that they are indeed in communion with God and have been since before time began.

God did not merely "go through the motions" when He gave Himself for us at the cross. Nor does He "go through the motions" when He delivers Himself to us at the altar, pulpit, and font. Let us never allow our communion with God, or if you prefer, our "relationship with Jesus," to become nothing more than "going through the motions."

--- Rev. Larry Beane

Michaelisvesper

2010-04-27T20:45:00.002-05:00

Yesterday the mail brought a small package from Germany. My copy of the most recent Michael Praetorius "liturgical reconstruction" CD arrived. It is Michaelisvesper, which reproduces a St. Michael's Eve Vespers service as it might have been conducted in the time of Michael Praetorius. This follows two similar CDs, produced by other choirs and directors, that have given us a Christmas Day Divine Service (Mass) as it might have been conducted in the time of Praetorius, and a Christmas Day Vespers service as it might have been conducted in the time of Praetorius. I love listening to these - and to similar liturgical reconstructions that have been produced over the years. (See my Amazon Listmania list.)

It doesn't seem to be as easy to get a copy of Michaelisvesper in America. The Amazon Marketplace partner that was offering the best price turned out to be based in Germany. But it is well worth the effort to get a copy of this. The sound quality is better than anything else that has come before. The recording technology for these things always seems to be improving. The singing of the chorales and the plainsong chanting seems to be taking place right where you are! Close your eyes, and you are there.

Samples of the tracks on the CD are not available at Amazon.com but they are available at Amazon.de

What's a good reaction?

2010-04-26T06:38:00.002-05:00

So, what is a good reaction to worship -- if we can speak in terms of "good" reactions? What does it mean when someone attended a service elsewhere and they say that it was "cool" or "awesome"? I heard those reactions to the highest of the high services and the most bizarre of the contemporary. What does it mean when one says that you had an excellent sermon [Hollywood can skip responding to this specific part due to the fact that he's probably never heard these words =o)]? What's a good reaction? Or is there one? Is there anything you look for in your folks to be a reaction to what they received in worship?

This Easter's Rubric Observation

2010-04-08T17:02:00.003-05:00

Last Easter I revealed the family keeping of the rubric regarding women's headgear. Here is this year. The flash didn't go off so my bride seems in the dark plus, the two year old has her fingers in her mouth - better than her nose. We find out quite soon if there will be another person wearing headgear next year, as you can see pretty well.

A Question of Liturgical Observation

2010-04-08T09:42:00.002-05:00

Although my congregation has been using the LSB for almost 3 and a half years, the only Divine Service which we have used is Divine 3 - and for the foreseeable future this will probably be the only service we do use. I don't mind this, although personally I'd like to acquire a least a passing familiarity with the other services (especially 1 and 2), especially for familiarity when traveling.

Here is my question. What are the thoughts and observation upon the semi-Eucharistic prayer options in DS 1 and 2? How do they flow, how well do they work? What is good about them and what is poor about them?

Again, I am simply wishing to know what some thoughts are - more based on the experience of actually using them. Information and personal observation please, not vitriol or commentary on someone else's opinion. Thanks to all who have time and inclination to answer.

Holy Week Refresher 2

2010-03-30T07:18:00.002-05:00

Again, for any who might want a brief break this day.

"Tradition is given to teach us how to think about theology, not so that we might do theology without thinking."

Thoughts? Is this accurate?

Cultural or Theological

2010-03-29T06:48:00.003-05:00

Sometimes, in the middle of a busy week, one needs to take an intellectually stimulating break - to have one's mind think about some query or quandry that isn't the main focus of work - and so, should any of you wish for that, here I provide a question. Is this me playing Devil's Advocate, or simply being reflective -- I don't know, but here it goes.

Why are so many folks disdainful of individual cups when they have little to no problem with individual hosts?

I would think it is safe to assume that most of the folks on this blog prefer common cup -- highly, highly prefer common cup. I've even seen theological arguments that way - references to the fact that Scripture speaks to the "cup".

Okay- St. Paul also says, "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." Why the disdain for one "individual" method of distribution for one kind but not for the other? Is it really a theological objection, or is it more of a cultural objection - that we end up reacting against the types of of thoughts that drive and push the individual cups?

Behold - there is your semi-escapist-but-still-keep-thinking-theologically break for the day. What think you?

2010-03-22T07:47:00.002-05:00

Elders, mine are the elected variety not the ordained type, what should they be allowed to do?

I like many of you brothers have a board of Elders. They are men from the congregation with no special training or even aptitude for any of the various functions of the pastoral office. Yet, from somewhere in the past, this board was formed to assist the pastor. Among their functions according to the Constitution and bylaws of the congregation they are to pray for the pastor, ensure his family is cared for and that he has appropriate time off. Additionally they are to determine along with the pastor the worship practice of the congregation, approve worship resources. They were, by the time I arrived, assisting with the distribution of the elements in the Holy Communion.

The previous pastor had them distribute the host and the individual cups and he would distribute the Blood of Christ. I changed that to my distribution of the Host as only the pastor can admit to the Holy Supper and with the Host coming first, it seemed logical for the pastor to go first.

I have had a field worker now vicar for the past 4 years and I have had him distribute the Chalice and I have been down to one elder from previously having two, (one for the chalice, one for the individual cups). At the mid-week services I have not had an Elder serve as the vicar and I do it all. I first bring the host, then I bring the Chalice and the vicar follows with the individual cups. (no complaints on time here as there are many fewer in attendance so the service does not go "too long".)

Although I am not one concerned with the length of the service, (Divine service every Sunday is about 1 hr and 10-15 minutes) I know that when the vicar leaves, I would like to continue to bring the host and the chalice and only have an Elder bring the individual cups, (ideally we would do away the individual cups or I would bring them as well but I do not live in the ideal world).

How do you do what you do? Have any of you had my situation and gotten away from it and if so how did you do it? Have you been able to get rid of the individual cups and how? Do you have your elders at least wear some sort of robe for their part when they enter the chancel? Looking for some historic and practical help here. Thanks brothers.

Speaker Pelosi Invokes St. Joseph

2010-03-19T13:41:00.003-05:00

Today the Church honors St. Joseph, who is not only the patron saint of workers, but is also the stepfather and guardian of our Lord Jesus Christ and the protector and husband of His blessed mother. When the corrupt government of St. Joseph's day was committing infanticide and sought to remove Jesus from the public life of the people - St. Joseph expatriated his family in order to protect them from the murderous Herod and his henchpersons.

Madame Speaker was recently admonished by another Joseph (known to the world as Benedict) for her advocacy of infanticide. She is on record of supporting the use of public monies for infanticide - presumably in the very bill she is praying to St. Joseph for help in passing it.

Today is St. Joseph's feast, but it is also the season of Lent. I would urge Mrs. Pelosi to repent and become a protector and defender of children, as St. Joseph was to his holy Stepchild.

--- Rev. Larry Beane

To Offer, or Not to Offer, the Sacrament at Easter Vigil

2010-03-17T12:39:00.002-05:00

The Holy Saturday Vigil of Easter has the option of offering the Sacrament as the conclusion of the Service. Are there good reasons for or against this practice? In the past I have offered this Service at around 7 p.m. on Holy Saturday, and have always offered the Sacrament. It seems strange, however, to do so when the culmination of the Easter celebration is on Sunday morning in the Chief Service. It feels like I am "jumping the gun." Not that I am ever opposed to offering the Lord's Supper (this is why I am not a fan of options in the Divine Service--I'm too indecisive!). Can we hear from some of the other Blackbirds concerning this? What would be the most proper way to do this service? I don't know if it helps or not, but we have an Easter sunrise service, breakfast, and then the main Communion Service. I had planned on just having an Easter Matins service for sunrise, and then the Communion offered at our usual time.

Admission to the Holy Supper

2010-03-14T22:00:00.003-05:00

A Lutheran church body (not the LCMS or the ELCA) has the following statement on admission to the Sacrament of the Altar:

Do you practice open or closed communion?

We practice “responsible communion,” which is neither open nor closed. That is, according to the Bible we have a responsibility to tell people what we believe (“we receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ with the bread and wine, for the forgiveness of sins”), based on Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, 1 Corinthians 11:23-28. The person has the responsibility to check with the Bible to ensure that it does teach that, and that the person agrees with that. Administration is left with the local pastor as part of his pastoral care.

This strikes me as a lot of bureaucratic gibberish designed to evade an uncomfortable question. Am I misreading this? Is this statement in accordance with what we confess in the LCMS? How about LCMS practice?

--- Rev. Larry Beane

On Fasting

2010-02-21T21:32:00.003-06:00

Here's a little something I wrote up for our congregation. Rev. David Petersen's recent church newsletter article on the same topic helped me think through some of this (especially under point #1):

The Christian is invited to and expected to fast. Although Christians typically fast on certain days throughout the year--except during the Easter season--Lent is an especially appropriate season to practice fasting. Fasting is a bodily exercise of self-control and repentance, both themes of the Lenten season.

Christians do not fast just to “give something up.” Fasting is not a punishment or a kind of religious masochism. Instead, we fast for two general reasons: 1) to increase the joy of the festive seasons, such as Easter, and 2) to train our souls to be self-controlled.

Firstly, fasting enhances the rhythms of life. When you fast during solemn times, the joy of festivity is enhanced. Small servings of potatoes and vegetables during Lent makes the lamb and pies of Easter taste richer and sweeter. By engaging the body in the mood of the season, the experiences of restraint and of plenty are heightened. Fasting joins your body to what is happening with your spirit.

Secondly, fasting trains your soul. That isn’t a typo. It should not seem odd that bodily exercise ends up training your soul, for your soul is the center and source of your desires. When you intentionally deprive your soul of what it wants, it has to get by without. When you want supper but don’t eat it, not only your belly, but your soul also learns temperance and resiliency. Fasting trains not only your body, but also your self-control.

Why is that important? Your desires, uncontrolled, give in to temptation. They lead you into sin. Uncontrolled desires make idols of what your soul wants: desiring excess food is gluttony; desiring extravagant clothing or cars or décor is greed; desiring a man or woman outside of marriage is adultery. Desiring anything outside of God’s order makes you an idolater.

Fasting is like working out. It is spiritual exercise. As jogging or lifting weights conditions your body, fasting conditions your soul.

So how should you fast? Like exercise, start with a routine you can handle. If you have never fasted before, don’t try to give up food for a whole day. But, on the other hand, make it noticeable. Everyone should be able to give up dessert and second helpings. For moderate fasting, eat smaller portions at each meal. To step it up a bit, replace two meals each with a small snack, and, for the third meal, eat only about half of what you normally would.

Can’t do it every day? Fast on Wednesdays and Fridays, the days Christians traditionally fasted throughout the year.

Want to fast in a specific way to address your particular weaknesses and temptations? Think about what tempts you, and limit your exposure. If shopping is your weakness, no shopping sprees or comfort purchases during Lent. Too much time wasted on the internet, or visiting sites you shouldn’t be? Only use it at work or when someone else is with you. If you need encouragement, counsel, or more ideas talk with your pastor.

Fasting makes you more conscious of your desires. Even as you try to control them, they will seem enhanced, simply because you’re thinking about them. As you become more aware of temptations and sinful desires, confess them. Confess them in your prayers, confess them in preparation for the Divine Service, and confess them to your pastor. Then receive the absolution of Christ, and His life and Spirit to encourage and refresh you on your spiritual journey.

Note: Sundays are never fast days, so go ahead and enjoy the good gifts of creation to their fullest on these days! Also, expectant or nursing mothers, children, and the ill are never expected to fast from food, but to provide the nourishment their bodies need.

Can We Listen to Johnny Cash Read the Bible Stories?

2010-02-20T19:31:00.005-06:00

This was the question from the four year old on the ride home tonight from some church folks place. We've got the Cash CD set, the Man in Black reading the New Testament - New King James Version.

It's great. We listened to tomorrow's Gospel, St. Matthew 4:1-11, the rest of chapter 4 and into the sermon on the mount a bit before we got home. Definitely worth the investment- check out Amazon.

Anyway, Happy Lent. The kid wants to listen to the Bible and even knows Johnny Cash.

FC X

2010-02-16T14:05:00.004-06:00

As much as I say I don't like (long, drawn out discussions on) ethics, let me make another post on ethics (silent blogs worry me).

Consider this. That a right and proper approach to Lutheran ethics could flow very well and easily from the 10th Article of the Formula of Concord. What do I mean? Well, let us examine what the Formula teaches (feel free to contend with any of my summary points below).

1. There is a difference between what God has commanded and what is done for good order.
2. What God commands must always be followed - what God forbids must never be allowed.
3. For the sake of good order, we may go beyond Scripture, but when we do this we must never expect this to be binding like Scripture -- our actions and decisions are fundamentally temporary as opposed to the Word which endures forever.
4. So long as we do not contradict the Word, we are free.
5. This freedom includes setting additional standards which we will hold to for good order.
6. Our free actions are not to be frivolous or scandalous to the neighbor.
7. We do not yield to those who demand what God does not demand.

Is this not an ethical roadmap which could be applied to virtually any situation? First, consider what the Word says. Then consider good order and the benefit of the neighbor. Then consider whether or not false doctrine is encouraged. If all these ducks are in a row, then you have ethical behavior.

Thoughts, questions, comments?

Funeral Issue

2010-01-30T21:23:00.000-06:00

A member of the congregation I serve, left the state this past summer for health reasons. Her doctors told her the climate in Indiana did not suite her medical condition. She left for better weather but found out soon after arriving in her new home that she could not out run her medical conditions. I received a phone call a few days ago from her daughter informing me that she has been placed into hospice care. I further inquired about funeral preparations and the pastoral care during this time. Her daughter told me that she is being visited by the local pastor who is providing the needed pastoral care and comfort at this time. As far as the funeral preparations, there are none. The rough plans as of right now are to have this woman cremated and “placed” with her husband, in yet another state. I was told that because this woman has just moved to New Mexico she has not had anytime to develop any relationships with her neighbors, and the drive back to Hamlet, Indiana would be understandably difficult for a funeral. I was then told there will be a simple “ceremony” at the placing of the urn.
This bothers me on several levels. The first is, I feel helpless as this woman’s Pastor. I feel helpless that I can not be there to care for her during this time. There is the cremation issu,e but that is a different post which has already been discussed. Furthermore there will be no funeral service to proclaim what this woman now has inherited. People will not be given a chance to hear the proclamation of Christ, His salvation, His forgiveness, and what He did for this woman in and through her life. I am not sure how the members and friends of this woman’s home congregation will feel about this missed chance of a funeral service. I then begin to think of ways to remedy this by providing a chance to have our “own” funeral for this woman. Alas I struggle with this idea. I do not want this service to be seen as a “mass for the dead” however, this woman is a member of this congregation. Why can’t we have a funeral mourning the death, and celebrating the life she now has received in Christ’s arms? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks and Blessings,
Rev. Wright

Pastoral Meanderings: Scripture Does Not Speak of Christ

2010-01-25T13:38:00.000-06:00

Pastoral Meanderings: Scripture Does Not Speak of Christ, They Speak Christ

Maybe the Hippies are Right

2010-01-25T08:10:00.002-06:00

(As no one has posted in a while...)

This morning, while reading the new my wife exclaimed, "I am sick of hearing how everything we do hurts the planet! I am sick of hearing how everything we do increases global warming!" I didn't bother asking what new terror we unleash upon creation by our very existence - the specific details would just depress me.

Of course, the parallel to this in the 90s was how anything we ate would give us cancer. Too much milk - cancer. Too much fruit - cancer. Too much bread - cancer. And of course, it seems as though whatever diet we turn to now, even if people don't shout about it giving cancer, it still probably does this or that.

And of course, this can all play into the hippie/radical environmentalist view that humans are but a stain and a blight upon this world - that everything we do corrupts and destroys the earth. One could be even more radical and suggest that the earth itself is trying to kill us, by food, by disaster - to wipe us out and to leech back from our decaying bodies the nutrients we wrested from her.

You know. . . maybe the hippie are right.

Now, this isn't to say all the global warming stuff and the like is accurate (that is the arrogance of scientists who never look at historical patterns of weather in the past as recorded for us by people who lived through it) - but is it not true that as fallen, sinful folks we are wanton and wasteful and destructive according to our nature? Is it not true that since the Fall the earth does not yield her bounty gladly as she did in the garden, but that we must fight for our food? Is it not true that since the fall disaster and mischance happen more and more?

They are right to a certain extent - mankind and the earth are at war - and we do damage to each other all the time.

But our hope is not in fleeing to mother earth and defending her (no, this isn't an appeal to join Greenpeace) in some Chamberlinesque appease the earth move. No, this is why we look to Christ and await His second coming, when not only will be be resurrected into New Bodies free from sin, but even the earth will be made anew.

Whew -- at least the hippies aren't right about everything. . .

A Ponderance

2010-01-06T08:52:00.001-06:00

(Note: Let this be a no-flame war post. Write your thoughts, don't attack another's. . . don't worry about responses and back and forth - please, just simply give your thoughts on this - cause I'd be interested to hear what people think. . . not how well they defend. If someone asks for specific clarification, by all means do so - but say your thoughts and let others ruminate upon them.)

I wonder - which is more important (no, this isn't meant to establish a false dichotomy, but rather establish priorities):

1. To reestablish the good and beneficial liturigical rites and customs of the past that have been lost due to carelessness.

2. To teach and explain the benefits of the liturigical rights and customs which we have received.

I find that a lot of the people who are liturigical like to talk about the first - I find I delight more in the second - in seeing the depth and beauty in what we have, rather than desiring a return to what was lost. It's not that I don't desire the first -- it just seems to take less precedence for me. Of course, one might easy say that in reestablishing older customs you are in fact teaching.

Like I said, neither of these are bad - but just. . . which one take priority? So, what think any of you, which is more important? 1 or 2? And why?

Thoughts from the Road

2009-12-30T07:14:00.003-06:00

This is written via the wonder of wi-fi at the La Quinta by Shiloh's restaurant in Tulsa.

So, an article at CNN reports on a study that concludes that today, in movies, Sex does not sell. This group looked at the movie grosses for the past nine years and found out. . . nudity and graphic scenes do nothing to help a movie.

While this is an interesting topic in and of itself, the study was started when a young acting student found that she was uncomfortable with the sexual nature of the scenes she was asked to do in class (and we all know, sex sells. . .) - so she investigated, and found that it didn't.

Also of note was this comment by a professor - Rather, Detweiler said, he has seen among his students that the new form of rebellion against the older generation includes "not doing drugs, not sleeping around and not getting divorced." That might explain the popularity of some of the Jane Austen films and movies like the "Twilight" series, he said. "Those stories are really about sexual separation," he said. "They are all about wooing, not winning."

This is something that I think the more liturgically minded among us have known - but the younger generations today dislike the emptiness and shallow desire for pleasure that their parents dove into (being the spoiled brats of the Baby Boomer and Gen X generations). We see this liturgically - and apparently it also applies to movies.

Just some food for thought - sort of hopeful I suppose.

Caesar Passes a Healthcare Bill that Includes Funding for Abortion: On the Night Before Christmas

2009-12-24T09:34:00.004-06:00

The healthcare bill of the United States of America will apparently include taxpayer funding for abortion. Even more demonic is that this is passed on the day of Christmas Eve, the eve of the Nativity of our Lord. These events certain press us to study the doctrine of the two kingdoms and to apply law and gospel accordingly. May we not be guilty of what some accused Lutherans of during World War II. While we live in the end times (Hebrews 1), we are called to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves and help and befriend our neighbor in every bodily need.

Thumbs

2009-12-17T21:57:00.006-06:00

Our Lord Jesus Christ was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary. He was conceived in her and was carried by her til the day of His birth. He was made man, and man has thumbs, two of them. The pic above is the left thumb (and hand) of my unborn child, taken today. It is of great joy that we can see such things, and know that it was our Lord and God who came down and looked just like this in His mother. Small, humbling Himself to be helpless, a pound or so at 5 months since He was conceived in her womb, with thumbs that would eventually break bread that was His very Body and later hold fast to His cross, and then be still in death, only to break bread again on the day of His rising.

Our Lord and God Christ is Wonderful, that is His Name (Isaiah 9:6). The wonder of a thumb up made me rejoice in this all the more today, that He came like this for us all, even for the child with a thumb up today.

And it made me a bit sad too, that there are those who would tear apart a child the size of my own, a child the size that our Lord Christ was. Some do it for expediency, some do it because they are forced to by evil men, some do it because they are evil and some/most commit the act for money. The thumbs of these children are sent off with the medical waste to be burned; what sadness.

But Christ is all joy, the Word made flesh will one day make all of that come to an end when He comes to judge the earth. Rachel weeps even now, but she will be comforted when our Lord God comes with all His might to put a stop all the evil of men and gather together the sheep of His right hand; His right hand with a thumb on it, just like yours, just like my child's.

All joy that He came to be with us, in the womb of His mother, like us. He, flesh and blood, like us, ascended to His Father's right hand preparing the way for us, and for all who believe. And we will see Him, flesh and blood, and on the day of his coming, we will be like Him.

Lord Jesus, do not tarry. Come quickly.

Pre-baptismal Catechesis: How much is necessary?

2009-12-14T21:56:00.003-06:00

This is a question addressed to fellow pastors: how much catechesis would you require before baptizing an adult who hasn't been attending a Lutheran church, didn't grow up in a Christian home, and wants to be baptized without any prior instruction?

What I'm Listening to this Christmass

2009-11-30T12:46:00.003-06:00

During the years I spent in Ukraine, in eastern Europe, there was no time more joyful than the Christmass season. My family and I fell in love with the eastern European carols that our Ukrainian friends sang at that special time of the year, with such devotion. These marvelous carols are largely unknown to Christians in the west, whose Christmass carol repertoire is based largely on what has been passed down to us from English and German sources. But this need not be!

Over the years, the Schola Cantorum of St. Peter's in the Loop (now known as the Schola Cantorum of St. Peter the Apostle) has issued some marvelous Christmass CDs on which they sing - in English translation! - many of these beautiful eastern European carols. I highly recommend these recordings, not only because of the charming quality of the music and the theological dignity of the lyrics, but also because of the superb technical quality of the performance and the recording.

The commercial interests all around us have already begun their selling frenzy in earnest. But I am countering these secular intrusions into my own heart and mind by playing the three Schola Cantorum Christmass CDs that I own whenever I can: at home, at work, and in the car.

There is Great Rejoicing (1993) was the first album in this genre that the Schola Cantorum produced. It is good, but my personal favorite is Light from the East (1999), which includes several hymns from the Slovak Lutheran tradition (translated by Jaroslav Vajda and sung to settings by Carl Schalk). The third CD in my collection is God is With Us (1998), which includes more of the distinctly Ukrainian carols that we used to sing in Ukraine.

I suppose there is a certain sentimentalism attached to this music for me, not only because I lived for eight years in the part of the world whence these carols originated, but also because my maternal ancestors lived there in centuries past (Lutherans in the "Little Carpathian" region of western Slovakia, and Greek Catholics and Reformed in the [big] "Carpathian" region of eastern Slovakia). But those who have no personal history or family roots in eastern Europe would no doubt also enjoy these recordings, as they testify to the great wonder of God's incarnation for our salvation, and to the salvation that is ours through Christ, the Babe of Bethlehem.

Khrystos narodivsya!

The Manhattan Declaration

2009-11-25T19:24:00.000-06:00

What do you think of this for clergy involvement in the Kingdom of the Left?

The Manhattan Declaration

Living together and maybe to old to change, is there any grace?

2009-11-11T16:02:00.002-06:00

So a man and a woman have been living together for many years now. Both have been married before, widowed and divorced. At the time, there was no desire to get married again and so on goes the story about moving in and co-habiting. There is still no desire or willingness on behalf of one of the partners to marry and the other, although they would be fine with marriage, is very apprehensive to bring it up while at the same time does not want to end this lengthy relationship that is "loving" and "faithful".

So, one day, one of the partners comes to church, encouraged by the pastor to come, welcomed with open arms, no ones really knows of the situation, and of course a fine sermon is preached. At the conclusion of the service the person leaves and does not return. The pastor calls upon them and inquirers as to why they have not come back and how might he be help you. He is told amidst manifold tears and a contrite heart, "how can I come and hear of Jesus forgiveness when I know that I am going to go right back home to my sinful relationship?"

This is not an uncommon scenario as there are many elderly who co-habit, and although a reasoned excuse, they would lose medical and other benefits if they married. Others are like the couple mentioned above. They have lived together for many years, even from middle age and economics was not the factor although it might be a contributor now.

The easy answer is, "just get married", or "live on your own until you marry" yet these are long term, albeit sinful, but committed relationships. Of course they should be encouraged and welcomed into the Church, catechized if possible but they would not be welcomed to the Sacrament until the living arrangement had changed, right.

We all have sins that we commit over and over no matter how many times we have confessed them to God. We might even go to private confession to confess them and still we commit them again. We might be "trapped" in some circumstance that just brings us right back to that sin again and we cannot leave that situation now or maybe ever.

What counsel would you give someone who was in this "living together" situation who desired to come to hear God's Word but was so crushed by the law that they were paralyzed to receive the Gospel? What would you say to them knowing that for the forseeable future if not forever they would not be able to change their living situation? I struggle finding the right words, not because I doubt that their sin is forgiven, not because I doubt in Christ's compassion and mercy or God's grace, not because I doubt the sincere contrition of their heart, I just don't seem to be able to phrase this properly to be of good encouragement and comfort to them.

I would appreciate some wisdom here from some of you who have actually dealt with this not just encountered it. Thank you.

When is enough, enough? or Can you avoid someone that sin might cease?

2009-11-07T09:50:00.002-06:00

A brief yet not so simple question for you brothers. If the relationship a person has with another is constantly leading to sinful thoughts, words and deeds, (Not sexual in this example but rather anger, despair and the like) can a person say, "I forgive you and I desire not to have any further relationship with you"? What if this is a relationship between family members? What if it is a relationship between congregation members?

In light of this week's Gospel text, Matthew 18:21-35, would forgiving and then ending a relationship fall into not having truly forgiven from the heart? Bottom line, can we divorce ourselves from relationships (not our spouses) that constantly lead us into sin or where we are constantly sinned against and also fall into regular sinning?

Not certain how to answer this, even though I counsel that correspondance may be more preferable to face to face in these situations. Certainly if one has nothing nice to say one should remain silent and allow for the suffering that comes with human relations and is rarely avoided.

A question. . .

2009-11-02T06:16:00.005-06:00

Please do not pillar me or think ill of me for this, but in discussions on my own blog the perpetual virginity of Mary arose. It should not shock folks here that I am dubious of this tradition. However, I know many good men are here who hold this tradition dearly, and so I ask this (not with the bombast of my own website) out of a desire to learn.

I will contend that what we teach must be in alignment with the Scriptures - that even if we cannot cite a specific Scriptural reference saying, "Thou shall do this" that our actions fall in line with teaching of Scripture - that what we say and do confesses the teaching of Scripture. What Scriptural truth does the Perpetual Virginity of Mary teach - what truth of Christian doctrine does it align with?

I'm not here seeking an exegetical discussion of whether brother means cousin, or whether or not it is plausible from Scripture, or even of the historical attestation to this theory - but rather, what theological benefit is there from claiming the Semper Virgo?

To me, it's troublesome. It seems to do damage to the Scriptural teachings of marriage (marriage is for procreation, a husband shall become one flesh with his wife, do not withhold yourself from your spouse -- if Mary remains Semper Virgo, does she not contradict all these teachings on marriage?) and also teachings on virginity (which is always exercised outside the estate of marriage).

Those of you who hold to this - what benefit, what clarity about God and His Word does it bring to you? I seek (honestly and sincerely) simply to understand why this is so important to so many.

In fact, to keep this from becoming a huge, blowup discussion, I'm not going to respond - I am not looking for a discussion here - but rather simply to listen. What do we learn about the Christian faith from the Semper Virgo?

++++++++++

Note: If I may be so bold - would others who like me are dubious of the Semper Virgo also remain silent here (if this agitates you, by all means feel free to post elsewhere. . . my own blood pressure may dictate me joining you -- I hope not, but it may).

I would hope the comments simply to be people speaking what they think on the pros of this topic - not necessarily forced to make an passionate defense of them -- that happens all too often, and soon passion becomes the focus of such heated arguments).

Luther on Sola Scriptura

2009-10-16T21:31:00.006-05:00

Several weeks ago, a post about inerrancy led to discussion about the Sola Scriptura principle. Sola Scriptura, when wrongly understood, fails logically because Scripture itself does not list those writings which should be received as Scripture.

Often Lutherans avoid this fallacy by arguing that Scripture is true because it is prophetic and apostolic; that it testifies to itself not through a table of contents, but through the inner consistency of proclaiming the Gospel; and that those writings universally received and confessed by the churches are Scripture. These are good and legitimate arguments, but don't solve the problem of the Antilegomena, as Fr Hollywood pointed out.

Luther argued for Sola Scriptura a little differently: "Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15[:27], “You shall bear witness to me.” All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3[:21]; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2[:2]. Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it" (Prefaces to the New Testament, LW 35:396).

This argument is not really different in kind than that of the inner testimony, but it clarifies exactly what that inner testimony is. Scripture is not authoritative because it consists of a divinely inspired list of writings, but because it is the prophetic and apostolic witness to Christ and his work. Without the salvific work of Christ as the central theme and proclamation of a writing, it cannot be Scripture, regardless of authorship, and regardless of reception.

What of a truly faithful sermon preached after the time of the apostles? Because it proclaims Christ and his work faithfully, why could this not be recorded and retained as Scripture? Notice that Luther also includes the need for the apostolic imprimatur. The apostles have a unique witness to the person and work of Christ, a distinct witness which is not given to other ministers of the gospel outside of apostolic oversight.

Galatians 1:9 says, "If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed." Luther comments on this passage that the Gospel, the person and work of Christ, are authoritative for the teaching and confession of the church, so that even Paul, an apostle, must submit to this rule--the apostle himself should be be condemned if he preached contrary to the Gospel. But Luther goes on to note that the testimony of the Gospel is retained and preserved today first in the Scriptures: "Here Paul subordinates himself, an angel from heaven, teachers on earth, and any other masters at all to Sacred Scripture. This queen must rule, and everyone must obey, and be subject to her. The pope, Luther, Augustine, Paul, an angel from heaven -- these should not be masters, judges, or arbiters but only witnesses, disciples, and confessors of Scripture. Nor should any doctrine be taught or heard in the church except the pure Word of God. Otherwise, let the teachers and the hearers be accursed along with their doctrine" (Lectures on Galatians, 1535, LW 26:57-58).

Thus, the message of Scripture is the person and work of Christ. It is a message that is spoken and done first by Christ himself, then preached and recorded by the apostles, so that the Scriptures are also apostolic, and in this way the supreme authority, although not the only authority, residing in the church. Yet even the apostles must submit to the message of the Gospel.

What does this say to us about the Antilegomena? Certainly they must submit to the Gospel principle. To the extent that they preach Christ, they may serve as bases for proclamation and teaching. But what of the Lutheran accommodation that ministers are free to reject them from Scripture? Perhaps this is a recognition of the apostolic ministry that has been retained by ministers of Jesus Christ to this day. Bearing the apostolic ministry by mediation, not immediately, they cannot add to the witness of Scripture, yet they confess the extent of the apostolicity of the Antilegomena. So the Gospel principle and the apostolic principle work in harmony with each other.

Cyberbrethren Â» Banishing the Dead from Their Own Funeral

2009-10-14T09:44:00.001-05:00

A thoughtful blog entry regarding funeral practices. Might be some good basis for discussion here...

Cyberbrethren Â» Banishing the Dead from Their Own Funeral

Shared via AddThis

Politics in the Church…

2009-10-08T20:14:00.000-05:00

This is more of a question than a statement. After going to our circuit forum meeting and noticing that my Church “politics” differ from others in the circuit, I then started to ponder how politics are done in the church. We have bound ourselves to a structure, and a polity. That is fine and good but how do we stop this from running the way the church thinks, acts, and proclaims God’s great work to the people placed into her care and the world as whole. I am fine with others differing from me politically, but how can we differ from the way the church operates in Word and Sacrament due to our different political views? The way we structure ourselves, the way our polity manifests itself reflects our understanding of what the church is and how she is to work, operate, and function. How does the called and ordained Pastor be both Pastor(al) and political without becoming indifferent, cynical, or hyper-political in these matters while at the same time participating, and contributing to the discussion in Church politics?

Wedding Style with Substance

2009-10-08T10:56:00.006-05:00

Note: Chapel not affiliated with Father Hollywood

I had a visit today from a couple younger ladies who were drawn to the traditional architecture of my congregation's sanctuary. Not for worship, mind you, but as a place to have a wedding.

They were scoping out a place for their friend to get married. They are all members at a local Pentecostal mega-church. They were hoping to have the wedding in our sanctuary because they like the "traditional look." They explained that their church "just looks like an auditorium," and they wanted to procure a "more traditional church" for the wedding.

This is not the first such inquiry I've had. On one recent occasion, I got a call from a Roman Catholic lady (whose husband-to-be was a Lutheran, ELCA as it turns out) who even offered to "convert to the Lutheran religion if necessary" in exchange for the use of our sanctuary.

This whole issue is an interesting commentary on many levels.

On the one hand, I find it encouraging that deep within the recesses of modern (postmodern?) young people is a buried appreciation for tradition, a desire to bond with ages past, a still-present sense of catholic continuity - at least in matters of importance. On the other hand, it is distressing that the church sanctuary is basically seen as a prop, a stage set for photo-ops, a backdrop for that perfect fantasy ceremony. Rather than see the Holy Church as an integral element of marriage being woven into the very fabric of life itself, instead the church building is seen as a useful place for a wedding ceremony for the sake of pretty pictures that will be largely ignored a year down the road.

And there is a divorce as well. Instead of seeing marriage as something to be celebrated by one's own pastor, in one's own congregation, under the auspices of one's own denomination, such a view of marriage divorces Holy Matrimony from all of the above for the sake of appearances. Rejecting one's own pastor, congregation, and creed for something "prettier" is no different than growing bored with one's own spouse and seeking someone "prettier" later on. Even as marital fidelity is on the down curve, so is fidelity to one's faith.

We live in a culture that not only rejects commitment, but doesn't even seem to know what it is.

It is also illustrative that a wedding is given much more importance than Sunday worship. Church services are just something we do on Sunday, and so we might as well have fun doing it. In that context, a rock band, drum kit, big screen, speakers, a casually-dressed and dynamic inspirational speaker, and an auditorium with a stage and lectern are good enough. But a wedding is a really big deal, with flowers, dresses, photographers, an altar, a pastor, stained glass, paraments, ritual, and a hopefully Disney-like production of music and pageantry in the form of a matrimonial liturgy.

But what's missing in this cultural lack of commitment and the sacrifice of substance to style is the One who has been sacrificed, who is of "one substance" with the Father, the One who has committed to be with His Bride unto eternity.

--- Rev. Larry Beane

Backdoor Pentecostalism

2009-10-08T06:45:00.002-05:00

One of the things that comes up with Pentecostal Churches is (a la "The Fire and the Staff") the idea of a two-tiered Christianity. There is the idea that there are christians and then there are CHRISTIANS, and if you don't want to be one of the lowercase christians, you need to be able to speak in tongues, do "spiritual exercises," etc.

Here is my question. With some of our language, do we end up bringing a backdoor Pentecostalism into our own Church -- and I'm not talking of the speaking in tongues, but rather of establishing tiers.

A friend of mine has brought up the idea that a Christian who simply bears the suffering in this world that is common, the results of life in a sinful world (like people just treating you poorly because they are mean, or becoming ill) are not to be considered "crosses" which Christians are to bear -- but rather that it ought only be termed a cross if is specific and directly relates to Jesus (i.e. they hate you because of Christ).

I find I have a visceral response against this distinction (or at least saying that only the later is a "cross" which a Christian bears - you can distinguish. . . but. . .). It almost seems as though saying this is saying, "Well, you have your sufferings, but look at these real Christians who are really suffering for their Lord!" It sets up tiers of suffering, tiers of service.

I would contend that anything which we as Christians suffer in this world is a cross we are to bear. One would say that the scorn of your neighbor is merely the result of sin -- I would say why else did Christ bear THE Cross if not to conquer over the sin of the world - all the sin of the world. If He bears the cross for this sin, and if He bids me pick up my cross and follow Him, why would my suffering on account of sin, the same sin on account of which He Himself suffered upon Cross not be a cross of my own?

Again - sometimes we wish to make things extra spiritual. I think this approaches what Rev. Beane noted lower with the combo service groups. It's not really God's Work unless we "spiritualize" it. . . providing pro bono legal advice isn't "Christian" unless we have the Lutheran-Episcopalian-Pentecostal-Evangelical-Legal Services (or LEPERS).

We are Spiritual beings - and everywhere we go, everything we do, everything we suffer has a Spiritual component. Whatever we are called to do - we are called by God. Whatever we suffer, we suffer as those who know why there are ills in this world and look to God for deliverance. We do not need to dimmish some sufferings to elevate others - rather, we remember that in all things, our joys or sorrows, we are to give glory to God.

Christians do not have to try to "Spiritualize" their actions. Rather, because we are Christians, all things in our lives are Spiritual -- God grant that by faith we see and understand this!

++++++++++

A specific example perhaps. As an example of that which some would consider specifically not a cross - cancer. My response was as follows:

"The Christian who has cancer, yet in the midst of that pain and suffering, demonstrates the love of Christ, especially to others, bears great witness to Christ. What could be a higher witness than the showing of love to a fellow patient who is sitting terrified next to you in the waiting room at the oncologists?"

The Boxcar children and the Church

2009-10-07T18:46:00.002-05:00

As strange as this may sound, I am trying to put some theological flesh on these strained bones. This has to do with the Holy Vessels and Holy Things of the Church as compared to the common or profane things of daily life and living in our homes.

If my memory were as sharp as that of my children, I would remember the names of the Boxcar children, but it is not and I do not. What I do remember is that these children ventured from their adoptive home and into the woods and found an old abandoned boxcar sitting on a small section of overgrown and no longer used railroad track. They conspire to make this their home away from home and set about to furnish it and make it habitable and comfortable.
As they rummage about in the woods in search of things to use as furniture or to fashion into the same, they happen upon an abandoned dump. A veritable treasure trove filled with unwanted and broken items from households that had most likely been refit with new, better, and more suitable replacements. A chipped cup, a cracked plate, a bent spoon, a fork missing a tine, vases, and furniture upon which one might hazard to sit. But for them, riches, for they had nothing of their own, and no money with which to buy things to appoint their ramshackle castle. Yet, they were overjoyed, content and at home.

Eventually they were found out and adopted by a good soul of means and although they rarely returned, they fondly remembered that old boxcar. Sorry if this is not retold according to Hoyle but it is the best that my memory can contrive.

The Church on the other hand, is not some forlorn and dilapidated abode desperate for occupants but rather a “residence” rich in gifts and treasures for all who will enter in. However, over time, the Holy Things of the House of God become worn, soiled, damaged and the like and need to be replaced. Oft times the cry is that what is there is sufficient for it still can serve its purpose and new is not required. “God will understand that we are in hard economic times.”

He does understand, but not as we would have Him do so. He understands that we are greedy and hard hearted. We would never hesitate to replace broken dishes or cups, twisted silver or unserviceable table linen in our own homes, as we would not endure the embarrassment of such poverty statements. Yet, we who have God’s pockets, filled with His gold and silver, would scarcely dip in a hand or finger to fish out even the smallest coin to keep His House in the finest order, the most splendidly appointed manor where He continues to come, humbly and with mercy to serve His invited guests. He the Host, and He the meal. You the honored guests, eating the finest fare ever given to man or beast.

Why have we adopted such an attitude that our home is our castle and should be the finest and most pleasantly appointed, yet the House of God needn’t be so? The Churches of yore were fabulous testimonies to the faith of those who built them. Not the popes who demanded them or the kings who built them for themselves, but rather the common men who labored to build them and often gave back much of their wage to purchase a finer board, or metal, or stone, tapestry or vessel. These places testify to the magnificence of God, His immeasurable presence among man, the vastness of His magnanimity.

Why is less “more” in our minds today? Why are we so selfish even in these tough economic times? Has God abandoned us? Has He failed to feed, clothe and house us today? Would He be wrong to chasten us for our greed and selfish ambition? We treat the house of God and the Holy Things of His house as if deserving of boxcar children excitement while at the same time not humbling ourselves to live less lavishly than the King of kings in our earthly houses. Should not the One who has given you all things, all of which are His, be given the finest and best you have to offer? Does not faith cling to the promise, “I will never leave you or forsake you” and thus by faith and in thanksgiving and trust, give the first fruits of His gifts to you, back to Him, that His Church, His Body of which you are a member, might flourish in magnificent grandeur, to the glory of God?

You have been adopted by the most generous Benefactor the world will ever know, He paid your debt in full and gives you the inheritance of heaven, co-heir with Christ Jesus. Clamoring for more of the treasures that moth and rust destroy, do you imperil your soul and your eternal dwelling place before God?

More Strange Bedfellows

2009-10-07T14:48:00.003-05:00

As a postscript to my earlier post regarding joint missionary or humanitarian endeavors between the LCMS and the ELCA, here is yet another example of not just strange bedfellows, but an unusual ministère à trois.

The Southern District of the LCMS has a joint ministry not only with the ELCA, but also with the Episcopal Church USA. It is called Lutheran Episcopal Services in Mississippi.

Obviously, in a humanitarian emergency situation, we should work with anyone in order to save lives. In the aftermath of a hurricane or tsunami, for example, if Hindus and Christians are sharing a boat to rescue people, I think this is a commendable thing. However, I think there is a big difference between a spontaneous emergency and the deliberate setting up of a joint ministry. I think there would be quite a bit of objection to having an organized joint LCMS-Hindu ministry - no matter how noble the goals (maybe I'm wrong about this!).

LESM is indeed a joint ministry between three church bodies, two of which are in fellowship with each other, and the other of which isn't. This is not a spontaneous reaction to a disaster, but rather a carefully-planned 501-c3 organization with bylaws, employees, and a mission statement.

At least one member of the staff is an "ordained" woman.

Is this kind of cooperative ministry appropriate for a district of the LCMS? If so, what about cooperation with non-Christian religions? What about joint work with other Christian (and non-Christian groups) on behalf of the unborn? Should any line be drawn anywhere?

--- Rev. Larry Beane

Mission Impossible

2009-10-06T14:15:00.004-05:00

I received a newsletter of a Lutheran mission to a certain ethnic group in the United States, the usual bulk-mail glossy with lots of pictures. It was addressed to our church, and it ended up on my desk. I did not recognize this group, and took a quick glance at the picture on the back that was visible even without breaking the seal. The picture was of a vested woman "pastor" having hands laid on her.

Obviously (or almost obviously), this was not an LCMS mission society. I wondered why my congregation was on their mailing list?

I don't think it is helpful or salutary for Lutherans to be exposed to pictures and stories about Lutheran women "pastors" - as this only serves to normalize the heresy. I wrote to the mission and told them that although I have no doubt that it was certainly not their intent to be offensive, they were doing just that by including LCMS churches on their mailing list. Obviously, the ELCA and the LCMS have doctrinal differences when it comes to the role of the vocation of the male and female sexes.

I received a reply from their "pastor" ("Rev. Deborah") that said:

"I will be sure to take you off our mailing list. Historically, our mission has been blessed with the participation of both Missouri Synod and ELCA congregations, and the picture was of my husband and I being installed, not ordained. I have been ordained for over 25 years. I am sorry our newsletter was offensive to you, we have several Missouri Synod board members who are involved in what is distributed."

Their board includes 12 members, and according to Mrs. Deborah, "several" of their board members are affiliated with the LCMS.

I do not understand how any LCMS Lutheran in good conscience can serve an ELCA mission, especially one that has a woman "pastor." There are many LCMS missionaries living hand to mouth, always on the edge of being shut down, even as we have LCMS folks not only supporting this mission with their treasure, but with their talents.

Personally, I believe any and all cooperative ministries with the ELCA - whether schools, chaplaincies, or malaria prevention - ought to be shut down. There seems to be an attitude among Missourians that "it can't happen here." We will never have a serious push for female "ordination" or a blessing of homosexual "marriage." Arguably, the four stupidest and most arrogant words in the English language are: "It can't happen here."

There must be other ways to end the scourge of malaria other than cutting a Faustian bargain to normalize that which is contrary to Scripture. As terrible as malaria is, it can only kill the body.

--- Rev. Larry Beane

I am not the Church

2009-10-03T06:17:00.003-05:00

I am well aware that I can annoy, if not cause worry to some, with my constant push towards individual freedom as regards many individual practices in a person's private life. On many personal issues I will take a "broader" tact - what Scripture does not forbid cannot be forbidden of the individual. I hold this stance without shame or fear for I believe it is Scriptural - just as I will also say that I cannot command you to show love within your own life in a certain way of my choosing. As Christians we may advise, counsel, and suggest - but we cannot bind another when Christ has not bound, we cannot exhort what Christ has not exhorted. I would argue that to do so violates the 4th commandment even, for it does not respect the personal authority that the individual has in managing his own affairs -- a respect for authority isn't just a respect for those in authority over you, but also those who are in other "chains of command", as it were.

However, I know this "libertine" approach causes great frustration to so many solid men and women, and I think I understand why it does so, especially in today's climate within the Church. I saw the same language used as a defense of tomfoolery in the Church. The contemporary worship crowd will cry freedom, the emerging crowd will cry freedom; on and on the call for freedom goes as regards mucking around with the Church. "I'm going to do ______ because it's all for the 'sake of the gospel', and I am free to do so." I have no desire to focus on the whole "sake of the Gospel" idea right now - that deals with whether or not something is wise (which is where the debate ought to be before anything is done) - but rather I will focus on one simple fact that people miss when they abuse the gift of freedom this way.

Yes, Christ as set me free, but I am not the Church.

In my sphere, where my actions are my actions and are dealing with me and mine, I am free. If Scripture does not bind, let no one bind me as regards my life, what I eat or drink. If God does not forbid, let no one forbid me as regards my headship over my family. If Scripture does not say "Thou shall not", let no one tell me "Thou shall not" as regards my affairs. And likewise, if I assert such false authority upon my own neighbor, "anathema sim"!

But it's not "my Church" in the sense that I have ownership over it or control over it - its the Church to which I belong.

The Church is much larger than the individual member, individual pastor, or individual congregation. As such, we (as members, pastors, or congregations) do not have personal freedom in the Church. The Church is a corporate entity, not a personal freedom and as such, we cannot act outside of what the whole has established as proper practice.

Again, consider the parts of Scripture where our Lord or Paul speak to freedom - Freedom is never spoken of corporately. Freedom does not mean one can ignore the government (which you are under - rather obey it, even if it kills you), it does not mean you are free to do whatever you wish in the Church (Paul instructs quite often on Church behavior, which should demonstrate that). Rather, freedom is always focused on the individual.

The Church is a Body, not an individual. What I do in my house is one thing - and to a certain extent it does impact other families so I should exercise care and caution. . . however, just because "Jenny's parent let her do _________" doesn't mean that I will have to let my daughter do the same. My actions do not bind another. But this does not hold true in the Church. What you do at your congregation affects me, because in reality your congregation is MY congregation, and my congregation is your congregation. The Church is One. Therefore, what you do directly impacts me and everyone else, and your freedom individual is no excuse to foist tom foolish tyranny upon me and everybody else.

So let us bear the distinction between personal freedom and membership in a body. Membership in a body always curtails individual freedom (indeed, now that I am married, I do not have the freedom I once did... which means I should probably wrap this up and get some chores done) and you have no right or freedom to willy nilly impact the body to which you belong on your own whims and thoughts and desires.

Let the individual, as regards himself, enjoy the freedom God has given him, without others trying to run his life for him; however, let the Body do what the Body as a whole confesses to be in accordance with Christ's Word and to be meet, right, and salutary.

A Christian must act to show love within the bounds of freedom that Christ has established. A catholic Church must do catholic practices. Let not the topic of freedom be so confused that it is denied to the former or foisted upon the later!

Cremation

2009-09-30T13:53:00.004-05:00

Here's a topic for blackbird consideration: cremation.

At first, this seems like a no-brainer. I completely agree with the premise that burial is far better, that cremation can send an unintended message that the body will not be resurrected, that it has Pagan origins, and that, by contrast, a body laid out in a casket is both a testimony of the law, and tangible evidence of the Gospel in the form of bodily resurrection. The body of a Christian is a holy relic, a temple of the Holy Spirit, a vessel sanctified by physical washing of Holy Baptism and the physical consumption of the body and blood of Christ.

However, one of my members (a former funeral director) threw me a curve-ball.

He argues that the modern method of embalming (which also has roots in Pagan Egypt) is itself a desecration. This is obviously something most of us never see. Blood is drained and thrown away. Parts of flesh even end up in the garbage. The body is filled with harsh chemicals. And all of this is to avoid the process of decomposition (Gen 3:19) that was spoken by God to Adam as part of the wages of sin.

His argument is that cremation - by avoiding the chemicals, the draining of fluids, the removal of flesh, and the mingling of the Christian's flesh and blood with the garbage - is instead subjecting the body to a process that hastens the Gen 3:19 process, and is actually less of a desecration than embalming.

This does complicate things a little. Our funerary practices are not what they were 200 or 500 years ago. The funeral industry and the procedures for burial of the dead are heavily regulated by government.

So, is embalming really a better confession than cremation?

--- Rev. Larry Beane

Thirty-Five Theses on Liturgy and Adiaphora

2009-09-19T06:51:00.004-05:00

From the Worship & Spiritual Care Workshop, 19 September 2009, here are my thirty-five theses on the Liturgy and Adiaphora:

1. The Divine Liturgy, properly speaking (Apology XXIV.79–83), comprises the Ministry of the Gospel, which is the preaching and Baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, the confession of Christ Jesus, the ongoing catechesis of His Word, and the faithful administration of His Body and His Blood to His disciples. This Divine Liturgy is not adiaphora, but is the Holy Gospel, the Word and work of the Holy Triune God, which is fundamental and necessary to faith and life in Christ.
　
2. To be liturgical is not simply to "have" or "do" the Word and Sacrament; but to be liturgical　is to be defined by these things of the Gospel, to be governed and guided by them, entirely under their sway. To be liturgical, therefore, is to be evangelical; and to be truly evangelical is to be liturgical.
　
3. The Divine Liturgy is where and how the Church lives with God in Christ, by grace through faith in the Gospel. The evangelical mission of the Church flows out of that liturgical life in Christ, with the purpose of bringing others into the Liturgy of the Gospel.
　
4. To hear and receive the Divine Liturgy in faith and with thanksgiving is the worship of the Holy Triune God in Spirit and in Truth.
　
5. The freedom of faith in worship, as in all of Christian life, is the freedom of the Gospel.
　
6. Adiaphora simply are what they are: rites and ceremonies and other practices which are neither commanded nor forbidden by God. The teaching and confession of adiaphora goes hand-in-hand with the Gospel; that we are justified by grace through faith in Christ, apart from works of the Law.
　
7. The teaching and confession of adiaphora should not be abused (in the service of self-interest); instead, true Christian freedom is rightly used in love (in the self-sacrificing service of others).
　
8. Adiaphora are rightly used with pastoral care, and as a means of pastoral care. Pastors should exercise discretion and discernment in the use of adiaphora, but pastors should also discipline themselves in doing so, for the sake of faith and love.
　
9. In faith toward God we are free, but in love we are bound to serve our neighbor.
　
10. All things are lawful, but not all things are meet, right and salutary (1 Corinthians 10:23). Even that which is free and clear can be measured and evaluated according to its service and support of the Word of God, and thus determined to be more or less helpful to faith and love.
　
11. Love will be ready and willing to sacrifice anything and everything that is truly free, but love will never sacrifice anything of the Gospel. That is to say, love will readily give up whatever may be given up, but love will tenaciously insist upon that which is necessary.
　
12. Freedom is used rightly, in faith toward God and in love toward the neighbor, when it is used to serve the catechesis and confession of the Word of God.
　
13. The boundaries and parameters of freedom in worship are established and contoured, not only by explicit commands and prohibitions, but also implicitly by the constitutive rites and ceremonies of Holy Baptism, preaching and the Holy Communion.
　
14. The use of liturgical rubrics, rites and ceremonies is fundamental to the pastoral ministry. Rubrics are instructions for the conduct of the Liturgy, mutually agreed upon within the fellowship of the Church. Rites are the words that are spoken in the administration of the Liturgy. Ceremonies are the bodily actions, movements and adornments of the Liturgy. Rubrics are needed for an orderly conduct of corporate communal life. Rites belong to the fact that God does everything by His Word. Ceremonies belong to the fact that human life is lived in the body, occupying space and time.
　
15. It is not possible to administer and receive the means of grace without ceremonies. However, not all ceremonies are created equal. Some ceremonies are better, and some are worse than others; and some ceremonies have no place in the Church, even if they would otherwise be "free."
　
16. Ceremonies powerfully support (or contradict) the confession and catechesis of the Word.
　
17. The measure of a ceremony’s worth and benefit requires more than the avoidance of overtly false doctrine. The best ceremonies are not only true (as opposed to false) but are positively helpful in confessing the Word of God, and they are beautiful in adorning His Liturgy. Whatever is true, lovely and of good repute, excellent and worthy of praise, dwell on those things (Philippians 4:8).
　
18. It is appropriate and salutary to adorn the Ministry of the Gospel with beauty, as a confession of faith in the Word and work of Christ, and as a way of catechesis in the hidden truth of the Gospel.
　
19. Reverence toward God and courtesy toward the neighbor summarize the criteria of faith and love and thus provide a foundational response to all questions pertaining to the proper use of adiaphora.
　
20. That which is harmful to faith and love is not free but forbidden. That which is irreverent or rude is likewise not free but forbidden. (Formula SD X.1, 7, 9)
　
21. Pastors and congregations, and individual members of a congregation, should set aside their personal proclivities and preferences for the sake of faith and love (1 Corinthians 10:23–33; Romans 14).
　
22. Making changes in ceremony, including the introduction of new ceremonies, requires a special measure of pastoral care. It also requires the patience of pastors and parishioners for one another.
　
23. Love will care for the entire body of Christ, for the minority as much or more than the majority, not allowing either the few or the many to lord it over the Holy Communion of the whole Church.
　
24. Love for the body of Christ — for the Church in all times and places, past, present and future — calls for circumspection and great caution when it comes to the introduction of new practices.
　
25. Tradition is generally more conducive to the Gospel than novelty (1 Corinthians 11:1–2, 16–26); because it is received as a gift from the past, rather than fabricated in the present.
　
26. There is almost always a good reason for the traditional practices of the Church, even where the purpose behind a given practice may no longer be readily apparent.
　
27. Catholicity is generally more conducive to love than personal innovation; because it belongs to the entire body of the Church, the household and family of God, rather than an isolated individual.
　
28. The collective wisdom of the Church is usually wiser than the personal insights of an individual. Nevertheless, the nature and needs of pastoral care require the free exercise of pastoral discernment and discretion, just as the Church in each time and place is free with respect to human customs.
　
29. Frequent fluctuations and diversity in practice are unsettling to the people and easily distract from the Liturgy of Christ; they require a level of literacy, attention, energy and effort that tends to frustrate or make impossible the participation of many members in the Church’s worship of Christ.
　
30. Consistency and continuity of practice are beneficial to peace and rest in the Liturgy of Christ; they allow for the ready participation of the entire congregation in the Church’s worship of Christ.
　
31. The broad latitude of hymnody is necessarily constrained because of its affective power, and because of its vast importance and significance for the catechesis and confession of the Word. Hymns properly serve the freedom of faith in the Gospel when they are selected and used liturgically.
　
32. It is not an appropriate use of freedom when hymns, or any other practices, are used simply to fill up space and pass the time, or when they are used to entertain emotions instead of edifying the people and glorifying God by the confession of His Word (Formula SD X.1, 7, 9).
　
33. The unity of a common confession of the faith is both embodied and substantiated by a unity of practice. Church fellowship does not depend upon a uniformity in adiaphora, but the fellowship of the Church gravitates toward a common and consistent usage of adiaphora wherever it is possible. And the beauty of it is, the Church is free to do so.
　
34. It is not a violation of faith or freedom when the fellowship of the Church mutually agrees, in love, to order and conduct its liturgical life according to common rubrics, rites and ceremonies.
　
35. Especially in gatherings of the Church’s fellowship beyond that of a local congregation, the use of commonly agreed-upon rites and ceremonies is most appropriate and beneficial. In general, the same principle pertains to the practices of each congregation as a fellowship of the one Church.

Higher Things : Given 2010

2009-09-18T23:46:00.001-05:00

Everyone should know about this one for next year...

Higher Things : Given 2010

Shared via AddThis

Consecration Sunday?

2009-09-17T14:42:00.004-05:00

I just got an e-mail from the District Office (here all may genuflect) that mentions "Consecration Sunday."

I checked and double-checked the LSB pages x through xiii and I'm coming up empty.

Then again, according to Apology XXIV:1, every Sunday is a Mass Consecration Sunday (kind of like those youth group "Mass Events"?). But the way this e-mail sounds, "Consecration Sunday" has nothing to do with the consecration of the elements, nor even the daily consecration of ourselves through the remembrance of baptism, etc.

Consecration involves bishops - but I'm not in the English District. We pastors are ordained and consecrated at the laying on of hands - but I don't think this has anything to do with that. And apparently, "Consecration" is also a kind of beer.

The LCMS is a strange place to be at times.

--- Rev. Larry Beane

Biblical Inerrancy and the ELCA

2009-09-14T11:31:00.004-05:00

Some of you might want to have a look at the interesting discussion here on the blog of a conservative ELCA pastor discussing Biblical inerrancy.

I understand the desire to resist pushing extra-confessional language (such as "inerrancy") as some kind of loyalty oath or magic bullet (can you just imagine the Pandora's Box of pages and pages of new bureaucratic confessions to be subscribed to with each passing year and political administration? It would take us two hours just to name all the confessional documents at our ordinations) . But on the other side of the coin, to allow for the Scriptures to be errant seems to me to be nothing less than a denial of their Pneumatic inspiration, and is ultimately a denial of Christ Himself. As Piepkorn wrote (I'm paraphrasing), we have no authority to require pastors to submit to the term "inerrancy" - but neither should we ever deny that the Bible is inerrant.

I do not see how conservative ELCA pastors can look upon recent decisions with horror and not connect the dots to the doctrine of an errant Bible. Bo Giertz drew this connection immediately after the Swedish Church (the ancestral church of many in the ELCA) began to "ordain" women. This issue is going to be a big stumblingblock for conservative ELCA pastors and congregations to come into the LCMS.

Either the Scriptures are inerrant or they are errant. Although the term "inerrant" does not appear in the confessions, similarly the terms "Trinity" and "Catholic" do not appear in the Bible and are nevertheless in our creeds. Something can certainly be true even if we don't require an oath to that truth.

I just don't see how helpful an errant Bible could ever be - especially given our Lord's qualification in John 3:12.

Is it possible to have inspiration and errancy at the same time?

--- Rev. Larry Beane

Marriage Counseling and Contraception

2009-09-09T13:12:00.002-05:00

Some lively debate below between a couple of the Blackbirds regarding contraception. It's no secret that I'm a defender of the historic Lutheran teaching on that topic. One thing I'm often asked is, "how do you bring this up in marriage counseling?" If you want the whole answer, drop me an email (pastorcurtis AT gmail DOT com)and I'd be happy to send you my whole pre-marital packet (largely the work of my classmate, Pr. Jonathon Conner).

But the Cliffnotes answer is short and sweet: look to the rite of the Church to help you.

"In marriage we see a picture of the communion between Christ and His bride, the Church. . . . The union of husband and wife in heart, body, and mind is intended by God for the mutual companionship, help, and support that each person ought to receive from the other, both in prosperity and in adversity. Marriage was also ordained so that man and woman may find delight in one another. Therefore, all persons who marry shall take a spouse in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust, for God has not called us to impurity but in holiness. God also established marriage for the procreation of children who are to be brought up in the fear and instruction of the Lord so that they may offer Him their praise." (LSB p. 275)

So what I tell a couple is: God instituted marriage to be a picture of Christ and the Church, to provide mutual companionship and support, for delighting in one another, and for children. If you are not ready for those things, then don't get married. If you don't want to provide companionship for one another from day one - don't get married. You can't say, "I want to be a companion to my wife, but just not yet." If you're not ready to stand by each other in prosperity and adversity from day one - don't get married. You can't say, "I want to stand by my husband in adversity, but not yet." If you are not ready to accept children from the Lord as he would give them from day one - don't get married. You can't say, "I want kids, but not yet - we'll wait a few years." These things are what marriage is for - to enter into marriage without intending to accept these things from the Lord is playing with fire.

I have also been wont to say that Christ does not wear a rubber when he becomes one flesh with the Church, and that the Church does not withhold access to her womb from her Husband. But usually I save that for the brothers over a beer.

+HRC

CyberbrethrenÂ» Historic Lutheran Vestments or Why Black is Not the New White

2009-09-07T22:50:00.001-05:00

CyberbrethrenÂ» Historic Lutheran Vestments or Why Black is Not the New White

Shared via AddThis

May Absolution Be Referred to As a Sacrament?

2009-09-03T15:43:00.005-05:00

The 1943 Catechism taught many a Missouri Synod Lutheran that there are only two sacraments. Period. The definition of “sacrament” that we use customarily is not a biblical definition but is rather a theological or church-determined definition. Most of the time Lutherans say that there are two sacraments, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. And that is right to do. For the definition of sacrament that Lutherans use is threefold: a divine rite instituted by Christ in His earthly ministry that gives the forgiveness of sins and uses a visible, physical element. Under that definition Baptism and the Lord’s Supper most clearly fit. In the case of the absolution spoken by the pastor, absolution can only be called a sacrament if the visible the most crucial thing about what is or isn't a sacrament. Of course in Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and absolution there must be someone there doing the speaking and administration.

However, our own Lutheran Confessions, as contained in the Book of Concord of 1580, something to which the congregations, Lutheran pastors, and our synod subscribes without reservation, also notes that the definition of a sacrament is not something to be quibbled over. They say, “For no prudent man will strive greatly concerning the number or the term, if only those objects still be retained which have God's command and promises.” The reason the Roman Catholic Church lists seven sacraments and we do not is because we don’t use the same definition. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession says in Article XIII:
3] If we call Sacraments rites which have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to decide what are properly Sacraments. For rites instituted by men will not in this way be Sacraments properly so called. For it does not belong to human authority to promise grace. Therefore signs instituted without God's command are not sure signs of grace, even though they perhaps instruct the rude [children or the uncultivated], or admonish as to something [as a painted cross]. 4] Therefore Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God's command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. For when we are baptized, when we eat the Lord's body, when we are absolved, our hearts must be firmly assured that God truly forgives us 5] for Christ's sake. And God, at the same time, by the Word and by the rite, moves hearts to believe and conceive faith, just as Paul says, Rom. 10, 17: Faith cometh by hearing. But just as the Word enters the ear in order to strike our heart, so the rite itself strikes the eye, in order to move the heart. The effect of the Word and of the rite is the same, as it has been well said by Augustine that a Sacrament is a visible word, because the rite is received by the eyes, and is, as it were, a picture of the Word, signifying the same thing as the Word. Therefore the effect of both is the same.

Similarly, in the Large Catechism Martin Luther writes:
74] And here you see that Baptism, both in its power and signification, comprehends also the third Sacrament [absolution], which has been called repentance, 75] as it is really nothing else than Baptism.

Absolution is a means of grace along with the preached Word, Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and the mutual conversation and consolation of the brethren (Christians speaking God’s Word to each other). In the 1991 synodical explanation to the Small Catechism also reminds us that while usually we speak of there being two sacraments, it is also acceptable, though not often mentioned, for Lutherans to speak of absolution as a third sacrament. This is also stated in “What About Confession and Absolution,” in the popular tract series authored by the late Rev. Dr. A.L. Barry, former president of the LCMS. So in conclusion, absolution “may” be freely referred to as a third sacrament among Lutherans, acknowledging that it is a “stretch” of the usual definition. So as our confessions remind us, we will not “strive greatly about the number or term.” In Scripture “sacrament” (mysterion – Greek) means “mystery” but beyond this it is a humanly-devised definition that is descriptive of what we find in the particulars of the means of grace. The number of sacraments is an area of some flexibility according to the definition in our own official Confessions since 1580. In other words, it depends on where the emphasis is placed. It is for catechetical simplicity that two is the most common way of explaining it.

Love - the Cruciform Foundation of Ethics

2009-09-03T07:29:00.003-05:00

Recent discussions have gotten me to thinking more about "ethics" the past few weeks than I normally do. This is not because (in spite of what some people might think) I am an inherently unethical person, but rather because so many of the discussions revolving around ethics seem. . . how to say this. . . overly precise, or even micromanaging in nature. I have very little interest in trying to plumb the nitty-gritty details of the ethical implications of something that is outside my ken - rather I view ethics as the blanket that can be draped over any situation, and whoever is on the spot should be able to see how the fabric falls on their particular situation and say, "Ah, this is ethical! This is not." For an ethical system to be of value, it must be easily applied by the individual to whatever situation they encounter - otherwise we are no more acting ethically than the actor in the play really is King Lear.

As such, I wish to delve into no details here, no specific examples of modern day life. I will not try to answer the ethical issues of the age, and I do not intend to raise any specific issues in this post (although what comes in comments comes). Rather, I would speak to an approach that I think can be applied to any situation or question - I would contend that the key to Christian ethics can be summed up in 2 words - show love.

Now, I'm sure I would not get a lot of flak for summing up Christian Ethics right in line with Christ's explanation of the Law - Love God, Love your neighbor (or, in otherwords, show love). The problem comes in that I think we can blow by this simple foundation of ethics and be so eager to win the point over and against some unethical act that we forget the simple, key fact - if people do not know what it is to show love, they will never act in an ethical matter. The heart of the matter is not abortion, or reproductive rights, or just war theory, or whatever other hot topic comes to the fore this day - those are just the trees; the forest we have forgotten to defend is love itself.

I don't suppose I am saying anything shocking here, but there are a lot of twisted ideas of what love is rummaging around out there in the world. The problem, I think, it that we can assume that people know what love is (he may not be a smart man, but surely he knows what love is!). And flawed, twisted views of love are left in the background of every discussion, and all our wisdom and guile and logic in the specific issues fall flat, for we have given ground on what love is. When people think that 2 is actually 5, you can shout 2+2=4 till you are blue in the face, but it will never make sense.

Now, I would submit, once again in a most unshocking fashion, that if we wish to define what love is, our best way of doing this would be to consider Christ our Lord upon the Cross. Christ's example of the Love shown from the Cross is the prime example of Love - it is the essence of taking up our own Cross and following Him (again, another description of the ethical life). Indeed, the Cross stands over and against the falsely-called loves of the world. So, what do we see and learn about love from the Cross?

1. Love is obedient to God. The first thing we see is that love involves obeying God. Christ our Lord does not enjoy being Crucified, but as it is what the Father wishes, He takes the cup, the Son obeys the Father's will. If there were no obedience, there would have been no Cross. Likewise, if we desire to exercise ethics, there must be a clear focus upon what God commands and what God forbids in His Word.

To forgo God's commands is automatically unethical, because it prevents love from being rightly shown. If God has said, "Thou shalt", we must, whatever the personal cost to ourselves. Likewise, what God has forbidden we must avoid, however fine it seems. We know these bounds that God has placed upon us from His Word. As such, any approach to Scripture which devalues it and contradicts it strikes a damaging blow to any attempt at ethical behavior.

I like to think of the Law of God as being a fence around a yard - the boundaries are set, we cannot go beyond them and be safe. As God is love, to go beyond His bounds is fundamentally to act outside of and contrary to love. In side that yard one may go about one's business, especially tending the specific things which God has instructed you to tend. Anything out side of this is unethical.

2. Love is always focused on someone other than yourself. While there are benefits to Christ in His crucifixion (for indeed, He wins for Himself a holy people), His crucifixion is not done for primarily His own benefit. Rather, Christ's focus upon the Cross is clearly focused upon us, His neighbors. This is demonstrated repeatedly, especially with His words from the Cross.

As such, any approach to ethical behavior must be focused not upon one's own self, but upon one's neighbor. Any decision that is made to benefit one's own self first and foremost is automatically unethical. Now, this makes ethics quite messy, because God in His love and mercy to us has so ordered His creation that many times the love that we show to our neighbor rebounds back to us. This means that in some cases the point of ethics is not simply the act, but the motivation for the act. This is not to say that "good intentions" can make a sinful act good, but rather that a wicked heart spoils even the acts that appear outwardly appropriate and good.

Whenever discussing ethics, the individual's wants, desires, and preferences must be subordinate to showing love to the neighbor, to the person with whom he is interacting, otherwise the act is fundamentally unethical.

3. Love is focused on what is best for the other, not what is pleasing to them. To show love to your neighbor is not merely an attempt to please them. This is demonstrated again by the Cross. Mary and John are by no means pleased on Good Friday as they stand watching our Lord's Crucifixion in unabated horror and sorrow. It is not a pleasant experience. However, it is for their good.

To often we equate showing love with doing that which is pleasing to another. To love someone is not merely an attempt to make them happy - it is to use your abilities for their benefit. The simple fact is that in a sinful world, many of the things which are beneficial for us are. . . uncomfortable, things which we would rather not see. Surgery demonstrates this - the cancer must be cut out, there must be the pain of the surgery, so that the right and proper care might be shown. This is also true in all interactions and relationships. The old adage that the truth hurts is right. We cannot judge whether or not an action is ethical simply by the reaction it causes.

4. Love is bound by office. Christ is upon the Cross because it is His office. He is the Lamb of God, He must be there. As such, no one else can do it, it must be Christ. John can not attempt to take His place. There are two aspects raised here. First, ethics clearly involves fulfilling the duties given to you in whatever your situation in life is. That is clear. However, the second many not be as obvious. You cannot act ethically when performing an act which is not given to you to do. It is fundamentally unethical to take up an office not given to you and to perform its functions.

This is especially vital as, in the sinful world, the exercise of an office often brings pain and suffering upon others. I think now of an example, of the man who slapped the crying child in the store. This man stepped outside his office - and as such, the act was unethical. He abrogated the rights and duties of the parent - which is unethical. Our Lord's Command to us to love is bound and shaped by the offices into which He has placed us. To attempt to step into another's office is to thwart God's order in the world.

5. Love is sacrifice. Christ sacrifices Himself upon the Cross. He takes the chief suffering, so that we may live. Love is sacrificial. It is often painful to the one who loves. As such, if sacrifice is sought to be avoided at the expense of showing love, the action is unethical.

Now, this is not to say that we are to attempt to be martyrs and seek out sacrifices that are not ours to make. Rather this - when there are multiple ways of showing love to the neighbor, we chose the act which shows the most love, even if this involves greater sacrifice on our part. To show a love which is easier or less painful to ourselves, when a greater love is there (albeit more painful or difficult) is fundamentally unethical.

Again, this is not a simple matter, for each of us places a different value upon things in our lives, and giving them up might be a greater sacrifice for one than it is for another. We must be aware of our own wants and desires, and how they might push us away from showing love in ways that are unique to us. Our own desires must be placed below the true needs of another - or as Paul would say, we must submit to each other out of reverence for Christ. Even our desires for that which is a "good" thing, that which is a blessing, must be curtailed if love to another demands it.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

These are the points describing true love (as over and contrasted to the selfish sentimental tripe that is spoken of love in popular culture) that I see as derivable from the example of Christ upon the Cross. There are others that one can find in Scripture, but I wished to key in simply upon the Cross today. 1 Corinthians 13 is a great place, but I would argue already that this chapter is nothing but commentary upon the Cross anyway. And no, this post has no conclusion -- because it may not be finished yet.

Chant as Vestment for the Voice

2009-09-02T09:38:00.003-05:00

Very often when a congregation has not been accustomed to liturgical chant (at least in the pastor's parts of the dialogue) some will have an emotional reaction to it and declare it "Roman Catholic". This is, of course, not completely accurate and represents an uninformed opinion. Liturgical chant has a long history from the time of the founding of the Missouri Synod and other synods in North America, to the time of Luther in Germany and Scandinavia, on back to the early church and indeed into the worship of the Old Testament believers. It is nothing new and it is not uniquely Roman Catholic at all. Among Christians one not only finds chant among Roman Catholics but also Anglicans (Episcopalians), Eastern Orthodox, more liturgical Presbyterians, and many Lutherans. Historically speaking, it is representative of the majority of worshiping Christians throughout the centuries. As is clear from Martin Luther, his liturgical reforms sought only to revise what was in error and leave intact and cleansed what good gifts were passed on in the church's tradition that were unproblematic (i.e., if it ain't broke, dont fix it!). Both of the Divine Service orders produced by Martin Luther featured chant prominently (Formula Missae and the Deutsche Messe). It is also historically known within The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, as this quote from C.F.W. Walther, first Missouri Synod president, testifies:
Whenever the divine service once again follows the old Evangelical-Lutheran agendas (or church books), it seems that many raise a great cry that it is "Roman Catholic": "Roman Catholic" when the pastor chants "The Lord be with you" and the congregation responds by chanting "and with thy spirit"; "Roman Catholic" when the pastor chants the collect and the blessing and the people respond with a chanted "Amen." Even the simplest Christian can respond to this outcry: "Prove to me that this chanting is contrary to the Word of God, then I too will call it `Roman Catholic' and have nothing more to do with it. However, you cannot prove this to me." If you insist upon calling every element in the divine service "Romish" that has been used by the Roman Catholic Church, it must follow that the reading of the Epistle and Gospel is also "Romish." Indeed, it is mischief to sing or preach in church, for the Roman Church has done this also . . .Those who cry out should remember that the Roman Catholic Church possesses every beautiful song of the old orthodox church. The chants and antiphons and responses were brought into the church long before the false teachings of Rome crept in. This Christian Church since the beginning, even in the Old Testament, has derived great joy from chanting... For more than 1700 years orthodox Christians have participated joyfully in the divine service. Should we, today, carry on by saying that such joyful participation is "Roman Catholic"? God forbid! Therefore, as we continue to hold and to restore our wonderful divine services in places where they have been forgotten, let us boldly confess that our worship forms do not tie us with the modern sects or with the church of Rome; rather, they join us to the one, holy Christian Church that is as old as the world and is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. [Der Lutheraner, July 19, 1853, issue, volume 9, number 24, page 163].

A helpful point of comparison may be vestments. Vestments are the various traditional garments (e.g. alb, chasuble, cassock, surplice) worn by the clergy and other liturgical assistants in churches that follow a form of the historic liturgy. The purpose of vestments is to cover the person so that we do not focus on the individual but upon the means of grace (Gospel and Sacraments) and the office that person holds. What is worn in addition to the alb or the cassock/surplice indicates the office the person holds by virtue of call, ordination or consecration. Another purpose of vestments is to adorn the liturgist and assistants to indicate the reverence, joy, and holiness of the Divine Service. This brings us back to chant in the liturgy of the church.

In many ways chant serves as a "vestment" for the voice. Chant, as a kind of combination between singing and speaking, serves to de-emphasize the idiosyncrasies of the person conducting the liturgy or assisting and helps to emphasize the mystical and sacramental unity and communion between Christ and His Bride, the Church. In this way also, chant serves as a kind of vocal "uniform" like the basic liturgical vestments or even the clerical shirt and collar. Theologically speaking, personality doesn't then matter much from one pastor to another so long as the Gospel is preached purely and the sacraments are administered according to Christ's institution (Acts 2:42; Augsburg Confession VII). Chant helps convey this uniformity in office and the transparochial nature of the church's ministerium. This means that it points to the continuity of the church beyond simply our own local congregation and beyond the moment and century that we live in now.

When both pastor and congregation chant their respective parts of the liturgical dialogue the simple fact of the liturgy as a dialogue is made abundantly more clear. The dialogue or conversation takes place in the same mode or genre, if you will. It is rather odd when the pastor speaks his parts and the congregation sings theirs. Imagine an opera or a musical conducted in such format. Or imagine a conversation in daily life like this! Why this supposedly makes sense to some in regard to worship is very likely due to repetition of a less-than-preferred liturgical practice thought to be "old Lutheran" or "conservative" which may really be Pietistic, protestant, or may simply demonstrate the lack of liturgical training and understanding on the part of a previous pastor or musicians. This is the same kind of misunderstanding which believes that Lutherans cannot have communion more than once per month or make the sign of the cross, and that old Lutheran clergy wore chiefly black gowns in the liturgy. In these instances of speaking pastors and chanting congregations, the two parts seem hardly to go together and understanding the liturgy as a grace-delivering-and-receiving conversation is lost. It may be a conservative and institutionalized liturgical version of what is often called "talking past one another."

Likewise, chant helps to emphasize that the Divine Service is heaven coming down to earth in the means of Christ's grace (Revelation 4,5; Isaiah 6:1-7 ; Acts 2:42] ; I Corinthians 11; Luke 22:27). It communicates the divine mystery of this transaction of the means of grace and faith. Chant clothes and elevates the words that are spoken so that the message is the main thing, rather than the personality quirks of the messenger (see I Corinthians 1,2). For we do not preach ourselves but Christ and Him crucified. This vestment for the voice adorns the liturgy with the joy of song in a way that also accommodates the characteristics of regular speech. The Lord's presence is a cause for rejoicing in song, even in this gift's delivery. And yet this is to be in such a way that it is not entertainment, but a high and holy encounter with the King of Kings and Lord of Lords who condescends to be with His redeemed people. In short, chant carries benefits from both song and speech in one form. This is what was understood by both the editors of The Lutheran Hymnal (1941) and Lutheran Worship (1982). This is also understood in the recently published Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod. However, this understanding was somewhat lost inadvertently when the pastor's chant was not included with The Lutheran Hymnal but put into a supplementary volume of Music of the Liturgy.

While many pastors are reluctant to chant and express some shyness toward the idea of it, most pastors can, with practice and a moderate amount of training, chant quite proficiently the basic parts of the liturgy that are in our hymnals and agendae. Most pastors are not "tone deaf". A rare few are lacking of those created gifts and those pastors should probably not chant, out of mercy. A pastor could start with the salutation, the preface to the Communion liturgy, and perhaps the Benedicamus and Benediction. Later he might add the Words of Institution, Proper Prefaces, and other prayers. Or he might vary such things as suggested by the festivals and penitential seasons of the Church Year. A pastor should practice it regularly. Chant affords additional variety that is also traditional. In addition there are many chants that the parish choir might also sing, not so much as a performing "anthem" choir, but as a working liturgical choir (Introit, Gradual, Verse, or special settings of the ordinary of the liturgy). A liturgical deacon might also help with such things.

In our consumeristic culture of contemporary worship and "praise bands," chant runs against the Zeitgeist and carries its own culture that is shaped by time-tested forms rather than the liturgy du jour. The church is in the world and yet not of the world. Chant helps to emphasize this. Chant has been evident and valued in the more confessional periods of Lutheran history. May our churches be such oases of the holy Triune God's grace that we may say with one of our hymns:

Here Thy praise is gladly chanted,

Here Thy seed is duly sown;

Let my soul, where it is planted,

Bring forth precious sheaves alone,

So that all I hear may be

Fruitful unto life in me.

["Open Now Thy Gates of Beauty", TLH #1]

Office and Personalities

2009-09-01T20:44:00.001-05:00

Excerpt from an article by a former president of Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, St. Catharines, Ontario (Lutheran Church-Canada), Rev. Dr. Jonathan F. Grothe:

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS … of Diagnosis, Prognosis and Proposal: What’s going on … and what to do?

Has this always been a problem in the Church? I suspect so. Has it always been as bad as now? I cannot know and could only guess.

A. WHAT IS THE CAUSE? Sin … . Sin that invades and corrupts hearts of ministers and laity. So it has probably always been a problem, and probably as bad as now. Sometimes people point to the widespread “lack of respect for authority” and general conditions in society as contributing factors to the removal of pastors. I don’t think so. Most of our congregations are strongly inclined to respect their leaders. But I do think there are some contributing factors that have exacerbated the problem. They come from the Ministerium itself: We have contributed—greatly, I would say—to the conditions in which bad situations develop and are dealt with poorly.

1.) We have promulgated—or acquiesced while others promulgated—an Übertragungslehre [transferral doctrine], a distorted view of the relationship of Lord, Church, and Ministry. We have let it be taught and caught that the Lord gave “ministry” to the Church, that is, to the local congregation, which can order and delegate to its chosen representative such functions of ministry as it wishes. What therefore the congregation (supposedly) gives, it can (supposedly) also take back again. The transparochial Church is lost sight of, as is any personal minister representing it: any “bishop” is already deposed. Synod is “only advisory”; the “real stuff” is between pastor and congregation, and the District President better watch his step. Thus we have helped set up the situation in which a congregation acts on its own, for its own reasons, and thinks it has the full right to do so.

2.) We pastors and church leaders have also contributed to the conditions where this happens by spreading—or agreeing with— all kinds of nonsense about the human skills needed for “effective” ministry. I’ve done this much myself in the Scriptural Standards and Ecclesiastical Expectations document, which N. Nagel criticised aptly, as looking too much at the vehicle, not enough at the Giver of Gifts.17 When we talk about how it’s so “different” in the parish today (a “new world”) and what kind of communications and counselling and cross-cultural skills today’s pastors have to have. … And when we rely on Personal Information Forms and interviews and all kinds of human psych-soc. stuff to get a good “fit”, a round peg in a round hole, etc … . And when we marvel at the “effective” ministry in growing churches … WE RAISE CONGREGATIONAL EXPECTATIONS SO HIGH that they would be “satisfied” with only a small percentage of the current clergy—and only with them till they hit about (age) 55.

Leaving out the need for “the right attitude”, for love, forbearance, trust, thanksgiving for God’s gifts—all attitudes which arise from spiritual sources, we focus on talents and training. We scare the daylights out of the humbler seminarians, and we raise the hopes of congregations that they can get a Renaissance super-hero for a pastor and have a booming, effective “ministry”. And what happens? People see: things aren’t booming here, this ministry is not effective. What (we think) should be happening here, isn’t. In disappointment, and with good intentions for the “mission and ministry of the Church in this place”, the congregation removes the pastor. Perhaps the District President may even let this happen—even without demonstration of godly causes—because he wants “effective” (successful) ministry, or perhaps because he suspects the man should be deposed but has no desire (or thinks he hasn’t the power?) to effect the deposing.

Either way, in trumping up the pastors’ needed skills, we sow the seeds of discontent and disappointment which can come to fruition in congregational removal from office.

3.) Finally, we in the ministerium contribute to all of this happening because of a certain kind of “professional courtesy among lone rangers”.

pp.24-26. “Deposal And/Or Removal: Principles, Practices and Proposals” in Lutheran Theological Review, Volume VII:1&2 (Fall/Winter 1994 & Spring/Summer 1995) published jointly by the seminaries of Lutheran Church-Canada, Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, St. Catharines, Ontario and Concordia Lutheran Seminary, Edmonton, Alberta.