Just Another One of the Saints

Yesterday, for just the second time since I've been called, ordained, and installed as a pastor at two fine Lutheran congregations I took a Sunday off.

The first time I took a Sunday "off" I took a trip to Italy and Switzerland with my wife and her family and friends. I say "off" in quotation marks, because I was asked to preach to them in a country devoid of any real Lutheran presence. I happily accepted. While wonderful to preach the Gospel, it can't be refreshing to the largest extent.

So yesterday came, I was able to be just another one of the saints. I sat in the pew in suit and tie. I received the absolution that Christ normally gives through me. I sang the hymns. I was able to listen to the sermon. I received from the pastor the body and blood of Holy Communion. I was blessed yesterday to simply be part of the communion of saints in a way common to all.

To receive from Christ. That is rest. That is peace. That is comfort. That is joy. That is the True Sabbath, the regeneration of my soul, and the strengthening of my faith. It was sorely needed. Amen.

Thanks be to God for that day or two a year that I get to be just another one of those blessed saints of God.

+Kyrie Eleison+

What Would an Archaeologist Find in the Ruins of My Church?

A recent MSNBC article about new archaeological evidence for the biblical David and Goliath makes the claim that David was a real man, in a real place. Of course, there is much skepticism in the article as well. What I found most interesting about the skepticism was its focus on the mixed religious practices of the people of Israel and the Philistines. Clearly, the Israelites were not as faithful as they should have been, nor were the Philistines unwilling to borrow from Israelite practices. This makes it harder to authenticate if David was truly there, or if it was simply an errant Israelite village. This quote sums it up rather well:

Maeir said the distinctions between the various peoples mentioned in the Bible — including David's Israelites and Goliath's Philistines — were "fuzzier than the way they are often described."

It got me thinking. If 3,000 years from now a group of archaeologists came to my church and did an excavation, what would they find? Would they be able to distinguish the Lutheran Church - even a Christian Church - from the pseudo worldly religions around me?

Consider all the things we do that might have the appearance of the world. Would we be able to distinguish the things of David from the things of Goliath? Is our life reflective of the fact that we are "in the world" but not "of the world"? I think, probably not. This is to our detriment and to our shame.

What it shows us is our great sin. Our Christian lives are "fuzzier than the way they are often described" in the Scriptures. We are full of sin, always coveting the things of this life, always seeking after false gods in ways that we don't always rightly see. Yet, future historians will make an account. They will see what we've done, and say that David's Israelites have mingled with Goliath's Philistines.

They will see the sins we've committed, and the hypocrisy of all Christian congregations when it comes to worship and practice, and the everyday lives of its parishioners. For this we should repent. Yet, let the Scriptures proclaim what the archaeology cannot see. We have a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love. Through Jesus Christ we saintly sinners are forgiven.

Though we've mingled the David and the Goliath, God has saved us from Goliath.

+Kyrie Eleison+

Why would any Christian read the Psalms?

Today's Christianity doesn't want anything but to be happy. It wears the facade of righteousness and ignores the fact that each and every Christian is a dirty rotten sinner. Because of this, most of Christianity must ignore the Psalms.

Take Psalm 22:6 "But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by mankind and despised by the people. All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads;" What self-righteous Christian would ever let these words pass from his mouth believing it was about him? None. No person thinks that he or she is a worm and not a man.

Thus the Holy Spirit must preach it into our hearts. He must convict the world and each of us of sin through the preaching of God's Law. He must bring us to a realization that we aren't righteous people, but worms. See the proof in the crucifixion: As Jesus cried out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?", we know that he spoke the entire psalm. He cried out these words as a sinner, though he was not one. He died the death of a sinner, felt the condemnation of the Father on behalf of all mankind, and had imputed to him the guilt of all sinners, which declared him a "worm and not a man."

Christ died for worms. He died for sinners. If you cannot say that you are "a worm and not a man," then you don't believe that Christ died for you.

I am a worm and not a man.

But Christ died for this poor worm, and gave birth to a new man who will be made whole on the return of the Lord. He forgave me, and where there is the forgiveness of sins there is also life and salvation.

Read the psalms. Read all the psalms.  Know that you're a sinner, and that God has promised mercy and has given it to you through His Son.

+Kyrie Eleison+

Why I Like Doing It the Hard Way

There are a lot of resources available for a pastor to use. There are sermon series with full sermons available to preach. There are pre-molded bible studies that you can pick up and use in an instant. There are confirmation materials that practically teach themselves. In theory, the pastor wouldn't even need to know the Word of God at all with everything that is available for pastors.

But I like doing it the "hard way". Concordia Publishing House (CPH) provides a bible study on each chapter of the bible, yet I am writing my own. That's not to say that I go it alone, or do not cherish some of the treasures that are available. For example, Rev. Peter Bender of the Concordia Catechetical Academy provides a great resource for catechesis. I use it to teach, but also supplement it (not that it needs much supplementing) with that of my own studies. CPH has produced a Lenten Sermon Series based on the Penitential Psalms. I am using their ideas, but I am not using their full written sermons. I will do things myself.

There are two reasons why I especially like to do this:

1) Learned in the Word of God. When I write a bible study, I am forced to study and know the text. I am forced to look at the Hebrew and Greek and read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest it. With a prefabricated bible study, I am tempted not to study as much. The end result is a more knowledgeable pastor and more time spent in and throughout the Word of God. It becomes a blessing to me in that I grow in the knowledge of the Word and of Christ. But is also a blessing to my congregation for the more skilled I am with the Word of God, the more clearly they will hear Christ proclaimed to them.

2) Contextualization. When I write a bible study, I can tailor the study to the congregation. Hear me rightly, please. The truth of the Scriptures reaches across all times and all places, and as such needs no contextualization. However, because the Scripture comes to not simply to a man, but to "Bill the farmer, husband, father, school board representative, and U.S. citizen," the Scripture is spoken to him in his vocation. Thus, my bible study can be focus on the needs of the congregation as governed by where the Word of God leads. And, of course, this is a necessity when it comes to preaching.

On the other side, there are two reasons why this is burdensome:

1) Time. Writing a bible study is time consuming. Writing a sermon takes up a large portion of the week. Writing out individual bulletin inserts about the divine service (instead of purchasing them from CPH) takes more than a couple hours. It cuts into other things I could be doing - Shut-Ins could use more frequent visits, congregation members and less-frequent members could be visited, more time could be spent in other academic pursuits. The bottom line is that it takes extra time to do these things, and even more time to do them well. But in my opinion, it is time well spent.

2) My limited capacity. I am newly out of seminary. It is easy to get over ambitious in what I am trying to accomplish. Granted, I can do a lot, but there still room for improvement. Simply put, there are pastor who take a better approach at a certain study than I would have ever been able to conceive.

There are likely better ways than my ways. But my ways train me in the Word of God. It is time consuming and the struggle is great, but in the end it is for the benefit of all that I take this "hard way". It gets me and the congregation deeper into the Word and that is always a good thing.

+Kyrie Eleison+

The Pagan Heart of Christmas

Often around Christmas, much is made about the date of Christmas being selected to cover over a Roman festival or a Pagan holiday. Many might even go so far as to say that it stems from this. We hear all this hullabaloo around this time of year.

I'm glad there is.

I would say it's precisely the pagan that's at the heart of Christmas. The pagan chases after foreign gods and worships in ways that are not according to the ways of the Lord. The pagan holds feasts and festivals to celebrate, and even worship, things which were created by God, but are not gods themselves.

And it's for this very purpose that God became man, and took on human flesh, so that he could redeem us poor pagans, who chase after other gods. God came to cleanse our pagan hearts and fill them with his Holy Spirit, and proclaim us righteous by the death of Christ on the cross.

So, go ahead. Make your accusations that Christmas is founded on a pagan holiday. I'll agree with you, Christmas does cover over that pagan holiday. I'll say it's for that very purpose our Lord Jesus Christ has come: to sanctify the unholy, and redeem the unworthy.

+Kyrie Eleison+

Don't Get Your Biases in My Science

The irony is easy to spot in this article by Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., director for the center of Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

In Mississippi, there's a ballot measure proposed to define "personhood" beginning from conception, a.k.a. fertilization. Polls say that it's going to pass. Dr. Caplan says it shouldn't saying,

The reason this law makes for bad public policy is that it is completely at odds with what science knows to be true about embryos and fetuses.

After mocking these pro-lifers (pro-personers?), he acknowledges their claim saying,

It is true that for centuries science has shown that all human beings begin as fertilized eggs.

However, that is not good enough for him. The process by which human beings develop is also important to him. He says that not all fertilized eggs are "viable" and many don't even make it to implantation. There are many spontaneous abortions, still births and fetal deaths. Therefore they cannot be considered "persons".

He ends the article by saying,

In the push to declare fertilized eggs “persons” advocates claim science is on their side. But it is only by ignoring what science has learned about the long odds that face fertilized eggs that anyone could even suggest that a fertilized egg is a person.

Johannes Kepler.
Because posting a picture of a devout,
Lutheran astrophysicist makes
Stephen Hawking cry.

So often there is a line drawn between pro-lifers - and let's be honest, we're really just talking about Christians here - and science. Too often, I think this is thrown up as a protective guard by non-Christian scientists in an ad hominem attack against Christians to make them seem brutish and uneducated. It is often leveled at Christians making them seem biased and suspicious of the devilish science man.

But seriously. If you can't see the bias in this article... you're biased.
:D

He admits that all human beings come from fertilized eggs. However, he goes beyond science, by saying that if the fertilized egg is not "viable" and cannot make it to full maturity (often by death) then it cannot be a person. For him that would mean recognizing millions of deaths that occur even without our knowledge. And he would be correct, that is the truth. He is unwilling to face that truth. Unwillingness to face the truth, Dr. Caplan, is not science. That is bias.

The truth is truth. And it shows us an ugly reality. Sin causes death in our bodies even from the moment of conception. The magnitude of death that Dr. Caplan rightly makes evident on the basis of science shows us how sin-stricken the world really is.

It causes us to recognize how fallen we are and brings us to call out Kyrie Eleison, "Lord, have mercy". And He does. He sent Jesus to bring life by his atoning death. He sent Jesus to be our only help from sin and death. He is our salvation, even in the midst of such suffering. While the minds of men through the trial and error of science can indeed help us to discover a little more about this world that God has created, it cannot save us, and it does not have all the answers.

So, Dr. Caplan, please take a note from your own book.

Keep your biases out of science.

+Kyrie Eleison+

If It Ain't Broke...

...why do you want to break it?

The past couple days I attended a conference for new pastors (1-3 years in the ministry). The topic was building ministry. I was saddened by the Kansas District in their attempt to show the newbies how to do worship.

There were three things I noticed about the conference:
1) Though the conference was called "building worship", it wasn't so much about worship as it was about exposing us to different forms of worship.

This could have been an immensely helpful conference. There are many ways in which we could have talked about building worship. We could have had a workshop that explores the options available in the Lutheran Service Builder. We could have talked about integration of choir/instrumentalists in the Divine Service (even include the soft rock options, if we must cover that). We could have talked about using the Synod-wide hymnal and its different services throughout the church year. We could have had a presenter on building the bulletin (or power point) to better assist with worship.

...but we didn't do anything of the sort.

The Liturgy of Lord of Life
w/ My Thoughts

Instead, we we taken to Lord of Life Lutheran Church in Leawood, KS. It's a marvelous building. They have facilities that can make churches covet. However, the church was designed to lend itself solely to contemporary music. It had no organ. There were no stained glass windows. The altar was moveable. The cross can be removed completely from the sanctuary, and is on occasion. There were no pews, but locking chairs. Which, to be fair, is just fine. The church of God can exist even where there is nothing but his Word. Regardless, in this space we were taken through the steps of contemporary worship.

Here is the liturgy that we used on Monday night. Notice that the formula of worship is rather common among non-denominational churches. Other than the shout out to Holy Communion, it's pretty much the same.

By the way, the confession was a "metaphor" taken from Ecclesiastes 2:1-11. And since this was a metaphorical confession, I guess the forgiveness was metaphorical as well because the Pastor did not declare those confessed sins as forgiven. Or perhaps it just wasn't clear to me that he was saying that my metaphorical sins were forgiven. Which should raise red flags about clarity.

My main question for all this is: Why? Why all the changes, if many of the "parts" are still there?

The following morning, we were taken to St. Luke's Lutheran Church in Kansas City, KS. What an amazing congregation. It is an old established congregation, served by a wonderful pastor. They do such amazing works of service and have such a thriving social ministry, that it would do anyone who wants to know about such things to pick their brains.

At this congregation, we went through what the District Officers said was "traditional" worship. We used Creative Worship. My heart sink when I saw the liturgy. It had been tinkered with among other things. To be fair, the confession that it brings about is a specific one, but it doesn't have the grind in it as when you confess before God that you are "poor miserable sinner" in need of his forgiveness. It's really not all that "creative" as its name sounds anyway.

Again, my question: Why?



2) We are not about forming a unified Synod, but about forming cliques for those within our Synod.

One of the main thrusts of the conference seemed to be to drill in the idea that we have different forms of worship to draw in different kinds of people. There are those that like soft rock, and those that don't. There is the understanding that if we all do our own thing, everything we do is equally beneficial. And we have to offer as many products as possible, so that we reach as many people as possible. I heard it over and over again, some are able to do contemporary worship and some are not able to do it, thus they don't.

This observation is one that brings to light one of the main problems with a "you do your thing, I'll do my thing" understanding of worship. While I know there will never be one unified group of people all doing the same liturgy on Sunday morning, there is something about "one holy Christian (catholic) and apostolic church" that says we are striving for unity in Christ, not only in faith but in the way that we receive our Savior in worship on a weekly basis.

I did not see this striving at all. What I understood was, let me do my thing, and you do yours. It seems that there is a desire not to talk about things anymore. Saying "I'm ok with 'contemporary'," or "I'm ok with 'traditional'," doesn't really cut it. It just keeps us divided and doesn't allow anyone to express concerns that someone may have with their worship.

From what I saw, we are happy being divided and forming cliques within the Synod. Just make sure the nerds don't mingle with the jocks.


3) Are people really going to church for the right reasons? Are they really Christians?

Finally, while it is one thing to say that a certain form brings people into church, but are we willing to go as far to say that it keeps them in the church? The debate is often over getting people to know Jesus, so get them in anyway that is possible. But what about the opposite end? Must people continue to have that contemporary music to remain not only in the Lutheran Church with right doctrine and teaching, but also must they have it to remain a Christian?

Are people going to church for the right reasons? Are they being fed and nourished as they should be? Are they receiving Christ in such a manner that it is to Jesus Christ they cling and no other? I often pose this question, and posed it during a Q&A session during the conference. If there were no organs, and no hymnals, and if there were no electricity for guitars and laser guns (let the reader understand), and there were no instruments but the human vocal chords which sang and preached the Word of God, would there still be members at your church? Would they still cling fast to the teaching of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and hold the forgiveness he brings so dear, that they would stay?

While I will not make judgments on an individual basis, anyone who leaves the church because of personal preference, instead of the false doctrine taught therein, probably doesn't know what Jesus has done for them, nor what they receive from Christ Jesus when the come to church.

Again, I'm not making the judgment, but am delivering the message. Clearly this last section is less clear than the others, but it should provide a thought provoking question? Do they remain for Jesus, or for the music?

...

With what we're doing in the Kansas District and throughout the Synod with our liturgies, I have to wonder about Humpty Dumpty. Is the liturgy taking a great fall, or are we egging our father's houses? I'm afraid that before we answer that question as a Synod, we won't be able to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

But that's ok. Because while all the king's horses and all the kingsmen (again, let the reader understand) won't be able to put Humpty back together again...

...the King can.

+Kyrie Eleison+