Consecration Sunday?

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

Contemplating a Real Easter Vigil

On the impetous of my ambitious assistant and zealous young Emmausites, I'm contemplating the possibility of arranging the Easter Vigil next year as a real vigil; that is to say, watching and waiting through the night, in prayer and meditation on the Word of God, in anticipation of the proclamation of the Resurrection "very early in the morning on the first day of the week."

I'm seriously thinking about how it might work, in any case.

We'd pray an abbreviated Matins on the morning of Holy Saturday, as we have for the past number of years now; then make some preliminary preparations for the vigil before proceeding to a day of rest, whether in sleep or simply quiet and subdued activities on the day of our Lord's holy Sabbath.

The ministers of the vigil would then gather at the church at sundown or thereabouts, to make final preparations for the vigil itself. Instead of beginning at 7:00 p.m. and concluding at 9:00 p.m., as we have done in the past, I would anticipate the vigil beginning outside at 9:00 p.m. around a kindled fire. Those gathered for the vigil would proceed from there into the church in the Service of Light.

I'm envisioning the first Old Testament Reading at approximately 9:30 p.m. We would use all twelve of the appointed Readings in the course of the night, each followed by several minutes of contemplation, then the collect, then appropriate canticles and Psalmody. In the case of such Readings as the flood, we could possibly lengthen the selections from that account; or else pause in between the sections of it.

In any case, each subsequent Reading would occur at approximately the next half-hour interval: the second Reading at ~10:00 p.m., the third at ~10:30 p.m., the fourth at~11:00 p.m., and so on, until the twelfth Reading at ~3:00 a.m.

The remembrance and affirmation of Holy Baptism, and any actual Baptisms, would occur around 3:30 a.m. It seems to me that appropriate hymnody could be sung at the conclusion of that remembrance, rather than simply moving directly to the Litany of the Resurrection. I picture that Litany occuring at 4:00 a.m.

Then we would actually take the time, at that point, to prepare the church and sanctuary for the festive celebration of Easter. The black adornments of Good Friday would be removed, and the white adornments of Easter would be put in place. Flowers would be brought in from wherever they have been set aside for the purpose. Any banners and other artistic displays of Easter would be gotten out and positioned. The Altar itself would be prepared for the Divine Service, and the eucharistic vestments donned by the ministers of the Service. In short, whatever sort of transitional preparations would normally occur by happenstance during Holy Saturday, would be done at this point, between 4:00 a.m. and 5:00/6:00 a.m.

The Divine Service of the Word and Sacrament would then commence at 5:00 or 6:00 a.m., taking the place of the Easter Sunrise Service. It would be a more expansive celebration than the rites and rubrics of the Easter Vigil in the Altar Book call for, as there would be no need to restrain our exuberance at all any longer.

Those unable to keep the entire vigil would be under no obligation to do so. Of course there is no obligation to begin with; but what I mean is that those who so desire could participate in the beginning of the vigil, some parts of the Service of Readings, or simply arrive in time for the Divine Service at sunrise. This belongs to the point and purpose of demarking the vigil at roughly half hour intervals. The ministers of the Service could likewise order and arrange themselves to allow opportunity for bodily rest in the course of the vigil, like the watches of the night.

Maybe this is too ambitious or otherwise unrealistic, but it is appealing to me; and as I have had people asking me about the possibility for the past three years now, I am wondering if we need to seize the day and do it while we still have Pastor Grobien at Emmaus to assist me with the undertaking.

What say you? Would this have a detrimental impact on the Chief Divine Service of Easter Sunday?

Sour Wine and Aged Wine Well Refined

This is the first year that I have appreciated the significance of Jesus' thirst on the cross. Like other events or occurrences during His Passion, He says "I thirst" in order to fulfill the Scripture. Yet is the fulfilling of the Scriptures merely in His doing what the Psalmist predicts (Ps 69:21)?

Reading on, Jesus is given a sponge with sour wine, held up to him on a branch of hyssop.

Reading on still further, when He is pierced in the side, water and blood pour from the wound, which St. John tells us testify to us in the water and blood which we receive in the Church, that is, in baptism and the wine of the Holy Communion.

Jesus gives us His blood for wine. This is the aged, refined wine of the mountain of the Lord (Isaiah 25:6-9). But what is the wine he drinks? Mere vinegar?

Not mere vinegar. It is the vinegar of the world's sin. The fruit of this creation which has been corrupted can never be true, refined, aged wine, but wine gone bad, wine that never suffices as wine because the world cannot bring forth pure fruits. The world produces mere vinegar.

Vinegar, then, is what Jesus drinks. We drink life and salvation in the wine, the blood that He gives us. He drinks the sour wine of our sin, the blood of death. Drinking it down, he destroys our sin on the cross.

The hyssop, also, is significant, for the Psalmist cries out elsewhere, "Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean. Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." The hyssop which covered the doorposts and lintel, protecting us from the destroyer, now applies the poison and gall to Our Lord. By this hyssop also we are made pure and cleansed, while Christ takes the impurity and poison of sin to himself.

Thus the Scriptures are fulfilled, not simply because He does what the Psalmist predicts, but because in drinking in our sin of sour wine by the branch of hyssop, he takes sin upon Himself and destroys it in His suffering and death.

Three in One and One in Three

Having moved from the somber joy of Advent to the holy days of Christmas, I’ve had occasion to reflect on the lectionary. I am unapologetically a three-year preacher. I heard it in the pews since the advent of Lutheran Worship. I learned to preach from it at the sem where I also studied its history and theology from Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum concilium. I’ve used LW’s revised common three-year lectionary for 16 years of preaching in Holy Trinity’s pulpit.

I appreciate the annual cycles through a particular synoptic Gospel, giving attention to the subtle nuances of each evangelist which inevitably get lost in harmonization. I like the broad variety of texts during “ordinary time,” the green seasons of Pentecost and to a lesser extent Epiphanytide. I like the way the Epiphany season is constructed, beginning with Jesus’ Baptism and ending with His Transfiguration. I like the continuous readings through various epistles in ordinary time, allowing the preacher to examine an epistle in some detail from the pulpit. All of these I consider strengths of the three-year lectionary.

I don’t care for the seemingly endless stream of Sundays in John 6 that the old 3-year series had (apologies to Frank Senn for this). How many “Bread of LIfe” sermons can one preach in a row? I also don’t care for the variation of readings at the major festivals, the most notorious being Pentecost. The revised 3-year series in LSB has improved this somewhat. But it is in the festival cycle that the genius of the one-year lectionary stands out, providing a solid foundation of texts for the major festivals of our Lord.

I sincerely wish that we had adopted the hybrid lectionary initially proposed by the Lectionary Committee. Yes, it was a little complicated, at times resembling an NFL playbook, but the idea was, in my opinion, a stroke of genius. During the festival part of the church year, it was a one-year series in line with the “historic” series. Each year, the same set of readings would be heard from Advent through Pentecost. But during “ordinary time,” Pentecost- and Epiphanytides, it became a three-year series, providing different readings in a three year cycle.

The time of the festivals had a reliably repetitive series of texts. Festivals don’t change in their content and meaning. The preacher can link back to all the great (and not so great) sermons preached on those feasts from the past. The time of teaching had a broader exposure to the whole counsel of God, allowing the preacher to expound on more words and works of Jesus. Plus, it respected the unique viewpoint of each synoptic writer, something that is completely lost when one harmonizes Matthew, Mark, and Luke not to mention John.

It would have been the best of both worlds , but sadly it was not to be. I suppose one could rig one’s own hybrid vehicle out of the current three- and one-year series, but it’s more fun to have others in the sandbox with you. Maybe next time.

Gloria in Excelsis and Advent

This is not a rant against liturgical tradition nor is it a potshot against the rubrics of the Lutheran Service Book, nor is it a troll to stir up strife among the liturgical cathari.  I am sincerely seeking honest discussion.  The rubric of LSB for the Gloria in Excelsis states "During Advent and Lent, the Gloria in Excelsis is omitted."  (I'm quoting from the rubrics for DS 3 and note in passing that TLH had no such rubric at this point.)

My question is "Why?"  Is it simply a kind of "liturgical fast" from the Gloria so that it can be heard with renewed vigor at Christmas/Easter?  

In the past years under the discipline of LW, I dutifully substituted a stanza from O Come, O Come, Emmanuel, as stated by that hymnal's rubrics.  This year, after the first Sunday of Advent (using DS 3 as is our custom during Advent/Christmas/Epiphany), I made the radical pastoral decision to (gasp!) disregard the rubric (mea culpa!) and forge ahead with the Gloria in Excelsis.  

Practically, it sounded terrible going straight from the bare three-fold Kyrie to the chanted Salutation and Collect.  Clearly something had been sawed off.  The Gloria is the ordinary hymn of praise for the service of the incarnate Word.  I know it's a relative late-comer into the liturgy, but it has been around for at least 1400 years, so it's hardly an innovation.  

Liturgically, I don't approve of the idea of making any Ordinary into an option.  This encourages liturgical mischief.  

Pastorally, it makes no theological sense to remove the angelic song of the Incarnation on any Sunday, much less a Sunday in a season of preparation to celebrate the feast of the Incarnation. 

If every Sunday is a little Easter, isn't every Sunday also a little Christmas?  (I'm going to ask the same thing about the suppression of Alleluia in Lent, but we'll wait for the -gesima Sundays to take up that one.)

I'm going to refrain from commenting, but will eagerly await any insights and discussion.

wmc

Evaluating the Lutheran Service Book

My son-in-law recently brought to my attention a critical review of the Lutheran Service Book; not the first I've seen, but from a somewhat different angle. There have been positive reviews, as well, and the overall assessment and reception of the book by the Church at large has frankly been impressive. The reasons for its acceptance vary, rather widely I suspect, as do the criteria by which it has been criticized.

I have my own thoughts and opinions concerning the Lutheran Service Book; not unbiased, given my extensive participation in the project that produced it and the adoption of the book by my congregation. Here, though, I am first of all raising the questions for others: What are your assessment and evaluation of LSB? What are its strengths, and what are its weaknesses? Has your congregation adopted it? Why, or why not? What unanswered questions do you still have? What do you most regret? What's missing, and what should not have been included?

I'm asking because I honestly want to know what others think, and because I also intend to share my own perspectives in turn, but I'd like to initiate a conversation. We're coming up on two years of using LSB at Emmaus (since the Feast of St. Michael and All Angels in 2006). That seems an appropriate juncture at which to step back and take stock of things. So, what say you?