"Free, Happy, and Secure Christians"

"For wherever they become certain that they do not need to be bothered whether they have been taught rightly or wrongly, they sleep and snore quire securely, naturally asking no more questions concerning preaching or teaching. Once they have learned that it is enough that they know and believe that Christ believes for them, why should they want to have more than this? What more could they ask for, these free, happy, and secure Christians? Unless, of course, one wanted to learn in addition that it is not necessary to do good works and suffer wrong, that it is enough that Christ does and suffers. Let Him also be pious for you and do it all. Then you will have no need to believe or do what is good. And for whatever is bad you would consequently have to let the devil be an unbeliever and do evil, for then he would have to go to hell for you just as Christ must go to heaven for you. We good fellows, however, would remain here on earth to eat and drink, confident that we need go neither to heaven nor hell. Now there's a church fir to be praised - built in a pig sty!

"I hope, however, that such Christians and preachers do not boast or pretend that it was Luther who first advised and taught this. For where I could see and be certain that they suck such a poison from my books and lay all the blame on me, would have to spare no pains to scrub each one a little around the eyes and set their spectacles on their noses and bid them not to read my books through colored glass. For I know well enough to give the devil and his apostles credit, that wherever they turn my words upside down and afterwards are able to lead the people astray with my name, there they do not let it lack persuasion. This is something these same sectarians have often done to me, pulling my words into their own meaning."

- Blessed Martin Luther

"An Open Letter to Those in Frankfort on Main" (1533) Trans. Jon D. Vieker, CTS Press, Ft. Wayne, 1991, paragraphs 16-17, pp 8-9.

A hat tip to the Rev. Br. Latif Gaba, deacon of St. Stephen Lutheran Church in Milwaukee, for passing this document on to me.

--- Rev. Larry Beane

Worship & Spiritual Care Workshop

For those within a few hours of the Indianapolis area, please take note of the annual Worship Workshop next month, hosted by the Indiana District Worship & Spiritual Care Committee at Advent Lutheran Church in Zionsville, Indiana (a northwest suburb of Indy). It will take place on Saturday the 19th of September, beginning with Matins at 9:30 a.m. and concluding around 3:00 p.m. with a hymn festival on the Nicene Creed. Information on the workshop and the registration form are available from the Indiana District Website here.

The undersigned will be giving the plenary presentation on the Freedom and Fundamentals of Faith in Worship. The goal will be to address the criteria by which adiaphorous rites and ceremonies are received, evaluated, selected and practiced in the service and support of the Word of God, in faith and love.

Also at the workshop, Dr. Paul Grime will be leading sectionals on the Church Year and on the criteria for the selection of choral music. Kantor Kevin Hildebrand will do a sectional on the criteria for the selection of organ music. Pastor David Koeneman will speak on Communion practice, and Pastor Richard Heinz will speak on the topic of the parish at prayer. Mrs. Lois Prahlow will do a sectional presentation on child-friendly ideas for visually adorning the church's worship.

The modest cost of the workshop ($25) includes lunch in the middle of the day. Again, more information and the registration form are avaible as a pdf from the Indiana District website. We'd sure be pleased to have you join us. Mail the registration by Holy Cross Day (14 September), if possible; or else, show up on the 19th.

Is the Church a Buffet?

The imagery of feeding and being fed runs as a common thread throughout Scripture and the ongoing history of the Church.

The Genesis account of the garden of Eden speaks of all the permitted array of foods, as well as the one forbidden fruit. The Old Testament sacrificial system involved offerings of food - some of which was burned, others of which were given to the priests and their families to eat. Much of the ceremonial law involved clean and unclean foods. It was a famine that drove the Israelites into Egypt. And the Exodus was centered around the Passover meal. The Lord provided Manna to the children of Israel in the Exodus. The promised land was a land of "milk and honey." In Psalm 23, we pray to our Lord the Shepherd to lead us to "green pastures" and to "prepare a table" for us. In Psalm 34:8, we are exhorted to "taste and see that the Lord is good." The prophet Ezekiel was given a scroll to eat, served to him by the Lord Himself.

The New Testament is likewise filled with the imagery of food. Our Lord begins His ministry by fasting. He participates in the Jewish feasts. His first miracle is at a wedding banquet. He gets in trouble for eating with sinners and because His disciples do not follow the table rules. He feeds the multitudes. And when He raises the 12-year old girl from the dead, he exhorts her parents to "give her something to eat." He tells us to consider the birds who do not sow or reap, and yet are fed by their Heavenly Father. Jesus tells many parables concerning feasts and banquets. Our Lord was even accused of being a drunkard and a glutton. He calls Himself the Bread of Life, and tells us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. The Book of Revelation is filled with glorious imagery, including the scroll that St. John, like Ezekiel, was instructed to eat and which was served to him by an angel, as well as the reappearance of the Tree of Life and its 12 types of fruit in the final chapter.

In America, we are generally not accustomed to simply eating what is set before us by a servant. We like to be in control. At a sit-down restaurant, we often substitute one item for another, or ask for our meal to contain more of this, less of that, or none of those.

And perhaps the most quintessential American approach to food of all is the buffet. You eat what you want, when you want, as much as you want. Service is kept to a bare minimum - if at all. You know exactly how much it is going to cost. You leave whenever you want because you have paid up front. You can simply feed yourself. You become the sole judge of what is best for you.

And along with the buffet, America gave the world TV dinners and microwave cuisine - designed for eating alone, "self-feeding" if you will.

This individualism has even had an effect on the Christian metaphor of feeding on the Word of God and in the non-metaphorical feeding of the Lord's Sheep in the Lord's Supper.

Here is an interesting snapshot as to how the "feeding" metaphor is employed by a Protestant and Emerging/Emergent church and pastor (or more accurately, the pastor's wife).

Notice the "self-feeder" language and the shift in emphasis from the Sunday Divine Service to the home. The notion of the Lord's people needing to be fed is even mocked in a crass way that is alien to the teaching of Holy Scripture. The author tries to make it seem ridiculous for people to want to be fed by recounting a stunt in which a "youth pastor" wore a diaper in the church. I find it hard to believe that any pastor has never fed the Lord's Word, if not His body and blood, to adults wearing diapers. In infirmity and in age (as well as in infancy) is where we often see the lowly service of our Lord to helpless sinners in their most humble estate. This is the theology of the cross and of the monergism of grace at their clearest. It is too bad that this is used as a way to discourage people from seeing themselves as in need of being fed by mocking such helplessness. Our blessed Lord Himself also wore diapers, and was cared for in love and holy service.

It's not my desire to throw stones at Pastor Kimball or his church. Rather, my purpose is to highlight the difference between the traditionalist, Catholic view - grounded in Scripture and the history of the Church - vs. the modern American Protestant view that tends toward the pragmatic. The two emphases are diametrically as opposed to one another as are the theology of glory and the theology of the cross.

Jesus never tells the people they must feed themselves as individuals. For if we could "feed ourselves" we could be saved by the law and would need no Redeemer. In fact, He explicitly tells the apostles: "You give them something to eat" (Matt 4:16, Mark 6:37, Luke 9:13). He specifically uses His ministers to serve the multitudes: "Then he broke the loaves and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds" (Matt 14:19). Our Lord never tells the people they are on their own and must "self-feed."

In John 21:15-19, the Lord specifically commissions St. Peter, as the leader of the apostolic ministers, to "feed my lambs" (v. 15), "tend my sheep" (v. 16), and "feed my sheep" (v. 17).

This is not to discourage Bible study. Far from it. But pastors are given to the people of God to "feed" them with the Word and with the Sacrament of the Altar - nourishing them as a community in the faith that makes us all members of one body. This is why pastors are to be "apt to teach" (1 Tim 3:2). The modern American view of religion is, by contrast, individualistic and focused not only on "study" (rather than "mystery") but also on "self" (rather than "community"). Christian bookstores even sell individually packaged one-shot "communion" kits, with a plastic creamer-style container of grape juice and an attached wafer for individual consumption. To many, study Bibles take the place of attendance at a Bible class, and watching a sermon on TV has replaced attending a Divine Service in the flesh. We are a nation of do-it-yourselfers, even when it comes to our faith.

We Lutherans need to keep in mind what we confess about not only the Church but also about the Sacraments (especially Holy Communion - which is, by definition, communal) lest we fall into the trap of individualism and reducing the mysteries of God to intellectual knowledge or Bible trivia.

The eternal heavenly banquet, the marriage feast of the Lamb is not a self-centered buffet where you take what you want (and believe what you want), at your own convenience and according to your individual tastes and wants; nor is it a lonely mouthful of once-frozen industrial grog from a microwave oven, served in a PVC "dish," eaten alone hunched over a computer screen. No indeed! It is a glorious banquet eaten with all the faithful in the presence of the One who feeds us! The Lord has armies of servants - both there in eternity and here on earth - who serve the Lord's people.

The Christian faith has never been about being a "self-feeder." In fact, the one time we were entrusted with "self-feeding" didn't turn out well at all. By contrast, we confess in the words of the hymn from the ancient Liturgy:

Lord of lords in human vesture,
In the body and the blood,
He will give to all the faithful
His own self for heav'nly food. (LSB 621)

--- Rev. Larry Beane

Sponsors at baptism

The conversation about baptism started by Pr. Cwirla below brought back to my mind the long struggle I've had with sponsors at baptism. The ins and outs will be familiar to all pastors of some experience: do we "allow" non-Lutherans to be sponsors, or shall they be just witnesses? And if witnesses only, are folks supposed to have Lutherans besides? Is a lousy Lutheran a better sponsor than a faithful Presbyterian? What gets recorded in the baptismal record? And is this headache worth it at all?

My current practice has just been to pretty much ignore godparents/witnesses/sponsors altogether to avoid these questions. (This has been facilitated by the LSB rite which does not include the swearing in of sponsors during the baptismal liturgy as it was in LW.) I have the parents and the whole congregation answer the questions on behalf of the child candidate. However, this stands in contradiction to the rubrics in Luther's Little Baptism Book and our Agenda, both of which call for the sponsors to do this.

Thus, the rubrics do indeed seem to require sponsors - at least for the baptism of infants. I suppose I could argue that I am, de facto, forcing the parents to be the sponsors - but that is obviously not what the rubrics intend.

So I'm not satisfied with my practice and I would like to aim for something better. But then there are all those questions above. . .

Therefore, I present the following proposed policy for baptismal sponsors to the Blackbirds for advice and revision. I'm a big fan of written policies for things like this - I take them to my board of elders and use it as a way to teach them. It's been very helpful, as well, in other ways: once the elders are sold on the policy, it becomes much easier to lead and teach the rest of the congregation, it's harder for nay-sayers to nay-say, etc.

At any rate - here's what I've got typed up. Any and all constructive suggestions, similar policies, etc. are welcome.

+HRC

Proposed Baptismal Sponsorship Policy

The practice of appointing sponsors for people to be baptized is an ancient custom in the Church. It is not a biblical mandate and throughout the years the practice of sponsorship has varied.

According to the rubrics of Lutheran Service Book: Agenda baptismal sponsors are “to confess the faith expressed in the Apostles' Creed and taught in the Small Catechism. They are, whenever possible, to witness the Baptism of those they sponsor. They are to pray for them, support them in their ongoing instruction and nurture in the Christian faith, and encourage them toward the faithful reception of the Lord's Supper. They are at all times to be examples to them of the holy life of faith in Christ and love for the neighbor.”

Baptismal sponsors are therefore different than what are generally called “godparents.” The custom of godparents is a faint cultural remembrance of the Christian custom of baptismal sponsors. Godparents are often friends or relations who live far away from the child and will have only limited contact with the life of the congregation. The cultural custom of godparents is certainly not in contradiction to the Scriptures and parents are free to bestow the title on any Christian they wish. However, the custom of “godparents” does not duplicate or replace the Church's use of baptismal sponsors.

Baptismal sponsors are to be a link to reinforce the child's connection to the local congregation into which the child is baptized. Therefore, the policy of Trinity Lutheran Church in regard to baptismal sponsors is as follows:

• While parents may select any number of “godparents” from among their Christian friends and family to witness the baptism of their child, such “godparent/witnesses” are not recorded in the congregation's official Baptismal Record. The Pastor will give counsel to the parents that anyone they wish to consider a godparent should be a baptized and faithful Christian.

• Each child baptized at Trinity will have at least one, preferably two, baptismal sponsors, each of whom shall

  • be a baptized and confirmed member of Trinity.

  • have communed regularly over the course of the last year before the baptism.

  • have previously attended or shall promise to attend the next regularly scheduled Baptismal Sponsor class.

• If the parents are new to the congregation or are otherwise unfamiliar with people who meet the criteria for baptismal sponsorship, the Pastor shall suggest people from the congregation who would be willing to serve in this capacity.

Baptizing and Teaching

So this comes up about four or five times a year. Non-member family wants to have infant/small child baptized. No congregational membership. No interest in catechesis. No plans to join congregation. Doesn't worship with the congregation. Just believes that Baptism is "something good" and "my parents had all of us baptized." What do you guys do and say? How do we responsibly administer Baptism without snuffing the dimly burning wick, so to speak?

Disclaimer: No clever Cwirla-traps here, but a desire for a collegial conversation born out of having a preschool and other types who are clueless if not faithless but modestly well-intentioned. I will add what I have done and still do, but I don't want to pollute the pool ahead of time.

Restore the One Who Is Sick

(I am posting the following with permission from the person referred.)

A couple weeks ago while counseling a parishioner, she mentioned that she had been suffering from an ailment for a number of months. She mentioned it mostly in conjunction with the other difficulties she was experiencing, that they exacerbated each other.

Our session ended with the order of Individual Confession and Absolution. At the end of the ritual, where the absolution is pronounced, I also anointed her with oil and announced to her the passage from James 5, that if anyone is sick, "he must call the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him." A few days later she told me that by the next morning she had been healed of her ailment.

The greater miracle here, of course, is the forgiveness of sins, as we rightly and readily confess. But it also reminded me of the intimate connection between the forgiveness of sins and all the other works of God. We confess this in the catechism, that where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation. Life and salvation includes the healing of the body.

So what is to prevent us from praying for bodily healing, when the Scriptures command it? We know the warnings: we do not want to get caught up in signs and wonders, distracting us from the essence of Christ's ministry, the forgiveness of sins. Or perhaps we have even been told that after the time of the apostles these kinds of miracles cease. This latter argument I have never found convincing from the Bible passages quoted in its support. Yet we surely do not want to be distracted from the essential ministry of Christ, caught up instead with speculation about miracles which would divert our attention from the things above back to the things of this world.

Such prayers for healing, it seems, need to be made in the context of the absolution and the Office of the Keys. Not only in their context, but subordinate to them. This is also part of what James says: if anyone is sick he calls for prayer, and his sins will be forgiven.

Yet prayers to be healed should also be made in earnest, not out of a theology of glory that sees healing tied to a level of faith, piety, or spirituality, but because healing is tied to forgiveness. Healing of our bodies will occur, sooner or later. Healing is tied to the forgiveness of sins. We are commanded to pray for it.

Finally, that the healing occurred quietly, almost unnoticed until after the fact, also points to the primacy of the forgiveness of sins. We both knew her sins were forgiven as soon as I spoke the words of Our Lord. But even she didn't realize she was healed until some hours later, perhaps even some hours later than the healing actually occurred. It could never be proven that the healing occurred by the word of God. And that is how it should be, for healing, like forgiveness, is assured through faith in the promise of Christ, not by some amazing sign that accompanies it, or a scientifically observable chain of events.

New Low

Or maybe it's not new, just new to me.

So I get a call at home asking for "Rev. Curtis."

"This is he."

"Hello, sir, we're looking to get in contact with a member of your parish."

Maybe a long lost relative? Somebody looking for an old baptismal record? Uh, no. A business matter. Oh, well then, what exactly?

Several prodding questions later and, golly, how truth will out: a bill collector from Chrysler Financial, PO Box 9801921, Louisville, KY 40290 (although I would guess they were actually calling from Chicago judging by the accents of the two guys I talked to, an'dat.).

I spent a very cathartic 10 minutes explaining to the supervisor at this call center that trying to track people down through houses of worship was a bad business practice as from this moment on I would make it a small mission of my life to tell everyone I know about this utterly sleazy move from Chrysler. [NB: Don't get me wrong - people should pay their debts. But tracking down debtors for creditors is not part of the Church's job description - has society fallen so far that this is not evident to everyone? Really?]

So, word to the wise -

* inquire diligently if you get a call from someone asking to "get in touch" with a parishioner.
* rethink posting birthday or anniversary lists on your congregation's website - even in pdf format through posting the bulletin.
* ditto with officers, etc.

By the bye, the name he asked for was not a name I knew - but it all seemed so fishy right off the bat that I wanted to stay on the line and figure this out.

The best part: even as I was berating the supervisor about trying to track down people through my parish he asks, "So do you know Mr. Smith?"

You stay classy, Chrysler: I notice it's really been working out for you lately.

+HRC

Please feel free to link to and replicate this post, especially if you are visiting from outside the Lutheran blogosphere: seems like something all churches should know about.

More on Gospel Processions

Let's talk books. What do you process when you process? The bare lectionary book, a large Bible, a covered lectionary book?

We process a bare lectionary book. Not happy with it. I want a decent cover for it. Any suggestions?

Gospel Processions

Quick riff on Gospel Processions:

Every Sunday? Only at Festival days? Presider only? Crucifix? Torches? Verger? Book beaerer?

As for me and my house: Every Sunday (except in Lent), book bearer, crucifix optional depending on whether he shows up with the right shoes and long pants.

What do you guys do?

Coming Soon to a Wedding Near You

So this couple comes into the study and says, "We've seen this great processional pastor. We're hoping we can do something similar, to make things really special for our day with our friends." And you answer...

BB




PS how do you like the priestess getting jiggy wit it?

Higher Things Praise Band in Action

New and improved version from Sola-Grand Rapids. Pardon the sideways perspective; it's about the music. (Just turn your notebook 90 degrees and all is well.) Maestro Loemker rounded up a handful of professional musicians to play alongside our youth musicians.

Work, Play, Worship

Note: I posted this over at my blog. A commentator suggested that I repost it here to widen the discussion.

"Most middle class Americans tend to worship their work, to work at their play, and to play at their worship. As a result, their meanings and values are distorted. Their relationships disintegrate faster than they can keep them in repair and their lifestyles resemble a cast of characters in search of a plot." (Gordon Dahl. Work, Play, and Play in a Leisure-Oriented Society. Minneapolis: Augsburg-Fortress, 1972.)

Economist Gordon Dahl was describing the disorder in middle class American society back in 1972, my sophomore year in high school. It still holds today. I've used the "work, play, worship" trichotomy myself on many occasions, most recently at the Higher Things Sola - San Antonio conference where I exhorted the kids to "work at work, play at play, and worship at worship."

I like the phrase - it's catchy, tidy, memorable. Like so many categorical distinctions, it sounds profound and everyone nods their heads. But what exactly does this mean? And do I really believe it? (Speaking to high school youth is always a good test of whether or not you believe what you are saying.)

I'm having second thoughts. It's time for a reality check.

I certainly think it's important to keep work, play, and worship distinct in our minds, but I don't think they can be so neatly divided as three separate boxes in our lives. As we Lutherans like to say, "Distinguish but don't divide." The problem with Dahl's distinctions is that the verbs and the nouns, which are the same words and make for a clever cliche, don't have the same connotations and denotations. The nouns work, play, and worship denote spheres of activity; the verbs denote the activities themselves with their various connotations.

The sphere of work is where we earn our living. Play is where we recreate and relax. Worship is where we engage God and God engages us in a particular way. However the verbs work, play, and worship are not so easily confined to their noun boxes.

Here's what I mean. I work at play. I work at my scuba diving, not only for the sake of safety, but also for the sake of enjoyment. I work at my wood craft. It's even called woodworking and you do it in a workshop at a workbench. When I used to downhill ski, I worked at that too and did a lot of working out at the gym in order to enhance my skiing. I know guys who work on their cars, their dirt bikes, their Harleys, all for the sake of play. Any play worth engaging seriously calls for some serious work.

I play at work. I daydream. I write blogs. I skim books. I play with words. Creativity is a form of play; ask any artist or musician. Poetry is playing with words. God's work of creation is very playful. Consider the clownfish or the peacock. Look at the absurd lion fish and the gaudy parrot and tell me God isn't playing around. Look at what He came up with when He played in mud! Even manual labor has an element of play. When I worked in the seminary bookstore, we used to have collating contests. When I worked in a lab, we used to drop things in liquid nitrogen and then toss them out the window. We'd blow things up for fun. Some experiments were "just playing around," which occasionally led to discoveries. Work without play is called drudgery or better slavery.

What about worship? Worship involves receiving - hearing, eating, drinking - passively being given to. It also involves prayer, praise, thanksgiving, hearing, thinking, confessing, which are all work in some sense. Try singing one of those Reformation rousers and tell me worship isn't work. I broke a sweat by stanza eight of Salvation Unto Us Has Come this past week and it wasn't from the Texas heat. I Bind Unto Myself burns about 100 calories per measure. Look at all the preparation that goes into presiding well. It isn't easy making it look easy. Let's talk organ practice, choir practice, acolyte training, ushers. OK, let's not talk about ushers. Yes, I know that "Gottesdienst" is God's service, at least sacramentally speaking, but God works in, with, and under instrumental means, and He presses those means to work in His service.

Can one also play at worship? I think so. Well, the organist plays the organ and all the music. The preacher plays with words. I occasionally play with harmony when singing a hymn. Our problem is that we have a distorted and narrow view of play. We think play means being silly or childish or simply amusing oneself. Play can also mean recreation, and there is nothing more recreating than our being new creations in Christ in worship.

One definition of the verb "to play" really stands out when it comes to worship: to move about freely. Now there's a good definition of "liturgical worship." To move about freely within the fixed boundaries (fences) of the tradition. If there is going to be relaxed dignity in our services, we need to see the liturgy as a "playground" where the children of God are free to play in God's presence, respecting the boundaries but also enjoying the freedoms.

I'm starting to think that worship involves work and play and offers them up for divine service, just as we offer the gifts of bread and wine for God to give us Christ's body and blood. Yes, God provided our daily bread too, but we also worked for it. And if there is one thing that characterizes a marriage feast, it's a sense of play. Worship takes elements of work and play and lifts them up, consecrates them for holy use.

As long as I'm at it, what's wrong with worshipping at work and play? Aren't all things consecrated by the Word of God and prayer? Aren't we supposed to pray without ceasing? There is a liturgy of life beyond the benediction, and it embraces our work and play as praise to God who has redeemed the world. Isn't our priestly life a lifting up of our work and play, an offering of our bodies as living sacrifices that are holy and acceptable to God through the mercies of Jesus' atoning sacrifice? Play and work that do not worship are forms of idolatry.

The problem with rigid categories is that they tend to become a law unto themselves, defeating their purpose of clarity . Work that is nothing but pure work is sheer drudgery. Play that is all play is empty amusement. And worship without elements of work and play would be like a Zen Buddhist meditating on nothing.

I think a more apt metaphor would be the juggler who keeps a toaster, a bowling ball, and a chain saw in motion at the same time. He treats each thing for what it properly is, but keeps all three working together at the same time. Work, play, worship - all in motion around the Christ-center in one sanctified life.

So I guess you might say, we work, play and worship at our work, play, and worship. Holy juggling.