BO--Bastion of Orthodoxy

Hopeless in the City

2011-08-01T08:19:00.004-05:00

The folks who should be credited for the idea of public education (but are not because they weren't in this country) are quietly dwindling away.
Now mind you, this isn't another made-up Luther idea: Martin Luther actually recommended to city fathers in Germany that ALL children should be allowed to attend school at least half a day. He cites reasons such as educated citizens are better citizens, among other reasons.
This year at least four Lutheran schools (two of them named Hope--hence we are Hope-less) in my heavily Lutheran city are closing due to lack of students. I don't know how many more in the country are following suit. I know of many others around the country who are barely staying afloat--in fact, this may be their last school year.
One school I taught at used to have multiple classrooms per grade. Now it has multiple grades per class room. The school I attended as a child used to have over 100 students. Now it barely has 30. Other schools can't afford to pay their faculty. Others are asking faculty to voluntarily leave so the school doesn't have to make the hard decision of which to ask to leave. Teachers who are looking for positions in Lutheran schools are looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack.
What are the factors causing this? My mother asserts it's the charter schools. It's like having a free, private education right in your own school district. The local newspaper, when running a story on the plight of Catholic schools in the city (which, interestingly, one could have inserted "Lutheran" for every time "Catholic" was used in the story and end up with pretty much the same article and it would be no less true), asserted one of the problems was birth rate. The church members aren't having as many children. My mother had four children. To date, she has only four grandchildren. Just to be equal her rate, she should have sixteen grandchildren, all attending Lutheran schools.
As a Lutheran teacher I have heard many excuses.
*"That school has band/choir/art/underwater basket weaving. . ." Okay, but what happens in a budget cut? Besides, if you really want the extra curriculars, find like-minded parents who can help you start it in your own school.
*"I can't afford it." One always has to calculate what one can and can't afford, but should a child's education not be a priority in the family budget behind other luxury items?
* "They get religious education on Sunday." If the child comes to Sunday school. However, how can 45 minutes once a week compare with 45 minutes a day?
* "The public schools are just as good." If you compare raw data, sure, the public schools are equal, and may even surpass. Yet test scores do not make equality. This excuse is probably the most vexing to me when said by Christian parents. If a parent truly wants to rear their child in the faith, a public school will not do it. Public schools must teach every teaching that comes their way, especially those that deny Christianity. That's fine if you want to teach your child to deny Christianity themselves.
I hear the mutters of the nay-sayers now. Everything from "that's as it should be--religious training is child abuse" to "you gotta teach them to be open-minded" to "hey, it makes them stronger in their faith." If you fall in the first mindset, I'm not even going to touch that argument, because no matter what I say, it will be wrong. As for the other arguments, they are fallacies. Having attended a public high school myself, I can say for a fact that there were plenty of people teachers and students who believed I was closed-minded and tried diligently to convert me to non-religion. This from people who also taught that all beliefs were to be respected and accepted. Therefore I should give up mine? It tested me and I became stronger, but some of my friends acquiesced.
This post, however, is not to quibble over such. It is to hold up Lutheran schools as good, solid schools where students can still learn how to read, write, draw, sing, think, and pray.

A Tiny Dose of Facetiousness

2011-06-25T08:25:00.002-05:00

Big Bang Episode #38:
Upon dropping my box of beads and findings, I discovered that the force of the gravitational pull combined with the impact with said items upon the floor created a bracelet and two sets of earrings.

More Billboard Controversy

2011-06-08T09:29:00.003-05:00

Insensitive? Possible. Lapse of judgement? Maybe. Slanderous? I suppose if you know the person and the person's ex. "Distasteful and offensive?" Only if you are offended by the truth. The man was upset that his ex-girlfriend terminated her pregnancy with his child, so he put up a billboard. Maybe not the best way to handle it. After all, he is only the father, and as we all know, the father has no rights when it comes to unwanted pregnancy. If you think I'm being sarcastic, know this: the courts have backed it up time and time again. The only person in the case of abortion who has any say is the one pregnant. Too bad, so sad for anyone else who wants the baby to be born. In that case, sure, the billboard is offensive. Any woman should be offended that anyone else dares to imply that a decision for an abortion has any ramifications outside the woman herself. After all, nobody else has to endure 9 months of pregnancy and then labor and delivery.
Yes, sarcasm may be the protest of the meek--despite the sarcastic tone, these arguments are made constantly. If implying that a woman who chooses to kill her unborn baby might be selfish, I suppose that could be distasteful and offensive. Maybe the groups sponsoring the billboard could do a whole series: This could have been my grandchild, sibling, ME, etc. Just next time use people who are not seeking revenge.
**Side note: The friends of the woman in the billboard suit claim she had a miscarriage, not an abortion. In which case, the billboard would be in error.**

Spirituality in the News

2011-04-19T10:05:00.002-05:00

It's nice to know that spirituality isn't all dead, she states, somewhat sarcastically. There's the chocolate Seder or the Earth Day Festival. I'm glad it's Holy Week.

How About 1 Reason Not To?

2011-04-11T10:43:00.002-05:00

Call me an old-fashioned prude, but what is this? It used to be "should I kiss him on the first date?" Now we're given reasons to copulate on the first date (pardon me for being so crude). Apparently Mr. Quindar hasn't come up against Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, who--I'm quite certain--can come up with a good reason opposing each of his "good" reasons. By that I mean she can come up with a logical, intelligent argument as to why this is a bad idea. I default to her because she's the expert and has a better way of explaining it than my round-about method. (No, I didn't do well in geometry because I hated proofs; not to mention that my writing professors always railed on me for not being able to support my statements with proof.)
Anyway, if anyone questions the oversexualisation (is that a word?) of our society, here it is, when we have to justify ourselves this way.
My response is this: 1) save it for marriage--that's how it works; and 2) check out this for a good reason.

Parenthetically Laden

2011-03-22T21:22:00.004-05:00

No, I'm not opinionated, or anything. (That said sarcastically since tone-of-voice is really difficult in writing.) Of course I'm opinionated. Most people are, and the ones who aren't likely don't have a blog with an obviously opinionated title like mine. The problem I've found with my opinion is three-fold: 1) I'm not pithy, witty, or profound in expressing my opinions; 2) most of my opinions run contrary to popular opinion; and 3) (or is this a sub-set of 2?) I, like Hwin, am easily put down (not that I am remotely as gentle and humble).
I guess I've known for some time these three items, even before I could articulate my opinions (not that I'm very good at articulating them now). I can't rightly pinpoint when I first noticed this, but it was somewhere in elementary school when I realized that maybe I WAS a "goody-two-shoes" as my classmates liked to rudely point out. I hope I've mellowed (as far as the sanctimoniousness goes), but I know my opinions on some points have crystallized over the years through learning and all; ergo I've become more inflexible. I still find myself wishing I knew (in high school) what I know now (then I'd be able to respond to certain detractors), but on the other hand, I'd probably realize I'd still fumble for the wording.
I guess all I'm saying is I have lots to say, but very little to say well (read: expect more of the same) and you may not like it.

The Hitch

2011-01-23T18:09:00.003-06:00

Wow, if the prevailing view on marriage is anything like those who commented on the story about George Clooney not planning on getting married again, we should be very concerned. I can understand Mr. Clooney having been married and divorced once and not wanting to marry again. Marriage isn't easy, divorce is awful from a monetary and emotional standpoint. Add the famous actor angle, and it's no wonder Mr. Clooney is wishing to not do it again.
Now, I don't know the extent of the relationship Mr. Clooney has with his current girlfriend, but it is reprehensible if he is having the benefits of being married to her without being married to her. Some of the commenters speculate on this angle with comments of buying cows and free milk. One commenter actually did state that if this is the relationship the two of them have, then they are "married" in a sense. I know he is referring to I Corinthians 6:16, but to just throw that out into cyberspace does nothing for one's cause.
Other commenters take the approach that if Mr. Clooney does not wish to wed, he must not really be interested in women. Many "Rock Hudson" comparisons. Only one comment I saw (not that I read all 700+ in-depth) said that that is faulty logic.
Still others stated that marriage is over-rated, women are just looking for a piece of paper to validate whatever it is they need validated. If that is the case, why is there a certain group of people pushing to gain same-sex marriage rights in this country? I'm guessing many of these commenters would support those people in their cause. Marriage is okay for some groups, but not the average person? Huh?
I think I'd most agree with the commenters that said who cares--why is this news? Maybe there was just a slot to fill on the news feed until the football game was over.

Phraseology

2010-08-27T15:16:00.003-05:00

Really? You might want to rephrase that, folks.

Vaccinate? Now?

2010-07-22T08:55:00.002-05:00

I'm all for vaccination. I don't want my child to get Whooping Cough or Polio. I'm undecided, however, on vaccinating my daughter for HPV. I don't want to give her another reason to decide that sexual promiscuity is acceptable. Let's get this straight: the HPV vaccine does not prevent cervical cancer. It prevents HPV, and it's good only for 5 years. What are we saying, "Go for it girls, you have five years to go at it?" Now we have even more encouragement for sexual promiscuity with the availablity of the HPV vaccine to males. (In this area, Planned Parenthood is offering it to boys as young as 9.) Males are little more than carriers of HPV, so we're vaccinating men to prevent disease in women. Does this make sense? Here's where education comes in. Don't spread it, and it won't spread.
Call me delusional, and unrealistic. People will be people and have sex, right? Make love, not war and all that sexual revolution garbage? The HPV vaccine helps save lives. We want people to be safe. We ban transfats and make vaccines, but we don't get to the root of the problem. Maybe a future First Lady will work to fight out-of-wedlock sex the way the current First Lady is working to fight childhood obesity (which is an important goal, don't get me wrong).
We all nod and say smoking, drinking, transfats are bad and are health risks, but how many people say "free love" (read sex whenever with whomever) falls in the same category? We have vaccines and pills for that, and if not we can yank out whatever "tissue" we don't want. When are we going to face the fact that there is massive fallout from the sexual revolution? When tween boys and girls are getting vaccinated for an STD, shouldn't someone besides a few blogger admit there's a problem? Go, get your shots if you want. I think I'll try the actual parenting approach and actually teach my daughter what scripture says: Thou shalt not commit adultery, meaning, monagomy is the only acceptable option, sex is limited to the marriage, and anything else is hazardous to one's mental and physical health and, yes, immoral and improper for a child of God.

Reliquiae

2010-07-14T08:47:00.003-05:00

Think I'll pass on seeing the Relics of Mother Theresa here in St. Louis at Sts. Theresa and Bridget Catholic Church on Thursday. Curious as I am to see what might be there, according to the paper, the relics include the following: sandals, crucifix, hair and blood. I can understand the sandals and crucifix, but how does one even collect the other two? Sounds somewhat creepy to me. Who gets the job of collecting the biologicals even? Thanks for the invite, but no thanks.

Ripped from the Headlines

2010-07-10T09:06:00.004-05:00

Three news stories and one ad measured on the BO-radar today.
1) The Today show has changed its wedding contest rules to allow same-sex couples to participate. If the squeaky wheel gets the grease, then it's little wonder same-sex rights are becoming mainstream. The secular media and church denominations have become so accepting of such that it is eroding family values. Sorry, guys, family values are not "make your own family of whomever you want" and call it good. Sure, there is a human bond of people, but a family is still mom, dad, children. We've eliminated dads from the picture long ago, now we're working on the rest.
2) An article in today's Post-Dispatch outlines why a person has decided not to say the Pledge of Allegiance. The reason given is as follows:

I've been uneasy with it for awhile, ever since I genuinely paid attention to the fact that I've been making a loyalty oath to a political system. In my heart, my life, I want no king but Jesus, and I want no association--political, geographic, ethnic--that transcends the Kingdom of God. The tension goes far beyond a pledge, of course, The question, as Shane Claiborne says, is not whether we ARE political, but HOW we are political.

Luther reminds us in his Table of Duties that scripture says we are to submit to the governing authorities. It is not wrong to formally declare loyalty as a citizen to the United States, our government under which we live. We're not merely addressing niceties to a scrap of cloth, but saying that we will submit to the authority of "the Republic for which it stands." It's better than being deported to Russia.
3) Presbyterians in their convention supported a proposal to encourage the U.S. government to end aid to Israel if the country doesn't stop expansion into disputed territories. It's fine to be globally concerned as a church body, but maybe the Presbyterians should work on getting their doctrine and church body in order before worrying about international incidents which do not involve them. Work, instead to realign your doctrine and practice. I encourage all church bodies so to do.
4) Need a bed? Try a John of God crystal healing bed. I don't even want to know.

Oh, Joy.

2010-07-06T08:36:00.003-05:00

I have to remember to change my car presets today and remove 99.1 as one of them. I'm not sure with what I'll replace it. It won't be JOY.
I'm not sure which is more bothersome: losing classical music or gaining CCM (contemporary Christian music). Perhaps it is losing one to gain the other.
I would not agree that the assesment of "JOY's Listeners as enemies of high culture--champions of derviative, evangelical schmaltz who killed off Brahms to win souls in St. Louis County." They didn't really kill classical. They seized an opportunity. That's business. In an era of arts-cuts, this is symptomatic of a different ailment, but that's another topic. Regardless, the classical station in the Gateway City will cease broadcasting tonight c. 10pm.
As for JOY winning souls, who knows? Their poster misquotes Joshua 6:16--gaining a radio station is not tantamount to the taking of Jericho. The article indicates people who call in and say their life has changed by listening. How permanent of a change are we talking here? Which soil, so to speak? Those who hear the word and receive it with joy and then fall away when trials come, or good soil? We can't say how the Holy Spirit works, but who's to say that Classic 99 didn't bring souls to Christ with some of their programs? Why does it have to be CCM?
As for people not wanting "to hear dirty lyrics when they get in the car with their kids;" sure, they lyrics aren't dirty, but do you really listen to the lyrics? There isn't much about Jesus there either. Come to think of it, the only Christian band I really listen to has the d-word in their lyrics. Their message about Jesus is quite explicit, too. Classic 99 music didn't have dirty lyrics either, as I recall. Why do we want to swap advanced music for CCM? The article is clear that the target audience is the same as those who listen to soft rock. I heard a snippet of CCM the other day as I was traveling. It sounded exactly like soft rock. I can hardly take soft rock for too long on a good day; to add ego-centered lyrics under the guise of being Christian is hardly tolerable. And I fit the demographic of JOY!
The whole premise bothers me. CCM is like undercooked hot dogs. Might be nourishing, but more often than not will make one ill. Christianity is all about Jesus. They say a Christian radio station is "more of a Christian community than entertainment," and they're "not church, but. . .a daily connection you don't get in church." Thanks. I'll take my church with Jesus as the focus, you can keep your praise choruses. . .we love you, so much for what you've done for us. . .what was that, exactly?
As a Post Script, buried in the article were two interesting comments: "The Lutheran Church has its own mission, and that's not classical music," and "We were told in our first meeting with KFUO, 'We're only going to sell if we get top dollar.' " In the words of Uncle Marty, what does this mean?

Scripture for Various Occasions

2010-06-14T08:48:00.003-05:00

You've seen the scripture helps for various situations: What scripture to read when you are grieving, lonely, etc. I would offer two more.
1) For dealing with purile, pugnacious blog commenters or others of opposing ideology while being severely mis-informed: Proverbs 9:7-8.
2) For responding to students who use falsehood to get away with misbehavior or for those with rabble-rousing tendencies: Nehemiah 6:8.
I humbly submit these to you for your edification.

** Thinking aloud: I wonder if Jonathan Swift had to use an emoticon after all his satire to let the English know not to take him at face value?**

Not just Jell-o

2010-04-20T08:39:00.003-05:00

I've grown weary of always seeming defensive. Why should I have to apologize for being everything the media and "open-minded, free-thinkers" find offensive? I believe what I believe, because I believe it is the correct way, just as others who hold to their own opinions believe theirs is. I don't recall having told any of them to "stop watching CNN and think for yourself." I may have attempted to engage them in rational, logical debate; however, there is nothing wrong with that. Since when is discussion wrong? If you can run a commercial about saving the environment, then I should be able to run a commercial about saving the fetuses. Right? No?
Being a Lutheran, apparently, is also wrong. Despite his kindesses about our singing, a certain Minnesota author doesn't really like us. By the way, since the invention of the "praise band" even Lutherans are losing their ability to sing--it has nothing to do with harmonies printed in a certain hymnal published in 1982.
We Lutherans are not all about guilt and stubbornness and coffee and Jell-o. It is not a mindset to be escaped--released from its prison-like constraints. It is a doctrine to be grasped. I know, I know--we're not the only ones going to heaven. We do, however, speak of our doctrine as a correct exposition of scripture. That's the point. We believe what we do because we believe it is the correct exposition of scripture. Why be that which one thinks is otherwise? Luther wrote 95 points about how the church of his time missed the mark; our forbears left their homeland because they disagreed with having a sterile, empty faith thrust upon them by a government wanting everybody to "just get along". This is why we tend to be vociferous when it comes to doctrine. A little bit of leaven leavens the whole lump.
Certain strains of Lutheran have gotten watered down over the years, and have fallen into the "just get along" mindset, going so far as to agree to disagree with Rome over that whole Reformation thing--one CTSFW professor referred to it as "The Augsburg Concession".
When it comes right down to it, what we believe is simple: We are sinners, Christ died in our place and rose so that we may be heirs of heaven. It's not that we did anything to help it. Maybe that's why Lutheranism is so hard in catching on. It's too simple. To much confession and absolution and not enough work on our part. Maybe I'm being defensive again.

Embedded

2010-03-15T09:27:00.002-05:00

It is amazing how much scripture is embedded into common parlance. Case in point: Geraldo used the term "writing on the wall" last night. If you're not familiar with the story, it comes from Daniel 5 when God writes a warning on the wall to the king.
There are many more examples, especially from Proverbs. As an aside, "Spare the rod and spoil the child" is not an imperative, but rather an ellipsis. The elliptical words inserted would read thus: [if you] spare the rod and [then you will] spoil the child. Discipline debates notwithstanding, the phrase is well-known and well-used.
What if, just hypothetically thinking aloud, someone insisted that those who support freedom from religion be disallowed to use any scriptural idioms and phrases? It's just a thought.

Free Thinking

2010-03-02T07:54:00.002-06:00

Since when has having a conservative perspective been considered closed-minded? I've heard it said to me, I've heard other people say they've been told it. It happened when I was in high-school and took the modest stance in a mock-debate on women being allowed to go topless as men can. (If only I had enough sense and rhetorical ability back then. . .)
Now it's even happening in the church. Liturgy is for stodgy old fogies who are backward thinking. Confessions and Christological preaching is for maintenance-only ministry. Pastors and wanna-be pastors and laymen and laywomen who hold to such are exclusivists. And I dare you to find a faculty of conservative teachers, Lutheran or otherwise. Few exist.
Maybe the problem is that we have considered the possibilities with an open mind and come to the conclusion that a liberal bent is not the way to go. We are asked in society to be free-thinkers and conclude that the values held by pro-choice, anti-family, anti-religion, large socialist government folks are correct. We are asked in church to think for ourselves and conclude that the social gospel with 7-11 music (7 words sung 11 times with a key change between the 10th and 11th time) and empty of Christ is proper worship and will make people flock to church. It is not unlike the commerical where the folks are staring at cars with a blank look and saying, "I have been told to desire a car. . ." Sorry. I will not fall for the identical-mindedness under the guise of free thought.

Not Only Them

2010-02-27T07:10:00.003-06:00

Some time after 9/11, a traveling memorial came to our area. We went and viewed it, then signed a beam from the fallen World Trade Center. Consequently, we were put on an email list for updates regarding the memorial. One came yesterday regarding the anniversary of the first attack on the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993. As I was reading through, the following sentence caught my attention.

In remembering the victims of both the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade
Center, we demonstrate the value we place on human life and protest
indiscriminate mass murder.

I couldn't agree more. Now what about those little babies? The ones who are casualties of the sexual revolution? Let's remember them too. Who is going to protest a 9/11 memorial? Would those people who protest the crosses planted in the ground to remember abortion victims protest a memorial in New York City, Pennsylvania, or at the Pentegon? Let's remember the victims of the 1973 attack on the unborn and demonstrate the value we place on human life at all stages and protest indiscriminate mass murder. Let's call it what it is.

Testing, 1-2-3, Testing

2010-02-26T08:21:00.002-06:00

Let me state at the outset--I am NOT for animal cruelty. I watch the Humane Society commercial and practically cry every time. I say to whomever is around, "Oh! The poor puppies and kitties!" in the same tone one uses to describe a baby as cute.
I am sick, however, of people who are opposed to animal testing for medicines. A friend recently commented that she felt that when asked on her test what happened to the mice injected with strains of pneumonia she should have responded, "They died because the idiots tested on animals." You know, if it were a hairspray test, I'd agree. Forget the animals. Test on faux fur. For medicine, one can't do a faux test. Rats and mice are expendable, sorry if you disagree. Rats and mice are disease-bearing, destructive creatures. Why not at least let them redeem themselves and show themselves helpful to humans?
Sorry, I guess I speak as a speciesist who believes that humans are dominant. I understand there are those who do not believe that, and I disagree. Humans are to live in the world in harmony with animals, and if that includes using them to make humans' lives better, then that is part of the harmony. Why should humans be a casualty of protecting animals? Why should 4-inch smelt be preserved at the expense of the people living in the valley? Why should rodents who spread disease and chew wires and cause house fires be spared pneumonia, but those who helped their fellow humans be expended? No, I wouldn't like you to take my dog or cat and test a new cancer drug on them, but I will let you take them over my daughter.

Encounters of the Baby Kind

2010-02-25T08:24:00.002-06:00

So Grandma and I took my daughter on her first trip to the mall. Everyone duly proclaimed her cute or beautiful. I'm biased, she's the cutest baby in the world. We were in a national chain store of the "stink 'em-smell 'em-good 'em" kind as I pushed the stroller past these two teenaged girls; they looked to be about 15 or 16. They saw me and did the "Awww! How cute!" thing, and then one asked, "How old?"
"Almost 12 weeks," I replied in a proud-mommy fashion. Then instead of the typical responses of more aw-ing or comments on how little she is (she seems big to me, but she was quite small when she was born), I received a funny look from the two girls--something akin to disgust. I stood there smiling bewilderedly, waiting, because I could sense there was something coming next. Then one commented about my size. Let me insert here that I didn't look very pregnant when I was pregnant, and when my little girl came out, there was no mistaking me to be pregnant any longer. If this is not your experience, I apologize--I had nothing to do with it. Anyway, the long and short of it is that the one girl was slightly miffed that after 11 weeks I looked like I do. She then proceeded to ask, "How'd you do it?" I said I didn't know. She then points to herself and says, "This is after 18 months." Uh, yeah, okay.
I felt rather awkward because I didn't even see that one coming. How could I have even guessed that the teenager shopping with her friend in the mall was a mother--of a toddler, no less? I casually ended the conversation and went to rejoin my mother-in-law.
I shouldn't be so naive. I grew up in a county which had the highest teen pregnancy rate in the state, so it's not something new. I suppose what surprised me most was the blase manner in which the girl engaged the conversation. Like two moms in the park talking while the kids play on the swings.
Okay, here's where the moral of the story comes. The pithy, witty summary of the encounter. Mine forgot to show up for this blog post. I'm proud of the girl for having the baby. Good for her! I'm sad that she got pregnant when she was so young. I'm in my 30s and find it difficult to take care of a baby. I can't imagine doing it at half my age.
I guess I'll take the cheap way out for ending and quote Forrest Gump: "That's all I have to say about that."

How Do You Sell This One on Ebay?

2009-11-13T08:00:00.002-06:00

According to this story, a man claims that sometimes an image of Jesus appears on his truck. You can see the photo here (it is copyrighted, so I cannot post it on this blog), and notice that it looks pretty authentic.
According to the article, this occurs when the driver side window has condensation every morning. I'm confused--I thought it was supposed to be when the dew was on the roses. I wonder how he can make a buck off this on Ebay like the people who sell their toast slices which have Jesus' image cooked in.

Lw&Gspl?

2009-11-10T20:29:00.003-06:00

At our staff meeting today, one of the topics brought up was the issue of people texting during worship. No, the pastor is not one of those who encourage congregation members to text questions during the sermon.
I will admit, I don't text message much. Granted, this is because it costs extra on my phone. I did text during a conference--shortly after the "worship" service--only to make a snarky comment, which I'll admit was probably remiss of me.
What, however, drives people to text during church? Is it the inability to abandon one's technology for an hour? Maybe it's a very important aspect of one's job that one must immediately respond to. Maybe it's a highly important conversation about the worship service.
I think I understand. It's a diversion for when the pastor preaches too long and never actually gets around to Jesus' death and resurrection. [I am not pointing fingers here, just making a general observation that some pastors will never pass the Issues, Etc. sermon diagnostic.]
Perhaps it is a substitution for thumbing through the hymnal. Send the pastor a text message instead which reads, "More Jesus, please, and less psychobabble." That might exceed text message length. Maybe it could be shortened to txt spk: PDBL&G. Proper between Law & Gospel.
Maybe we should just go with the same option for texters as for sermon snoozers. Do a David reenactment with a slingshot and some stones.

How Great?

2009-10-09T20:49:00.001-05:00

The opening ponderance on God (sometimes it’s called worship, sometimes devotion) is fairly typical at most Lutheran teacher gatherings. Sometimes the style is “blended”, but more often than not it is “contemporary”. Today I was somewhat surprised, as it was “blended” as opposed to the out-and-out contemporary I expected. It was a pastor and a man with a guitar. We first sang a hymn, next we sang a praise song.
After being taught the song, which was singable enough (most praise songs tend to be singable if the leader sings it properly—just don’t try to actually count out the rhythm unless you are really good at counting sixteenth notes and dotted quarter rests), but the words left me with one question: Why?
The refrain was as follows:
How great is our God!
Sing with me how great is our God
And all will see how great
How great is our God.
The text of the song did have some nice, poetic imagery which somewhat echoed the imagery of the Psalms. The last verse, surprisingly, referenced the Father, Spirit, and Son (in that order to get the rhyme scheme correct). What was never there was an explanation.
Nobody ever explained to me during middle school that when one makes an argument, one has to have support. This was a challenge in further writing classes when I made a claim and the teacher would write on my essay, Why? It also became an issue during high school geometry while trying to write proofs. I knew the answer; I just couldn’t explain why. Let’s not even mention the high school philosophy final consisting of that one question: Why?
These days I try to teach my students to give support—solid, strong supports based on facts. So why on earth can praise song writers not be expected to do the same?
If our God is so great and we want to sing so that all can see how great our God is, shouldn’t the song mention more than just a description of God as Father, Spirit, and Son? Even the Psalmists gave reasons for God being great: “It is he that made us, not we ourselves” (Ps 100); “God is our refuge and our strength, a very present help in trouble” (Ps 43). Psalm 23 gives specific examples of how the Lord is our Shepherd.
Studies of self-esteem building show that children who are constantly bombarded with general praise will either have a false, inflated sense of self; or they will stop believing adults when they praise the children. Most authorities encourage specific praise. You did a great job when. . .
So why should songs explaining how great God is be exempt? No, God won’t get an inflated ego or become disillusioned with praise; it’s just that historically Lutheran singing has been used didactically (if that’s even a word).
If you want to tell someone how great God is, be specific. He created the universe by speaking. That’s great! He led the Israelites out of Egypt with signs and wonders. That’s great! He fulfilled the Law and Prophets and still died in our place for our punishment. That’s great (even if it seems weird to the uninitiated)! He gives us His Word and sacraments. That’s great!
If the point one is trying to make is completely missed, then I ask: What’s the point?

Students, Disciples, and Sheep

2009-09-29T19:58:00.001-05:00

I disagreed with the spelling book the other day as it wanted discipline as a synonym for punishment. Too often discipline is perceived as nothing more that that. As the vicar pointed out at our faculty Bible study, discipline is based on disciple, which means student; therefore, I think it not a stretch to reason that to have discipline is akin to studiousness
We had listed qualities we teachers most desired in students, and the first one listed was “listens”, closely followed by “follows directions”. Comparing those two most-desired qualities to disciples of Christ was an interesting exercise indeed.
Jesus says in John chapter 10 that the sheep hear the shepherd’s voice and follow him because they know their shepherd’s voice.
How often do students listen? How often do they follow directions? Being a teacher, I know that it’s less than one wants to admit. Too often a student’s listening gets drowned out by clutter—thoughts of what’s for lunch, thoughts of what am I doing here at school, daydreaming, noise and clamor coming from those around a student, whispering from a neighboring desk pulling attention away from the teacher—all of these can keep a student from listening. Following directions, then, is nearly impossible because one has not heard or attended to listening.
So it is in the life of the sheep. The disciple, the follower of Christ, hears the master’s voice, but does not always listen. We, like sheep, have gone astray. Too much clutter—what’s for lunch, what am I doing here in life, daydreaming, noise and clamor from all sides, the whispering pull of seductive idols of all sorts—keep us from listening to Christ. We do not follow the Law, therefore, because we have not heard or attended. The history of God’s people shows this over and over and over again. Adam and Eve were seduced by the sleek serpentine words; the Israelites were won over with a disheartening report of the size of the people of the land and their walls; Kings of Israel and Judah turned from truth to following Asherah and Baals; Pharisees made up their own laws to follow ritualistically instead of God’s Law.
For all this we cry, “Lord, have mercy!” We turn to Christ, our Shepherd, who became the sheep led to slaughter for us. He is the one who listened and followed the Law of His Father, so that his sheep might be spared and be His disciples—studious ones discipling others.

Signs, Signs

2009-08-25T22:03:00.004-05:00

And you thought this was going to be about the tornado. . .

Nope, they've done it again. There is a new billboard campaign. From the news story:

"[Pastor] Benke said it's important people understand what's contained in
Christian scripture.
'And then, quite frankly, the church gets that message
wrong, as well,' he said. 'But the Bible teaches there is no sin that isn't
forgivable in Jesus.'
Benke hopes his church's thought-provoking billboards
mark the beginning, not the end, of a conversation about forgiveness."

The billboards offer a website, http://www.whatsforgivable.com/, and the billboard connects to a sermon series starting soon.

At least this time around, the message is scriptural. In Christ, all sins have been paid for.

Here comes the question: will Jefferson Hills get the message right? Will they talk about all having sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? Will they talk about how we are all beggars before God whose only prayer can be, "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner"? Will they address confession and repentence? Will they address the unforgivable sin and adequately discuss it?

I suspect that as good as this sermon series sounds, the point will be lost in the midst of people pondering the billboards and wondering in human terms what is forgivable, and miss the point that we are not the king who forgives the large debt, but we are the slave who finds it difficult to forgive the small debt.

More from the File of Things That Make You Go "Hmm"

2009-08-17T20:38:00.003-05:00

What does it say when a parent touring one's school (Lutheran school, mind you) if the school holds to its own teaching or has been sucked in to the ways of the world? This actually occured today. The parent wasn't being mean; this person really wanted to know. The parent then proceeded to offer this explanation for the question. This parent has been looking at Christian schools in which to enroll a child, and one school indicated that they did not celebrate Christmas. This school had been directed by its board to celebrate "winter holidays" aka "ChanuRamaKwanzsMas" so as not to offend the sensitivities of its non-Christian students. Excuse me? I can understand a public school (our motto: thou shalt not offend any but those who need offense--Christians, those of European heritage, and those who support a male-dominated culture) not celebrating Christmas, or at least that holiday of Santa Claus, brown paper packages tied up with string, and the Grinch; but a Christian school?! This seems rather ridiculous. The parent even asked the school what they do for Easter. What next? They won't celebrate Mother's Day so as not to offend those without mothers or those with a mother and a stepmother and a surrogate mother and the girlfriend of the mother because the poor teacher doesn't have time enough in the day for four Mother's Day handprints in clay, let alone one because the teacher has to cover hygiene and safe sex and self-esteem and integrating counting in the early English language (een, tween, treen) to help the children become "the most limited of all specialists, the 'well-rounded' [person]"?
Maybe I've crossed the line over into the absurd. Maybe I'm not the one who has crossed the line. I just can't get beyond this question: if you don't stand for what you believe in, why bother believing at all?

From the File of Things That Make You Go, "Hmm"

2009-08-04T20:12:00.003-05:00

Perusing a blog I frequent frequently (Is that redundant?), some of the comments there made me wonder. Why is it that in a world, land, society, fill-in-the-blank where "everyone is entitled to their own opinion" and were nobody is supposed to step on the rights of others, those who assert their opinion contrary to popular opinion are squelched? I guess that's a convoluted way to ask.
What about Sarah Palin? Why is she branded whatever she is because of who she is? Why can anybody get away with it with her and not with, say Sotomayor? To pick on one woman is acceptable, to do the same to another is racist. Same goes for the president. Why is it forbidden to ask the hard questions and not be labeled as racist, narrow-minded, or just "totally out of touch with reality"? Policy is considered separately from the person. If Bush had the policies of Clinton, I would never had voted for him, truly. Have we really come so far that we have forgotten how to think and debate civilly? We resort to ad hominim attacks and that wins the debate in our book?
It especially falls hard on Christians, especially those who still hold to theology, doctrine, and vocation. Now we try to rule the world with religion. We are closed-minded to new ways of doing things. If I recall my history correctly, the Christians were opposed to slavery. The Christians helped make Europe a kinder, gentler society in the Middle Ages.
I hear it now: "But that history was written slanted," or "What about the Christians who owned slaves?" or "What about the Crusades, huh?" There is no quick rebuttal if one does not believe in sin. Christians aren't perfect ("Boy, haven't I heard that one before?"), but to say that all Christians are a certain way because of the Crusades is as prejudiced as saying all green people are the same because of the actions of the Wicked Witch of the West. (I'm sure there are green people out there who are truly decent people and do not cackle menacingly and threaten little dogs and girls wearing ruby slippers.)
This is the long way of saying this: I'm not all those labels one slaps on Christian conservatives. Sure, I'll think for myself and make up my own mind. I'll speak up when I need to, and I will work to show others their errors. Maybe that's what's forbidden--"have your own opinion, but I don't want to hear it because you'll just tell me I'm wrong." Or maybe it's okay to tell me I'm wrong to tell you you're wrong because that's just wrong. Welcome to post-modernism, I guess.

Everybody's Got an Opinion

2009-07-28T15:00:00.000-05:00

It is, in a way, exciting for a new Lutheran museum to open up in the headquarters of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. I like museums of most kinds--even the SPAM museum. I'm one of those unusual people who enjoy learning about various parts of history, and yes, I do read most of the signs posted around as I look at the exhibits.

Anyway, you can read about the opening at the Post-Dispatch website, and see some pictures. Go soon--most newspaper websites will allow content to be seen only for a while before a person has to subscribe. Before you leave the news story and look at the pictures, however, take a gander at the comments left by readers. As of the writing of this post, there are twelve comments.

The comments start off commendably, thanking the LCMS for the work the Human Care arm does. From there, it degenerates. Only few of the twelve followed Thumper's advice: "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all." It seems to be an exposition of post-modern society. We cannot dialogue like civilized people; we have to insult and make blanket statements with nothing to back it up. We blurt out whatever we want without showing someone in love (or at least tact) how and why we disagree. If one wrote similar comments about a disenfranchised, minority, oppressed, or racial group, there'd be an uproar; maybe it's just okay to do it to the Lutherans. . . Maybe the SPAM museum is a cult museum too. . .[walking away humming, "SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM; SPAM, wonderful SPAM. . .]

Let's Go to a Show

2009-07-23T16:48:00.010-05:00

We have season tickets to the Muny in Forest Park again this summer. It's a pretty good lineup this summer. As an aside, one Muny employee told me that because of the economy they wanted to have shows that were popular to be more of a draw.

Last week we got to see Godspell. I had never seen the show before, but was aware that it is based on one of the Gospels. It is based on the Gospel of Matthew, yet includes the story of the Prodigal Son, which is found only in Luke. I found the first paragraph in the program's write-up about the show very interesting:

John-Michael Teblak conceived of Godspell as a master's degree these at Carnegie Mellon University in 1970. His inspiration for the show came from a disheartening church experience on Easter Sunday of that year. Struck by the lack of joy in the service and the hostility of his fellow churchgoers, he sought to create a show that wold capture the love and happiness of the Gospel according to St. Matthew.

Wow, what does it say for a church when a person is so disappointed in Easter worship that he feels compelled to write a musical to make up for it? Especially one where Jesus and the 8 characters are supposed to be "clowns" and spend the show building a community.

The show was well-acted, and the cast sang very well. The production was well-done. The show was disjointed at best. If community building was the point, I missed that. It was more like a drawn-out VBS skit trying to teach Matthew-John at one sitting. The parables and stories were presented, but without context or theology to tie them together, one was left on his/her own to get out of it whatever one wanted. The Good Samaritan scene did have a bit of a moral to it, of course: "Be nice to people;" which, if you ask pretty much any Higher Things pastor, is not the main thrust of that parable. The Prodigal Son came closer to the main idea. The son who turns away is not the son we think. The "crucifixion" scene fell flat. Jesus was lashed to the sides of the gazebo, so at least there was a cruciform aspect, but the line, "O God, I'm bleeding," was a statement of the obvious, and the follow-up line, "O God, I'm dying," seemed to be there only to let the audience know that that what was supposed to be happening. The resurrection was glossed over--did he rise, or was he just back for the finale and curtain call--it was hard to tell.

All in all, I'm not surprised that there was no corporate sponsor for this show (although someone missed an opportunity there). I also don't plan to rush right out and see it again. At least this week's show is something nice, funny, and takes no theological translation: The Music Man. Harold Hill comes to the Muny. . .

The Art of Debate

2009-07-23T16:11:00.006-05:00

I enjoy art fairs. I prefer art fairs which have more artistic artists as opposed to art fairs which fall more under the category of craft fairs. I enjoy looking at the the amazing ability and creativity of the painters, photographers, and others; and sometimes I see some pieces wonder "Why would anybody want to buy that?" I really like looking at the jewelry, but almost all of it is out of my price range. . .

I was recently at one of the biggest art fairs in the country, which is actually multiple fairs held simultaneously. We spent the better part of two days looking at the different booths, and saw some amazing artwork. At one booth I found some reasonably priced jewelry and was planning on making a purchase. The vendor had other ideas.

My husband was with me and wearing a shirt which read "Dare to be Lutheran". Apparently upon reading this, the vendor wished to engage in a religious debate. As I perused the gems and inquired of prices, the vendor began this conversation:

"Do you think I could dare to be Lutheran?"

"You could," my husband responded. Meanwhile, his parents had fled the conversation

"What if I dared to be Buddhist?"

"That might be a problem," my husband said, as I wondered what the vendor was driving at.

"What if I dared to be Baptist?"

"That might be okay."

"What if I dared to be Catholic?"

"That might be okay."

I attempted to deflect the conversation by asking about the merchandise. He brushed me off with some non-committal answers and then finally cut to the chase.

He informed us that he was Buddhist and that they were taught things without "all the dogma." He said that as a Buddhist one could believe whatever one wished. At this point it seemed that he was attempting to drag us into a conversation ridiculing us for believing in doctrine, theology, and closed-minded ideas. He then commented, "We teach critical thinking. You ever hear of that?"

At this point, I bit my tongue, put down the necklace at which I was looking and said, "I'll think about it, thank you," as we walked away.

Now, one might say that we did not "Dare to be Lutheran" or make a proper Christian witness. One might say we should have engaged in debate with this man. Maybe. Maybe not. In this case, it seemed he wished to cut us down to size. He was likely not interested in hearing what it meant to be Lutheran. The statements on my bitten tongue regarding critical thinking being a hallmark of Christianity would probably have fallen on closed ears.

If I were brilliantly witty, I may have been able to win him over with a convincing discourse; however, as I tell my students, there is a difference between arguing and debate. Debate is two opposing sides working to present their respective positions. Arguing is two opposing sides talking past each other. One is mental, one is emotional. Love and Logic talks about frontal lobe (the reasoning lobe) thinking vs. brain stem (fight or flight) thinking. It seems to me that to continue the conversation would have been two brain stems trying to reason together--not profitable. Speaking of not profitable, I hope the vendor did not engage all those who came to his booth in the same manner, else he would have lost more sales than just mine.

Planned?

2009-06-08T21:02:00.002-05:00

I have always been pro-life; over the years I have refined my position. When I was in junior high, I had a crush on a boy in my class. I knew he was adopted, but it never hit home to me until he casually mentioned that his mother could have aborted him instead of giving him up for adoption. That first solidified my pro-life position.

When I was younger I thought it was not great, but marginally acceptable to abort a baby if the life of the mother was at risk. Then I met some wonderful people who proved that one can work to save the life of both mother and child is the best option, and let God determine the outcome.

Recently I was mortified by my doctor. I took a pregnancy test. She came in, told me that the results were positive, then asked if this was planned. This question caught me off guard, as I wasn't sure what to say. It was not a matter of consciously trying, so I responded that it was not planned. Her next question was, "Do you want to continue?" Um, excuse me? Talk about being caught off- guard! I was hard-pressed to avoid saying, "Well DUH!" Later, I did make a comment about when the Lord choooses to send a gift, it's His timing. I don't remember exactly how I said it, but that was the main point.

I have mentioned this to other women who said they've had similar experiences, although mostly when they were older and considered an "at-risk pregnancy." Another person told me that OB-Gyns in Minnesota are required by law to inform the woman that she has two options--continue or not.

This got me to thinking: How many pregnancies are truly planned? There are those pre- and extra-marital relationships which result in "unwanted" pregnancies; however, there are those instances inside the proper boundaries of marriage where a pregnancy isn't "planned". It happens. The marriage rite addresses procreation of children. Even the child's verse says, "first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby in the baby carriage." Laura Ingalls Wilder mentions in The First Four Years that Rose was not planned, yet even she knew that it comes with the territory. Yet today's doctors are required to tell women that if a baby is not planned, not obsessively anticipated, it doesn't have to be part of love and marriage.

It flows from our post-modern thinking, I guess. Marriage is being redefined. Sex is separated from marriage. Babies don't have to be an outcome of sex if anyone doesn't want them to be. It makes me quote Lost and Found: You see the kids are wild, we just can't tame them, do we have a right to blame them?
We've done our job well. Remove everything from its intended purpose and what's the result? I think we're seeing the answer.

A Tale of Two Weddings

2009-06-07T21:16:00.003-05:00

Let me preface this post by saying that if you were in attendance at either wedding, my goal is not to offend; however, rather I am merely pointing out the BO elements therein.
I attended two weddings on two consecutive Saturdays. There were commonalities between the two. Both weddings were in churches. The bride and groom at both are Lutheran. Each had four clergy members participating in the service. The brothers of the grooms were the best men. There were some things which during each wedding which clearly pointed to the character of the couple getting married.
Here is the deviation: one wedding was Christ-centered. One wedding was human-centered. One preacher spoke of how the focus couldn't be on the wedding couple lest it become too overwhelming for the couple. He turned the focus around to Christ and how the focus was to be on Him throughout not only the wedding, but the marriage as well. One preacher spoke of the wedding couple. Christ made honorable mention as the third leg of "a three-legged stool."
At one wedding we sang the Te Deum, and we sang a hymn asking Christ to bless the couple and their life together. At one wedding we heard the bride's father and uncles sing about "My Girl", a song all about the bride. Did I mention that the father and uncles were dancing and wearing sunglasses?
All in all, the two weddings were completely opposite of each other. Isn't Christ the point?

In Old News. . .

2009-05-17T20:37:00.002-05:00

Via the "I Wish I Had Said That Files" comes my take on the over-commented, over-played, over-blogged case of Carrie Prejean. I've come to the conclusion that Perez Hilton has become a byword. (According to my 10th edition of Mirram Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, a byword is "one that personifies a type.") In this case, he--or at least his actions--personifies the type of person who is zealous towards his cause, and will defend anyone who contradicts that for which he stands. There are many people as such. The reason he has become a byword, however, is that he embodies the contradictions of postmodernism. The Life Sherpa said it best:

"[Miss California] promptly got stomped on by the Politically Correct Liberal
Action Tem. The team motto: 'We respect your right to express an
opinion--as long as that opinion is the same as ours.' "

I have a feeling we're going to see more Perez Hilton questions in the future regarding abortion, same-sex marriage, and all those things of which Christians are opposed. I guess we shouldn't expect to win any beauty pagents any time soon.
By the way, anybody know who DID win?

'Cause Your Mamma Don't Dance And Your Daddy Don't Rock-n-Roll

2009-05-09T08:36:00.002-05:00

An Ohio boy may be suspended from his Christian school if he takes his girlfriend to her public school prom. The Christian school forbids dancing; therefore, he would be in violation of his school's handbook which says that rock music "is part of the counterculture which seeks to implant seeds of rebellion in young people's hearts and minds."
I'll grant you, there's something to be said for some of the rock music which is out there. If one can actually understand the lyrics, there are some songs which are not edifying. On the other hand, there are plenty of Christians who imbibed in rock when they were young, and have grown up to be responsible members of society and the church. I admit--I still "rock out" to Queen. I don't necessarily hold to their life philosophies, but that doesn't stop me from the clap-clap-stomp sequence at a baseball game.
As for the prom--sure there will be rock music and other temptations. Drinking and driving, renting a hotel room after prom with the girlfriend. These are problems associated with proms across the country. Is it because the kids listen to rock-n-roll that they are tempted to drink, even though they are under 21? Is it because of a bass guitar and a drumbeat which tempts a couple to have post-prom sex? I venture to say that is not the case. It may be that there are lyrics which encourage behavior; however, the decision is the student's decision, and the upbringing is what guides the behavior. Sure, even good Christian kids make mistakes. Whatever happened to training a child in the way he should go? Christian adults need to give the children the tools they need to do the right thing rather than shelter them from the world "out there".
Another aspect of this story does bug me. What sort of witness is this school making? They have the American right to believe, teach, and confess what they want. On the other hand, how does it look when they are threatening to suspend or expel a student for doing what high schoolers do? Maybe they should be commended for sticking to their beliefs. On the other hand, there is something to be said for the freedom of the gospel.

Call Day

2009-04-22T22:13:00.003-05:00

Call day at the seminary. The angst is over, but then again it is just beginning. I remember call day 10 years ago and when the congregation location was read, I thought, "Where's that?" Ten calls days have now passed. Graduates from St. Louis and Ft. Wayne have been sent across the country and around the world. Now a new group have been assigned, they are looking toward graduation, ordination, installation--and then, the immense task before them. There's only one thing wrong with the church today: It's full of sinners. As a wise pastor perpetually repeated, "They are sheep." I think of what these men may face in the parish. Maybe the angst hasn't subsided quite yet, or maybe it has morphed into apprehension.
Theories are fairly easy to handle. It's that whole "putting in to practice" thing which is a challege. Sitting in the church as the whole congregation boldly sings Easter hymns to raise the roof is quickly replaced with sitting at home watching the news which informs us that 17-year-olds may now buy the "morning after" pill.
The Lord is still Lord of the church, and he knows the men who will be "in the stead and by the command" and serve His people. Regardless.

"I Protest!" He Said Revoltingly

2009-04-17T10:00:00.003-05:00

Warning: the statements you are about to read may be considered radical by those who are radical.
We wonder what kind of environment we will leave our children. We will leave them the environment we create for them.
The lesson is simple biology. There is a male and a female, they mate and produce offspring. Humans must be the exception to the rule. There are still male and female humans; it’s just mating and producing offspring aren’t what they used to be. In times past, humans married to make it official: the expectation was that only after this step was procreation acceptable. Sure, there were aberrations from the start—Lamech and his two wives, Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot and his daughters, Judah and his daughter-in-law, and the list goes on.
Yet what of our children? Society has created new rules for marriage. Don’t bother: move in together, try it out for a time. If you have kids, so what? If you plan to make it legal, you can always change your mind. There will be no fault, no blame, just a judge who will help you split the assets equitably.
These new marriage rules even fudge when it comes to male and female. That’s just a trifle. If you want to go male/male, female/female that’s fine. If you want some combination—well, that might be taking it a bit too far. . .for now. . .we have to have morals, after all.
Then there’s the whole mating part. Why wait for marriage since it’s outmoded anyway? Embrace your sexuality. We’re all to sexy for our [insert noun here], so if you got it, flaunt it. Email it. Kiss your date goodnight somewhere other than the lips on the first date, even if you are only a pre-teen who still thinks you can be Miley or Selena in a year or two. Experiment. Please your partner or significant other as necessary. If it feels good, do it, is our mantra. Spouses are so passé.
Don’t forget about the offspring part. We no longer need offspring on “baby come when ready” terms. If the baby comes when the mother or father is not ready, kill it. If the baby cries too much after it comes, shake it to death or drown it (this, ironically is still illegal in most states). If the baby doesn’t come, manufacture it in a test tube, Petri dish, and surrogate womb. It still does take two to tango, so if half of the components are not available the natural way, beg or borrow the necessary components. No thought of the children who have to accept that they may never know their paternal inseminator, maternal donor, or even the reality of their conception. How does one think a child will react to this when he is older? Children have many familial issues growing up to begin with. How might this effect them?
It seems to me that global warming and cooling are not the only environmental issues we need to consider when pondering our children’s future. More importantly, we need to consider the familial environment we want for them. We can’t connect the dots whichever way we desire, for our sake and theirs.

1 Year

2009-03-18T20:57:00.003-05:00

What a difference a year makes. The only thing that seems to be similar between today and a year ago is that it is raining. There is a different President with different challenges, a differing ideology from mine, and we wait to see what happens . There is a different principal at my school. I am not on spring break right now. The economy has altered much of the country's outlook. Issues, Etc. is back up and running (although I have missed it quite a bit lately due to the hectic schedule I have been keeping recently), and our church body is facing some unique challenges due to economy and ideology--I sense a theme here. It will be interesting to see what transpires in the next 365 days.

I take back my second sentence. There is one other similarity, no, an identical fact. Christ is still Lord of all, and He knows what the future holds for each of us.

2009-03-10T17:27:00.002-05:00

Having received junk mail to excess, and having seen the junk mail which arrives at churches and schools, I have wondered what kind of junk mail goes to the main office of a baseball/football/basketball stadium. I bet it's boring ads for trash cans or something.
While sorting the school mail, I found two amusing ads. Often I toss them in the recycle bin, some I keep just for my amusement.
Ad #1: T-shirts and sweatshirts from Apostle in Training Ministries. Their tagline reads, "A Fundraiser that Glorifies God!" Two questions: First, how, specifically, does a fundraiser glorify God? Is it because the product has a cross on it? I'm a bit skeptical on that claim. Second, what's an apostle in training? Is that like training for the marathon? I thought the apostolic age was over. Maybe if it read "Synchronious sinner/saint" or even "disciple in training" I might go for it. I'll pass on the "Follower's Testimony," by the way.
Ad #2: Continuing Education Units for Biblical Credit from "Living on the Edge with Chip Ingram". Among the courses offered are "Why I Believe," "Good to Great in God's Eyes," How to Land the Job of Your Dreams," and "How to be a Christian Without Being Religious." These studies "are rooted in Scripture" and "free of denominational bias." Again, I'm a bit skeptical. "Why I Believe" sounds pretty good, but can it truly be free of denominational bias? I wonder how one could be a Christian without being religious and remain rooted in the Bible. Thanks, Pastor Chip, all the same, but (a) I was always told me not to walk near the edge, especially when the slope is slippery and (b) I'll continue with my Book of Concord study.

The Crucifixion

2009-03-09T21:11:00.003-05:00

I discovered recently that the word assassination was invented by Shakespeare. Also recently a friend posed the following question: how important does one have to be to be assassinated rather than murdered? I heard a comment today in reference to a soldier who murdered Jesus. These loosely interconnected ideas made me wonder--was Jesus assassinated, murdered, or executed?
Assassination is politically motivated. [I am defining this myself and leaving Webster out of the picture, which is fine, because dictionaries do not tell what words mean; only how people use them, which is a different blog for a different day.] Assassinations are the killing of politically important people for political purposes. By that definition, Jesus was assassinated. The Jewish leaders wanted this blaspheming, status-quo disrupter silenced. The chief priests are quoted as saying, "If we let [Jesus] go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation." (John 11:48, NASB)
Murder is the general taking of a life. Often there is a motive, sometimes it is random. Jesus was murdered. He had committed no wrong, there was no sense to His death. The chief priests had motive to eliminate Him; the Romans, not so much. The soldiers who killed Him were doing their duty.
Execution is the putting to death of a criminal. It is a punishment carried out through the government as payment for wrongdoing. Although innocent, Jesus took on our sin and our punishment. He was executed with common thieves, crucified as a common criminal.
To be executed, murdered, and assassinated is horrible. The tragedy underlying such acts is unthinkable. How much more, then the death of the Son of God? He was guiltless, yet executed for our guilt. He was murdered without cause. He was assassinated, yet His kingdom was not of this world. This is an awe-full mystery.

In Memoriam

2009-03-08T22:11:00.003-05:00

There was a shooting at a church in the greater metro area today. The shooter killed the pastor during his sermon. I cannot even remotely fathom the fear and depth of grief of the people. My heart goes out to the family and members of that congregation.
There will be much said over the next few days regarding church and forgiveness. There will be much speculation over motive and why. It will bring up the questions of why bad things happen to good people and why someone would want to kill a pastor and what about evil. There will be discussions over the man's sanity. There will be debates over whether he was did such a thing because of something in his past that he became that way or not.
My sympathy goes out to the people who will be in the middle of this investigation.
The main thing to remember is that no matter what happens in this world, it is still Christ's church and He knows His own.

Says Who?

2009-03-02T17:14:00.001-06:00

It came up again today: there are those who assert that the liturgy is too hard, too complex, too stodgy, too whatever for children to learn. There are problems with this assessment. Children can learn the liturgy, and the neglect thereof is a slippery slope.
I have heard the stories—the Lutheran school children are having field day at a local park and want to end with chapel. The pastor says, “We didn’t bring our hymnals.” No problem, the children can do Matins a cappella, and they do it flawlessly there in the park. Beyond the stories, I have seen and heard elementary school children pray and sing Matins. I have seen and heard high school students pray and sing Evening Prayer. To the naysayers I say that it can be done.
To neglect the teaching of the liturgy is to create a generation who do not know their past, nor are they building a connection to the historic church. For centuries the church has had liturgy. The Jews at the time of Jesus had a liturgy for Passover. The church at the time of Martin Luther had the propers and the ordinary of the mass in place. Why is this generation so bold as to think that the liturgy is now obsolete and we can invent something better, something more spiritual, something more entertaining than the liturgy? I guess this is no different than the baseball stadium which voted on a new song for the seventh inning stretch because “Take Me Out to the Ballgame” was passé and needed something better.
To neglect the teaching of the liturgy is to contribute to the “dumbing down” of America. We send our children the wrong message when we say that they are incapable of learning the liturgy. As we tell the children that they unable to learn it, they believe us. In years to come, they continue to believe they cannot learn it; therefore, they continue to make excuses for not learning it. It has begun to hit Lutheran colleges and seminaries where Lutheran pastors and teachers are formed; the students complain that chapel is dull because they are now expected to learn and do the liturgy, but it is too hard and too boring. They are merely repeating as adults what they were taught as children.
We also send our children the wrong message by implying there is no benefit in learning something so complex as the liturgy. Frankly, the liturgy is quite simple to learn; it merely takes practice. Could it be that the truth is that the adults have not the patience nor desire to take the time to practice and teach the liturgy? This attitude is reflected in the children who then make the connection that there is no benefit in learning what it is we do at church; therefore, it is of no benefit that we do church.
The liturgy is the framework of divine worship. To make it up as we go along is to move away from the understanding of what happens in the worship service. No longer is it what God does for us, it becomes what we do for God. To assert then that the learning or neglect of the liturgy is of no consequence is to move ourselves away from a Christ-centered focus to a self-centered focus. This is neither right nor safe.

Fw:Fw:Schlock

2009-02-24T11:59:00.002-06:00

Dear Family and Friends,

Please, Please, PLEASE! For the love of my sanity, do not forward me any more emails which contain the following line: "If you love Jesus, forward this to every heathen in your address book. If you loathe Jesus, please sit on your rear and do nothing or delete this immediately." I sincerely doubt that on the Last Day Jesus will ask me and all other believers, "Did you forward every single email about me?" I'm guessing that the separation between the sheep and the goats is not contingent upon such.

If you feel compelled to forward me such items, then at least delete the last line so that my pietistic works-righteous side (which feels compelled to forward every such email) can stay thoroughly squelched.

If you must foward me items rather than tell me information about what's going on in your life or inquiring about mine, please forward me funny things. I'll pass on the motherhood-and-apple-pie bandwith devourers.

I hope I have been forward with my requests. Lastly, do not, I repeat, DO NOT send me the story about the atheist professor and the chalk. I average it about twice a year and I've sent it to everyone. Thank you.

Orianna

P.S. Send this to every person in your address book, or I will send you the Amish virus.

A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words

2009-02-23T20:28:00.003-06:00

In proper Lutheran fashion I ask, "What does this mean?"

School Chapel

2009-02-20T16:47:00.005-06:00

I offered to lead school chapel today. The 5-8th graders were gone on a field trip, so I had K-4 and talked to them about Transfiguration. (Our church is on the 3-year lectionary series, so they will observe Transfiguration on Sunday.) I also learned a couple of things along the way. They sing loudly when they know the song or hymn, but they don't seem to know too many. It seems as though we have become a society of music consumers, even in church, which is too bad. I found that the students were good listeners, or maybe they were good sit-quieters. I guess the teachers have trained them pretty well as to how to behave in church.

Here is what I said about Transfiguration:
Lent begins next Wednesday, but our first stop is on Sunday at the mountain of Transfiguration.

Peter, James, and John are led up a mountain by Jesus. Now remember, Jesus does some amazing things on mountains--makes a few fish and some loaves of bread feed 5,000 people--so Peter, James, and John expect to see something amazing; and they are not disappointed. Jesus is transfigured in front of their eyes. A big word, transfigured. It means changed. Jesus looks different. Brighter. More like the disciples expect the Son of God to look.

Then even more amazing than Jesus' looks is that Moses and Elijah are there, talking to Jesus. We know Moses and Elijah from our Bible stories. They saw some amazing things God does on mountains too. Moses--God gave the commandments to him on a mountain--he represents the Law. Elijah was a prophet. He stood up against the false teachers and won--on a mountain. He represents the prophets. When Moses (the Law) and Elijah (the prophets) are there, you get the whole Old Testament! Peter, James, and John are amazed.

In fact, Peter wants to stay. Let's build a tent--a tabernacle, just like in the Old Testament! Let's stay on our mountain top together. Peter says for the disciples and us what we'd say if we were there. We're having a blast. Let's party here for a long time.

Uh oh. Now we have a problem. When we foret about Jesus and focus on ourselves, that's a problem. When we forget who Jesus is and why He is here, we have a problem. God the Father's voice reminds Peter: "This is My Beloved Son with Whom I am well pleased. Listen to Him!" Peter, James, and John knew they were in trouble. Not because they interrupted Jesus' conversation. Not because they wanted to be with Jesus. They were in trouble because they put themselves before Jesus. They, and we, are sinners who want to put the focus on ourselves. We sinners cannot stand before Almighty God and not remember we are sinners. So Peter, James, and John fall to the ground, scared.

Then the cloud and voice pass, they look up, and they see only Jesus. Only Jesus is now their focus. Only Jesus saves. Jesus' death and resurrection are what the disciples have to look forward to. It is not a mountain where Jesus becomes bright as light, but a mountain where Jesus becomes the sacrifice. The cross is on the mountain where Jesus does the most amazing thing ever. He takes our sins, He takes our place, He takes our punishment. He takes our eyes off ourselves and turns us to look at Him. Our Savior.

Looking from this mountain of Transfiguration, the mountain of the cross looks a long ways away. Look harder. It is right here. Water changed into baptism by His Word. Jesus' forgiveness is here. Bread and wine changed into the Lord's Supper by His Word. You and me changed by His Word.

Whom We Worship

2009-02-13T15:35:00.001-06:00

Why does modern Christianity like to talk around the cross? We allude to it with nice-sounding phrases and talk in peachy platitudes. The “pop” Christian songs, when they do talk of Jesus’ work (as opposed to how much WE love Him) talk about His power and majesty, and maybe they’ll reference His crucifixion with a vague salvation phrase. If I were a seeker at a “seeker-sensitive service,” I might wonder why Jesus is so wonderful and worthy of praise and why should I love Him?
Why should we worship what we are reluctant to directly address, namely a Messiah who came to suffer and die and take our place on the cross? When humans extract Christ from Christianity, what’s left? “I”-anity.

My (ahem) Brilliant Blog

2009-02-10T19:46:00.001-06:00

I had a great idea for a blog—really! I thought of it during the prayer during devotions this morning. Unfortunately, multiple aspects of my job stymied me before I could return to my desk to jot my idea down. It was later when I remembered that I forgot to remember it that I couldn’t remember what it was. I do know that it was quite witty and profound.
I did have what I thought was a good blog idea, and I did forget it; however, forgetting it made me realize that sometimes I get so wrapped up in my trying to make the world look more like I want it to look that I forget about the reality of where I am now. The contacts I had today with people will likely make more of an impact than the words I post tonight.
Too often it is easy to get involved in ourselves that we forget that it is not about us. Our human nature (aka original sin) makes us so utterly egocentric that we don’t realize we are focusing only on ourselves. We justify ourselves with nice-sounding phrases, but lose our real focus. Our real focus is on Christ. His life, His death, His resurrection; and then we turn that focus towards others and help them keep their focus on Christ. Yet human nature keeps popping up and turning us back onto ourselves. Lord, have mercy on us! We can’t even keep the first commandment, let alone the other ten!
I still wish I could remember the other blog idea—I know it wasn’t nearly so rambling. . .

Musings from the Week Past

2009-02-07T17:55:00.003-06:00

If you stop by regularly (or not), you may notice that I update sporadically. I read some blogs where the author posts daily or even multiple posts daily. The must have more important things to say than I. A friend of mine back in college used to say very little. When he did speak, it was rather profound. I, on the other hand, talk constantly yet often stay within the realm of superficial. Maybe this explains the lags between posts. I am waiting for the profoundness to strike; however, it is rather elusive.
In lieu of anything profound, I offer a few reflections from the week:
February 2 was Groundhog Day. It was also the Purification of Mary and the Presentation of our Lord in the Temple. The masses wait for a marmot to determine the short-term future weather. Do the masses wait, as Simeon and Anna, for a Messiah to determine the future of humanity? We anticipate the onset of spring, but do we anticipate the onset of Lent? Do we look forward as anxiously to following the Christ to Calvary where He accomplishes salvation for the whole world as we do to finding out the future of meteorology? Do we echo the words of Simeon who said, “Lord, now let your servant depart in peace according to your word; for mine eyes have seen your salvation which you have prepared in the sight of all people”? Do we as eagerly as Anna to tell all those around about Immanuel, God with us? Or do we hunker down in the cold, waiting for a rodent to determine the coming of light and warmth?
* * *
We often get textbook ads at our school. This week it was for 7-8 grade religion curriculum (“relevant program for teens”) entitled Finding God. To quote Forrest Gump, “I didn’t know I was supposed to be looking for Him.” The advertisement touted the book’s “culturally relevant material” which will “engage young people on their faith journey” and its “attention-grabbing format” which “appeals to adolescents who are tired of ordinary textbooks.” It encouraged educators to preview the textbooks online with the line: “Help us preserve God’s environment!” The whole ad struck me as quite catch phrase heavy for Roman Catholic textbooks. I guess postmodernism is stealthily infiltrating all denominations.
* * *
To wrap up: I gave a friend a ride from a local church to the airport. Some of the campus’s buildings were marked as follows: Student Center, Worship Center, and Community Lobby. I wonder--why is the building which looks the least permanent the Worship Center, and what is a Community Lobby?

Tolerance

2009-01-28T10:50:00.000-06:00

I am rather weary of the word “tolerate” and its other related word “tolerance.” I remember these words cropping up like weeds in high school. Despite growing up in a “conservative” area, the ideology of my public high school was very secular humanist. Even then, however, I was wary of the words. I always defined “tolerate” as something one really didn’t like, but lived with because there was no choice—like lima beans for dinner. The one eating must tolerate the lima beans in order to get to the dessert. (Let me say for the record: I actually like lima beans. Maybe I should say celery instead, as I loathe celery.)
Today “tolerate” and “tolerance” carry the implied definition of “one of the majority must deal with any minority-influenced ideology or lifestyle or habit or action one disagrees with and must not say anything lest one be branded a closed-minded bigot.” Okay, maybe that’s over the top, but can people fully disagree when they hear it used in such a manner in media soundbites?
Tolerance is the natural outgrowth of postmodernism, it seems. There is no right and wrong, only what works for the individual. There are no universals left. Since we can’t agree on things because we have no foundation for what is true, good, right, and decent, the only available option is to agree to disagree. Such agreement becomes tolerance because we are both immovable.
The problem is that whether one recognizes truth or not, it is still there. There are still issues that cannot be “tolerated”. If it were truly so, the police would have to tolerate speeders, murderers, and those driving while intoxicated. Rapists must be tolerated for their lifestyle choice, as would child and spouse abusers. They have every right to live the way they wish. Yes, this is demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. There seems to be a point where common society cannot tolerate certain ideologies.
I would agree with the man who stated that tolerance is not love and suggested one tells their spouse, “I tolerate you,” instead of, “I love you.” It’s awfully cold to be sleeping in the doghouse these days. We should love people and not tolerate them. We should not tolerate their behavior but help them change. I will fully recognize gray areas here. In a perfect world this would work perfectly. Of course, in a perfect world this would not be an issue. A teacher cannot tolerate her students hitting each other on the playground. The behavior would be addressed, and the students would work towards correcting the behavior. The teacher would still love the students. To do otherwise, the teacher would not be diligent in her vocation. How can it be any different with us and our neighbor?

Commentaries on Recent News

2009-01-24T19:20:00.000-06:00

The bishop prayed to "The God of our many understandings." It’s like singing “Happy Birthday.” He’d like it to be when the singers reach the point when one inserts the name into the song and some people say “Mom” and some say “Aunt Julie” and some say “Mrs. Brown,” yet all mean the same, erstwhile it commences on cacophony. In reality, the “God of our many understandings” is more like singing “Happy Birthday” to multiple people, and some say “Becky” while others say “Jim” and others say “Mr. Rumpleheimer.” The incoherent babble blathers on, and none ever get recognized for who they truly are.

In other news, embryonic stem cell trials moved ahead at Washington University. It is not testing to see if it works; it is testing to see it is safe. This is the next step in clinical trial procedure moving toward FDA approval.
The researcher’s comment was interesting:. "The most important part of course of the Hippocratic Oath is 'due no harm.' And this is the test to see that we do no harm." I would like to pose this question: “What about the harm it causes the embryo?” Perish the thought that society doesn’t “continue its medical pursuits” at the cost of embryos made just to be used for their parts. Do the parts really equal more than the whole? If society cannot recognize the value of one life, how can it determine whose life is valuable to save?

City Streets

2009-01-16T22:42:00.004-06:00

The streets in the city of St. Ann, a suburb of St. Louis, has many streets whose names begin with "saint." I am not exactly well-versed in saints, but there is St. Philip, St. Stephen, St. Matthew, St. Lawrence, St. Leo, St. Monica, St. Joachim, St. Xavier, St. Damian, St. Kevin, St. Henry, and St. Cosmas, among others. We often joke that the city founders merely decided to pick a random smattering of names and add St. (or San) in front of it. Maybe that's just the Lutheran in me. Every child of God is both saint and sinner. Maybe they'll name a street after me next. . . or not.

Cerebreoredundogram

2009-01-14T21:59:00.003-06:00

The common term is "earworm," but I prefer "cerebreoredundogram". It sounds less parasitic. Both words mean the same thing--that song that gets stuck in your head for an extended period of time. Often cerebreoredundogram turns into "humnauseum"--the outward vocalization of said song.
Yesterday morning I had a choral arrangement of the liturgy stuck in my head—the piece was Joyous Light of Glory, Carl Schalk's arrangement of the Phos Hilaron. Being a portion of Evening Prayer, it didn’t quite fit the time of day.
This morning it was Tell out My Soul, an arrangement of the Magnificat by K. Lee Scott. It remained there all day. I suppose getting the liturgy stuck in one's head is not a bad thing. It gives one a chance to ponder Christ, even if the words pop up inadvertently.

Oh, That's Just Your Opinion

2009-01-07T21:35:00.001-06:00

Today’s guest on Issues, Etc. was speaking about abortion and confusing objective claims with subjective claims. During the conversation the guest mentioned a bumper sticker which said, “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one,” and indicated that this misses the point of the whole issue. He likened it to saying, “Don’t like slavery? Don’t own a slave,” or “Don’t like spousal abuse? Don’t beat your wife.”
I would glibly offer this statement in response to the original bumper sticker: “Don’t like life? Don’t conceive one.” One on the pro-choice side of the issue might say that this statement is too self-righteously derisive, yet the same person passing judgment on this response would likely not have the same opinion on the original statement. Why is that, do you think? Could it be that one’s right to reproduce and abort is morally acceptable, yet indicating one’s displeasure with such an approach is morally reprehensible?
I will agree that morality cannot be defined by personal opinion if humans are to co-exist and survive to tell the tale. Truly, if morality is defined by personal opinion, then Hannibal Lector is fully self-justified in consuming his victims. After all, they are rude and obnoxious and no one will miss them; in fact, he could be a hero. Oh, wait, there I go again being self-righteously derisive. . .

BO on Vacation

2009-01-05T21:54:00.002-06:00

I am back and had a nice Christmas break. That’s the nice thing about doing what I do—I still have a Christmas break, even if it is only half of what it was in college. Even if I take a vacation, though, I am still on the lookout for BO material, and I am never disappointed by the superfluity of available material. Some highlights are as follows:
Watching the dancing fountains in front of a certain hotel “dance” to The Hallelujah Chorus—with text. How idiosyncratic it is to hear “The kingdom of this world is become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ” being blared while nearby men hawk female companions (which is illegal in most states, if you know what I mean).
Passing a billboard on the interstate which on one side simply reads, “GOD.” The other side says, El Shaddai, Theos, I Am, God and Allah.” I suppose I should be used to this day and age in which false claims are made about the true God to promote unity in diversity.
Reading the bumper sticker which said, “Defend Reproductive Freedom”. I’m not sure what that means. Does that mean no limits on abortion? Abortion is not freedom of reproducing—it’s limiting reproduction. Maybe they’re protesting the concept of mass sterilization, but that topic is passé, so I guess I’m not so sure what their point is.
Wondering about the billboards in the airport. There were two billboards encouraging conservation and green living. One showed a profusion of lightbulbs, the other showed row upon row of water cooler-sized water bottles. Each one demonstrated the amount of resources (energy or water) wasted by frivolous use of our resources. This got me wondering—why does no one indicate outrage these images portray about the wasteful behavior of people? Is it not my personal choice to leave all the lights on in my house? Is it not my personal choice to use as much water as I want? Why does no one deface these pointed billboards? Yet, put up white crosses in a field to represent humans who were denied the chance of life (forget about liberty or property or the pursuit of happiness), yet see how they seethe. . .

For Your Amusement

2008-12-12T16:30:00.002-06:00

Stop by The Wittenburg Door for an amusing take on CCM. Warning: If you lack a sense of humor, skip it.
The only thing missing is the key change!

Christmas Past

2008-12-10T21:06:00.004-06:00

I suppose it is too early for Christmas memories, yet there are a few things that come to recollection from Decembers when I was younger.
I remember the cookie making--especially persimmon bars--and wrapping gifts to my dad's holiday records. I remember decorating the Christmas tree with all the ornaments, even the gaudy ones, much to my mother's chagrin, and sitting in the darkened living room on the floor in front of the wall heater with the tree lights on--what a sight!
More than these domestic memories are the memories connected with Advent and church. First there was midweek church services. I cannot recall a time when my parents did not go to midweek services during Advent.
Then there was the preparations for the Christmas concert. The school choir and the adult choir always held a concert at church in mid-December, and the program was nearly always the same. The children's choir and adult choir would alternate and congregational hymns were interspersed throughout. We began with "Prepare the Way" and Advent; we ended with "O Come All Ye Faithful" and "Silent Night".
School children became part of the choir in 3rd grade. By the time I was in 2nd grade I was familiar with the songs and could not wait to sing with the older kids. Our favorite was a piece called "Tiny King". By the time I was in 8th grade I had lost count of the number of times I had sung the song, but I had moved up to the stage of accompanying the choir. It was a wonderful piece to sing, and an exceedingly fun piece to play.
Congregational members were eligible to sing with the adult choir in 8th grade as well. That year was a busy concert for me--I hardly sat down all night! I thought my last Christmas concert was my senior year of high school, but it turned out that I was able to make it home for one when I was in college, and they still let me sing.
Christmas Eve was the standard children's program. My siblings and I were involved the years we didn't go out of town on Christmas Eve. It was the typical recitation of the Christmas stories and the oldest boy and girl always got to play Mary and Joseph. I will ever remember my father saying, "Remember, speak slowly and distinctly." The children always received the traditional bags of candy and nuts and oranges on Christmas Eve.
Advent, Christmas, and December have changed for me over the years. I still go to church during Advent, but there is no longer a choir concert. I do not have to memorize passages for a Christmas Eve program or get a bag of candy afterwards. All these changes, yet one thing never does: We are still in Advent. We still wait for Christ's coming. We still prepare to celebrate Christ's birth. We still say come, Lord Jesus.

"Tis the Season to Be Pensive

2008-12-09T19:35:00.001-06:00

I should know better. I should never allow myself to get off during class; however, sometimes I don't mind the direction the conversation is going, and I'm one of those types who take the soapbox when one can get it. Too bad it always backfires. I often come out of these discussions feeling slightly frustrated. Our postmodern society has shaped the mindset of our children. They have learned well what it has taught them. “You can believe whatever you want, as long as that is what we tell you. If your beliefs conflict, that’s okay too. Don’t tell anyone they’re wrong, for you are wrong to say they’re wrong.” It thought seems to have eradicated logic. I wish to help my students understand and think, yet I fear they or their parents may perceive it as indoctrination. If only I were better at communicating this kind of stuff. . .

Get Your Programs Here

2008-12-02T21:35:00.002-06:00

Could someone explain to me why we need programs to get people in the church door? Sure, be welcoming (nobody likes an unfriendly bunch). Sure, invite the community in. Why, however, does the church need to market itself like another commodity supplier? Why does it have to have community open house events just to make its presence known?
Maybe I’m being too harshly critical at worst, or idealistic at best. In a theoretical world, people would show up at our churches seeking pure doctrine and Christ crucified. That is not reality, of course. I’d say that we Lutherans have a pretty good thing going here. Too bad that stuff called original sin has to muck it all up.
It just appears that we seem to be missing the point. It’s not about numbers—either in the pews or in the plates. Okay, reality check again. Without numbers in the pews or in the plates one cannot sustain. On the other hand, whose job is it to grow the church? That’s a rhetorical question, in case you’re wondering. You know the answer is not people.
Okay, I can hear it now: “What about the great commission?” Sure, but one has to remember--going and making disciples isn’t like going and making a bird house. Yep, here’s your disciple; let me make another for you. A pastor who is much smarter than I explained it to me once: Making disciples is actually a verb. Go and disciple (discipling, discipled, had discipled, if you want to conjugate it). It’s a process that is continual. How? Word and Sacrament. Catechesis. It is the cooperation of the laity and the pastors. The laity have the workaday world contact with people. They are the ones who can initiate the connection. That should be the contact to get them in the door. Then the pastor can do his job.
Programs and bait-and-switch tactics cannot sustain a congregation. If a person is looking for single parent support groups, pick-up basketball games, and community dinners; let me direct you to the community center down the road. I won’t go to them looking for forgiveness; why should they look to me for a synchronized swimming program?

'Tis Also the Season

2008-11-29T21:38:00.003-06:00

It was not enough to put a picture frame in the nativity scene. It apparently is en vogue to make the nativity fit what whatever group one wants. If you want the Veggietales cast to portray the nativity scene, you can. If you are the hardcore outdoor type (or live in an uber-rural area such as northern Skaskatchewan), you can procure a set with either moose or bears.

Is the incarnation not enough that it must be replaced with bears, moose, or vegetables? Is creation more interesting than the Creator sending His Word to be flesh? Maybe it’s just marketing and Jesus doesn’t sell without a shtick. . .

Ecumenical Children

2008-11-21T17:24:00.002-06:00

According to the news story, a local woman is considered the first female “Catholic” priestess to give birth. She gave birth to a boy on Wednesday. According to the story, she is part of the Ecumenical Catholic Communion (ECC), which is not recognized by the pope. I guess there is much Roman Catholic doctrine to which the ECC does not hold.
Incidentally, the priestess’ husband is a pastor at a United Church of Christ congregation, which makes their son truly ecumenical.

They Have the Flag!

2008-11-19T20:47:00.004-06:00

I was going through the mail today and found a “Praise Banner” catalog. Browsing through, I found two pages of “Flags for Praise & Worship.” The write-up says the following:

Since Old Testament times, God’s faithful followers used flags to praise Him and proclaim His victories. Recapture that majesty with our NEW Flags for Praise and Worship.

Hm. . .Makes me think of a high school drill team, flag team, whatever you want to call the eye candy which marches with a band and waves the flags. Sure! Let’s bring the spectacle of a football halftime show into worship. Don’t get me wrong: I love halftime shows. (My motto: It’s not football season; it’s marching band season.) I’m just not exactly sure how one fits in the divine service.

It makes me want to say to the company, please don’t mail us these catalogs—we’re Lutheran. Then I realize that there are nominal Lutherans who probably use Flags for Praise and Worship. (Why is that capitalized?) It makes me want to eat Oreos—a whole container of ‘em. As my friend once said, however, “You can’t always run out and buy Oreos.” I sure won’t be running out to buy and Flags for Praise and Worship, that’s certain.

Eight Months Later. . .

2008-11-18T17:04:00.002-06:00

Jean-Paul Sarte said in his 1938 novel Nausea that three o’clock is either too early or too late do anything. I agree—mostly. There is one thing that three o’clock (okay, 3:05) is just perfect for.—listening to “Issues, Etc.” live on the internet.
I am glad that I was right and wrong. I was concerned that when “Issues, Etc.” came back on the air it wouldn’t be the same show. It is and it isn’t. The focus (Christ-Centered, Cross-Focused) is still the same. The wit of the host is still the same. The quality guests are still present. The thing that I sense has changed is that the show is the same only more so. There’s a deeper quality to the topics and guests. Maybe I just took it for granted the first time around.

Neihardt Was Ahead of His Time

2008-11-17T20:46:00.008-06:00

I once read this clever piece:

“The Life Cycle of an Idea” by David A. Roach
1. The ignorant superstition of naked unwashed savages.
2. Outrageous blasphemy, and an affront to all which is right and holy.
3. Dangerously reckless speculation, but there may be a grain of fact in it somewhere.
4. Well, the obvious truth: so transparently self-evident, even a child could see it!
5. The commonly accepted explanation, true in most situations, but on very close inspection there are some serious loopholes.
6. Traditional and conventional lore, but to be honest about it, we just stick with it because nothing better has been formulated.
7. Obsolete thinking, pretty much discredited in enlightened circles, although a few die-hard supporters of the notion can be found.
8. Hilarious hokum, but the imbecilic delusions of by-gone days teach a broader
lesson: it is unwise to accept anything, no matter how plausible, at face value.
9. The ignorant superstition of naked unwashed savages.

Why does one have to be stupid to believe in something that is not commonly accepted? These days it is our faith. Yet there is much commonly accepted that is less credible to reality than a bush which burns but is not consumed.

John G. Neihardt has a short story entitled “The Last Thunder Song.” I highly recommend reading it. Published in 1904, this story was prophetic inasmuch as the author penned some statements regarding the characters’ views of religion which are parallel to modern times.

The whole premise of the story is that the Omahas are having a rain dance to end a drought. The narrator makes the two following statements to set the reader up: “. . .the old men carried with them long memories and an implicit faith. The young men. . .carried with them curiosity and doubt, which, if properly united, beget derision,” and “The old men went to a shrine; the young men went to a show. When a shrine becomes a show, they say the world advances a step.” At the rain dance a preacher and a newspaper man have the following conversation:
“Lamentable, isn’t it [said the reporter], that such institutions as rain prayers should exist on the very threshold of the twentieth century?”
“I think, returned the minister, “that the twentieth century has no intention of eliminating God!”

The ironic part, of course is that our culture looks upon Christianity as the newspaper man looked at the Omahas. Many of those who were raised in the church look upon religion as the young Omahas looked at the old Omahas. Not that I am equating true Christianity with a false religion, but let the reader be aware. There is little sacred.

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

2008-11-16T16:49:00.002-06:00

How we are so good at fabricating and believing lies! In our fallen, sinful state, we do this as we view ourselves more important than God. Adam and Eve set the pattern when they first believed the serpant's lies, then they hid, then they blamed everyone else. David also, he took his neighbor's wife then lied, trying to hide his mistake and eventually committing murder to cover his sin.
Today our world abounds with lies. There is the lie of evolution. All the natural world came together by chance? Yet the complexities on the cellular level show this cannot be so. Still it is taught as truth and fiercely defended.
There are the lies of morality. Some say babies in utero are not people and are to be eliminated, if necessary. Others fight for their right to hook up casually, test marriage without actually getting married, redefining marriage to be something it is not nor cannot be, and each uses their sexuality in whatever manner is best for their own personal desires; never once do they question right or wrong.
There is the lie of right and wrong. If it feels good, do it. As long as you're not hurting anybody it's okay. You're only in trouble if you get caught. Nobody uses such an archaic word as sin unless they're Bible-thumping fanatics. It was just a mistake, error in judgement, or poor choice.
The most problematic lie is truth. Too many people want to redefine truth. Truth is found only in God's Word. This is the lie Satan encouraged our first parents to fall for; it is the lie he still encourages us to fall for today. "You don't need God," he sneers. "There are other ways, other roads, other truths, other, other, other." Yet truth is found only in Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life.

Public Notice of Religious Events

2008-11-15T15:11:00.002-06:00

The Saturday Post-Dispatch always has a religion section, and in this religion section is a listing of events for the week. Some highlights:
Today: Lead Now!—a workshop for leading 20 and 30-somethings with “innovative ideas”. Sad to say, this is being sponsored by an LCMS congregation.
Tomorrow: a spiritual growth class which talks about how a cup can be an image of prayer.
If you don’t like cups, try the “Jazz Vespers”. I guess the polka masses are only in Minnesota.
If neither of those sounds interesting enough for you, there’s the seminar on “troublesome Biblical texts”; at which they will discuss how disturbing texts in the Bible (those which deal with violence, gender bias, etc.) can be revelation.
On Tuesday there is a discussion on Biblical and contemporary ideas of violence.
One might want to check out the presentation on “Secret Rosicrucian Symbols of the 16th and 17th centuries on Thursday at the Rosicrucian Lodge.
The “Dances of Universal Peace” sounds like an event not-to-be missed. There is even an opportunity for audience involvement to join in on dances from “many different spiritual traditions. . .”
I suppose some of these are very good, theologically hard-hitting discussions. Then again, some of them seem like bait-and-switch. Maybe I’m just a cynic. Who cares how they come in, as long as they come in, right?
I’m thinking that maybe I’ll just head on down to the Tap Room on Monday for the Aquinas Institute of Theology’s event: Theology on Tap. After reading these notices, I might head on down before Monday. . .

Conference Thoughts

2008-11-13T17:26:00.000-06:00

Being at conference makes me feel schizophrenic in the sense that I tend to have divided attention. I am divided between ideology and practicality; theology and reality. Not that any of these are mutually exclusive; it is just that trying to find the middle ground of application, juxtaposition and synthesis is very difficult a task.
Add to the above the experience of rubbing elbows with people you know, people you knew, people you really don’t want to run into, people you really want to run into, people who knew you when, and people who know you way too well.
All this adds up, at least for me, to an experience of reflection, learning, and growth. Some things about myself I don’t want to change, but know I must. Some things I must not change, but outside forces exert pressure on me to change. Then I look at vocation and realize it is not me but Christ. My growing in my skill is so that I can become better in my vocation so as to serve Christ’s people better. It’s making the connection that is the challenge; it is Christ in whom we trust.

Freedom

2008-11-11T22:45:00.002-06:00

If I were a real writer, I would be able to explain myself better; however, I will do my best to convey my thoughts. Maybe it’s just because I’m on my second Monday this week. . .
I tried to go here yesterday as I pondered the fact that it was Martin Luther’s birthday and the anniversary of the sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald; now I’m back to it today as it is Veterans’ Day and my brother’s birthday. I keep thinking how much we take for granted.
We especially take freedom for granted. Here it is, I live in the United States of America , a country which touts its freedom. I can paraphrase Tootie in Meet Me in St. Louis : “How lucky I am to be born in my favorite country!” I don’t know what it is like to live in a land where I need to be fearful of the leaders, lest they kill me for not holding the same ideology. I don’t know what it is like to live in a land of intense poverty. I don’t know what it is like to live under a king, a czar, brutal military rule, communism, or a spittle-ridden fascist dictator.
We live in a country rife with freedom; yet, how little we think of it. We can mock our leaders; believe in one God, no God, multiple gods, or ourselves as god; we can even bear arms and vote.
It seems as though freedom is so commonplace that we have become slaves. We are so free that we have freed ourselves from the responsibility which freedom entails. We are so free that we have freed ourselves from the morality which freedom requires. Once one sheds morality and responsibility, one opens the self up to slavery. If I cannot be responsible for my own actions, I become a slave to others telling me what to do; or worse, I become a slave to irresponsible and irrational behavior. I expect the results of freedom without realizing there is a price. If I am immoral or amoral, I am a slave to chaos. If my mantra is “if it feels good, do it,” then I am a slave to pleasure-seeking. Freedom, responsibility, and morality must work in concert.
I look at yesterday—the birth of the great reformer and the death of 29 hard-working sailors; I look at today—the life of a sibling and the sacrifices of so many men and women: I see the ebb and flow of human existence, which is birth, life, death. We cannot take these for granted. We must not take liberty for granted. For our true liberty in is Christ. He is not some mere moral teacher, nor is He a distant God off in the cosmos. No, He is Jesus, true God and true man. He was born, He lived the life we could not, He sacrificed Himself for us and died our death. All this so that we might be freed from slavery to sin. This we can never take for granted.

'Tis the Season

2008-11-08T15:11:00.012-06:00

It's the day I wait for every November: the annual Concordia Publishing House sale, the sale where I can get cheap organ music. I mean, I can buy quality organ music at a discounted price--I suppose they don't make cheap organ music because why write music for cheap organs; likewise, those who wrote organ music that was cheap stopped writing organ music years ago and began writing praise choruses--but I digress.

After I finished in the discount tent, I did what probably every other person who attends the CPH sale does: I went into the store to see what I couldn't find outside. The store had much Advent and Christmas inventory out. Advent wreaths from classic to contemporary were out, along with nativity sets. As I was browsing, one nativity set caught my eye. It was a resin nativity, complete with most of the characters, as well as a picture frame. My first thought was, "Huh, a nativity picture frame, that's kind of cute." My second thought was, "Wait a minute. . . What does this say? Are we trying to upstage Jesus?"

What is the point of a picture frame in a nativity scene? Is it because Christmas today is a time for family and, for the nominally religious, the nostalgic rememberance of Baby Jesus that we have to blend the two concepts; thus shoving Jesus out of the manger and putting ourselves in?

I couldn't find an image of the one I saw in the store, but I found two others for sale, both equally distasteful as the original. The second had a description:

Nativity Scene Picture Frame is an inspirational gift of love. Nativity Scene Picture Frame features a 3-D Christmas tree with a nativity scene in the front and a Christmas scripture on the base. The Christmas scripture reads, "...A Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. Luke 2:11" The Christmas red picture frame fits snugly into the side of the 3-D Christmas tree with nativity scene and is held firmly by a magnet. Both the picture frame and Christmas tree with nativity scene can be displayed separately, too. This unique Nativity Scene Picture Frame for an inspirational Christmas gift will become a family
keepsake.
I suppose I shouldn't complain: At least they mentioned that Christ is the
Savior.

Election Day

2008-11-04T18:53:00.002-06:00

In another few hours, Election Day will be behind us. As of this writing, some polls are closed. Returns are coming in, and my husband has taken up his chair to settle in with Brit Hume and Fox News for the duration. I am in the other room, hoping that the candidate for whom I voted wins.
There are many things about this election I have not liked. I have not liked the duration. When did these guys announce that they were running for president? Was it 2004? I have not liked the rancor and insinuations. I have not liked the way age/gender/race played into how people viewed the candidates. May the most qualified be elected--I don't care if you're a purple female or a green male--the constitution does state you have to be over 35, but I can live with that age issue.
The economy became a huge issue as of late. I still don't see that trumping things like national security and right to life. I've said it before; a government that does not care about life does not honestly care about its people.
This is where it is difficult to have dual citizenship. I know that no matter what happens today, God knows what will happen to His people, and He will work all things together for our good, as St. Paul says in Romans 8. It is still human to be concerned with what happens in America with a presidential change. It is becoming increasingly difficult to be a Christian in America. No, we don't have to worship underground or risk imprisonment for praying; yet, it is becoming harder to stand for truth, justice, and mercy in a society which creates its own truth, defines justice as finding the right loophole, and mercy is for those who want it, not those who need it. (Since when did pity trump empathy?)
Well, until they haul us all off to jail or the looney bin (because they've re-defined lunacy as someone who disagrees with them), I guess what we have to do is live our vocation and be salt and light and stand for the truth and pray for our leaders. They've got a tough job ahead of them, no matter who they are. And Christ died for them too--that we dare not forget. . .

2008-11-02T18:26:00.003-06:00

I see it every time I drive past; I even look for it. There is a decrepit brick building on the side of I-70 when one is heading into downtown St. Louis. Graffittied on the uppermost point is a notice in an original font which reads "Red Fox 4gives you." I find this sign most mysterious.
First, who is Red Fox? Why is he--I'm making an assumption here--so magnanimous? What has the unspecified "you" done to wrong Red Fox? Is Red Fox speaking to a specific or general, singular or plural "you"? If the ubiqutious Red Fox is spreading around 4giveness to the general public, what makes him think the general public is in need of his 4giveness?
I suppose it's a purely human trait to rebel against forgiveness. For to assume forgiveness is to also assume wrongdoing. If Red Fox thinks we are in need of his 4giveness, he also believes we have transgressed him in some manner. That makes almost anyone bristle. "Who is this guy who thinks we did something against him? We don't even know what we did; who is he to 4give us? What makes him think he has the right to judge us? I don't need his stinking 4giveness."
Forgiveness (or, for that matter, 4giveness) is worth nothing when one does not know for what one is being forgiven. That forgiveness is also worth nothing when one does not know the party doing the forgiving. Law and Gospel must work together: for without the Gospel, the Law brings despair; without the Law, the Gospel either induces more Law [rebellion] or carries no meaning [I'm forgiven, so what?].
Red Fox may 4give me. . .I wonder why.

For All the Saints

2008-11-01T08:11:00.009-05:00

I used to brag about not not crying at movies and such silliness. Then it happened. . .in high school literature class that we watched the Masterpiece Theater production of A Tale of Two Cities. At the end when Sydney Carton is walking to the guillotine saying, "It is a far, far better thing that I do. . ." and quoting John 11:25, "I am the resurrection and the life." Just picture a flock of high school girls walking the halls betweeen classes sobbing. I believe this was my transformation into an emotional person who cries at movies, weddings, ordinations (really), and such.

I get emotional, especially at funerals. That is not too unusual, but I cry even if I don't know the person. Merely mention "Abide with Me" and I'm prematurely weeping. On All Saints' Day, it's even worse. There are a few hymns which always make me shed a tear or two. "Behold a Host" is one. "Jerusalem the Golden" is another. The last verse of my favorite hymn also makes me a little weepy. One of my favorite All Saints' Day hymns is "For All the Saints," and it always makes me cry. Let me state that my [in]ability to play it has nothing to do with the fact.

I've started to notice a pattern in this, however. When there is a hymn which talks about the church triumphant and being in God's eternal presence, I start to cry. Maybe as I get older I become more burdened by the weight of the struggle in the church militant and await eagerly the church triumphant.

As more people I know transfer their membership from the church militant to the church triumphant, it reminds me too of that cloud of witnesses which surrounds us. Those who have left earthly life and rejoice in God's presence. I think of their lives, and the influence they had on so many in this world. I think of their struggles and how they triumphed. Most importantly, I think of how it was not their life, but rather Christ's life, death, and resurrection which rescued their life and our lives from sin, death, and Satan.

On this All Saints' Day, I will get a little weepy, but ever hold fast to Christ's words: "I am the resurrection and the life."

[If you're wondering about the picture, this is the cemetary where many of my biological and church family members are buried. I think it is one of the best places a body could rest and await the last day.]

The Reformation Post

2008-10-31T08:00:00.001-05:00

On the one hand, it's nice to celebrate Reformation Day multiple times. On the other hand, I dislike having Reformation Sunday so far from Reformation Day. I really dislike the fact, too, that there is that other celebration which always covers up Reformation Day. You know--dress up and beg for candy day. Okay, now I'm sounding like a stodgy old coot who can't have fun. I like dressing up in costume. I don't mind handing out candy to the neighborhood kids (even though I'm not home half the time on Halloween). I just don't like Halloween supplanting one of my favorite festivals.

I like Reformation for many reasons. First, I'm Lutheran. If it weren't for that Reformation Day in 1517, I likely wouldn't be Lutheran now. Second, there's something wonderful about being a rebel in October. Autumn and revolution are in the air. . .

Maybe the Reformation has been a bit too romanticized. Picture Luther, a big, strong rabble-rouser nailing the theses to the door of the church. The people swoon at his brillance and flock to his side. The others rally around this brilliant, witty man and Germany is transformed, even if the Roman Catholic church is not, those papists them. Katie and Luther marry, and everyone lives happily every after. Uh. . . what do you mean that's not how it happened?

Luther trying to stand up for what is true and counter the false teachings of the church write some debate points. He puts his life on the line as the Pope and others place a death sentence on him. Many others did follow him and work to bring Christ and the Gospel back to a church which had all but left Christ and His cross behind. Wars begin over the church. Others try to follow Luther's lead, yet they lead ever farther from Christ. Even Katie and Luther struggle in life with deaths of their children. When Luther dies, Katie struggles to survive when those who admired her husband now neglect her and even want to take her surviving children from her. Guess it wasn't all peaches and cream.

Sometimes it seems as though we fight the Reformation all over again. Every new era has to have voices steering the church from its self-centered, law-oriented, Christless Christianity; and point it back to Christ and His cross. It is as I learned once in Germany: OhneKreuz, Keine Krone.

A Contrast

2008-10-30T20:28:00.006-05:00

The 2009 Lutheran Church Extension Fund calendars have arrived, and they are titled "Seasons of Life," which always makes me think of the song from the musical Rent "Seasons of Love"; at which point I start singing that song. This is not the most annoying part.

I glanced through the calendar today, as I am always curious to see if there is anybody I know in the pictures (there is). The picture for July was more vexing than the line "How do you measure a year?" running incessantly through my brain.

I know the picture comes from one of the National Youth Gatherings;and to put the best construction on things, maybe the photo was taken at a Lost and Found mini-concert where they were singing "His Banner Over Me is Love" complete with motions. In which case, why are there only two or three people doing the motions? And what is up with the guy in the background with the oddly peaceful look? It didn't help that the Bible verse to go with it is I Timothy 4:12: "Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity." I'm not sure this is what Paul had in mind. . .

Ironically, the latest issue of Higher Things magazine came in the mail today. I read through it, seeing all the people I know or sort of know or wish I could know and what they wrote. In it there was no dumbing it down for the kids. Was there fun? Absolutely (just read the masthead)! Was there content? Of course! There were articles about parables, how to keep one's faith strong, tips for how to defend the Real Presence in the sacrament, what mission work is, and how to listen to a sermon. I learned something while reading, and I'm not even the target audience for the magazine.

Let me pose this elongated question: If Pastor Preus says (and I paraphrase as best as I can), "At Higher Things we work when we work, we play when we play, and we worship when we worship," then what are the people doing in the picture--working, playing, or worshipping--and what does that say for the contrast between the two gatherings?

Maybe those who dare to be Lutheran don't know how to have fun; but judging from Pastor Borghardt, I think we have a pretty good grasp of fun.

My Favorite Hymn

2008-10-26T18:56:00.006-05:00

It was a lovely Reformation Vespers service this afternoon. The music was exceptional, the sermon fit the specs, and we got to sing my favorite hymn.
My favorite hymn used to be “Behold a Host,” but got sent out of the top slot (it still chokes me up—more on that another day) when I stumbled across this one. I was in college and it was the assigned hymn of the day in Lutheran Worship. I noticed it had two positives going for it before I even sang it. First, the music was written by Jan Bender, pronounced Yahn (for John), a German composer who once taught at Concordia, Seward, NE. Second, the text was written by Martin Franzmann, a pastor whose hymn texts are unparalleled. A hymn by this pair has to be fantastic; so it is. It is a hymn which speaks of the story of salvation, and is more than applicable today.

O God, O Lord of heav’n and earth
Thy living finger never wrote
That life should be an aimless mote,
A deathward drift from futile birth.
Thy Word meant life triumphant hurled
In splendor through They broken world.
Since light awoke and life began.
Thou hast desired Thy life for man.

The first verse talks about how not only did God create the world, He also intended man to have life. It smacks evolutionary theory in the face. I don’t know if Franzmann planned it to be such, but it takes all secular humanism and throws it out the window.

Our fatal will to equal Thee,
Our rebel will wrought death and night.
We seized and used in prideful spite
Thy wondrous gift of liberty.
We housed us in this house of doom,
Where death had royal scope and room,
Until Thy servant, Prince of Peace,
Breached all its walls for our release.

The second verse shows original sin quite distinctly. There is no one righteous, no, not one. What powerful images of rebelliousness and separation, not to mention the idea of us acting as though we know better than God and misuse His gifts. Personally, I like the text in Lutheran Worship where it says “We walled us in this house of doom” better because it echoes the language of modernity of building walls—cutting ourselves off. Christ as militant and breaking down the walls we built to keep us out; what a seeking love!

Thou camest to our hall of death,
O Christ, to breathe our poisoned air,
To drink for us the dark despair
That strangled our reluctant breath.
How beautiful the feet that trod
The road that leads us back to God!
How beautiful the feet that ran
To bring the great good news to man!

The third verse shows the contrast between the depth of our sinfulness [poisoned air] and the depth of Christ’s salvation [drink for us the dark despair]. It then comments on those who bring us the good news of Christ’s salvation.

O Spirit, who didst once restore
Thy Church that it might be again
The bringer of good news to men,
Breathe on Thy cloven Church once more,
That in these gray and latter days
There may be those whose life is praise,
Each life a high doxology
To Father, Son, and unto Thee.

The final verse always chokes me up. I don’t know the history of the tune name to this hymn, WITTENBERG NEW, but I assume the significance in that it is new and a connection to Wittenberg, birthplace of the Reformation. Throughout the history of the church, men have always wanted to take the good news of Christ and transform it to something man-made. This verse speaks directly to that; asking the Spirit to continue to restore the Church to being Christ-centered, not man-centered.
Knowing this hymn was written in some dark days of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod’s history, looking at the church today, and knowing that Satan loves a church divided; this verse is a fervent prayer by and for Christ’s people to remain faithful to the end.

The King and His Tenants

2008-10-15T18:29:00.004-05:00

We've been going through Leviticus in Bible class on Wednesday mornings. I came into this particular study around chapter 18, and I felt I needed some more insight, so I borrowed my husband's Concordia Commentary on Leviticus by Dr. Kleinig and began taking notes before each class. [Does that make me thorough, an overachiever, or just plain nerdy?]

I am constantly amazed by what I have learned.

Over the past two classes we covered Leviticus 25 where it talks about the Sabbatical Year and the Year of Jubilee. This chapter shows the relationship between God and His people and the land. God is the landowner, the Israelites are the caretakers. As we discussed this today, it reminded me of the Gospel lesson a few weeks ago. Matthew 21: 33-46 contains the parable of the unfaithful tenants; a Bible story that I really like, especially how it is so closely connected to Isaiah 5:1-7. Today, I could really see why the Pharisees were so angry with Jesus over his parable of the tenants. People who know their Law of Moses would know they are tenants of God's land. The Pharisees got the point of the parable. It was very obvious.

God is the King, the benevolent, who loves His people deeply and give them everything. The people reject Him, their king, and kill His son Jesus. Yet Jesus is the one who pays for the rejection of the people by becoming rejected by God and crucified on a cross. Not just for the Pharisees, but for us.

What else can one say but wow?

Vocation

2008-10-14T20:38:00.003-05:00

I've been thinking much about vocation lately. I am having trouble putting into words what I continue to ponder. (Maybe this is why I can never get published--whoever heard of a writer that has trouble putting thoughts into words being successful?)
One thought that I come back to is why can't we as Christians just live our lives as Christians? I mean, overarching all, I am a Christian. Then I am whatever I am--parent, spouse, child, employee, teacher, student--and I am the best whatever I am living my life in Christ.
It seems to me that one does not have to be a "Bible thumper" on a street corner or an activist of a sort to be a solid witness of Christ to the world. We are to be light, reflecting Christ to the world. What kind of lamp sets the house ablaze with its light? That lamp would be called a defective fire hazard. We are to be salt, seasoning the world. What kind of salt is tolerated in heavy amounts? Sure, we can't hide our light under a basket, which is pointless; or leave our saltiness in the cupboard claiming a low-sodium diet. We need to be in the world sharing the Gospel of Jesus with those around us. Still I ask, do we need to do it in such a pushy, patronizing manner? It seems to me that I'd rather have a person see Christ in all I say and do by my saying and doing everything through Christ in my vocation rather than trying to convince them by my words only. (See what I mean about the putting into words?)
Maybe I should ponder more.

The Wedding Banquet

2008-10-12T20:33:00.003-05:00

How often do we think of the son and the bride in the parable of the wedding banquet? How disappointing to have the guests not show up! Here is the paradox: the guests are the bride! Hence, this is not merely the guests not showing up, but the bride herself--for the wedding is of Christ and his bride, the church.
One would never run a wedding like this--invite the chosen who refuse, or worse, kill the servants, thereby launching a military strike; have a bride that is, in a sense, an unknown no-show; invite just anyone to sit in the honored place--this is a bridezilla disaster!
Yet God, the King does not set up his banquet in earthly terms. He is not looking for a fairytale wedding with bridesmaids in pale colors and perfectly coiffed hair or Canon in D played by a string quartet among white fragrant flowers. No, this is a celebration with His beloved ones; for this is no mere wedding reception but an everlasting banquet celebrating the consummation of His Son's redemption of His guests, His bride, His beloved for eternity!

Trouble with Sin

2008-10-11T07:18:00.006-05:00

The trouble with sin is that it's just too easy. Sure, there are times when one goes through a moral struggle; but there are so many other times we blunder into sin without a second thought or a glance backwards. We are so steeped in sin that sometimes we look at our sin and think, "well, that's life." Many people deny the doctrine of original sin, but we truly have to ask ourselves, do we always love God with our whole hearts? Of course the answer is no. We are truly selfish people who don't follow God's law.
There's a second problem. We believe we can follow God's law. Well, THAT'S not going to happen. Adam and Eve had one command: Don't eat that. We know what happened from there. How can we expect to have ten times that and follow them?
Here's a third problem. We become complacent about sin, and we rationalize that it is our life. There's that first commandment coming back to accuse us. We figure if it effects only ourselves, why should anyone else care? As Billy Joel says, "I don't care what you say anymore, this is my life; go ahead with your own life; leave me alone."
It truly is, however, just like mothers everywhere have said--It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt. Our own sins effect many people. Sometimes it's such a small way that we argue that is doesn't matter. Sometimes it's so huge that we can do nothing other than admit we screwed up. No matter what, someone always gets hurt, and it's always a big deal.
One can point out any number of examples in scripture where someone gets hurt due to sin. Adam and Eve hurt each other, all their ancestors, and even the animal who had to lose its life to cover their shame; David and Bathsheba and Uriah; the list goes on and on.
Someone greater did get hurt for our sin. Jesus, true God and man, the sinless one was the one ultimately hurt for our sin. He was stricken, smitten, and afflicted; pierced and nailed to the cross; abused, injured, and killed; abandoned by God and suffered under our punishment. This is the payment for our careless sins, our self-aggrandizement, our lack of concern for anyone else, our original sin of "looking out for number 1."
Jesus has taken our sin, death, and shame upon Himself so that we can be free.

The End is the Beginning

2008-10-06T20:41:00.007-05:00

It began with Wednesday Bible study as we wend our way through Leviticus. Then it was faculty devotions on Monday last when the subject resurfaced. Thursday last it was the Pastors' Roundtable discussion on the 3rd commandment on Issues, Etc.

The first day is the eighth day. It is the first day of the week, as well as the last. It is the beginning of eternity. It is the connecting link between weeks. The start of the week when God gives us His gifts; it was the start of all our weeks with our first Sunday in baptism.

We move through our week, living out our vocation. Then we return to it at the end of our week, as we repent of our sins, and find that it is the beginning of our week as we receive forgiveness through Word and Sacrament.

It is not only the day which ties together the loose ends of temporal life which would surely unravel without God's grace; it is the day which is transcendent, linking us to angels and archangels and the whole company of heaven.

On the first Sabbath God rested, setting the pattern for our lives. God works so that we can rest. We as humans rebel against renewing rest. Laziness doesn't count. We strain to show how good we are through our own works.
In the divine service, we rest. This rest is not taken, but in Jesus' salvation, rest is given.
In him is the Sabbath in completion, in fulfillment.

You're the Inspiration, or, The Wind beneath my Wings

2008-09-30T20:07:00.003-05:00

I have seen this posting at various blogs: here, here, here, and here; and I began asking myself whom would I list (provided I was cool enough to be tagged—not gonna happen)? What five people, past or present, inspire your spiritual life? Part of the initial instructions for this meme indicates that Jesus is assumed, so you don’t need to list Him. Ditto for Luther, if you’re a Lutheran.
First, I had to look up meme. Did you know it’s not in Webster’s Dictionary? I looked it up on Oxford Online. It deals with that which is imitated. Okay, moving on.
Whom would I list? I first thought of the pastor who confirmed me. As much as I liked him and his family and the fact that I did all my confirmation homework and all—based on the number of dancing Snoopies (Snoopys? How do you spell the plural of Snoopy?) drawn in my catechism, I would have to say that rules him out.
I suppose I could mention Pastor Todd Wilken and Dr. Gene Edward Veith, who have lately helped me hone my weltanschaaung (world outlook) through their work in radio and print media.
I guess it comes down to these people; I am not sure if I can come up with five.
1. My husband: He will discuss theology with me when I ask. He humors me when I ask him to bring home his Leviticus commentary so that I can study up for Wednesday morning Bible class at work. I know he knows way more than I ever will, but he’s still willing to explain it to me and correct me if I am wrong.
2. Pastor Norm Hanan and his wife Mary: These two wonderful people helped us transition from seminary to parish and put up with our horror stories. They listened, advised, prayed for us, let us (me!) cry on their shoulders when we needed to, and reminded us that the congregation members are sheep. I can’t say enough about them.
3. Pastor Henry Gerike: Some people may find this an interesting choice, but I say he has influenced me much. There are many things that he has taught anyone who has been in his choir about singing, hymnody, liturgy, people who write hymns, and scripture. In addition to these things, he has taught me more about being an organist. It’s a double bonus.
Hmmm. . . I can’t think of anyone else exclusively. Even the people listed above have inspired more than just my spiritual life; therefore, some may say they don’t count.
Maybe it’s just that many people have inspired me and influenced my life, and these are ones who stick out. Maybe I should say a few more thanks to the people who have shaped me thus far: Mrs. Mills for teaching me in high school how to be a college student; Mr. Wait for teaching me that choir is more than singing and for giving me a chance; Mr. Golden for everything, even picking on me; Pastor Chase for introducing me to a scary document—the Humanist Manifesto—it is influenced my perception on the clash between faith and postmodernism; the Higher Things folks (why didn't somebody think of it when I was in high school?) whose conferences have taught me much; and for Dr. Ronald Feuerhahn for having influenced many of the people who have impacted my life.
If you didn’t make an honorable mention, don’t feel left out, for I see the academy people off stage telling me that my three minutes are up and they will cut off the microphone shor. . .

Preaching Tips

2008-09-29T21:36:00.011-05:00

While reading Pastor Peperkorn's blog, I came across this comment and piece of advice by Pastor Wilken about being bored with preaching.

“Bring your own struggles with the text into the pulpit with you and lay them out for the hearers. Be honest. And, get to the Cross. If necessary, drag yourself and your hearers there kicking and screaming. Remember, the sermon isn’t over until Jesus is dead for three days. Get him out of the grave, and onto the altar, and then stop talking.
“Finally, stop trying to be interesting. Focus on Jesus, he’s interesting enough.”

Then there is Pastor Wilken’s sermon analysis diagnostic:

How often is Jesus mentioned? Is he the subject of the verbs? What are those verbs?

Then Pastor Wilken gave this piece of advice on Issues, Etc. today:

Don't give Jesus the week off, and don't let your pastor either.

To [mis]quote Dolly Levi, “Advice on preaching from Pastor Wilken? The world should hear it and grow rich.” At least, I wish my pastor had heard and heeded it before yesterday’s sermon.

I am not a homilist. I do not purport to know how to write a sermon or any such thing, so I rely on pastors to tell me how to recognize good preaching. So here’s my analysis of the sermon I heard yesterday:
#1—I counted that Jesus was mentioned twice. For a Lutheran sermon, that does not seem like enough.
#2—He was the subject of the verbs, but they were wimpy verbs; they were not verbs such as “save,” “forgive,” “die,” or “rise”.
#3—He alluded briefly to the cross. He did not drag us kicking and screaming there. It was more talked around than talked about.
#4—Since Jesus never made it to the cross, then He never made it to the grave in the sermon; therefore, He could not have been gotten out and onto the altar.
#5—I think I missed the point. It was something about exercising our faith so that it doesn’t get flabby, fat and lazy. Even though pastor said we don’t save ourselves, we have to exercise faith ourselves. I think I missed something there.
All in all, if pastor didn't quite give Jesus the week off, he at least relegated Jesus to a lesser seat off to the side. To echo the words of the Greeks to Philip, “Sir, we would see Jesus.”

Public Notice

2008-09-25T20:47:00.003-05:00

This blog is temporarily down while the author comes up with something profound to say--or until the author stops feeling ornery, whichever comes first.

Self-Taught may be Hazardous

2008-09-21T18:57:00.000-05:00

To be misinformed is more dangerous than to be uninformed. Too many people in the church are misinformed, as well as uninformed. It goes back to the wrong application of all God’s people being ministers. The doctrine of vocation has nothing to do with being self-taught in matters of theology.
Why bother with a pastor? It’s like the commercial where the man is on the phone and the doctor on the other end is telling him how to perform surgery on himself. The man skeptically looks at the knife and says, “Shouldn’t you be doing this?” How can we learn without a teacher? In most skills, when one self-teaches, one runs the risk of mis-learning. I would never expect one of my students to read multiple books on how to use a comma and assume they will pass a test without having guided them through the material; however, in the church we think that learning without a pastor to guide us is what congregations should be doing.
We allow ourselves to read and interpret scripture based on our own reasoning. We read a part of scripture and decide for ourselves what it means, even if it is contrary to what scripture really teaches. We allow ourselves to listen to all sorts of teachers through books, radio, television, others, even culture and develop our own personal theology based on the varying messages our varied teachers tell us. Then our pastor has to undo the incorrect teaching and we say, “No, I disagree with you.”
One caveat here is that there are untrustworthy pastors our there who are doing more harm than good; but a pastor who is trustworthy will not lead his people away from the truth, but rather always pointing them to Christ.We always need to be on guard as to the false teachings out there. You know what the FBI says—the best way to spot a counterfeit bill is to study the real ones. The best way to spot bad theology is to study the real deal. This means we can’t make up our own theology to fit our mood. We need to be solid in what we believe so we can say “no” to bad theology, not to our pastors who are trying to lead us farther into what we believe, teach, and confess.

Having it Both Ways

2008-09-18T19:52:00.007-05:00

On Fridays on Issues, Etc., they read and respond to e-mail in the first half hour of the program. Today they read an e-mail from a man who was conflicted. He wishes to attend a church where the Word of God is taught in its truth and purity, but he also wishes to attend a church where there is activity. He struggles to find a church with both. He mentioned congregations that were active versus ones that are dying. I understand what he means. There is a real disparity in our church body, the LC-MS, regarding congregations.
I live in a metropolitan area where there are many LC-MS congregations; about 105 within 20 miles of my zipcode, according to the LC-MS website. There are small mission congregations, rural, inner-city, megachurches; you name it; included in that 105. There are more in the area; I just didn’t go far enough out from my zipcode.
Of the aforementioned 105 congregations, I know of many that are confessional. Many of those are smaller rural parishes who are struggling with smaller rural parish issues. The young people are moving away, the older members are transferring to the church triumphant, and they can’t convert the cows to add to their books. The confessional urban parishes are struggling because they don’t have the base of members like they used to, and so they have limited activities—choirs are shrinking, ladies’ groups are disintegrating, and youth groups, well, who has time for that?
There are many of those 105 congregations that are young, vibrant, and growing; they’re not always confessional. Many of them have sacrificed theology for numbers. There is at least one, of them who have removed the “Lutheran” part of their name so as not to offend newcomers. (One is considering a similar move.)
Then there are the middle-of-the-road congregations which are neither hot nor cold. One of which is the church I attend. They want activities, they want numbers; on the flip side, they are fighting the youth flight and the elderly passing problems.
What’s a person to do? Where are the congregations which have schools, choirs, men’s and women’s groups, youth groups (Higher Things, of course), and solid preaching with many people of many ages?
Okay, let me back-pedal for a minute. I’m not saying a church can’t be small. I’m not saying that confessional equals a perfect congregation. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with being old. I know the struggle of trying to be active in a church when all the other participants are old enough to be my parents. I understand the vexation of sitting in the pew weekly waiting for the pastor to show us Jesus.
I leave this question hanging out there: Why are there so few congregations that have both solid teaching and activities?
I guess it goes back to why are there so few Lutherans when Lutheran doctrine is the clearest exhibition of Scripture. (I hope you know what I mean by that last statement—I don’t know how to word it.)

The Bridge is Back

2008-09-18T19:52:00.004-05:00

When I think of the I-35 bridge collapse in Minnesota, I next think of Issues, Etc. I know; it sounds like an odd connection. The bridge collapsed one week to the day I drove under it coming back from a live broadcast of Issues, Etc. at University Lutheran Chapel near the campus of the University of Minnesota. Now, while still odd, it makes a little more sense.

Not to trivialize the tragedy of the bridge by any means, nor to disrespect the families who lost their loved ones; I do see some similarities.

A corroded infrastructure led to a collapse. There was a public outcry, and rebuilding began again. The bridge collapsed, they investigated, rebuilt, and are now moving on. Issues, Etc. went off the air, they protested, started over, and are now moving on.

When the bottom falls out, what can one do?

There is never a returning to normal. There is learning from what has happened. There is moving forward with a new sense of not taking anything for granted. There is a fresh reminder that God is in control, even if things are out of control.

Balance

2008-09-16T21:50:00.002-05:00

There is a line in The Karate Kid where Mr. Miyagi tells Daniel, "Better learn balance. Balance is key. Balance good, karate good. Everything good. Balance bad, better pack up, go home. Understand?"
I'm sure every generation stands at a crossroads of the past and the future, and we are no exception. We stand at a crossroads of faith and culture. Postmodernism has challenged Christianity to the point where the new atheists are asserting that training a child in faith is a form of abuse. People need the Gospel as they always have; yet are ever as rebellious. The Midwest is in a state of denial about globalization, as someone told me recently.
Balance. How do we balance in the church? In our own lives we have to balance vocation with being workaholics for Jesus (as the same someone told me recently). In the church we have to balance midwesternism with globalism. We have to balance faith and culture. We have to find the balance between past and future. To be backward under the name of conservativism is not balance. To throw out liturgy in the name of relevance is not balance. Even "blending" worship styles is not balance.
I don't have the answers, obviously, or I wouldn't be sending this out to the cybersphere. We need to find the balance where we stand firm and where we move forward. Contradiction? Paradox? Perhaps, but not beyond the realm of Christians who are sinners and saints.
Maybe we find balance only through our paradoxes.

A Question on Baptism

2008-09-14T18:28:00.003-05:00

As I stated in my previous post, I played for another church today. I sat in on Bible Class, as I played for both services and had to go somewhere in between. The class is studying parables and they wrapped up the parable of the Sower and moved on to the parable of the tares and wheat.
I found a couple of odd points in the discussion. The pastor asserted that the tares are the hypocrites, and the field is the church. I guess I always thought that the field is the world and the tares are unbelievers. Okay, I can live with this idea.
My question comes from the subsequent discussion. They were discussing hypocrites and the sacraments and the passage about eating and drinking to one's condemnation. Then the question turned to baptism. Someone asked if a hypocrite is baptized, is it a valid baptism? The point was made that this would have to be an adult convert in this hypothetical scenario. Both the pastor and the pastor emeritus said that they thought is would not be a valid baptism, and might possibly go so far to say that the person would need to be re-baptized when they turned from their hypocrisy to true faith.
Here is where I'd like to hear from you and/or your pastor. What do you think?
Are these two pastors correct? Is a hypocrite's baptism valid?

Old School

2008-09-13T10:57:00.001-05:00

The church at which I am playing tomorrow still uses The Lutheran Hymnal (TLH). My home church, by which I mean the congregation of my childhood and youth, also uses TLH. I have a feeling neither of them will switch anytime soon or even not-so-soon. That does not matter, however.
There’s been much talk of one’s grandfather’s church. I admit that the Missouri Synod of today does not look like the Missouri Synod of my grandfather’s day; then again, neither does the world of today look like the world of my grandfather’s day. What then? Should we make the church of today look like the world of today? Well, did the church of my grandfather’s day look like the world of my grandfather’s day? I can’t say positively, as I was not alive then; nor is my grandfather alive now to ask, but I’m guessing the answer is no.
My grandfather fits into “The Greatest Generation”, while I am a Gen Xer. The Gospel is still the Gospel for me as it was for him as it was for the disciples. Do times change? Sure. Does worship change? Sure. Do we have to throw everything from the past out? Sure—uh—wait—no, we don’t.
The disciples did not throw out the practices of their fathers, Luther did not throw out the practices of his father, nor should we toss out the liturgy. Here’s the rub: too many people (especially the Baby Boomers, sorry guys) are too eager to either hang on to tightly or toss. I think it’s a throw-back from the sixties (again, I was not alive then, so I can’t positively say). In the sixties it seemed to be either “question authority” or its antithesis. Carry that forward to the church.
History without understanding is as ignorant as no history at all. Worship practices without understanding is similar. When I was a youth and there was no Higher Things to set me straight, I thought that the church WAS my grandfather’s church and not for me; therefore, it should be scrapped. Bring on the drums, the guitars, the praise choruses, get some verve and vigor in the door. I didn’t understand the liturgy, even if I had had it memorized since I was five or six.
Today I hope I know better. I have more understanding about liturgy and worship. I can recognize the difference between Christocentric and egocentric texts. I vaguely comprehend the lack when it comes to the theology of glory. I’m not saying I’m a know-it-all (although others might assert that, but that’s another story). I guess all I’m saying is that to be pointlessly stuck in the past is little better than being pointlessly stuck in a place that’s “relevant”.
God’s Word is always relevant. Worship is always relevant. It is the reason we practice what we practice that is the issue. If we don’t know why we do what we do, we run the risk of being stuck somewhere we don’t want to or should not be. This is why some congregations are opening themselves up to any whim of worship to coerce people in the door. This is also why there are some congregations who “have always done it that way” and always will. Even Shirley Jackson warned us against this in her story “The Lottery.” We need to move beyond the rock throwing.
Consider Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof. He knew when to hold to tradition and when to budge. It was adiaphora to allow his daughter to circumvent the matchmaker. It was not when his middle daughter married outside the faith. I know I sound as though I sit solidly on the fence. Let me assure you: I know on which side I am. Christ crucified is what I confess; the doctrine of the church is to what I subscribe; the liturgy as it has been handed down to us from our forebears is what I practice. I am trying to say in a prolonged, sort of way (which will probably get misinterpreted because I’m not as pithy or witty as some) that there are some churches who want nothing more than to claim to be on the conservative/confessional bandwagon, when really they merely like their old hymnals just fine, thank you. It’s not the same. Even McDonalds adjusts to the time without compromising their heritage. Just teach your people the truth.

Advent Comes Quickly

2008-09-10T17:14:00.003-05:00

I just wanted to give you advance warning so that you can plan now. If you want to make Advent banners for your church, don't decide to spend six hours on them every Saturday during Advent so that they are ready for the next day.

Hypothetical

2008-09-09T21:23:00.003-05:00

It is common for doctors to notify pregnant women when it is determined that the enwombed one has Down Syndrome. The doctor then informs the woman that she can abort if she wishes. What if. . .
Fast forward to a time when the aborting of a Down Syndrome child becomes the norm. Every woman would be subjected to the testing and instructed to abort if the test comes back positive. Then what? What if then a test is developed which determines Autism. If the abortion of one is mandated or normed, then it would follow that positive results for Autism would lead to an abortion. What next? Then a test for IQ? Then a test for. . . What next--or should I say who next?
If we recommend killing enwombed babies because they have three copies of chromosome 21 instead of two, why not a one that has a defect in a gene (like Fragile X)? Why not anyone who has the potential to not reach an IQ higher than 90? Why 90? Maybe 100? Or 110? Or. . .
I think you see where I'm going with this. If it starts, where does it stop? How can we even dare to say that a child who will not be "normal" does not have the right to live? How can we even dare to define "normal"? We cannot dare either, for we know that if we define "normal" and assert that a child who does not fit that definition shall not be granted life; there will come a day when either we will have our life revoked for not being "normal", or we will ultimately exclude all children from being born.
We must speak up.

Signs of the Times

2008-09-08T21:53:00.007-05:00

While driving down a local street, I noticed these three church signs. The three churches aren't too far apart--I'd say they are within a one-mile stretch of the same road.

I thought this first sign was unique, but a little too overbearing.

The second was, ahem, punny, but just wrong from an amillenial standpoint.
Ah! At least one got it right! Funny how it was the one located between the other two. . .

From Whom Comes the Armor?

2008-09-03T20:41:00.008-05:00

I have a few favorite hymns (some which rarely get sung, but that's another story); one of which was mentioned in the devotion I was reading today. The hymn quoted is "Christ is the World's Redeemer," LSB 539, and the image which caught my attention is "The armor of His soldiers."

The hymn texts makes many statements in the first stanza stating Who Christ is--Redeemer, Lord, our trust, and so on. The word "armor" got me thinking.

The first obvious thought is armor, The Armor of God mentioned in Ephesians 6. In this passage Paul talks about how to "dress" ourselves to be able to stand against the Devil's wiles; only one piece of armor listed is used on the offense--that is the sword of the Word. The next thought is that Christ is the Word. This is how Christ is the armor of His soldiers. He is the One Who fights for us. He stands strong against the devil. The protection we wear--truth, righteousness, readiness/preparation of the gospel of peace, faith, and salvation--all of these come from Christ Himself. None of this armor do we receive from ourselves; they are all gifts Christ gives. He clothes us in the armor, and then He arms us with His Word, Himself, to stand against the wiles of the devil.

How positively sacramental! Christ clothes us with His righteousness in baptism, and arms us with Himself in his Holy Supper. All so that we can withstand every attack the devil launches at us. Christ is truly the world's Redeemer.

The Waiting Game

2008-09-02T17:15:00.002-05:00

Listening to Issues, Etc., this question came up as a “teaser” for an open-line discussion. I pondered emailing my comment to the show, but it has grown beyond a comment into a blog.
It is true that the “marriage age” has been pushed back farther and farther. Consider Laura Ingalls Wilder who got married at 18, and that was about 125 years ago; in Shakespeare’s day it was even younger. In his play Romeo and Juliet, Juliet was only 13 when she married Romeo, although her father argues this point with Paris.
Capulet: But saying o’er what I have said before:
My child is yet a stranger in the world,
She hath not seen the change of fourteen years;
Let two more summers wither in their pride
Ere we may think her ripe to be a bride.
Paris: Younger than she are happy mothers made.
Capulet: And too soon marr’d are those so early made.
So let’s cut to the chase: Above all, Christian parents should encourage their children to marry responsibly and for life.
Why after college, like my mother encouraged me? Maybe the parents believe that their children can be better providers for their family with a college degree. The bachelor’s degree of today is nearly equivalent to the high school diploma of 50 or 60 years ago in terms of employment.
On the other hand, it could be that in our society today people view the job as the most important thing in a person’s life, not the family, and so a college degree is the status symbol, not a marriage. Consider again Laura Ingalls Wilder who had a job—she was a teacher, but hated teaching and hoped to marry so that she would not have to teach any more.
It does put teens and twenty-somethings in a situation of temptation. Waiting longer for marriage is harder when they are bombarded by sexual temptations every day. Is that the fault of the length of the educational system? No, it is the fault of the content of the educational system. The same system which encourages education at the highest level possible (get your bachelors’, master’s, doctorate) also encourages sex—see the posting at Opus—and discourages the nuclear family. Have sex, do what you want, but remember: pregnancy bad, abortion good; marriage bad if it holds you back, marriage good if you’re ready for that step (you can always divorce if he/she holds you back later). No wonder it’s a plethora of confusion.How does waiting to marry after college carry any more temptation for the person who has a significant other than a person who does not? You wait for marriage regardless of when that marriage happens, pure and simple. Christian parents will always encourage their children of that, reminding them that a spouse is a gift, not a right, whenever they are gifted.

Sunday Singing

2008-08-28T21:59:00.002-05:00

It frequently happens that when I visit a congregation that is not my own on a Sunday morning; I get complimented (or commented) on my singing. Sometimes it comes in the form of the child in front of me who covers the ears and looking in my direction wears a scandalized grimace. So if I happen to show up at your church on Sunday; no, I don’t want to join your choir; yes, I sang in choir at a Concordia.
The reason for my volume and verve is simple: I’ve been conditioned.
I grew up in a congregation where, conflicted though they were, they sang. It was a hotbed of Garrison Keillor material (both good and bad). The organ was pipe—it was an old movie-theater organ—and it was sometimes hard to hear because of the strong singing around me. I merely matched volume and have not come down since.
I realize that not everyone has been, um, trained as I was. No, not voice lessons (although I did have a few years of such); a home congregation that sang.
Since leaving for college I have visited a plethora of churches around the country. Some sing, some don’t. The church we were at north of Spamtown did not sing. You think it is hard finding your place coming back from communion? Think of the poor organist who loses count and can hear only a faint mumble coming from below. Fortunately, I was tipped off—listen for the strongest sound in the English language: /s/. Works every time.
The place we’re at now? They also don’t sing. Of course, this is the place where, back in the late ‘90s we visited and the person in the pew ahead of us was apparently disgusted with the Hymnal Supplement ’98 and brusquely flung it down on the pew.
I don’t know if it is because people just don’t communally sing as they used to. We still get weird looks at the Muny when we sing along with the orchestra when they play "The Star Spangled Banner" before every show. Maybe it is something else. I don’t know.
The point is not to rail on anyone or build myself up. What I’m trying to say is that it is not the style but the delivery which is part of the problem with Sunday morning music. Doing a remix of a modern pop song with Christian lyrics is not a solution. Okay, so it worked for Whoopie in Sister Act, but that’s Hollywood. One thing to do is educate—why do we sing Psalms, hymns, and liturgy? What makes a hymn a “good” hymn? Some of this stuff I didn’t learn until I was past 18. Why didn’t someone tell me sooner?
Another thing to do is do what you do well. Don’t sing like Jesus stayed dead. Encourage your organists/pianists/accompanists to continue learning how to play the hymns well. So what if you’ve heard the same song as a postlude for three months, as long as the hymns are played well? Better yet, encourage your organists/pianists/accompanists. They have a job that’s pretty difficult, especially when many churches have musicians who are volunteers or not trained as church musicians, per se. They need to be thanked.
Encourage a youth to take up organ or piano and to train as a church musician. Send your youth to a Higher Things conference or worship conference to learn more. Send your church organist and interested congregation members to a worship conference, a church music conference, a workshop—there are tons of resources out there.
As for me, I plan to keep learning, singing, and making use of teachable moments whenever I can. And you’ll know when I show up at your church—I’ll be the one singing loudly—I hope your congregation drowns me out. . .

Spelling Tests and Tangents

2008-08-23T21:39:00.004-05:00

Word #4 was "media". The sentence I made up was "People say that the media is biased."

"What's biased?" a student asked.

"That means they only talk about one side," I replied, trying to think up a quick definition so that we could back to the spelling test.

"Are they?" another student asked.
Unfortunately I had difficulty passing this one by. "Yes," I said. I told them how on the 30th anniversary of Roe v Wade, the local TV station in the only state that Reagan did not carry in '84 gave pro-lifers 30 seconds of coverage, but gave pro-choicers at least 4 times that much. At this point, one student asked, "What's abortion?" [Hey, they are only 7th & 8th graders--don't be too harsh on them. . . at least THEY know that England is not in France, but I digress. . .]

"That's killing babies before they are born," I responded.

I am not sure where the conversation went from there. One person asked if Lutherans were pro-life or pro-choice. Another asked if you have to believe everything the church teaches. Soon questions were flying, and I answered as best and honestly as I could. We touched on abortion, repentance, forgiveness, faith--I think that's about it. One person asked if we could continue the spelling test. Another person said that because they didn't have religion class that day (long story) it was okay. Twenty minutes later we resumed the spelling test, although a couple students were trying to figure out how to get me off topic again. Nice try, ladies, I pick when I go off-topic.

I enjoy being at a Lutheran school where I can have a candid conversation like this with my students. It is nice to be able to have a class where one can have such a conversation. It was good to go off-topic here. It is sad to see how engrained post-modern culture is in my students. I can't remember the specific statements or questions my students asked, but it what stuck in my mind is that their weltanschauung [world outlook] is truly colored by the weltanschauung society wants them to have. They choose what seems right for them. Don't get me wrong, they're good kids, but we have to dare them to be Lutheran now and not be clouded by the false inconsistencies post-modernism has to offer.

Worship Skirmishes

2008-08-20T20:32:00.005-05:00

It's not eavesdropping if they are talking in your office, full voice, two feet from your desk, is it? Today it was a conversation about our church's "blended" worship service. One party of the conversation, our church music director, is still convinced that it is a "contemporary" service, though our bulletin says otherwise. Okay, whatever, I'm not going to quibble about nomenclature there. Coming up is our single service Sunday where we have one church service instead of two and the style flip-flops between "traditional" and "blended". Apparently part of the flap was that the pastor told the music director to pick songs the people know which led to this soundbite about "quasi contemporary songs so as not to offend." It was at this point I feigned busyness. The music director then asserted that "you can't have it both ways," to which I whole-heartedly agree. The second party of the conversation also agreed and stated that they personally did not like the "contemporary" style, but said that as long as it is sound, the church should give the people what they want.
Uh huh. . . Then people wonder what's wrong with this picture in the church today.
Problem one: If you're going to do it, do it wholeheartedly, not half-baked. Just call yourself whatever that is. I'm here to say it ain't Lutheran.
Problem two: Even quasi-contemporary songs offend when they are not Christ-centered and have a theology of glory. Not to mention they're poorly written. I can say this from a musical standpoint. They have difficult, syncopated rhythms (most people had difficulty with a straight rhythm, let alone syncopated), they follow the same formula--verse, refrain, verse, refrain, repeat refrain, bridge, key change, refrain again--you get the idea, and they could be sung about a generic god, Jesus, Allah, yourself, your boy/girlfriend. They sound fun and say nothing.
Problem three: It's not about you, it's about Jesus for you. (Yes, I stole that from Issues, Etc.) It's not about what you want in worship but what gifts God gives in worship. We say back to God what He says to us. You can't boost your self-esteem to channel positive feelings and confess you are a "poor, miserable sinner" at the same time. You can't look for health, wealth and prosperity concurrently with taking up your cross. The theology of glory cannot coexist with the theology of the cross.
No, I will agree with them on that point--you can't have it both ways.

The Incarnation

2008-08-15T17:03:00.000-05:00

If Isaiah feared being in the presence of the Lord Most High, if Moses could not walk with shoes on ground that was holy; then how amazing is the incarnation! The Word, the very Son of God, in the womb of Mary. How astounding is it to ponder that Mary, a peasant girl betrothed to a simple carpenter, can carry in her body Him in Whose presence mortal men cannot stand. Such is the incomprehensible love of the Father.

False Freedom and True Liberation

2008-08-13T21:32:00.003-05:00

There are two types of liberation. One is a false liberation, one is true freedom. One restrains, one releases. Certain movements which promise freedom often have this false freedom. It is not a freedom from what truly constrains; but freedom from imagined constraint, which becomes more restraining than that from which one was seeking freedom. Take, for example, a person wishing freedom from a spouse who seeks liberation in divorce. They find only constraint, much heavier restraint, in terms of alimony, child support, starting over, and the baggage of a "previous marriage." Such is false liberation.
Those seeking freedom from the earthly existence we bear called humanness must have true freedom in Christ. Any other type is the false liberty. Substances carry the burden of dependency, legalism carries the burden of inadequacy, every other type of seeking after the wind carries with it the false hope of freedom which becomes a weight heavier than those described as his own by Jacob Marley in Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol.
Only true freedom comes from Christ. In our human state we are shackled--bound in sin. Christ's redeeming work on the cross has released us from our bondage and reconciled us to God. This is the only true liberation. He has done it all for us; our chains have been removed.
His forgiveness breaks down the prison walls, releases those enslaved, and seals our adoption as sons of the Father, brother of our Savior.

Location, Location, Location

2008-08-12T17:04:00.002-05:00

Why do we look for God in all the wrong places? Too often we look for God inside ourselves. We look for God in our emotions and our own actions.
Sometimes we look for God in a place where it would seem logical--we look for God in church, but we often end up looking in the wrong churches; churches that do not point to God, but point to emotions and self.
So where do we find God? That's the wrong question. Where does God say He will be found? That's a better question. For with the first question it is a matter of what we do, but that's not how God works. He is always the initiator. The second question points to what God does. He is the seeker of us; He is the one who does the reconciling; He is the one who does the promising. God says He is present in Word and Sacrament. That is where He will be found.

Family Friendly

2008-08-09T17:12:00.005-05:00

Hm, It's a toss up as to where to put this--here or Opus the First--but I'm going to put it here.

Apparently network TV likes sex, but not marriage, according to a news article. In addition to extra marital sex, network TV also likes to cross the line (I'm thinking Swingtown here).

If I watch the networks; I watch CSI (or one of the CSI family), Numb3rs, or the Unit (where did that show go anyway?). The focus of these shows are such that sex is not often brought in; however, I have noticed that some of the characters are engaged in sex, but not married or married to the person with which so engaged. In the CSI series, there are references to perversion when a crime is investigated. It seems as though some of it could be left out.

I understand the argument of the Parents Television Council. The influence of TV on children is a problem, and seeing such things or hearing them discussed can have a negative effect. I can also understand the argument of TV Watch. Legislating morality is exceedingly difficult. I'm not saying there shouldn't be laws; but having the government draw the line on how much is too much is quite tricky, especially since some of our legislators have personal troubles with morality (it all depends on how you define the word "is").

As Christians, where do we/should we stand? There's a fine line in these matters. If we legislate against TV sex, what can we do when our opponents legislate against Christian broadcasting? We should be speaking up for the right thing, however, It seems as though we need to have a grass-roots approach. I believe that education is more effective than legislation, for laws are made to be broken (so they say), but education is training people in the way they should go.

The Parable of the McDonalds

2008-08-06T21:31:00.004-05:00

Disclaimer--I use the name McDonalds, but this is no way intended to represent any specific McDonalds. Outside of that, you may infer the meaning of the parable.

Once there was a restaurant chain called McDonalds. I enjoyed this chain very much, and liked their food fairly well, especially the filet-o-fish and the french fries. When traveling, I could always count on McDonalds to have the usual—filet-o-fish, Big Mac, Ronald, Grimace, and the gang. I knew exactly what I would get. Sure, there’d be times when the local chain was the test market for the company. For the longest time I could not get a breakfast burrito outside a certain radius of home; however, I knew that the egg mcmuffin was an adequate fall back.
Then something odd began to happen. I was on a plane, speaking with a fellow passenger about McDonalds. “Oh, I believe in food, but I never go to McDonalds,” he said matter-of-factly.

“Too many hypocrites there.”
“I don’t understand,” I said.
“Easy,” he replied, “Too many people are not sincere when they eat a Big Mac. They don’t want two-all-beef-patties-special-sauce-lettuce-cheese-pickles-onions-on-a-sesame-seed-bun. They want something else. Foolishness.”
On the ground at the airport, I began looking for a place to eat. The sign said, “McDonalds, concourse C,” so I headed over to concourse C. At the food court, I looked for the tell-tale yellow double arches indicating the McDonalds. Vainly I looked. Finally I gave up and settled on a non-descript wrap place. Taking my tofu and lettuce in tomato basil wrap to a table, I see a man nearby munching what look suspiciously like McDonalds’ chicken nuggets. “Pardon me,” I interrupted his meal, “where did you get those?”
He pointed toward a counter off in the corner. “McDonalds. Over there. It’s where I work, and I’m on break now. Is that okay?”
“Sure that’s okay, but I looked all over for the golden arches, and I just couldn’t find the McDonalds.”
“Oh,” he said firmly, “We don’t put up our name or the Golden Arches. There are too many people offended by that and so we don’t say who we are.”
“I see,” I said, not really understanding the concept of that, so I quietly took a bite of my wrap, which was as nauseating as it sounded. “So you don’t want people to know you’re McDonalds, but you still want them to eat there.”
He nodded, clearly not interested in carrying on the conversation.
At the end of this same trip, heading back to the airport, I decided I was in the mood for a Big Mac, so I chose to stop at a local McDonalds, having learned my lesson about the one on Concourse C. I spotted the familiar red sign with the yellow arches and pulled in the parking lot. Walking into the restaurant, I didn’t bother looking at the menu board because I knew I wanted a Big Mac, medium fries and a Coke. I walked up to the counter and gave my order.
“I’m sorry,” the teen taking my order apologized, “we don’t serve Big Macs here.” I looked up at the menu board. I couldn’t believe my eyes. Where was the Big Mac, the filet-o-fish, the Happy Meal? The Big Mac was called a Whopper, the filet-o-fish was called a Premium Fish fillet, the chicken nuggets were listed as popcorn chicken, and there was something under sides listed as frings. I did see down at the bottom, in a rather small font, something listed as a quarter pounder with cheese.
“What’s going on here?” I asked the teen worker.
“What do you mean?”

“Isn’t this McDonalds?” I asked, pointing to the sign. “Why do you have food from all these other restaurants?”
“Don’t all McDonalds?” was all the employee could say.
The manager came up to the counter during this exchange. “Can I help you?”
“Yeah,” I said, “What’s with all the food from other restaurants? This is McDonalds.”
“Well,” the manager explained, “This is the Progressive McDonalds. We feel here that McDonalds food is always the same. The people are looking for more than the same old historic McDonalds food. We want to give the people what they want.”
“Um, then why are you calling yourself McDonalds, if you don’t do what the rest of what McDonalds do?”
“Oh, that’s complicated, but we feel that we can reach more people by offering a variety of foods. We don’t want to feel constrained by tradition.”
“You know what?” I said, finding the whole thing ridiculous, “I think I’ll find another McDonalds.”
“There is another McDonalds about two miles down,” the manager said. “I think they have a more traditional menu. You might want to try there.”
“Thank you,” I said, still befuddled.
I did find the traditional McDonalds that day, but I cannot say I have had consistency with McDonalds ever since. I have found many like the Concourse C franchise, and many more like the progressive McDonalds. I am glad my local McDonalds is still a traditional one, and I know of at least one place I can guarantee to find a Big Mac as it should be.

Texas Youth

2008-08-05T08:36:00.007-05:00

I was going to post something else here, but I'll get to it later, I guess. I saw this post which bothered me. What are they thinking? I suspect this is what they're thinking: "Let's push the envelope and wait for people so say something so that we can tell them how ignorant and unloving they are; and if they say nothing than take their silence to mean that everyone's okay with it, and keep in the same direction."

It's the whole emperor's new clothes concept. Everyone is loathe to say anything lest the be deemed stupid. We need a few more perceptive children to call the thing what it is, which in this case is plain WRONG.

I saw a bumper sticker the other day which said, "Somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot." Maybe there's something about Texas we don't know. . .