Evaluating a Lutheran Sermon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I offer this five fingered evaluative tool.

Pasteur Georges Williams

Truth and Practice

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

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

Baptism in Divine Service

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Augustana II Georg

When should the funeral not be in the Church?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Natural Law as a Theology of Glory

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

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

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

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

Here's the problem.

Natural Law is God's Law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Life in the Sacrament of the Altar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liturgical Chaos in Catholicism

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

HT: Bad Vestments

A Question for one of Better Hebrew than I

Okay,

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

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

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

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

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

Because I said so

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

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

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

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

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

How Does the Conservative Reformation Guide Us Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time tends to sanitize.

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

+ + + + + + + + +

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry

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