Adjicio Christi

Little faith...

2009-05-27T09:55:00.002-05:00

What do you do when your faith is at low tide? When prayer and/or scriptural meditation just don't dispel fear, doubt, or anxiety? When the words of Jesus "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" seem appropriate? I don't know about you but I listen to Bach. And not just any of his peaces but his organ fugues. For some reason that I can't articulate, Bach's fugues aren't just pieces of music for me they are descriptions of God's sublime majesty. And to my mind each is Bach's attempt to preach the gospel. Maybe one has to be a Christian to "get" this but I'm fairly certain that in all of Bach's organ music (even ones we might call secular, i.e not explicitly for worship) he was preaching to us through music.

It is a sorry state of affairs for Christians in the western world that we have so little sense of God's real presence -- the Holy Spirit -- in our lives. In former times we were very near the earth and all of its beauty and power (both good and ill) that getting in touch, spiritually speaking, was not so difficult. But not so much these days. Speaking of which, there is an interesting study by the Pew Forum on Religion and the Public Life that speaks about this issue, i.e. spiritual fulfilment, or lack thereof. More on that tomorrow.

Tradition and "The Purpose of Exegesis"

2009-05-22T23:44:00.006-05:00

The appeal to tradition was actually and appeal to the mind of the church. It was assumed that the church had the knowledge and the understanding of the truth, that is, the meaning of the revelation. Accordingly, the church had both the competence and the authority to proclaim the gospel and to interpret it. This did not imply that the church was above the Scripture. She stood by the Scripture but, on the other hand, was not bound by its letter. The ultimate purpose of exegesis and interpretation was to elicit the meaning and the intent of the Holy Writ, or rather the meaning of the revelation, of the Heilsgeschichte. The church had to preach Christ, and not just the Scripture.

The use of tradition in the ancient church can be adequately understood only in the context of the actual use of the Scripture. The Word was kept alive in the church. It was reflected in her live and structure. Faith and life were organically intertwinded. -- Georges Florovsky, Chapter 8, "The Function of Tradition in the Ancient Church"; Eastern Orthodox Theology, Daniel B. Clendenin, ed. (Baker Books, 1995) (emphasis mine)

The highlighted text made me stand up straight when I read it this afternoon. It was one of those "whoa, did I just read that?" moments. That the ancient church was to preach Christ didn't surprised me. But Florovsky's bit about preaching Christ and not just Scripture had me interested. How much of what we do as Christians is just preaching Scripture in a rote fashion, out of context to what it was ultimately exposition for, namely Christ crucified and risen. Without it one can do all the proof-texting one wants and, with apologies to the Bard, "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Theology and Basketball?

2009-05-20T22:51:00.005-05:00

So I'm bemoaning the fact that my woebegone Timberwolves got screwed *again* in the NBA lottery (no surprise there as that team can't catch a break ever!) and I think "Well, let's see who they might draft with the crappy neither-here-nor-there 6th pick". So off to ESPN's web site I go. After reading a number of pages of stuff I have already read, I go to one of the ESPN blogs called TrueHoop. And scrolling down the page I was flabbergasted to read a short paragraph about...now get this..a theology blog! And it was about the hot button issue of homosexuality to boot! Never, in a million years, would I have ever thought I would have read about theology on anything related to sports and certainly not anything related to ESPN. I mean, are you kidding me?! This was just too astounding not to check out. So, I did. The owner of said blog is Brad East, a theology student at Emory University, and a darn good blog it is. He has links to really top-shelf theologians like N.T. Wright, Stanley Hauerwas, Walter Bruggerman, Wendell Berry, Rowen Williams and G. K. Chesterton. That's a good list.

Anyway, I've read three or 4 posts and I like him already. I should be fun digging into all the posts on the site. Check it out.

Update: I forgot to mention that I have added Brad's blog to the RSS feed list on the right.

Jesus or Dan Brown

2009-05-19T10:13:00.004-05:00

Dan Brown's America

This is an interesting critique not only of Brown's novels (and the new movie based on his second), but about our generalized, fuzzy, DIY religiosity. I consider myself a moderately liberal Christian but I have to say that the older I get the more orthodoxy appeals to me. Maybe I'll spend some time unpacking that. But for now I commend this op-ed piece for your edification.

From death to Good News

2009-04-19T14:18:00.007-05:00

Eternal is the gift he brings,
therefore our heart with rapture sings,
"Christ has triumphed! He is living!"
Now still he comes to give us life,
and by his presence stills all strife.
"Christ has triumphed! He is living!"
Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia.

19 When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you.’ 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.’ 22When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’

24 But Thomas (who was called the Twin*), one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, ‘We have seen the Lord.’ But he said to them, ‘Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe.’

26 A week later his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you.’ 27Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.’ 28Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ 29Jesus said to him, ‘Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.’

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. 31But these are written so that you may come to believe* that Jesus is the Messiah,* the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name. -- John 20:19-31

It was a hectic week. On Tuesday my wife's grandfather passed away (death and taxes indeed!) . And so on Thursday, the family and I drove 4 hours to Marshalltown, Iowa to pay our respects the following day. I was honored to be a pallbearer and although I didn't know Paul all that well, what I did know of him was all very good. I'm getting to the age where I'm more acutely aware of the death of family and friends. It's not as though I was oblivious to it when I was younger, just that it didn't have the same resonance as it does now. Any number of my church congregation are reaching the age when death draws close at hand. I will no doubt attend some of their funeral services. Never mind that of my own, dear, 73 year old mother (hopefully not any time soon).

During the service (which, although nice, wasn't a liturgical service and therefore a tad strange to me) I was struck by the thought that Paul's death happened mere days after we proclaimed the central tenant of our Christian faith: Death has no sway for those who believe. Christ is risen! Alleluia! If there is a central tenant to our faith, it surely must be that. That has to be the Good News, right? That we don't end at death but carry on to eternal life with the Father.

Juxtaposing that is today's gospel lection. As Dr. Martin Marty said this morning in his sermon to my church (how about them apples!), when you read "Thomas", read your name in his place. We are the doubters. But just like Thomas, we come around -- eventually. Death has a way of focusing our attention on that central tenant. But one would think that 2000 years of witness to this tenant by all the saints would be enough of a euphemistic "clue stick" to get hit over the head if we only had ears to hear and eyes to see. I guess I take great comfort that even Thomas, one of the twelve had issues of doubt, just as we do. And yet, even though we doubt we are forgiven for that doubt. Because the one that forgives us has indeed "fore-given" his own Son as the one who will lead us, through doubt and even despair into our heavenly Fathers loving embrace at the end. Good News indeed.

Christ is Risen! Alleluia!

2009-04-13T22:49:00.004-05:00

But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, taking the spices that they had prepared. 2They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3but when they went in, they did not find the body. 4While they were perplexed about this, suddenly two men in dazzling clothes stood beside them. 5The women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, ‘Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. 6Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, 7that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.’ 8Then they remembered his words, 9and returning from the tomb, they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest. 10Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles. 11But these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them. 12But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; then he went home, amazed at what had happened.

13 Now on that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, 14and talking with each other about all these things that had happened. 15While they were talking and discussing, Jesus himself came near and went with them, 16but their eyes were kept from recognizing him. 17And he said to them, ‘What are you discussing with each other while you walk along?’ They stood still, looking sad. 18Then one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answered him, ‘Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have taken place there in these days?’ 19He asked them, ‘What things?’ They replied, ‘The things about Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20and how our chief priests and leaders handed him over to be condemned to death and crucified him. 21But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things took place. 22Moreover, some women of our group astounded us. They were at the tomb early this morning, 23and when they did not find his body there, they came back and told us that they had indeed seen a vision of angels who said that he was alive. 24Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but they did not see him.’ 25Then he said to them, ‘Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared! 26Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?’ 27Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.

28 As they came near the village to which they were going, he walked ahead as if he were going on. 29But they urged him strongly, saying, ‘Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over.’ So he went in to stay with them. 30When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. 31Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight. 32They said to each other, ‘Were not our hearts burning within us while he was talking to us on the road, while he was opening the scriptures to us?’ 33That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together. 34They were saying, ‘The Lord has risen indeed, and he has appeared to Simon!’ 35Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread.

36 While they were talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’ 37They were startled and terrified, and thought that they were seeing a ghost. 38He said to them, ‘Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.’ 40And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. 41While in their joy they were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to them, ‘Have you anything here to eat?’ 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate in their presence.

44 Then he said to them, ‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you—that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.’ 45Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, 46and he said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, 47and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things. 49And see, I am sending upon you what my Father promised; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.’

50 Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and, lifting up his hands, he blessed them. 51While he was blessing them, he withdrew from them and was carried up into heaven. 52And they worshiped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy; 53and they were continually in the temple blessing God. --Luke 24

Trial and Death

2009-04-11T09:35:00.005-05:00

Now Jesus stood before the governor; and the governor asked him, ‘Are you the King of the Jews?’ Jesus said, ‘You say so.’ 12But when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he did not answer. 13Then Pilate said to him, ‘Do you not hear how many accusations they make against you?’ 14But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed.

15 Now at the festival the governor was accustomed to release a prisoner for the crowd, anyone whom they wanted. 16At that time they had a notorious prisoner, called Jesus Barabbas. 17So after they had gathered, Pilate said to them, ‘Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Messiah?’ 18For he realized that it was out of jealousy that they had handed him over. 19While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, ‘Have nothing to do with that innocent man, for today I have suffered a great deal because of a dream about him.’ 20Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus killed. 21The governor again said to them, ‘Which of the two do you want me to release for you?’ And they said, ‘Barabbas.’ 22Pilate said to them, ‘Then what should I do with Jesus who is called the Messiah?’ All of them said, ‘Let him be crucified!’ 23Then he asked, ‘Why, what evil has he done?’ But they shouted all the more, ‘Let him be crucified!’

24 So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.’ 25Then the people as a whole answered, ‘His blood be on us and on our children!’ 26So he released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified.

27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the governor’s headquarters, and they gathered the whole cohort around him. 28They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, 29and after twisting some thorns into a crown, they put it on his head. They put a reed in his right hand and knelt before him and mocked him, saying, ‘Hail, King of the Jews!’ 30They spat on him, and took the reed and struck him on the head. 31After mocking him, they stripped him of the robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him away to crucify him.

32 As they went out, they came upon a man from Cyrene named Simon; they compelled this man to carry his cross. 33And when they came to a place called Golgotha (which means Place of a Skull), 34they offered him wine to drink, mixed with gall; but when he tasted it, he would not drink it. 35And when they had crucified him, they divided his clothes among themselves by casting lots; 36then they sat down there and kept watch over him. 37Over his head they put the charge against him, which read, ‘This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.’

38 Then two bandits were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left. 39Those who passed by derided him, shaking their heads 40and saying, ‘You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.’ 41In the same way the chief priests also, along with the scribes and elders, were mocking him, saying, 42‘He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. 43He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he wants to; for he said, “I am God’s Son.” ’ 44The bandits who were crucified with him also taunted him in the same way.

45 From noon on, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. 46And about three o’clock Jesus cried with a loud voice, ‘Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?’ that is, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ 47When some of the bystanders heard it, they said, ‘This man is calling for Elijah.’ 48At once one of them ran and got a sponge, filled it with sour wine, put it on a stick, and gave it to him to drink. 49But the others said, ‘Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him.’ 50Then Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last. 51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many. 54Now when the centurion and those with him, who were keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were terrified and said, ‘Truly this man was God’s Son!’ -- Matthew 26:11-54

Gethsemane and beyond

2009-04-09T23:02:00.004-05:00

When they had sung the hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. 27And Jesus said to them, ‘You will all become deserters; for it is written,
“I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep will be scattered.”
28But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.’ 29Peter said to him, ‘Even though all become deserters, I will not.’ 30Jesus said to him, ‘Truly I tell you, this day, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.’ 31But he said vehemently, ‘Even though I must die with you, I will not deny you.’ And all of them said the same.
Jesus Prays in Gethsemane

32 They went to a place called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples, ‘Sit here while I pray.’ 33He took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be distressed and agitated. 34And he said to them, ‘I am deeply grieved, even to death; remain here, and keep awake.’ 35And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. 36He said, ‘Abba,* Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want.’ 37He came and found them sleeping; and he said to Peter, ‘Simon, are you asleep? Could you not keep awake one hour? 38Keep awake and pray that you may not come into the time of trial;* the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.’ 39And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40And once more he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to say to him. 41He came a third time and said to them, ‘Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? Enough! The hour has come; the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42Get up, let us be going. See, my betrayer is at hand.’
The Betrayal and Arrest of Jesus

43 Immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, arrived; and with him there was a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders. 44Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, ‘The one I will kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.’ 45So when he came, he went up to him at once and said, ‘Rabbi!’ and kissed him. 46Then they laid hands on him and arrested him. 47But one of those who stood near drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 48Then Jesus said to them, ‘Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit? 49Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.’ 50All of them deserted him and fled.

51 A certain young man was following him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, 52but he left the linen cloth and ran off naked.
Jesus before the Council

53 They took Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes were assembled. 54Peter had followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, warming himself at the fire. 55Now the chief priests and the whole council were looking for testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none. 56For many gave false testimony against him, and their testimony did not agree. 57Some stood up and gave false testimony against him, saying, 58‘We heard him say, “I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.” ’ 59But even on this point their testimony did not agree. 60Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, ‘Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?’ 61But he was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Messiah,* the Son of the Blessed One?’ 62Jesus said, ‘I am; and
“you will see the Son of Man
seated at the right hand of the Power”,
and “coming with the clouds of heaven.” ’
63Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, ‘Why do we still need witnesses? 64You have heard his blasphemy! What is your decision?’ All of them condemned him as deserving death. 65Some began to spit on him, to blindfold him, and to strike him, saying to him, ‘Prophesy!’ The guards also took him over and beat him.
Peter Denies Jesus

66 While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant-girls of the high priest came by. 67When she saw Peter warming himself, she stared at him and said, ‘You also were with Jesus, the man from Nazareth.’ 68But he denied it, saying, ‘I do not know or understand what you are talking about.’ And he went out into the forecourt.* Then the cock crowed.* 69And the servant-girl, on seeing him, began again to say to the bystanders, ‘This man is one of them.’ 70But again he denied it. Then after a little while the bystanders again said to Peter, ‘Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.’ 71But he began to curse, and he swore an oath, ‘I do not know this man you are talking about.’ 72At that moment the cock crowed for the second time. Then Peter remembered that Jesus had said to him, ‘Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.’ And he broke down and wept. Mark 14:26-72

Signs and Wisdom

2009-04-08T22:09:00.006-05:00

For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.'

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength. -- 1 Corinthians 1:18:25

As we enter into the Triduum, I thought that the above lection from about 3 weeks ago was particularly appropriate. Too often moderns of whatever denominational persuasion tend to fall into the same trap that our ancient brothers and sisters did in Corinth. Some desperately have to know, by proof or reason of some sort, that Jesus is Lord; that what we believe is in fact true in the factual since of enlightenment thought. But as Paul pointed out to the new believers in Corinth, we do not proclaim either signs or wisdom. What makes being a Christian difficult is that we proclaim that which almost everybody else calls foolishness (at best). We have heard it and seen it in other people when they find out we are "religious". And it's not just non-believers either. Even our own want signs (or wisdom). A good example is the plethora of "educational" shows about the "real" Jesus, or the historical Jesus. Just a couple of days ago, 2 channels were showing programs about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin.

But this is not our way or our path. We walk the path of Jesus which is one of love and sacrifice; even with the understanding that the only authenticity of our faith is that of grace from the Holy Spirit and the witness of the saints throughout history. It's good to keep in mind during the Triduum that for all our lives the only proof or signs we will likely ever get is the grace that comes through faith that Jesus is Lord.

Ah, Holy Jesus

2009-04-06T00:28:00.013-05:00

It's been too long (far too long) since my last post. So I'll start Holy Week with the words to the following hymn that was sung this morning at worship; truly a hymn of lament (not enough of that going around is there?). Considering that it was written smack-dab in the middle of the Thirty Years War, I guess I can understand why lament was the order of the day.

Ah, holy Jesus, how hast Thou offended,
That we to judge Thee hath in hate pretended?
By foes derided, by Thine own rejected,
O most afflicted.

Who was the guilty? Who brought this upon Thee?
Alas, my treason, Jesus, hath undone Thee.
’Twas I, Lord, Jesus, I it was denied Thee!
I crucified Thee.

Lo, the Good Shepherd for the sheep is offered;
The slave hath sinned, and the Son hath suffered;
For our atonement, while we nothing heedeth,
God intercedeth.

For me, kind Jesus, was Thine incarnation,
Thy mortal sorrow, and Thy life’s oblation;
Thy death of anguish and Thy bitter passion,
For my salvation.

Therefore, kind Jesus, since I cannot pay Thee,
I do adore Thee, and will ever pray Thee,
Think on Thy pity and Thy love unswerving,
Not my deserving.

Indulgence redeux

2009-02-10T10:45:00.004-06:00

How may we obtain remission of our sins? Paul answers: “The man who is named Jesus Christ and the Son of God gave himself for our sins.” The heavy artillery of these words explodes papacy, works, merits, superstitions. For if our sins could be removed by our own efforts, what need was there for the Son of God to be given for them? Since Christ was given for our sins it stands to reason that they cannot be put away by our own efforts. -- from Commentary on Galatians by Martin Luther

I've been trying out the ebook reader apps on my iPod Touch. And after installing the app, I can then choose from a number of copyright free books. Not surprisingly, one of the books I downloaded with theological in nature -- Commentary on Galatians by Martin Luther. I figured that there are a number of seminal text that any lay Lutheran theologian must read and this is one of them. Besides being tremendously verbose (who would have thunk it?) it is quite insightful both into Luther's understanding of justification and of his exegetical skill. So it was with much interest that I read the article about the re-introduction of, get this, indulgences! Wow. What would brother Martin think. (click on post title to read the article)

Smackdown

2009-01-12T17:46:00.004-06:00

Click on this posts title to read a NY Times article about the conservative evangelical ministry du jour. Now, the title of the article asks a rhetorical question which the glib person in me wants to say: "That jackass". But, again, that's the glib answer. Being Lutheran, I'm not too fond of Calvinism. I don't like the doctrine of predestination -- double or otherwise. But what really galls me is that this hyper-macho brand of Christianity is just another gimmick. The proponents use the term "ministry" but what they really mean is "marketing". They are doing what they decry the mainline evangelical movement of doing -- selling out.

More importantly, if the article accurately characterizes the power structure of Mars Hill, then it's fallen into the trap of power as idol:

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Deut. 5:8-10)

In the case of Mars Hill, as in other evangelical churches, the focus of worship is ostensibly God, but in reality it's the guy up on stage. Not the guy on the cross (or his ministry either). To the extent that the Mars Hill ministry welcomes those who society shuns then so much the better.

But the kick-ass method of ministry of Mr. Driscoll is antithetical to the ministry of the man he preaches about. If Jesus where really as kick-ass as Driscoll is, then he never would have allowed himself to be crucified. He would have, well, kick Jewish and Roman ass and made himself ruler. This was precisely what he was tempeted with after his baptism that we celebrated yesterday. But that is not the way of the cross. The way of the cross is sacrifice for others. To offer the left check after having the right slapped. To give your cloak and coat too. To give to others first just has God has given to us.

As the article seems to allude: this too shall pass as another fad in the long running list of fads that characterize the conservative evangelical church (and other denominations I know). Only time will tell how God uses this for his good purposes. But I'm confident he will.

Prayer for the New Year

2009-01-09T11:12:00.001-06:00

Recently I received a copy of the Moravian Churches yearly prayer book call "Daily Texts". Not generally my style but you never know what God will use to teach so I accepted. And in the beginning of every month there is a section titled "Prayer List for ..." where, presumably, one writes in prayers that one will say during that month. However, January has an extra page that I think is quite interesting and worth sharing. This page is titled "Prayer Journal" and says that St. Ignatius asked his students these questions. They are:

What is your greatest hope for this year? (CONSOLATION)
What is your greatest fear? (DESOLATION)
Write a prayer of thanks that combines both your fear and your hope.

See? You never know what you will find.

So, I have thought about this and I'll share:

CONSOLATION: My greatest hope for this year is that 2009 be the start of a new spirit of cooperation that can overcome the numerous and well publicized divisions in our Church and our society such that real cooperation and reconciliation can happen.

DESOLATION: My greatest fear is that both society and the Church, will fragment even more on issues that generate a lot of heat and not much light and that good of both will again be set back while we argue and bicker.

PRAYER: Almighty Father, through your gracious love for humanity you gave us Jesus, who in word and deed showed your abundant love for the world. By his ministry we know your will; by his suffering we know the depths of your love; by his resurrection we know the good news that death has no power over us and that eternal life awaits us at the end; through your Holy Spirit we know the transformational power of your Word. Bless this new year for us. Where there is division, heal; where there is anger, show love; where there is strife, let there be peace. Instill in us a sense of sacrifice for others even as your Son sacrificed for us. Instill in us a sense of love even as you loved and love us that you gave your only begotten Son for our redemption. Send your Holy Spirit on us and empower us for the year ahead that it may be pleasing to you and further your kingdom. In the name of the one in whom we live and move and have our being . Amen.

The Poor Sufferer

2008-12-25T21:30:00.005-06:00

2In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. ²This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. ³All went to their own towns to be registered. ⁴Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. ⁵He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child. ⁶While they were there, the time came for her to deliver her child. ⁷And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in bands of cloth, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. (Lk. 2:1-7)

Why did God choose for the embodiment of the Logos a child born of a poor young woman? Why not someone wealthy and secure? If God is the Living God of Israel, the creator and initiator of all that was and is and will be then why not try and maximize the potential for impact and be incarnate in a human that would be the most easily respected and followed by the largest number of people?

I think the answer might lie in the reality of poverty and what poverty means, experientially, for one who is poor.

Of all humanity, the poor are more aware of suffering and consequently more apt to suffer in this world then the wealthy. Now, I don't mean to say that those not poor don't feel pain or loss or don't suffer for a time. But isn't there is a qualitative difference between the suffering of the poor and those who are not? This is also not to say that the poor always suffer either. But it is to say that the poor are more acutely affected by suffering since it is very near them (the vagaries of the world being what they are).

This then reveals the goodness of God and the Good News that is Jesus Christ and why we wait during advent for his birth. After thousands of years, God's chosen people were not the people that God intended and there didn't seem to be much chance that it would change.

In short they were sinful.

So in a move that every parent surely must recognize, God choose a different method all together.

God became human.

But not just human. God experience humanity through suffering and reconcile humanity through that suffering. In Jesus, God experienced the nuance that is humanity in all its beauty and ugliness. As the author of Hebrews writes:

15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin. (Heb. 4:15 italics mine)

So this then gives God an experience into humanity that is possible no other way. God was one of us! God experienced the whole range of humanity. Moreover, the incarnation of God as human then gives us an insight into who he is. But not just an insight but the reality of God.

No other religion that I'm aware of has God becoming human as Jesus does. And for our salvations no less! To reconcile us to him. To experience God not as a distant idea but as a real live human being that we can relate to in ways the old Israelites never could with the God of the Old Testament. And to show fully the love of God in Jesus. In the end it couldn't be someone of wealth or power or prestige because that would have limited the extent to which God became, and experienced, humanity. It would have also limited us in our understanding of God and and his love for us and his love for all humankind.

Venite Adoremus Dominum.

Retrenchment

2008-11-21T17:33:00.005-06:00

Maybe it's only me who sees this but why is it that the most contentious times in the church happens just before Advent? This post title is a link to a Richard John Neuhaus article on First Things about, yes you guessed it, abortion. Our president elect is not even sworn in and the battle lines are being drawn.

What galls me so is that "pro-life" folks aren't so much pro-life as pro-prenatal-life. But I hear little or nothing on what we as a society do once the baby has passed the birth canal. If even a 10th of the effort to ban abortion was spent on helping setup and fund programs for mothers of these children abortion would be much less prevalent than it is now. But we can't do that. It would be legitimatizing premarital sex. Great strategy. How this lessens the incidents of abortion I can't fathom.

The great shame of all this is that these culture wars will never end. No matter the outcome, one side will be aggrieved and retrench for a counter attack. It. will. never. end.

What's frustrating is that I agree with Neuhaus that the church is a community within a community and has a particular role to play that is separate from and unique to the society that it lives in. Maybe this means that we rededicate ourselves to those issues where we do have common interest: helping the poor, the heavy of heart, the sick, prisoners, the elderly, etc.. At least these are issues that Christ commanded us to address.

Unfortunately, it's fairly obvious that the battle lines have been drawn and martyrdom awaits the faithful. Retrenchment seems the order of the day.

Default Setting

2008-09-28T11:54:00.005-05:00

If you click on the title of this post you will get to read a commencement address that the now deceased author David Foster Wallace gave in 2005 that a church friend of mine emailed to me. Up until Wallace's death I didn't know him from Adam and I couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. Now I think I might understand a little bit better. I'll give my quick opinion in the hopes that you will read the address afterwards since it is quite good. Actually, go read it now. I'll wait.....

Done? Good.

So, the theme of the address was that our natural disposition is to think only of ourselves; to think we are the center of everything (self-centered, self referential); that this condition is our *default setting*. This is not so earth shattering. However he goes on to say that our ability to think outside of this default setting -- the key act of making a choice in how to see the world and those in it -- is the hallmark of the mature adult life. It's this ability that makes a life worth living. He also goes on to say that everybody worships something. The question is *what* we worship. We have a choice in what to worship. Again, the default setting is to worship ourselves (or something that relates to only us) and so be absorbed in ourselves that we think of nothing else. Luther would call this navel gazing.

Wallace's take on how we treat others struck a cord with me because this is exactly how I've lived most of my adult life. If asked, I wouldn't have been as clever as Wallace describing it but I would have said something to the same affect.

A couple of thoughts about this address from a Christian perspective:

This default setting is, in fact, nothing but the consequence of humanities fall from grace; that
is sin and death.

Even the mundane events of everyday life can be just as challenging and rewarding for a Christian as great feats of faith but it's a matter of seeing all of God's creation as worthy of respect. Even if they don't deserve it.

We get to choose the path of sin and death or of righteousness and life -- that is belief in Christ Jesus as our salvation from this default setting.

This choosing for a Christian is: to pick up our cross, deny ourselves the lazy and sinful path of the default setting and follow the path our Lord made for us. This is the call of discipleship.

It alway surprises me when I come across stuff like this. You never know where the most helpful insights into faith will come from.

Truth, discipleship and signage

2008-07-21T00:13:00.009-05:00

Every day on my drive to work I pass an auto repair shop. This shop has a sign out front that, I'm sure, was built ostensibly for advertisement. However, the owner of this shop has grander aspirations. Instead of the normal (and thoroughly mundane but completely expected) "Buy 2 tires, get the second pair 30% off" or "Car running rough? 15% off summer tune-up through the 31st", this owner shows modern day proverbs; some witty, some sentimental, some inspirational, but some actually thought provoking. It's to the last category that the current message falls under:

"The Truth that sets us free is the Truth that we prefer not to hear"

Is it pithy? Yes. But as pithy sayings go, that one isn't all that bad; certainly not bad compared to the others I've read. I did find it a bit odd for something so obviously religious, so obviously Christian, to be on the signage of this auto repair shop. Most of the proverbs shown are of the non-denominational, inspirational variety. I guess when you own your own shop you can choose whatever saying you want (thank-you-very-much).

The first question is: what "Truth" is the sign referring to? Let say, for the sake of argument, it is the the only truth that sets us free: Jesus Christ. The next question is: why do we prefer not to hear it?

As I mentioned in my previous post that I'm reading two books (see side bar on right, half way down the page) about discipleship; Bonhoeffer's "Discipleship" and Augsburger's "Dissident Discipleship". The former is from a Lutheran perspective, the latter from a reformed/Anabaptist perspective. Both books are challenging for different reasons. Not surprisingly, Bonhoeffer's book is the more theological book even though Augsburger is, I believe, a theologian. Bonhoeffer is very clear on what "discipleship" means. He says:

Discipleship is commitment to Christ. Because Christ exists, he must be followed. An idea about Christ, a doctrinal system, a general religious recognition of grace or forgiveness of sins does not require discipleship. In truth, it even excludes discipleship; it is inimical to it. One enters into a relationship with an idea by way of knowledge, enthusiasm, perhaps even by carrying it out, but never by personal obedient discipleship. Christianity without the living Jesus Christ remains necessarily a Christianity without discipleship; and Christianity without discipleship is always a Christianity without Jesus Christ. It is an idea, a myth. A Christianity in which there is only God the Father, but not Christ as a living Son actually cancels discipleship. In that case there will be trust in God, but not discipleship. God's Son became human, he is the mediator --that is why discipleship is the right relation to him. Discipleship is bound to the mediator, and wherever discipleship is rightly spoken of, there the mediator, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is intended. Only the mediator, the God-human, can call to discipleship.
Discipleship without Jesus Christ is choosing one's own path. It could be an ideal path or a martyr's path, but it is without the promise. Jesus will reject it.

There it is. Bonhoeffer cuts through all the noise and focuses squarely on what being Christian is all about. The last sentence is a doosie and is the truth that we don't want to hear. Discipleship requires letting go of our attachments to everything but Jesus Christ. This was difficult for the rich man and is no different for us today. It's difficult for me. It requires a radical attachment to Jesus that is at odds with the world and what the world thinks is proper or rational or just or correct. And if we follow the world it will be without the promise and Jesus will reject it.

Augsburger defines this discipleship as "tripolar" spirituality. Which is love of self, love of God and love of neighbor. He goes on to say:

In tripolar spirituality, we come to know Christ through participation in the practices of discipleship that express love of others...

And one of these practices is "Radical Attachement". This is radical attachement to Jesus of the gospels. Augsburger quotes Jurgen Moltman from his book "The Crucified God" to discribe what this radical attachement means:

To be radical, of course, means to seize a matter at its roots. Radical Christian faith can only mean committing oneself without reserve to the "crucified God." This is dangerous. It does not promise the confirmation of one's own conceptions, hopes and good intentions. It promises first of all the pain of repentance and of fundamental change. It offers no recipe for success. But brings a confrontation with the truth. It is not positive and constructive, but is in the first instance crititcal and destructive. It does not bring man into better harmony with himself and his environment, but into contradiction with himself and his environment. It makes him "homeless" and "rootless," and liberates him in following Christ who was homeless and rootless. "The religion of the cross," if faith on this basis can ever be so called, does not elevate and edify in the usual sense, but scandalizes; and most of all it scandalizes one's "co-religionists" in one's own circle.... It alienates alienated men, who have come to terms with alienation."

That's a hard pill to swallow isn't it. No wonder this Truth is something we prefer not to hear. But reading that quote from Moltman, one couldn't be faulted for saying "Well, how the hell am I suppose to follow that advice?!" Augsburger has an answer that I find quite helpful:

We can embrace Jesus as an experiential model with existential impact, as a historical mentor-story with textual authority, or as a theological Christ figure with rational conceptual coherence. Or we can encounter him as a contemporary presence in a believing community --that is, an imitating, participating community. Participation is a communal awareness of Christ in our midst; it is a liturgical recognition and celebration of his presence; it is a mystical moment of awe that an Other is undeniably here; it is an ethical experience of discerning together God's intentions for us; it is an encounter with a Third who walks with any two disciples as living presence; it is a deep, settled conviction that we are invited to continue his work in faithful extension of his way of being; it is discovering that we can be fully human as we follow him yet that we can imitate and participate in the Divine; it is revisualizing every encounter with human need as an opportunity to serve Christ....

So, in the end, the Truth that we prefer not to hear is not heard by the world because it requires of the world discipleship and as Bonhoeffer, Moltmann have said that requires giving up our desires for Christ, in obedience to Christ for his sake alone. However, as Augsburger said, we are to do this, not alone, but in community with our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, our believing community where the presence of Christ can be heard, tasted, and felt.

The Summons

2008-06-27T13:44:00.002-05:00

Below is the text of a hymn that was sung last week at my church. It's a wonderful experience to discover a new hymn that not only has a good tune but spirit-filled words. Our rendition of this hymn could have been tooth-achingly sacarine but thanks to our wonderful cantor it didn't stoop to sentimental pathos. Which is good because Lutherans don't do pathos.

If I wasn't a believer it would be ironic that we sang this hymn at the same time as I'm reading two books about discipleship (see side bar to your right). But the Spirit moves in mysterious ways.

"To sing is to pray twice." -- St. Augustine.

1. Will you come and follow me if I but call your name?
Will you go where you don't know and never be the same?
Will you let my love be shown? Will you let my name be known,
will you let my life be grown in you and you in me?

2. Will you leave yourself behind if I but call your name?
Will you care for cruel and kind and never be the same?
Will you risk the hostile stare should your life attract or scare?
Will you let me answer prayer in you and you in me?

3. Will you let the blinded see if I but call your name?
Will you set the prisoners free and never be the same?
Will you kiss the leper clean and do such as this unseen,
and admit to what I mean in you and you in me?

4. Will you love the "you" you hide if I but call your name?
Will you quell the fear inside and never be the same?
Will you use the faith you've found to reshape the world around,
through my sight and touch and sound in you and you in me?

5. Lord your summons echoes true when you but call my name.
Let me turn and follow you and never be the same.
In Your company I'll go where Your love and footsteps show.
Thus I'll move and live and grow in you and you in me.

Liturgical snoozing...

2008-06-16T07:47:00.005-05:00

The muse -- she's a no like a me....

That's my only excuse and I'm sticking with it.

Anyhoo, my brother's first child was baptized to Sunday ago at a church who's name will remain hidden. All I'll say is that it's a *very* large Lutheran congregation. The service (one of many) started at 11:00 a.m. and as is typical for my family we were running late. Turns out that it was only 5 minutes late. No problem I say to myself, we'll participate for most of it.

Wrong.

Five minutes late means that 1/2 of the service was complete. I'm not joking here. By the time we sat down it was practically over. Military precision is the operative word here; from the phalanx of men to collect the offering to the homily to the abbreviated hymns to the truncated liturgy, everything was on a strict timetable.

The same can't be said for the baptism. This was the definition of loose and unstructured. The order of service for baptism from the ELW was used but the way it was presided was the antithesis of the precision of the service before it. One would have thought that more planning could have gone into it. Maybe the number of baptisms precludes this. I can kind of understand having the baptisms after a main service in a church of this size but to be this free-form was a little sad.

The question I kept asking myself was: Is this really the best that Lutheranism has to offer? All of what differentiates a Lutheran worship from, say, a Methodist or Presbyterian service have been removed. And Lutherans wonder why membership rosters are shrinking! At the risk of sounding like a one-trick-pony, Lutherans must, for the health of their denomination, understand the tradition and heritage from which they come and to which they owe a great debit. Services like last Sunday's are really a shame. So much unrealized potential.

I've been reading the new translation of Bonhoeffers seminal book "Discipleship". It's a theological tour de force that all Christians should read. The first chapter is about "cheap grace" which, according to Bonhoeffer, is "grace" that is a theological principle or presupposition that comes before faith or discipleship; not the pure grace that is a consequence of a life of following Jesus. I wonder if Protestant worship is a symptom of this "cheap grace". A worship that asks nothing from you and that gives nothing back but platitudes. More on Bonhoeffer latter.

Like a sponge.

2008-04-01T18:31:00.008-05:00

For the last 5-6 months a number of my fellow parishioners have been meeting and discussing the Gospel of Matthew. Last Sunday the pericope was Matthew 5:38-42:

38 ‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” ³⁹But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; ⁴⁰and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; ⁴¹and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. ⁴²Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.

Our group had a very interesting discussion about what that passage means for us; both ideological and practical. How much does one resist? Can one resist ones government if they are doing evil? Should one expect that by following this instruction of Jesus that we can show others the faith or should we just expect possible abuse -- even possible death? The leader of our discussion had a wonderful analogy: we are to be like a sponge that absorbs hatred, anger, etc, and by doing so stops its energy/movement.

As an example, please listen to this.

Mr. Diaz is a good, practical example of what Christians ought to do. Did he fear for his life? I'm sure he did. Could he have been knifed? Most assuredly. But he risked it because even his attacker is created in the image of God and is worthy of this sacrifice. I pray that I would be even half as courageous as Mr. Diaz.

Oh, Fill us Lord...

2008-03-30T22:26:00.001-05:00

In my last post, a question was asked about what I meant when I wrote about liturgy as: "Some days are good, some not so good."

So, if you'll allow me a little leeway, I'll try to explain in a roundabout way via something that happened at church this morning:

Now all the vault of heav'n resounds
in praise of love that still abounds:
"Christ has triumphed! He is living!"
Sing, choirs of angles, loud and clear!
Repeat their song of glory here:
"Christ has triumphed! He is living!"
Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia!

Eternal is the gift he brings,
therefore our heart with rapture sings:
"Christ has triumphed! He is living!"
Now still he comes to give us life
and by his presence stills all strife.
"Christ has triumphed! He is living!"
Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia!

Oh, fill us, Lord, with dauntless love;
set heart and will on things above
that we conquer through your triumph;
grant grace sufficient for life's day
that by our lives we truly say:
"Christ has triumphed! He is living!"
Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia!

Adoring praises now we bring
and with the heav'nly blessed sing:
"Christ has triumphed! Alleluia!"
Be to the Father, and our Lord,
to Spirit blest, most holy God,
all the glory, never ending!
Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia!

Emotionally speaking I'm very low maintenance but I choked up on that third verse. That one verse sums up, with frightening clarity, my Christian vocation. Coupled with a beautiful (and well known) tune it was a powerful moment that is special because of its rarity. Made all the more powerful because the liturgy set the stage. Like the setting of a precious gem, the liturgy should focus all our attention to the gem that is the Triune God and the means by which we know the Trinity: Baptism, Eucharist, and the Word (though not technically a sacrament seems to function like one). So when I say that some days are good (liturgically speaking), I mean days like today. It was good.

Alas, not every Mass is this good. For various reasons, some of the liturgical settings (there are ten of them!) in the ELW seem to be lacking. Unlike the Orthodox Divine Liturgy or the Roman Missal, Lutherans have more choice in liturgical settings. And with more choice comes more responsibility. Maybe this choice is our (Lutherans) cross to bear. Maybe this is God's way of showing us what is, and is not, right and salutary. I'd like to think so. I'm sure that in the fullness of time, consensus will emerge amongst worship leaders in the ELCA on which settings do the job, and which are dross. I am hopeful. The Spirit will guide us as always. In the mean time, I'll enjoy those Sundays when the liturgy is not just the liturgy but becomes that which moves us towards God.

Faith of our Fathers Lutheran Colloquium

2008-03-27T15:15:00.004-05:00

A friend of mine who is going through the Orthodox catecheses shared a web page on a Lutheran to Orthodox colloquium which I have linked to the title of this posting. So far I've listen to:

The Church in Orthodoxy: Scratching the Surface

and

Justification

They are both quite interesting. In a nutshell both describe their spiritual movement from Lutheranism to Orthodoxy; the former stresses the ecclesial nature of the Orthodoxy church (i.e. the role of Bishop), the latter about the OC understanding of the hallowed Lutheran topic of justification. Not so surprisingly, both stress the importance of the liturgy in the life of the church. Coming as I do from a Lutheran church that actually does liturgy, it struck me that neither speaker had much of a rich liturgical experience when in Lutheranism. Of course I can only speculate as to the extent of their liturgical worship life, but if it's what passes as liturgy in the Lutheran church these days I'll bet it wasn't much.

As I said, my church does liturgy. For all of its faults at least in this case it has it right. Some Sundays are good; some not so good. But at least we live out our fellowship of, and worship in, Christ *through* the liturgy and don't try to water it down. Much has been said of the importance of liturgy in the Orthodox and Catholic traditions, but not much has been said about its importance in the Lutheran, much less, Protestant tradition. What a shame. No wonder people search and search for genuine spirituality; they get little of it from most church worship services. What an opportunity for the church! Maybe this explains the movement from Protestantism to Orthodoxy and Catholicism?

Of Sin and Death

2008-01-01T12:07:00.000-06:00

One of the vexing problems of the Church in its mission to preach the Gospel is the issue of sin, the consequences of sin, and the role of the man Jesus of Nazareth regarding this sin. If you have read any of my other postings you may have read that I think the various doctrines of atonement -- i.e. the Augustinian view of original sin and what Jesus did on the cross to atone for that sin -- to be the biggest barrier to evangelism. Later theologians (Anselm, Abelard, and Aquinas) modified St. Augustine's view of original sin but it all starts from his doctrine.

The question is always: If God is infinitely good and is love (and loves his creation), how is it that he would sacrifice his Son to expiate a sin that we didn't commit. Moreover, how was it necessary for God to appease his own sense of honor (per Anselm) with his own beloved Son? etc, etc. These are just some of the questions that non-believers (Agnostic or otherwise) have when the Good News is preached. And it all comes back to original sin.

All of this is introduction to the document that I have just read and that I commend for your edification. The title is "Ancestral Versus Original Sin: An Overview with Implications for Psychotherapy" and I feel it's not only excellent resource about sin for any Christian but in particular for Lutherans. I'm coming to the conclusion that Luther was closer to Orthodoxy as a basis for his theology than previously thought (yes, the Finnish school of Luther study has affected me. To the good I might add).

One thing I've noticed while reading about Lutheran history is that the founding fathers of Lutheranism were very concerned about "innovations" to the faith. The arguments leading up to the writing of the Formula of Concord were debated among the various followers of Luther (all laying claim to the true/pure teachings of Fr. Martin), and it seems that those theologians who "innovated", i.e. created new doctrine (or doctrine which was felt to be new) -- whether heretical or orthodox -- were chastised and said doctrine rejected; in some cases rightly so. However, it seems to me that this might have been an easy way to maintain control over doctrine that wasn't from the western tradition. Because of this, theologies from other Christian traditions seem foreign to us westerners. I say this because I don't think this paper is such an innovation since this paper is, by definition, Orthodox. But I'll leave that for you to decide.

Please click on the post title above for the PDF document and let me know your thoughts.

Note (2008/01/12): A number of edits have been made to fix sloppy terminology (and thinking).

Advent Meditation

2007-12-19T17:07:00.000-06:00

For your Advent observance.

Introitus: Ad te levavi
Responsorium Graduale: Universi
Alleluia: Ostende
Offertorium: Ad te levavi
Communio: Dominus dabit

Various and Sundry....

2007-12-17T11:23:00.001-06:00

Over the last two weeks I've been planning on blogging about a number of topic. Alas, December being the most hectic month at my home, I've decided to just touch on each of these topics, however briefly, with the express intention of expanding on each of them over the next month. I promise. Really, I mean it this time. Here they are, in no particular order of importance but the order in which I will comment about them:

Liturgical practice as understood by a Pentecostal theologian and its relation to worship in the church.
A critique (and edited version by yours truly) of Martin Luther's "A Simple Way to Pray".
A discussion of praying the "hours".
A plug for, and discussion of, the movie "Into Great Silence".
An interesting article from The Journal of Lutheran Ethics about the "Greeley Principle" and the role of the Lutheran Church for post moderns.

So, off we go...

Liturgical Practice via Pentecostal Theology:
I came across this link from some other blog (can't remember where now) and was impressed with comments about liturgy like this:

The traditional liturgy doesn't exist primarily to foster interpersonal relationships. It operates on a very different paradigm. In the liturgy we are, in a very real sense, objectively recognizing God for who he is. And in the midst of proclaiming who God is, we encounter God. At the end of the day, we may not be particularly drawn toward individuals, but in a good liturgy, we are drawn to God. We recognize him for who he is.

Now that's really about as good as it gets. When describing liturgy for those who might not understand liturgical whys and where fores, one could not do much better (and probably worse) than to use that quote as a staring point.

A Simple Way to Pray:
Again, I'm not sure how I came across this, or even why but Luther's advice to his barber on how one might pray has all the earmarks of Luther's writing for the laity: Simple, straightforward, folksy and practical without being childish or corny or trite. All the versions I found on the web were html only and the formating was, well, let's just say it left something to be desired. So I spent some time doing a little formating and editing to make it easier for me to read (see sidebar on the right). I hope it is helpful for you.

Praying the Hours:
I'm not quite there yet, but God willing, I'll get to a point where I am at least praying the hours in the morning and night; more than that will be frosting on the cake. Why would I want to do this? Well, the subtitle of my blog states the reason fairly well: fuller communion with Christ (God). I've come to realize that two activities are essential for a Christian who wants to be more than superficially religious: Reading Scripture and prayer. The former has not been much of a problem; the latter has. So I'm trying to start slowly (maybe with the help of Brother Martin) in this activity. Currently I'm using this link for the daily readings and Psalms. There is a beautiful Lutheran breviary by Phillip Pfatteicher called The Daily Prayer of the Church and it's a wonderful book. However, it's a tad intimidating so I'll wait to buy that when I'm ready.

Into Great Silence:
If you are religious of the liturgical bent then you must see this movie about the Carthusian monastery "La Grande Chartruse" and the monks who live and work and pray there. There is a reason why it has garnered so much praise (both religious and non-religious). First, it's visually stunning; parts are filmed in high definition film that are so clear it makes your jaw drop. There are montages that convey so much symbolism I've had to watch it twice to digest even half of the meaning. Second, the life these monks live is really awe inspiring, (I can't say I would want to live this way my whole life but I do feel a pull towards this type of quite life). These monks really are God's athletes. Third, their devotion to prayer is quite motivational. And I need all the motivation I can get.

The "Greeley Principle":
Follow the link above to an article by David L. Miller about how the Lutheran Church has dropped the ball in the role it should be playing in regards to our spiritual growth. He brings up a number of good points that I will tease out in a later post (I promise) but please pay attention to his assertion that contrary to what some in the church believe, there is a strong desire to know and experience the transcendent which is proved by the number of "spirituality" books one can see in bookstore or the ubiquitous Wayne Dyer that comes on once or twice a year when public television wants money. The church is ready made (by definition) to show people that this is indeed possible and the church has the way. But read it for yourself.

The Church as tradition

2007-11-18T14:28:00.000-06:00

After some time away reading the wonderfully thought provoking book "Silence" by Shusaku Endo, I'm back to reading theological books. My current book is "Lutheranism" by Gritsch and Jenson (see side bar). So far this has been an interesting read even with Jenson's somewhat dense writing style. I was, however taken with this paragraph:

As a community of a story, the church lives by tradition. That is, the church depends at any time on being told this story, and therefore on those who have already heard it; and the church cares for it own future by in turn telling the story. The reality of the church at any time is the reality of a link in the tradition; the reality of the church is a hermeneutic event of the move from hearing to telling. So also an individual believer belongs to the community as one who hears from others and then speaks to others: faith, to, is a hermeneutic reality, and occurs in tradition. Both the church and the individual believer therefore depend on "the" tradition, on the totality of witnesses from which, at any time, we have heard the gospel.

I thought "What a wonderful explanation of the church and why tradition matters so much!" Even if we can't define it as satisfactorily as Jenson, we know this to be the case. One would think Lutherans should the first to say "Amen" to Jenson's take on what the church is. Sadly, this is not necessarily so.

When I read that paragraph I was immediately reminded of something I saw at worship a number of Sundays ago. I was at the early service and had some time to burn. I passed the extra time by reading, waiting for Mass to start. Then I saw Dr. Paul Manz. If you are a Lutheran, you ought to know who Dr. Manz is. For those who don't: Dr. Manz was the preeminent Lutheran organist, improvasationalist and hymn writer for more than 40 years. He spent over twenty years as my churches cantor and it has been easily that long since I had seen him. He was old and bent which was a bit sad but he still looked as I remembered him so many years ago. It just so happened that Dr. Manz and his wife sat two pews in front of me that morning.

As the service progressed I wondered how much of the new worship book (ELW) Dr. Manz would know (if he knew any of it) and how much he would approve, or disapprove. As providence would have it, we used one of the hold-over LBW liturgies. Dr. Manz would have his wife help him and with some of the page flipping (for the hymns) otherwise it was by memory. I appreciated tradition that morning more than most.

Jenson's take on how the church "lives" was reinforced by my observation on that Sunday; it is this tradition of story that connects us, in every time and in every place, to all the saints before us and to those that follow.

And yet, Jenson says:

Under the authority of Scripture and the whole tradition, we will become free to worship in other ways than we have done, and, in whatever ways, for other reasons than that we have always done it so. The church cannot avoid being a social force; under the authority of Scripture and the whole tradition, the church will be a cell for the future rather than the past, and be free to alter its own social structure in order to be this. Any attempt to decree that a particular form of government, or of ministry, or of worship, or of social presence, is permanently necessary to the church is a declaration of independence from the Scripture and creeds.

Something to chew on.

Eucharistic Theology

2007-10-29T15:14:00.000-05:00

One good thing about reading other blogs is that you are introduced to the coolest stuff. Fr. Tobias Haller's blog "In a Godward direction" had this link to a quiz about Eucharistic Theology. I'm not of a theologian, but I like to think that I'd get at least a "C" in Lutheran Theology. So this quiz made me feel a little better. Below are my results:

Eucharistic theology

You scored as a Luther

You are Martin Luther. You'll stick with the words of Scripture, and defend this with earthy expressions. You believe this is a necessary consequence of an orthodox Christology. You believe that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ, but aren't too sure about where he goes after the meal, and so you don't accept reservation of the Blessed Sacrament or Eucharistic devotions.

Orthodox

75%

Luther

75%

Calvin

63%

Catholic

19%

Zwingli

13%

Unitarian

So, what's the deal with the high Orthodox score? Hmmm. Blame it on Mannermaa's book. BTW, its a great book. However, I can't explain the high score for Calvinism. Maybe it's the protestant in me. And the low Catholic score? Weird. Oh well, it's fun just the same.

Coveting stuff...

2007-10-26T09:57:00.000-05:00

Ever wonder what denomination you would be in if you weren't in the denomination that you're in now? I do. It's mostly when the polity stuff (read acceptance of homosexuals) of the ELCA starts wearing me down that I entertain this notion. I ask myself "If the ELCA implodes because of

fill-in-the-blank, where would I go?"

As you can tell from my previous posts, I'm a liturgical Lutheran. This means that all of the Reformed denominations are out. I could go to the Orthodox church (everybody else seems to) but the Orthodox church is too, well, eastern for my western sensibilities. I'm sure I could learn to love the Orthodox church but there is too much western Christianity in me to make the switch. That leaves the Episcopal(Anglican) church or the Catholic church. Regarding the Episcopal church: talk about out of the frying pan and into the fire! Nope, can't do that. My constitution is not strong enough. This leaves the Catholic church. Since I am a liturgical Lutheran, I'm a cousin once (or would it be twice) removed from Rome. The Catholic liturgy is nice (for those churches who don't do funny "contemporary" Eucharist). The music is a little weak in the Catholic church but I could probably get over that deficiency. All in all I might be able to be Catholic.

And I think about this almost every day since I pass by a Catholic church on my drive home from work and there is one a block away from my home that I jog by three days a week.

But just when I think that I could, in pinch, cross the Tiber, I read something that just poisons the waterhole. To wit.

Apparently "commingling with Protestants" is a sin of the same order as homosexality or masturbation. That's rich.

As good ol' Charlie Brown liked to say "Good Grief!"

On Becoming Orthodox

2007-08-31T15:25:00.000-05:00

Well, summer vacation is over and it's time to start blogging again. If anyone still reads this blog it will be proof of divine providence. Only the Holy Spirit would keep people reading this blog after such a long absence.

Anyhoo, over at WithoutAuthority I read about this article in the New Republic about the movement of evangelicals to the Orthodox Church (in this case the Antiochian Orthodox Church) . It's an interesting read and quite illustrative of where some postmodern evangelical worshipers are headed.

The motivations for this exodus are fascinating....

The first seems to be an exhaustion with the secularization of the evangelical protestant worship. As I've blogged about before, this secularization (mostly to grow attendance) is ultimately a dead-end. Eventually, these churches will cease to be contemporary and when that happens their main reason for existing disappears. Marketing and entertainment for the sake of growth needs to be constantly relevant (read, changing) to feed that growth; especially in today's overly marketed culture that demands the new over the old. Apparently, this constant churn is wearing folks out.

The second is the need for a more contemplative, thoughtful, and stable worship. Of all the attributes one can say about evangelical worship, contemplative isn't generally one of them. This movement back to more ancient worship forms is a reaction, I feel, to postmodern society. When I blogged about this last year I thought it was mostly younger people who desired this movement to older worship forms but I've changed my mind. Whether young or old, our lives are in constant flux. We accept this flux as a cost of living in a postmodern world but we yearn for something more stable, deeper, and bigger than ourselves. I seen this yearning in my own church most Sundays as I watch visitors at my church receive Holy Communion. The very fact that they are attending worship that is not contemporary makes me hopeful. Only time will tell if this is a permanent trend or just a fad.

The third was the desire to separate worldly political issues from religion. Considering that these folks are disaffected evangelical protestants who's religious fervor has been used and manipulated by others for 30 years for political gain (with little to show for it), it's no surprise that they want a break. Oblique political references in worship are OK when they relate to the lectionary text for that Sunday but that was certainly not what these folks were experiencing. I feel that church ought to be about communion with God in the midst of our bothers and sisters in Christ. There is plenty of time to discuss how our faith should play out in the world before or after Mass. Let's give God some time just for God. We can work out how we further his kingdom on our own time.

Now of these three motivations, it's number two that I'm most interested in. Protestant churches, and especially Lutheran congregations, can learn a thing or two from our Orthodox brethren. Being relevant is a laudable and salutary goal. We should do this when ever possible. But unless these changes are informed by our heritage and the New Testament witness it's just another form of secularization. And in some cases can be gratuitous. Ultimately it could lead us away from God in Christ because we feel our own ideas are better than the received tradition of the faithful before us. Hopefully, there are enough wise men and women to gently guide us in the right direction.

Control or Trust

2007-06-21T10:25:00.000-05:00

One of the most intractable secular ideologies among moderns is our sense that we have (or can have) singular control over our lives; that we are the captains of our own ship so to speak. This, of course, is a foolish notion; we certainly have control over our own actions but that doesn't mean we control our lives. We think we do, but ultimately it's the actions (good or bad) of others --whether those others are our family, friends, or society -- that have as much of an affect on our lives as the sea does to the ships voyage. Many times it's complete strangers who have the biggest impact on our lives. And yet this ideology persists. Blame it on technological success of the last 100 years and the commensurate feeling of control it has given us.

What a stumbling block for modern Christians! How does one submit to the will of God and give up that sense of control? Is it even possible for moderns Christians to do so?

Over the last few weeks I've been reading Bonhoeffer's "The Cost of Discipleship" and I've come away from this reading with a feeling of awe not only for the compelling way Bonhoeffer describes this letting go, this submission, but the way that Bonhoeffer actually gave up control of his life and submitted to God's will.

I say all this by way of introduction to a "Hymn of the Day" my church sung a couple of Sundays ago. Appropriately, it's in the "Trust, Guidance" section of the hymnal. The tune is a haunting one that sticks in your head long after you've sung it. And although I'm not overly emotional, the text moved me to tears when I sang it.

"If You But Trust in God to Guide You" (ELW translation):

If you but trust in God to guide you
with gentle hand through all your ways,
you'll find God is there beside you
when crosses come in trying days,
Trust then in God's unchanging love;
build on the rock that will not move.

What gain is there in anxious weeping,
in helpless anger and distress?
If you are in your Savior's keeping,
in sorrow will he love you less?
For Christ who took for you a cross
will bring you safe through every loss.

The Lord our restless hearts is holding,
in peace and quietness content,
We rest in God's good will unfolding,
what wisdom from on high has sent.
God, who has chosen us by grace,
knows very well the fears we face.

Sing, pray, and keep God's ways unswerving,
offer you service faithfully.
Trust heaven's word; though undeserving,
you'll find God's promise true to be.
This is our confidence indeed;
God never fails in time of need.

We are the Champions......

2007-05-18T14:23:00.000-05:00

So, I'm perusing my other theology/religion blogs some mornings ago and I noticed that the blog In A Godward Direction recieved a nomination for Best Religion Blog from the Bloggers Choice awards. My interest pequed, I navigated my way over to that page to see the other "best of" blogs; particularly religious. And as I scrolled through the first two or three pages of religion blogs, I noticed a distinct lack of diversity. To wit: the top, say, 50 were mostly (>90%) Catholic. But not just Catholic; ardently, stridently, in some cases vociferously, Catholic. Why?

It's true the bloggers tend, like other hobbiests, to form cliques that feed off one another, so one could say this is just favoritism. Maybe. I also noticed that the top 10 blogs all were conservative in their outlook; again in some cases vociferously so. Another thing I noticed was that there no Lutheran blogs in this list. None! I know for a fact there are good Lutheran blogs out there in the blogsphere. So why no nominations? I might chalk it up to modesty, but that only applies to Minnesota Lutherans.

Admittedly, these blogs don't represent all Catholic opinion. Nor does the fact that other denominations are underrepresented mean much in the grand scheme of things . But the paucity of blogs from other denominations seems odd as does the tenor of the top religious blogs in this "best of " list. Oh well. Food for thought.

Divine Submission(s)

2007-05-17T08:12:00.000-05:00

As serendipity would have it, I've come across a number of blog postings that either directly or indirectly relate to my last posting.

Dwight over at versuspopulum has an very interesting and thought provoking post about the experiential nature of feminist theology and it's implications vis-à-vis the concept of submitting to God's will. I had all these same ideas in my head but couldn't articulate them nearly as well as Brother Dwight. I have an affinity to Dwight's position (and not because I know him). It's a position of humility and gratitude that resonates with me. (more on this in my next posting). BTW, the comments on this post are thoughtful too.

Father Tobais at In a Godward Direction has two interesting posts: one about Doctrine which is quite thoughtful and is apropos to the discussion of any theology. The other about Christian forgiveness. Again, Fr. Tobais is taking an approach of humility that I've always felt is the mark of Christian grace. (Again, read the comments, they're thought provoking).

And finally, Fr. Kimel over at Pontifications (his blog is off line so this link is to Google's cached version) has a number of interesting postings, but I'd recommend the May 11th posting on Protestant unity which does concern doctrine and theology. Oh, and read the posting about Anglican Communion (about who has doctrinal authority in the AC), it's an enlightening read.

Maybe these are not serendipitous at all? Maybe this is the Holy Spirit working through her Church? The more I think on it, the more I like that idea.

Cross Bearing?

2007-05-08T16:29:00.000-05:00

"As they led him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from the country, and they laid the cross on him, and made him carry it behind Jesus." -- Luke 23:26

The verse above was from the Gospel Lectionary for Passion Sunday and my ears perked up for some reason upon hearing it. I had intended to write something about how the story of Simon of Cyrene is a good analogy for the average layperson. But the Easter season being what it is (busy) and me being who I am (procrastinator), it never got written. I had a great little essay in my head and it was practically finished; all I needed to do is type it out and it would be done. I'm sure it would have been brilliant, having to do with bearing the cross of Christ for his sake and the implications that has for liberal Lutherans. But then I started reading the book to the left for a theological discussion group at my church and I realized that the concept of bearing the cross is not a universally held theological concept; or not universally agreed upon. Admittedly, I'm reading feminist/womanist theology which has a particular axe to grind, but I suppose I just took it for granted that this was a theological idea that was not under much dispute. Apparently I was mistaken.

The thrust of the first part of this three part book is that theology, heretofore, is based on a masculine point of reference and that this can (and does) cause at the very least, a diminishing of women in church life, at worst causes a perpetuation and legitimization of violence against women. Now, feminist ideology can be a challenge for any liberal (man or woman), but I always thought of myself as fairly open and accommodating so I didn't think I would have many objections. After reading a number of essays in this book I find that I'm not as accommodating as I thought. And I find that I have more in common with less liberal theologians than I fancied just a couple of months ago.

It would be hard to give a synopsis of the first section of the book; I wouldn't do it justice and, quite frankly, I don't agree with much of it nor can I get my brain wrapped around some of it. However, I did notice that some feminist theology does the same thing as other niche theologies tend to do; e.g. use theology to grind an ideological axe. This might be acceptable, I guess, if done correctly (i.e. if based on sound biblical exegesis). The problem starts when the Gospel takes a backseat to ideology, and in the process we get compartmentalization/marginalization. I dislike this in conservative theology, and I don't much care for it with liberal theology either. I got the sense that I could neither critique nor understand feminist/womanist theology either because I was male or white or both. It's ironic that the very ill that feminist theology tries to change and (rightly) critiques, that of marginalization, is what it precisely seems to do -- at least that's what I felt when I read it. I also felt that some of the theology was created out of whole cloth with tenuous grounding in the Gospel or in the *vast* history of theological thought over the last 2000 years (there were two exceptions; both Lutheran thank-you-very-much).

To be sure, feminist theology was/is essential to help give women equal footing in the church. I have a 15 year old daughter and I would hope that she would have the same opportunity in the church as I do. I just wish it wouldn't push me overboard in the process.

Lenten Introspection

2007-03-18T16:29:00.000-05:00

Because Lent is the season for introspection, self examination, and repentance, (of which I've been doing some of all three), I offer the following excerpt from Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "The Cost of Discipleship" for your consideration.

Much of what is ailing Christianity (and not just mainline protestantism; even if it is affecting/infecting us to a greater extent) can be explained by way of Bonhoeffers conception of "cheap grace". The fact that Bonhoeffer wrote this over 60 years ago is proof that this might be the single biggest challenge for Christians in general, but specifically mainline protestants in a modern/post-modern world:

"Cheap Grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting today for costly grace. Cheap grace means grace sold on the market like cheapjacks' wares. The sacraments, the forgiveness of sin, and the consolations of religion are thrown away at cut prices. Grace is represented as the Church's inexhaustible treasury, from which she showers blessings with generous hands, without asking questions or fixing limits. Grace without price; grace without cost! The essence of grace, we suppose, is that the account has been paid in advance; and, because it has been paid, everything can be had for nothing. Since the cost was infinite, the possibilities of using and spending it are infinite. What would grace be if it were not cheap?

Cheap grace means grace as a doctrine, a principle, a system. It means forgiveness of sins proclaimed as a general truth, the love of God taught as the Christian "conception" of God. An intellectual assent to that idea is held to be of itself sufficient to secure remission of sins. The Church which holds the correct doctrine of grace has, it is supposed, ipso facto a part in that grace. In such a Church the world finds a cheap covering for its sins; no contrition is required, still less any real desire to be delivered from sin. Cheap grace therefore amounts to a denial of the living Word of God, in fact, a denial of the Incarnation of the Word of God.

Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner. Grace alone does everything, they say, and so everything can remain as it was before. [......] Instead of following Christ, let the Christian enjoy the consolations of his grace! That is what we mean by cheap grace, the grace which amounts to the justification of sin without the justification of the repentant sinner who departs from sin and from whom sin departs. Cheap grace is not the kind of forgiveness of sin which frees us from the toils of sin. Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves.

Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.

Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will gladly go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will sell all his goods. It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a man will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble; it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him.

Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock.

Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it cost a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son: "ye were bought at a price," and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered him up for us. Costly grace is the Incarnation of God.

Real Presence

2007-02-19T00:53:00.000-06:00

Since I'm Lutheran, I'm all about confessing. Therefore: I confess that I suck at blogging. In my pastors sermon a number of Sundays ago he mentioned that Flannery O'Conner would sit in front of her typewriter every day, whether she felt like she had something to say or not; you never know when the muse will strike. Sounds like advice tailor made for me.

I just turned 39 (40 right around the corner!) and I received a gift card to a near-by used bookstore as a present (I love used bookstores). So, the next day I stopped by and purchased a number of books, one of which was: The Evangelizing Church: A Lutheran Contribution. Besides the absolute silliness of buying another theology/religion book (you should see the stack waiting to be read), it's about "evangelizing" which always seemed, to my Lutheran ears at least, a code word for proselytizing. (What's the difference? Good question. I'll have more to say on that topic (and this book) in the future.)

And yes, I'm aware this is the height of irony coming from someone who is a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

I read something in the third chapter that struck me quite powerfully and I'd like to share it with you. The author of that chapter posed a question from a hypothetical Christian about the difficulties of evangelism. The premise is that it was easier for the Apostles to evangelize because they had the benefit of actually being with Jesus. The question was:

Since Jesus is no longer living with us bodily, how can we actually 'hear' his voice or 'feel' his healing touch?

The author answers the question thusly:

The heart of evangelical theology and preaching is that Christ is alive and present among us -- concretely and unmistakably. Jesus' word and presence are real, direct, graspable, and available for us -- today!....We do not act *as if* Jesus Christ were present in the Christian community. The gospel message is that Jesus, actually, is alive and is really present with us in Christian community as he promised. That's the good news. It's the great gift of salvation.

The writer then goes on to describe how, exactly, Christ is present to us:

Now, the secret of Jesus' real presence is this: the way he freely comes to people today is through the proclamation of his word, the celebration of the sacraments, and the life and witness of the Christian community.

And a little later on he quotes Bonhoeffer:

If we want to hear his call to discipleship, we need to hear it where Christ himself is present. It is within the church that Jesus Christ calls through his word and sacrament...To hear Jesus' call to discipleship, one need no personal revelation. Listen to the preaching and receive the sacrament! Listen to the gospel of the crucified and risen Lord! Here he is, the whole Christ, the very same who encountered the disciples. Indeed, here he is already present as the glorified, the victorious, the living Christ. No one but Christ himself can call us to discipleship...That was true in the same way for the first disciples as it is for us.

These bold statement shouldn't have been very surprising; and yet they were. Do we as Lutherans really understand how important and relevant these ideas are? Shouldn't we be embracing this theological heritage and put it to good use?

There seems to me a crying need for this idea of the real presence of Christ (without too much ecclesiastical baggage). Contrary to popular belief, I think post-modern Christians want and need something that is solid and non-relativistic and real. Can you get anything more real than Christ crucified and risen given to you every Sunday?!

More later.

To Liturgy, or not to Liturgy

2007-01-18T16:12:00.000-06:00

Last month a reader asked this question on my post about conversion:

"Do you mind clarifying that distinction you make between "historic" and "praise" worship in the context of the Lutheran Church? Why choose the term "praise worship" to refer to it?"

Since I never did get to answer the reader, and since the ELCA is using a new book of worship, and since the adult education hour at my church is spending some time going over said book, I thought it might be an appropriate time to answer this question.

By way of introduction, I submit the following for the readers edification from the Apology of the Augsburg Confessions, [XXIV] The Mass:

"At the outset it is again necessary, by way of preface, to point out that we do not abolish the Mass but religiously retain and defend it. Among us the Mass is celebrated every Lord's day and on other festivals, when the sacrament is made available to those who wish to partake of it..... We also also keep traditional liturgical forms, such as the order of readings, prayers, vestments, and other similar things." [italics mine]

So Lutherans, by definition/confession, keep the traditional worship forms of the church, which in this context means the Roman Mass as handed down from the church fathers.

I will define praise worship as: any worship that does not use the traditional forms, does not offer the sacrament of Holy Communion regularly, uses no vestments, order of readings, and uses contemporary pop ("praise") music which is generally accompanied by a four part band (bass, guitar, drums, keyboard). Praise worship also tends to have a singular emphasis on scriptural reading which can, and often is, augmented by some form of video projection to a large screen/scrim at the front of the church.

As the reader might gather, I don't much care for the praise worship style. I find it completely denuded of any solemnity. It doesn't seem, to me at least, edifying or authentic (more on that in a moment). And I have even less stomach for it in any Lutheran church (whether ELCA or LCMS). Other traditions (Pentecostal/Charismatic for example) have no foundation in the Roman church, no liturgical tradition, and therefore have no requirement for using liturgical worship. But all Lutheran churches do and should.

The praise worship places too much emphasizes about a personal relationship with God and what he can do for us in this world (mostly personal wealth, happiness, or success), not about what we should do for God and His creation because of the gift of grace through Jesus Christ. It places emphasis on personal relations with God and Jesus at the expense of a more theological (transformational) understanding of what God did (and does) for us through Jesus. It's non-sacramental; it skips the Eucharist which to my mind is the focal point of the worship. Praise style has taken (and has been co-opted by) secular trappings (pop music, self-help philosophy among others) and incorporated them into their ministry and worship.

But aren't these the very things that separate us from God and are precisely what we need to resist. I mean, do we really need more trappings of secular society?

This does not mean that I feel worship must be stuck in the 16th century. On the contrary! I'm all for renewal and change provided its done with an eye towards continuity. The Reformation, arguably the biggest change in Christendom, created an explosion of hymns in the vernacular of the people, most of which we sing today. Name any Christmas hymn or carol and chances are it's post Reformation. And yet these changes happened within the context of a received heritage and so were an augment to what was already there. Change can be good.

Modern liturgical worship (say the last 25 years) has kept liturgical forms but adds modern hymns, tone settings and text that give it a greater relevance without striping it of its lineage. One example; two weeks ago on the First Sunday of Epiphany - Baptism of Our Lord, my congregation sang two decidedly un-Lutheran hymns, one a was a hymn from the Sacred Harp tradition and the other was a African American spiritual. These, obviously, are not traditional to the time of the Reformation, but they were both edifying, dignified, and authentic. They fit the liturgy of the day even though they were not "Lutheran" per se. This shows that even in a liturgical setting there is freedom to express our faith in more divers ways.

Please forgive me if this sounds like a bitter screed. It's not meant to be. But I feel strongly that if the Lutheran church is to be relevant at all, it must stick to its heritage as a liturgical church. (Do we really think we can compete against nondenominational mega-churches?) Liturgical worship has stood the test of time and will continue to do so. We should do what we do best. I'm absolutely convinced that there is a large number of post-modern Christians who crave liturgical worship because this type of worship has a point of reference that is not us but God; because it's solemn and dignified in a society that is neither; because it's authentic in an age of complete artificiality; because it's sacramental; because it's flexible and adaptable to culture without pandering to that culture.

Here is a quote by theologian Robert Jenson I read over at Pontifications -- on another subject -- but which I feel is apropos (Danger! Theology ahead!):

"Justification by my own righteousness is overcome only by a word that both declares my justification and is clearly and permanently not my own word. Justification by faith can only be opened by a word addressed to me, from outside of me. The gospel is intrinsically an "external" word; it is a word with a home out there in the world that stands against my subjectivity, and that is to say, out there in the world of objects, of bodies and places for bodies. It is, therefore, intrinsically a word "with" a body, with an undetachable nonverbal or more-then-verbal manifestation: a word "with" a bath or a meal or a finger-sign..."

"Words that are mere words, that could in principle get along without objects and bodily performances, are too mental to open the righteousness of faith. If all the word of promise does is convey the information that, let us say, Jesus lives, then once that information is in my head, I can forget the way I learned it. Then the bit of knowledge becomes my knowledge, that I can henceforth tell myself -- and if hearing it justifies, I can justify myself. Thus the word that Jesus lives does not occur as a mere conveyance of information, but as a word that includes such addresses as, "This piece of bread is the living Jesus, take it," thereby pinning me each time anew to what does not come from me, but is out there in the world and comes to me from it." (Lutheranism [1976], pp. 81-82)

And there, in two paragraphs, is why liturgical worship, with all of its physical and sacramental richness, is so important. Especially in today's world, and especially for Lutherans.

P.S. Dash had an interesting post (So, how come I'm not dying?) that I think touches on this subject. Why is my church growing? I think one reason is that we are liturgical. And there are not many liturgical Lutheran churches left.

P.P.S. One more thought: liturgy is not enough. It will only be effective and true if done with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. If we get too smug about liturgy and forget its purpose we will have a slow, sad, but inexorable demise. Liturgy is the means; God through Christ Jesus is, and always should be, the ends.

Spiritual Raiment

2007-01-05T08:14:00.000-06:00

A Reading from the First Sunday of Christmas - Revised Common Lectionary, year C:

"As God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience. Bear with one another and, if anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other; just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony." -- Colossians 3:12-14

St. Paul writes about these subjects in a number of ways throughout his letters to the early christian congregations; this just happens to be one of his best because of its metaphorical usage and succinct style. Unfortunately, we are no better at clothing ourselves in these virtues then the early Christians were 2000 years ago.

How can we to do this today? Considering how polarized we are culturally and politically, (never mind religiously), it doesn't seem possible (or practical, frankly) to even bother. However, this is precisely the cross that Jesus has asked us to bear. And we can - or should - do no less.

It seems to this writer that this is easier to do when the object is less fortunate then we are - it makes us feel good after all. The harder task is when the object is more familiar and ordinary. To follow this admonition on a daily basis is the real mark we should be aiming for.

But compassion requires opening the heart which our society doesn't practice (or value) these days. It also requires empathy which, again, seems all but absent in society because it looks weak. Humility, kindness, meekness, and patience all require one to sublimate ones self desires for the sake of others. All of this is possible only through love. As Jesus was the personification of God's love, (and sublimated his divinity to the point of death), so we should be that personification to our family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers.

The Church, writ both with large and small "c", should consider this passage as well. She is good at following these instructions, but not consistently and not without caveats; i.e. open vs. closed communion among other things.

I'll spare the reader the blistering critique where I point out, piously of course, those that should heed more carefully St. Paul's instruction. It's really not necessary. We already know how, where, and to whom it applies. Next time we dress for the day, let us clothe ourselves in St. Paul's spiritual raiment as well. It's just as important.

Divinum Mysterium

2006-12-28T00:17:00.000-06:00

If anything articulates my feelings on the divine mystery of God in Christ Jesus then it is music. To wit: the first piece -- Da Pacem Domine -- from Estonian composer Arvo Pärt's newest album. I heard this coming home from work last Friday. Mere luck?
Who knows.
I'm inclined to say that this album is God's response to my despondent attitude over the last week or two.

The lyrics are simple but, to me, profound; the music soars over them and sanctifies them. When done with care, music is the surest proof of God for me.

Da pacem domine
in diebus nostris
quia non est alius
qui pugnet pro nobis
nisi tu Deus noster.

Give peace in our time,
O Lord,
because there is none other
that fighteth for us,
but only thou, O Lord

Waiting, Waiting...

2006-12-18T22:02:00.000-06:00

It's a truism to say that Decembers are hectic. But it is doubly so for me and my family. I have two children, both born in the month of December, 7 days apart (the 10th and 17th). This wouldn't necessarily be so difficult if it wasn't for the fact that these birthdays mean that my wife and I get little time to unwind from Thanksgiving before we are thrust into the treacherous waters of birthdays . And just when the last birthday (my son's) is over, we have Christmas only 7 days away with all of its familial entanglements to contend with. All of this during the time of the Christian calendar that is suppose to be about waiting and expectation. I can hardly wait until its all over.

Because I've started blogging, I've peruse other blogs (both Lutheran and not) to see what works and what doesn't; standing on the shoulders of giants as it were. As you might know, the topic du jour is the Episcopalian Church and its, well, familial entanglements. I've read a lot about this the last 2 weeks. The amount of bile on this issue is truly astounding and very sad and painful to read about -- there but by the grace of God go the ELCA. This issue put me in a bad mood. Then I read this (#5) which agitated me more than I expected: First, it's patently not true and quite insulting; second I realized the distance between Protestants and Catholics is still quite large and doesn't look like it will be healed any time soon.

But what really irks me is that these things are happening at a time of year when Christians are to wait, with humility and expectation, the coming of the Lord. The Christ child. The Word made flesh. The Messiah.

Not the coming of the conservative, anti-gay, I'm taking my ball and leaving U.S. Anglican Lord; not the smug, self-righteous, One-True-Church Catholic Lord; not the I'm-ok-you're-ok, can't we all just get along liberal Protestant Lord. This is the coming of the Lord; the Word made flesh. The one who will, through his death and resurrection, reconcile a shitty world to God. A world who, like John the Baptist said, is "not worthy to untie the thong of his sandals". And this is how we prepare for his birth? (Weeping Jesus on the cross......). All of this is a terrible distraction from contemplating the miraculous and mysterious birth of our dear Lord Jesus Christ.

I remember as a child feeling, with palpable reality, the mystery of Advent. The specialness, the anticipation, the rich traditions which made Advent -- and of course Christmas -- a favorite time of year (the presents didn't hurt of course). Now everything seems drab and bland and quite distant. Inter-Nicene feuding, consumerism, work and family stresses keep Advent (and Christmas) just out of reach. I hope I can get a glimpse before it's all over.

P.S. I read this poem and I felt a little better. I like the way Marty writes.

On Conversion.

2006-12-14T01:04:00.000-06:00

Recently, I read an article about life-long members of one denomination (normally Episcopalian or Lutheran) converting (or at least ruminating about converting) to Roman Catholicism or, less often, Eastern Orthodox The reasons are as varied as there are personalities and personal beliefs but, on the whole, the reasons seems to be: a) A reaction to some type heterodoxy (read heresy), b) The inability of the denomination's governing institution to correct such heterodoxy or c) both. I don't want to dismiss, out of hand, the real and legitimate doctrinal issues that face mainline Protestant denominations with glib analysis; it's never simple. Nevertheless, I feel that this does capture what I've been reading online as well as well as off (mostly periodicals -- both well know and esoteric).

(Note: Here I should mention that most conversions I've read are about theologians or pastors and not necessarily laymen or women. And theologians/pastors are, by definition and training, more acutely sensitive to doctrinal/dogmatic issues. I also haven't read about conversions the other way. It's hard to know if these conversions are a canary-in-the-coalmine issue for mainline Protestants or just outliers.)

Although these are the primary reasons, I feel there is a secondary, more personal reason. I'll call it foundational erosion. By this I mean a perceived sense that the bedrock foundational doctrines of their denomination are disappearing. These are doctrines that have been held for hundreds of years, in some cases back as far as the founding of the denomination. They are doctrines that have become interwoven into the very fabric of families and religious communities. This upheaval must be (and I suspect is) disconcerting to say the least. Add to this the very real conviction of leading the flock astray and you have the formulae for a crisis in any denomination.

Does leaving help? Is it a good (or proper) decision to make? Certainly one should be free to worship as they choose and one ought not be compelled to worship in a denomination that they feel is, at best, misguided, or worse, heretical. But what they seem to desire, although they might not verbally express it, is the certainty that comes with Catholicism; a faith that has a hierarchical system of authority (Magisterium) that can unequivocally say what is orthodox and what is not. A faith that goes back almost to the earliest Christian communities. A faith that has *roots* that do not change to the whims of modernity (or post modernity). And this seems all the more important given the myriad pressures and stresses we deal with every day. I guess you could call it reactionary (in the non-judgmental sense).

With culture seeming to be the cart before the spiritual horse, I can understand conversion being very enticing. I, for one, lament the lack of liturgical tradition in Lutheranism. I happen to be lucky (and blessed) enough to attend a church that understands the tremendous advantages, both spiritual and cultural, of retaining historic liturgical practices. But mine is the exception that proves the sad rule: historic (solemn, respectful) liturgy is out, "praise" worship (seemingly in service to membership growth and convenience) is in. This pull away from tradition is upsetting; I'm not even speaking yet of doctrinal issues which inform the heart of my beliefs. What would I do, I often wonder, if this happened to me?

Again the question begs to be answered: Is this a proper way of dealing with problems in your religious denomination? My gut reaction is no. And not for sectarian reasons, e.g. Lutheranism vs. Catholicism. If we are witnesses of Christ in the world, how much more are we in our church? Is this good fellowship or good stewardship of what God has entrusted to us? I feel it's our Christian duty to witness to the world what is best in our religious tradition and to work (in whatever capacity that God gives us) to change/correct those parts which are not true to first, the Gospel, and second, the rich history of the Church which is the Body of Christ in the world.

I will speak for myself: I love and cherish being Lutheran and couldn't imagine giving it up. I feel that Lutherans, by virtue of the fact that we share two faith traditions, can bear witness that there are reasons for retaining the religious norms of the Church even in the face of popular culture. But also to witness the need for change (small steps please!) against the rigidity of doctrinal and dogmatic tradition. And I can show the world, or my small part of it, that there is hope. There is hope because in Christ Jesus we are all one body even if we don't feel it. Amen.

In the beginning....

2006-12-06T23:09:00.000-06:00

I have finally succumbed. How long have blogs been around? 3-4 years? That sounds about right. And only now have I finally created a blog. I'm not quite sure whether to feel excited or ashamed. And it wasn't for lack of technical understanding either; I'm a Unix system administrator for heaven sake! No, the reason I've never done a blog was because I've always felt that blogs are, to some extent, selfish and/or self centered diatribes by folks who should either:

stop listening to radio talking heads.
stop watching T.V. talking heads.
get a hobby that doesn't involve a computer.

Yes, I know that there are many blogs/bloggers that aren't like I've described but those are the ones that seemed prove my rule. And so I remained aloof from the great unwashed of the blog sphere ( is that phrase trite or what). That is until now.

Why now? For all the same reasons that others start blogs: to workout thoughts and ideas on "paper" (well, electronic paper at any rate) and, through comments from friends and strangers alike, possibly learn a thing or two. I have friends who have been blogging for quite a while and I have enjoyed their postings; not always "immensely" but I have enjoyed them. So now its time for me to loose my inhibitions and throw caution to the wind (well, let's say a light breeze) and join in.

So, what should you expect from this endeavor? Well the title should give you a hint as to my intentions (I apologize to any Latin grammarians; it's the best I could do). I'd like to use this space as a way, as I said earlier, to work out ideas or thoughts as I turn toward Christ and the Church, in my case the Lutheran church, in a more full and lasting way. It's been about a year and a half since I tried in earnest to attend church (or mass, I still feel self conscious when I say that) on a regular basis. And its been about that long since I tried in earnest to read scripture every day. I can say I'm doing well on both fronts. I have oh-so-many things to say but that will have to wait for now. Let us see if I have any stomach for this sort of thing.