Honestly sometimes it is hard to get excited about the Eucharist. I do not think that God could have picked a more routine means to give gifts such as forgiveness and His very presence. There it is: a dry unleavened piece of bread and a sip of wine. Hardly seems proper for the hell conquering reality we receive.
There are times when it is hard not to envy the faith healers or tongue speakers or even the emotionalism of the black churches or twelve step programs. At least there is something in those to feel and experience. : a ecstatic shout, a deep human emotion that says something is happening here.
In the Eucharist at that moment where God is supposed to be in the most marvelous contact with us, when he, the very creator God who stretched out the heavens, comes to literally make his abode in our bodies, that moment is marked only by the most ordinary processes: eating and swallowing.
I do not pretend to know the mind of God as to why these things are so. But I have my suspicions: it seems to have something to do with faith. Just as the centurion could not have could not have looked through the human sufferings of Jesus to see the Son of God without these things having been revealed to Him by his Father who is in heaven, so we cannot tell that the reception of the elements is anything more without faith. Faith which is heavenly, divine and given, not earned. I think the Eucharist also teaches us to walk by faith, to not rely on our senses, strength, emotions, intellect, expectations but only on the promises of God. God says, "Here I am in this bread with all my gifts and grace."
Faith expresses itself, then, in the moments and space around the uncommon eating and drinking: hymns and prayers and the sign of the cross and vestments and bowing and kneeling and chapels and cathedrals. Faith which says, "Yes, this looks ordinary, it looks hum drum, but we will mark this spot. We will build an altar here like the patriarchs of old who saw and God and built their shrines. Here we will mark the spot of our meeting with God. Here we saw God and we ate and drank."
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
The Didache on the Eucharist
Unlike contemporray piety, the early church's piety was often very focused on the fleshly reality of Christ in the Eucharist. It is refeshing and beneficial to read and listen to the Fathers speak, especially on the Eucharist.
I have an idea it was the weekly liturgy and the attendant sacramental participation that kept the early church from flying off into neoplatonic speculation, which often tempted the fathers. It is hard to get carried away by an abstraction when the weekly (or more) liturgy is constantly pointing you to the real flesh and blood of Christ on the altar.
Here is one selection from a very early document entitled the Didache(c. 90 a.d.). The word "didache" means "teaching". Note the emphasis on the unity of the church found in this Eucharist. Also the repeated emphasis on a closed communion. Note also the integration of creation with redemption and sacrament.
Maybe I will write more about this selection tomorrow. For now enjoy what follows:
(The full text of the Didache is freely and frequently available on the net.)
CHAPTER NINE
Concerning the Eucharist [Thanksgiving] give thanks like this:
First for the Cup: we give thanks to You, our Father, for Your holy vine of David, Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus, Your Servant. Glory to You forever.
Concerning the broken bread: we give thanks to You, our Father, for the life and knowledge that You made known to us through Jesus, Your Servant. Glory to You forever.
As this broken bread was scattered over the hills and was brought together becoming one, so gather Your Church from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom, for You have all power and glory forever through Jesus Christ.
Do not let anyone eat or drink of your Eucharist meal except the ones who have been baptized into the name of the Lord. For the Lord said concerning this: do not give that which is holy to the dogs.
CHAPTER TEN
After you are filled, give thanks like this:
We thank You, Holy Father, for Your Holy Name which you made to dwell in our hearts, and for knowledge and faith and immortality as You made known to us through Jesus, Your Servant. Glory to You forever.
You, Lord Almighty, created all things to show forth Your Name. You give both food and drink to man to enjoy, and everlasting life through Your Servant.
Above all, we thank You because You are mighty. Glory to You forever.
Remember Lord, Your Church, to deliver her from all evil and mature her in Your love. And gather her from the four winds, separated into Your kingdom which You have made for her, because You have the power and the glory forever.
Let grace come and this world pass away. Hosanna to the Son of David! If anyone is holy, let him come. If anyone is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.
Allow the prophets to give thanks as they desire.
I have an idea it was the weekly liturgy and the attendant sacramental participation that kept the early church from flying off into neoplatonic speculation, which often tempted the fathers. It is hard to get carried away by an abstraction when the weekly (or more) liturgy is constantly pointing you to the real flesh and blood of Christ on the altar.
Here is one selection from a very early document entitled the Didache(c. 90 a.d.). The word "didache" means "teaching". Note the emphasis on the unity of the church found in this Eucharist. Also the repeated emphasis on a closed communion. Note also the integration of creation with redemption and sacrament.
Maybe I will write more about this selection tomorrow. For now enjoy what follows:
(The full text of the Didache is freely and frequently available on the net.)
CHAPTER NINE
Concerning the Eucharist [Thanksgiving] give thanks like this:
First for the Cup: we give thanks to You, our Father, for Your holy vine of David, Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus, Your Servant. Glory to You forever.
Concerning the broken bread: we give thanks to You, our Father, for the life and knowledge that You made known to us through Jesus, Your Servant. Glory to You forever.
As this broken bread was scattered over the hills and was brought together becoming one, so gather Your Church from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom, for You have all power and glory forever through Jesus Christ.
Do not let anyone eat or drink of your Eucharist meal except the ones who have been baptized into the name of the Lord. For the Lord said concerning this: do not give that which is holy to the dogs.
CHAPTER TEN
After you are filled, give thanks like this:
We thank You, Holy Father, for Your Holy Name which you made to dwell in our hearts, and for knowledge and faith and immortality as You made known to us through Jesus, Your Servant. Glory to You forever.
You, Lord Almighty, created all things to show forth Your Name. You give both food and drink to man to enjoy, and everlasting life through Your Servant.
Above all, we thank You because You are mighty. Glory to You forever.
Remember Lord, Your Church, to deliver her from all evil and mature her in Your love. And gather her from the four winds, separated into Your kingdom which You have made for her, because You have the power and the glory forever.
Let grace come and this world pass away. Hosanna to the Son of David! If anyone is holy, let him come. If anyone is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.
Allow the prophets to give thanks as they desire.
Monday, August 29, 2005
Lutheran Carnival III is up ...
Yes it is up. One thing I like is the super Bowl Roman Numeral numbering. Makes it impressive.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
NCC Funded by MoveOn.org
Here is something I did not know. The National Council of Churches is funded by such liberal groups as MoveOn.org. That is wild. Read more below. I found this here.
Touchstone correspondent Mark Tooley reports in The Weekly Standard about the Antiochian withdrawal from the NCC first reported here on Mere Comments. His article is "Three Cheers for the Syrians -- We're talking about the ones who just left the National Council of Churches."
One item in Mark's report particularly struck me--I don't think I had read this elsewhere:
Although the NCC's income had fallen from over $10 million to $6 million, [General Secretary Bob] Edgar erased the deficit-spending that was choking the NCC.
Aware that the denominations would provide no more financial rescues, Edgar changed the NCC's system of financial support. Instead of depending on the churches, the NCC is increasingly funded by left-wing philanthropies, like the Tides Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and political advocacy groups, like the Sierra Club and MoveOn.org.
So that's how you fund a national council of churches? The Orthodox churches provide almost no funding, and the denominational support from the Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians is unstable--those churches continue to shrink. I guess if your churches won't fund it, you just move on to another source.
I really do hope the rest of my Orthodox brethren--in the Orthodox Church of America, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese to name two--will join us Syrians in pulling out, soon.
Touchstone correspondent Mark Tooley reports in The Weekly Standard about the Antiochian withdrawal from the NCC first reported here on Mere Comments. His article is "Three Cheers for the Syrians -- We're talking about the ones who just left the National Council of Churches."
One item in Mark's report particularly struck me--I don't think I had read this elsewhere:
Although the NCC's income had fallen from over $10 million to $6 million, [General Secretary Bob] Edgar erased the deficit-spending that was choking the NCC.
Aware that the denominations would provide no more financial rescues, Edgar changed the NCC's system of financial support. Instead of depending on the churches, the NCC is increasingly funded by left-wing philanthropies, like the Tides Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and political advocacy groups, like the Sierra Club and MoveOn.org.
So that's how you fund a national council of churches? The Orthodox churches provide almost no funding, and the denominational support from the Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians is unstable--those churches continue to shrink. I guess if your churches won't fund it, you just move on to another source.
I really do hope the rest of my Orthodox brethren--in the Orthodox Church of America, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese to name two--will join us Syrians in pulling out, soon.
Friday, August 26, 2005
Mission or Maintenance
Here is an article I wrote that was published sometime last year in Forum Letter of Lutheran Forum. Lutheran Forum and Forum Letter are published by American Lutheran Publicity Bureau.
Mission or Maintenance?
It is a cliché and yet one encounters it often
in the overheated halls of the Lutheran Church
Missouri Synod, engulfed by a denominational
evangelism initiative entitled Ablaze. The cliché is
the supposed distinction between "maintenance
ministry" and "mission-minded ministry." As categorizations
for pastors and congregations, implicitly
or explicitly, those in the latter are thought to
be superior.
Selfish maintenance
The distinction between the two is portrayed
in this way: those maintenance-minded care
only for members of the congregation and do not
reach out to the lost. The mission-minded focus instead
on reaching those outside. This outreach is
said to be the essence of the church's mission. A
maintenance pastor or congregation is not missionminded
since their focus is on the maintenance of
the congregation through baptizing, conducting
liturgy, visiting the sick or shut-in, and not much
else beyond. The accusation is selfishness: the
"mission-minded" are attentive to others while the
"maintenance-minded" are concerned only with
themselves.
There are many problems in tagging congregations
and pastors with labels. First is its shallowness.
How many pastors or congregations can
be classified so simply? What measure is used to
classify them? Often numbers serve as the guide,
but they are a highly unreliable yardstick. A pastor
who happens to serve a numerically stagnant rural
or inner city area may be more "mission-minded"
than a pastor who serves in growing suburbia
where numbers are boosted by pleasant demographics.
Gospel spoils
More important, there is a theology behind
this distinction that is unbiblical and destructive of
the gospel. It spoils the gospel basis of the pastor's
relationship to the congregation, robs congregations
of their gospel sustenance and turns the
sweet life of a Christian congregation living from
the gifts of God into a task-oriented "job."
Many who use this language like to think
they are employing biblical models in describing
the church and her task. Yet Scripture does not
know of this distinction. Biblically, the church is
the mission. Christ sends his apostles into the
world to preach, to baptize, to forgive, to administer
the Sacrament. To proclaim to a lifelong parishioner
Christ's promises of forgiveness and presence
during a Sunday morning liturgy is as much
(if not more!) an act of mission as handing out
tracts at the mall. Preaching (or baptizing a baby,
or taking communion to a shut-in) may not be
quantifiable, and one may not be able to trace large
membership increases or donations to it; yet precisely
this is Christ's mission.
Frontline mission
Mission in the biblical sense can be summarized
as a counter-attack against sin and Satan with
God-given, gospel weapons of the kingdom. The
frontline of mission is not the border between pagan
and Christian civilization, or even between the
churched and the unchurched. The frontline of
mission cuts through the human person, including
believers.
The ministry of the church is to forgive sins,
to detach the claws of Satan and impart Christ. No
member of the church has suddenly "made it" so
that he or she is no longer in need of Christ's forgiveness.
The most serious fallacy in the
"maintenance vs. mission" paradigm is that once
someone has joined the church, somehow they are
no longer the object of God's mission, but only actors
in it. They no longer stand in a relationship to
God marked by the reception of his gospel gifts,
but of going out and doing outreach work for him.
It is as if God offers us the gospel to get us in the
doors of the church but then, like Pinocchio on
Pleasure Island, he turns us into slaves to do his
work. God turns from Savior to boss.
Visionary equipper
This distinction between mission and maintenance
also spoils the gospel basis of the congregation's
life. There is no time when a pastor may
A false distinction - maintenance or mission
fail to regard the congregation as an object of mission.
It is wrong to call a pastor who faithfully absolves
the sins of the penitent and preaches the
gospel a "maintenance" pastor, as if those actions
fail to fulfill God's mission. Every human being is a
mission field.
To ignore this biblical, Lutheran understanding
is to turn the pastor into a motivator, a
law-giver, whose job it is not to deliver God's gifts
of grace to his congregation but to set before them
a task to accomplish. The pastor turns from being a
shepherd to being a "visionary" CEO, or worse, an
"equipper." The gospel is clouded, in any case, and
the "mission" undertaken is not a distinctly gospel
one.
One mission
"But what about the unchurched?" one
might object. "Is not the church's mission to reach
them?" Yes, and this is every pastor's calling and
every congregation's mission. But crucially, this
mission is no different than so-called maintenance.
The one mission of the church is to deliver the gospel
of Jesus Christ to sinners who are both inside
and outside the membership rolls of congregations.
Mission to the unchurched is not something
two missions, one "inreach" and one "outreach."
The battle is one: to drive back Satan and sin by
proclaiming Christ's victory over both.
Condensed temptation
This distinction between maintenance and
mission finds its genesis in bureaucratic models of
the church which reduce churchly mystery to statistical
realities. One fears it is not passion for the
lost that fuels much mission talk, but an eye for the
bottom line. Mission talk seems to increase in direct
proportion to the decrease in donations to the
denominational headquarters. In an age obsessed
with sound bites and success, the temptation is to
condense the church's mission to counting numbers
of people and numbers of dollars. What is lost
in this pseudo-mission urge is precisely the
church's mission and even more, the gospel. Here
is the heart of the matter: the distinction between
"maintenance" and "mission ministry" obscures
the gospel. And this, outweighing any statistics or
denominational hype, is a good Lutheran reason
for doing away with it altogether.
Mission or Maintenance?
It is a cliché and yet one encounters it often
in the overheated halls of the Lutheran Church
Missouri Synod, engulfed by a denominational
evangelism initiative entitled Ablaze. The cliché is
the supposed distinction between "maintenance
ministry" and "mission-minded ministry." As categorizations
for pastors and congregations, implicitly
or explicitly, those in the latter are thought to
be superior.
Selfish maintenance
The distinction between the two is portrayed
in this way: those maintenance-minded care
only for members of the congregation and do not
reach out to the lost. The mission-minded focus instead
on reaching those outside. This outreach is
said to be the essence of the church's mission. A
maintenance pastor or congregation is not missionminded
since their focus is on the maintenance of
the congregation through baptizing, conducting
liturgy, visiting the sick or shut-in, and not much
else beyond. The accusation is selfishness: the
"mission-minded" are attentive to others while the
"maintenance-minded" are concerned only with
themselves.
There are many problems in tagging congregations
and pastors with labels. First is its shallowness.
How many pastors or congregations can
be classified so simply? What measure is used to
classify them? Often numbers serve as the guide,
but they are a highly unreliable yardstick. A pastor
who happens to serve a numerically stagnant rural
or inner city area may be more "mission-minded"
than a pastor who serves in growing suburbia
where numbers are boosted by pleasant demographics.
Gospel spoils
More important, there is a theology behind
this distinction that is unbiblical and destructive of
the gospel. It spoils the gospel basis of the pastor's
relationship to the congregation, robs congregations
of their gospel sustenance and turns the
sweet life of a Christian congregation living from
the gifts of God into a task-oriented "job."
Many who use this language like to think
they are employing biblical models in describing
the church and her task. Yet Scripture does not
know of this distinction. Biblically, the church is
the mission. Christ sends his apostles into the
world to preach, to baptize, to forgive, to administer
the Sacrament. To proclaim to a lifelong parishioner
Christ's promises of forgiveness and presence
during a Sunday morning liturgy is as much
(if not more!) an act of mission as handing out
tracts at the mall. Preaching (or baptizing a baby,
or taking communion to a shut-in) may not be
quantifiable, and one may not be able to trace large
membership increases or donations to it; yet precisely
this is Christ's mission.
Frontline mission
Mission in the biblical sense can be summarized
as a counter-attack against sin and Satan with
God-given, gospel weapons of the kingdom. The
frontline of mission is not the border between pagan
and Christian civilization, or even between the
churched and the unchurched. The frontline of
mission cuts through the human person, including
believers.
The ministry of the church is to forgive sins,
to detach the claws of Satan and impart Christ. No
member of the church has suddenly "made it" so
that he or she is no longer in need of Christ's forgiveness.
The most serious fallacy in the
"maintenance vs. mission" paradigm is that once
someone has joined the church, somehow they are
no longer the object of God's mission, but only actors
in it. They no longer stand in a relationship to
God marked by the reception of his gospel gifts,
but of going out and doing outreach work for him.
It is as if God offers us the gospel to get us in the
doors of the church but then, like Pinocchio on
Pleasure Island, he turns us into slaves to do his
work. God turns from Savior to boss.
Visionary equipper
This distinction between mission and maintenance
also spoils the gospel basis of the congregation's
life. There is no time when a pastor may
A false distinction - maintenance or mission
fail to regard the congregation as an object of mission.
It is wrong to call a pastor who faithfully absolves
the sins of the penitent and preaches the
gospel a "maintenance" pastor, as if those actions
fail to fulfill God's mission. Every human being is a
mission field.
To ignore this biblical, Lutheran understanding
is to turn the pastor into a motivator, a
law-giver, whose job it is not to deliver God's gifts
of grace to his congregation but to set before them
a task to accomplish. The pastor turns from being a
shepherd to being a "visionary" CEO, or worse, an
"equipper." The gospel is clouded, in any case, and
the "mission" undertaken is not a distinctly gospel
one.
One mission
"But what about the unchurched?" one
might object. "Is not the church's mission to reach
them?" Yes, and this is every pastor's calling and
every congregation's mission. But crucially, this
mission is no different than so-called maintenance.
The one mission of the church is to deliver the gospel
of Jesus Christ to sinners who are both inside
and outside the membership rolls of congregations.
Mission to the unchurched is not something
two missions, one "inreach" and one "outreach."
The battle is one: to drive back Satan and sin by
proclaiming Christ's victory over both.
Condensed temptation
This distinction between maintenance and
mission finds its genesis in bureaucratic models of
the church which reduce churchly mystery to statistical
realities. One fears it is not passion for the
lost that fuels much mission talk, but an eye for the
bottom line. Mission talk seems to increase in direct
proportion to the decrease in donations to the
denominational headquarters. In an age obsessed
with sound bites and success, the temptation is to
condense the church's mission to counting numbers
of people and numbers of dollars. What is lost
in this pseudo-mission urge is precisely the
church's mission and even more, the gospel. Here
is the heart of the matter: the distinction between
"maintenance" and "mission ministry" obscures
the gospel. And this, outweighing any statistics or
denominational hype, is a good Lutheran reason
for doing away with it altogether.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
"Eucatastrophe"
Here is cool word : "eucatastrophe", coined by J.R.R. Tolkien.
An online definitionfollows:
eucatastrophe Coined by JRR Tolkien. Definition
1.(in a narrative) The event that shifts the balance in favor of the protagonist when all seems lost.
2. A happy ending. Example Citation The Hobbit with its true "eucatastrophe" ending fits into the definition as expressed in this quote: 'Tragedy is the true form of drama, its highest function; but the opposite is true of Fairy-story'
The greatest example of the eucatastrophe is the crucifixion and resurrection. Just at the moment of greatest despair, there is a momentous reversal and a glorious victory. The LOTR is also this way. Here is a nice post from Tolkien himself on the concept.
Peculiar Joy and the Christian Story
“The peculiar quality of the ‘joy’ in successful Fantasy can thus be explained as a sudden glimpse of the underlying reality or truth. It is not only a ‘consolation’ for the sorrow of this world, but a satisfaction, and an answer to that question, ‘Is it true?’ . . .
In the ‘eucatastrophe’ we see in brief vision that the answer may be greater–it may be a far-off gleam or echo of evangelium in the real world . . . The Gospels contain a fairy-story, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essence of fairy-stories. They contain many marvels–peculiarly artistic, beautiful, and moving: ‘mythical’ in their perfect, self-contained significance; and among the marvels is the greatest and most complete conceivable eucatastrophe.
But this story [i.e. the Christian Story] has entered History and the primary world; the desire and aspiration of sub-creation [those who write and enjoy fanatasy literature] has been raised to the fulfillment of Creation.
The Birth of Christ is the eucatastrophe of Man’s history. The Resurrection is the eucatastrophe of the story of the Incarnation. This story begins and ends in joy. It has pre-eminently the ‘inner consistency of reality’. There is no tale ever told that men would rather find was true.” ~J.R.R. Tolkien
An online definitionfollows:
eucatastrophe Coined by JRR Tolkien. Definition
1.(in a narrative) The event that shifts the balance in favor of the protagonist when all seems lost.
2. A happy ending. Example Citation The Hobbit with its true "eucatastrophe" ending fits into the definition as expressed in this quote: 'Tragedy is the true form of drama, its highest function; but the opposite is true of Fairy-story'
The greatest example of the eucatastrophe is the crucifixion and resurrection. Just at the moment of greatest despair, there is a momentous reversal and a glorious victory. The LOTR is also this way. Here is a nice post from Tolkien himself on the concept.
Peculiar Joy and the Christian Story
“The peculiar quality of the ‘joy’ in successful Fantasy can thus be explained as a sudden glimpse of the underlying reality or truth. It is not only a ‘consolation’ for the sorrow of this world, but a satisfaction, and an answer to that question, ‘Is it true?’ . . .
In the ‘eucatastrophe’ we see in brief vision that the answer may be greater–it may be a far-off gleam or echo of evangelium in the real world . . . The Gospels contain a fairy-story, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essence of fairy-stories. They contain many marvels–peculiarly artistic, beautiful, and moving: ‘mythical’ in their perfect, self-contained significance; and among the marvels is the greatest and most complete conceivable eucatastrophe.
But this story [i.e. the Christian Story] has entered History and the primary world; the desire and aspiration of sub-creation [those who write and enjoy fanatasy literature] has been raised to the fulfillment of Creation.
The Birth of Christ is the eucatastrophe of Man’s history. The Resurrection is the eucatastrophe of the story of the Incarnation. This story begins and ends in joy. It has pre-eminently the ‘inner consistency of reality’. There is no tale ever told that men would rather find was true.” ~J.R.R. Tolkien
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Sermon as Pastoral Care
There are so many programs, approaches and conferences that aim to improve the pastor's ability to "care" for his congregation. Some of these of programs may have merit; many do not in my experience. In all the novelty that is supposed to revitalize our congregations I wonder if they are not missing the obvious.
The obvious being the sermon. The sermon is often thought of and often evaluated. It is thought of as teaching, proclaiming , as being prophetic, visionary, setting the course of the congregation . But I would suggest the sermon serves two main functions.
First of all, it is sacramental. By this I mean it serves to give God and his forgiveness. The sermon does not exist to improve the outward moral behavior of the listeners. It does not exist to entertain or even to teach. It serves to forgive, to make Christ present for through the Gospel. When you are evaluating a sermon the test ought to be did I receive Christ, did I receive the forgiveness of my sins for this day, from this text, for this time, this place.
In a related way, the sermon is also pastoral care. There are whole industries that exist to draw a line of caring between the pastor and the congregation. That line already exists. The sermon is one huge means by which I address the concerns, fears, sins, questions, worries, doubts of the people in my church. The sermon is there for me to extend the Gospel to them, let God speak to them.
That is pastoral care of the first order. Efficient, too, all the people come to me. It is unifying. We all hear the same thing at the same time. It is a shared experience which draws all into one thus multiplying the pastoral care offered.
The obvious being the sermon. The sermon is often thought of and often evaluated. It is thought of as teaching, proclaiming , as being prophetic, visionary, setting the course of the congregation . But I would suggest the sermon serves two main functions.
First of all, it is sacramental. By this I mean it serves to give God and his forgiveness. The sermon does not exist to improve the outward moral behavior of the listeners. It does not exist to entertain or even to teach. It serves to forgive, to make Christ present for through the Gospel. When you are evaluating a sermon the test ought to be did I receive Christ, did I receive the forgiveness of my sins for this day, from this text, for this time, this place.
In a related way, the sermon is also pastoral care. There are whole industries that exist to draw a line of caring between the pastor and the congregation. That line already exists. The sermon is one huge means by which I address the concerns, fears, sins, questions, worries, doubts of the people in my church. The sermon is there for me to extend the Gospel to them, let God speak to them.
That is pastoral care of the first order. Efficient, too, all the people come to me. It is unifying. We all hear the same thing at the same time. It is a shared experience which draws all into one thus multiplying the pastoral care offered.
Maintenance Hatch?
You cannot say manhole anymore. "People hole" does not work (bad abbreviation ... p-hole) nor "access hole" (again the abbreviation... a-hole). So the wonderful phrase maintenance hatch (same abbreviation as manhole).
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Get Em While They Last
Indulgences are not a thing of the past. The current Pope sold them at the current Youth day. No, not for dollars but for attentiveness.
Just pay attention and you will get all the goodies : A decree issued by Cardinal James Francis Stafford last week said plenary indulgences would be granted to people who are not in a state of sin and participate “attentively and with devotion” to World Day of Youth events in Germany.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a plenary indulgence can remove “all of the temporal punishment due to sin” while a partial indulgence removes only part of it.
Just pay attention and you will get all the goodies : A decree issued by Cardinal James Francis Stafford last week said plenary indulgences would be granted to people who are not in a state of sin and participate “attentively and with devotion” to World Day of Youth events in Germany.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a plenary indulgence can remove “all of the temporal punishment due to sin” while a partial indulgence removes only part of it.
"God, I Hate Numbers"
Here is a prayer I recently prayed after checking the attendance numbers after Sunday liturgy: "God, I hate numbers."
Numbers are the bane of this pastor's existence. Parishioners seem unable to have a meeting without referencing the attendance, offering or Sunday school numbers. District executives are poised to crucify the pastor with statistical nails of attendance, missions offerings, and adult confirmations.
But, in my case, it is my own weak flesh that latches onto numbers. Bible class attendance up? I am doing a good job. I am a good pastor. Bible class attendance down? I am a failure, I do not know how to teach, I have to change my approach. Church attendance up? People are great, they love the gospel, they are hearing it here in my sermons, I am a good pastor. Church attendance down? I am a failure, I am not in step with the times, I am not connecting the changeless Gospel with how people actually live, people are bored, gotta change something.
These are the whisperings in my head, of course. I know, intellectually, that the Gospel does not depend on success and for sure does not depend on me or my abilities. I know intellectually that my ministry is based not on the count of heads at a Bible class or church service but upon the divine words of Jesus who instituted the office of the pastor.
But my flesh is addicted to numbers. It loves to keep track, to compare, to evaluate hard statistical evidence. Most of which says I am a lousy pastor.
So I pray again, "God, I hate numbers." I suspect I will spend the rest of my days in the ministry, hating them and counting them and praying that I can ignore them more and more.
Numbers are the bane of this pastor's existence. Parishioners seem unable to have a meeting without referencing the attendance, offering or Sunday school numbers. District executives are poised to crucify the pastor with statistical nails of attendance, missions offerings, and adult confirmations.
But, in my case, it is my own weak flesh that latches onto numbers. Bible class attendance up? I am doing a good job. I am a good pastor. Bible class attendance down? I am a failure, I do not know how to teach, I have to change my approach. Church attendance up? People are great, they love the gospel, they are hearing it here in my sermons, I am a good pastor. Church attendance down? I am a failure, I am not in step with the times, I am not connecting the changeless Gospel with how people actually live, people are bored, gotta change something.
These are the whisperings in my head, of course. I know, intellectually, that the Gospel does not depend on success and for sure does not depend on me or my abilities. I know intellectually that my ministry is based not on the count of heads at a Bible class or church service but upon the divine words of Jesus who instituted the office of the pastor.
But my flesh is addicted to numbers. It loves to keep track, to compare, to evaluate hard statistical evidence. Most of which says I am a lousy pastor.
So I pray again, "God, I hate numbers." I suspect I will spend the rest of my days in the ministry, hating them and counting them and praying that I can ignore them more and more.
Monday, August 22, 2005
Now for somethings completely different...
Ok just some stuff I ran across on the Web.
First this:
"I'm a pagan with a child headed for Catholic school."
A mother who hates all things Christian is anxious when she sends her 5 year old to Catholic school. She is really upset when the kindergarten teacher gushed on about Jesus. My comment is (as my kids might say) : WELL, DUH!
Next : And I thought it was just rock and and roll : "Glory Days : A Bruce Springsteen Symposium, Sept 9-11, Monmouth U. Long Branch NJ."
This: academic forum has multiple topics in these categories :
Activism and Springsteen
Artistic Expressions and Springsteen
Authors and Springsteen
Biography and Springsteen
Citizenship and Springsteen
Community and Springsteen
Comparative Studies and Springsteen
Creative Writing and Springsteen
Crime/Legal Issues and Springsteen
Ethnic Diversity and Springsteen
Feminism and Springsteen
Folk Music and Springsteen
Gender and Springsteen
Iconography and Springsteen
Leadership and Springsteen
Literary Analysis and Springsteen
Musicology and Springsteen
Narrativity and Springsteen
Here is a sample of one offering : "Just a Meanness in This World: Springsteen's Antiheroes and Narrative Forensic Psychology. Psychological narrative theory addresses "the storied nature of human conduct ... "
O.k., no thanks, I'll just crank up "Cadillac Ranch" and have a beer.
And finally a new movie:
In 'The God Who Wasn't There,' a former born-again Christian argues that Christ was a mythological figure.
To promote the movie, Flemming places it squarely in the company of other headline-making exposes: " 'Bowling for Columbine' did it to the gun culture. 'Super Size Me' did it to fast food. Now 'The God Who Wasn't There' does it to religion…. Hold on to your faith. It's in for a bumpy ride.
He claims Jesus never existed. I claim he does not exist. So there.
First this:
"I'm a pagan with a child headed for Catholic school."
A mother who hates all things Christian is anxious when she sends her 5 year old to Catholic school. She is really upset when the kindergarten teacher gushed on about Jesus. My comment is (as my kids might say) : WELL, DUH!
Next : And I thought it was just rock and and roll : "Glory Days : A Bruce Springsteen Symposium, Sept 9-11, Monmouth U. Long Branch NJ."
This: academic forum has multiple topics in these categories :
Activism and Springsteen
Artistic Expressions and Springsteen
Authors and Springsteen
Biography and Springsteen
Citizenship and Springsteen
Community and Springsteen
Comparative Studies and Springsteen
Creative Writing and Springsteen
Crime/Legal Issues and Springsteen
Ethnic Diversity and Springsteen
Feminism and Springsteen
Folk Music and Springsteen
Gender and Springsteen
Iconography and Springsteen
Leadership and Springsteen
Literary Analysis and Springsteen
Musicology and Springsteen
Narrativity and Springsteen
Here is a sample of one offering : "Just a Meanness in This World: Springsteen's Antiheroes and Narrative Forensic Psychology. Psychological narrative theory addresses "the storied nature of human conduct ... "
O.k., no thanks, I'll just crank up "Cadillac Ranch" and have a beer.
And finally a new movie:
In 'The God Who Wasn't There,' a former born-again Christian argues that Christ was a mythological figure.
To promote the movie, Flemming places it squarely in the company of other headline-making exposes: " 'Bowling for Columbine' did it to the gun culture. 'Super Size Me' did it to fast food. Now 'The God Who Wasn't There' does it to religion…. Hold on to your faith. It's in for a bumpy ride.
He claims Jesus never existed. I claim he does not exist. So there.
Friday, August 19, 2005
The Three Births of Christians
Christians are born three times.
First is our physical birth. We are born of a mother and a father. This first birth is a birth form nothingness into life and existence. The second birth is the birth of holy baptism where we are born again, born from sin and death into the God's love and mercy and life as a "son" of God, Son of the Father filled with the Holy Spirit, a Son of the Holy Trinity. The third birth is the birth into heaven and once more we are born from something into another, from the trials and sufferings of this sin cursed earth into the blessed life of rest with Christ awaiting our resurrection.
Each is a birth from one thing or state into another, from the nothingness to physical life from sin to forgiveness and grace, from death to eternal life. What is even more striking is how in each birth we are completely passive. We contribute nothing. What baby chooses their mothers or the time of their birth or contributes at all? Babies are thrust along, most ingloriously, into the care of their parents. Babies are "given" birth to. Our language testifies to the gift character birth: "Sally gave birth to John, her baby boy." Birth and life are gifts.
So also in the birth of baptism. We are all babies at the font whether we are baptized at three days, three months, three years or ninety years. We come to the font dead in sin in the nothingness of our fallen human nature and there God gives us birth through the church.
And finally there is the birth of death. The early church referred to the death of the martyrs as a birth into the kingdom of heaven from the torments of this earth. The death of a martyr was marked by their baptism in blood whereby they entered the new life of heaven. None of this was chosen or earned but given by God of his own choosing. We can apply the same thoughts to Christians in general. We are born into heaven when we die. We do not choose the day of our death nor the mode : God gives us death as he gives us birth. He gives eternal life in the same way he gives baptismal life or physical life : by grace .
In all of these births we abut following Christ, true man, born of a virgin, born again in the Jordan and born finally through the blood of His passion into a life with no end or boundary where He sits, our brother, at the right hand of the Father.
First is our physical birth. We are born of a mother and a father. This first birth is a birth form nothingness into life and existence. The second birth is the birth of holy baptism where we are born again, born from sin and death into the God's love and mercy and life as a "son" of God, Son of the Father filled with the Holy Spirit, a Son of the Holy Trinity. The third birth is the birth into heaven and once more we are born from something into another, from the trials and sufferings of this sin cursed earth into the blessed life of rest with Christ awaiting our resurrection.
Each is a birth from one thing or state into another, from the nothingness to physical life from sin to forgiveness and grace, from death to eternal life. What is even more striking is how in each birth we are completely passive. We contribute nothing. What baby chooses their mothers or the time of their birth or contributes at all? Babies are thrust along, most ingloriously, into the care of their parents. Babies are "given" birth to. Our language testifies to the gift character birth: "Sally gave birth to John, her baby boy." Birth and life are gifts.
So also in the birth of baptism. We are all babies at the font whether we are baptized at three days, three months, three years or ninety years. We come to the font dead in sin in the nothingness of our fallen human nature and there God gives us birth through the church.
And finally there is the birth of death. The early church referred to the death of the martyrs as a birth into the kingdom of heaven from the torments of this earth. The death of a martyr was marked by their baptism in blood whereby they entered the new life of heaven. None of this was chosen or earned but given by God of his own choosing. We can apply the same thoughts to Christians in general. We are born into heaven when we die. We do not choose the day of our death nor the mode : God gives us death as he gives us birth. He gives eternal life in the same way he gives baptismal life or physical life : by grace .
In all of these births we abut following Christ, true man, born of a virgin, born again in the Jordan and born finally through the blood of His passion into a life with no end or boundary where He sits, our brother, at the right hand of the Father.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
A Forgetful God
We are forgetful people often times. We forget our keys. We forget where we left the remote control. But when we forget things, we want to find them again. We want to remember where our keys are so we can use them and have them once more.
God forgets things, too. Scripture tells us he forgets our sins. " I will forgive their wickedness and remember their sins no more. Jeremiah 31:31
But there is a big difference between God forgetting our sins and our forgetting where we put the remote. God does not want to find our sins. God is not on a search to locate our misdeeds so that he can have them in hand once more. No, when God forgets our offenses he does not desire ever to find them again. In fact, as far as God is concerned those sins have ceased to exist. What is more, if God does not have something in his mind as an object of his thought that thing cannot exist any longer.
God forgetting our sin means they are gone, done away with, as far as the east is from the west. God can forget our sins because they have been covered by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. When Christ offered himself to the Father for our sakes God forgot about our sin.
Now, God the Father remembers the sacrifice of Christ and sees us as we truly are in His sight : pure and whole and righteous. In the language of the Psalms God has remembered his love( 98:3) but forgotten our sins.
God forgets things, too. Scripture tells us he forgets our sins. " I will forgive their wickedness and remember their sins no more. Jeremiah 31:31
But there is a big difference between God forgetting our sins and our forgetting where we put the remote. God does not want to find our sins. God is not on a search to locate our misdeeds so that he can have them in hand once more. No, when God forgets our offenses he does not desire ever to find them again. In fact, as far as God is concerned those sins have ceased to exist. What is more, if God does not have something in his mind as an object of his thought that thing cannot exist any longer.
God forgetting our sin means they are gone, done away with, as far as the east is from the west. God can forget our sins because they have been covered by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. When Christ offered himself to the Father for our sakes God forgot about our sin.
Now, God the Father remembers the sacrifice of Christ and sees us as we truly are in His sight : pure and whole and righteous. In the language of the Psalms God has remembered his love( 98:3) but forgotten our sins.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Real Revival
Here is a devotion I wrote some years back:
As a pastor I receive quite a bit of unsolicited mail. What we often call junk mail. Most of it ends up thrown away, but occasionally something catches my eye.
A few months ago a flier crossed my desk advertising a 50 day adventure. This program touts itself as a "proven creative way to nurture, sustain, and mature genuine revival in your church."
Quite a claim, I thought. The advertisement went on to ask what would happen in your church if Christ were physically present with you next Sunday? "Imagine how vibrant tile worship would become! People would ...naturally show His love to each other. Who wouldn't invite a friend or neighbor when Christ himself is present. "
Well, what would happen if Christ were really present with you next Sunday? My answer is this: come to church at Redeemer LCMS in Catawba NC; it happens every week. Whatever the merits of this program, Lutherans need not "imagine" Christ coming to our church and being really present. In the Sacrament of the Altar we have the very presence of Christ, his true body and blood given and shed for us. We need not wonder what it would be like for Jesus really to be with us in worship. For our participation in the cup is a participation in the blood of Christ. The bread given into our mouths is the very body of Christ.
What this means is that we do not have to go to the cross to get Jesus' death for us. We do not have to search for Him in heaven because through the sacrament the cross comes to us. The suffering and death and resurrection of Christ are not events which began and ended way back in 33 A.D. When Christ said, "This is my body", he was giving the himself to you. Christ's death comes to you. Christ dies for you in the Sacrament. Christ forgives you. The sacrament is your connection to the cross, to the forgiveness, to the new life.
This real presence of Christ among us, in tile humble form of bread and wine, is a blessed assurance for us. For we need not dream up schemes to make an absent Christ more real to us. He is already here. We do not have to wonder if Christ really died for us. For his very body is placed on your tongue. His very blood is given to you.
In the Sacrament, Christ offers us a share in his death. He offers the same death to us at every Lord's supper, and with it he gives a taste of the resurrection. Receiving his life giving flesh we are revived and we rise again with him to the new life of Easter.
The body of Christ given for you; the blood of Christ shed for you: now that is a genuine revival!
As a pastor I receive quite a bit of unsolicited mail. What we often call junk mail. Most of it ends up thrown away, but occasionally something catches my eye.
A few months ago a flier crossed my desk advertising a 50 day adventure. This program touts itself as a "proven creative way to nurture, sustain, and mature genuine revival in your church."
Quite a claim, I thought. The advertisement went on to ask what would happen in your church if Christ were physically present with you next Sunday? "Imagine how vibrant tile worship would become! People would ...naturally show His love to each other. Who wouldn't invite a friend or neighbor when Christ himself is present. "
Well, what would happen if Christ were really present with you next Sunday? My answer is this: come to church at Redeemer LCMS in Catawba NC; it happens every week. Whatever the merits of this program, Lutherans need not "imagine" Christ coming to our church and being really present. In the Sacrament of the Altar we have the very presence of Christ, his true body and blood given and shed for us. We need not wonder what it would be like for Jesus really to be with us in worship. For our participation in the cup is a participation in the blood of Christ. The bread given into our mouths is the very body of Christ.
What this means is that we do not have to go to the cross to get Jesus' death for us. We do not have to search for Him in heaven because through the sacrament the cross comes to us. The suffering and death and resurrection of Christ are not events which began and ended way back in 33 A.D. When Christ said, "This is my body", he was giving the himself to you. Christ's death comes to you. Christ dies for you in the Sacrament. Christ forgives you. The sacrament is your connection to the cross, to the forgiveness, to the new life.
This real presence of Christ among us, in tile humble form of bread and wine, is a blessed assurance for us. For we need not dream up schemes to make an absent Christ more real to us. He is already here. We do not have to wonder if Christ really died for us. For his very body is placed on your tongue. His very blood is given to you.
In the Sacrament, Christ offers us a share in his death. He offers the same death to us at every Lord's supper, and with it he gives a taste of the resurrection. Receiving his life giving flesh we are revived and we rise again with him to the new life of Easter.
The body of Christ given for you; the blood of Christ shed for you: now that is a genuine revival!
Monday, August 15, 2005
The Canaanite Woman (Matthew 15:21-28)
This text (assigned for this past Sunday in the three year series) is notoriously difficult. The difficulty lies in Jesus’ treatment of the woman. He ignores her, refuses to heal her daughter, insists his mission is only to Israelites, insults her (calls her a dog) and only finally after much pleading does he congratulate her faith and heal her daughter.
This same thing which makes the text difficult makes it accessible to us. For isn’t the way Jesus treats the woman how he treats us?
How many of us have not prayed, “Heal my daughter ( substitute father, mother, wife, husband) and heard nothing from our Savior? How many of us have watched as our loved ones get worse and not better despite the prayers of the church? How many of us have not felt the crushing weight of unworthiness, the strong and accurate sense that, “Yes, it is true, I am not worthy to eat the bread of the children, yes, the silence I get from Jesus is well earned, no, I do not deserve any healing or favors.”
And what do we throw in the face of this silence, into the face of the “no” that comes loud and clear? We throw faith, the faith of the Canaanite woman. We stand only on that same ground, faith that knows this Jesus is “Lord” and “Son of David.” Faith which knows that despite this silence and seeming inactivity, Jesus is our Redeemer, the crucified One, the One promised, the Healer and Restorer. We throw faith at Jesus, the Jesus who said to us in our baptism “Lo, I am with you always.” We throw faith in His promises back to this Jesus, the One who said, This is my body given for you” and “Your sins are forgiven“, the Jesus who said, “He who believes in me will never die.”
This faith we stand on is no super human effort of ours, not some sort of existential weight lifting whereby we carry the despair of the ages. No, it is a quiet faith born of the Holy Spirit and sustained by the Word. Faith which faces each day, good or bad, rooted in the promises of Jesus, the Jesus whose promises are sure.
This same thing which makes the text difficult makes it accessible to us. For isn’t the way Jesus treats the woman how he treats us?
How many of us have not prayed, “Heal my daughter ( substitute father, mother, wife, husband) and heard nothing from our Savior? How many of us have watched as our loved ones get worse and not better despite the prayers of the church? How many of us have not felt the crushing weight of unworthiness, the strong and accurate sense that, “Yes, it is true, I am not worthy to eat the bread of the children, yes, the silence I get from Jesus is well earned, no, I do not deserve any healing or favors.”
And what do we throw in the face of this silence, into the face of the “no” that comes loud and clear? We throw faith, the faith of the Canaanite woman. We stand only on that same ground, faith that knows this Jesus is “Lord” and “Son of David.” Faith which knows that despite this silence and seeming inactivity, Jesus is our Redeemer, the crucified One, the One promised, the Healer and Restorer. We throw faith at Jesus, the Jesus who said to us in our baptism “Lo, I am with you always.” We throw faith in His promises back to this Jesus, the One who said, This is my body given for you” and “Your sins are forgiven“, the Jesus who said, “He who believes in me will never die.”
This faith we stand on is no super human effort of ours, not some sort of existential weight lifting whereby we carry the despair of the ages. No, it is a quiet faith born of the Holy Spirit and sustained by the Word. Faith which faces each day, good or bad, rooted in the promises of Jesus, the Jesus whose promises are sure.
Lutheran Carnival I
Here is the first Lutheran Carnival. Great job, Dan and Elle. I have not gone through all of them but I will. Check it out for yourself.
Saturday, August 13, 2005
Matter: Vehicle for God's Presence
Here is a very nice selection from a a very nice book by Robert Louis Wilken, a patristics scholar. This bit below deals with how matter becomes a vehicle for the presence of God and the theology of icons and John of Damascus. It is very incarnational, very sacramental and very Lutheran. Lutherans stand with the early church in seeing "stuff" as the vehicle of God's presence and not with other Protestants who have divorced spirit from flesh.
Lutherans would add one caveat to the shema sketched below, a warning about certainty. All matter has the potential to be divine, to be a carrier of God's presence but we have no assurance that any particular matter (an icon, a relic) is, in fact, a carrier of God's presence. Christ has said that the water of baptism, the bread and wine of the Supper, the words of absolution are, in fact, carriers of His presence. So faith looks not to just to matter in general but to those places and things about which Christ has said, "Here I am."
Matter, the stuff of this earth from which all things are made, is intrinsically good. As God created each thing in the account in Genesis he looked at what he had created and saw that "it was good." In his dispute with the Manichees, Augustine had defended the goodness of matter on the basis of these words.
John of Damascus, however, wants to say more. His point is that matter has within itself the capacity to become a resting place for God, to become something other while remaining what it is. In Christ, John writes, the Creator of matter "worked out my salvation through matter." For this rea-son, "I treat all matter with reverence and respect, because it is filled with divine grace and power." Matter, what can be seen with the eyes and touched with the fingers, has the potential to become an icon, an image of God and of the things of God.
When God ordered the ark to be constructed of wood and gilded on the inside and outside (and Aaron's staff and the golden urn containing the manna to be placed in it), matter became "carriers of memory." As the Israelites looked at the image they were reminded of what had happened in the past and of what was promised for the future.
John has read the Scriptures carefully and discerned a distinctive feature of biblical religion, namely, that things can become the vehicle of God 's presence among us. When David decided to bring the ark of God from the house of Abinadab it was carried on a new cart. According to 2 Samuel, as the ark moved toward the city "David and all the house of Israel were making merry before the Lord with all their might, with songs, and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals" (2 Sam. 6:5). In dancing before the ark David was dancing before the Lord.
God has always employed visible things in dealing with human beings, and through the Incarnation the ways of old are confirmed and exalted. In a felicitous phrase John says that all these material things, stones, bushes, chests, were "piercing heralds" that brought to mind God's works and led the faithful "to remember the mighty works of old and to worship God."
Wilken, The Spirit of Early Christian Thought, Yale University Press, 2003.
Lutherans would add one caveat to the shema sketched below, a warning about certainty. All matter has the potential to be divine, to be a carrier of God's presence but we have no assurance that any particular matter (an icon, a relic) is, in fact, a carrier of God's presence. Christ has said that the water of baptism, the bread and wine of the Supper, the words of absolution are, in fact, carriers of His presence. So faith looks not to just to matter in general but to those places and things about which Christ has said, "Here I am."
Matter, the stuff of this earth from which all things are made, is intrinsically good. As God created each thing in the account in Genesis he looked at what he had created and saw that "it was good." In his dispute with the Manichees, Augustine had defended the goodness of matter on the basis of these words.
John of Damascus, however, wants to say more. His point is that matter has within itself the capacity to become a resting place for God, to become something other while remaining what it is. In Christ, John writes, the Creator of matter "worked out my salvation through matter." For this rea-son, "I treat all matter with reverence and respect, because it is filled with divine grace and power." Matter, what can be seen with the eyes and touched with the fingers, has the potential to become an icon, an image of God and of the things of God.
When God ordered the ark to be constructed of wood and gilded on the inside and outside (and Aaron's staff and the golden urn containing the manna to be placed in it), matter became "carriers of memory." As the Israelites looked at the image they were reminded of what had happened in the past and of what was promised for the future.
John has read the Scriptures carefully and discerned a distinctive feature of biblical religion, namely, that things can become the vehicle of God 's presence among us. When David decided to bring the ark of God from the house of Abinadab it was carried on a new cart. According to 2 Samuel, as the ark moved toward the city "David and all the house of Israel were making merry before the Lord with all their might, with songs, and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals" (2 Sam. 6:5). In dancing before the ark David was dancing before the Lord.
God has always employed visible things in dealing with human beings, and through the Incarnation the ways of old are confirmed and exalted. In a felicitous phrase John says that all these material things, stones, bushes, chests, were "piercing heralds" that brought to mind God's works and led the faithful "to remember the mighty works of old and to worship God."
Wilken, The Spirit of Early Christian Thought, Yale University Press, 2003.
Friday, August 12, 2005
ELCA Offers Alternative to 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit'
This is bad.
Though I do not think they jettisoned the baptismal formula commanded by Christ, this eliminating the name of God, the Holy Trinity, in favor of idolatrous names made up by human imagination, is a drift not into liberalism but into apostasy.
Though I do not think they jettisoned the baptismal formula commanded by Christ, this eliminating the name of God, the Holy Trinity, in favor of idolatrous names made up by human imagination, is a drift not into liberalism but into apostasy.
Praying the Psalms
Praying the Psalms sums up and completes the sweep of God's dealings with man.
When the Psalms are prayed by the Church, God's children pray God's word.
The Psalms are the inspired word of God yet are prayed by mortal men as their own prayers. In the praying of the Psalms, a prime purpose of worship comes to its fulfillment : to speak as God speaks, to be one with God in voice and heart, to say what He says back to Him and yet to have that speech be ours, not a rote recitation but a living voice of God's Word as ours.
As we pray them we stand in the same spot as David and the Old Testament saints who first wrote and prayed them.
Christ himself prayed these Psalms so we also pray with the Son to the Father, standing in our baptism, crying , "Abba , Father."
We also pray them in our own lives, the hurts, sins and despair and hopes and joys we experience finding voice in the ancient song.
So the church is one at prayer in the psalms with David and the Apostles and the humble company of today's saints. The church is also one with her Lord as she prays the Psalms with her Lord: one voice, one body.
When the Psalms are prayed by the Church, God's children pray God's word.
The Psalms are the inspired word of God yet are prayed by mortal men as their own prayers. In the praying of the Psalms, a prime purpose of worship comes to its fulfillment : to speak as God speaks, to be one with God in voice and heart, to say what He says back to Him and yet to have that speech be ours, not a rote recitation but a living voice of God's Word as ours.
As we pray them we stand in the same spot as David and the Old Testament saints who first wrote and prayed them.
Christ himself prayed these Psalms so we also pray with the Son to the Father, standing in our baptism, crying , "Abba , Father."
We also pray them in our own lives, the hurts, sins and despair and hopes and joys we experience finding voice in the ancient song.
So the church is one at prayer in the psalms with David and the Apostles and the humble company of today's saints. The church is also one with her Lord as she prays the Psalms with her Lord: one voice, one body.
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Intactivists
Truth is stranger than fiction but there is a group of "Intactivists" lobbying the UN to label circumcision a human rights crime.
Bizarre.
The main crime is that circumcision "reduces the sexual pleasure of men and women, which can lead to failed relationships."
I am sure if only all those millions of divorcees had had more sexual pleasure in their lives, if only their genitalia had been more sexually responsive, they would not be divorced. Sure seems right to me.
Bizarre.
The main crime is that circumcision "reduces the sexual pleasure of men and women, which can lead to failed relationships."
I am sure if only all those millions of divorcees had had more sexual pleasure in their lives, if only their genitalia had been more sexually responsive, they would not be divorced. Sure seems right to me.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
But is he related to Merle?
If he is , ok, I'll vote for him.
"We don't make a party out of lovin';
We like holdin' hands and pitchin' woo;"
"We don't make a party out of lovin';
We like holdin' hands and pitchin' woo;"
Is Adiaphora Adiaphora ?
The perennial problem that must be faced in dealing with Lutheran worship is adiaphora. Adiaphora is a Greek word which has come to mean the parts of the service which are not "essential", not God-commanded. Often the word is used to justify getting rid of the historic liturgy altogether. The argument goes : how we worship is adiaphora so we can change the service however we wish. The classical statement of the Lutheran doctrine of adiaphora is in Formula of Concord, Article 10.
The problem that faces confessional Lutherans is this : if the service is adiaphora, what saves it from complete irrelevance? If salvation is not to be found in the human aspects of the liturgy why must there be a liturgy or organized forms of worship at all?
Let us think carefully on the practical existence of adiaphora. While they are free and not commanded for salvation, worship cannot happen apart from human ceremonies not commanded in Scripture. No Christian service can exist without adiaphora since what is commanded by Christ in regards to baptism, preaching and Lord’s Supper cannot be carried out without adiaphoristic ceremony. The Verba and Distribution and Trinitarian baptism must somehow happen within a service in a congregation. So, adiaphora are, on the one hand, not essential yet on the other, they are. This tension lies at the heart of all practical Lutheran theology of worship.
We must not dissipate this tension but harness it in service of the Gospel. Adiaphora are never rites that must be carried out to give salvation yet they are related to the Gospel as to their ultimate source and reason for being . The category “adiaphora” is not a junk drawer into which all extra-sacramental actions are thrown so that they may be used in a pinch or ignored at will. They exist as servant to the Gospel: to assist, arrange and beautify.
The Gospel sacraments and the adiaphora of the liturgy go together and must always be together. Ceremonies are the structures and means by which the Gospel and sacraments take shape within the liturgy. Never empty or neutral, humanly devised rites and ceremonies are always organically related and united to the concrete sacramental Gospel of the Lutheran liturgy.
This concrete sacramental Gospel must take a certain shape. That shape is the "adiaphora". That the Gospel is Christological, sacramental, historical and intrinsically related to the office of the ministry forms and molds adiaphora to reflect the Biblical truth of what the Gospel actually is. All of which is to say that the divinely willed Gospel and sacraments incarnates itself in the adiaphora we know as the historic Lutheran liturgy.
The problem that faces confessional Lutherans is this : if the service is adiaphora, what saves it from complete irrelevance? If salvation is not to be found in the human aspects of the liturgy why must there be a liturgy or organized forms of worship at all?
Let us think carefully on the practical existence of adiaphora. While they are free and not commanded for salvation, worship cannot happen apart from human ceremonies not commanded in Scripture. No Christian service can exist without adiaphora since what is commanded by Christ in regards to baptism, preaching and Lord’s Supper cannot be carried out without adiaphoristic ceremony. The Verba and Distribution and Trinitarian baptism must somehow happen within a service in a congregation. So, adiaphora are, on the one hand, not essential yet on the other, they are. This tension lies at the heart of all practical Lutheran theology of worship.
We must not dissipate this tension but harness it in service of the Gospel. Adiaphora are never rites that must be carried out to give salvation yet they are related to the Gospel as to their ultimate source and reason for being . The category “adiaphora” is not a junk drawer into which all extra-sacramental actions are thrown so that they may be used in a pinch or ignored at will. They exist as servant to the Gospel: to assist, arrange and beautify.
The Gospel sacraments and the adiaphora of the liturgy go together and must always be together. Ceremonies are the structures and means by which the Gospel and sacraments take shape within the liturgy. Never empty or neutral, humanly devised rites and ceremonies are always organically related and united to the concrete sacramental Gospel of the Lutheran liturgy.
This concrete sacramental Gospel must take a certain shape. That shape is the "adiaphora". That the Gospel is Christological, sacramental, historical and intrinsically related to the office of the ministry forms and molds adiaphora to reflect the Biblical truth of what the Gospel actually is. All of which is to say that the divinely willed Gospel and sacraments incarnates itself in the adiaphora we know as the historic Lutheran liturgy.
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Always go to the Funeral
This is a nice little piece from NPR's series, "This I believe". Alot of this series is not very good, high minded, empty phrases or liberal mish mash but this one is very good.
Not explicitly Christian but this author has her finger on real virtue and how it is lived in our daily life. She expresses well the sense that doing good is not heroicc or extraordinary but routine as well as self sacrificial. Celebrity culture often suggests that one must be Bono meeting with the G8 or Mother Teresa to be doing something noteworthy but this essay deflates that notion.
A couple of excerpts:
“In my humdrum life, the daily battle hasn't been good versus evil. It's hardly so epic. Most days, my real battle is doing good versus doing nothing.”
"Always go to the funeral" means that I have to do the right thing when I really, really don't feel like it. I have to remind myself of it when I could make some small gesture, but I don't really have to and I definitely don't want to. I'm talking about those things that represent only inconvenience to me, but the world to the other guy. You know, the painfully under-attended birthday party. The hospital visit during happy hour."
Not explicitly Christian but this author has her finger on real virtue and how it is lived in our daily life. She expresses well the sense that doing good is not heroicc or extraordinary but routine as well as self sacrificial. Celebrity culture often suggests that one must be Bono meeting with the G8 or Mother Teresa to be doing something noteworthy but this essay deflates that notion.
A couple of excerpts:
“In my humdrum life, the daily battle hasn't been good versus evil. It's hardly so epic. Most days, my real battle is doing good versus doing nothing.”
"Always go to the funeral" means that I have to do the right thing when I really, really don't feel like it. I have to remind myself of it when I could make some small gesture, but I don't really have to and I definitely don't want to. I'm talking about those things that represent only inconvenience to me, but the world to the other guy. You know, the painfully under-attended birthday party. The hospital visit during happy hour."
Monday, August 08, 2005
Where did all this bad stuff come from?
The most pernicious and deadly thought pattern is the separation of body and spirit.
It is at the root of most heresies in the history of the church. It is behind the creping Gnosticism in our culture (with roots in the Enlightenment and in the earlier Greek philosophical views of matter and spirit).
It leads to all sorts of ills today such ( in no particular order) the decline of manners, the decline of liturgy, abortion, homosexuality, ordination of women, living together before marriage, Pentecostalism, speaking in tongues, general immoral ways of living (“I can do what I want with my body and still be a Christian“) pornography, debasement of language through sloppy and foul patterns of speech, and on and on.
The answer to all this is the Incarnation. The incarnation is the crown and flower of the Biblical view of creation as created by God, separate from God yet inhabited and filled and employed by that same Creator God.
It is at the root of most heresies in the history of the church. It is behind the creping Gnosticism in our culture (with roots in the Enlightenment and in the earlier Greek philosophical views of matter and spirit).
It leads to all sorts of ills today such ( in no particular order) the decline of manners, the decline of liturgy, abortion, homosexuality, ordination of women, living together before marriage, Pentecostalism, speaking in tongues, general immoral ways of living (“I can do what I want with my body and still be a Christian“) pornography, debasement of language through sloppy and foul patterns of speech, and on and on.
The answer to all this is the Incarnation. The incarnation is the crown and flower of the Biblical view of creation as created by God, separate from God yet inhabited and filled and employed by that same Creator God.
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Lutheran Carnival : A Great Idea
What a good idea : A Lutheran Carnival: a collection of blog entries for confessional Lutherans. Read about it here. Thanks to Dan and Elle who are making it happen.
Friday, August 05, 2005
Sex in the City of God ...
... is the name of a very nice article in the Summer 2005 issue of Lutheran Forum. It traces the decline of the status of marriage from Thomas Aquinas to our present day morass. It is written by Philip Blosser and from a Catholic perspective but is good reading. It helps clarify what is involved in our understanding of what marriage actually is.
I do not think it is available oinline but here is a teaser :
Sometimes I feel that the distance (from traditional understandings of marriage in pre-Reformation/Enlightenemnet times) is so great that I nearly despair of try-ing to explain it to anyone. This distance is not something that developed overnight since the sexual revolution of the 1960s, or the legalization of abortion, or no-fault divorce, or the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, or technologies of in vitro fertilization and cloning. These have certainly had a profound effect on us, but I think these are actually the results of subtler but perhaps more signifi-cant developments that paved the way for them.
In fact, I would single out three landmark movements that define the distance between ourselves and where St. Thomas stands: (1) the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century; (2) the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century; and (3) the ac-ceptance of widespread contraception in the mid-twentieth century.
The Reformation essentially secularized marriage. Briefly, where Catholic tradition had seen marriage as a re-ligiously sanctioned sacramental covenant, the Reformers redefined it as a socially sanctioned civil contract, opening the way for divorce and remarriage.
The Enlightenment in turn redefined marriage as a privately sanctioned contract between autonomous individuals, in principle severing it from social, civil, and religious sanctions altogether.
And the introduction of widespread contraception in the twenti-eth century severed the marital act from its natural end of procreation, making children (and, thereby, marriage) an unnecessary addendum to sexual activity.
John Witte, Jr., a specialist in the history of marriage law, states that modern Anglo-American marriage law was formed out of two traditions-one rooted in Christianity, the other in the Enlightenment. From its beginnings, he says, the Western tradition viewed marriage in at least four perspectives:
1. Marriage is a contract, formed by the mutual consent of the marital couple, and subject to their wills and preferences.
2. Marriage is a spiritual association, subject to the creed, code, cult, and canons of the religious community.
3. Marriage is a social estate, subject to special state laws of property, inherit-ance, evidence, and to the expectations and exactions of the local community.
4. And marriage is a natural institution, sub-ject to the natural laws taught by reason and conscience, na-ture and custom ("Marriage" 30f.).3
These four perspectives are in one sense complementary and emphasize different aspects of marriage-its voluntary formation, its religious sanction, its social legitimation, and its natural origin. But, as Witte observes, they also stand in considerable tension, since they are linked to compet-ing claims of authority over the form and purpose of mar-riage-"claims by the couple, the church, the state, and by nature and nature's God" ("Marriage" 31).
Catholics, Prot-estants, and Enlightenment exponents all recognize mul-tiple perspectives on marriage, but each group gives priority to one of them. Catholics emphasize the spiritual ( or sac-ramental) perspective; Protestants emphasize the social ( or public) perspective; and Enlightenment exponents empha-size the contractual (or private) perspective. In broad out-line, the Catholic model dominated Western marriage law until the sixteenth century; the Protestant model (though coexisting with the Catholic) dominated from the mid-six-teenth to the mid-nineteenth century; and the Enlighten-ment model finally surfaced in the past century, in many cases eclipsing the Christian model.
I do not think it is available oinline but here is a teaser :
Sometimes I feel that the distance (from traditional understandings of marriage in pre-Reformation/Enlightenemnet times) is so great that I nearly despair of try-ing to explain it to anyone. This distance is not something that developed overnight since the sexual revolution of the 1960s, or the legalization of abortion, or no-fault divorce, or the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, or technologies of in vitro fertilization and cloning. These have certainly had a profound effect on us, but I think these are actually the results of subtler but perhaps more signifi-cant developments that paved the way for them.
In fact, I would single out three landmark movements that define the distance between ourselves and where St. Thomas stands: (1) the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century; (2) the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century; and (3) the ac-ceptance of widespread contraception in the mid-twentieth century.
The Reformation essentially secularized marriage. Briefly, where Catholic tradition had seen marriage as a re-ligiously sanctioned sacramental covenant, the Reformers redefined it as a socially sanctioned civil contract, opening the way for divorce and remarriage.
The Enlightenment in turn redefined marriage as a privately sanctioned contract between autonomous individuals, in principle severing it from social, civil, and religious sanctions altogether.
And the introduction of widespread contraception in the twenti-eth century severed the marital act from its natural end of procreation, making children (and, thereby, marriage) an unnecessary addendum to sexual activity.
John Witte, Jr., a specialist in the history of marriage law, states that modern Anglo-American marriage law was formed out of two traditions-one rooted in Christianity, the other in the Enlightenment. From its beginnings, he says, the Western tradition viewed marriage in at least four perspectives:
1. Marriage is a contract, formed by the mutual consent of the marital couple, and subject to their wills and preferences.
2. Marriage is a spiritual association, subject to the creed, code, cult, and canons of the religious community.
3. Marriage is a social estate, subject to special state laws of property, inherit-ance, evidence, and to the expectations and exactions of the local community.
4. And marriage is a natural institution, sub-ject to the natural laws taught by reason and conscience, na-ture and custom ("Marriage" 30f.).3
These four perspectives are in one sense complementary and emphasize different aspects of marriage-its voluntary formation, its religious sanction, its social legitimation, and its natural origin. But, as Witte observes, they also stand in considerable tension, since they are linked to compet-ing claims of authority over the form and purpose of mar-riage-"claims by the couple, the church, the state, and by nature and nature's God" ("Marriage" 31).
Catholics, Prot-estants, and Enlightenment exponents all recognize mul-tiple perspectives on marriage, but each group gives priority to one of them. Catholics emphasize the spiritual ( or sac-ramental) perspective; Protestants emphasize the social ( or public) perspective; and Enlightenment exponents empha-size the contractual (or private) perspective. In broad out-line, the Catholic model dominated Western marriage law until the sixteenth century; the Protestant model (though coexisting with the Catholic) dominated from the mid-six-teenth to the mid-nineteenth century; and the Enlighten-ment model finally surfaced in the past century, in many cases eclipsing the Christian model.
Church versus Spirituality
An interesting article on one woman's journey from Catholicism to something called "New Thought". The article is entitled
"I Shopped for a Church...and Found Spirituality Instead".
New Thought sounds alot like Gnosticism and old line paganism to me:
"New Thought...is a modern spiritual philosophy stressing the power of right thinking in a person's life, the idea that our thoughts and attitudes affect our experience and that God (or whatever other name a person might have for a Higher Power) is within the individual."
It also sounds so very easy and accepting:
"What I know unequivocally is that I feel deep peace when I attend the Sacred Center. New Thought doesn't ask me to discriminate, feel guilty, dwell on suffering, judge, worship a punishing God or be anyone I'm not."
The ultimate arbiter is self. In fact this God is the self.
Also, there is no "church", no real community here. Only self discovery,nothing real outside one's own inner self. One may enjoy the company of like minded individuals but with God reduced to feelings and preferences there is no "other" to relate to only a collapse into "me". This makes community impossible.
"I Shopped for a Church...and Found Spirituality Instead".
New Thought sounds alot like Gnosticism and old line paganism to me:
"New Thought...is a modern spiritual philosophy stressing the power of right thinking in a person's life, the idea that our thoughts and attitudes affect our experience and that God (or whatever other name a person might have for a Higher Power) is within the individual."
It also sounds so very easy and accepting:
"What I know unequivocally is that I feel deep peace when I attend the Sacred Center. New Thought doesn't ask me to discriminate, feel guilty, dwell on suffering, judge, worship a punishing God or be anyone I'm not."
The ultimate arbiter is self. In fact this God is the self.
Also, there is no "church", no real community here. Only self discovery,nothing real outside one's own inner self. One may enjoy the company of like minded individuals but with God reduced to feelings and preferences there is no "other" to relate to only a collapse into "me". This makes community impossible.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Being Pastoral
Words are often the first casualty of ecclesiastical battles. Each sides reaches for the best words to use as weapons for their opinions. The effect on the words themselves can be quite ugly.
Take for example the word "pastoral". In the flaps in the LCMS over various matters such as participation in joint events with other religions and denominations, supporters of such participation toss out this adjective in remarkable quantities. The sentiment is that particpants in such events as community services, joint weddings, ecumenical communion services (which normally in the LCMS have been frowned upon) display their pastoral qualities in pursuing activities which otherwise might not be acceptable. The working definition of pastoral is thus "an exceptional event" or "a departure from normal procedure". In this understanding of pastoral work, one is most a pastor when he steps over normal bounds or breaks the rules in some novel way to extend kindness or sympathy.
This may appeal to the adolescent spirit within us but one wonders if this corresponds to the Biblical churchly content of the word "pastoral". The words "pastoral" and pastor" have as roots the Latin word for shepherd. In fact, "shepherd" in Latin is exactly "pastor." One sees this in a striking way in the Vulgate translation of John 10 where Jesus calls himself the "pastor bonus," the good pastor. It is here where a more precise Scriptural significance is found for being pastoral.
In this well known chapter it is Christ who is held up as the model pastor. His being a good pastor consists in two activities: gathering and protecting. He gathers "via voce" by means of his voice. "The sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. ... His sheep follow him because they know his voice.(John 10: 3-4)" Christ is pastoral in that he gathers his sheep through His Word, which he speaks to them. The example of the "pastor bonus" applies immediately to his under shepherds. Good pastors, in the light of John 10, are those who echo the voice of the good shepherd in their own activities : they gather sheep by means of the word of Christ. Here is the true substance of pastoral pursuits: the faithful speaking of Christ's word to lowly sheep. This is what being pastoral is. It may also involve kindness or sympathy or extraordinary situations, but these are not the heart of the ministry of pastor.
In fact being pastoral may involve much fighting and fierce combat. This is because the second mark of pastoral ministry in John 10 is protecting. Christ is the good shepherd who has come to protect the flock from wolves. The hired hand who is not the shepherd runs away and will not or risk his life for the sake of the sheep. The good shepherd faces the wolves who seek to scatter sheep and lays down his life in defense of his flock.
So it is with all who truly seek to be pastoral. A devoted pastor will sacrifice all things for the saving of the sheep gathered in the sheepfold against wolves. The salvation and spiritual safety of the sheep are the primary concerns of the "pastor bonus". This salvation and spiritual safety depend precisely on the that voice and word of the true Good Shepherd. The sheep dwell and remain in the safety of the sheepfold solely through the voice of Christ, and the wolves which come to scatter do so by shouting other words, by seducing them to listen to voices other than Christ. The true pastor is he who protects the sheep from the wolfish voices which seek to drown out the voice of the good shepherd. Pastoral work involves not simple kindness only or compassion but defense of the truth , the pointing out of error, the warning of spiritual dangers outside and inside the church. All this is for the sake of the sheep that they may hear the saving voice of their only true pastor, Jesus.
Of course all this involves more than a battle over a word . At issue is the way of viewing the office of pastor. Is the pastor primarily a caregiver whose main task is to show Christian religious kindness in the midst of the various circumstances and situations which arise? Or is the pastor one who gathers and protects the people of God in a specific way : through the living Word of Christ the good shepherd? John 10 suggests the latter.
Take for example the word "pastoral". In the flaps in the LCMS over various matters such as participation in joint events with other religions and denominations, supporters of such participation toss out this adjective in remarkable quantities. The sentiment is that particpants in such events as community services, joint weddings, ecumenical communion services (which normally in the LCMS have been frowned upon) display their pastoral qualities in pursuing activities which otherwise might not be acceptable. The working definition of pastoral is thus "an exceptional event" or "a departure from normal procedure". In this understanding of pastoral work, one is most a pastor when he steps over normal bounds or breaks the rules in some novel way to extend kindness or sympathy.
This may appeal to the adolescent spirit within us but one wonders if this corresponds to the Biblical churchly content of the word "pastoral". The words "pastoral" and pastor" have as roots the Latin word for shepherd. In fact, "shepherd" in Latin is exactly "pastor." One sees this in a striking way in the Vulgate translation of John 10 where Jesus calls himself the "pastor bonus," the good pastor. It is here where a more precise Scriptural significance is found for being pastoral.
In this well known chapter it is Christ who is held up as the model pastor. His being a good pastor consists in two activities: gathering and protecting. He gathers "via voce" by means of his voice. "The sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. ... His sheep follow him because they know his voice.(John 10: 3-4)" Christ is pastoral in that he gathers his sheep through His Word, which he speaks to them. The example of the "pastor bonus" applies immediately to his under shepherds. Good pastors, in the light of John 10, are those who echo the voice of the good shepherd in their own activities : they gather sheep by means of the word of Christ. Here is the true substance of pastoral pursuits: the faithful speaking of Christ's word to lowly sheep. This is what being pastoral is. It may also involve kindness or sympathy or extraordinary situations, but these are not the heart of the ministry of pastor.
In fact being pastoral may involve much fighting and fierce combat. This is because the second mark of pastoral ministry in John 10 is protecting. Christ is the good shepherd who has come to protect the flock from wolves. The hired hand who is not the shepherd runs away and will not or risk his life for the sake of the sheep. The good shepherd faces the wolves who seek to scatter sheep and lays down his life in defense of his flock.
So it is with all who truly seek to be pastoral. A devoted pastor will sacrifice all things for the saving of the sheep gathered in the sheepfold against wolves. The salvation and spiritual safety of the sheep are the primary concerns of the "pastor bonus". This salvation and spiritual safety depend precisely on the that voice and word of the true Good Shepherd. The sheep dwell and remain in the safety of the sheepfold solely through the voice of Christ, and the wolves which come to scatter do so by shouting other words, by seducing them to listen to voices other than Christ. The true pastor is he who protects the sheep from the wolfish voices which seek to drown out the voice of the good shepherd. Pastoral work involves not simple kindness only or compassion but defense of the truth , the pointing out of error, the warning of spiritual dangers outside and inside the church. All this is for the sake of the sheep that they may hear the saving voice of their only true pastor, Jesus.
Of course all this involves more than a battle over a word . At issue is the way of viewing the office of pastor. Is the pastor primarily a caregiver whose main task is to show Christian religious kindness in the midst of the various circumstances and situations which arise? Or is the pastor one who gathers and protects the people of God in a specific way : through the living Word of Christ the good shepherd? John 10 suggests the latter.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Weddings : What are they Good For?
From the NY Times, here is an article on the popularity of Western style weddings in Japan and the demand for ministers. The demand has led to a demand for "fake" pastors:
Bridal companies in recent years are largely dispensing with the niceties of providing a pastor with a seminary education, keeping the requirements simple: a man from an English-speaking country who will show up on time, remember his lines, not mix up names and perform the ceremony in 20 minutes.
From a small beginning a few years ago, the Western wedding "priest" has suddenly become an established part of modern Japan's cultural tableau. The lure of easy money has prompted hundreds of foreign men to respond to newspaper advertisements here, like the one that read: "North Americans, Europeans wanted to conduct wedding ceremonies.
This is exactly what most American couples want in a church wedding : a fake pastor and a fake ceremony. This desire has Laurel Snyder scratching her head in this nicely written piece.
She decided not to have a religious ceremony even though she is a Jewish "believer". She questions why so many are so hypocritical on their wedding day and opt for religious ceremony when they have no room for religion on any other day of the year:
But I ask -- because I'm genuinely curious -- whether anyone even considers a non-religious ceremony. I nicely ask these couples, when I meet them, if they feel hypocritical, and they usually offer me one of two answers.
We did it for our families.
It's just what a wedding is.
And each time I'm taken aback. I want to shout, "Huh? For your families?"
You're telling me that your grandmother wants you to lie to Jesus? I doubt it. When your grandmother looks pleased at your wedding, it's because she's grasping at straws. She wants you to be a member of the flock. Your grandmother, afraid you've turned into a wicked girl in a puffy white dress, is looking for a sign that you'll raise your children right, get to heaven when you die. And in effect, you've lied to her. You aren't going to her heaven, are you?
Bridal companies in recent years are largely dispensing with the niceties of providing a pastor with a seminary education, keeping the requirements simple: a man from an English-speaking country who will show up on time, remember his lines, not mix up names and perform the ceremony in 20 minutes.
From a small beginning a few years ago, the Western wedding "priest" has suddenly become an established part of modern Japan's cultural tableau. The lure of easy money has prompted hundreds of foreign men to respond to newspaper advertisements here, like the one that read: "North Americans, Europeans wanted to conduct wedding ceremonies.
This is exactly what most American couples want in a church wedding : a fake pastor and a fake ceremony. This desire has Laurel Snyder scratching her head in this nicely written piece.
She decided not to have a religious ceremony even though she is a Jewish "believer". She questions why so many are so hypocritical on their wedding day and opt for religious ceremony when they have no room for religion on any other day of the year:
But I ask -- because I'm genuinely curious -- whether anyone even considers a non-religious ceremony. I nicely ask these couples, when I meet them, if they feel hypocritical, and they usually offer me one of two answers.
We did it for our families.
It's just what a wedding is.
And each time I'm taken aback. I want to shout, "Huh? For your families?"
You're telling me that your grandmother wants you to lie to Jesus? I doubt it. When your grandmother looks pleased at your wedding, it's because she's grasping at straws. She wants you to be a member of the flock. Your grandmother, afraid you've turned into a wicked girl in a puffy white dress, is looking for a sign that you'll raise your children right, get to heaven when you die. And in effect, you've lied to her. You aren't going to her heaven, are you?
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
I am not fond of contemporary worship ...
I am not fond of contemporary worship, homemade liturgies or whatever one calls the novel orders of service which have cropped up in our churches in the last 20 years. I have many reasons to dislike them -- vacuous music, novelty for the sake of novelty, disregard for the accumulated wisdom of the church and so forth.
But one aspect I find especially distasteful is the didactic ugliness and unsightlyness. One encounters confessions of sin that turn into litanies of particular misdeeds, a shotgun approach to repentance in which, hopefully among all the catalog of wrong actions, one finds something of which one is guilty. Instead of allowing us to come before God in humility and sorrow, these confessions try to teach us catalogs of our vices. The confessions or statements of faith (not creeds) are likewise littered with all manner of phrases and pedagogical nonsense designed to hammer home some theme for the day dreamed up by some misguided pastor or tries, in the guise of stating our beliefs, to make us feel guilty for not doing enough for outreach. The prayers and every other part of the service is similarly gummed up with junk supposed to teach us some principle or idea some one thought the past week.
In contrast the historic liturgy in its myriad forms that exist among us, is beautiful in its brevity and razor sharp in its focus. Consider the phrase “The Lord be with you“. How much is conveyed with those five little words: the Gospel thrust of Christ’s incarnation and sacrifice and resurrection, the office of the ministry and the preaching office, the sacramental slant to the service, the baptismal, Trinitarian self-disclosure of God -- all in the greeting!
The historic liturgy also allows each part of the liturgy to have its space, to do its job. The confession of sins to confess sin, the creed to recite the ancient faith and to express our oneness before communing, the sermon to apply and proclaim the gospel from the texts for that day. In this there is a balance and an order which is its simplicity beautiful.
But one aspect I find especially distasteful is the didactic ugliness and unsightlyness. One encounters confessions of sin that turn into litanies of particular misdeeds, a shotgun approach to repentance in which, hopefully among all the catalog of wrong actions, one finds something of which one is guilty. Instead of allowing us to come before God in humility and sorrow, these confessions try to teach us catalogs of our vices. The confessions or statements of faith (not creeds) are likewise littered with all manner of phrases and pedagogical nonsense designed to hammer home some theme for the day dreamed up by some misguided pastor or tries, in the guise of stating our beliefs, to make us feel guilty for not doing enough for outreach. The prayers and every other part of the service is similarly gummed up with junk supposed to teach us some principle or idea some one thought the past week.
In contrast the historic liturgy in its myriad forms that exist among us, is beautiful in its brevity and razor sharp in its focus. Consider the phrase “The Lord be with you“. How much is conveyed with those five little words: the Gospel thrust of Christ’s incarnation and sacrifice and resurrection, the office of the ministry and the preaching office, the sacramental slant to the service, the baptismal, Trinitarian self-disclosure of God -- all in the greeting!
The historic liturgy also allows each part of the liturgy to have its space, to do its job. The confession of sins to confess sin, the creed to recite the ancient faith and to express our oneness before communing, the sermon to apply and proclaim the gospel from the texts for that day. In this there is a balance and an order which is its simplicity beautiful.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Orthodox Body Leaves the NCC
Chrysostom and Xrysostom on Church Slackers
Xryosotm(aka Walt Snyder) in his Aardvark Alley blog has a nice post on the drop in church attendance in August.
Turns out the other Chrysotom (John of Antioch 347-407) also wrote about slackers. This sermon has always been a comfort to me if no other reason that it is nice to know the great John of Antioch and Constantinople faced the same problems as little ol' me.
Here si the first paragraph. This translation is freely available on the net and I got it here.
ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM : HOMILY TO THOSE WHO HAD NOT ATTENDED THE ASSEMBLY.
1. I did no good as it seems by the prolonged discourse which I lately
addressed to you with a view to kindling your zeal for the assemblies
here:(1) for again our Church is destitute of her children. Wherefore also
I am again compelled to seem vexatious and burdensome, reproving those who
are present, and finding fault with those who have been left behind: with
them because they have not put away their sloth, and with you because you
have not given a helping hand to the salvation of your brethren. I am
compelled to seem burdensome and vexatious, not on behalf of myself, or my
own possessions, but on your behalf and for your salvation, which is more
precious to me than anything else. Let him who pleases take it in bad part,
and call me insolent and impudent, yet will I not cease continually
annoying him for the same purpose; for nothing is better for me than this
kind of impudence. For it may be, it may be, that this at least if nothing
else, will put you to shame, and that to avoid being perpetually importuned
concerning the same things, ye will take part in the tender care of your
brethren
Turns out the other Chrysotom (John of Antioch 347-407) also wrote about slackers. This sermon has always been a comfort to me if no other reason that it is nice to know the great John of Antioch and Constantinople faced the same problems as little ol' me.
Here si the first paragraph. This translation is freely available on the net and I got it here.
ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM : HOMILY TO THOSE WHO HAD NOT ATTENDED THE ASSEMBLY.
1. I did no good as it seems by the prolonged discourse which I lately
addressed to you with a view to kindling your zeal for the assemblies
here:(1) for again our Church is destitute of her children. Wherefore also
I am again compelled to seem vexatious and burdensome, reproving those who
are present, and finding fault with those who have been left behind: with
them because they have not put away their sloth, and with you because you
have not given a helping hand to the salvation of your brethren. I am
compelled to seem burdensome and vexatious, not on behalf of myself, or my
own possessions, but on your behalf and for your salvation, which is more
precious to me than anything else. Let him who pleases take it in bad part,
and call me insolent and impudent, yet will I not cease continually
annoying him for the same purpose; for nothing is better for me than this
kind of impudence. For it may be, it may be, that this at least if nothing
else, will put you to shame, and that to avoid being perpetually importuned
concerning the same things, ye will take part in the tender care of your
brethren
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)