St. Cyprian and the Fellowship of the Church

In thinking about St. Cyprian of Carthage this week, I posted on facebook, "The Missouri Synod could learn a thing or two from St. Cyprian concerning the unity and fellowship of the Church in the Ministry of Christ, and the fraternal fellowship and collegiality of pastors in the exercise of that Office."

I'm not an expert on St. Cyprian, and it's been too long since I've done any extensive reading of his work, but, when asked to elaborate on what I had in mind, I offered the following comments:

"St. Cyprian recognized that the unity of the Church is centered in the Ministry of the Gospel, and that the larger unity and fellowship of the Church is found in the conciliar fellowship and conversation of bishops, as the overseers of that Ministry in each place. It seems to me that the Missouri Synod has largely lost its bearings and its center of gravity in this regard. Congregations are defined and characterized by lots of other things, which compete with or practically take precedence over the Ministry of the Gospel; so that congregations are identified with and known by particular styles of practice, or programs, or whatever. And as far as our 'fellowship' is concerned, that seems to be more a matter of formality, of political and legal structures, a shared pension plan, and so forth, rather than an active theological engagement of brother pastors. Our bishops have, by and large, been taken out of the parish, and the parish pastors typically stick to their own 'turf,' guard their own 'territory,' keep their heads down, and ignore one another to whatever extent they can. I know that is not universally the case, and that there are notable exceptions. But, to my observation, most of the interaction between pastors is based upon personal friendship rather than fellowship in the Gospel, and is governed more by common opinions to begin with than by the catholicity of the Church in the common Ministry of the Gospel of Christ. I've been as guilty of falling into these patterns as anyone else; but it grieves me, and I don't believe it bodes well for the life and health and future of our Synod."

I welcome thoughts in response, especially from those who may be in a better position to clarify and further elucidate St. Cyprian's thinking on the unity and fellowship of the Church.  I'm likewise interested in pursuing whatever we can do, as pastors and congregations, to put into practice an active fellowship in the Ministry of the Gospel.

A Shoulder Set Upon the Plowshare of the Cross

To be a disciple of Christ Jesus is to take up the Cross and follow after Him, through death and the grave, into the resurrection and the life everlasting.  Those who have set their shoulder to that plowshare, dare not look back, but are called to set their face like flint upon Christ the Crucified.  We should not suppose that it is easy to persevere, nor that our progress will always be apparent.  The Christian life is one of suffering, before we enter into glory; for it is through many trials and tribulations that we enter the Kingdom of God.  And while that is the case for every disciple of the Lord Jesus, is it especially so for the pastors of His Church on earth.

This week, in particular, exemplifies the Cross that is laid upon those men who are called and ordained to preach the Word of Christ and to confess His holy name in the face of sin and death. The prophets, apostles, martyrs, and saints who are remembered in these coming days provide a sober and serious warning to all those who follow after Christ in the Office of the Holy Ministry; but so are they also an encouragement to faith and faithfulness. We are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, in order that our eyes might be lifted up unto Christ, the Author and Perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the Cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. As we are called to die with Him, and for His sake and for the Gospel, so are we raised with Him to live forever in the presence of God the Father.

On Monday the 24th, we celebrate the Nativity of St. John the Baptist. He wasn't born to die in quite the same way that Jesus was, but his entire life was pointed toward that Lamb of God, who takes upon Himself the sins of the world and bears them away in His own body to the Cross. So, like the Prophets before him and the holy Apostles who follow after, St. John the Baptist also suffers the Cross in his own flesh, that his very body and life might also proclaim the Savior who is sacrificed for our transgressions and raised for our justification. Already as we sing and confess the Benedictus with Zacharias, we know that his holy child, St. John, the Prophet of the Most High, will be imprisoned for his faithful witness and finally beheaded (as we'll commemorate in a few months on August the 29th). Yet, his miraculous birth and his martyr's death proclaim not only Christ and His Cross, but also the dying and rising and new birth of Holy Baptism; even as King Herod perceives the resurrection of St. John in the life of Christ Jesus!

On Tuesday the 25th, we commemorate the Presentation of the Augsburg Confession, and we give thanks for the preaching of the Holy Gospel throughout the centuries to the present day. It is not exactly the case that Luther and Melanchthon and the other reformers were martyred in the same way that St. John the Baptist was, but they were persecuted by church and state, and they surely suffered for their faithful preaching and confession. Luther himself could not even be present at Augsburg for the reading of the great Confession, recognized by all as a public testimony of his teaching. Luther's life was under the Cross, even until his death. So, too, in our own day, the confession of the Gospel still brings wrath and woe on every hand — not only by the world, but by those who consider themselves to be the Church, who suppose that by their violence they are serving God. The promise of suffering should by no means dissuade us, but the example of those who have fearlessly faced the fire should steel us for the fight unto the end.

On Wednesday the 26th, we commemorate the Prophet Jeremiah, whose prophetic preaching of the Word of the Lord brought him grief and heartache. Indeed, the suffering of his life was as much a part of his preaching as anything he said, anticipating the Cross and Passion of the Lord Himself, whose Word he proclaimed. For Christ Jesus would take upon Himself the wrath of God that Jeremiah preached against Jerusalem, so that His people would be recalled from the exile of sin and death, and granted peace and rest in the Kingdom of God. Accordingly, poor Jeremiah not only suffered at the hands of the people to whom he preached, but then he also suffered together with them in the deportation to Egypt.

On Thursday the 27th, we commemorate St. Cyril of Alexandria, one of the most significant of the early church fathers, who vigorously defended the deity of Christ and the unity of His Person against the heretic Nestorious and others who were determined to divide and detract from the one Lord Jesus Christ. Nestorian sympathizers, both ancient and modern, have done their best to villify St. Cyril, as though his politics and personality (good, bad, or otherwise) had any bearing on the faithfulness and truth of his confession. In recent generations, Roman theologians have betrayed the weakness of their western christology by defending Nestorious as far as they dare against that "old meany," St. Cyril. But such detractors are nothing new. On the occasion of his death, someone wrote to a friend concerning St. Cyril:

"At last with a final struggle the villian has passed away. His departure delights the survivors, but possibly disheartens the dead; there is some fear that under the provocation of his comapny they may send him back again to us. Care must therefore be taken to order the guild of undertakers to place a very big and heavy stone on his grave to stop him coming back here" (quoted by Norman Russell in Cyril of Alexandria, p. 3).

A big heavy stone did not prevent the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ; nor would it mean anything to the resurrection and the life that He, our Savior, has bestowed upon His servant Cyril — not any longer in Egypt, to be sure, but in the true and everlasting Canaan. So shall it also be for us, when our Baptism into Christ, the crucified God-Man, is completed in our death from this vale of tears, and we finally cross that great Jordan River into the promised land of peace and rest. In the meantime, we should fully expect to be ridiculed and villified for our faithfulness; and of course, to whatever extent the old Adam in us emerges with the faults and failings of our mortal flesh, our enemies will delight to hold those weaknesses against both us and our doctrine. God prevent us from falling into such temptations, which risk the reputation of the Gospel itself, especially if we are called and ordained to preach that Holy Gospel in its truth and purity. For our own sins, let us daily repent and do better. But for our brothers in the Ministry of Christ, who also bear the burdens of the flesh, let us defend them for the sake of their faithful preaching, and cover them with love for the sake of their Office. Even if some of them do happen to be unpleasant fellows and recalcitrant rascals, the measure of the truth is still the truth itself and neither politics nor personality.

On Friday the 28th, we commemorate St. Irenaeus of Lyons, of such tremendous importance to the history of the Christian faith and doctrine. He may not have been a martyr himself, but he was a friend of martyrs. To begin with, he became the new bishop of Lyons, upon returning from Rome, because his predecessor had been martyred while he was away. In his opposition to the rampant gnostic heresies of his day, he emphasized the goodness and the significance of creation, including the Christian's body, which shall be raised from death to the life everlasting. It is in that confidence of the resurrection, the surety of which is bodily received in the Holy Communion, that St. Irenaeus and his friends and colleagues and parishioners faced the constant real threat of martyrdom. It is in that same holy faith and certain confidence that we teach and confess the truth of Christ, come hell or high water against us.

Finally, on Saturday the 29th of June, we celebrate the great Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul, the Apostles, one of the oldest festivals in the history of the Church. We remember and give thanks unto God, that the denier of Christ was restored to faith and discipleship, and that the terrible persecutor of Christians was called to repentance and converted to the very faith he once tried to destroy, and that these two men were sent by Christ as His Apostles to the world. In that apostleship, St. Peter learned by experience the Cross of Christ, the Son of the Living God, and St. Paul likewise learned what he would suffer for the Name of the Lord. By the grace of God, by His Word and Spirit, both men rejoiced to be counted worthy to share the sufferings of the Lord Jesus Christ. They bore in their own bodies the marks of His Cross, for the benefit of those to whom they were sent to preach. When it came down to it, each of them was put to death for his faithful witness; and in that, death itself became a witness of the Gospel (a martyrdom). Even now, by the inspired record of their preaching and teaching in the New Testament, they continue to serve and support the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

Whatever our own respective vocations may be, whether we are called to preach or to listen, or wherever we are called upon to confess the Gospel in our lives, let us not lose heart. Though we are being put to death all day long for the name of Christ, our faith and hope in Him shall not be disappointed. If there is anything to be gained by compromise, it shall be lost before too long, and gone forever; but whatever we lose for the sake of the Gospel, even if it be our very lives, we shall have gained a hundredfold in the everlasting Kingdom of our God and Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ.

For those who are called and sent to preach, it is most likely that suffering of one sort or another will come, but it is also most important that the Word be taught and the Gospel preached with all clarity and consistency. We may die for it, but by that proclamation shall we and our hearers be saved. Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, now and forever. Amen.

Spiritual Fathers

For anyone who is interested, my new book on the doctrine of the Ministry, Spiritual Fathers, is now available. See this web page for more information.

When should the funeral not be in the Church?

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 :)

Or else...?

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?

What The Sem Recruiter Doesn't Tell You

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

PMI: Maybe Not TMI, But MTP and TWI

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!

Distribution, time, personnel, vestments

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

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.

Wisdom and Eloquence Conference

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.

This Easter's Rubric Observation

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.

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

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

Funeral Issue

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

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

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.

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

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.

Luther on Sola Scriptura

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.

Politics in the Church…

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?

Mission Impossible

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

Chant as Vestment for the Voice

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]