Northwest Lutheran Blogoboard

Where do I sit?

PT — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:52:39 +0000

Seat Selection for Worship
Sometimes the Spirit doesn’t give you the coveted aisle seat.
Gordon MacDonald

Monday, January 17, 2011

My wife, Gail, and I were early arrivers at church this past week, and when we entered the sanctuary, only a few seats were already occupied. That meant that we had—I’m guessing here—about 350 seats to choose from.

Would we sit near the front? Probably not. I’ve spent more than a few years in the front rows of worship sanctuaries, and a tiny rebellious spirit within me now seemed to say, “if you’re not preaching today, go for one of those sought-after back seats. Hey, why not go all the way and do the balcony?”

But another, more conscientious, part of the inner me was instantly mindful of late-comers, families with cry-prone infants, and older people who need to locate as near to the bathrooms as possible. Back row seats were created for them. We’re not late; we have no children; and we don’t have to run to the bathroom … yet.

Perhaps you can see how, for those of us who’ve done church all our lives, even seat-selection can be a mini-crisis in which super-conscientiousness takes control.

We eventually selected our seats in the middle part of the auditorium: an aisle seat and the one next to it. In airplane-speak, seats 12b and 12c: exit row seats where there is ample leg room (but you must know how to open the emergency doors). I love the 12c seat. Gail—because she loves me—always settles for 12b.

Soon after we’d taken our carefully selected seats, the sanctuary began to fill with people and finally reached that critical mass of attendance where the service could begin. The worship band swung into motion, and before long all of us were on our feet singing and contributing our energies of praise to the worldwide flow of adoration in the direction of Jesus.

As we sang, I noticed the older man (older for me is 80+) standing alone just in front of us. There was no one else in his row. Just him. His hair was poorly combed as if there’d been no one to call it to his attention. His suit needed pressing. His hands trembled.

During the second song, he suddenly sat down. Instinctively, I reached forward and put my hands on his shoulders, leaned forward and spoke into his ear.

“Are you okay?” I asked.

“I’m okay,” he said back. “It’s painful for me to stand too long.”

“I hear you … ankles or knees or hips?” I asked as the people around us continued to sing.

“All three” he said. I patted his shoulder and went back to singing.

The congregation sang two more songs, and then the worship leader said we could sit. It was announcement time.

While the announcement-lady spoke of upcoming events, I found my attention returning to the man in front of us. I couldn’t escape the fact that he was alone while I was enjoying Gail’s warmth as she sat close by my side, her hand enclosed in mine.

The thought of this man’s aloneness and my contrasting sense of togetherness alerted me to the fact that there were more than a few others scattered about the auditorium who also were alone. They too had no bodily warmth, no one to hold their hands during prayer time, no one with whom they might discuss the sermon on the way home.

Impulsively, I turned and whispered to Gail, “Could we move down one seat?” She nodded yes even though she didn’t know what I had in mind. We both moved. Then I leaned forward and, again, got the attention of the man in front of me.

This time I pointed to the now-empty aisle seat (12c) and said, “Why don’t you come back here and sit with us?”

He was about to brush me off, but something changed his mind. He collected his coat and the church bulletin beside him and took the empty aisle seat I’d offered.

This meant, you understand, that I was now—for the rest of the worship service–in the dreaded “b” seat, with the seats on both sides occupied. This, for a United 100K flier, is a bit of sacrifice, like momentarily laying down one’s life.

Once he had re-folded his coat and settled himself in the 12c seat, I said, “Nobody should worship alone.”

He whispered back to me, “I lost my wife two years ago. Now there’s no one to come to church with.”

“Well, you’re with us today,” I responded and gripped his forearm.

We sat shoulder to shoulder through the rest of the songs, the offering and the sermon. And then worship ended.

“I’m glad you sat with us,” I said when the final “Amen” had been pronounced.

“Thank you,” he said. Then he continued: “I got the shock of my life yesterday. My step-son and his wife told me that they are getting divorced after 26 years of marriage.

“Think of it,” he went on. “Twenty-six years and then … I had no idea. They’re my only …”

Now there were tears. I could read between the lines of his stammering sentences. They’re my only family.

That he would offer this much personal information to a virtual stranger after only a minute or two of conversation suggested to me that he had no one (no one!) on whom he could offload his sorrow.

We exchanged a few thoughts about what he had just told me. And then I said, “Think I could say a prayer for you?”

He nodded. “I’d be very grateful.”

I pulled him into a manly embrace to which he easily yielded. Putting my cheek next to his, I prayed:

“Father, thank you for bringing my friend and me together so that we could worship today. Lord, his heart is broken, and he feels alone. Would you press your love and courage into him this morning? Would you remind him that you’re present to him. Would you please remind him that the people in this church are part of his larger family. And if you would, please heal his step-son’s marriage. Make something happen that would bring this small family back together again. Lord, I introduce my friend to you in the name of Jesus.”

He thanked me, and then he was gone.

An hour before, when we’d picked our seats in the almost-empty sanctuary, it had never occurred to me that, even in seat-selection, one might actually be experiencing the mysterious guidance of the Holy Spirit, who might have had this future conversation in mind.

The rest of the day I kept recalling that serendipitous encounter. What if I’d resisted the impulse to connect with the man in front of me? What if I’d not invited him to sit with us? What if I’d not been responsive in that service-ending conversation?

Bible stories came to mind where the twelve disciples insensitively ignored children, widows, beggars, and blind men only to be rebuked by Jesus, whose eyes and ears were always attuned to the cries of the weak, the vulnerable, the alone. How often I’ve been like those disciples. Yesterday was my chance to do it differently.

Can I be honest? I do not remember which songs we sang at worship. Nor do I recall much about the sermon (even though our pastor is a wonderful preacher). And I remember nothing about the announcements even though the announcement lady is good at what she does.

But I do remember in vivid detail this connection with the man to whom I gave my aisle seat (12c). He remains front and center in my heart today.

With each thought of him, I keep asking myself, How many other men and women came to church this week and sat alone? And grieved alone? And brooded on an uncertain future … alone?

No one should worship alone.

Gordon MacDonald is editor at large of Leadership and lives in New Hampshire.

Islam for Lent?

PT — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:38:39 +0000

From getreligion.com.

I’m still here in Israel on an Act For Israel media fellowship. After many days, packed with meetings, yesterday we visited the Golan Heights. On our way from there, we stopped at Yardenit, a site on the Jordan River where, in honor of Jesus’ baptism near there, some are baptized into the Christian faith.

While there, a young woman was wearing a white robe indicating she was to be baptized. I overheard a conversation she was having with someone else. She said she was going to be baptized but “not really” as she’s not very religious and just wanted to do it for her own interest. I’m not easily offended but I was sickened and saddened by this behavior. I thought of that incident as I read this fascinating report from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “Episcopal cleric tries Islamic rituals for Lent”:

The Rev. Steve Lawler should have just given up chocolate or television for Lent.

Instead, Lawler, of St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church in Ferguson, decided to adopt the rituals of Islam for 40 days to gain a deeper understanding of the faith.

On Friday, he faced being defrocked if he continued in those endeavors.

“He can’t be both a Christian and a Muslim,” said Bishop George Wayne Smith of the Episcopal Diocese of Missouri. “If he chooses to practice as Muslim, then he would, by default, give up his Christian identity and priesthood in the church.”

The piece does a good job of explaining both sides in the conflict. Lawler, for his part says he just wanted to learn more about Islam. We learn that he began performing salah five times a day, facing east toward Mecca and praying to Allah. He also studied the Koran and eats halal. He planned to do a Ramadan-style fast during Holy Week. He didn’t plan to declare his belief in the oneness of God or accept Muhammad as God’s prophet. The article also did a good job of explaining actions without judging motivations. In fact, it actually included statements where each side put the best construction on other’s actions. It’s rare to see something like that in a story about conflict.

The piece did not do a great job of explaining the nature or significance of Lent. The reason why he faces so much trouble is not because it’s about giving up chocolate.

But in Smith’s eyes, the exercise amounts to “playing” at someone else’s religion and could be viewed as disrespectful.

Plus, he said, “One of the ways (Lawler) remains responsible as a Christian leader is to exercise Christianity and to do it with clarity and not with ways that are confusing.”

What I liked about the story was the straightforward way in which each side was presented. I could tell that reporter Cynthia Billhartz Gregorian really attempted to understand the doctrinal positions of each side. It’s nice to think of a clergy member worrying about the disrespect such a scenario might cause — but it also takes a good reporter to use quotes that get at the full area of concern for Lawler’s spiritual supervisor. She speaks with one Muslim official who says he’s all for Christians trying out Muslim practices.

We learn many key details, such as Lawler’s issuing of a press release to draw attention to his Lenten spiritual disciplines. We learn that he was inspired by Mahatma Gandhi’s views on religious study. The report gives background on Lawler, helping the reader understand his work. Before the bishop stepped in, Lawler said:

“The Episcopal church is a fairly open church,” he said. “If I was the pastor at a very conservative church, I could come in one day and have the locks changed (for doing the Islamic rituals).”

By Friday afternoon, Lawler learned that the Episcopal church is more rigid than he had thought. After hearing the objections of the bishop, Lawler reversed course, giving up the Islamic rituals.

This is my one concern with the story. It turns out that Lawler followed his bishop’s words and ceased his Muslim experiment. I almost had to read that last sentence twice because earlier in the story it said he faced defrocking. If the latest news is that he stopped his experiment, I would have expected that up higher in the story. Well, it looks like this news story was written in a feature style. As such, the twist at the end works. Perhaps it’s my fault that I expected a news story in the “Lifestyles” section of the paper.

Anyway, it’s also nice to see that religion reporting is continuing at the paper while Godbeat scribe Tim Townsend is on a few months leave writing his book.

What to give up for Lent?

PT — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:32:07 +0000

An interesting post from getreligion.com. There’s an old joke that Jews don’t recognize Jesus as the Messiah, Protestants don’t recognize the pope as the leader of the Christian faith and Baptists don’t recognize each other at the liquor store.

I thought of that tidbit of religious humor as I read a Religion News Service feature on some United Methodists giving up alcohol for Lent.

The top of the story:

(RNS) The Rev. James Howell knew he had a problem on his hands when several teenagers arrived at a church dance drunk and had to be taken from the church by ambulance for treatment for alcohol poisoning.

Starting in 2009, he urged his flock at Myers Park United Methodist Church in Charlotte, N.C., to give up drinking for Lent and donate the money they would have spent on booze to a “spirit fund.”

It’s a timely, interesting story filled with excellent history and background on Methodists and their positions and beliefs on drinking and temperance.

However, the 800-word piece falls short when it comes to explaining how other faith groups treat the alcohol issue:

From teetotaling Baptists to Episcopalians who uncork champagne in the parish hall, what to do with the bottle can be a tricky question for religious groups to answer — especially during holy periods or holidays.

Catholics are not supposed to drink on Fridays in Lent, while Muslims are called to abstain from alcohol during the holy month of Ramadan. But to celebrate Purim, Jews are encouraged to actually get silly drunk, and what Christmas Eve would be complete without spiked eggnog?

Unlike prohibition-minded Mormons or Catholics who belly up to the bar at a Friday fish fry, Methodists — the nation’s second-largest Protestant denomination — have a more ambiguous stance. Now, the denomination’s General Board of Church and Society is following Howell’s lead and is pushing a churchwide Alcohol Free Lent campaign.

Overgeneralizations seem to plague that section of the story.

I wish the report had included more details from named sources (actual Baptists, Episcopalians, Catholics, etc.) on what the various faith groups teach — and practice — concerning drinking.

I am a lifelong Church of Christ member and don’t drink. Our fellowship is pretty united on the belief that the Bible forbids drunkenness. We are less unanimous on whether social drinking that does not lead to drunkenness is a sin. In fact, in my travels to different parts of the nation, I have found myself at social gatherings with Church of Christ ministers and elders who drink wine with meals. In other cases, Church of Christ members take the Baptist approach. (See joke above.)

Given the nuances in my own faith group, I can’t help but suspect that there’s more diversity in other religious circles on this issue than the RNS story indicates.

Among my questions:

— Are most Baptists really teetotalers, or do they face the same issue as the Methodists in that the church officially frowns on drinking but many congregants do it anyway? (See joke above.)

— Unless I’m wrong (wouldn’t be the first time), aren’t Muslims called to abstain from alcohol all the time, not just during Ramadan?

— Is “silly drunk” the actual term a rabbi would use in relation to the Purim celebration? (If so, then I think that would make a terrific direct quote!)

— And why are Catholics bellying up to the bar at a Friday fish fry if they can’t drink on Fridays during Lent? (Must be a non-Lent fish fry …)

Luther as one of the greatest theologians in history?

PT — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:50:11 +0000

Another interesting post from cyberbrethren.com. Enjoy!

Lutheran theologian Hermann Sasse answers the question well:

“Why is Luther the greatest in what has been a long line of teachers in the church who have proclaimed the Word of God from generation to generation? It is because none of the others understood the Word of God so profoundly. The Word of God is greater than human words, which have limitations. The time will come when nobody remembers Homer, or Shakespeare or Goethe, but the Word of God will endure forever. Human words can certainly accomplish much – the command of a powerful ruler or of a general can decide the fate of nations, but sooner or later their power ceases to be. No mere human word is almighty. But God’s Word is always living and active because it is the Word of the eternal, almighty God, the Word through which all things were created. It is the Word of the Judge of all who live. It is the Word of forgiveness, the Word of redemption, the Word which no human word can contradict. It is the Word which, as John says, has become flesh in Jesus Christ. He is himself the eternal Word of God; ‘his name’, it is written in Revelation (19:13), ‘is called the Word of God’. To proclaim the Word of God is to proclaim Jesus Christ. ‘To him all of the prophets bear witness’, according to the apostle Peter (Acts 10:43). ‘We preach Christ crucified’ says Paul in regard to the preaching of the apostles (1 Cor 1:23). He, Jesus Christ, is the content of the church’s preaching – that he is the Redeemer and the Lord is the proclamation of the teachers of the church from its very beginning. That is the message which has been handed down from one generation to another. The proclaimers come and go, but the proclamation itself remains the same: Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. That and nothing else is the content of the Christian proclamation. Luther again and again reminded the church of this – a church which had forgotten it, and indeed which had almost buried the one Word of God under so many human words of religion and philosophy.

Luther is one of the great Christologists, the great witnesses to Christ in the church. Like the great theologians of the early church – an Irenaeus or an Athanasius – he stood in reverence before the great mystery of God’s revelation: ‘the Word became flesh’ (John 1:14); ‘great is the mystery of godliness, that God was manifest in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16). All of his life Luther stood prayerfully and reverently before the incomprehensible mystery of the person of Jesus Christ, ‘where God and man meet and all fullness appears’. What the Greek fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries acquired by deep study of Holy Scripture with reverent and prayerful meditation, what the ancient church confessed in her ecumenical councils and stated contrary to the reasoning of philosophy – that Jesus Christ is true God, God from God, Light from Light, very God of very God, of one being with the Father, and at the same time true man – Luther thought through these powerful truths and took them even further in his theology in connection with the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. However, he tried to speak of these things so clearly and simply that even the simplest Christian – yes, even a child – could grasp them. ‘He whom the world could not contain, lies on Mary’s lap. He who upholds all things becomes a little child’. That is the teaching of Nicea. Or we think of how Luther expressed the doctrine of Chalcedon, the teaching of the two natures of Christ, in his catechism – ‘I believe that Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father from eternity, and also true man, born of the virgin Mary, is my Lord…’ This explanation of the second article of the creed has been called by some the most beautiful sentence in the German language – it is the most beautiful sentence in the German language, but not only because of its structure, which reveals a master of language, but also because of its content. Here we find the eternal Word of God, the eternal Gospel: Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever.

From a sermon given on Reformation Day 1943 in Erlangen, Germany.

If only possible!

PT — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 00:38:47 +0000

Bad Vestments?

PT — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 00:35:52 +0000

If your pastor comes out of the sacristy wearing this – run, or laugh!

Review of Lutheranism 101

PT — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 17:53:11 +0000

by Garry Heintz

When Lutheranism 101 first came out, pictures floated about on Facebook of people “caught” with their nose in the book. LCMS President Matt Harrison; a pastor eating sushi; a bust of Luther; an Octoberfest band; people’s pets and children. Even a few Canadians were found reading it! So who should read this book?

Although the title implies it is an introduction for those with little exposure to the Christian faith, Lutheranism 101 is a great resource to help any Christian understand why historic, reformation Christianity believes, teaches, and practices the faith as it does.

The editors and authors (including LCC’s Rev. Michael Keith) have ensured that Lutheranism 101 is an easy read for anyone. There are margin notes with quotes from Luther, explanations of Biblical words, Bible verses, and insights into the practice of the faith. The book opens with a quick-start guide and throughout provides resources like “How Should We Pray,” “Christian Denominations,” and “Bible Study Tools.”

Getting into the text, Lutheranism 101 goes through the main teachings of Christianity, but it is not a Mere Christianity-type book. It doesn’t only deal with articles of the faith on which most Christians agree: Who is God? What is sin? Who is Jesus? What has He done for us? The authors deal with all these basics of the Christian faith with the Lutheran emphasis on the Gospel.

And like the Lutheran Church, Lutheranism 101 strives to keep Jesus at the centre of its teaching. For example, while many churches make prophecy a confusing maze to navigate, this book simply explains the return of Christ as a joyful hope of the resurrection.

While much of Christianity is trying to look indistinguishable from the world, this book isn’t afraid to say, “Here is what Lutheranism is.” For example, the church isn’t just a group of like-minded individuals, but it is every redeemed sinner. God then gathers His Church to hear His Word and receive His gifts from men set apart for that task.

Lutheranism 101 is not designed to be a new edition of the Catechism

Lutheranism 101 offers no apologies when it presents the Word of God as the source for all Christian teaching, understood through the lens of Law and Gospel. The Word of God is applied to sinners, calling them to repentance and to the places where Jesus works through His Word to give forgiveness in Baptism, Absolution, and the Lord’s Supper.

So how did the Lutherans start teaching these things? A look at Luther’s life and times presents Luther’s rediscovery of the Gospel and how the Church has continued in that message. Christ’s saving work prompts Christians to gather for the Divine Service, the weekly gathering of believers, to receive God’s gifts. Having received God’s gifts, Christians live out the life of faith to the glory of God. Jesus’ saving work moves Christians to sacrifice for the sake of others and for the further proclamation of Jesus, visible for the entire world to see. That’s what you get in Lutheranism 101.

Some may criticize the book as being too traditional, spending too much time on things like history and worship. However, tradition is simply that which is handed on. The purpose of this book is to pass on that which is at the heart of the Christian faith. Likewise, some may gripe that this book doesn’t delve deeply enough into the core Christian teachings: it doesn’t look at each of the commandments; it doesn’t spend enough time focusing on prayer. But Lutheranism 101 is not designed to be a new edition of the Catechism.

However, in one of the appendices Lutheranism 101 points readers to other books which make up a Christian library. Other valuable resources in the appendices include timelines for Biblical and Christian history, overviews of major events and people who have gone before us in the faith, and a glossary of important words.

Perhaps the best comparison for Lutheranism 101 is a retract-a-bit screwdriver. It isn’t a specialized tool. It doesn’t fit every situation, but it sure is handy to have.

Pick up a copy. Use it to help your children with their confirmation homework. Use it for Bible study or adult instruction. Use it to remind yourself of the great good news of Jesus at work in your life. And get “caught” reading Lutheranism 101, so you can pass it on to a friend, a family member, or a co-worker who would also benefit from a better understanding of God’s gifts for them!

Rev. Garry Heintz is pastor at Redeemer Lutheran Church in Kakabeka Falls, Ontario.

The World – Our new moral compass?

PT — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:58:39 +0000

Here is another excellent post by Paul McCain. Very informative.

“Since the time when the church entered the stream of history, it has appeared to the world as a complicated enigma, a riddle without a solution. Here are some of the questions. What is the distinct character of the church of Jesus Christ? What place does it occupy in history? How can the church’s claims be rationalized and what are proper responses to them? At what point can the question of what the church is be broached? Government officials in every country and state where the church is found have to face the question of what the church is. We are not the first ones to ask these questions. Since the time of Justin [ca. 100-ca.165] and Clement [ca. 100], of Celsus[1] [d. ca. 200] and Porphyrus[2] [ca. 232-ca. 303], philosophers have had to face them. Various modern scholarly disciplines, including historical research, psychology, sociology and the scientific study of religion [Religionswissenschaft], have examined the phenomena associated with the church in an attempt to provide a definition. So far no government has found an answer to the question of what the church is and it seems unlikely that any scientific discipline will have more success. “Their conclusions in defining the church conflict with each other.” What is the reason for their failure to come up with an answer? The answer obviously lies in the simple fact that there are no real analogous organizations which can serve as a standard or norm to which the church can be compared. Since comparisons are necessary in making definitions, it is impossible to define the church. The discipline of comparative religions, as the name indicates, compares the church with other religions. Its claims for revelation can be placed along side the beliefs and teachings of the other great world religions. The methods used in the history of religions and sociology can be used in placing the earliest forms of Christianity along side of Hellenistic Gnostic cults. This can be expanded to make other comparisons. A Catholic Church in its development can be compared with the “people” of Islam. The same comparison can be made between the social forms which have appeared in Christian history and the corresponding Asiatic world religions which appeared at that time. Recognizable parallels are easy to come by. It takes a bit of daring to take standards of the school of the history of religions, which are so obviously human conceptions, and then to use them in examining the phenomena associated with the church. At first glance such a scholarly approach holds out the promise of providing a definition of the church and what its essence is. This approach promises to deliver more than it actually does and soon proves to be deceptive. While for some phenomena connected with Christianity, some parallels can be found, for others there is neither an explanation nor a comparison. In what is beyond explanation, where there are no parallels in the history of religion (comparative religions) or in how religious associations are structured, the mystery of the church’s essence is hidden. One way out of the dilemma of explaining why the unique phenomena of the church are beyond explanation is to take refuge in the Latin axiom: “Individuum est ineffabile [What is distinctive or unique is beyond definition].” Unique individuality is not uncommon to history. This still leaves the problem of finding an answer for an historical definition, since the unique individuality of something living – like the church – cannot be so easily explained. Florenski[3] once said that the inability to come to a definition of what the church is demonstrates its living character. Looking for the answer of what makes the church the church simply goes beyond the limits of the scientific study of the history of religions and examining the structure of other human organizations. It must be conceded from the start that if the church is constituted by what its members believe, its rituals and its organizational structure, then the church should be studied along with other religious organizations which also have statements of what they believe and which have rituals. This approach leads to only one conclusion: the church’s essence is then not really distinctive. In this case the Christian church is only a peculiar or idiosyncratic historical phenomenon, as defined by the history of religions. But another such phenomenon resembling the church simply does not exist. The church has no parallels. There are no Jewish, Parsee (followers of Zoroaster), Manichean, Mohammedan or Buddhist churches. There is no church of Mithra. For the church is the body of Christ. She is not only called, but really is the body of Christ. She is the people of God in the same way that she is temple of the Holy Spirit. There is no such thing as the body of Mohammed or of Buddha, or a body of Serpis or Mithra. Only under the presupposition that Jesus Christ is really the Son of God, who for the sake of us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was really made man,[4] can the church be the church. The church is church only because what the ancient creed says about the person of Jesus Christ, his birth, his death, his resurrection and his ascension, is really true. If all these things were not true, to drag up an old saying, these things are no more or less significant than any other good story. In this case the church, as we understand it, simply does not exist. The church has no other response for explaining the reason for the world’s failure to understand what she really is than by pointing out that the world does not believe in Christ. What the church believes about herself is dependent on what she believes about Jesus. If non-Christians know nothing of the reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, how could they possibly recognize his actual and personal presence in the world through the church? Does the church have a way of proclaiming the mystery of her existence in the world other than by proclaiming the presence of her exalted Lord? What the church is can only be shown by confessing Christ. Woe to the church, which seeks a way other than confessing Christ to gain the world’s attention. Ecumenical Council for Practical Christianity.”

Law and Gospel (December 1936). Hermann Sasse, Erlangen. Translated by David P. Scaer

[1] Celsus was a second century pagan philosopher. His attack on Christianity is the oldest of which portions survive. It is known to us from “Contra Celsum” by Origen which is a third century work which preserves 90% of Celsus’ original work, “Alaqh~ Logo~” or “True Word.” ODCC p. 311. MH

[2] Neoplatonist philosopher, perhaps once a Christian by definitely no longer so by the persecution of Decius in 250. Studied philosophy at Athens and was convinced of Neoplatonism by Plotinus, whom he met in Rome in 262. Studied popular religion and took a particularly negative attitude toward Christianity. He pointed out alleged inconsistencies in the Gospels and attacked the O.T. Refutations were presented by St. Methodius of Olympus, Eusebius of Ceasarea, Apollinarius of Laodicia, and others. ODCC p. 1309. MH

[3] George Florovsky 1893-1979, Russian theologian. From 1926 professor of Patristics at the Orthodox Theological Institute of St. Sergius in Paris and later Professor of Dogmatics. Came to the U.S. in 1948, professor and dean at St. Vladimier’s Seminary (1948-1955) and Professor of Eastern Church History at Harvard Divinity School (1956-1964), and Visiting Professor at Princeton from 1964. Played a leading part in the ecumenical movement from 1937 serving regularly as a delegate at assemblies of the Faith and Order movement and of the World Council of Churches. ODCC p. 620. MH

[4] Reference to the second article of the Nicene Creed. MH

“Gesetz und Evangelium.” Oekumenischen Rat Fuer Praktisches Christentum. Forschungsabteilung. Vertraulich Kirch, Dezember 1936. Unpublished paper. Feuerhahn Bibliography no. 36-02. This paper was written in preparation for the upcoming Faith and Order Conference at Edinburgh (1937). Sasse was at this time under prohibition of travel, as he had been when he attended a Faith and Order committee meeting in London at Archbishop Temple’s residence earlier in the year. He was also deeply involved into the open schism in the Confessing Church. The pressures he was facing at the time of this publication were enormous. The entire article will appear soon in “The Lonely Way” vol. 3, from C.P.H. MH

I don’t like some hymns in the hymnal. What should I do? Rip them out?

PT — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:50:48 +0000

Here is a post from pastor Paul McCain. Very interesting. Well worth the read.

I get a lot of interesting communications from across the Missouri Synod here at Concordia Publishing House, on a wide variety of topics and issues. Just when I think I’ve seen or heard it all, I see something that I’ve never seen before. That happened again recently. A pastor gave us a lot of feeback and input on a wide variety of resources. He told us he has been in the ministry for twenty-five years. He commented on Lutheran Service Book and declared that only 40% of the hymns in it are “singable.” Ok. But it got more interesting. He said he likes some of the liturgies in it, but not others. Then he said, and this is a direct quote: “Some of it is not so good, DS II. I told my secretary to tear it out of the hymnals.”

Hmmmmm….a pastor directing his secretary to “tear it out of the hymnals.” Really?

The older I get, and that seems to be happening more quickly than before, I am struck, over and over and over again, but how far removed we are from the spirit of our fathers when it comes to respecting the collective will of the Church when it comes to matters of adiaphora. The principle that what has neither been commanded, nor forbidden, is therefore free has been horribly abused among us to mean now, “Whatever is adiaphora doesn’t matter and you can do whatever you want with it.”

At the time of the Reformation the idea was that although we have freedom, we also have obligations to one another, therefore, I’m not free to thumb my nose at the church’s collective will in matters such as this. And so, here we have a pastor directing a parish secretary to deface the church’s hymnal because he, the pastor, in his vast and infinite wisdom, decides he doesn’t like Divine Service II, therefore, he, the pastor, has the right to take his congregation’s hymnals and tear a chunk out of them.

Am I wrong in my thinking here? Or does this perfectly illustrate a problem that is pandemic among us?

“Here I Stand”

PT — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 00:21:44 +0000

A great video clip from the recent ”Luther” movie. This piece is titled, “Here I stand.”