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.

My Ministry

For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us. 2 Corinthians 4:5-7. KJV

I went and heard the Concordia Seminary Chorus sing this past Saturday. Afterward I was talking with some of the men, none of whom I had known before. In saying goodbye, one of them, a first year man, said, "God bless you in your ministry." I responded with something along the lines of, "the ministry is not mine, it is Christ's. If it's mine it's over" and walked away. I walked away only because I was in a hurry not because I was mad at him or offended by his statement. Because I wish I had more time to speak to this man, I'm writing now and if by some strange chance he reads this blog, explain why I said what I said.


I understand the intention of the seminarian, you have to say something nice to a chatty pastor as he leaves, but I have heard such a blessing given many times in the past from brother pastors and such and it has always given me pause. The reason why is that the Holy Ministry does not belong to me. I don't own the office. It is not a possession of mine. It does not come forth from anything in my being. The Divine Call I received 10 years ago did not generate from my heart or by my own will. The ordination I received was by prayer and the laying on of hands and I wasn't doing the praying nor did I put hands on myself. The Holy Church and Her Ministerium declared me fit and Christ Himself made me His servant, and that is that. The Divine Call I received 5 years ago also was not generated from within me, as a matter of fact, I wrote out an extensive personal pro-con list whether to stay where I had already been put or to come here to Brookfield, and guess what, there were no personal pros to coming here, not one. The ecclesiastical list was different, and so I here I am far away from Fenway Park without my annual season pass.


But believing that the Ministry is not mine is something I have had to learn, and learn the hard way. Really, if the ministry is mine, these dear ones I have been enslaved to are really in trouble. Seminarians don't know much about this, but I wonder why brother pastors say such things as "my ministry". There is nothing nefarious in the words of course, perhaps I have become much more cognizant of the fact that I am but an earthen vessel, good for carrying around Christ that the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus might be given out with this earthen voice preaching Christ, with these earthen hands as His baptism is administered and as His Body and Blood are distributed. None of this is mine, it is all His. Yes, He has shined in my heart, but for His purpose that He might be preached as Lord.


My response to the Seminarian was so because I need to be told this over and over again. Once I start thinking that these gifts are mine, that this congregation is mine the whole thing is in danger. Then I am thinking that I am Lord. It always comes back to idolatry. The Church is Christ's; He has purchased Her with His own blood and cleansed her to present her to Himself. To be sure, I do play a part of course, as a bondservant/slave and vessel, in order that the excellency of power may be of God. Christ's bondservants are but earthen tools for His good work, and such work is excellent and glorious but such excellency and glory are seen in suffering and in the weakness of the preaching of the cross, which is the power unto salvation for those who believe. The Holy Ministry is not ours, we ministers are not even our own according to our own person; Holy Baptism has seen to that. We are the Lord's for His use. And we are replaceable. One minister comes after another until Christ the chief Shepherd appears and there will be no more need of ministers at all. The more we understand and believe this the better.

Parable of the Sea

Here is an interesting little story called the Parable of the Sea.

It was posted on the blog of a popular emerging/emergent church expert to bolster his argument against "personal preferences, denomination, and tradition" and to drive a wedge between evangelism and tradition.

Ironically, this story actually says the opposite of what he thinks it says.

The lifesaving post in the parable is the traditional Church. For 2,000 years, the one holy catholic and apostolic Church has been saving souls using the primitive means of the Word of God, of Holy Baptism, Absolution, Communion, and proclamation - by sending out ordained preachers armed with water and the Word. Through her liturgy and confession of absolute truth, the Church has indeed been a lifesaving operation for the lost who are in search of something secure and sure, a place to encounter the immutable God of the universe who took flesh for their sake in the midst of the storms of life that toss us about in the fallen world. Billions have been saved with little fanfare.

For twenty millennia, the Church has been sending out such missionaries armed with the unchanging Word of God and the traditional liturgy that carries that Word of God into the lives of the rescued.

But something has happened in recent years.

The Church morphed into something else: a club for young people, a place of entertainment, a coffee-shop catering to the hip, a stage where rock music is performed. It became the private venue of politically leftist twentysomethings where an Orwellian "inclusiveness" trumps the truth, where mission isn't about actually saving anyone from damnation, but rather talking about mission, talking about hairstyles, talking about tattoos, talking about music, talking about coffee, and most of all, talking about themselves and their "superior" methodologies.

Where the little outpost of the Church had its own culture that transcended national barriers and crossed the generation gap, now the newly-remodeled youth-driven coddled urban/suburban version in which baristas have replaced pastors, dialogue has taken the place of authoritative teaching, and where being cool has overturned the need for the forgiveness of sins and communion with the One True God - those who do not fit this homogeneity are pushed out.

In this changed institution, "mission" is now nothing more than marketing to the youth culture. Mission is no longer a means to the end (rescuing people), but the end in itself: which is to entertain young people and keep them coming back.

Thus the elderly, the politically conservative, families, those who seek the reverence that marked a real belief in the presence of Christ in the Mass, those who believe the Scriptures mean what they say even in matters that are unpopular in the secular culture (e.g. the sinfulness of homosexuality and the prohibition of women clergy) are told they aren't welcome any more. "This isn't your grandfather's church" they are told. And furthermore, the lifeboats (if they are even sent out at all) won't stop for the kinds of people who don't fit the target demographic.

Instead of life under the cross, people now expect the Christian life to be an MTV-style reality show. Instead of candles, people expect lasers. Instead of hymnals, people want Disney-like special effects. Instead of the "still small voice of God," people expect fast-moving amplified soundbytes. Ironically, entertainment has replaced salvation - which was the original intent of the lifeboats in the first place.

And anyone who disagrees is now paradoxically "against mission."

One of the greatest lifeboat captains in the Church's history also used a maritime analogy that is as relevant and authentic today as it was when he first said it in the ancient days before the iPod: Ephesians 4:14-15.

Questions about Remarriage after Divorce

This (Thursday) morning's Gospel, from St. Luke 16, has me thinking about divorce and remarriage. Jesus specifically says that "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery."

I didn't include any references to this part of the Gospel (St. Luke 16:10-18) in my sermon, but I got to thinking about it.

I'm wondering what conscientious confessional Lutheran pastors do with this passage. The norm has become allowing remarriage of the divorced, provided there is some sort of stated repentance. I have even followed this norm myself.

Yet it was not always so. Our forefathers did not permit remarriage, and in some traditions, as I understand it, that remains the case. That was (is) the interpretation of this passage by others.

On the other hand, Moses permitted divorce, and Jesus did not chide him for doing so. And even going back as far as the 12th century, the venerable Hugh of St. Victor indicated that the remarriage of the divorced is sometimes permissible, since God has called us to live in peace.

So I'm wondering what's the prevailing opinion among us, or if there is one. I'm aware of the divergence of interpretations of this passage, and that, though the norm in our own day may be to permit remarriage, it was not always so.

So, some queries:

Do you remarry divorcees? Do you remarry divorcees even if they are clearly guilty in the divorce? If you do, how do you interpret this passage? Does it bother you?

Sin is Bad, Really, Really Bad

Some of my favorite lines from movies are the short, overly simple ones. The founder's statue in Animal House with the quote, "Knowledge is Good", or Spaceball's Dark Helmet's ominous (and false) statement just before he is defeated - "So now you see that evil will always triumph. . . because good is dumb." They are great line because they are so simplistic.

Here is one for today. Sin is bad, really, really bad. But it is true. Now, in general I dislike people banging on Postmodernism (because often people just look at the down side instead of how a Postmodern approach opens up avenues of discussion), but one thing we have seen according to the big religious survey is that less and less people claim to be Christian. I am going to lay this at the feet of popular Postmodernism.

Technically speaking, Postmodernism is really a skepticism of assumed truth - that just because a society or culture has said, "X is true" doesn't mean that it actually is true. What a culture believes could just be their perception. For an example - "criminals ought to go to prison" is not a universal truth, but a societal one. There are plenty examples throughout history where the typical punishment for crime in general had nothing to do with prison. Criminals going to prison isn't a universal truth, rather a "social construct" claiming to be truth. It is an idea our culture has. . . cultivated. Now, Vulgar postmodernism blows beyond this by assuming that ergo there is NO truth - classically speaking, Postmodernism itself just is skeptical and attempts to peel away the ways in which the understanding of truth has been culturally manipulated. Cultures and the people who shape them gain influence and control by manipulating social constructs (if interested, Foucualt's "Discipline and Punish" is an accessible place to start to look at scholarly postmodernism - but it still is a nasty hard book to read). This approach has impacted the way people perceive their religion.

It is true today, my generation and younger are more apt to be skeptic and simply assume that what their parents said is not true. They are more apt to claim no religion. Does this mean that there are suddenly less Christians now than there were say 20 years ago (what was it 88% to 75%?). I'll argue no - it just means that there are less hypocrites and works-righteous Pharisees who vainly try to live up to false standards. It means that there are less people who simply claim to be what their parents were because of cultural expectations.

I would contend that the actual problem has remained the same - be it now, be it 50 years ago when the religious elite were rubbing their hands together thinking about how to make Christianity relevant. It boils down to a simple truth that is Universal. Sin is bad, really, really bad.

Specifically, your sin. Your sin is harmful. And this provides our avenue of approach, I believe, in this era of skepticism. Truth claims about God and about what happened 2000 years ago can be brushed aside with ease today (just like they could in the Modern era, by the by) - and so can blanket statements of morality. Different cultures have different standards of morality - thus the claim that yours is right can easily be questioned. But what cannot be brushed aside (as easily, and not at the layman's level) by the Postmodernist is personal experience.

It's the second use of the Law. Show people their sin, and its negative consequences - not necessarily in terms of divine retribution or eternal damnation which they can't have experienced yet, but just in the sense that if you sin, it doesn't bring real pleasure. When you make that connection, when you can say, "On the basis of the long standing faith to which I hold, I can tell that ______ is actually empty and doesn't really satisfy you," and you are right, you have established a strong evidence of truth for the faith.

Sin is bad. No faith, no group in the world teaches the true impact of sin like Christianity, for not only is there the eternal aspect, not only is there the divine aspect, but with the examples of Scripture (especially of Genesis and the Old Testament) we clearly teach that when one sins one is never satisfied. The fruit always looks pleasing to the eye and sounds like a good idea, but it leaves you worse off than you were before.

Today, sin is downplayed - it becomes a matter of please yourself. We can show people why they are not pleased - and when they see their sin, then we can explain Christ the Living Water - then we can explain why we hold to this faith and the benefits we get from it. If part of what we teach is true in their life, directly and immediately true in their life, then they are prepared to hear.

Of course, this is nothing more than saying what we have been taught - you must preach the Law before the Gospel - but rather than being a stick that beats the person over the head, sometimes the preaching of the Law is finding the bruised and battered person and saying, "I can tell you why you are bruised and battered."

We as a culture don't understand, don't assume sin anymore - and we are lost as to why we are hurting. As Christians we know - and that will be our greatest avenue of approach to people - that will be what resonates. In a day when there are no truths and explanations, we know the Truth.

**Edit**

Pascal's Wager was a horrible thing. Why do we end up assuming that if we live according to God's Law here that we give up or lack anything? The gains of Christianity are not just a future matter - they are a present matter, and not in terms of "stuff" but in terms of peace and satisfaction. We gave ground we should not have given. Here my various strains of blood (including German, English, and Jewish) are in agreement - what good comes out of France?

Mea Culpa

Dear friends, Fr. Hollywood here.

I posted a couple sermons here by mistake - thinking I was posting them to my own blog. Sorry about that! I deleted them from Four and Twenty, but Google Reader thinks they are still there. I'm sorry for any confusion, and please excuse the interruption.

And now, we return to our regularly scheduled programming...

Attendance Observation

I've served in two different locales - one in the Chicago suburbs and one in rural southern Illinois. I don't know if it holds across the country, but it is invariably true that attendance is highest on the first Sunday of a month.

The most reliable indicator of a low-attendance Sunday? Any time I think I've written a really good sermon. Never fails.

+HRC

Proposed Pastoral Practice regarding Confirmation and First Communion

[The following is a proposal that I have been making to our board of elders regarding the practice of confirmation and first communion here at Messiah. I would welcome your comments and suggestions. -Peperkorn]

A Proposed Practice Regarding First Communion and Confirmation of children at Messiah Lutheran Church

By Pastor Todd A. Peperkorn

December 18, 2008

Proposed pastoral practice regarding First Communion:

That Messiah Lutheran Church admit children to Holy Communion when the pastor, the child, the parents and at least one elder all concur that the child is prepared to receive Christ’s Body and Blood in Holy Communion. “Preparation” shall include but not be limited to a clear confession of faith in the Gospel by means of reciting by heart the Ten Commandments, the Apostles’ Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer, by being examined and absolved by the pastor (Individual Confession and Absolution), and by verbally expressing their desire to receive Christ’s Body and Blood for the forgiveness of sins.

Proposed pastoral practice regarding Confirmation:

That Messiah Lutheran Church confirm those children in the Christian Faith who can recite by heart the Small Catechism of Dr. Martin Luther with Explanation, who have been examined and absolved, and who are able to confess the faith and answer the questions placed upon confirmands in the Rite of Confirmation found in the Lutheran Service Book.

Rationale

The reason for this proposed practice is simple: It is of great benefit for all Christians to receive Christ’s Body and Blood, and that we should be about giving our children Jesus as much as possible, and as soon as possible.


The challenges for this proposed policy are several:

1) By separating confirmation and first communion, we run the risk of denigrating the importance of the rite of confirmation.

2) This practice, while gaining acceptance in the LCMS as a whole, is not universally accepted, and does require explanation.

3) Because this is based on the confession of faith of the individual and not an arbitrary age, it makes the practice appear random, when in fact this is more consistent with our understanding of worthiness of receiving the Sacrament.

Quotations From the Book of Concord

6 Confirmation and extreme unction are rites received from the Fathers that not even the Church requires as necessary to salvation, because they do not have God’s command. Therefore, it is useful to distinguish these rites from the former, which have God’s direct command and a clear promise of grace.

Concordia : The Lutheran Confessions, Edited by Paul Timothy McCain (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2005), 185.

38 We cheerfully maintain the old traditions made in the Church for the sake of usefulness and peace. We interpret them in a more moderate way and reject the opinion that holds they justify. 39 Our enemies falsely accuse us of setting aside good ordinances and Church discipline. We can truly declare that the public form of the churches is more fitting with us than with the adversaries. 40 If anyone will consider it in the right way, we conform to the canons more closely than the adversaries. Among the adversaries, unwilling celebrants, and those hired for pay, and very frequently only for pay, celebrate the Masses. They sing psalms, not that they may learn or pray, but for the sake of the service (as though this work were a service) or, at least, for the sake of reward. Among us many use the Lord’s Supper every Lord’s Day. They do so after they have been first instructed, examined, and absolved. The children sing psalms in order that they may learn. The people also sing so that they may either learn or pray. 41 Among the adversaries there is no catechizing of the children whatever, about which even the canons give commands. Among us the pastors and ministers of the churches are encouraged publicly to instruct and hear the youth. This ceremony produces the best fruit. 42 Among the adversaries, in many regions, no sermons are delivered during the entire year, except during Lent. Yet the chief service of God is to preach the Gospel. When the adversaries do preach, they speak of human traditions, of the worship of saints and similar trifles, which the people justly hate. Therefore, they are immediately deserted in the beginning, after the reading of the Gospel text. A few better ones begin now to speak of good works; but about the righteousness of faith, faith in Christ, and the comfort of consciences, they say nothing. Indeed, this most wholesome part of the Gospel they rail at with their reproaches. 43 On the contrary, in our churches all the sermons are filled with such topics as these: repentance; the fear of God; faith in Christ, the righteousness of faith, the comfort of consciences by faith; the exercises of faith; prayer, what its nature should be, and that we should be fully confident that it is powerful, that it is heard; the cross; the authority of officials and all civil ordinances; the distinction between the kingdom of Christ, or the spiritual kingdom, and political affairs; marriage; the education and instruction of children; chastity; all the offices of love. 44 From this condition of the churches it may be determined that we earnestly keep Church discipline, godly ceremonies, and good Church customs.

Concordia : The Lutheran Confessions, Edited by Paul Timothy McCain (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2005), 193.

SID Goes on Record against Synod and for AC XIV

Today the Southern Illinois District in convention approved the following resolution by a vote of 118-19. I want to publicly thank Pres. Herbert Mueller for his support in this effort. Also worthy of mention and thanks are my circuit brethren, especially Pr. William Weedon, as well as the circuit counselors of the SID and the SID general pastors' conference all of whom contributed to producing this resolution. And it would be remiss not to mention with thanksgiving the work of Prof. Joel Okamoto of CSL who wrote the article rejecting "lay ministry" which was subsequently published as the joint decision of both systematics faculties.

It's certainly not a perfect resolution - for example, the language could certainly be stronger: "the SID expresses its regret" about the breaking of the AC's 14th article in the Synod at large rather than "calling the Synod to repentance" or something like that. In addition, the "plan" that is recommended here is slow going and open to much finagling.

But those shortcomings aside, I'm very glad that a whole district, by a wide margin, is on record against "lay ministry" and taking a stand with the systematics faculties in supporting our historic confession in contradiction to the Synod's current practice.

I would encourage pastors in other districts to use the SID's example to your benefit and bring similar resolutions to your district conventions. For most, the time for handing in resolutions to committees is past. But maybe, depending on the district, this could come from the floor.

At any rate. . . here's the resolution as adopted:

SID 2009 Convention

Resolution: 2-02

Subject: Specific Ministry Pastors

Action: Adopted, 20 February 2009, 118-19

Whereas, in certain situations today, the Synod approves of preaching and administration of the sacraments by men who have not been publicly called to and placed in the office of the ministry (this position is expressed, e.g., in 1989 Resolution 3-05B, “. . . when no pastor is available, and in the absence of any specific Scriptural directives to the contrary, congregations may arrange for the performance of these distinctive functions [preaching and administering the sacraments] by qualified individuals”); and

Whereas, the Augsburg Confession's fourteenth article reads, “Concerning church government it is taught that no one should publicly teach, preach, or administer the sacraments without a proper [public] call” (KW p. 46); and

Whereas, the systematic theology faculties of both seminaries, acting jointly, have published a detailed statement on “The Office of the Holy Ministry” (Concordia Journal 33.3[July 2007]: 242-255) which states in part,

“The Confessions never use the truth that the whole church possesses the power of the keys to make the office of the holy ministry unnecessary or merely useful. On the contrary, this truth serves as the basis for the church's right to call, choose, and ordain ministers. . . . [T]he Treatise [on the Power and Primacy of the Pope] does not imagine churches without ordained ministers of some kind, even in emergency situations or when no one else will call and ordain men for the office. As confessors of the same doctrine, neither should we. . .

“'[C]all and ordination' are essential for conduct of the ministry. . . .What is the sign of authority for ministers today? It is their call and ordination, which assure that they act by divine right and on the authority of Christ. This truth makes such ideas as “lay ministers” invitations for difficulties and troubles to ministers whose authority is doubtful and to laypersons whose assurance of God's grace may be questioned.” (pp. 253-254, 255);

and,

Whereas, the Board for Pastoral Education and the two seminaries are now implementing the Specific Ministry Pastor Program mandated by the 2007 Synodical Convention; and

Whereas, the Board for Pastoral Education and the Council of Presidents are due to report to the 2010 Synodical Convention concerning “situations currently served by licensed lay deacons” (2007 Res. 5-02); THEREFORE BE IT

Resolved, that the Southern Illinois District in convention express its regret at the current situation in the Synod at large concerning men who are conducting Word and Sacrament ministry without being publicly called to and placed in the office of the ministry; and be it finally

Resolved, that the Southern Illinois District in convention memorialize the Synod in convention to direct the Board for Pastoral Education and the Council of Presidents to develop a plan and lay out procedures:

A) So that all men who are currently engaged in Word and Sacrament ministry without being publicly called to and placed in the office of the ministry may either be enrolled in the SMP program or cease from all forms of Word and Sacrament ministry by the end of 2016, and
B) So that all current Synod and District tracks, programs, licensing procedures etc. which train men for Word and Sacrament ministry without benefit of being publicly called to and placed in the office of the ministry can be phased out in favor of SMP by the end of 2016; and

C) So that the Board for Pastoral Education report on this plan to the 2013 Synod in Convention for approval, emendation, and adoption.

The Prayer of the Church

For some time I've often used an adaptation of the Roman Canon for the Prayer of the Church. I've always thought it makes a worthy intercession; just a terrible Eucharistia! LSB permits the pastor to frame the Prayer of the Church, and having just reworked this adaptation, I offer this redaction for those who might care to use it. Two points at which it would likely make our laity uncomfortable are the intercessions for the departed and the reference to the saints in heaven praying for us.  Yet both of these are actually in accord with the Lutheran lex credendi, our Book of Concord. The form of intercession for the departed is adapted from Starck's Prayer Book.

+ THE PRAYER OF THE CHURCH +

We come to You, Holy Father, with praise and thanksgiving, through Jesus Christ, Your Son. Through Him we ask You to accept and bless the prayers and gifts we offer - for we bring You in thanksgiving only what You have first given to us in love. Lord, in Your mercy, R.

Remember, Lord, Your holy church. Watch over her and guide her. Grant her peace and unity throughout the world. Lord, in Your mercy, R.

Remember, Lord, Gerald, our Synodical President, Herbert, our District President, and all pastors and servants of the Church. Grant them to hold and teach the faith that comes to us from the apostles. Lord, in Your mercy, R.

Remember, Lord, our President, our public servants, and all in our armed forces. Guide, bless, protect and uphold them in honor. Bring all nations into the ways of peace and justice. In Your kindness and love, grant us seasonable weather and an abundance of the fruits of the earth. Lord, in your mercy, R.

Remember, Lord, all who suffer for Your name, all who are in prison, the hungry and ill-clad, the poor and the lonely, those who travel, and all who cry out to You in their time of need (especially…). Take them under Your tender care and grant them a happy issue out of their afflictions. Lord, in your mercy, R.

Remember, Lord, all who are gathered here before You, our living and true God. We pray for our well-being and redemption. Order our days in Your peace, deliver us from the danger of eternal death, and number us among Your chosen flock. Though we are sinners, we trust in Your mercy and love. Do not consider what we truly deserve, but grant us Your forgiveness. Lord, in Your mercy, R.

Remember, Lord, (N. and N. and) all our brothers and sisters who have fallen asleep in Christ our Savior. Refresh their souls with heavenly consolation and joy and fulfill for them all the gracious promises which in Your Word You have given to those who believe in You. Lord, in Your mercy, R.

Holy Father, in communion with the whole Church we honor Your saints, in whom You have given us a mirror of Your mercy and grace. We praise You especially for the Blessed Virgin Mary, Saint Joseph her husband, St. John the Baptist, Saints Peter and Paul, and all Your martyrs. Give us grace to walk before you with faith like theirs and, in accordance with their prayers, grant us a share in their heavenly fellowship. Lord, in Your mercy, R.

Lord God, as we prepare to receive the holy Sacrament, we pray You, bless and sanctify, with the power of Your Holy Spirit, this bread and wine, which You have given us, that through our Lord’s Words they may be unto us His body and blood, the food and drink of eternal life.

Grant that we may receive worthily this sacramental mystery, the New Testament of our Divine Redeemer, for He is the Lamb of God, who gave Himself once and for all, as a holy, immaculate and perfect sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sin and for the life and salvation of the whole world.

Through Him, we beseech You, Father,  to look with favor upon us and receive our thanksgiving for so great a Gift, as You once accepted the offerings of Your servants Abel and Noah, the sacrifice of Abraham, and the bread and wine offered by Your priest Melchizedek. In union with them, we pray that Your holy angel would carry our prayer to Your altar in heaven and unite us in the unending liturgy of Your servants of every time and place; through Christ, our Lord, from whom all good things come.

Through Him, with Him and in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is Yours, Almighty Father, forever and ever.

Contemplating a Change...

For last year and this, come Sunday afternoons from September until Judica, I have offered the Service of Prayer and Preaching on Sundays at 5 p.m., and used it as my primary vehicle for Catechism instruction for both the children in the public school and any adults who are inquiring into the Lutheran confession of the Christian faith. But next year I am contemplating a change from Prayer and Preaching to Vespers.

Vespers is obviously the more historic service and was used for Catechism instruction also in Lutheran lands on Sunday afternoons or evenings. Prayer and Preaching is somewhat modeled on the old Catechism Service of Missouri, but it has additions too - additions that in the long run I am not certain are worth the effort. I speak especially of the Canticles. All the effort we have put into learning them! And still we are rather weak at singing them. How much better to have learned the Magnificat! I am a firm believer that anyone who learns Vespers will simply fall in love with that liturgy; I must confess that I've not fallen in love with Service of Prayer and Preaching - not after all these times using it.

I know I will never go back to putting catechetical instruction in a classroom again - the church IS the natural and right place for it. But I think a change to Vespers would be in every way "meet, right, and salutary." I wonder if the brothers and sisters have any further thoughts?

Wichita +20

Could you repeat that fourteenth part again?

This summer will mark 20 years since the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod in convention quoted AC XIV and then added a dreadful "however. . . " Of all the scandals among us - purposely irreverent worship, lack of uniformity in fellowship, etc. etc. - this is the worst. That the LCMS purposely tells men who are not in the Office of the Ministry to go out and act like they are - that is, to teach, preach, and administer the sacraments week in and week out without a Divine, regular, public call to the Ministry - is nothing short of.....well, words fail me. Let's put it this way: it makes the 2001 convention's decretum that the ELCA is not an "orthodox Lutheran body" ring a tad hollow.

Most all of us have preached against this and taught our people the correct teaching. Some have sent in resolutions and worked to call our Synod to repentance in countless ways.

But maybe it's time for something more - something more organized and widespread.

While most of us have preached and taught our people the right doctrine, and many of us have sent in resolutions and worked in other ways - most of us have also been reluctant to actually take the avenue of public confession laid down in our Synod. That is, most of us have not filed a formal dissent against the Wichita "lay minister/deacon" system.

What do the brethren think of the following? What if we put together a website with information and a signature page (a là Issues Etc.) for LCMS folk (clergy, non-ordained 'members of Synod,' and laity) to sign which would broadcast the intent of the undersigned clergy, members of Synod, and congregations to flood the Synod with dissents on the 20th anniversary of the close of the 1989 Convention on July 14?

I know some pastors have been reluctant to take this step because it does come with risks - especially depending on the District in which one resides. I know others have stayed away from the official dissent because they view it as pointless. But maybe a massive effort from across the Synod would help solve both of those problems.

Well, what do you think?

+HRC