How to Pray When Busy

The last couple of days have been crazy. I'm self-employed, and there are times when work's calls become scary.

But everyone -- self-employed, employed, or whatever -- have busy days. The reality is that we are still commanded to "pray without ceasing." Even on busy days.

Praying is not just about requests. Prayer is also about praising God, receiving gifts from God, and acknowledging His goodness. If we have a fully-orbed prayer life, our prayers will contain all of these things. Some suggestions for busy times:

1. Make use of the Jesus prayer. Simple to learn, and deceptively easy, but there is depth in this prayer for a lifetime of praying. The words: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner." Some have phrased it as "have mercy on me, the sinner," but the difference there is probably not important, at least not now. Even simpler versions are something like "Lord, have mercy." Can this prayer become a routine? Sure it can. Just like telling your husband or wife that you love them. The secret to making use of the Jesus prayer is to ponder each word, each phrase, to remember our sins, and to remember our Savior's mercy. There will be times in your life when -- through grief, through fear, through sorrow, through whatever -- other prayers will be difficult. This prayer can carry you through. I encourage anyone to learn it, and grow into the wonders of this prayer.

2. Ponder some of the biblical prayers with similar phrasing. These are some examples: Matthew 9.27, 15.22, 17.15, 20.30, or Luke 18.39.

3. Know the creeds. Most people who are in a liturgical church know the apostles creed and the Nicene creed by heart, but if you don't, make a point of learning them, and pondering them. The point is not to repeat like a parrot, but to literally know "by heart," to know the creed that you may ponder and meditate on them. When driving, when doing paperwork, when walking: ponder the creeds, and the great deeds of your God.

4. Another project we might consider for the future: learning the Athanasian creed by heart. Most of us hear this once a year, on Trinity Sunday, but the creed is not that hard to learn, and knowing it by heart enables us to ponder the mysteries of the incarnation when we wish.

5. Have a copy of the catechism with you. (I mean the bare bones of the catechism, the pamphlet edition). Use it when you have a few minutes free. Even better, know the catechism by heart.

6. Carry a New Testament with you. Having a 10 minute wait gives you time to read a chapter or 2.

Free Books

Would you like a place where you can get free books?

Well, if you're a book nerd like me, the proper answer is, "Who wouldn't?"

: )

The secret for free books is ones that are in the public domain.

"Public domain" means books that no longer in copyright. (The rules are a bit arcane at times, but basically ones published before the 1930s or so, at least in the US).

Several sites are actively scanning such books in, which means they are available for your use. Read them online, print them out, whatever.

The best source I've found is this:

http://archive.org

The site is a source for all varieties of public domain information. I'm interested in books, so click "texts" along the top line of the page.

On the next page, type into the search line whatever you're interested in. Say: "Lutheran"

A list of every book they have available containing the term "Lutheran" will come up. Click one of those, and you'll see (on the left) the options available for reading it, such as a PDF file, TXT, or whatever.

A "flip book" is one I especially like. This displays the book as a book.

Some of the books in public domain are still in print. Some are not. Some are worthwhile. Some not. But there are many fine and useful books which has -- for whatever reason -- been allowed to languish. Some of them need rescuing. Go for it.

How to find out if a book is good

I used to spend a lot of time in bookstores. No more.

Not that I don't spend a lot of time and money with books. It's the big vice of my life. But I just find myself spending less and less time searching out bookstores.

Instead, I spend time and money buying books online. Usually at Amazon, because they're usually the easiest to work with and provide the best bargains.

But I can't look at the books. At least I can't thumb through them. How do I get past this problem?

First, I look for books with the "search inside" feature. Such books enable me to read at least part of the book, and that helps me know if it's for me or not. I often read the first couple of pages. If the book is going to grab me, it usually will by that point.

Not every book is so enabled. (My own book is one such ... ) But I know that I'm far less inclined to purchase a book (unless it comes highly recommended by someone I trust) if I can't read at least some of it.

Another thing I look for are negative reviews. Positive reviews are often strings of glowing praise, without much in the way of specifics, but negative reviews (unless it's just one of those "I hate this book" types) will often point out specific things that help me evaluate the book. A negative review is not going to necessarily keep me from buying a book. It WILL help me know enough to know if I should purchase it.

For almost anyone reading this, the real cost of a book is not the cover price. The real cost is the time spent reading it. Everyone has limited time to read, and it's important to find books that help with your particular interests and needs. Amazon has provided that help.

Students and teachers

From Edmund Schlink's Theology of the Lutheran Confessions:

"Before one can be a father he must have been a child and a youth. No one can become a teacher who has not first become a pupil. It is as a pupil instructed by the church's interpretation of Scripture that the theologian must himself interpret Scripture in the church and instruct the church. The pupil status is never at an end. Every teacher remains all his life a child of his mother, the church."

Putting Books Aside

I'm a big fan of not finishing books.

Oh, I finish most of them I begin. But when a book just isn't working for me, I lay it aside.

It doesn't mean the book is bad. Or that the author is wrong. It just means that, well, it's not working.

This does something good for me: it allows me to read more than I would otherwise.

Those who feel an overwhelming need to finish every book they start will avoid ones that look hard, marginally uninteresting, whatever.

My philosophy allows me to begin even those I'm not sure about. Because I know I don't have the heavy burden of finishing the book.

This philosophy has to be coupled with at least a modicum of persistence: some books don't yield their treasures easily. If you give up at the slightest intellectual resistance, you'll never complete anything of value.

But allowing oneself the freedom to lay aside a work that's just not of value to you at the moment will help your learning, help your studies, and give you the freedom to roam further than you might otherwise.

Weedon's Blog

The blog from a friend and former pastor of ours. We don't always agree (that's what makes friendships interesting) but he has useful and good stuff, and writes from a pastoral perspective:

http://weedon.blogspot.com

The Simpsons and Garrison Keillor and the faith

There are 2 types of people in the world. Those who like 'The Simpsons' and those who like Garrison Keillor's 'Prairie Home Companion.' The 2 types are very seldom found in one person.

My wife thinks it's a coastal thing: that Simpsons lovers tend to live on either the west or east coast, and that Prairie lovers tend to be midwestern. A friend of mine says that PHC is complete Minnesota humor, and that the further one is away from Minnesota, the more difficult it is to get the jokes.

My complaint today is with those conservatives who whine about The Simpsons. The usual kind of complaints are that The Simpsons represents an irreverent kind of humor, that Bart is a juvenile delinquent and thereby a bad role model or something like that.

When I push people who express these opinions, I usually find that they have never watched the program much, if at all. The whining probably began with George H. W. Bush's comment, "America needs to be a lot more like the Waltons and a lot less like The Simpsons."

The reality is that The Simpons is a very accurate portrayal of American life. Especially on religious matters.

Americans are very religious. This is true for Christians, Jews, Muslims, whatever. We as a country take our faith seriously. The kind of disinterested skeptic who is prominent in, say, French intellectual life is noticed in America only because of his oddity.

The Simpsons reflect that religious reality. Watch a couple of episodes of the program, and note the religious flavor of the program. People pray. Sometimes it's Bart, sometimes Homer, sometimes Marge or Lisa, or often it's the neighbor Ned Flanders. But people really pray.

People go to church. They attend church, they talk about church, and even the shows' Hindu character actually attends to his religious devotions.

Consider the Ned Flanders character. There are literally millions of Americans like Flanders: a mainstream evangelical Christian who takes his faith seriously, as does his family. And Flanders is portrayed as an appealing character: a kindly man who does good to Homer, even when Homer is less than kindly to him. This is no hypocrite, no fake: he really believes in what he says, and even though he's not shown as perfect, his life generally matches his convictions.

(Not to mention that the main family in the show is an intact nuclear family, with a husband who supports the family, a stay-at-home mom with 3 children).

I'm baffled by the continued grumbling about this program. It's not perfect, it can be uneven (hey -- the show's been airing 17 years now), but I tend to think that those with complaints about the program are really those with complaints about America. Because that's what the program is about.

Spies and Traitors

Spies are not traitors. And traitors are not spies.

Spies are those who seek information from enemies, usually in a surreptitious manner. The Israelite spies did that: they sought information about the land God had promised to God's people.

Americans have come to be lazy about these terms. It has become traditional for news sources to call an American who has provided information to an enemy a "spy."

Such a person is not a spy: he is a traitor.

A traitor is one who sells out his own country to others.

Spying is a sometimes honorable and necessary task in a fallen world. Calling those who are traitors "spies" demeans the character of men like Caleb and Joshua. These men were spies, and were commended by God.

Praying with the Bible

Knowledge of the Bible is a loop that feeds back into prayer, and prayer then leads back to informing our Bible study.

Numbers 13-14 tells us of the Israelite spies going into the land to scope it out. When they return, all of the spies except Caleb and Joshua provide a pessimistic report to the people, telling them they should fear the inhabitants of the land. The people of Israel rebel, begin making plans to return to Egypt, and argue that God has brought them and their children into this new land that they might all die there. God in turn offers to Moses that He will disinherit the people, and create a new people from Moses.

Moses' prayer is interesting. The thrust of it is to argue that if the people of Israel die, God's name will be blasphemed among the heathen. He argues from the greatness of God's mercy, and argues explicitly from the forgiveness of their sins which the Israelites had already received.

This prayer is much like Abraham's prayer in Genesis 18. Both men essentially remind God of Who He is, and of His nature, and plead with Him to act as He is. Abraham further argues that it is against God's nature to destroy the righteous with the wicked.

Notice also the Trinitarian nature of Moses' argument in Numbers 14.14: "thou LORD art among this people, that thou LORD art seen face to face, and that thy cloud standeth over them, and that thou goest before them, by day time in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night." Notice also that once again the Israelites are reminded that God speaks to them "face to face," which ties in with the theme of glory, a recurring motif in the book of Numbers.

The Power of the Word of God

The penitential Psalm 51, while a comfort to sinners (such as David, who wrote the Psalm after killing Uriah, and committing adultery with Bathsheba) is also a commentary on the power of the word of God.

David prays for both forgiveness, and for the ability to teach sinners.

The 2 go together. When we rejoice in God's forgiveness of our sins, that joy shows forth to others, who are also brought into that forgiveness.

It's important for us to remember that God's word accomplishes what it sets out to do. Vs. 13 speaks of that:

"Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee."

When God's ways are taught, sinners are converted. Not everyone: there are those who resist and turn away from God's word, but sinners are converted. We can count on that.

We can't see God's word accomplishing these things, and we can't know for sure when that preached word will do the job. But it will do it.

This is the comfort for those who preach. God's word will work. It is not your job to manipulate the hearers. Just preach the word. Let God do His job.

Leprosy and Glory

Numbers 12 is interesting on a number of levels, but I'm dealing here with the relationship of Miriam's sudden leprosy and the shining of glory.

First, leprosy in the Bible is not modern leprosy, known technically as Hansen's disease. Googling leprosy for modern experience is not really helpful.

In chapter 12, Miriam and Aaron had challenged Moses' authority. Specifically, they challenged Moses as a unique speaker for God. God descends in a cloud, and verifies Moses' authority, and when the cloud ascends, Aaron sees that Miriam is leprous.

Note the contrasts: God speaks in "dark" speeches (vs. 8) while Miriam becomes "white" (vs. 10). Also note that the proximate cause of the rebellion is Moses' marriage to an "Ethiopian" woman, presumably a woman of darker skin. (Another note: "Ethiopian" in the scriptures is a term meaning anyone from sub-Saharan Africa. It doesn't mean the modern political entity of Ethiopia, although it doesn't exclude people from that region).

The face is where the glory shines. Miriam's face becomes inglorious, even worse than if her father had spit on her face. She is shut out of the camp for 7 days for uncleanness and the people wait on her to begin their journey again.

An Interesting Coincidence of Deaths

When Americans think about "the '60s," we don't usually mean the period from 1960 to 1970. Instead, we usually mean the years from late 1963 to around 1970.

I would date that era actually from one set of deaths to another set of deaths.

The first set was on one specific afternoon: Nov. 22, 1963.

On that afternoon, President John Kennedy was killed, and American politics changed almost overnight from optimism to the pessimism that still seems to have a stranglehold on us.

On that same afternoon, Aldous Huxley -- one of the lights of pessimistic humanism -- died in England.

Likewise, C. S. Lewis, one of the last of a certain variety of Christian humanist died.

And something changed after that afternoon. It's important not to assume that because something happened after another event, that the first caused the second. (In other words, I got out of bed this morning. My getting out of bed didn't make the sun rise. This is a fairly common logical mistake).

So I'm not saying that these deaths engendered that wild ride known as the 60s. But they are a useful marker.

The deaths that ended the 60s happened likewise on an afternoon, in Kent, Ohio, with the deaths of the Kent State 4: Allison Krause, Jeffrey Glen Miller, Sandra Lee Scheuer, and William Knox Schroeder.

When those 4 died, there was an explosion of protests around the country, but the wind seemed to go out of the sails of the protests after 6 weeks, and likewise something changed.

I was reminded of the coincidences of the deaths of Nov. 22, 1963, when posting earlier a review of C. S. Lewis' book, The Abolition of Man. While Abolition is not one of Lewis' best-selling books, it's one of the more important ones in my opinion, and represents an earlier, perhaps more well-thought Christian humanism.

C. S. Lewis: The Abolition of Man

Another Amazon review, on C. S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man.

"While a short book (my copy has only 121 pages) this book is about teaching and learning and how we pas our culture from generation to generation. But the reality of the book is that education is used as a foil for talking about how and why we transmit culture from one generation to the next. Because ultimately, that's what education is about, and why it's so important: because in educating children, we are telling them and ourselves about what is important, and why. A fine book, deceptively easy to read, but taking a long time to digest and reason through."

Martin Chemnitz: The Lord's Supper

A review of Chemnitz's The Lord's Supper.

"Like every one of Chemnitz's books I've read, this is a masterful work about a specialized area of Christian theology that's central to our faith: the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. And while Chemnitz works through the dogmatics of the topic, his approach is at the same time pastoral, showing obvious concern that all Christians (not just pastors or theologians) understand what they are receiving when partaking of the Supper.

This book ties in closely with another of Chemnitz's books, 'The Two Natures in Christ,' as the two topics are closely related.

Also helpful: the English translation in this book is well done, not wordy, but smooth-flowing and easy to read. Highly recommended."

Michael O'Brien: Father Elijah: An Apocalypse

Another review, this time of Michael O'Brien's Father Elijah: An Apocalypse.

"Unlike many folks, I'm not a big fiction fan.

When I want to relax, give me something arcane and philosophical. My writings, articles, and reviews are likewise usually practical or theoretical, but almost never fictional.

But occasionally, a story is recommended to me, and I succumb, and here's one where I fell in, head over heels, and it was worth the fall.

'Father Elijah' covers the vast sweep of the 20th century. It deals with philosphy, theology, history, ethics, the church, and does so by telling a wonderful story of a man who barely survived the progroms of World War II, fled to Israel, rose to prominence there, and gave up his prominence to enter monastic life, and by a series of events he did not plan, came once again into a quiet and awe-full prominence at the end of time.

The beauty of this book is palpable. I was moved by the story of a life lived under the cross.

Others said it better than me: leave behind the left behind. Those books pale in comparison to this deceptively simple and moving story."

Martin Chemnitz: The Two Natures in Christ

A short review (on Amazon.com) of Martin Chemnitz's The Two Natures in Christ.

"This book was recommended to me in 1989. I bought it in 1990, and have read it a number of times since then, with greater insights coming from it with each read.

If I had to grab a handful of books because a flood was coming, this is one I'd take. This is the finest Christology book I've ever read, and there is no competition. I would argue that in a real sense, it is one of the top 5 theology books I've ever read at all.

A couple of suggestions:

1. Get a good copy. I'm all for buying used books from Amazon, but this might be one where you'd want to get it new, just because you will -- I hope -- be reading it over and over. And you'll very likely never sell it, because this book is so good that you'll feel like hogging it to yourself.

2. Read it slowly. I'm not a fan of devotional books (they're often junk) but this book teaches you about theology, while nurturing your spiritual life. When I'm reading it, I read 2-4 pages a day. Of course, that means it might take a year to get through, but what's the problem with that? When you're finished, you'll feel like starting over.

3. Most errors in Christian theology stem from one of 2 areas. People get messed up on either the PERSON of Christ (who He is) or the WORK of Christ (what He does). This book will inoculate you against both errors.

4. This is NOT a book "just for pastors." Any thoughtful layperson can read and learn from this. A few terms are in Latin, Greek, or Hebrew; most of those terms are translated.

Martin Chemnitz is a master. Get this book (and anything by him) and learn from it. You will be a better Christian for it, and your church will benefit, too."

God with a face

Numbers 6.23-26 gives us the traditional Trinitarian blessing:

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

Although it's important to remember that -- theologically speaking -- all of God's works toward us are works of the whole, undivided Trinity, we tend to think of the different persons as having special places in our creation and salvation.

The first phrase reminds us of God's creation and preservation of us and all the world, one that we often associate with God the Father. (With always keeping in mind the Son's role -- see John 1 -- as well as that of the Holy Spirit's "brooding" on the waters in Genesis 1.2)

The third phrase speaks to the Holy Spirit's job of bringing us to the Son, and giving us peace through Christ.

But what seems especially cool is the second phrase. God makes His face shine on us. The theology of the incarnation reminds us that we have a God who is one of us. Even now. God took a body, which He will never leave or lose. So at the right hand of the Father now stands a man, a man with flesh and blood, like us, only without sin. A man with a face. A Savior whose face we will one day see.

(Not to mention that that divine and human is said to "shine": shining today and then, brighter than the sun. Shining with the true and incarnate glory of God).

The Scriptures in the Creeds

This is a tentative exploration of some issues I've been pondering about the Nicene and Apostles creeds. They are certainly subject to correction at a later date (by myself -- or anyone else!)

My concern is with a confession about the scriptures. There is no explicit confession in the Apostles creed, but there are 2 ("according to the Scriptures," and "spoke by the prophets") in the Nicene.

What I'm wondering is whether -- over the very long term, meaning decades and centuries -- an emphasis on the Apostles creed may lead to a denigration of the scriptures in the faith of those Christians who sit under such an emphasis.

The Nicene creed has a more "rooted" quality, meaning it is tethered in the scriptures. Specifically, the work of the Holy Spirit is rooted in the Scriptures, where God has bound Himself. In the Apostles creed, the third article reads, "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints," etc.

Does this article make the Holy Spirit's work less tied to the Scriptures and more "floating" in the church? My concern is that the tendency (in America at least) to speak of an immediate revelation ("God said I should do that," without scriptural reference) may come from that.

On the other hand, if we are continually reminded that the Holy Spirits speaks "by the prophets" we may better remember that any inklings we have must be tested against the Word of God.

This is not to say that the Apostles creed is wrong. But this creed -- a private, western, baptismal creed -- was never approved by a council. We Lutherans have inherited it from over the centuries. Would we do better to emphasize one (the Nicene) with a greater consensus among the church?

Glory and Shame

Continuing from the theme posted yesterday, about "glory."

We're taught in II Peter 1.4 that we become "partakers" of the divine nature. ("Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature.")

Our brethren in the eastern churches sometimes speak about this process as "divinization." Rightly understood, that's nothing more than the fact that we will be returned to the divine glory we partook of in the garden, although it's sometimes misunderstood (probably on both sides) as teaching that we will somehow become gods, or become part of God. That's not what they are teaching.

But if we look back to the garden, Adam was deceived by the serpent into eating the fruit which God had commanded him not to eat of. After so eating, Adam and Eve fashion leaves as coverings for themselves, to cover their nakedness. Now the question: what changed? In other words, they were naked before; why the sudden need to cover?

I'm going to guess that Adam in his innocence (that is, prior to the fall) shone as a partaker of the divine glory, much as Christ shone on the mount of Transfiguration. Not that Adam was god there, but he had reflected glory in that state, and what stood out in that state was the shining glory -- not their nakedness. Suddenly, after the fall, their nakedness stood out as a defining characteristic.

This makes more sense after reading Phillipians 3.19: "Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things." Phil. 3 is often incorrectly read as a command against gluttony, which it isn't. Gluttony is a sin, but that's not what St. Paul is talking about here.

In context, St. Paul is speaking about the Judaizers, who tried to force individuals to observe the Jewish law in order to become Christians. "Those whose God is their belly" is referring to those who demand (against Acts 10) that Christians keep the dietary laws of Lev. 11.

Those "whose glory is their shame" are those demanding ritual circumcision as a cost of being a Christian. "Shame" here equals what we euphemistically call "private parts," in other words, the area of the body we normally don't display to the public. The contrast here is glory and shame, and glory (in NT Greek) usually has a connotation of "shining" as in Hebrew.

In other words, Adam had glory, and lost it. He noticed his "shame," and tried to cover the shame.

"The Sons of Kohath": more on Numbers 4

When the text speaks of "the sons of Kohath" (vss. 2, 4, and 15), this is not meaning specifically Kohath's physical children only, although that meaning's not excluded. In Numbers 4, "the sons of Kohath" means those who are his descendants. The Levites were set aside to minister the religious aspects of Israelite life, and the Kohathites were set aside for this sub-specialty in the priestly service.

The phrase "sons of" doesn't always mean physical descendancy in OT usage. Amos 7.14 uses the phrase, but in that sense it means not physical lineage, but one who is a student of the prophets, or trained to be a prophet. In other words, Amos was a herdsman, and like Melchizedek or Christ, he is one not expected to be a prophet. The sons of Levi, the ones who would be expected to be prophets, are mediately called through their physical birth into the Levitical line, but Amos is given an immediate call, while he was herding the flock.

The Glory of God in Numbers 4

God's glory is a continuing theme in scripture. I think that we tend to mis-read the word "glory," and we think of it in terms of what we do, that is that we "glorify" God, meaning we worship Him.

The Hebrew word has a more physical meaning, indicating a glowing. (This would be consonant with the Transfiguration account, when -- Matt. 17.2 -- we are told that Jesus' face shone like the sun, and that His clothing was bright white).

In Numbers 4.15, Kohath and his sons were commanded to bear the instruments of the Tabernacle, but they were not to touch the holy things, "lest they die."

Most people hearing this in our culture hear this as a command that they not touch the holy things, lest they "be killed." But in a sense, the potential death warned against here is a passive one, in the same way that we might warn someone to be watchful on a highway because they might be killed.

God is not waiting to catch the sons of Kohath in order to kill them. Instead, a death in such a situation is a "natural" one, in which the one touching dies as a result of touching something partaking of God's glory. This was the fear in much of the Bible, of dying as a result of contact with God's naked glory, to paraphrase Luther. Note again the disciples in Matt. 17.6: "they were sore afraid." Likewise in Acts 9.3, a light from heaven shines on Saul, who is said to be "trembling" (vs. 6). Note again the physicalness of the description: Saul is not only afraid, he is shaking. Good Pharisee that he is, Saul knows the warning to the sons of Kohath, that people who touch God risk death. Did Saul in that instance know that in persecuting the church, he was touching God by hurting the body of Christ?

When You Think You're Alone in Disliking "Contemporary Worship"

I'm a sucker for journals and diaries. Not that I'm good for keeping them myself (I tend to lose steam) but I enjoy reading those that others write.

At the moment, I'm in the midst of James Boswell's journal of 1762-1763. Boswell later became famous by writing what many folks consider the best biography in English, his Life of Johnson. But in 1762, he was a kid (age 22 or thereabouts) just in from Scotland, enjoying big city life in London.

On Sunday, May 15, 1763, he wanted to hear a well-known preacher preach. This was his first mistake: don't go to church because of the preacher. That's not all we're there for, not that it's unimportant, but it shouldn't be our first consideration. But -- like most of us, and like me -- Boswell broke the rule, and went to hear Dr. Blair preach in what was known as a dissenting service: a parish that disagreed with the Anglican service.

Boswell was feeling particularly in need of church that day: he went to 3 services. (He wasn't always so faithful: many diary entries recount his searching for prostitutes. As Ecclesiastes reminds, there is indeed nothing new under the sun).

But here is his story for the day:

"SUNDAY, 15 May. I was in an excellent calm and serious mood. I attended divine service in Ludgate Church with patience and satisfaction, and was much edified. I then dined at honest Cochrane's, after which he and I and two other gentlemen went to Dr. Fordyce's meeting in Monkwell Street and heard Dr. Blair preach. I thought this would have done me good. But I found the reverse. Blair's New Kirk delivery and the Dissenters roaring out the Psalms sitting on their backsides [in other words, sitting while praying!], together with the extempore prayers [prayers made up as the pastor went along, not prayed from the prayer book], and in short the whole vulgar idea of the Presbyterian worship, made me very gloomy. I therefore hastened from this place to St. Paul's, where I heard the conclusion of service, and had my mind set right again."

House Churches

When I speak of "house church" here, I'm not meaning house church as it is used in contemporary parlance. "House church" often has a kind of denominational meaning, meaning groups that use the concept of home meetings as a doctrinal statement. Usually, it's a thinly -- sometimes not thinly -- disguised legalism that says it's somehow sinful to meet in church buildings.

What I mean by "house church" is very small, often start-up congregations meeting in homes because a house is the building that's available. Many congregations start up this way, and there's certainly nothing wrong with it: we have precedent in the New Testament: see I Cor. 16.19, Acts 20.20, Romans 16.5, Colossians 4.15, and Philemon 1.2.

Given the demise of orthodoxy, I wonder if churches meetings in homes is a wave of the future. It may not always be ideal: congregations this small can be rife with pettiness and divisions. But we must never forget that large congregations have issues, too. The secret for keeping the "unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4.3) is the twin poles of faithfulness and forgiveness, in whatever setting God has placed us.

Let me sketch out what I'm thinking about. A small congregation of perhaps 5 to 10, maybe more, maybe less. A pastor who is bi-vocational (in other words, he works another job to support himself and his family, on the assumption that such a small congregation is unable to pay him much, if at all). Either acapella music or accompanied by guitar, flute, or a keyboard there in the house.

I'm inviting comments on this. Would you feel comfortable (assuming such a congregation is orthodox, both in doctrine and liturgy) in such a setting? Would you go to such a congregation? And if you are a pastor, would you feel comfortable in a call to such a congregation?

On the Demise of Used Bookstores

When I was a child, there weren't many bookstores where I lived. People then -- 1960s, 1970s -- bewailed the demise of literacy, and thence the demise of bookstores.

But now in 2007, there are lots of wonderful bookstores: think Borders, Barnes and Nobles, among many others. Not to mention such on-line sellers as Amazon.

Paradoxically, used bookstores are dying. Some are selling, and will, I suspect be different after they are sold. I'm specifically think of The Bookstore in Chapel Hill, NC, where I have spent many a pleasant hour, and many a dollar. The store is being sold, owing to the retirement of the owners. I wish them well. They have done a fine job. But I am not a very good customer any more. I don't go very often, and I suspect I'm like many folks: I do virtually (sic) all of my shopping on-line. It's become easy to find the old books I'm looking for in Amazon or other such, and I just don't care to spend much time browsing the shelves. Not to mention that Google and others are scanning in huge numbers of out-of-print, out-of-copyright books.

Will there be brick-and-mortar used bookstores a hundred years from now? 10 years from now? I hope so. But I wonder about their future. But I am thankful that it's easy to get the theology books I want, far easier, and far less expensively than even 20 years ago.

Niche Marketing for Churches

Most businesses specialize. Victoria's Secret doesn't sell bib overalls, McDonalds doesn't sell caviar, and your local landscaper doesn't do interior design.

So how does this relate to churches?

Most church members would like to see more members. At our best, we know that these folks need the gospel, and that their faith would be strengthened by being in church. At our worst, it's depressing to see empty pews, and we would just like to have more folks there on Sunday.

And we wonder how to get folks in. Let me suggest a unique idea: the way to get more members is by using a historic liturgy, law and gospel preaching, faithful administration of the Sacraments, and historic hymns.

This is the opposite of what most people suggest. I'm not saying that this is the only thing you should do. A friendly reception by members, a caring pastor -- all of these things are important. But folks can find that elsewhere.

By concentrating on the liturgy, Sacraments, preaching, and hymnody, a church has carved out a niche in America's relgious market. OK, I am not fond of this terminology either, but bear with me a minute.

The usual suggestions are that the historic liturgy is a barrier to members. Or that people want (what they need is the bigger question, but it's usually phrased in terms of "want") preaching that "helps them out." (Preaching in which the law dominates, in others words). Or that people in America's protestant climate are turned off by frequent communion, or teaching that emphasizes the church's sacramental roots. And especially, we hear that "people don't like hymns any more." That they want "praise choruses," or whatever.

The problem with all of the above is that if we put these ideas into effect, we become like most other churches around. My area of the country (mid-state North Carolina) is Baptist territory, and while some Baptists have not given way to things like the above, many have. And if we implement them, we become just another Baptist church. In itself, that's not a bad thing. But there's a concept called truth-in-advertising. And a Lutheran church that calls itself Lutheran and teaches, worships, and communes like Baptists is Baptist. Let's call it what it is.

If we become Baptist, why should someone go to us? Why not go to the (much bigger, better funded, and with a bigger youth group) Baptist church down the road?

When I see a Lutheran church doing the nonsense of "contemporary worship," I get mad. But there's also a tinge of pity for them. Why? Because they do it so badly. And because they tend to sound like idiots, with bad guitarists, no rhythm, and bad preaching. And I pity them, too, because they have been told that this is the way to get new members, and they can't figure out why in the end they always wind up losing so many members.

We shouldn't do this travesty called contemporary worship because it's wrong theologically. But if that argument won't work, remind them they'll lose members. They won't believe it when you tell them, but it's worth saying.

If Victoria's Secret started selling bib overalls, customers would quickly realize that they could get the product cheaper over at Wal-Mart. And if Lutheran churches start providing Baptist worship and theology, folks will quickly realize that they can get it better at a Baptist church.

The hucksters are always there to push some scheme or the other. Luther suggested that such people should be pelted with dung, and run out of town. Maybe you can't do either of those suggestions, but you can do the next best thing: ignore them, don't buy their shallow books, and sing -- loudly and strongly -- "Lord, Keep Us Steadfast in Your Word."

Another Housekeeping Note

In hopes of making this more readable, I've changed my template. I welcome any comments, suggestions, ideas, or thoughts about the template, or anything else.

What You Should NOT Do for The Church

You may notice in my "what you can do for the church" postings that there is not a word about political stuff. No advice on voting, no suggestions on being a delegate, and none on nominations for synodical offices.

That was no accident.

Not that these are not important, in their place. But ask yourself: with all the political maneuvers that have gone on in the last 30 years in the LCMS, what do people have to show for them?

It's a sobering thought.

If you are called upon to do something, and you have skills and abilities in that area, and are inclined to do it, then do it.

But the important things are the ones I mentioned. The LCMS in not going to "saved" (or however we want to describe it) by packing the votes at synodical conventions. Frankly, I think the LCMS is beyond the point of salvaging, but if you want to do good for the synod, then do what is do-able: and 99% of that is in your congregation.

Faithfully teaching 5 year olds in Sunday school gets you no fame. But those "little" tasks are the ones where you -- yes, you -- can make a difference. Don't worry about the church politicians. Do what you can do, and make a real difference in your life, in the lives of the folks you worship with every week, and in the lives of those around you who need the gospel.

Life is a Hospital

"After baptism there still remains much of the old Adam. For, as we
have often said, it is tame that sin is forgiven in baptism, but we
are not yet altogether clean, as is shown in the parable of the
Samaritan, who carried the man wounded by robbers to an inn [Luke
10:30–37]. He did not take care of him in such a way that he healed
him at once, but rather bound up his wounds and poured on oil. The man
who fell among robbers suffered two injuries. First, everything that
he had was taken from him, he was robbed; and second, he was wounded,
so that he was half-dead and would have died, if the Samaritan had not
come to him. Adam fell among the robbers and implanted sin in us all.
If Christ, the Samaritan, had not come, we should all have had to die.
He it is who binds our wounds, carries us into the church and is now
healing us. So we are now under the Physician's care. The sin, it is
true, is wholly forgiven, but it has not been wholly purged. If the
Holy Spirit is not ruling men, they become corrupt again; but the Holy
Spirit must cleanse the wounds daily. Therefore this life is a
hospital; the sin has really been forgiven, but it has not yet been
healed."

Martin Luther, Luther's Works, Vol. 51

Hymns and Sermons

A wise pastor once said, "Hymns are small sermons."

We should ask ourselves: if we wouldn't allow a particular teaching to be set forth in a sermon, why would permit it in a hymn?

The issue isn't usually (though there are exceptions) with hymns that have gone through a doctrinal review process, and are found in hymnals. It's with the ones folks want to use that they've heard, and think would be cool to use in church.

If a song didn't make it into the hymnal, there's often a good reason why it didn't. Of course, new hymns are being written all the time. Some of those will -- at some point in the future -- be included in a hymnal. But before using an untested song to be used in the Divine Service, ask: would I say this in a sermon? Or would I find this acceptable teaching if I heard a pastor say this in a sermon? And if not, why would we sing it in a song?

Just because a song has words like "Jesus" or "pray" or whatever doesn't mean it's good. Listen carefully. And when in doubt, leave it out.

What You Can Do for the Church, Part 2

5. Encourage those who are doing good. This is not limited to pastors, although it is certainly true for them. Nothing is rarer than hearty thanks, and you probably will never know how much your thanks, praise, and encouragement means to those who get it. Whenever you can, of course, you should seek to educate and correct those who are erring. But never forget to praise those who are on the right track. All of us get discouraged in doing good; that's why St. Paul writes (Gal. 6.9) to let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not."

6. Participate wholeheartedly in church. The main thing here is the Mass: listen attentively, sing wholeheartedly, and pray without ceasing. Pray for those around you, and pray for the pastor doing the service. But participate in other things as you are able: teach Sunday school, work with the youth, visit the sick, "whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might." (Eccles. 9.10) We all have limits on time, and most of us have family responsibilities and work that has to be done. So pick judiciously, do what you are good at it, but help in the task of God's church.

7. Don't gossip. It's easy to do, but there are few things as corrosive as gossip, few as damaging to God's church. When someone starts to tell you something bad, ask if they have talked to the individual. And even if they have, ask them what purpose is served in telling you. Keep short accounts. It's easy for us to damage our relationships with our brothers and sisters in Christ, and we need each other.

8. Forgive, and be forgiven. We stand in constant, daily need of God's forgiveness. So forgive quickly, and be quick to receive God's forgiveness. One of the most insidious violations of the first commandment is to make ourselves our own God by thinking that we have no need of forgiveness from God, that we must somehow make ourselves better before we come to God. Christ died for sinners -- don't seek, no matter how important you think you are, to be too good to be forgiven. Virtually no one makes use of private confession and absolution, but this is as good a time to start as any. Go to your pastor, and ask to make confession. Very likely, your pastor will be new to this, too, but both of you can learn. Use the order for private confession, and confess your sins. This is not for the "big" sins (although it's for them, too): it's for all sins that are troubling you. Confess them, and be assured of God's forgiveness.

9. Make use of the means of grace. You are baptized, so remember your baptism daily, and make the sign of the holy cross. Receive Christ's Body and Blood frequently for your forgiveness. The faith you have been given is not some kind of intellectual exercise: your Savior gives you His Body and Blood. Rejoice in that gift, thank God for that gift, and be blessed in the mercies of God your Savior.

What You Can Do for the Church

It's easy to get discouraged about the church. We live in terrible times, terrible insofar as being a time of doctrinal sinkholes. But there are things individual Christians can do to strengthen that (Rev. 3.2) remain.

These things don't require you to be a pastor, hold a theology degree, or even be particularly intelligent. What they do require is faithfulness. Here are some ideas of things you (yes, you) can do.

1. Pray. When I was younger (that was a long time ago) I heard a speaker suggest that when we get to heaven, we will be shocked at how little we prayed. I think he was right. So try to remedy that situation. Seek to pray every day for the church. Getting up 15 minutes earlier can do wonders. When you have time (and 15 minutes can easily make this work) pray one of the Responsive prayer services in your service book. Or use the morning prayer service. And when time is short, use this very short, but wonderful order of prayer: Trinitarian invocation with the sign of the cross ("In the name of the Father," etc.), then recite the Creed, pray the Our Father, and close with Luther's morning prayer ("I thank you, my Heavenly Father, through Jesus Christ, your dear Son," etc.) If you don't know these by heart, set about learning them now.

2. Learn. Know your Bible. If you can read one chapter a day (not a stretch) over the course of years, your reservoir of Bible knowledge will astonish you. Of course, knowing the Bible is not simply for the sake of knowing your Bible: knowing the Bible helps you know the Author of the Bible.

3. Learn doctrine. Start by reading the Confessions, perhaps going back over the Small Catechism, and then go through the wonders of the Large Catechism. Read doctrinally sound teachers. Challenge yourself. Read something that's not easy, something that requires you to be engaged in the argument. When something doesn't make sense, ask someone to help you understand it.

4. Learn the church's hymnody. One of the ways we worship with the church of all ages is to sing what they have written and sung. A good way to do this is to take a hymn that you liked from the previous Sunday, and sing it every day. If you can, sing it with someone else. Maybe your children, your spouse, or a friend. If you can't, sing it to yourself. Maybe you could sing it when you do your prayers. And a head's up here: I've never known a congregation that would object to your taking a hymnal home with you. That's what they are there for.

5. Teach. Maybe you don't have official teaching responsibilites. Maybe you do. But whatever your official responsibilities, teach whenever you have opportunity. When someone clearly wrong, gently correct them. If you have children, teach them. If you are married, teach your husband or your wife. This can and should be done in a kind and helpful manner. Just believe that God has placed you in whatever position you are in, and seek to help those around you.

More tomorrow ...

How to Deal With the Easily Offended

Virtually everyone has been on the receiving end of this statement: "I was offended because you--"

You can fill in the blank. "You made the sign of the cross." Or: "You have communion every Sunday." Or: "You chanted the introit."

Whatever it is, the question is how to deal with those offended by things that are either just part of catholic Christianity (such as chanting the introit) or are a part of being a confessing Lutheran (such as the sign of the cross, or the Mass).

The "offence" doesn't go the other way. Or at least it's usually not said out loud. No one says, "I'm offended that the congregation doesn't sign themselves with the cross." No one grumbles, "I'm offended that you only celebrate Holy Communion twice a month." No one mutters, "I'm offended that you don't use incense with your prayers."

I wish I could be more sympathetic with the offended. I used to be. I used to listen more patiently, hearing silently the endless tales of their offense.

I'm not very sympathetic now. When folks complain, I usually think, not unkindly, "Then go somewhere else." If you are offended because our Mass [another "cause of offense" to some, but that's another issue] seeks to be what the Mass has been throughout the Church, then I don't know what to tell you, except that it's not going to change, and that maybe you are offended because you are weak. (See Romans 14). And if you are weak, it is my job to be kind to you, to pray for you, and to instruct you. But it is not the job of the church to change because of how weak and erring brethren feel.

The 2007 LCMS convention

I don't like to ponder church politics very often. Most people who obsess about politics -- of any variety -- are fairly marginal individuals, and in the end we usually discover that very little of what good is done in life is done through politics. (Jotham's parable of the trees in Judges 9 is something we should probably read before every election day).

But church politics crops up sometimes, and now that the LCMS' every-3-years convention is coming up this summer in Houston, once again we hear confessional Lutherans in the LCMS trying to rally the troops, and turn around the LCMS. We heard similar cries in 2004, in 2001, in 1998, etc., etc. Doubtless we will hear them again in 2010.

But the reality is that nothing of the sort will happen this summer, or at any convention, except that a huge amount of time, energy, and motion will be expended on political intrigues. I was a delegate at the 2004 convention. I saw what happened on both sides of the fence. And the LCMS' overwhelming protestant majority became more entrenched. That's going to happen again this summer.

For those who have not given up on the LCMS, I think it's important to do some clear thinking about will be done. At what point will confessional Lutherans leave the LCMS? What is the point at which they will say, "This far, and no further"? Because if we have no clear line, then there's virtually no limit to what will be done, if the LCMS' current leadership thinks that confessionals will not leave.

Romans 16 is clear: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." "Staying and fighting" is not an option given by St. Paul. At what point will we realize that there are clear "divisions and offences" in the LCMS, and avoid those causing them?

Conflict Resolution in the LCMS

In any relationship, there are going to be conflicts. Any. When someone tells you that they've been married for (fill-in-the-blank) years, and they've never had an argument, you can know one of 2 things. Either someone is lying to you (very likely) or someone has been run over more times than they can count. Maybe both.

The question to a healthy ongoing relationship is how conflicts are handled, how they are dealt with, and how the issues in conflicts are resolved to work into the future.

The Missouri Synod, like a dysfunctional family, has poor conflict resolution skills. This is related to my earlier post about anger in the synod: the LCMS seems to have this cauldron of seething rage that just never gets resolved, that just sits there waiting for the next issue to come up and scald the individual or group who has the misfortune to jar the pot lid.

I've commented before on the lack of doctrinal trials in the LCMS. This lack is quite literally insane: no one can expect a church body over 150 years old with thousands of congregational and clergy members to not have some bad eggs in the mix. But there is something in the LCMS culture that wants to pretend that there are no bad eggs, no heretics, no issues needing resolution.

I know of only one (and I would appreciate correction here where I am wrong) case where there was even close to a trial. Paul Bretscher, the LCMS' well-known unitarian was finally -- after writing published books in which he denied the Trinity, denied the deity of Christ, and mocked what he termed errors in the scriptures -- ordered to face a doctrinal trial. He resigned from the LCMS before the trial began. A disciple of his -- who shared in Bretscher's errors, and wrote a foreword to a unitarian book Bretscher wrote -- likewise resigned in the wake of this.

In my earlier post on anger, I mentioned Kenneth Korby's suggestion that the late 1960s, early 1970s issues in the synod were behind much of the mistrust which seems to be everywhere in the synod. I wonder if that's what happened, or if the issues of some 40 years ago were not merely symptoms of the earlier problems.

The LCMS, like every American institution, has been affected by a laissez-faire attitude, an attitude which suggests that there are no doctrinal boundaries, no firm truths, no black and white issues. There's also an underlying fear in the synod, that leaving the LCMS is somehow leaving the place of God's salvation, that splitting or dividing the synod is tantamount to heresy itself. For a group which claims Martin Luther as a Father, this is an odd attitude.

What's the healthy response to conflict? Perhaps admitting to conflict is the first step. Going a step further, perhaps admitting that the resolution to many of our issues might involve an announced, amicable division of the synod (and the synod's assets) would be good. (The LCMS is not a marriage. Even her most steadfast apologists admit that the synod is an organization of human design, not The Church. Splitting such an organization is, to put it bluntly, like dividing a garden club).

It's not a sin to divide a synod. Such a division is going to involve sin, because it would be accomplished by sinful men. But a division itself is not wrong. And such a division would publicly admit the truth: there are already divisions in the synod. Pretending they are not there is just dumb.

A Request for Prayers

I've never liked it when people asked me, "Please pray about so and so." Because I so often forget to do so, and then feel guilty. (And I remind myself that when I feel guilty, it's often because I am guilty. No smiley face on that one. I am serious).

But having said that, here's a prayer request. I'll phrase it this way: when you think about this, please shoot up a quick prayer about this.

It's to pray that church bodies will be faithful on the matter of the ordination of women. Several church bodies usually thought to be OK on this are struggling with it now. Resisting the siren calls of pseudo-feminism for the ordination of women is difficult in our time. May God grant all of us the courage and strength to faithfully confess what He has commanded. Even when it is not easy to do so. Especially when it is not easy to do so.

Housekeeping Note

OK, so it's Saturday night, and here I am in front of the computer. But my excuse is that my wife and youngest daughter are away in Tennessee visiting friends (our oldest, Matt, lives in Raleigh, NC now, and our two middle daughters, Katie and Alex, are in college in Chapel Hill, NC), and I'm here all by myself, so I had some time to work.

I've spent the last hour or so cleaning up links on my blog. I'm hoping that my writing will be easier to read now.

And please: if at any time something doesn't make sense, or doesn't read well, let me know. I would genuinely appreciate your pointing things like that out to me.

Have a good Sunday!

Children of Men

When I read P. D. James' novel The Children of Men a few years ago, I was taken by the powerful story she told of a post-apocolyptic world in 2027 where women are unable to bear children, and the literally dying world is sinking into a miasma of chaos and violence.

I thought this power-filled story was one of those that was too vast, too all-encompassing to be told in a film. I was wrong.

Tonight, I saw the Alfonso Cuaron film based on the book, entitled Children of Men. The movie is at once more disturbing and more hope-filled than the book, replete with Christ symbols. I was in tears. If you can, see this on a theater screen to catch the full vision of the action and the scenes: especially the powerful Nativity scene.

Advancement and the Problem of Seminaries

The problem of seminary education in the LCMS is the flip side to the benefit. The problem is that men are taken out for 4 years for training. They are given a good education, and are well-equipped on a number of levels for the Holy Ministry.

But I wonder if the seminaries are sometimes a cork in the life of the church. Taking 4 years out of one's life is a sizeable chunk. The older and more settled (think career, family, children, etc.) that one is, the more difficult it is for gifted men to take those 4 years.

I'm told that there was once a mistrust of second career men, those who had been in another career, and then gone back to seminary, and become pastors, so much so that the seminary now in Ft. Wayne -- then in Springfield, IL -- had a reputation of being academically inferior to the one in St. Louis.

The question I'm asking is how can the LCMS deal with the issue of men who have gifts and talents that could be used in the Holy Ministry, but cannot take off the 4 years for seminary?

Somebody's going to argue that anyone could take the time off if it was a real priority. OK, I won't argue with you on that. But the reality is that there are men who -- for example -- have several children, or children in college, or who are in debt, or whatever, for whom the 4 years is a real and seemingly insurmountable stretch.

2 years ago, I argued here that there should be alternate routes to training men for the Ministry. Ironically, it's often those who take theology seriously who are most opposed to any alternate routes. But things have really changed in even the last 25 years as far as educational technology and innovations, and I wonder why the LCMS still trains men solely as if it was 1943.

I'm currently in the midst of the following book.

This book is well-written, tightly argued, and tells a good story about the Primitive Baptists in the mountains of North Carolina and Virginia. ("Primitive" in that context means "original," or "first").

I'm intrigued by the PBs, though I disagree with them on a lot: they are fiercely (and unbiblically, I think) Calvinistic in their view of predestination, and they are legalistic on matters about worship.

They also argue that since there are no seminaries in the Bible, it's wrong to have them now. They believe that men should be called to the ministry out of the midst of a congregation, and their ministerial training is a mentorship.

My experience with ministers who are not seminary trained has been that they are often under-educated. I assumed the same with the PBs. I was wrong. The authors of this book -- anthropologists who are not PBs -- found that the PB ministers (or "elders") they encountered were usually theologically knowledgable and biblically grounded, and their preaching was often skillfully crafted.

So back to my original question: why couldn't the LCMS do something like this? With inexpensive books (far cheaper, on a constant dollar basis, than even 20 years ago), fast-access internet, inexpensive phone communication, and the ability to duplicate materials such as CDs easily, why could there not be alternatives to the 4 year seminary process? No one's arguing that it's somehow wrong or sinful to have seminaries; they are good, useful, and a blessing to the churches. But there are other ways this could be done. Why haven't we -- except on a very limited basis -- done it?

Anger in the Missouri Synod

Almost 3 years ago, I was a delegate to the 2004 LCMS convention in St. Louis.

I left with an overwhelming impression of anger among Missouri Synod Lutherans. I'm posting this not to criticize, but to try to get a feel for this, and to understand what's behind it. (I'd also like to corrected, if others don't have this impression).

The impression is a mental picture. Every morning, outside of my hotel at the convention, there were young people (mid teens, I'm guessing) passing out flyers for one of several groups in the synod. I was overwhelmed with how nastily these teens were treated. One doesn't have to agree with a particular side to be courteous to other Christians. One doesn't even have to take the handout. A polite, "No, thank you," works quite well. But the reactions to the handouts was sometimes venomous.

Where is this venom coming from?

I remember hearing the late Kenneth Korby say that the events of the 1960s and 1970s in the LCMS had made everyone mistrust each other, that lay members were suspicious of pastors, pastors of each other, and of synodical officials, and that the events had corrupted the walking together that had once characterized the synod.

I have no way of knowing about those times. I was a long way away from even becoming LCMS at that point. But I would be interested in hearing the thoughts of others about this. Surely the atmosphere around the synod has not always been this poisoned. I'd like to hear where it came from, and when.

If You're an American, You're a Protestant

Some (thankfully, not all) Lutherans who have become Roman Catholic or Orthodox sneer at others as "Protestants," saying these folks should submit to the church (self-defined, of course).

The reality is that if Protestantism is partly defined by the act of choosing one's faith, one's church body, then virtually all Americans are Protestant. Even (maybe especially) those who become Orthodox or RC are protestant, in that they have decided (a very crucial word in American religious thought) that one church body is owed their adherence, and another one not.

I'm not criticizing folks who do this. I grew up in a Southern Baptist church, was not satisfied with it, and -- after some investigation -- joined an LCMS congregation at age 24. Now in middle age, I'm again dissatisfied (this time with the direction, practice, and theological innovations of the LCMS) and I'm transitioning out. But it's always a matter of choosing. I'm not sure how it can be otherwise.

Ironically, those least protestant -- for this part of the discussion -- are probably those who grow up in a church body, and remain there through their lives, and are buried in that tradition. Those of us who are converts often keep that conversion part of our faith on the back burner, and use it when needed.

Is there any way to get out of this circle? I appreciate the thoughts of those who finally come down to saying that we must stop "choosing," and enter into fellowship with the Church, but it still comes saying which "aspect" (no, I don't like the word, but I hope my meaning is clear) of the church we are to enter into.

Becoming Roman Catholic means choosing that communion, choosing to submit to papal authority, etc.

Become Orthodox means choosing that fellowship, choosing one's jurisdiction, even choosing whether one will be Eastern or Western rite.

Just because someone is uncomfortable with saying they've chosen doesn't mean they haven't chosen.

Again, is there a way out of this circular way of dealing with the faith?

The Pharisee and the Publican

I've been doing some thinking about the pericope for the Sunday of the Pharisee and the Publican, Luke 18.10-14.

I'm wondering if this passage projects beyond simply an event in the Temple, to an eschatological one. In other words, the event described is historical: I assume it actually happened as Jesus describes the incident. It is also given to teach us about proper reverence and humility to God when praying.

And ... I think it is also a picture of the final judgement. By God's grace, we will come to that judgement, not bragging about any good we thought we had done, and without any condemnation of those we might think lesser than ourselves.

Instead we will come in that final day, realizing there most especially that we're sinners, that we have miserably failed God, and that we have no where to turn but God's mercy.

Mary and Joseph and real estate

OK, so it has been a while. I will endeavor to be more prompt in my postings in 2007.

First place, happy new year. May 2007 be a good, blessed, and prosperous (in every sense) year for you and those you love.

A few thoughts prompted by the season.

According to Luke 2.24 ("And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons") Mary and Joseph offer the poor man's sacrifice for the firstborn child. (Leviticus 12.8: "And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons"). So we may safely assume that Mary and Joseph were not wealthy.

However, approximately 2 years later, when the magi appear, the holy family is seen living in a house (Matt. 2.11: "when they were come into the house").

My question is: what changed in Mary and Joseph's economic standing in the 2 years between Jesus' birth and the visitation?

Joseph is traditionally remembered as an old, if not elderly, man, so we might assume that he was in his years of economic decline, not on the upswing.

And while we can guess that the gifts of the magi were an economic boom to the family, or at least a bit of security for them, the living in a house is prior to that.

What I'm wondering is if someone can guide me to further information about housing conditions in first century Palestine. Does living in a house in Bethlehem imply that they owned the house? Or were there rental houses for folks then?

Even renting seems to imply some economic stability, if not comfort. So I ask again: what changed? The one thing I've considered is that Joseph might have been relatively comfortable financially, but that perhaps the registration, census, and taxing (in Luke 2.1-3) might have strained his resources, so that the family was temporarily poor, and that in the next 2 years, they had financially stabilized, hence living in a house.

Amazon review: 'The Word of the Lord": Liturgy's Use of Scripture' by David N. Power

A good, if uneven, survey of the meaning of the Scripture Being God's Word
The book's strength is in dealing with the history of the scriptures in the liturgy, and in the extra-liturgical uses of scripture. It's also good when dealing with comparative uses of the scriptures in churches around the world (the picture of the Mass in pps. 78 and 79 is a beautiful snapshot of the church is a particular community, far removed from that of most of us).

The weakness I see lies in several areas. First, the writer seems to try too hard to present a "relevant" take on contemporary problems such as AIDS, which -- only 5 years after it was published! -- has a dated feel. Secondly, the writer tries to survey non-Roman (specifically Lutheran and Anglican, and to a lesser degree, Reformed) liturgical use of the scriptures, and these attempts don't seem to have a lot of depth.

All in all, the book is weak at the beginning, but improves toward the end.

I also must warn that the author uses a turn of phrase that I cannot find warranted by history or theology. On p. 105, the author refers to Christ as a "Theotokos." Traditionally, this term, meaning "bearer of God," is used in reference to the Virgin Mary. I have NEVER heard of this term referring to Christ, who does not "bear" God (a phrase that sounds adoptionist, at least at first hearing) but IS God. I'm not sure what the author is meaning by the term, or if it was simply a mistake, but I would encourage readers to be wary of the author's theology.

A Weekly Guide to Prayer

My wife and I have been working through various aspects of the new Lutheran Service Book, and I continue to find it helpful and good.

I was heartened to see the compilers suggest (on p. 294) a weekly pattern for prayers: in other words, prayer concerns for each day of the week.

It's easy to think that we should pray every day for all concerns, but that's not realistic for most people. This is a compromise: concentrate on particular areas of concern on each day of the week.

Their suggestions:

"Sunday: For the joy of the resurrection among us; for the fruit of faith nourished by the Word and the Sacraments.

Monday: For faith to live in the promises of Holy Baptism; for one's calling and daily work; for the unemployed; for the salvation and well-being of our neighbors; for schools, colleges, and seminaries; for good government and peace.

Tuesday: For deliverance against temptation and evil; for the addicted and despairing, the tortured and oppressed; for those struggling against sin.

Wednesday: For marriage and family, that husbands and wives, parents and children live in ordered harmony according to the Word of God; for parents who must raise children alone; for our communities and neighborhoods.

Thursday: For the Church and her pastors; for teachers, deaconesses, and other church workers; for missionaries and for all who serve the church; for fruitful and salutary use of the blessed Sacrament of Christ's body and blood.

Friday: For the preaching of the holy cross of our Lord Jesus Christ and for the spread of His knowledge throughout the whole world; for the persecuted and oppressed; for the sick and dying.

Saturday: For faithfulness to the end; for the renewal of those who are withering in the faith or have fallen away; for receptive hearts and minds to God's Word on the Lord's Day; for pastors and people as they prepare to administer and receive Christ's holy gifts."

These are very good, very helpful and fine suggestions. I would perhaps encourage a slightly different list. These are not my suggestions; I stole them from the late Kenneth Korby. They are a bit more concentrated than the above, and might be easier to remember. These center -- like the above ideas -- around a theme for the day's prayers.

Sunday: Resurrection, preaching, preachers, hearers, and for faithfulness in preaching.

Monday: Work -- workers, schools, students, unemployed.

Tuesday: Temptation

Wednesday: Parents, children, families. (Korby also encouraged prayers on Wednesday for those suffering from ennui. Ennui is that enormous spiritual problem of thinking that one's work, one's calling is of no value. It sometimes comes in the middle of our lives, and Korby thought Wednesday -- the middle of the week -- to be a valued time to remember that. Likewise, that ennui can come in the middle of our lives as parents, and members of families).

Thursday: Eucharist -- faithful teaching, faithful participation, and correction of false teaching.

Friday: Suffering -- Jesus' suffering, those who suffer, those who are persecuted.

Saturday: Death -- Jesus in the grave, faithfulness unto death, learning to die, rest, sleep.

Sunday:

Reading for the Christmas Season

OK, I'll confess. I'm one of those people who thinks fondly of a time when Advent was Advent, and Christmas didn't begin to intrude about the time of All Saints Day.

But the other reality is that we live in America in 2006, and I don't expect that we'll stop hearing "Jingle Bells" on the radio in late November any time soon. So what to do?

One way, perhaps, to re-capture some church year grounding is to do some special reading during Advent. Some reading that we wouldn't do some other time of the year. Some reading to prepare us for Christmas, which is after all what Advent is for.

So I'm reading Johann Gerhard's 'Seven Christmas Sermons.' I'm not a big fan of reading sermons: sermons are for preaching, not for silent reading, but like all man-made rules, this is a rule that can be broken when the right occasion arises. And Gerhard is a good reason for breaking this rule.

Johann Gerhard is one of those treasures of Lutheran theology. Like most such treasures, Gerhard is ignored by most Lutherans of the early 21st century. We ignore him at our peril. I encourage reading his deeply theological and sweetly devotional works. Repristination Press is to be thanked for re-publishing much of Gerhard's works.

(Don't confuse Johann Gerhard -- theologian -- with Paul Gerhardt, hymnist. Gerhardt's hymnody is rich and wonderful, and many of his hymns can be found in most Lutheran hymnals and service books. Encourage the use of those hymns, but that's for another post. Read a bit about Paul Gerhardt here ).

Another Review: 'The Lord's Supper,' by Martin Chemnitz

"Like every one of Chemnitz's books I've read, this is a masterful work about a specialized area of Christian theology that's central to our faith: the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. And while Chemnitz works through the dogmatics of the topic, his approach is at the same time pastoral, showing obvious concern that all Christians (not just pastors or theologians) understand what they are receiving when partaking of the Supper.

This book ties in closely with another of Chemnitz's books, 'The Two Natures in Christ,' as the two topics are closely related.

Also helpful: the English translation in this book is well done, not wordy, but smooth-flowing and easy to read. Highly recommended."

My Review: Martin Chemnitz's 'Two Natures in Christ'

(This is an online review I did for Amazon.com of Martin Chemnitz's 'The Two Natures in Christ.' As you will see from the review, this one gets high praise from me, as it should.

My taste in books is, well, eclectic, as anyone can tell by looking at my library, or reading my reviews. Because I have somewhat unusual taste, I usually don't recommend everything I read, even books that were helpful to me, because you might have different tastes.

This book is different. Because a thousand years from now, this book will still be relevant: both to Christians on earth, and to those of us who will be gathered with the saints. I know of no one who would not benefit from this book. Read it, and marvel at the Savior who took on your nature, became one of us (except without sin) and who gives us His own human nature in His Body and Blood in the Sacrament of the Altar).

"This book was recommended to me in 1989. I bought it in 1990, and have read it a number of times since then, with greater insights coming from it with each read.

If I had to grab a handful of books because a flood was coming, this is one I'd take. This is the finest Christology book I've ever read, and there is no competition. I would argue that in a real sense, it is one of the top 5 theology books I've ever read at all.

A couple of suggestions:

1. Get a good copy. I'm all for buying used books from Amazon, but this might be one where you'd want to get it new, just because you will -- I hope -- be reading it over and over. And you'll very likely never sell it, because this book is so good that you'll feel like hogging it to yourself.

2. Read it slowly. I'm not a fan of devotional books (they're often junk) but this book teaches you about theology, while nurturing your spiritual life. When I'm reading it, I read 2-4 pages a day. Of course, that means it might take a year to get through, but what's the problem with that? When you're finished, you'll feel like starting over.

3. Most errors in Christian theology stem from one of 2 areas. People get messed up on either the PERSON of Christ (who He is) or the WORK of Christ (what He does). This book will inoculate you against both errors.

4. This is NOT a book "just for pastors." Any thoughtful layperson can read and learn from this. A few terms are in Latin, Greek, or Hebrew; most of those terms are translated.

Martin Chemnitz is a master. Get this book (and anything by him) and learn from it. You will be a better Christian for it, and your church will benefit, too."

My Recommendations for the Use of the Lutheran Service Book

Our congregation will begin using the Lutheran Service Book (LSB) some time in the following months. Since the church council has instituted a worship committe to assist with this (and other matters) and since I'm (as head elder) titular head of this committee, I thought it a good idea to set forth my thoughts, recommendations, and suggestions as to where we should go with the Divine Service of God.

God has not called us to either creative or innovative in the Service of His house. Instead, we are called by God to be custodians of that Service, and to provide faithfully for it. We have been given a liturgy, which gives God's word and His means of grace to His people. We use that liturgy, and seek to faithfully pass it on to those who follow after us.

1. I would encourage us to consider returning to the church's historic use of the one-year lectionary (scripture readings in the Divine Service). My reasons for this:

a. the one-year lectionary is the historic use of the church. The 3 year series is of very recent origin (from the late 1960s). The purpose of the lectionary system is two-fold, to give the full counsel of God (compare Acts 20:27, " For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God") and to teach God's word to His people. I'm not competent to discuss whether the 3 year series meets the first criteria, but I think we have failed God's people on the second. (By "we," I'm saying the whole church; I'm not picking on Redeemer). One of the arguments given in the 1960s for use of a 3 year series was that it would provide for a greater Bible knowledge, by exposing the church to a much greater range of texts. Have we succeeded in this? Are God's people more biblically knowledgable now than they were, say, 50 years ago? Obviously, I think the answer is no. I'm not blaming our biblical ignorance only on this, but I suspect it has had a part in it.

b. the one-year series provides a continuity in the Service. In this series, the readings are the same on a particular Sunday each year, and so, for example, people who are in church, year in and year out, come to know that, say, on Easter Sunday, the gospel reading will come from Mark 16: 1-8. People come to know those passages well, and learn them, and can associate them with the hymns of the day from year to year. This is far less likely when a particular lesson will not be used again for another 3 years.

c. Finally, the one year series' historic usage means that there are helps and resources available for use in study, learning, and sermon preparation that stretch back further than the Nixon administration. For example, there are inexpensive books of Luther's sermons which are a wealth of information, devotional help, and sermon preparation help, but these are completely tied in with the historic one year series.

2. I would encourage us to consider using the LSB's Divine Service, Setting 3, as our exclusive service for Sunday mornings. St. Paul wrote to the church at Philippi, "To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe," (Phil. 3:1) and that's a safe and good thing to remember for us as we consider how the Service is to be conducted. I am opposed to the use of several different settings, as it seems to promote confusion ("which service are we using now?," "what's the response in this service?") where we should aim to avoid confusion.

What's more, I think it's a worthy goal to help folks internalize the service, knowing it from the heart, and not being so tied to having to carefully study what we should be saying in the next minute.

Next, some specific reasons for this particular service.

3. The Divine Service setting 3 is the church's historic service, and flows from German and English church usages from the last several centuries. If, say, Luther were to come in (apart from his having to learn English!) he would be able to roughly follow this service. We don't worship alone. We are together with those in the room, but, just as important, we are together (see Hebrews 12:1) with all the saints of all time, who are gathered together with us in spirit. It's important that we recognize that, and follow what our fathers in the faith have provided and given to us.

4. The confession of sins: LSB's DS 3 provides a good and faithful confession of sins. In the service we're using now, we confess that we "are by nature sinful and unclean," and while that can be understood correctly, the biblical teaching is that by nature we are created in the image of God. Sin is not a part of our human nature. If it were, Christ -- who was at the same time fully human and divine -- would be a sinner, but he correctly asked the Pharisees, " Which of you convinceth me of sin?" (John 8:46) (The usual explanation for the meaning of "by nature sinful" is that it means, "I am a sinner from birth," which is correct (Psalm 58:3), but far better to provide -- as does LSB DS 3 -- a clear, unambiguous confession).

5. The Kyrie ("Lord, have mercy") and the Gloria are given as the church has prayed for centuries. We have not used the Gloria ("Glory be to God on high") for many years as we have used the "This is the feast" song in its place. It's time to put that to rest, and the Gloria is what we should be singing there.

6. In the Salutation before the Collect ("The Lord be with you"), DS 3 gives the historically correct response from the congregation, "And with your spirit." Our response is not (as what we're using now) a "back to you, man!" kind of response, but a recognition that the Pastor, in praying the Collect, is praying with and for us all. The same response is properly given in the Preface to the Sacrament, where "and with your spirit" recognizes that what the Pastor is doing there is doing there is of the utmost gravity: that he will be handling the very Body and Blood of Christ.

7. The Offertory is again the historic, "Create in me a clean heart," and not "Let the vineyards," which should have been retired a long time ago.

8. Finally, in the Pax Domini (where the Pastor says, "The peace of the Lord be with you all") the proper response given is "Amen." In the Pax, the Pastor is serving as the mouth of God, giving God's peace to us. We don't give that peace back to the Pastor; that's not our job. Instead, DS 3 properly provides our response: "Amen!" In other words: "That's true! Let that peace be with me!"

The Doctrine of a Calling for Politicians in a Time of War

This is in response to a piece in the LCMS Reporter (9/06 edition, cover), "In Times of War: The need to heed the calling," by Uwe Siemon-Netto, found here .

"Uwe Siemon-Netto invokes the Lutheran doctrine of calling when discussing politics. Those in political offices are there by God’s calling. But perhaps Mr. Siemon-Netto doesn’t go far enough with questions about callings.

The president is not particularly powerful. He is the administrator (hence, we speak of “the Clinton administration”) of the executive branch. And while the presidency may be better known, he’s merely the head of one of three equal branches of the federal government. Senators and Representatives (in the legislative) and judges (in the judicial branch) share governing power and authority.

Sharing power helps to undercut possible tyranny in America. It’s the job of, say, senators, to be a counter-balance to presidential claims. When senators do this, it’s part of their calling: not somehow an illegitimate violation of Romans 13. I don’t know, for example, Sen. Clinton’s reasons for questioning George Bush, but as much as I dislike her, she’s doing her job. Sen. Lieberman’s support of this administration does not give him a free pass. The electorate is doing their job if they wish to remove him.

Those who appreciate the doctrine of calling should remember that governmental leaders in other countries also have a calling. This includes Saddam Hussein, who was the legitimate president of Iraq, whether we were happy with that or not. For the US-led armies to invade and occupy Iraq -- an act for which there is no constitutional command or precedent, and a country which had neither attacked the US nor shown itself to be an imminent threat to the US -- and overthrow a legitimate head of government sets a very bad precedent indeed. There were, of course, no “weapons of mass destruction,” and Iraq was -- at the time of the invasion -- and is now -- well-known to have had nothing whatsoever to do with the 9/11 events.

A government leader’s calling holds whether the person is a bad leader or not. God through St. Paul commanded obedience to Caesar when Nero was persecuting Christians. Any allegations of atrocities against President Saddam Hussein did not give the US government the biblical or Constitutional right to remove the Iraqi president from office.

Politics is a complicated and hard business. It requires difficult, non-emotional analysis of the relevant biblical and theological texts, the relevant Constitutional texts, and the history and current events of our world. Whether American occupation forces should be withdrawn from Iraq is a complicated question that must be carefully analyzed to seek both to do the right thing, and to prevent further damage to the Iraqi nation. But criticism of George Bush or differences in opinion among other political leaders rightfully exercising their callings is both legitimate and right, and Lutheran Christians must defend the free exercise of the callings of all political leaders: those we agree with, and those we don’t."

Some thoughts on eldona.org

When I read about small beginnings like these folks, I think about I Kings 19.18 Or Gideon, in Judges 7.7

Because the issue seems clear, that the LCMS is on a downhill spiral, has been for some 50 to 60 years, and is probably not getting better. So these good folks try to do something different. It is small. It may remain small. But it might grow. That -- growth -- contrary to what the "church growth" hucksters tell us, is not our business. The prophet Zechariah (4.10) cautions us against despising the day of small things. Smallness itself is no problem. Unfaithfulness is.

A former LCMS vice-president sneeringly told a reporter, "What's the good of a synod of 14 congregations?" But the issue, of course, is not 14 congregations, or 2, or 10,000. The issue is whether the synod in question is faithful to the word of God. If it is not, small or large is a vastly secondary concern.

The reality is that our fellowship is with those who faithfully preach the word and administer the sacraments. The way that fellowship works out on earth is not always done perfectly. But those who are faithful are in fellowship with a great cloud of witnesses, the saints of all time. In reality, the Christians walking around now on earth are vastly outnumbered by those -- beginning with blessed Adam, Eve, and Abel -- who now pray for us while beholding the face of their Savior.

On Leaving the LCMS

(A note of explanation: in an online discussion, some were criticizing those who have left the LCMS to become Roman Catholic or a variety of Eastern Orthodoxy. This is my response).

And perhaps there are those who are weary of church being a place to fight. And perhaps those same people have realized that leaving the LCMS is not the same as leaving the church.

It should be pointed out that -- regardless of what some wish to say -- the LCMS is a heterodox church body, in which there is no unity in worship. In which those on the clergy roster can believe whatever they wish, and there will be no consequences. I bring up the tiresome examples of Paul Bretscher and Ted Strelow. It was known for many years what Bretscher believed and taught, and no one did anything until finally in 2003 -- after some 30 years of open, published heresy. And I had the unpleasant task of listening to Tim Fangmeier (on the evening of Dec. 14, 1998, in the adult classroom at Redeemer Lutheran Church, in Burlington, NC, to be specific), then "Mission and Ministry" coordinator for the SED, argue that Bretscher's unitarian poodle Ted Strelow, who -- just incidentally -- denies that Christ is God, denies that the Bible is the word of God, and teaches that we work our way to Heaven -- that Strelow should be allowed to remain on the LCMS clergy roster because his family was "third generation LCMS"[!]

Perhaps those leaving the LCMS are just weary of dealing with the constant, non-stop bilge of the LCMS, and suspect that it will not change for the better, but rather for the worse. Those who leave for the "old and venerable" might be doing so out of conviction, rather than some supposed seeking refuge.

The reality is that the LCMS is fraught with errors: of doctrine, of worship, and of practice. Perhaps it is less festooned with error than Rome or Constantinople, but in that case, we're just arguing numbers, and that's hardly the unity that supposedly is at the heart of the LCMS. The LCMS no longer tolerates error; it celebrates error. Our triumphalism over against other erring Christians is hardly becoming. I suspect that many who leave the LCMS do so because seeing it is pointless to stay and fight with people who no longer recognize what makes them Lutheran (i.e., confessional subscription). So these folks leave. They leave for a place that -- while imperfect, like the LCMS -- is a movement away from being one of the whining people who increasingly spend time grumbling about the LCMS's errors. The "leaders" in the LCMS no longer care about what the synod's Lutheran minority believes. As long as people stay -- and pay -- they will happily tolerate our whining. The only thing these people understand -- given their propensities -- is money. Leave, stop paying, and -- while they won't change -- we will thereby help to prevent them from propagating more error.

For those who think the LCMS is going to "turn around," more power to them. I would only ask that they carefully consider history, and ask themselves which religious body has EVER "turned around." If they can't think of one, perhaps it's time to consider leaving this one, too. Rome is a bad choice. So is Constantinople. But there are other choices. And because some of the choices are bad doesn't mean that the LCMS is good: only, perhaps, that it is less bad. Perhaps. It used to be said that the LCMS didn't tolerate persistent error. That hasn't been true for a very long time. Pretending that it is true doesn't change anything.

How to Read Your Bible

Let’s say you have a neighbor who knows nothing about Jesus. Nothing about God. Nothing about the Christian faith.

And you get into a conversation with this person. Maybe lots of conversations. And you’re telling them about your faith. And you’ve quoted a lot of Bible verses to them, and your neighbor tells you, “You know, I’ve never read the Bible. I don’t know anything about it, but I’d like to read some of it. Where should I start?”

This is the hard part. It’s good that your neighbor asked, because some people just pick up a Bible, and start reading at the beginning.

And that’s good. They’ve made a start. But the Bible is not just one book -- it’s a lot of books. Actually, it’s a library of 66 books. And while all of the Bible is given by inspiration to us (II Timothy 3:16: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God”) some parts are just easier to read than others. For example, it’s OK when people start with Genesis. Genesis tells us how the world began, about the fall into sin, about the promise of a coming Savior (Genesis 3:15), about Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. Exodus is good, too, telling us about the people of God in Egypt, and about God’s deliverance from their bondage.

But most people who’ve gone this far run into problems when they hit Leviticus. Because Leviticus is important, but most people who are new to the Bible find it hard going. And often they stop right there. And stopping there, they miss out on all the wonderful stuff that follows -- especially the story in the gospels of the Savior who died to take away their sins.

So here’s a plan. If your neighbor, or a friend, or your nephew -- or whoever -- wants to start reading the Bible, here’s a study guide that will help them through the incredible story of God’s word, of God’s deliverance, of God’s love for us.

First, start with the story of Jesus. The rest is important, but the gospels are the crucial part of the Bible. The gospel of Mark is a good place to start. It’s only 16 chapters, and it’s a fast-paced, action read. After reading that, read the other gospels: Matthew, Luke, and John. Encourage them to read carefully, but not get bogged down. Reading a chapter a day isn’t too much, and reading enough keeps the story flowing.

After the gospels, go to Genesis. Then back to the New Testament: this time to the book of Acts, which is the exciting story of how God’s church grew after Christ rose from the dead.

By now, our reader should be getting a feel for God’s word, and it’s time to hit some of the heavier stuff: Paul’s letters. Start with Romans, read 1st and 2nd Corinthians, and then Galatians, and the short letters to churches that Paul wrote from prison: Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon. Continue on with the other New Testament letters.

Now that our reader has gotten this far, he’s well into understanding the Bible, and can go on ahead with what happens to interest him -- perhaps the Psalms (although it’s important to remember that the Psalms are primarily written to be prayed, rather than simply to be read), the Old Testament history books (such as Joshua, Judges, 1st and 2nd Samuel) or some of the books of prophecy (such as Daniel, Isaiah, or Revelation).

And what’s the most important thing to remember when reading the Bible? Well, the most important thing is to remember that this is the word of God, and not the words of men, and as such, it’s different from any other book we will read. (Perhaps praying from Psalm 119: 18 would be good: “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.”) But the best bit of advice for your friend?

It’s the same advice I’d give to someone who’s eating fish. Eat the meat, spit out the bones. In other words, enjoy what you can understand, and keep going when you get to passages that don’t make sense. Don’t stop, just because something doesn’t make sense. Keep going. And that’s good advice for us all. We can spend a lifetime reading and understanding God’s word. Every time we read it, we’ll find new treasures there. Just keep reading. And thank God for the gift of his word to us all.