FW: The Best Fifteen Minutes of Theology I have ever Read, Heard or Seen – Fisk’s Critique of the Anti-Religion Guy, by Pr. Rossow

 

More…   Feed: Steadfast Lutherans Posted on: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 7:49 AM Author: Pastor Tim Rossow Subject: The Best Fifteen Minutes of Theology I have ever Read, Heard or Seen – Fisk's Critique of the Anti-Religion Guy, by Pr. Rossow   In case you are one of the 13 people who hasn't seen it yet I thought I would encourage you to view one of the recent editions of Pastor Jonathan Fisk's Worldview Everlasting videos. I have been privileged to listen to the best theologians of this and the last century – Korby, Preus, Hummel, Nagel, Scaer, etc. but this video is the best fifteen minutes of theology I have ever read, heard or seen, excepting maybe Article IV of the Augsburg Confession. The kid is on a roll. He has received numerous invites to speak, chief of which is the upcoming BJS conference, has spent the last few months fitting into a house and a call to a committed confessional and liturgical parish (here at Bethany – Naperville, Illinois) and now has a video teaching that has over 40,000 hits on "the source of all truth," the internet. Even though this thing has been all the rage for the last week and a half, I just viewed it last night. We always like to begin our Confessions Reading Group with some tidbit of LCMS or worldwide religious news so we took the time to view the anti-religion guy's video (which has somewhere around 10 million hits) and then viewed Fisk's critique of it. I finally got interested in viewing the video after an interesting email from a Catholic friend. I don't spend a lot of time on the internet. I really don't have the time – who does? Worldview Everlasting is one of the first places I do go to when I decide to surf – the internet kind, not the Cwirla kind. I have told the kid that if he would cut his videos down to ten minutes from fifteen I might watch more of them. Then there is the whole notion of the title: "Worldview…" I don't have a weltanshauung (worldview). I just have a world, a sinful world, redeemed by Christ. (I suppose you could say, in keeping with the theme of this post, "I'm not philosophical, I just love the Lord.") The modern/post-modern delight in viewing things from a safe distance like in hermeneutics and worldviews is one step too detached for me from the real, common-sense, Incarnational world at my fingertips. It leads too lots of trouble, injecting man, the viewer, the reader, into an otherwise much less complicated deal of living. But I digress and I must say if the kid keeps pumping out theology like the stuff in this video he can call his website anything he wants. He could call it "mangled baby ducks" for all I care. Here's one last thing about the kid. In light of all this "success," he daily practices confession and absolution and asks anyone within reach to help him keep the focus on Christ. And he does. May God bless Worldview Everlasting, Issues Etc, BJS and the entire confessional new Lutheran media. You thought I forgot about the story from my Catholic friend. The kid and I were at the symposium last week in Fort Wayne and late one night I got an email from my favorite Popish interlocutor, the husband of one of our members and the council president of the largest Catholic church in the area. He told me how his pastor was getting all sorts of questions about the video from the anti-religion guy. He then went on to say that a dozen or so members had given him rave reviews about some Fisk guy who had critiqued it. Bear in mind that Worldview Everlasting is done in typical Youtube fashion without any reference to time or place. These local Catholics had no idea that Worldview Everlasting is a Lutheran guy down the street from them. My friend recognized the name, asked his wife about it, and then realized it was Bethany's Fisk. Ahh, the wonders of the internet. Hearing about it from a Catholic friend was enough to finally get me to view the video. One last personal note. I listened to the song that started this whole thing, over thirty five years ago as a teenager,"I'm not Religious, I just Love the Lord" by Scott Wesley Brown and I listened to all sorts of other heterodox music that led me and countless other future LCMS pastors down the dangerous path of methabaptocostalism. I thank God that a few orthodox men got me back on the orthodox path of the Lutheran Confessions some years ago and pray for more of those conversions. We can thank God that the new generation of young bucks has several men who recognize the errors of methabaptocostalism at a young age and are being used by our Lord to teach the next generation to be Confessional. Praise be to God for people and things in our synod like liturgical renewal, the election of President Harrison, the Fort Wayne symposium and even the mature worldview of a kid theologian in Chicago. I suggest you view the original video of the anti-religion guy first (click here), then view Fisk's critique of it (click here, page down to Jan 13, Freestylin Religion). View article...

View article...

FW: Petronius, gluttony, and the Internet

 

Consider…   Feed: Cranach: The Blog of Veith Posted on: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 3:31 AM Author: Gene Veith Subject: Petronius, gluttony, and the Internet   Another example of how classical literature can help us think through contemporary issues.  Rob Goodman writes about the information overload that the internet can give us in terms of Petronius: For those of us left numb by the Internet, it might help to consider the ways in which gorging on information parallels (and has, for many of us, replaced) gorging on sensual pleasures. And if we want to take that comparison seriously, there is no better guide than the pioneering Roman novelist of decadence, Gaius Petronius Arbiter. Few have ever described—or lived—the attractions and exhaustions of overindulgence more vividly. In the court of the Emperor Nero—his friend, partner in excess, and the man ultimately responsible for his death—Petronius was employed as the official "arbiter of elegance." In short, he was a style consultant to the Roman elite. The historian Tacitus describes him as an expert "in the science of pleasure." Unmatched in his day as a trendsetter, Petronius is best known in ours as the probable author of one of the earliest surviving novels, the Satyricon. And out of this picaresque story, which has come down to us in fragments, the most outrageous figure by far is Trimalchio: the nouveau-riche ex-slave whose wildly gluttonous banquet forms the Satyricon's centerpiece. . . Trimalchio—if only he would stop shooting dice, or loudly discussing his constipation problem—could be a master entertainer. He is a man of abundant means and an almost-pitiful eagerness to please, but his party turns into a feast of steadily diminishing returns. Good food isn't enough for Trimalchio's table: Nothing can be served if it isn't in disguise. Visual jokes were a fashion among Roman chefs, but in Trimalchio's household they are taken to absurd heights: olives disguised as rocks; sausages "roasting" over pomegranate seeds disguised as coals; pastry eggs hiding roast songbirds; a pig prestuffed with sausages; fruit filled with saffron perfume; more pastry birds, and fruit stuck with thorns to resemble sea-urchins; goose, fish, and game all made out of a pig; oysters in the water pitchers; a whole roast boar surrounded by suckling sweetmeat "piglets," stuffed with live birds, complete with droppings that turn out to be fresh dates. The boar is also wearing a hat. One of these courses might have been a surprise; two or three or four might have been marvelous. But after our narrator is bludgeoned by hours of course after dressed-up course, all of which have to be applauded and swallowed, his only thought is for the exit—which he can no longer find. Is the host, at least, enjoying himself? It's hard to see any real pleasure in a man who announces how many pounds of jewelry he's wearing and then demands a scale to prove it—a host who tops off the evening's entertainment by ordering the guests to "make believe I'm dead" and who then ends up weeping as they act out his funeral. If Petronius had been a Christian moralist—an ancient John Bunyan, maybe—Trimalchio's feast might have been marshaled against the sin of gluttony. But Petronius doesn't criticize the monster he's created from a standpoint of better morals. He criticizes Trimalchio from a standpoint of better taste: Petronius' attitude to Trimalchio is equal parts fascination and snobbery. The author was every bit as decadent as his character—he was simply, effortlessly, better at it. . . . Under decadent circumstances, such as Trimalchio's feast or Nero's court, pleasure becomes cheap. It must, at first, be exhilarating to find exquisite versions of the things we most want—food, sleep, sex—right at hand. But then comes the revelation that even with unlimited means, our capacity to take pleasure is itself limited. The usual enjoyments become repetitious and dull, until we can barely taste them at all, or remember how they once tasted. . . . And there's the key to understanding the often anesthetic effect of the Internet. Decadence doesn't demand great wealth: Decadence is a useful way to understand any situation in which an existing pleasure becomes cheap, and it takes the ingenuity of a Petronius to fight off the boredom. That is now the case with information—the small burst of satisfaction that comes from a refilled inbox or a new text, from connecting with friends, or sharing the meme of the day. Millions of us are now richer in these pleasures than our parents' generation could ever imagine. But our capacity for enjoyment is still finite: We've built up a tolerance to the pleasures of information, just as Trimalchio built up a tolerance to the pleasures of food. Those who experience our constant connectivity as dulling should be able to identify closely with his guests. via Gluttony Goes Viral -- The Chronicle Review -- The Chronicle of Higher Education. Do you agree that we can become "gluttons" of information?  That the internet can have an "anesthetic" effect?  That it can make us "decadent"? View article...

View article...

FW: MPT Posts on Church Discipline — and I Suggest a Better Way

 

Consider…   Feed: internetmonk.com Posted on: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 10:32 PM Author: Chaplain Mike Subject: MPT Posts on Church Discipline — and I Suggest a Better Way   NOTE: This post is not about a certain well-known pastor, even though it involves the church he leads. In the discussion that follows, I am not interested in having us talk about this pastor personally. So don't. Please keep the conversation on the subject of church discipline itself, more broadly. We focus on these articles because they present a detailed description of a church discipline process that gives us a rare inside look at how a congregation attempts to deal with Christian sin, repentance, and restoration in the church. • • • In two emotionally-charged posts, Matthew Paul Turner has given a detailed account of the church discipline process in one well-known congregation. Here are links to the articles: Mark Driscoll's Church Discipline Contract Mark Driscoll's "Gospel Shame" These pieces tell Andrew's story. As a young man, Andrew set out on his own in an effort to find himself. So he moved to the big city and joined a well-known megachurch. He began dating a daughter of one of the elders and they became engaged. During their engagement, he spent an evening with an old fling and acted inappropriately. Feeling extremely guilty afterward, he confessed to his fiancee and another member of his small group. Then to his small group leader. Soon Andrew was involved in meeting after meeting in which he confessed other relational and sexual failures he had experienced in his life, including the fact that he and his fiancee had been intimate. A month later, he was informed in another meeting with a pastor and his small group leader that he was "under church discipline." Soon he was sent a "church discipline contract" that listed the "background issues" (a list of his sins) and the "plan of discipline" they had set up for Andrew. (You can read the details of the contract at Turner's first post.) In the second article, we learn what happened next. Andrew waited and thought before signing the contract, and then decided not to sign. Instead, he contacted the pastor and informed him he was leaving the church. When asked why he made this decision, Andrew replied, "Because I felt that the contract was legalistic, voyeuristic, and controlling. I felt like it was putting them in the place of God, determining when my heart was right or repentant enough. I didn't want that." The pastor wrote back, warning him that this would lead to more severe action. Citing Matthew 18, other church members were notified via the church's internal social media system that Andrew was under discipline and that church members were to treat him "as a Gentile and a tax collector" (Matt 18:17). The communique gave specific examples of the kinds of interactions that would be permissible and impermissible, along with practical examples. Matthew Paul Turner takes a dim view of this "gospel shame" process of discipline: Where do I even begin? Honestly, this letter speaks for itself in my opinion. The harsh heavy-handed "theology". The misuse of scripture to validate their reasoning. The carefully worded instructions on what to say, how to act, etc. The term "gospel shame"? The assumptions that their decisions are to be viewed equal to God's decisions. At times, this letter comes off like the Roman Catholic church during the Dark Ages. …And if this is how they plan to treat Andrew–as an "unbeliever"? How in the world do they treat people who really are non-Christian? (And not to mention the fact that Jesus hung out with Gentiles, tax-collectors, etc.) Fine. If they don't want Andrew to be a member of their church, take his name off the list! But this? I mean, seriously, did any of this letter, except for perhaps the "heavy heart", infer that Mars Hill loves Andrew? Oh I know they think their actions represent love. But really, many of us have experienced firsthand that kind of "love," and we know very well that it's an abuse of the term. I encourage you to read these articles in their entirety. Then come back and share your opinions about how "discipline" should be understood and practiced in the local church. As for my opinion, the whole process described here seems askew. I recognize that we are only getting one side of the story, and that is an important caveat to keep in mind. But if we are to take Andrew's word as anywhere near accurate in the description of what he went through, then I would make the following observations: First, the "sinner" came forward and confessed of his own free will. Second, Andrew makes no mention that anyone he talked to offered him forgiveness or pointed him to Christ. Third, instead of absolution and restoration, a seemingly endless series of meetings began which only served to dredge up more sin and more shame, but still provided no word of forgiveness. Fourth, the end result of all these meetings and all these confessions was that Andrew was issued a discipline "contract." This written and signed agreement gave him a list of "works" that he had to perform in order to "prove" that he was repentant, including detailing all the sins he could recall with regard to relationships, sexual behavior, and deception. Fifth, when Andrew rejected these demands, the entire church was notified and instructed to shun Andrew, only excepting conversations in which congregation members could appeal to him to repent. As far as I can see, this approach to "church discipline" was misguided, counterproductive, and counter to the Gospel. It ignored the principle that if we confess our sins, forgiveness and absolution should be granted (1Jn 1:9). It ignored the example of Christ, who said simply and immediately, time and time again, to those who came to him, "Go in peace, your sins are forgiven." Instead, it stirred up more and more talk of sin and repeated that talk in ever-widening circles until finally the entire congregation knew about it. In contrast to the Gospel — "where sin abounded, grace much more abounded" — this process just seemed to cause discussion of sin to abound. It put all the attention on this young man's sin, repentance, and works. The contractual requirement that this young man write out his "sexual and emotional attachment history," and give a "full chronology of events and social/emotional sin" seems invasive and inappropriate. Why document such things and why should anyone want to read them? That feels really creepy to me, not only encouraging morbid introspection, but also voyeurism. Manifestly unhealthy! Rather than count on Christ and his finished work, this "discipline" process put the onus on the sinner to feel sorry enough, to be repentant enough, to do enough works to prove his contrition and thus "earn" forgiveness and restoration from the church. That is not the Gospel. Here is yet another instance where the evangelical world needs to listen to the traditions of the church. No system practiced by humans will ever work perfectly, but how much more like the Gospel is the simple practice of confession and absolution, the administration of the "Office of the Keys" that has been practiced for centuries? Regarding the practice of confession, the Augsburg Confession states: But of Confession they teach that an enumeration of sins is not necessary, and that consciences be not burdened with anxiety to enumerate all sins, for it is impossible to recount all sins, as the Psalm 19:13 testifies: Who can understand his errors? And Luther (who knew something about a tortured conscience and endless confessing of sins!), wrote in the Smalcald Articles: But the enumeration of sins ought to be free to every one, as to what he wishes to enumerate or not to enumerate. For as long as we are in the flesh, we shall not lie when we say: "I am a poor man [I acknowledge that I am a miserable sinner], full of sin." In the Small Catechism, Luther then describes how the pastor should respond when such a confession is made: Then shall the confessor say: God be merciful to thee and strengthen thy faith! Amen. Furthermore: Dost thou believe that my forgiveness is God's forgiveness? Answer. Yes, dear sir. Then let him say: As thou believest, so be it done unto thee. And by the command of our Lord Jesus Christ I forgive thee thy sins, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. Depart in peace. But those who have great burdens upon their consciences, or are distressed and tempted, the confessor will know how to comfort and to encourage to faith with more passages of Scripture. "As thou believest, so be it done unto thee." Go in peace. Because of Jesus, God forgives all your sins. Rise to walk in newness of life. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Gospel. So much better. View article...

View article...

FW: Church organizations must provide free contraception & abortifacients

 

Unacceptable…   Feed: Cranach: The Blog of Veith Posted on: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 4:01 AM Author: Gene Veith Subject: Church organizations must provide free contraception & abortifacients   Obamacare will force church-affiliated institutions to have insurance policies that will give employees free contraceptives (without even the usual co-pay!).  There will be no exemption for Roman Catholics who disapprove of birth control as a matter of doctrine: Many church-affiliated institutions will have to cover free birth control for employees, the Obama administration announced Friday in an election-year move that outraged religious groups, fueling a national debate about the reach of government. In a concession, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said nonprofit institutions such as church-affiliated hospitals, colleges and social service agencies will have one additional year to comply with the requirement, issued in regulations under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. "I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services," Sebelius said in a statement. Yet the concession was unlikely to stop a determined effort by opponents to block or overturn the rule. If they fail, some predicted that religious employers would simply drop coverage for their workers, opting instead to pay fines to the federal government under the health care law. "Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience," said New York Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "This shouldn't happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights." via Birth control: Feds say many church-affiliated employers must cover but grant 1-year extension -- The Washington Post. Churches construed narrowly as houses of worship would be exempt, but not hospitals, schools, universities, and ministries. Here is the kicker for Christians who may not oppose birth control but who do oppose abortion:  The government is classifying the Morning After pill, which prevents the fertilized egg from implanting thus killing the embryo, as a contraceptive! From the same article: Workplace health plans will have to cover all forms of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration, ranging from the pill to implantable devices to sterilization. Also covered is the morning-after pill, which can prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex and is considered as tantamount to an abortion drug by some religious conservatives. This means that Christian organizations that oppose abortion as a matter of  religious conviction will be required by law to pay for abortifacients and thus violate their religious convictions. View article...

View article...

FW: Was uns etwan die heilgen Propheten

 

Cantemus…   Feed: HYMNOGLYPT Posted on: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:04 AM Author: Matt Carver (Matthaeus Glyptes) Subject: Was uns etwan die heilgen Propheten     Here is my translation of a German version of "Quod chorus vatum," called "Was uns etwan die heilgen Propheten" (A. Lobwasser, author of the infamous psalter). It is sung to the original melody, which I have seen either as that of "Iste Confessor," or else of "Quem terra pontus ethera" (The God whom earth and sea and sky). This page has more information on the original version as well as an English (unrhymed) translation of it.   WHAT PROPHETS in the Spirit once had spoken Now we behold fulfilled, the oath unbroken, By Virgin Mary comes the revelation Of our salvation.   2. Conceiving Christ, the Son of God, our Savior, Without a spot or breach of honor ever, Pure she remained, as even from her mother,— Such as no other.   3. They took the Child and to the temple brought Him, To aged Simèon, who long had sought Him. The priest received the Child with gladness willing, God's oath fulfilling.   4. And so with fervent hearts, we pray Thee, Savior, True Son of God, to show Thy grace and favor; Let us, e'en as Thou art to heav'n ascended, E'er be defended.   Translation © Matthew Carver, 2012.   GERMAN 1. Was uns etwan die heiligen Propheten durch den Heiligen Geist weißsagen täten, Daß solches durch Mariam sei geschehen, Wir nun verstehen.   2. Denn sie empfangen hat Christum den Herren, Gottes Sohn ohn Abbruch ihrer Ehren, ein Jungfrau blieb sie wei da war zu voren der Welt geboren.   3. Da man mit diesem Kind in Tempel kame, Fröhlich es Simeon in die Arm nahme, Das wie er hätt gewünscht das Kind zu sehen nun wär geschehen.   4. Drum bitten wir dich Gottes Sohne brünstig, daß du uns wöllest gnädig sein und günstig, und uns, weil du gen Himmel bist gefahren, treulich bewahren.   View article...

View article...

FW: LSB One-Year Peculiarities

 

One Year…   Feed: Weedon's Blog Posted on: Monday, January 23, 2012 5:48 PM Author: noreply@blogger.com (William Weedon) Subject: LSB One-Year Peculiarities   As we prepare to go into pre-Lent (can it already be here?), a few changes liturgically to note: Beginning with the Divine Service for Septuagesima, the plaintive Tract replaces the joyous Alleluia and Verse. Beginning with Ash Wednesday, the Gloria in Excelsis (or any Hymn of Praise) is omitted from the Divine Service. Beginning with Judica, the Gloria Patri is omitted from the Introit. Note that the Gloria in Excelsis MAY be used on Holy Thursday, if the service does not begin with the Service of Corporate Confession and Absolution. Now the usual discussion of the color mess.  First, remember that uniform use of the colors is relatively late.  Read through Stiller's work on Leipzig at the time of Bach and you'll readily see how different from our current expectations the color scheme in use at the time was!  But if we pay attention to the rubrics of our hymnal, then we have the following: Pre-Lent - Green, with the Epiphany Preface continuing in use (see, Altar Book, pp. 862-865). Ash Wednesday - Black or Violet with the Lenten Preface (see Altar Book, p. 867). Invocabit through the week of Judica - Violet with the Lenten Preface (see Altar Book, pp. 868-875). Palmarum through Holy Wednesday- Scarlet or violet with Holy Week Preface (see Altar Book, pp. 876-880). Holy Thursday - White, scarlet or violet with Holy Week Preface (see Altar Book, p. 881). Good Friday - Black (if paraments are used, but see note on p. 511  "the altar remains bare, having been stripped on Holy Thursday") with Holy Week Preface (see Altar Book, p. 883). Easter Vigil- Easter Wednesday- White or gold with Easter preface (see Altar Book, p. 885-891). Certainly there is variety in how parishes choose to follow these particular rubrics.  There are places that follow the one-time Roman custom of Pre-Lent being violet.  There are places that insist on the White for Maundy Thursday.  Here at St. Paul's our actual practice accords with the rubrics cited above, with these choices:  violet for Ash Wednesday; Scarlet from Palmarum through Holy Thursday; Bare for Good Friday; and Gold for the Easter feasts.  We do use the Corporate Confession option both to start and end Lent:  on Ash Wednesday and on Maundy Thursday. It seems each year that these questions get discussed around the blogosphere, so that's a quick reference guide if you're looking for the actual rubrics of our current rite.  They're not divinely inspired; you may well disagree with the wisdom of some of the choices; but they are the guidance our Synod offers us, for what it's worth. http://feeds.feedburner.com/WeedonsBlog View article...

View article...

FW: On the devotional side of life...

 

Weedon…   Feed: Weedon's Blog Posted on: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 10:14 AM Author: noreply@blogger.com (William Weedon) Subject: On the devotional side of life...   ...which is a favorite of mine, I had a friend lately write me to inquire about suggestions for his own devotions (which is a handy word for the discipline of daily time in the Scriptures and in prayer).  I wrote him back to commend once again the beloved Treasury, but to add on that there are now two companion volumes (and a third on the way) that even deepen its value. I'm referring to *A Year in the New Testament* which provides a meditation upon each of the NT readings for the day according to the LSB Daily Lectionary; and *A Year in the Church Fathers* which provides a choice selection from a wide array of early Church fathers, connected to one of the readings for the day.  I've posted snippets from that volume since I purchased it.  A book on the OT readings is in the works, I know, but I'm not sure where matters stand on its appearing. But even with just the resources at hand, that means you have THREE writings each day to help you ponder and contemplate the daily lectionary readings.  Add to this that with the PrayNow App, you don't have to lug your Treasury along with you - it fits in your iPad or iPhone or whatever.  I'd love to see CPH put in the option of selecting the "writing" for the day from the Treasury itself or from one of the newer *A Year...* books! http://feeds.feedburner.com/WeedonsBlog View article...

View article...

FW: Trying to do Jesus' Job for Him

 

Brown…   Feed: Confessional Gadfly Posted on: Monday, January 23, 2012 8:09 AM Author: Rev. Eric J Brown Subject: Trying to do Jesus' Job for Him   In prepping for my Hebrews study, I was struck by how often we in America put things backwards. For example - how often have you heard someone admonish someone to be more "Christlike" -- implying that by our own work and efforts and strivings we become like Jesus. I translated Hebrews 2:16 thusly: For indeed it is not angels whom He delivers, but He delivers the seeds (spermatos) of Abraham. In my notes, I explain how I use the awkward in English "seeds" to point out that this is plural, where as the promise is given to the singular seed (Christ), as Paul points out in Galatians. Christ becomes man... and then, as He as a man has suffered and died and risen and gives us forgiveness, life, and salvation - He makes us to be like Him. The Seed of Abraham makes us to be seeds of Abraham. It is not that I must make myself more Christlike -- rather, in giving forgiveness and making me holy and righteous, Christ Himself makes me to be like Him. In giving me eternal life, the Risen Christ makes me to be like Him. It's always Christ's activity - He is the One who comes down to me to lift me up unto Himself. Why do we spend so much time trying to do Jesus' job for Him? He works for us in the Gospel... why do we rush back to the law and try to do His job for Him? View article...

View article...

FW: With the liturgy, “you never need words for joy”

 

Tolkien…   Feed: Cranach: The Blog of Veith Posted on: Friday, January 20, 2012 4:01 AM Author: Gene Veith Subject: With the liturgy, "you never need words for joy"   Rev. Samuel Schuldheisz points us to the role of the liturgy--including the Psalms and the classic hymns of praise--in the life of J. R. R. Tolkien.  This is from a letter to his son, Christopher: "If you don't do so already, make a habit of the 'praises'. I use them much (in Latin): the Gloria Patri, the Gloria in Excelsis, the Laudate Dominum; the Laudete Pueri Dominum (of which I am specially fond), one of the Sunday psalms; and the Magnificat; also the Litany of Loretto (with the prayer Sub tuum praesidium). If you have these by heart you never need words for joy." via E-nklings: Tolkien on the Liturgy. HT:  Mary Moerbe View article...

View article...

FW: “I’m neither religious nor spiritual–I’m a Lutheran”

 

More…   Feed: Cranach: The Blog of Veith Posted on: Monday, January 23, 2012 4:01 AM Author: Gene Veith Subject: "I'm neither religious nor spiritual–I'm a Lutheran"   You know that viral video from the guy who says he hates religion but loves Jesus?  Well, Anthony Sacramone kind of agrees with him: I like to say that I'm neither religious nor spiritual — I'm a Lutheran. It's more than just left of pithy; it's true. I have zero interest in religion. I had plenty of it as a kid. Sunday school; religion classes in my Lutheran parochial schools; confirmation classes. I was an acolyte and a winner of some religion-essay contest at the tender age of 9. And then there was church. And the inevitable Monday morning role call. Every Monday, our home room teacher would ask whether we had gone to church, Sunday school, both, or neither. After about age 11 I was racking up an impressive list of neithers. I would do anything to get out of going. To this day, I cannot remember a single word any pastor ever preached on any text. Church was something to endure. And among many of the Lutherans of my childhood, it didn't seem to matter. They subscribed to Woody Allen's shallow philosophy: just showing up was good enough. And when I was finally confirmed, I was not just an adult in the eyes of the church; I was also free. Free never to have to endure the brain-sapping banality that was my religion. And we're not talking about a denomination exactly given to legalism. In fact, it had very few rules. Really, it had just one: show up. Just show up. And that was enough to make my religion unbearable. Because I wanted to be anywhere but there. If only someone had told me to read Luther. Real Luther, not Sunday school Luther. The Luther who killed religion. . . . What exactly did the religious folk want of Jesus? They wanted a king. And Jesus gave them one "in the form of a slave." They wanted relief from oppression, and they got parables. They wanted a kingdom, and they got the cross — a young Jewish man of dubious parentage apparently crushed by the collision of church and state but in reality bearing the iniquity of us all to reconcile us to a holy God, to inoculate us against sin, death, and the devil, to bury us alongside him, so he could raise us to eternal life. Their prayers were answered in the most startlingly appalling way: they received not power but promises. Christianity isn't a religion. It's a conundrum. And no one has ever wrestled with and wrung the truth out of that conundrum better than Martin Luther. And it took a class at NYU to introduce me to his inimitable voice. Luther hated that God who demanded perfect righteousness from an original sinner but who had already rigged the game with election. How could this possibly be good news? Where was hope of being a saint when you were still a sinner? How could a perfect God understand the weight of guilt, the pain of betrayal, the agony of a broken body? Luther had failed to bridge the chasm between a wrathful God and lowly, raging, libidinous man with his fastings and law keeping. How could he possibly get from despair to hope? It was in the communication of properties — the dual nature of Christ understood such that we can speak of the death of the Son of God and the true union of God and man — that Luther saw a way out and was able slowly to forge the key to the Christian conundrum: Jesus takes my sin and gives me his righteousness. His righteousness. There is real union, but it is predicated on faith, trust in the promises, not an ascent on our part, but a condescension on his. We are passive recipients of a gift, which is Christ's own flesh. He really took our sin into his own flesh on Calvary and he really communicates his favor and forgiveness by feeding us that same flesh. Because life is in the blood. The worst crime in history — he who called heaven and earth into being with his Word fixed immobile to two cross beams — is the only hope anyone has of true freedom. The church should be the place where you hear the promises of God, and embrace them as your own. The Father's wrath at his broken law should terrify you such that you run from him to Jesus, from the Just Judge to the Righteous Redeemer, who delivers not a sentence but his own self. If what you get instead is therapy or law or even encouragement to try harder, climb higher, or even to just show up, then you have religion, and you are doomed. via Strange Herring | And other signs that the end is nearish. Read it all. This, of course, is the "theology of the cross" as compared to "the theology of glory." Do you see what he is saying?  I'm touched by the account of his childhood post-confirmation alienation from the church.  If we could teach the radical nature of the gospel and the theology of the cross more consistently, as opposed to just memorizing answers and "just showing up," would that make a difference?  Or are young people at that particular age more interested in a "theology of glory," being oblivious to the grace that is hidden in an ordinary, boring church service?  Whereas, perhaps, after failing and suffering and becoming cynical for awhile, they are ready to come back? View article...

View article...

FW: How Lutherans Worship – 11: Prayer and the Collect of the Day

 

A worthwhile series of posts…   Feed: Blog My Soul Posted on: Thursday, January 19, 2012 2:41 PM Author: ScotK Subject: How Lutherans Worship – 11: Prayer and the Collect of the Day   Previous post: How Lutherans Worship – 10: Excursus: What is Lutheran Worship? Salutation The Lord be with you. And also with you. The Salutation is a special greeting between the congregation and its pastor. Originally the pastor would have spoken "Peace be with you," purposefully repeating our Lord's post-resurrection greeting to His fearful disciples gathered together in the upper room on that first Easter evening. The present wording of the Salutation is inexorably tied to His incarnation (Luke 1:28) and with His promise to be with His church (Matthew 28:20). In the Divine Service the announcement of the Lord's peace heralds His coming to us in the readings that follow and makes us aware that important things are about to happen. Salutation. Special greeting between pastor and people: "The Lord be with you," followed by the response "And also with you" or "And with your spirit." Prayer and The Collect of the Day Prayer is how the Christian acknowledges the gifts of the Gospel. "Faith that is born from what is heard acknowledges the gifts received with eager thankfulness and praise (Lutheran Worship, pg. 6). In the Scriptures God speaks to human beings, but in prayer, human beings speak to God. Prayer is the life of faith in active communion or conversation with object of our faith–God. Prayer is the evidence of the relationship we have with the Father because of the redemption won for us by the Son. It shows our childlike trust and confidence in the One who does for us all that we need and more. Let us pray. The Collect of the Day "collects" in a concise and beautiful manner the Gospel message for the day to implore God, by His grace and through His mercy, to manifest His love in and through our thoughts, words, and deeds. We pray these things to remember Him who always provides for us, and to receive these gifts with godly thanksgiving. Most of these prayers have been in continuous use in the Church for more than 1,500 years. In praying the Collect, we join with the great body of believers, the communion of saints, and with the generations yet to come.  Amen. Declaration that what has been said is true and affirming its trust in the Lord's Gospel promise; "yes, yes, this is most certainly true." A special advantage of using the collects, both ancient and modern, is that they keep the fundamental needs of salvation and the great objective facts of divine grace in clear focus, and they align us with the revealed will of God which will soon be proclaimed in the reading of Scripture. The congregation makes the Collect its own with its "amen," Next: How Lutherans Worship – 12: Hearing God's Word View article...

View article...

FW: Why I Just Can’t Hate Religion, Though I Love Jesus

 

More…   Feed: internetmonk.com Posted on: Thursday, January 19, 2012 1:31 PM Author: Craig Bubeck Subject: Why I Just Can't Hate Religion, Though I Love Jesus   There is an increasing sentiment, especially among younger Christians, that is not only apathetic toward organized and formally structured religion (read "church"), but is antagonistic and opposed to it. So when I came across this hugely popular You Tube video (over 15 million views and counting), I found myself ambivalent. There is a core angst about it that I can really relate to (I mean, really). I'll admit, in recent years I've found myself happily becoming a theologically evangelical man without an evangelical culture. But we, the disenfranchised, have to ask ourselves: when we boast in hating religion, how do we go about distinguishing the church, whom Jesus loves? I'm not so sure. I think maybe I at least am finding it a bit too convenient to draw cavernous lines between abstractions of "religion" and the people who comprise it. (It reminds me a little too much of the oft contrived dichotomy between loving the sinners, but hating their sins.) Can I legitimately claim to love God and yet hate his church . . . his church, made up of and organized by his people? An analogy occurred to me as I mulled. I find it helpful. (You'll find it to be not particularly original, as it's biblical). The Christian religion is much like marriage. Consider: one's love relationship with God through Christ is to Christian religion as love is to marriage. Accordingly, some will want to argue that the "institution" of marriage is similarly to be hated (or at least feared), as it is a lie and even antithetical to love. Honestly, if you think about it, they don't have to look too hard or too far to find plenty of anecdotal support for such a view. Indeed, for far too many, loveless and dead marriages-in-name-only are all they've ever seen or known. You can empathize with why they oppose marriage, even when they fall in love. From their standpoint, marriage seems to ruin or kill authentic love. I could easily imagine an identical video to this that is all about true love vs. marriage, with the implication being that people who are truly in love should avoid and resist marriage. And a lot of people who have had bad experiences with marriage or married people would applaud and agree. Marriage is man-made; it is cultural—people can love without getting married; they can even be very committed and monogamous in that love. It's hard to argue contrariwise to observable experience, except to insist one's own experience is contrary. (And for the record, mine is.) So then it's tit for tat—one says marriage kills as a rule, the other says he or she has experienced great marriage and retained love. And the same is argued on both sides of religion. Be that all as it may . . . I know the institutions of marriage and the Christian religion are true—no matter how they are abused and corrupted, the hope they promise is real (and even realized by many). I'm certain of this because I'm a romantic. The reason true marriage and religion must both win out is going to be more than reason (and I'll admit readily, being a romantic tends to be unreasonable). As with all things profoundly true, it's necessarily a matter of faith. You must in the end choose to believe what God's word has said about either marriage or religion. You choose to trust that though Christ and his apostles (including Paul) were continually running afoul of organized (Jewish) religion, they were nonetheless committed adherents to it (religiously so). You accept that, while Jesus did come to fulfill the law,[1] he did not come to destroy it. The regular and consistent (i.e., organized) gathering of God's people is something Hebrews calls believers not to forsake.[2] But forsaking isn't just about failing to show up. This is the hard question I have to constantly be asking myself as I revel in my antipathy: can it be anything other than forsaken when I would characterize my religion as an institution to be hated? Paul too was continually about the organized and institutional church, such as it was in his day, affirming what Jesus taught—that Christians should be committed to and consistently fellowshipping with brothers and sisters who comprise Christ's body. Many of us can attest, of all things in life, this loving the unlovely body of Christ is where the good-works rubber most directly meets the road of faith. Loving unlovely religious hypocrites with their institutions and rules is the real test of holiness, especially when it comes to accomplishing the unreasonable and impossible only through the power of God's indwelling Spirit. By our own means, it's just not reasonable or possible to suffer the folly of, let alone love, the hateful religious jerks. And I catch myself mid-sentence. Because isn't that just exactly what sin ("original" especially) is all about—"by our own means"? This is why it's a matter of faith that we are to love our brothers and sisters in Christ, though they with their institutions and religiosity can be so brutal and abusive. The Apostle Paul endured no less: he was abused and betrayed not only by his brethren Jews,[3] but also by early-church Christians.[4] Never mind Jesus Christ himself being abused and betrayed by the religion that ironically should have been all about him. Faithful believers are called to not forsake the community because it is religion. It's easy to dismiss the Christian religion as man-made; but in truth, just what in human affairs wouldn't be man-made? And more to the point, what that is man-made can claim to be independent of God's sovereignty, or ultimately God-made? This is really the question: whatever you create and do (religion included), is it created and done in right relationship to God? That is, if a work or institution is originated from God's Spirit, though it be man-produced, it need not be less God-inspired or less God-empowered. What this video is legitimately lamenting is works-driven religion, vs. Spirit-driven religion. I get that. But much of our counter-religious culture is similarly distracted, and we risk tossing out romance and faith with their respective bathwaters. The answer to loveless marriage is not to deny marriage—so also with faithless religion. We should all agree: when religion becomes other than about (or a distraction from) love for God and love for one's neighbor, it becomes a loveless and false marriage . . . a profoundly and bitterly ironic witness against true marriage, against true religion. Nevertheless, there is true religion, just as there is true marriage (and all of us romantics echo, just as there is true love). So while I resonate a little too much with the sentiment of this hyperbole, it is hyperbole (perhaps dangerously so). Jesus did not come to abolish religion. He came to fulfill it. [1] Read "religion" into Matt. 5:17. [2] Hebrews 10:27 [3] See Rom. 9-11 and 2 Cor. 11:24-27. [4] See 2 Cor. 10-13, or Gal. 2:11. View article...

View article...