FW: Great Stuff Found on the Web — The Lutheran Church Is and Is Not

 

Consider…                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Feed: Steadfast Lutherans Posted on: Friday, November 18, 2011 6:50 PM Author: Norm Fisher Subject: Great Stuff Found on the Web — The Lutheran Church Is and Is Not   On Pastor Lovett's blog, ORATIO + TENTATIO + MEDITATIO, he has a question regarding The Lutheran Church Is and Is Not.   Consider the following statement. I'd like to hear your comments below. (While I loathe to admit it, the statement was adapted from a very similar statement about the Eastern Orthodox Church here.) The Lutheran Church is evangelical, but not Protestant. It is catholic, but not Roman. It is orthodox, but not Eastern. It isn't non-denominational, neither is it merely a denomination – it is pre-denominational. It has believed, taught, preserved, defended and died for the witness of the Apostles since the Day of Pentecost some 2000 years ago. View article...

View article...

FW: Being Thankful for Lutheranism

 

Consider…   Feed: God the Crucified Posted on: Friday, November 18, 2011 5:17 PM Author: noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Lange) Subject: Being Thankful for Lutheranism   The Internet Monk has been blogging in the "Post-Evangelical Wilderness" for 11 years. Now, having become a Lutheran he has posted a series of articles titled: How Lutheran Tradition Answers Many Post-Evangelical Concerns" Life-long Lutherans often cannot know the richness of their own tradition simply because they don't have anything else to compare with it. Non-Lutherans may not know of its richness for the simple reason that it appears irrelevant to the concerns of popular Evangelicalism. Either way, Chaplain Mike's articles are a worthwhile read for anyone interested in God the Crucified.  He provides seven reasons to be thankful for the Lutheran tradition which are summed up as follows: 1. The Lutheran tradition provides a solid historic tradition with roots. 2. The Lutheran tradition gives priority to Word and Table liturgical worship. 3. The Lutheran tradition places a strong emphasis on pastoral ministry. 4. The Lutheran tradition has a healthy emphasis on the vocational callings of all believers. 5. The Lutheran tradition is centered on Christ and the Gospel. 6. The Lutheran tradition keeps proper distinctions between Law and Gospel. 7. The Lutheran tradition has a sacramental theology that corrects the inefficiencies of revivalism. 8. The Lutheran tradition teaches most clearly the biblical doctrine of the Theology of the Cross.   After these 8 points, Mike gives a bonus post called "10 Reasons to Love Luther." All five articles can be accessed by following this link. View article...

View article...

FW: Great Stuff Found on the Web — The Lutheran Church Is and Is Not

Consider…                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

 

Feed: Steadfast Lutherans
Posted on: Friday, November 18, 2011 6:50 PM
Author: Norm Fisher
Subject: Great Stuff Found on the Web — The Lutheran Church Is and Is Not

 

On Pastor Lovett's blog, ORATIO + TENTATIO + MEDITATIO, he has a question regarding The Lutheran Church Is and Is Not.   Consider the following statement. I'd like to hear your comments below. (While I loathe to admit it, the statement was adapted from a very similar statement about the Eastern Orthodox Church here.) The Lutheran Church is evangelical, but not Protestant. It is catholic, but not Roman. It is orthodox, but not Eastern. It isn't non-denominational, neither is it merely a denomination – it is pre-denominational. It has believed, taught, preserved, defended and died for the witness of the Apostles since the Day of Pentecost some 2000 years ago.

View article...

FW: Andreä Tag wir haben heut

 

Cantemus…   Feed: HYMNOGLYPT Posted on: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 2:51 PM Author: Matt Carver (Matthaeus Glyptes) Subject: Andreä Tag wir haben heut   Here is my translation of Nicolaus Selnecker's hymn on the Feast of St. Andrew the Apostle, "Andreä Tag wir haben heut," written to be sung to the melody, "Kommt her zu mir, spricht Gottes Sohn" ON ANDREW'S FEAST this day we sing, To God our thanks and praises bring, His name with gladness blessing, Because of him by John baptized, His student true, forever Christ The Son of God confessing. 2. Of Christ's disciples called the first, Three more he called from paths dispersed, Their voice thus multiplying, Of Jesus Christ to spread the word, That without guile it might be heard, The devil's rage defying. 3. At Pentecost the Holy Ghost On Andrew fell among the host, With pow'r to mark his mission; And so the Spirit, whom before Unseen within his heart he bore, Was sensible to vision. 4. To many_a land the truth he brought The doctrines of th' Apostles taught, To German lands and heathen, To Moscow's lands his pathway went, And through all Scythia also bent And to the Saxons even. 5. Thus Finland and the Baltic lands Were taught and baptized by his hands, And to the Church united, From Greece to northen climes came he , His mind was on the Northern Sea,*  [an obscure line] And lands by sin benighted. 6. To Roman soil again he came, And Patras saw, in pagan shame And utter darkness lying, There too he taught, and many turned, Till he the heathen's anger earned, God's victory supplying. 7. The governor Aegeas urged Christ's envoy sorely to be scourged And suffer crucifixion; But Andrew's courage never failed, Confessing Christ, he thus prevailed, And bled in faith's conviction. 8. A wicked spirit then possessed, The soul within Aegeas' breast And hellwards plunged his spirit, Such is the fate of every foe Of Christ, who grudge that men should know His Word or ever hear it. 9. Lord Jesus, make us also bold, Thy cross our highest good to hold, Nor at our cross to waver: Who for Thy sake is crucified Shall perish not, though he have died: His name shall flourish ever. 10. E'en as a fire for half an hour The heavens kindled with its pow'r And Andrew's mouth surrounded, Who then his spirit heav'n-ward sent, And all the people did repent, By heaven's sign astounded: 11. So ever grant, O Christ our Lord, Thy light upon us to be poured, Thy Spirit us preserving; When we from hence in death depart, Then let it be with all our heart, And with a faith unswerving. Translation © Matthew Carver, 2011. GERMAN Andreä Tag wir haben heut, Gott lob und dank, mit Herzenfreud, sein Nam tapfer und schone. Von Johann er getaufet war, des Jünger in der Göttlich Lahr, erkennt Christ Gottes Sohne. 2. Der erste Jünger Christi war, dreimal berufen endlich dar, daß er Apostels Stimme ließ gehn und Predigt Jesum Christ, welchs er getan ohn alle List wider des Teufels Grimmen. 3. Am Pfingsttag er den heilgen Geist empfing sichtiglich allermeist, den er zuvor auch halte innerlich und unsichtbarlich im Herzen und auch kräftiglich durch manche Wundertaten. 4. Er hat gelehrt an manchem Ort wie ein Apostel hie und dort, auch unser Deutsche Lande, gen Mitternacht er kommen ist, Moscken und alls was Scytisch ist, zun Sachsen er sich fande. 5. In Finnland und Liefland er hat gelehrt, getauft und früh und spat die Kirchen wohl bekehret, aus Griechenland er kam dahin, aus hoch deutsch Mehr stand stets sein Sinn, von dann er wiederkehret. 6. Gen Rom kam er und weiter fort, die Stadt Patras er sahe dort in Finsternis tief liegen: Er wand sich hin, lehrt und bekehrt, darob er ward sehrt verunehrt, Gott wollt ihn lassen siegen. 7. Der Statthalter, Ägeas gnannt, ließ geißeln den Christus gesandt und an das Kreuze hängen. Andreas war getrost von Mut, fröhlich, beständig, ließ sein Blut, Christum er tät bekennen. 8. Ägeas drüber bsessen war vom bösen Geist, sich selbs fürwahr gestürtzt herab, tot blieben: Also geht es den Feinden all, die Christum und seins Wortes Schall wollen nur stets betrüben. 9. Herr Jesu, gib uns auch den Mut, daß wir dein Kreuz fürs höchste Gut halten und kein Kreuz fliehen: Wer an das Kreuz gehangen wird um deinetwilln, der nicht verdirbt, sein Nam tut ewig blühen. 10. Gleichwie ein Blitz ein halbe Stund vom Himmel leuchtet und den Mund Andreä tät umgeben, welcher darnach sein Geiset aufgab, und alles Volk entsatzt sich drab, bekehrt sich auch zum Leben: 11. Also gib uns, Herr Jesu Christ, deins Lichtes Glanz zu jeder Frist, dein Geist in uns laß walten. Wenn wir von hinnen scheiden schier, laß solchs geschehn mit Herz begier, den Glauben nicht erkalten. View article...

View article...

FW: How the Lutheran Tradition Answers Many Post-Evangelical Concerns (2)

 

The Internet Monk…   Feed: internetmonk.com Posted on: Monday, November 14, 2011 10:00 AM Author: Chaplain Mike Subject: How the Lutheran Tradition Answers Many Post-Evangelical Concerns (2)   I continue this overview of how emphases in the historic tradition of Lutheranism have helped me with many concerns I've expressed about American evangelicalism. Thus far, I have introduced the following elements… How I came to peace with finding a tradition, How I appreciate the priority of Word and Table liturgical worship in the Lutheran tradition, How I affirm their emphasis on pastoral ministry, How I love their healthy view of Christian vocation in the world. Today, let me begin to say a few words about some other theological distinctives upon which Lutherans focus. First, the centrality of Christ. In some ways, Lutherans share this in common with all historic traditions. Now I'll admit that this was a hard fact for me to get through my head, but what I have found is that church groups that I would have formerly labeled as "liberal" or "non-Bible-believing" are often more Christ-centered in practice than their evangelical or fundamentalist counterparts. This includes the Lutherans. First of all, Lutherans observe the Christian Year, which is as Jesus-shaped and salutary a practice for getting to know Christ and learning to live in his story as any I know. Second, throughout the year this involves preaching from the lectionary, which shows week in and week out how the Bible relentlessly points to Christ and God's kingdom. As I've attended the Lutheran church, I have heard sermons from the Gospel reading almost every Sunday, which means it is Jesus' story and Jesus' voice that is constantly highlighted. Third, traditional liturgical worship itself is by nature Christocentric, as Robert Webber has explained so well in his writings on worship. The liturgy is designed to reenact the drama of the Gospel, with Christ at the center through proclamation of the Gospel and invitation to the Lord's Table. In my experience in evangelical churches and in my own ministry as an evangelical pastor, I would say that the ethos of evangelicalism is more Bible-centered than Christ-centered. My own approach was to preach and teach books of the Bible in expository fashion. Though I still think that is a viable method, one can easily lose track of the "big picture" of the Bible's story and get wrapped up in details rather than keeping the focus on Jesus and God's Kingdom. Sermons can become discussions about any number of "Christian topics" instead of Gospel proclamation. A further observation, which Scot McKnight makes in his book The King Jesus Gospel (reviewed two weeks ago on IM), is that when evangelicalism does talk about Jesus, it tends to be more "salvation-centered" than "Gospel-centered." Their emphasis on Christ extends primarily to Jesus dying for our sins to bring us personal salvation. As Scot writes, it's almost as though our faith is exclusively about Good Friday, and nearly everything else in the Gospels is disregarded or downplayed. I can testify that, even after more than 25 years of ministry in evangelical churches, I have never gotten to know Jesus as well as I have in the past few years as a member of Lutheran congregation. Second, distinguishing Law and Gospel. This is a huge topic, and one which lies at the heart of what Internet Monk is about, so I won't write a tome on it today. Suffice it to say that the moralistic approach to the faith is a huge problem in evangelicalism. As in the days of the Pharisees, churches tend to designate certain religious and moral behaviors as "boundary markers" that identify who is "in" and who is "out." Practices of hospitality, grace, love, gentleness, forbearance, patience, and trust in the ministry of the Holy Spirit get neglected and then forgotten, replaced by a system of expectations and rules (stated and unstated) that place heavy burdens on people. And those who run the system and the ones who buy into it wholeheartedly are ever in danger of the most spiritually damaging condition of all: pride and self-righteousness. Now this is not evangelicalism's problem alone, nor is it a menace only to those who are conservative or involved in the "Christian Right." Moralism infects religious communities of all kinds. One can be just as moralistic about justice issues and environmental concerns, the inclusion of gays, and advocacy for any number of "liberal" or "progressive" causes as those on the other end of the spectrum. When any group starts elevating issues to the level of the Gospel, it is a short step to constructing boundary markers and installing a rules-based system in which only those who look and talk and think the right way are accepted. Churches, period, are notorious for this. The Lutheran tradition has a solid theological answer for this. It lies in keeping a proper distinction between Law and Gospel. Law is the expression of God's righteous character. It tells the truth about how things should be in this world that God created. It reveals what is "holy and just and good" (Romans 7:12). The Law comes to us in imperatives: "Thou shalt…" and "Thou shalt not…" It draws the line and therefore defines crossing the line as "transgression." It paints a picture of perfect health and defines the corruption of our nature as "iniquity." It issues commandments, requirements, laws, exhortations, and instructions, and defines disregard of those standards as "lawlessness." As a revelation of God's character, it declares that our lack of conformity to him is "ungodliness." It sets forth a clear path, a "straight way" on which humans should walk, and then points out that we have "gone astray" and become "lost." The problem is that many churches are, in essence, preaching the Law and calling it good news. Viewing the Bible as a detailed instruction manual for human living, week after week preachers are giving "precepts" and "principles" designed to help people experience "transformation" (which may mean little more, practically speaking, than conformity) so that they will enjoy healthy, happy, and holy lives, families, and careers. All this, and heaven too, because Jesus died for us. This fits our quintessentially American way of looking at life. We honor self-made people who walk to a different drummer and pull themselves up by their bootstraps, underdogs who overcome all odds by sheer force of will. Give people the right instruction and a little encouragement — why shouldn't we, with all the resources we have at hand, be able to construct our best life now, with heaven the icing on the cake? The Gospel, on the other hand, is the announcement of God's grace in Christ for a rebel creation. In his fine book, Grace in Practice: A Theology of Everyday Life, Paul Zahl defines grace as "one-way love," love that has everything to do with the lover's heart and generosity and nothing at all to do with the worthiness of the beloved. Grace, according to Zahl, is "an invasive and strongly new intervention, through which trust in God rather than in human performance is at the heart of the human relationship to God." Each Sunday, when we confess our sins in my Lutheran church, we pray, "For the sake of your Son, Jesus Christ, have mercy on us. Forgive us, renew us, and lead us, that we may delight in your will and walk in your ways, for the sake of your holy Name. Amen." This prayer describes the work of grace in our lives. Through the grace of the Gospel, which comes to us in the person of Jesus and because of his finished work, our sins are forgiven. But that is not all. God's grace also renews us and God's grace leads us. Through grace we delight in God's will. Through grace we are strengthened to walk in his ways. The formation of virtue in our lives does not come through simply hearing God's commands and "following the instructions." It comes instead as we focus on Christ and feed on Christ, digesting his grace toward us. We learn with amazement that we are accepted by him solely because of his "one-way love" and not because we are in any way attractive or deserving. Our relationship with God has been initiated and is sustained wholly from outside ourselves. This is one reason I appreciate the more "objective" worship offered through the liturgy each Sunday. It allows me to take my place as a pure recipient of God's grace in Christ. I receive the word of absolution. I hear the Gospel of grace proclaimed. I hold out my hands and receive Christ in the bread and wine. I respond with words of thanksgiving and praise. None of it is about learning how to participate in the "sin-management" project. It is not about improving my life. I don't sit and take notes any more to fill my head or make sure I get God's instructions or "marching orders" for the week to come. Having received the grace of God in Christ with my brothers and sisters, I am free to go forth and live as a forgiven, renewed, and led human being. A recipient of grace, I am at liberty to extend grace to others. View article...

View article...

FW: What I like...

 

Peters…   Feed: Pastoral Meanderings Posted on: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 4:30 AM Author: noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Peters) Subject: What I like...   I had a circumstance last week or so in which I noticed an acolyte was not singing.  This was not the first instance. I knew that it had to do with the hymn.  She was not singing because she did not like the hymn.  It was her silent protest against the unsingable Lutheran hymns which she did not like and her way of quietly agitating for hymns she found more peppy and singable. I nudged her and whispered.  "Don't like this one, either, huh?"  She just looked at me.  "I noticed that you do not sing when you do not like the hymn."  She still just stared at me as if her big secret had been exposed for all the world to see.  "I know you don't like it.  You don't have to.  But sing it anyway.  God likes what it says.  If not for yourself, sing it for Him."  And then I left the prie dieu to enter the pulpit for the sermon... This incident came back to mind while I read Christopher Hall's words on clapping in the church.  I quote him: On Sunday the Adult and Children's Choir sang a difficult arrangement of "When the Saints". While it is not my favorite for worship, they did an excellent job, and it was moving. Some people clapped. That is ok.  But the next day, someone said to me, "I was going to clap, and then some others did, and I clapped right along with them! Now they know what we like!!"  Comments like this is why we don't encourage clapping. Worship is not about what you like. It's not about what the Pastor likes. It's not about what any one person likes, or about what we all together can agree on liking. Worship is about the Word and Spirit and the worship we have received through the Church, through the ages. It is about denying my own likes and submitting to one another in our Synod. We worship God, not entertain ourselves. I must admit I am not a fan of clapping in Church.  Maybe it is just because no one has ever clapped after one of my sermons.  Maybe it is because I am Northern European and we were taught to bury our emotions behind the face of indifference for all things except Lutefisk and Coffee.  Whatever the reason, I do not think clapping belongs in the worship service.  The people in the pews where I serve know that.  It just about kills them after the kids choirs sing.  They want to clap so bad.  They want to let those kiddies know that they appreciated their hard work, they liked what they heard, and they hope they will hear from them again.  But instead, they turn and stare at me following the kid's choir anthems.  It is their way of saying "Okay, you are the boss and we won't clap but we want to..." If we grant the right to clap, should we grant the right to boo?  Now I know that it is not good sportsmanship to boo.  But if the whole point is to signal our appreciation or our lack of appreciation for what was done, then maybe we need to allow for the other side to have its opinion.  If not booing, how about a thumbs down when the choir never makes it to the right note or the acolyte falls asleep during worship or the Pastor preaches a dud or the ushers drop the offering plate or the organist plays a clinker. But Christopher Hall got it right.  The reason I do not like clapping is not the clapping per se.  It is about the usual sentiment behind it.  Clapping expresses approval.  It sends a message.  "We like this.  Do this again.  We enjoyed this."  So we clap at the end of a song at a concert or at the end of the program (hoping for an encore or four to prolong what we enjoyed).  We clap at the end of some weddings in hopes that we can see again a sloppy kiss.  Now if the applause were truly a spontaneous expression of joy or thanksgiving to the Lord, that might be different.  But it seldom is. I have experienced several instances in which applause was just that -- spontaneous, joyful, and expressive of great gratitude to the Lord!  Once I was at an installation of a Pastor to a congregation that had gone years without a full-time Pastor.  After the installation rite, the congregation spontaneously stood in applause, giving thanks to God for the answer to their prayers and to rejoice at the resident Pastor who would bring to them the Word and Sacraments of the Lord.  It actually brought tears to my eyes.  But that was once and most of the time we give the clap not to God but to the performer as a way of saying "well done, do it again, or I liked it."  And for that reason alone, clapping in church gives me the willies.  View article...

View article...

FW: Sankt Stephanus voll Glaubens war

 

Cantemus…   Feed: HYMNOGLYPT Posted on: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 9:09 AM Author: Matt Carver (Matthaeus Glyptes) Subject: Sankt Stephanus voll Glaubens war   Here is my translation of Nicolaus Selnecker's hymn for the feast of St. Stephen (Dec. 26), originally published in Christliche Psalmen, Lieder und Kirchgensenge (Leipzig, 1587). The melody, according to Kümmerle, seems to be a simplification of a tune first appearing in Lauterbach's Cithara, Christiana, Psalmodiarum sacrarum libri VII, latine et germanice (Leipzig, 1585). SAINT STEPHEN, full of faith and might, Great wonders wrought in open sight, Christ Jesus freely praised as Lord, False teachers shamed with one accord. 2. Wherefore He soon was called to cease, To preach Christ's news of heavn'ly peace, Was taken from the city bound, By wicked men a martyr crowned. 3. He saith, My Lord to stand I see Upon the right of Majesty. Him will I with my death adore And gladly go, content e'ermore. 4. His spirit then he humbly laid Into the hands of Christ, and prayed, Lord Jesus, oh, my spirit now Receive, and with Thy grace endow. 5. Forbear my foes' misdeeds to bind, Who in their rage are rendered blind Make known to them their misery, And loose them from sin's tyranny. 6. Lord Jesus, help us every hour, That we may thus be given pow'r With constancy Thee to confess, And ever dwell in blessedness. Translation © M. Carver, 2011. GERMAN 1. Sankt Stephanus voll Glaubens war, tat kräftig Werk ganz offenbar, preiset den Herren Christum frei und straft die Heuchler ohne Scheu. 2. Darum er mußt bald halten her, um Christi willen neue Mehr hören, zur Stadt gestossen aus, getötet durch Gottlosen Strauß. 3. "Ich seh Christum den Herren mein zur Rechten Gottes stehn gar fein," sprach er, "den will ich loben do mit meinem Tod willig und froh." 4. Sein Geist er bald aufgeben tät in Christi Hand, mit dem Gebet "Herr Jesu, nimm auf meinen Geist und mir dein Gnad und Güte leist. 5. Behalt mein Feinden nicht die Sünd, sie sind jetzt wütig und staar blind, Laß sie ihr Elend kennen noch und kommen aus der Sünde joch. 6. Hilf, Herr Jesu, zu aller Zeit, laß uns auch werden solche Leut die dich bekennen bständiglich und selig werden ewiglich. View article...

View article...

FW: Contrasting Lutheran Worship with Evangelical Worship

 

Consider…   Feed: Stand Firm Posted on: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 6:02 AM Author: Scott Diekmann Subject: Contrasting Lutheran Worship with Evangelical Worship   Quoting from Dr. David L. Adams paper "Evangelical Lutheranism and Lutheran Evangelicalism":  A second area in which there is a growing divide between Evangelical Lutheranism and Lutheran Evangelicalism in the Missouri Synod is in the area of worship.  I am not here to re-hash arguments about contemporary music, the employment of liturgy, or the use of a hymnal, as important as those topics are.  Rather, I suggest that the most important distinction between Evangelical Lutheranism and Lutheran Evangelicalism in the area of worship is the difference over the fundamental theological understanding of what worship is.   For Evangelical Lutheranism worship is a divine dialogue in which God speaks to us and gives his gifts through the Word and sacraments.  We, the people of God, gather in His presence at his beckoning to receive those gifts in faith and respond in praise and thanksgiving.  However – and this is of fundamental importance – Evangelical Lutheranism understands that the response of the people of God in worship is to be normed by God through the gifts of God.    What does this understanding of worship as divine dialogue mean in practical terms?  First, it means that the worship 'event' of the Christian congregation is primarily for the congregation.  That is to say, it is the people of God who gather together in worship.   For this reason, as you doubtless know, the early church restricted the participation in worship of non-Christians and (in some cases) catechumens.  Second, the understanding that the response of the people of God in worship is normed by God through His gifts has important implications for the form that the Church's worship takes.  In practical terms, this means that the words that the Church speaks in response to what God has done are primarily cast in the words of Scripture.  We speak Christ's words in response.  Thus worship is a divine dialogue in which Christ speaks to us and Christ speaks in us. Lutheran Evangelicalism is tending toward a very different theology of worship.  It has gradually adopted what we might call a tent-meeting theology of worship, a theology of worship that is rooted in the revivalist theology of Evangelicalism's Methodist roots.  A tent-meeting theology of worship elevates outreach to the level of a primary function of worship.  Its constant subtext is the need to reach out to the unbeliever in our midst.  It focuses on bringing people into the tent and making them comfortable so that they will be receptive to hearing the Gospel.  And it looks for a response from the unbeliever and the renewed believer alike.   This theological perspective also has significant implications for what is done in practice.  First, it means that the goal of reaching outsiders becomes significant in shaping the worship 'event' of the Christian congregation.  While the people of God are present and involved, there is an intentional focus upon evangelizing any unbelievers who may be present.  Second, the event is structured with a two-fold emphasis: First, there is an emphasis on keeping disinterested people engaged.  This leads in the direction of worship-as-religious-entertainment.  Second, there is an emphasis on eliciting a response from them.  For the children of the Romantic Movement, a valid response must be a response from the heart.  In practical terms, this means that the words that the assembly speaks in response to what God has done are not primarily cast in the words of Scripture, but are cast in terms of what is going on in the heart of the individual.  Pastors who write their own liturgies often fall into this trap.  Even so-called liturgical worship becomes person-centered rather than Christ-centered when we speak back to God what is on out [sic] minds rather than what God has spoken to us.  It becomes worship normed by our needs and our response rather than by God's gifts and God's Word.  This is the reason that even though may congregations shaped by Lutheran Evangelicalism have a veneer of liturgical worship, the kind of liturgy they employ strikes the Evangelical Lutheran as deficient, for this kind of roll-you-own liturgy tends quickly to loose [sic] its Christ-centeredness. View article...

View article...

Resources Received

 

Boesenecker, Andy and Jim Graeser. A Field Guide to Contemporary Worship: How to Begin and Lead Band-Based Worship. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2011. 220 Pages. Paper $24.99. www.augsburgfortress.org (LH) The Expanded Bible. Contributing Scholars: Tremper Longman III, Mark L. Strauss, Daniel Taylor. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2011. 1910 Pages. Cloth. $34.99. www.thomasnelsonbibles.com (P) Spinks, Bryan D. The Worship Mall: Contemporary Responses to Contemporary Culture. New York: Church Publishing, 2010. 242 Pages. Paper. $28.00. www.churchpublishing.org/worshipmall (LHP) Musical Settings for Noonday and Compline. New York: Church Publishing, 2002. 31 Pages. Saddle stitched. $30 for 10 copies. www.churchpublishing.org (L) Glover, Raymond F., Editor. Hymnal 1982 Companion (Four Volumes: Volume One: Essays on Church Music; Volume Two Service Music and Biographies;  Volume Three A: Hymns 1 to 384; Volume Three B: Hymns 385 to 720). New York: Church Publishing, 1990, 1994, and 1994. 764, 749, and 1392 Pages. $210 for the set. www.churchpublishing.org (LH)

View article...

Thank You!

Thank you for 30,000 page views of this blog since July 2009!

FW: Murdoch corners 50% of Christian publishing

 

Veith on the news…   Feed: Cranach: The Blog of Veith Posted on: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 3:46 AM Author: Gene Veith Subject: Murdoch corners 50% of Christian publishing   HarperCollins is part of the media empire owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also among many other properties owns Fox News.   HarperCollins already owns Zondervan, the world's leading Bible publisher.  Now Christianity Today reports that HarperCollins is also buying Thomas Nelson, the largest Christian publishing company.   This will give Mr. Murdoch control of 50% of the Christian publishing industry. See HarperCollins Buys Thomas Nelson, Will Control 50% of Christian Publishing Market | Liveblog | Christianity Today. Does it matter that the Christian publishing industry will be dominated by a secular corporation?  Or by a mogul like Murdoch, who also publishes racy tabloids?  What will this do to the smaller publishing companies like Crossway and denominational houses like CPH?  Or will e-books, the Kindle, Amazon, and viral online marketing make even HarperCollins obsolete? View article...

View article...

Movie Review: Courageous

 

Fireproof. Albany, GA: Sherwood Baptist Church, 2011. Movie. Theatrical Screener mp4 stream reviewed. www.courageousthemovie.com (N)     The Trailer:     Imagine a Sheriff's Department populated with familiar actors from Facing the Giants, Fireproof, and other Sherwood Baptist films. Their new film aims to do for fatherhood what Fireproof did for Biblical marriage and faithfulness. "To serve and protect" is a powerful motto for fathers!   Courageous is... Heart-pounding action, clean humor, life and death, sin and redemption, church-going people, dancing, and a theme song by Casting Crowns.     At the shooting range, two deputies have a deep talk about guilt and judgment: "I hope my good outweighs my bad." "That's not how it works."  Right. Jesus is the Savior. He chose us (John 15:16).   Unfortunately, the word "accept" hints at altar calls (like the final scene and closing Bible verse) and decision theology. The movie makers are Baptists, after all.    I must object to the incomplete quote of Joshua 24:15.   Consider: Choose this day whom you will serve... But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."(Joshua 24:15 ESV) I assert that it is inadequate and misleading. Consider the whole: And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." (Joshua 24:15 ESV) You get a choice "if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord" and your choice is between one set of pagan gods or another set of pagan gods. Because it is NOT evil to serve the Lord, Joshua declares, "But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." This is not a text to support our choosing to be saved. Jesus did it all: It is finished!   After all, Ephesians 2 says: For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.(Ephesians 2:8-10 ESV)   The fatherhood "resolution" presents challenges for a Lutheran to properly distinguish God's Law and God's Gospel in His Word, but could be considered similar to promises made at Confirmation or by a new member of a Christian congregation. I do like the idea of "ceremony"! (A copy of the resolution text was not provided with the screener of the film, but is available for sale here: http://www.courageousresolutioncertificate.com/index.html.    The title of the film comes from a pastor's call for the need for courage to live out the resolution. Films like this also lead to sales of associated "ministry" items. I have mixed feelings about that. I wouldn't be surprised if the DVD was available in time for Father's Day.    And I'll buy a copy, but I recommend http://www.cph.org/p-18454-courageous-fathers-of-the-bible.aspx as a ministry resource instead. And I'll wrap-up any showing of the film before the very end.   Courageous succeeds because it has a purpose and a plot. Good family films (and good films, period) don't need large budgets and lots of special effects. I'll be watching for more from these filmmakers. I would recommend films on Biblical faithfulness, godly citizenship, and how God delivers His gifts on Sunday morning as the primary reason Christians go to Church.       The Rev. Paul J Cain is Pastor of Immanuel Lutheran Church, Sheridan, Wyoming, Headmaster of Martin Luther Grammar School, a member of the Board of Directors of The Consortium for Classical and Lutheran Education, Wyoming District Worship Chairman, and Editor of QBR.

View article...

FW: Grasp These Words or Die in Your Sins – The Significance of the Reformation

 

Harrison…   Feed: Cyberbrethren Lutheran Blog Feed Posted on: Monday, October 31, 2011 5:07 PM Author: Paul T. McCain Subject: Grasp These Words or Die in Your Sins – The Significance of the Reformation   An excellent sermon for the Reformation of the Church, preached by Pastor Matthew Harrison, President of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. "If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." View article... Enclosures: pgxprk60mwM (3 KB) http://www.youtube.com/v/pgxprk60mwM?version=3&feature=oembed

View article...

FW: What about all these churches?

 

Veith and McCain…   Feed: Cranach: The Blog of Veith Posted on: Monday, October 31, 2011 3:16 AM Author: Gene Veith Subject: What about all these churches?   Reformation Day is nothing to celebrate, according to some Christians.  It marks the day Christianity was shattered into countless little sects.  We need to find unity rather than revel in things that divide us.  Luther's breaking away from what was then one Church was a tragedy. First of all, Luther didn't break away from the Church.  He was excommunicated!  There is a big difference.  Secondly, the Church did need reforming.  Even the Church of Rome came to admit that, finally coming to grips with the financial and moral corruption that had become rife in late medieval Christianity.  If there were no Reformation, there would have been no Counter-Reformation. As for all of the subsequent church bodies, Paul McCain, in a Reformation Day meditation, offers a useful taxonomy: Another point that confuses many people is the fact that there are so many different churches to choose from. It is an awful mess, so it seems. Yes, it can be confusing, but it really is not as complicated as some would think, or want to maintain. Up until the year 1054 there was basically one unified Christian church, distinct from a number of non-Christian or anti-Christian heretical groups. In 1054 the church divided into Eastern and Western Christianity. By the time of the late Middle Ages the Western Church, which had come to be known as the Roman Catholic Church, had reached a point of deep corruption, most importantly in what it believed, but also in the morals and life of the clergy and church leadership. In 1517 there began what we know today as the Reformation, when Martin Luther, a professor and monk in Wittenberg, Germany posted a series of "talking points" on the practice of selling "indulgences" by which people were led to believe they could buy forgiveness of sins, for their dead relatives in purgatory. A person has to decide is the Lutheran view of Christianity is correct, or the Roman Catholic view is correct. After the Reformation, many groups developed from the teachings of persons other than Martin Luther, most notably, two men: Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin, who did much of his work in Geneva. These two men and their writings gave rise to many churches that can be traced back to and grouped under the general category of "Reformed" churches. In America in the 19th and 20th century there arose many splinter groups from Reformed churches, these would include "Charismatic" and "Pentecostal" groups, along with groups that rejected all denominations and became, in effect, a denomination of their own, the so-called "non-denominational" churches. And so the question then becomes, "Is Lutheran theology correct, or Reformed theology correct?" So, is it Rome or Wittenberg. If Wittenberg, then is it Geneva or Wittenberg?" Once those decisions are made, the myriad of denominations today makes a lot more sense. But there is an additional challenge unique to our century and more so the past half-century. Today, despite all their denominational differences and historic confessions, the vast majority of Christian churches in Protestantism have been nearly overwhelmed by the rise of liberal Christianity. This unites them more so than any other feature of their confession of faith. Historic differences are no longer regarded as divisive since these divisions were based on one group's understanding of the Biblical text as opposed to another group's understanding of the Bible. For example, the difference between Lutheran and Reformed views of the Lord's Supper are very important and based on very serious and clear differences in how the words Jesus spoke at the Last Supper are understood. Liberalism however regards the words of Jesus in the Bible as unreliable. It teaches that we can not be sure that what is recorded in the Bible is true and accurate, therefore, there is no point in being "dogmatic" about much of anything having to do with the Bible. Modern liberalism has swept through all Christian denominations, Lutheran Reformed, Protestant and Roman Catholic. via The Festival of the Reformation: October 31 – Does Being Lutheran Still Matter? | CyberBrethren-A Lutheran Blog. So one must decide if Rome was right, or if Wittenberg was right?  (Or, before that, I suppose, if Constantinople was right.)  If Luther was right to post those theses, the next decision is whether Wittenberg or Geneva was right.  And then, I suppose, a choice between a number of other places (Canterbury?  New Bedford?  Plymouth, Massachusetts?  Upstate New York?  Chicago?  Azusa Street?) But now EVERYBODY also must decide between conservative theology and the new (and unifying) liberal theology. View article...

View article...