Saying your prayers

Once again, I'm ashamed to admit that I'm posting a non-theology piece.
: )

I generally try to avoid political discussion, but my wide-ranging musical interests just kind of burst forth occasionally. Here's one. This is a great performance by Aretha Franklin from 1970: great range, a well-done rendition of the song, and the usual vibrant performance by Miss Franklin. (For those who grumble about the sometimes nonsense and trivia on Youtube: we need to remind ourselves that even 10 years ago, it would have been literally impossible for anyone in the general public to listen to something like this. Be thankful. Despite all the crud in our lives as a society, we live in a wonderful time).

The closing of a seminary

I've written before about how internet and other "alternative" methods of training ministers is going to change the traditional seminary models. This hasn't happened as quickly as I'd thought it would, but it's happening. Here's an interesting piece from Fr. Chris Tessone about the closing of a residential M.Div. program in an Episcopal seminary, Seabury-Western. I feel no small sympathy for those who are caught in this process: most students apparently will not be able to complete the programs they're in at that school. But I am hopeful about the future. Training for those who will be pastors will change. The question is always how we adapt to the change. We can try to stand athwart changes, and demand that they not occur. Or we can ask ourselves how such opportunities as the internet, on-demand video, falling prices of books will positively impact what we have traditionally known as "seminary."

Lutheran artists

I'm intrigued by something that's missing. Or seems to be missing.

It's Lutherans in the arts. A Google search for "Lutheran novelists" basically brings up 2: Walter Wangerin and Lars Walker. Looking for a sculptor who's identified as Lutheran brings up one, Elimo Njau, who's Tanzanian. Lutherans abound in church musicians, meaning folks who write hymns. Which isn't bad, by any means, but there are no contemporary, non-religious Lutheran musicians that I can find.

It's all well and good to talk about Luther's doctrine of vocation, but I wonder why wide swaths of vocation (in America, at least) have few Lutherans in their midst. I'm thinking about artists today, but I wonder, too about other areas. I don't know a reason for this. Does anyone have a guess?

Grumbling about music

Well, it's February and it's dark and dreary and disgusting out. And since we're sort of mid-way between festivals, it's a good time to complain about music.

2 objects of complaint. One a hymn, and one a song. Of course a hymn is a song, but a song is not -- necessarily -- a hymn. But these are bad, and each is associated with a festival: one a secular Christmas song, and the other a much-loved (in Lutheran circles, at least) Transfiguration hymn.

The first is "Here Comes Santa Claus," written in 1947 by Gene Autrey, and for this act alone, the man deserves to be thrown off a ship. The song has inane lyrics, a Chinese water-torture kind of melody, and is just horrible, and yet the thing starts blasting out daily, sometimes hourly on radio stations as soon as Halloween is over.

For anyone who has had the good fortune to have never heard this piece, I'm going to break your string of good luck. Listen up:



The next is " 'Tis Good, Lord, to Be Here" (LSB 414) I know it's a little like saying that your grandma's ugly to say that this hymn is ugly, but it is. Again, a Chinese water torture tune, but what makes me insane is verse 5: "But since Thou bidst us leave the mount, Come with us to the plain." OK, maybe this is petty, but when, ever, did Christ bid the Apostles to "leave the mount"? I'll give you five centuries to look for it, but there's none. It's just one of those irritating throw-away lines, likely designed to "finish off" the story of the Transfiguration, despite the fact that the Bible has a maddening tendency to sometimes leave stories unfinished.

Jesus' prayers

"Now if Jesus prays and does so not in vain, since He gets what He asks for in prayer when He might not have done so apart from prayer, which of us would neglect to pray? Mark says that 'in the morning, a great while before day, He rose and went out to a lonely place, and there He prayed' (Mark 1.35). And Luke says, 'He was praying in a certain place, and when He ceased, one of His disciples said to Him' (Luke 11.1) and elsewhere, 'And all night he continued in prayer to God' (Luke 6.12). And John records His prayer, saying, 'When Jesus had spoken these words, He lifted up His eyes to heaven and said, 'Father, the hour has come; glorify your son that the son may glorify you' (John 17.1). The same evangelist writes that the Lord said that He knew 'you hear me always' (John 11.42), and this shows that the one who prays 'always' is 'always' heard."

Origen, On Prayer

Why did God become a man?: an Amazon review

My review of Cur Deus Homo, by St. Anselm, translated (1903) by Sidney Norton Deane.

"The scandal of Christianity is that God -- the Almighty God who created all that is seen and unseen -- became a man. Specifically, He became a male Palestinian who lived on earth from around 4 B.C. to around 29-30 A.D. A man who was born of a woman, who was hungry, thirsty, sleepy, tired -- everything that we do -- but without sin.

And that man who at the same time God suffered for us under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried and rose from the dead on the third day.

All of this is affirmed by orthodox Christians. The question that has been asked -- and which this book seeks to answer -- is not, "Did this all happen?," but "Why did God become man?" St. Anselm's discussion is the classic discussion of western theories of the Atonement.

A little baffling is the paucity of scripture in this book, but St. Anselm is trying to answer the question by use of reason, in the form of a dialog.

This particular translation was completed in 1903 and this is a reprint of that translation which has been out of print for some time. It's a good reprint, easy to read (the book is surprisingly short for as influential as it has been) and well-bound. The publisher has done good for all Christians by providing this printing of this book. While not simple reading, this book is not difficult for educated Christians -- lay or clergy -- to read and ponder."

How great and how just is God's compassion: Cur Deus Homo, chapter XX

Now we have found the compassion of God which
appeared lost to you when we were considering God's
holiness and man's sin ; we have found it, I say, so
great and so consistent with his holiness, as to be in
comparably above anything that can be conceived.
For what compassion can excel these words of the
Father, addressed to the sinner doomed to eternal
torments and having noway of escape: "Take my
only begotten Son and make him an offering for your
self;" or these words of the Son: "Take me, and
ransom your souls." For these are the voices they
utter, when inviting and leading us to faith in the
Gospel. Or can anything be more just than for him
to remit all debt since he has earned a reward greater
than all debt, if given with the love which he de
serves.

Correcting the church

"Restorationism" is a strain in American church life.

Put briefly, restorationists teach that they are restoring apostolic or primitive Christianity. That somewhere along the way, the Church lost its way, and that it must be restored to that primitive purity. Restorationism encompasses a broad swath of American churches, from the United Church of Christ to the "churches of Christ" (the Campbellites), the Disciples of Christ. And though they wouldn't usually claim each other, Mormonism is from a historical standpoint the step-child of the Restorationist movement.

Jesus is clear: the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16.18) For the Restorationist, the challenge is acknowledging the truth of what Jesus said with the claim that for some 1,500 years, the Church was not adequate, not fully the Church, or in serious, substantial error.

In a recent discussion, I pointed out that Lutheran catechisms sometimes query children, "When did the Lutheran Church begin?" with the answer given as "Oct. 31, 1517." And while a pastor argued that the proper answer should be April 25, 1530 (date of the adoption of the Augsburg confession), the answer should be -- if one properly believes that the Lutheran churches are nothing more than a continuation of primitive Christianity -- "the day of Pentecost."

Lutherans who believe there was a new beginning of the Church in 1517 (or 1530) have become early Restorationists. In other words, they are saying that there was no "church" (or that "church" only happened accidentally -- to use the philosophical term) from some point in early Christianity to 1517.

Of course, these Lutherans aren't the only ones falling for this error. Those who shill for the ordination of women argue that the Church -- by not ordaining women -- was erring -- or at least mistaken -- for centuries. Nothing changes if the argument is made that there were ordinations of women in the early churches: this is simply a variety of a Restorationist argument.

This is not a small matter. Either the Church was there -- in 203 a.d. and 568 and 1134 and 1516 and 2008 -- or it was not. Either there is -- now and then and always -- "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4.5) or there was not. We can't have it both ways. It's very self-flattering to imagine that we know more than our Fathers in the faith knew, and that God needs us to do what He could not do. This is not to say that there have not been errors in the Church. That is plain. But God preserves His Church in love and pity. He does not need our tinkering to make that Church work.

"What is meant by the fall?"

In the dark hours of the night, when we wonder about sin and evil, and especially that sin and evil that persists in our own lives, we wonder what it meant that Adam fell, and how we participate in that fall, in that sin. And so wondered G. K. Chesterton, and here are his thoughts:

"And to the question, 'What is meant by the fall?' I could answer with complete sincerity, 'That whatever I am, I am not myself.' That is the prime paradox of our religion; something that we have never in any full sense known, is not only better than ourselves, but even more natural to us than ourselves. And there is really no test of this except the merely experimental one with which these pages began, the test of the padded cell and the open door. It is only since I have known orthodoxy that I have known mental emancipation."

What is meant by orthodoxy

There is a great treasure in James Schalls' book Another Sort of Learning. It's a book of various essays about the important learning (not that all learning is not important) that must go on throughout all of our lives. It's one of those wonderful books that the reader can pick up, open at any spot, and profit from and enjoy what's on the page.

This is from his appreciative essay on 2 of G. K. Chesterton's books: Heretics and Orthodoxy:

"What he meant by orthodoxy was substantially what was in the Creeds as the Church understood them. These Creeds are the foundation of our dignity, and our dignity is undermined somehow every time we seek to change one iota of their content. Indeed, the very effort to change them is itself an instrument in the process of weaving or fashioning another sort of man from the one the Creeds describe. Ultimately, to change the man, you must first change the Creeds. That is why thinking is such a perilous occupation, for in changing your mind, you may well end up changing the world. We can be murdered for our beliefs, but we can more easily be destroyed by our doctrines."

The art of the collect

This is a fine post, amiably stolen from Even the Devils Believe, and written by my neighbor just down the road, Fr. Chris Tessone, over in Durham. It's a fine summary of what it means to pray the Collects of the church.

I'm convinced that the Collects are a gift given not just that the church might pray together, but that we might continually be schooled in the art of praying, whether in the Mass, in our families, or as individuals. When we give up the Collects in Mass, and substitute our own drivel, we give up a good and salutary gift from the church.

"This post over at massinformation has me thinking about collects. The old collects are one of the many things I love about the pre-Conciliar liturgies — for many of us from a Lutheran background, at least, there is a tremendous amount of continuity between the collects used back when Luther split from the Roman Church to the 1962 Missal and other traditional rites, not only in content but in wording and style as well.

Our childhood pastor used to teach a useful formula during confirmation class that gives a basic insight into how all collects should be constructed:

Address
Basis
Collect
Dedication
Ending

The address is fairly simple — usually something like "almighty God" or "heavenly Father". Some simple term of address for God. The basis reveals certain attributes about God on which the pray-er bases the petition that comes later. The collect is the petition itself, the meat of the prayer. The dedication is a familiar formula, something like "Through Jesus Christ, your Son our Lord, who lives and reigns…" etc. And then the ending, which is always "Amen".

If we take a look at the collect for this past Sunday from the Book of Common Prayer (1979), we'll see this in action:

ADDRESS: Almighty God, BASIS: whose blessed Son was led by the Spirit to be tempted by Satan; COLLECT: Come quickly to help us who are assaulted by many temptations; and, as you know the weaknesses of each of us, let each one find you mighty to save; DEDICATION: through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. ENDING: Amen.

Although one might choose to use different language or cast things in a little different light, this has been, for quite some time, a fairly productive way of looking at and constructing collects. Deviating from it can be dangerous, because there is a very clear theology at work here. Praying a collect is not just an act of petition or thanksgiving. Because of the address and basis, we are reminded of attributes of God — God's love, mercy, concern, care, sometimes God's judgment or demand for justice. If we recast these as petitions, which is becoming a common practice, we change the collect from a theological statement about God's essence, from which our petitions follow, into a prayer that is all about desire, which provides no certainty about who God is and is not.

Beyond the theological point, this is a useful framework to learn because it makes extemporaneous prayer easier and more reliably prayerful. All of us, lay or ordained, find ourselves in situations where we are asked to lead prayer off-the-cuff for a group, and this gives an easy guide for thinking about how to form those public prayers. It helps prevent rambling (I've found this a particular problem for myself!) and grounds our petitions in a wider awareness of who our God is and why we pray these petitions in the first place."

Google tech talks on youtube

My day job involves -- on average -- an hour of paperwork a day. It's paperwork that's free of thought, and just means getting various documents readied, copied, whatever. But I've found a way to make this unappealing task a little easier on me: by listening to various speakers on youtube.com

I'm a big proponent of cross-fertilization. I think that many folks who think about theology have a tunnel vision, and many don't read -- or listen to -- stuff about other fields. I've found that my "other" reading can often enlighten what I read and study in the scriptures and the fathers.

Youtube has exploded over the last year or so, giving us a plethora of helpful speakers. Here's my most recent suggestion. The Google corporation brings in various speakers on apparently a weekly basis and these speakers are videoed and uploaded to youtube. Some of the speakers are of no interest, and some are just -- to me -- dull. But there's a lot of good stuff here, and I commend it to you.

Picturing the world

OK, so here I go again, pimping for a museum.

In this case, one close to home.

The Ackland is on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a school some 40 miles from me, and one I'm pretty familiar with, having 2 daughters currently studying there: Katie, expected BAs in history and political science this year, and Alexandra, who's studying mass communications and hopes to graduate in 2010.

And this is an exhibit at the Ackland that's well worth the visit: striking photojournalism from graduates of the university's journalism school.

Here's more information about the exhibit.

"We are by nature sinful and unclean": part 2

A few days back, I talked a bit about the problem with the liturgy's confession of sins (in several of the LSB orders) in which we confess that "we are by nature sinful and unclean," and how this is a Christological problem. That is, if the essence of humanity involves sin, then either Christ is a sinner, or He is not God. In continuing my reading of St. Anselm's Cur Deus Homo ("Why God Became Man") and I found this passage (from section 11 of the second book") to be helpful about this discussion:

"I do not think mortality inheres in the
essential nature of man, but only as corrupted. Since,
had man never sinned, and had his immortality been
unchangeably confirmed, he would have been as really
man ; and, when the dying rise again, incorruptible,
they will no less be really men. For, if mortality was
an essential attribute of human nature, then he who
was immortal could not be man. Wherefore, neither
corruption nor incorruption belong essentially to hu
man nature, for neither makes nor destroys a man ;
but happiness accrues to him from the one, and misery
from the other. But since all men die, mortality is
included in the definition of man, as given by philos
ophers, for they have never even believed in the pos
sibility of man s being immortal in all respects. And
so it is not enough to prove that that man ought to be
subject to death, for us to say that he will be in all
respects a man."

"The Divine and human natures must unite in one person"

"Moreover, man, for whom he was to pray, and the devil, whom he was to vanquish, have both put on a false likeness to God by their own will. Wherefore they have sinned, as it were, especially against the person of the Son, who is believed to be the very image of God. Wherefore the punishment or pardon of guilt is with peculiar propriety ascribed to him upon whom chiefly the injury was inflicted. Since, therefore, infallible reason has brought us to this necessary conclusion, that the Divine and human natures must unite in one person, and that this is evidently more fitting in respect to the person of the Word than the other persons, we determine that God the Word must unite with man in one person."

St. Anselm of Canterbury, Cur Deus Homo

The sufferings of the church, and the power of Christ

"Let us be calmly confident in this cause which has to do with God's
word. Christ, whose cause it is, will staunchly defend and uphold it
against the cunning of the vile devil and the tyranny of the wicked
and deceitful world. For those who confess him before this evil and
adulterous generation and must suffer much thereby, Christ in turn
will confess them before his heavenly Father and requite them for
their suffering with the delights of eternity [Matt. 10:32]. God
himself says, I Samuel 2 [:30], "He who honors me, I will honor." Even
if the waves of the sea are strong and huge billows rise up and roar
furiously as though they would drown us, the Lord is still on high and
has begun a kingdom as wide as the world which he now rules and has
decreed that it shall endure. He is greater, yes, almighty, and he
will accomplish it. Amen. There is no other way—if we desire to
possess Christ, to live and to rule with him in eternity, then
suffering must first be endured. Because this is so, why should we
heed the rage and fury of such deadly powers, of whom Psalm 2 [:4]
says God in heaven laughs at them and holds them in derision. If the
eternal and omnipotent emperor whose name is God and who lives to all
eternity mocks and derides them, why should we fear them, or mourn and
weep? Truly, God does not mock them in his own defense. He will always
be the one dwelling in heaven no matter how they rage against him. But
he mocks them to encourage us, so that we may take heart and bravely
laugh at their onslaughts. Therefore the only thing necessary for us
to do is to believe and to pray most confidently in Christ's name that
God will give us strength, since he has erected his kingdom and this
is his doing. It is he who without our help, counsel, thought, or
effort has brought his kingdom forth and has advanced and preserved it
to this day. I have no doubt that he will consummate it without our
advice or assistance. Because "I know in whom I believe," as St. Paul
says [II Tim. 1:12], I am certain that he will grant me more, do far
more abundantly, and help and counsel us beyond all that we ask or
think [Eph. 3:20]. He is called the Lord who can and will help in a
wonderful, glorious, and mighty way, particularly when the need is the
greatest. We are meant to be human beings, not divine. So let us take
comfort in his word and, trusting his promise, call upon him
confidently for deliverance in time of distress and he will help. That
is all there is to it; we have no alternative; otherwise, eternal
unrest would be our reward. May God save us from that for the sake of
his dear Son, our Savior and eternal Priest, Jesus Christ. Amen."

Source: Luther's Works, 43:176.

"The Sound of the Dove" a review on Amazon

My review from Amazon.com of Beverly Bush Patterson's The Sound of the Dove: Singing in Appalachian Primitive Baptist Churches
:

"Folks who are theologically inclined tend to try to understand churches by understanding their theology and listening to what is said in books, sermons, and courses.

Beverly Bush Patterson uses another means to understand the Primitive Baptist churches: their music, specifically their songs, songbooks, song tunes, and hymn choices in individual congregations. While not downplaying Primitive Baptist theology and preaching, the author sees their music as a perhaps more reliable means of understanding how theology and doctrine plays out in congregational life.

This includes a detailed analysis of hymn and song choices and hymn tune choices in congregations. And while I'm making this sound dry, this book is anything but dry: it is a good, well-written, well-told analysis of a little-known group in American religious life.

A slightly secondary theme in the book is the role and function of women in Primitive Baptist churches. This isn't an easily done analysis, since women in Primitive Baptist churches operate in a "silent" setting in their churches, neither preaching nor holding offices within the congregations. Patterson seeks to understand how women in these congregations understand their faith, live within the parameters of their theology, and express their faith."

Ennui

Ennui is often defined as boredom, listlessness, or discontent. But it's far more than that.

In theological terms, ennui is that sin that views one's life as meaningless, that falls to the temptation to imagine that the place where God has placed me is useless, that ultimately my life is of no value.

The crucial sin of ennui is to imagine that God has made a mistake, to believe that God has kept me from where I should be, or that there is more there, and that I am not there.

Ennui is thought to be a sin of middle age. In a way that's true, because middle age is when we look back on childhood dreams and realize that we have not fulfilled those, and that we will not fulfill them. But it's not a sin peculiar to middle age. Even children can be subject to it. Remember, for instance, when one is 13 or 14, and how the years seem to stretch out forever, and how we imagine that it will be an unimaginably long time until we can enter real life.

The answer to ennui is contentment. Contentment in the sense of knowing where God has placed us, and that He makes no mistakes. Of knowing the deep reality of what Jesus said in Matthew 6.8: "for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him."

Your Father knows. Knows what you need, and when you need it. And in reality, you have had everything you need. That's the deep reality of our lives, that we live and move and have our being in God, a God Who knows your needs -- in every sense of the word -- and provides.

A sainted teacher once suggested that we especially pray for those tempted by ennui on Wednesdays. Which is appropriate, given that it's the day in the middle of the week, the time when many are tempted to this peculiar form of despair. But ennui is a sin to which all are tempted. Remembering Luther's explanation of the Our Father here is good: "God gives daily bread, even without our prayer, to all wicked men; but we pray in this petition that He would lead us to know it, and to receive our daily bread with thanksgiving."

Perhaps the root of sin is receiving God's blessings without thanksgiving. But to remember God's care and thank Him for it: this is the cure for ennui.

What you can do for good books

I think that one of the best-kept secrets of Lutheranism are theology books. And if you are reading this, I suspect you read at least your share of those books.

In the last 10 or 15 years, Concordia Publishing House has done a very find job of publishing incisive new books on Lutheran theology and practice. Not to mention the fine older authors whom they've been re-printing. (I'm also a very big fan of Repristination Press, which only does reprints, and has served, I suspect, as a goad to CPH and others for reprinting books which have sadly been allowed to fall out of print).

But I know about these sources. Likely you do, too. But Joe Baptist or Jane Methodist likely don't know about them, and they would profit from them, too. They are unlikely to go directly to Repristination or CPH. Where they will go is to Amazon or other online sellers. And that's where you come in.

I have tried to make a point of writing an online review for every book I read. Whether positive or negative, if I've spent the time reading it, I try to help other readers to know if the book is worthwhile or not. I often use reviews to determine if a book is worth my time. Recommendations from acquaintances whose thinking I trust are better, but failing that, a review is invaluable. And there are excellent books of Lutheran theology which need your review.

Reviews should be thoughtful, insightful, and, when possible, point to the use a reader might find for the book. Here's an example of one I did for Chemnitz's The Two Natures in Christ.

Lots of folks have bad theology. They worship a God whom they don't know well, they pray badly, and they teach others badly. But there are thoughtful readers who can be corrected. A good review may steer them to good theology.

Fistfights and abortion

This is a brief treatment I did a couple of years ago of an often-misunderstood passage in Exodus 23.

"It's a common scene: 2 young men involved in a brawl. On the street, or in a bar, or in a home. Then there's a complication: a pregnant woman is hit. Maybe she's trying to defend her husband. Maybe she's just in there for the fight. But for whatever reason, she gets involved. And her injuries are so severe that she goes into premature labor, and gives birth early.

If this sounds like a scene out of this morning's newspaper, rest assured it's not: it's taken from the book of Exodus. The people of Israel were just as prone to violence as our society is, and God gave them laws dealing with that type of violence. Unfortunately, a bad interpretation of one of those laws sometimes throws pro-life Christians for a loop.

This is the passage:

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

Our opponents will sometimes argue that this passage shows that an unborn child was not treated as a full human being. "See?" they will say, "The passage says that if men are fighting, and a pregnant woman is hurt, and then has a miscarriage, the worst punishment given was a fine." But this is not what the passage is saying.

First, we have to remember that Old Testament laws such as this one are not binding on Christians or on our societies. But by studying such passages we gain insight into how our society should deal with various issues. And I plan to show that rather than saying that an unborn child is somehow less than human, this passage shows the opposite: that the child is fully human, and that any injury or death to the child was to be dealt with like the injury or death of any other person. (The overriding concern, of course, is that God -- or his representatives in the civil government -- is the only one allowed to take human life: Exodus 20:13, Matthew 5:21, and Romans 13:9).

"Fruit" in this passage means "child," and the Bible uses this to mean a living child. (See Gen. 30:2, Deut. 7:13, Psalm 127:3, Isaiah 13:18, Hosea 9:16, and Luke 1:42).

The meaning of this passage is simple. The 2 men are brawling, the woman is injured, her child is born, "and yet no mischief follows": in other words, there is no injury to the child. The child may be a few weeks early, but still alive. However, since a pregnant woman is carrying an innocent and helpless child, she and the child have special protections, and the man who injures her is to be punished as determined by the woman's husband and the judges.

Our opponents conveniently leave out the rest of this passage. I'll quote the entire context:

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Verses 23-25 make it very plain: "if mischief follow," that is, if the child dies or is injured, there is to be appropriate punishment. And "life for life" means that the man doing the injuries was to be punished with the death penalty if he brought about the death of the child. (See Gen. 9:6).

Exodus 21 does not teach that the unborn child is expendable, somehow less than a human being. On the contrary, it teaches very plainly that the unborn are indeed "fully human," and that their lives are owed not only legal, but all ethical and moral protections."

Alexander Schmemann's 'Introduction to Liturgical Theology': an Amazon review

My latest review on Amazon.com, of Schmemann's Introduction to Liturgical Theology:

"This is an introduction to liturgical theology.

Which is not a "theology of liturgy," as important as that is.

No, Fr. Schmemann here tries to introduce us to theology as we learn it from the liturgy, how the church's liturgies have taught us about our Savior, and how the Liturgy brings us into God's Kingdom.

Schmemann was Russian Orthodox, and this book reflects that background, and most of the book deals with the liturgies of Eastern Christianity. There are occasional references to Western liturgies and Western theology, but that's not the focus of the book. But this book is a fine introduction for anyone, western or eastern.

But if you're Western (like me) here's a warning: the book can be hard to understand, just because he's dealing with topics and aspects that were unfamiliar to me. But it bears careful reading, and a thoughtful reading rewards the reader. I've just completed my third reading of the book, and found treasures here that eluded me the first 2 readings. Future readings will probably bear similar fruit.

An earlier reviewer mentioned the author's use of Greek. I don't read Greek either, but the few instances here aren't difficult to parse out for anyone who has a passing acquaintance with the Greek alphabet. I, too, would have appreciated a bibliography, but I suspect Schmemann expected to write more, and perhaps left this book's references in a somewhat unfinished state. But almost anything that Schmemann wrote is worth reading, and this book is no exception."

Undoubtedly true

Ever notice that when someone uses the word "undoubtedly," what they really mean is, "I don't have evidence for this, so I'm claiming no one can doubt it, and I'm hoping you won't question it."

Same with words and phrases such as "everyone knows," "it's common knowledge," or "common sense tells us."

In history, the dictum is "no document, no history." Which means that if there's no document (used in the broader sense of the word) there's no historical veracity. You may have informed speculation, a reasoned guess, whatever -- but without the document, you have no history.

Even more so in the church. If you can't find the biblical, confessional, liturgical or patristic (preferably all 4) evidence for something you're teaching, don't teach it. You may be right. But give the matter some rest until you know for sure. Pray, study, read, ask your mentor, but above all, make sure there's evidence for what you're setting forth.

If it's a sermon, does the appointed pericope teach what you are wanting to teach? Or are you using the text as a jumping off point for a hobby horse you're currently riding?

Even better, just preach the text. God's word is there to bring His people into the kingdom. Let the word do the job it's there to do. You're a mouthpiece. That's all. It's not an exalted job title, but it's the one God gives you. Be honored to be what God has called you to be.

The assurance of salvation: thesis 52

In Luther's day -- and throughout all of church history -- folks have sought a solid assurance of their salvation. In Luther's time, one of the false means sought was by trusting in letters of pardon from the Pope. That's what thesis 52 is addressing:

52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it.

The reality is that we are assured of trusting in the word of God. Most particularly, we trust in the words spoken to us in the Lord's Supper: "the Body of Christ, given for you," "the Blood of Christ, shed for you."

For you: that's where we stake our salvation. Knowing that on that Friday afternoon when our Savior died, it was for you, for me, for each Christian. Was it for the sins of the whole world? Of course. But we hear the words "for you," to assure us that when we despair of our sins, and when we imagine that our sins are different, that we have come one time too many for forgiveness, that even when our sins are grievous, our Savior's love and mercy is greater.

What Christians are to be taught: Luthers theses, 49-51

49. Christians are to be taught that the pope's pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.

50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter's church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.

51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope's wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.

What does this mean? "we are by nature sinful and unclean"

In logic, all it takes is one single contrary to negate an assertion.

If I make the statement, "all cheese is green," and you hand me a slice of Velveeta, you've proven me wrong.

(Which begs the question of whether Velveeta is cheese. But that's for another day).

The phrase "we are by nature sinful and unclean" is used in the confession in several liturgies in the Lutheran Service Book. On its face, the phrase is saying that human nature is by nature sinful. In other words, part of "being human" is to "be sinful."

However, 3 individuals have been human without being sinful. Adam and Eve in their pre-fall state were human, but not sinful.

But more compelling is that Christ has had a human nature from the moment of conception in the Virgin, a nature He still has.

Christ is like us in all ways without sin: a man who was thirsty, tired, sleepy, hungry.

And what's more germane to this discussion is that His being a man did not make Him a sinner, and His not being a sinner didn't make Him less of a man.

Philosophically speaking, sin is an "accident" of human nature, something that we have, but something that's not of the essence of being human. 200 years from now, none of us will be sinner, except as a historical factor. But we will still be fully and completely human.

I think I know what this phrase is trying to say: that we are shot through with sin, that sin isn't just a minor problem, but something that messes up our lives on every level.

All of that is true. But phrased the way it is, this is a very dangerous statement, one which impinges on a correct Christology.

I wish this were an example of what theologians call an "inadvertent error": one that's just crept in accidentally and temporarily. It's not. It's used in several liturgies in an official service book for the LCMS.

What I'm trying to figure out is what this tells us about our confession. Is our anthropology (our doctrine of man) messed up? Even more important, is our Christology messed up?

I'm more and more convinced that what goes on in our services and liturgies and hymns tells us more about our confession than we would care to admit. It doesn't suffice to say that this should be corrected. It should. The bigger question is how such an obvious and dangerous statement got there in the first place.

Monasticism: east and west

I'm working through Fr. Alexander Schmemann's Introduction to Liturgical Theology, and even having read it twice already, this is a valuable work that gives new insights each time.

Now the question lurking in my mind: what role has monasticism played in the church? I am only vaguely familiar with the development of monasticism in the west, and even less so in the eastern churches, but I'm intrigued by some of Schmemann's discussions about early monasticism playing a role of being the "outsider" when the church has had (say, in the years immediately after the Edict of Milan, in 313)to become an insider to the contemporary culture.

A more narrow question to me is whether para-church (usually, but not always, Protestant) are essentially lay monastic groups. I go on the assumption that there's nothing new in history, church history or otherwise. And I wonder if someone were beamed down from Mars, would a group such as Campus Crusade for Christ (now "Power to Change Ministries," the word "crusade" having fallen on hard times of late) look a lot like Rome's Opus Dei?

The crucial difference is the group's relationship with the church. My acquaintance with Campus Crusade in earlier years made me realize that these groups tend to function as church substitutes. I'm sure this is not the leadership's intention, but that's how it seemed to work out in real life. Groups such as Opus Dei, on the other hand, tend to be committed to the church's sacramental life. (The problem for Crusade may have been Protestantism's perennial problem with viewing the church as an academy for learning about the Christian faith, a view which -- historically speaking -- deficient).

Paintball for presidential candidates

If this could be realized, it would surely become overnight the favorite sport of millions of Americans.

Take your least-favorite politician, and have the chance to hit him (or her) in a paintball competition. For once, here's something that could make politicians appealing to the masses.

The measure of a man

The ultimate measure of a man is not where he
stands in moments of comfort and convenience,
but where he stands at times of challenge
and controversy.

--Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968)

3:10 to Yuma

There's a $2 theater here. One that still has a big screen and big seating and it's kind of a nostalgia trip and the basic rule is that a film comes out simultaneously on DVD when it starts showing there.

And we saw 3:10 to Yuma there last night. It was snowing lightly, a wet and mucky mess, and we weren't sure the theater would even be open. But they were, and maybe 6 other people saw the movie with us.

This is a fine movie: well-acted, good plot, excellent character development, and a good story. I'm not a big fan of violence and this movie borders on too much violence for me. But it's not gratuitous violence, and like me, you can shut your eyes in the few scenes when it gets to be too much.



I especially call attention to 2 younger actors who do an incredible job. There's Russell Crowe and Christian Bale, but you know they will be good. The ones I'm speaking of are just beginning, and do it well. First is Logan Lerman, as William Evans:



Next is Ben Foster, who plays the darkly haunting role of Charlie Prince.



You probably won't find it at a theater. But if you haven't seen 3:10, get the DVD and check out this finely-crafted movie. And if you've already seen it, watch it again.

Indian Christians under attack

I post this (from African Crisis)in order to remind us of the persecution still going on around the world. This time, in India.

Naive Americans like to think of Hinduism as a religion of peace, and perhaps it often is. But certainly not always. Incidents such as those recounted in this article remind us that Indian Christians (and foreigners there spreading the gospel) are often in danger from violent Hindus.

Date Posted: Wednesday 16-Jan-2008

"Churches have been torched and Christians murdered in waves of brutal attacks by Hindu militants in India. On 24 December, mobs of radical Hindus attacked Christian churches throughout the state of Orissa burning churches, beating Christians, looting homes, schools, medical centres and clinics run by Christians.

According to WorldNetDaily and Compass Direct, the All Indian Christian Council has documented over 1,000 violent attacks on Christians in India during the last year, 2007. In Orissa state�s Kandhamal district another 800 attacks were reported in the last week of 2007. At least 730 homes and 95 churches were burned.

Hindu extremists were reported to have launched simultaneous attacks on many churches and homes in coordinated bombings, destruction and looting, with mobs with guns and knives attacking Christians gathered for worship. The AICC Report revealed that just in one area, around the Barakhama village, 415 of the 450 homes belonging to Christians were burned. One Christian, Bhogra Naik of Barakhama was �cut into three pieces� by the Hindu militants who also destroyed his home.

Babu Joseph, of the Catholic Bishops Conference of India, stated: "What is most distressing is the regularity at which these attacks are meticulously, and almost clinically executed in order to hurt the Christians. In all these instances of atrocities against Christians it was proved beyond doubt that some right wing Hindu organizations were behind them; they indulge in unhindered hate campaigns��

Gospel For Asia President, K.P. Johannan reported on the terror campaign against Christians in Orissa state. "This is the same state where missionary Graham Staines and his two sons were martyred. The believers know they will face opposition." Graham Staines was an Australian missionary who was brutally murdered, along with his sons, by a mob of militant Hindus. Gospel For Asia also reported that their missionary leader in Orissa, Matish Junni was attacked. The mob beat Matish and shaved his head. They then mockingly paraded him around the village, shouting slurs against him and other Christians. They also forced Matish to go to their religious temple and vandalized the GFA church building project.

India Gospel Outreach reported widespread mob violence and arson in Brahminigaon. Hindu militants burned Christian schools, medical centres, clinics and churches and attacked congregations with guns, spears, axes and other traditional weapons. Thousands of Christians have lost their homes. Hundreds of Christians are missing. The number of dead is not yet known. The India Gospel Outreach reports that Orissa state has some of India�s strongest anti-conversion laws.

Gospel for Asia reports that GFA missionaries Maliik Hembrom and Anup John were attacked by fanatics, and a teenage girl and her mother were beaten for converting to Christianity. When Sonia Devi, a 14 year-old student in Jharkhand, prayed to the Lord Jesus for the healing of her father, she saw her father, Samsong, miraculously healed. Sonia and her parents committed their lives to Christ and Sonia was baptized on 5 January.

Some Hindu extremists in the village then barged into their home and dragged Sonia and her mother, Vineeta, to the local Hindu temple and subjected them, against their will, to a purification ritual designed to mark a person�s official return to Hinduism. They also attacked the GFA missionaries that they held responsible for this family�s conversion.

Compass Direct News identifies Swami Laxmananda Saraswati, the leader of the World Hindu Council (Vishwa Hindu Parishad�VHP) as a key instigator of the co-ordinated mob attacks on Christians. For over a decade Saraswati has opposed Christians and missionary work in India.

"Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the Word of the Lord may run swiftly and be glorified, just as it is with you, and that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men; for not all have faith." 2 Thessalonians 3:1-2"

What it means to subscribe to the Lutheran confesssions: citations

In response to my posting yesterday "What it means to subscribe to the Lutheran confessions" (the listing of the 18 assertions from the confessions -- and the citations -- is stolen from my friend Fr. William Weedon's website), several people asked for citations of where these things are to be found. Here ya go:


1. Virginity is a higher gift than marriage.

2. Mary prays for the Church

3. Mary is called the most holy virgin

4. Prayer for the dead is not useless

5. It would be wicked thing for private absolution to disappear from the church

6. The bread in the Lord’s Supper is Christ’s body.

7. Pastors do not commune those they have not examined and absolved.

8. Mary is the Mother of God.

9. Justification can mean “to declare righteous” or “to make righteous” because Scripture speaks both ways.

10. 2 Maccabees is Scripture.

11. In the Eucharist the flesh of Christ given for the life of the world is our food and makes us alive by joining us to Christ.

12. We should teach people that church rites (made by humans) are to be kept if they can be observed without sin and contribute to peace and good order.

13. The best way for the Church to be governed is to have one head, Christ, and all the bishops – equal in office – keep diligently together in unity of teaching, faith, sacraments, prayers and works of love.

14. When the church is deprived of valid judicial process, you can’t remove ungodly teachings and impious forms of worship.

15. An ordination performed by a pastor in his own church is valid by divine right.

16. Children should be taught to make the sign of the cross.

17. The baptized children of God have free will and cooperate with the Holy Spirit.

18. After Baptism, the inborn corruption is to daily decrease so that we become increasingly gentle, patient, and meek, breaking away from greed, hatred, envy, and pride.

Answer Key:

1. Apology XXIII (XI), paragraph 38; Apology XXII:10

2. Apology XXI (IX), paragraph 27

3. Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, VIII, paragraph 24

4. Apology XXIV (XII), paragraph 96

5. Apology XII:100

6. SA 3 III:6:1

7. Apology XXIV:1

8. Formula of Concord, Epitome VIII:12

9. Apology, Article IV, par. 71, 72.

10. Apology XXI (IX), paragraph 9

11. Apology XXII:10

12. AC XV:1

13. SA Part II:4:9

14. Treatise on the Primacy and Power of the Pope, par. 51

15. Treatise on the Primacy and Power of the Pope, par. 65

16. Small Catechism, Morning / Evening Prayers, par, 1, 4

17. Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, II:67

18. Large Catechism IV:65-67

Using Google books to find out of print theology books

I have to admit that I'm not ready to read everything online.

Call it a middle-age thing, but I still prefer the feel and portability of an actual book. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but for now I prefer books on paper rather than on a screen.

Which is not to say that I don't find books useful. And particularly when the book is way, way out of print, Google Books is a very useful tool.

As an example, I had long wanted a copy of Charles Porterfield Krauth's The Conservative Reformation. And none were available. The book was long out of print, and when used copies would come up for sale on Amazon, they would fetch astonishing prices. Say, $150. In other words, more than I cared to spend.

Along comes Google Books. Google Books has the modest goal of printing at least a preview of every book ever printed. I can't say how far along they are; there are a lot of books that have been printed. But a book like Krauth's (now actually back in print thanks to CPH) is available, and you can actually read the entire book online if you are so inclined. The secret is that Krauth's book was published before 1922 -- which means that it -- and every book with a pre-1922 publication date -- is out of copyright, and anyone who wishes can print it.

Books go out of print for a variety of reasons. Some very fine books go out of print for long periods. What you will be surprised to find is how many useful books there are out there that are no longer being sold.

Here's how you do it. Go to "books.google.com" In the search space at the top, type in something: "Lutheran" or "theology" or "liturgy." Now look for "full view" at the top, and click on that. The next page will show books which are available for reading the entire book online. 99% of these will be out of print books.

What I find very useful with this service are finding very narrow, very specialized information. For example, if you're interested in regional church histories, there are congregational histories that were printed in very small press runs, and copies almost impossible to locate. But Google Books gives you the opportunity to read such materials, information that would have been unavailable even 20 years ago.

What it means to subscribe to the Lutheran confesssions

Quia means one subscribes the Lutheran Confessions BECAUSE they are a faithful exposition of Scripture - every Lutheran likes to think he's a quia. The nasty alternative is quatenus - subscribing insofar as the Confessions agree with Scripture.

True or False:

1. Virginity is a higher gift than marriage.

2. Mary prays for the Church

3. Mary is called the most holy virgin

4. Prayer for the dead is not useless

5. It would be wicked thing for private absolution to disappear from the church

6. The bread in the Lord’s Supper is Christ’s body.

7. Pastors do not commune those they have not examined and absolved.

8. Mary is the Mother of God.

9. Justification can mean “to declare righteous” or “to make righteous” because Scripture speaks both ways.

10. 2 Maccabees is Scripture.

11. In the Eucharist the flesh of Christ given for the life of the world is our food and makes us alive by joining us to Christ.

12. We should teach people that church rites (made by humans) are to be kept if they can be observed without sin and contribute to peace and good order.

13. The best way for the Church to be governed is to have one head, Christ, and all the bishops – equal in office – keep diligently together in unity of teaching, faith, sacraments, prayers and works of love.

14. When the church is deprived of valid judicial process, you can’t remove ungodly teachings and impious forms of worship.

15. An ordination performed by a pastor in his own church is valid by divine right.

16. Children should be taught to make the sign of the cross.

17. The baptized children of God have free will and cooperate with the Holy Spirit.

18. After Baptism, the inborn corruption is to daily decrease so that we become increasingly gentle, patient, and meek, breaking away from greed, hatred, envy, and pride.

According to the Lutheran confessions, all 18 of these should be marked "true."

Getting to the heart of the matter: differences between eastern and western liturgies

When Christian liturgies are compared, a fundamental division is east and west.

An oversimplified description is that while eastern liturgies tend to go round and round, to repeat things over and over, western liturgies tend to be lean, to go directly to the point, to be cut and dried. Western churches often think of this as a virtue, feeling that western liturgies get to the heart of the matter quickly and succinctly.

I've argued elsewhere that this may not be as good as some think it is. To me the question comes down to how humans think: are we direct-thinking, logical creatures or are we perhaps more roundabout than we sometimes realize?

The biblical revelation is an example. There's no reason God couldn't have given us a fairly succinct statement of what He had to tell us. A perhaps expanded version of the the Commandments, the Creed, and one book giving in detail the life of Christ.

But He didn't. Instead the Bible can be maddeningly roundabout, going off on tangents, telling us things that seem perplexingly irrelevant and not providing information (such as details on the earthly life of Christ) that believers have wondered about for centuries.

And maybe this is the way we really think (as opposed to our rationalist vision of how our minds (not to mention our spirits) operate.

I think that the problem for western liturgies (especially in church bodies such Lutheran where the liturgy is not fixed) is that those who think themselves rational will often want to lop off even things "because they're not really necessary." Even when things aren't lopped off, there seems to be an obsession with not repeating. So a church which starts a service with a Baptism -- with a confession of the Creed -- will take pains to not use the Creed again later in the Service when it would normally occur. As if somehow our brains might explode if we "had to" confess our faith twice in an hour or so!

Is "necessity" a good criteria for the liturgy? The analogy is whether it's "necessary" to tell my wife that I love her. Of course, I could reason, she "knows" that I love her. But that's just not the way humans operate. Why do we feel like it's how we operate in the Mass?

There are no uneducated men

"And so, sincerely speaking, there are no uneducated men. They may escape the trivial examinations, but not the tremendous examinations of existence. The dependence of infancy, the enjoyment of animals, the love of woman and the fear of death -- these are more frightful and more fixed than all conceivable forms of the cultivation of the mind. It is idle to complain of schools and colleges being trivial. In no case will a college ever teach the important things. He has learnt them right or wrong, and he has learnt them all alone."

G. K. Chesterton

The importance of the Creed

We are saved not by our correct confession -- as important as that is -- but by our trust in the One in Whom we confess.

The importance of the Creed is that the Creed tells us the nature of the One we trust. And conversely, helps us not to trust in false gods.

A side issue to that is to avoid messing with the Creed. It's a constant temptation to imagine that people are bored with the Creed, that we've heard it enough, that we know everything there is to know.

We don't. But that's not the point. The Creed not only tells us about the nature of the One we are to trust, but about the nature of the world, the unity and diversity of reality, the source of creedal knowledge, the end of time, and eternity.

Does American weather affect our theology?

Writer Camille Paglia recently suggested that the extremes of American weather may be part of the cause of the apocalypticism that bedevils American culture. She specifically contrasted American weather with the relatively placid weather on the European landmass.

I think Paglia may be on to something. The continental US is a place of violent weather extremes. Europeans have no comparable phenomenon to our hurricanes, which regularly wreak havoc. Hurricane Katrina, for example, was one of those once-a-century storms, as was the unnamed storm that hit Galveston in 1900, killing some 6,000 people. Likewise, some 99% of all tornadoes occur in the continental US, not to mention the extremes of cold and heat that occur almost every day of the year on our land. "Lesser" weather issues -- such as the extreme drought now gripping the southeastern US, or the firestorms that regularly hit southern California -- are with us so regularly that we tend not to think about them. Anyone who has never lived through a tornado storm -- I've been through 2, and I live in North Carolina, which isn't even a heavy area for tornadoes -- probably cannot understand the sudden ferocity with which such storms hit. (I wonder how folks in other parts of the world see the film The Wizard of Oz, centering as it does around a catastrophic storm, a type of storm found almost nowhere else). Not to mention the end-of-time feel that a monster storm like Katrina can generate in millions of people living in its path.

Apocalypticism in theology is my concern, but an apocalyptic strain runs through American culture in general. Think, for example, about how Americans tend to resolve conflict by violence. We began in a revolution, we needed a war to end chattel slavery -- unlike every other western hemispheric country with a history of slavery -- and we tend to be far more violent as a people than most countries.

Our apocalyptic, end of time theological trends shape a lot of how Americans think. A large number of Americans -- perhaps a majority -- expect a literal, physical, cataclysmic battle between Christ and Satan within our lifetimes, and I suspect that that expectation shapes how these Christians view not only theology but politics.

We like to imagine that our theology is purely a product of thinking and reflection. It's not. A lot of factors play into what we "hear" theologically, and what we throw away. Factors such as weather, climate, history, geography, and our family dynamics can conspire to affect how we talk about God. Knowing that those factors are there -- and trying to understand how they affect us -- are important to right thinking about theology.

Review: Alexander Schmemann's 'Liturgy and Tradition'

A review today on amazon.com:

"Over 20 years ago, I was studying the theological writings of a young Presbyterian writer. That man recommended Fr. Schmemann's 'For the Life of the World.' I read the book, and it changed my life. What better recommendation can one give to a writer?

I am not Eastern Orthodox, and I am not Russian. But the truly ecumenical nature of Fr. Schmemann's work is that an American Lutheran layman like myself can grow, be challenged by, and profit from this man's writings. 'Liturgy and Tradition' is a collection of essays by (and several about) Fr. Schmemann and his work studying the nature of the church's liturgy and how our faith and theology grow from that liturgy. Published after Schmemann's untimely death in 1983, several of the essays here are slightly fragmentary, but the book is worthwhile and thought-provoking.

The book challenges the way most of us do theology, since we start with theoretical constructs and work toward the liturgy. Schmemann suggests that we would better work from the liturgy, and let our theology grow from that. I don't always think he's right, but one can't walk away from his work without being provoked to think through our conceptions of the church and God's word. I'd also encourage (in conjunction with this book) reading Schmemann's 'Introduction to Liturgical Theology,' which helps to flesh out and explain some of the material here."

Review: Nigel Barley's 'The Innocent Anthropologist'

my review from Amazon.com:


"If you've ever suffered through an anthropology course, you know that "suffering" is the proper word. Anthropology should be totally, completely fascinating -- it's the study of human cultures, for heaven's sake -- but it's often a dry-as-dust class for college students.

This book is not dry. In fact, it's probably the only anthropology book that can bring the reader to tears of laughter.

Which is not to say that the book is a comedy. It's not. The book is a sympathetic and interesting take on the writer's study of the Dowayo people. But the Dowayo people -- like any other ethnic group or people -- have quirks that the people themselves cannot see. Nigel Barley lives among the Dowayo and documents their lives, tells how he does anthropology, and manages to do so in a way that makes the book one I sometimes pick up, open at random, and enjoy."

Information about our brothers and sisters in Christ in Kenya

I recently received the following email, and post it that we might better pray, and that we might give, if we are able.

"Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Some of you received an email from me already concerning my friend
and classmate, Rev. Dennis Meeker, his wife, and the church/medical
clinic that they are serving in Kenya. [I realize that some of you
know Dennis and Lorna, too.] A copy of the email Rev. Meeker sent
is below for those of you who did not get it already. I ask that you
keep them all in your prayers.

As you can imagine, there is much need for monetary help there. I
communicated with Rev. Meeker this afternoon and I have information
on how to get financial aid to them. I am asking you to prayerfully
consider helping God's servants in need. Also, please pass this
information along to others, as the need is great and the more
donations the better. Here's a way you can offer financial help.
Send a check to my church - Trinity Lutheran Church Manito (address
below) with "Missions" written in the memo line. We will collect the
monies and then donate them as one lump sum to an organization that
is offering to match the funds for them - thereby doubling your
donation. All donations are tax deductible and you will receive a
receipt of your donation. Since the need is urgent, please act as
quickly as possible - although any donations will be accepted
regardless of how long they take to come in. If you have questions,
please don't hesitate to ask! Thanks in advance.

Yours, in Christ,

Dan Chambers
Trinity Lutheran Church
110 S. Park Ave
Manito, IL 61546
309-968-6984
.........................................
Dear Brothers in Christ,

In the midst of turmoil caused by the Presidential election I wish to
inform you that Springs of Life Lutheran Church and Medical Clinic
has suffered severe damage as rioters looted everything and then set
it on fire. Our nursery school has also been looted and burned. It
happened in the early afternoon 3rd of January. Please continue to
pray for us. We thank God our faith is not in material possessions.

Our faith will stand firm and we pray God's intervention for the sake
of Kenya. Jesus said: "I will never leave you or forsake you" Lorna
and I are fine in the midst of much sorrow. We live away from the
high tension zone and communicate by phone to our people in the area.
We rejoice in the fact that faith does not burn and the church is
never destroyed.

Yours in Christ,

Rev. Dennis Meeker"

What the pope needs: theses 47 and 48

47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.

48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.

Providing for our own: thesis 46

St. Paul is very clear in I Timothy 5.8: "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." Luther is pretty stern in thesis 46 in pointing out the consequences of this: those who are our own come before any purchase of pardons.

And never imagine that this problem has ceased: this also applies to the hucksters of our time who prey on the faithful to get their money.

"46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons."

Review: Edward Harrison's 'Darkness at Night: A Riddle of the Universe'

Here's my review, but this is why I post this to a theology blog: I think that Olbers' paradox is one of those clues to a young-earth cosmology that is frequently overlooked. I'm indebted to the astronomer who brought this question to my attention, and obviously found this book to be a well-written overview of the subject. I hasten to add that the author is not a young-earth astronomer.

"I've been something of a minor astronomy geek all of my life, but until a few years ago, I'd never thought of the riddle we usually call "Olbers' paradox": if the universe is infinite, and contains an infinite number of stars, why is the sky dark at night? In other words, why is every spot in the night (or day) sky not filled with stars, if starlight should be coming at us from every point.

I first encountered this when reading a piece by a young-earth astronomer, and have been fascinated by it ever since.

This is a problem that goes back at least to Aristotle. Dr. Olbers (an ophthalmologist who was born in 1758) merely gave a name to this problem. And while if you've never thought about it, the issue may sound trivial, it's not. There are even some who consider this one of the primary concerns for cosmology.

Edward Harrison has done a bang-up job in covering this question. Harrison is a professor of physics and astronomy -- fields not noted for their lucid writing style -- but he writes clearly, interestingly, and well. He combines the ability to write well with a thorough (obviously) knowledge of the subject of which he's writing. It's a good read, a good well-written overview, and accessible to even a relatively ignorant lay reader like myself. It's a fun read, too."

Love and pardons: theses 44 and 45

44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.

45. 45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.

Where the Holy Family lived in Egypt

OK, so maybe you are blessed to not be a complete and total nerd.

Unlike me.

To give you an idea, on the morning of 9/11, with all that sadness going on before our eyes, I remember thinking, "There are people not yet alive who will spend their careers studying the events of this day."

A psychologist would call this projection ...

Nevertheless, one of the nerdy things I think about is this: when Mary and Joseph took the infant Savior into Egypt because of Herod's murderous schemes (Matthew 2.13-19) where did the holy family live?

Scripture gives us no clue. But not surprisingly, these auspicious visitors made an impression, and tradition has recorded their stay as being in Heliopolis.

While reading Jeremias' Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (reviewed here yesterday) he mentions something I had never heard of: that there was a Jewish temple established in the Egyptian city of Leontopolis, located 180 stadia (= just under 24 miles) from the city of Memphis.

Now there are several reasons given in Jeremias for the extraordinary event of establishing a temple outside of Jerusalem, but the primary one seems to have been practical: there was a large Jewish diaspora in Egypt, and the temple was needed for sacrifices, Passover celebrations, and other liturgical events not possible in a synagogue. This Egyptian temple seems to have had a grudging acceptance in Jewish Palestine, while the other extra-Jerusalem temple was despised: the Samaritan establishment of a temple on Mt. Gerazim. (See John 4.20).

Since the angelic dream instructions (in Matt. 2.13) were non-specific ("flee into Egypt") it would have been logical for St. Joseph to have taken the child into a region where there was an acceptable temple.

But why in Heliopolis and not Leontopolis? The answer to this riddle is that Helopolis is a region of Egypt, while Leontopolis is a city within that region. Like Atlanta (city) being in the state/"region" of Georgia. Thus the Holy Family would have been within a proximate distance of the temple. We can only surmise what their use of the temple might have been, but they were within the general vicinity of the temple. If St. Joseph -- as it seems -- had discretion as to where he should take the family, bringing the infant Savior close to a temple would make sense.

'Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus,' by Joachim Jeremias: my Amazon review

"You know, I read quickly, but it took me weeks to finish this book.

Because even for a fast reader, this is tough, tough going.

But Jeremias is always worthwhile, and this book is no exception. What he gives us here is a mental picture of the Jerusalem area (which would have included "suburban" areas around the city) in the first century, around the time of Christ. It's not an idealized picture of the city, or a prettied up version, but a landscape grounded in reality, and using source documents to flesh out what the city would have looked like, and what it would have been like to have lived in the city at that time.

Which is what makes it tough going: because Jeremias refuses to do the lazy way of writing such a history, and he deals with the hard questions such as whether certain numbers may be exaggerated, or the biases of various source writers. But I would encourage anyone with a desire to know the time of Jesus better to devote the hard work necessary to going through this book. You will grow in your appreciation not only for the New Testament documents, but for the Lord who makes it important to learn about this city at that time.

I do not agree with everything Jeremias says. For example, he obviously thinks that the gospel writers could err, and John 10.35 and 2 Timothy 3.16 make this an impossible means of dealing with a problem text. But don't let this dissuade you from using Jeremias' invaluable work.

My one other disagreement is that I feel the author on occasion uses examples from 19th and early 20th century Palestine as arguing points about an issue, and the conditions and times from the intervening almost 2000 years make me uncomfortable with such arguments except as, perhaps, tangential illustrations. If the author were writing now (the book is some 75 years old), he might use such illustrations differently."

Your next president

The following is not about theology. So you have been warned. : )

What I'm doing is going out on a limb, and predicting who will be the next president of the US.

You will likely know in a month (probably less) if I'm very smart. Or if I have made a complete fool out of myself. So here goes.

A year and a half ago, in this posting on another blog (as well as in an op-ed piece in a local newspaper), I predicted that Hillary Clinton would win her senate race in 2006 (she did, but that was kind of a no-brainer) and that she would not be elected president next year. I stand by that prediction.

The bottom line is that since 1960 -- 47 years ago -- we have not elected a president from outside the southern or western US.

We have also not elected a sitting senator since 1960.

Think about it: this is a strong pattern in American presidential elections, one that has held for the lifetimes of most of those who will be voting next year.

My prediction: on Jan. 20, 2009, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas will become president.

I don't support Gov. Huckabee. I disagree with him on some significant areas. But he is the only candidate running who fits the pattern for electability in post 20th/early 21st century America: he is a Southern governor. The only others who come close to the pattern are former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson (who doesn't seem to have generated much excitement) and Texas representative Ron Paul, who is running an uphill battle because Americans seldom elect Representatives to the White House.

Slideshow of the exhibition on the prodigal son

I mentioned yesterday the exhibition at the Museum of Biblical Art of art around the theme of the prodigal son in Luke 15. I just found this slideshow of a few of the pieces from the exhibition. It's not as good as the real thing, but if you're in Bangkok and not quite able to get there, it's a good preview.

Back from New York!

OK, so now I'm back from our annual visit to my wife's family (thanks, Phyllis!) in New York. We got back in safely about 2 hours ago. Now a couple of thoughts for the new year.

First, for those within visiting distance of New York City, consider visiting the Museum of Biblical Art's exhibition of paintings centering on the theme of the prodigal son. It's a fine, enjoyable exhibition of probably 3 dozen art pieces, ranging in time from medieval to contemporary, and well worth the visit. Suggested donation is $7.

Secondly, if you've never enjoyed opera -- or if you haven't enjoyed it in a while -- consider taking in an opera in 2008. Oh, it's easy to make fun of this wildly extravagant art form. It's big and overdone and often over the top, and it's usually performed in a foreign language, but the learning curve is not steep, and I enjoy it immensely.

The reason I mention it now is that my son Matt and I were privileged to see the Metropolitan Opera's performance of War and Peace. It's all of the above: a cast of probably over 100, overdone with a huge stage -- including a live horse on stage! -- it was all in Russian (with English subtitles) and lasted 4 hours and 15 minutes.

Tickets for seats there start at $105. But because I am cheap, we bought standing room spots for about $25. Now I am a big fan of standing for such things (church, too, but that's for a different day) but standing for over 4 hours (with a 20 minute intermission) was almost too much for me. But it was still a wonderful night, and a great performance and I have loved almost every one I've seen. (We saw Mozart's Die Zauberflute last year at the Metropolitan, and saw a local performance of Madama Butterfly this Spring).

My wife does not share my tastes. But I trust she will come around. Maybe you will, too.

Some giving suggestions for the new year

OK, so you're burned out from giving and buying and everything else at the end of this Christmas season. But here's an article with some helpful suggestions about giving. I don't agree with everything this guy (Gary North, at garynorth.com) says, but I do agree with these thoughts. Giving to the huge, "name" organizations is not for me. Here are his ideas, and a couple of suggestions for giving:

"When looking to make year-end charitable
contributions, I ask myself this question:

What organization is doing a really good job that
either has little publicity or is very new?

The reason why I ask this is so that I get more bang
for my bucks. There are large organizations that will not
miss my donation. There are small ones that will put the
money to unique uses that would not be funded otherwise.

That's why I don't give to United Way or the Salvation
Army. These are large, successful organizations that will
meet their budgets without me. But some small, struggling
organization really does need my money. It is not well
known. It is on very few people's list to send $50 to.

For them, a $1,000 or more donation makes a
difference.

I give from after-tithe money, which goes to my local
congregation.

A good choice is any outfit that has made a big
difference in your life or the life of someone close to
you. Ask a relative about such an organization.

One that I give to sinks water wells in African
villages. One well will provide water for 1,000 people
for decades. That's a gift that keeps on giving.

http://www.garynorth.com/snip/420.htm

Another great project is Plumpy'nut. It's a peanut-
based food given to starving children. The food doesn't
require refrigeration. It's high in protein. It's cheap.
Mothers walk for a day once a month to get a container. It
saves lots of lives. It's a new product.

http://www.projectpeanutbutter.org"

The road less taken

Robert Frost's seemingly simple take on life. And yet not simple. Like many of Frost's poems, Road is darker and far more complex than it initially seems. I was reading it yesterday, and was struck again by what it means to us all.

TWO roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

Off for a few days

I'm taking off for a few days for Christmas.

May you have a joy-filled Christmas week, and a happy 2008!

How did our mystery song get into the LSB?

Yesterday I talked about Lift Every Voice and Sing, song 964 in the Lutheran Service Book.

So how does a song in which the gospel is not preached, which doesn't mention Christ, which gives nothing of the law, and is written by a self-described agnostic get into a Lutheran hymn and service book -- especially one published by an ostensibly conservative group like the Missouri Synod?

It's easy: Lift Every Voice is a favorite among one of the special interest groups which populate the LCMS. This particular group are the Black Ministry folks. Distinguished, of course, from Lutheran congregations which happen to have a majority of black congregants.

We note from yesterday's posting that Lift Every Voice experienced a revival of interest in the 1970s, and this probably explains even further how it got into LSB. Black pastors coming of age (or coming into the ministry) in the 1970s would have been exposed to it. And because the musical and cultural tastes of individuals are often set in stone in their late teens and 20s, these pastors grew to love Lift Every Voice. And when their particular special group got polled for "What songs would you like in the new book?," Lift Every Voice was a natural.

As a song, Lift is not all that bad. It's a bit generic, and it's starting to wear its 20th century quality a bit thin. But there's nothing wrong with it. It's fine to sing at a community function, or a school, or a rally. But it doesn't belong in a hymnal. Especially when certain folks who helped compile it are among those who regularly criticize other church bodies for their hymnody.

A few months back, I quoted a Primitive Baptist who said, "Hymns are small sermons." He was correct. Which means that as with all sermons, a hymn should preach a clear message, should properly distinguish law and gospel, should set forth Christ, and should bring us to the cross. Lift isn't the only hymn in LSB which fails to do these things. But it's an obvious example of one that got there in spite of its obvious faults.

Tomorrow: why Lift is a micrcosm of the problems in the LCMS.

The identity of the mystery song

The answer to my mystery song quiz is "Lift Every Voice and Sing" (LSB 964). The author is writer and professor James Weldon Johnson.

Check out your hymnal and see if you can -- without coming to it with preconceived ideas -- find the gospel in this hymn. Or the law preached lawfully. I can't.

Here's some information on Lift Every Voice, from Wikipedia:

"Lift Every Voice and Sing — often called "The Negro National Anthem" — was written as a poem by James Weldon Johnson (1871-1938) and then set to music by his brother John Rosamond Johnson (1873-1954) in 1900. It was first performed in public in the hometown of Jacksonville, Florida as part of a celebration of Lincoln's Birthday on February 12, 1900 by a choir of 500 schoolchildren at the segregated Stanton School, where James Weldon Johnson was principal.

Singing this song quickly became a way for African Americans to demonstrate their patriotism and hope for the future. In calling for earth and heaven to "ring with the harmonies of Liberty," they could speak out subtly against racism and Jim Crow laws — and especially the huge number of lynchings accompanying the rise of the Ku Klux Klan at the turn of the century. In 1919, the NAACP adopted the song as "The Negro National Anthem." By the 1920s, copies of "Lift Every Voice and Sing" could be found in black churches across the country, often pasted into the hymnals.

During and after the American Civil Rights Movement, the song experienced a rebirth, and by the 1970's was often sung immediately after The Star Spangled Banner at public events and performances across the United States where the event had a significant African-American population.

In 1990, singer Melba Moore released a modern rendition of the song, which she recorded along with others including R&B artists Anita Baker, Stephanie Mills, Dionne Warwick, Bobby Brown, Stevie Wonder, Jeffrey Osborne, and Howard Hewett; and gospel artists BeBe and CeCe Winans, Take 6, and The Clark Sisters. Partly because of the success of this recording, Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing was entered into the Congressional Record as the official African American National Hymn."

All of which is fine as is. But what's this song doing in the Lutheran Service Book? I'll put forth my guess tomorrow.

More on our mystery song from LSB

A few more hints about the song I've mentioned: written by a self-described agnostic, written to commemorate an anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birthday.

Unlike the canonical book of Esther, the song does mention God. (But given that the author is agnostic about this God of whom he speaks, what might this tell us about the God who's invoked?)

There's no church.

No Christ. Of course, no gospel. As we might expect, pure law.

It invokes memories of a particular ethnic group.

Later: which song I'm speaking of. And a likely reason why it's in the Lutheran Service Book. And what its inclusion in LSB tells us about the current state and future of the Missouri Synod.

When Christians bought pardons and didn't give to the poor: theses 44 & 45

44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.

45. 45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives his money for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.

The buying of pardons: theses 42 and 43

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;

The agnostic songwriter: another clue

My mini-puzzle started yesterday, when I asked you to guess which song in Lutheran Service Book was written by a self-described agnostic.

Another clue today: the song was written to celebrate an anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth. (Not, it should be noted, the birth of Christ or one of the saints).

True contrition -- and liberal pardons: theses 40 and 41

40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].

41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.

What song was written by an agnostic?

December is nearly always busy. My work is busy, and then there's all the wonderful stuff with church and parties and such. So that explains my dearth of postings in the last week or so. But I will endeavor to do better.

Here's a puzzle for you. More clues will come, God willing, tomorrow.

Which song -- I will not use the word "hymn" to describe it -- in Lutheran Service Book was written by an agnostic?

When the Pope correctly speaks God's word: theses 38 and 39

This is one of those toughies among the theses. Here Luther puts forth the debating point that when the Pope proclaims God's forgiveness, it's true: he proclaims that God in Christ has forgiven the sins of the whole world.

Of course, it's not just the Pope who speaks that forgiveness: any priest who speaks the gospel to a sinner does the same thing.

38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation in the blessings of the Church which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.

39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and the need of true contrition.

What Mormonism is all about

As the Mormons try harder and harder to portray themselves to the non-Mormon public as just another mainline Protestant denomination, it's important to know some of the things that make them different. While I'm willing to stretch the concept of "church" a ways, there are lines and boundaries and the Mormons are outside of those lines.

This is an interesting cartoon synopsis of Mormon teaching.

Stand up, stand up for Jesus

While I'm on a semi-rant about methods of preaching, I'll point out another issue with the church-as-classroom.

Winston Churchill said, "We shape our buildings, and thereafter they shape us." This can especially be said about churches.

Build churches without icons, and we forget that we are -- per Hebrews 12.1 -- surrounded by the saints of God.

Build churches without a crucifix, and we forget the cross.

Make a baptismal font insignificant, and baptism will become -- to us, not to God -- insignificant.

But the problem I address today is pews. Go into 99% of churches in the US, and one will find the following structure: a pulpit facing rows of pews. Which looks like a variant of a lecture hall. And as I mentioned in an earlier post, people (preacher and congregation) begin to imagine that they are there for their weekly dose of religious instruction.

Most of our eastern brethren realize that it's quite improper for us to sit in the presence of a king. Especially the King of kings. But sit we do.

Remove the pews. Provide seats around the side so the frail or elderly or tired or nursing mothers or whomever can sit down when they need to. But most of the congregants can and should stand.

Remove the pulpit. Let the preacher stand in Christ's stead in the midst of the congregation and proclaim God's word to God's people.

More about the sermon tomorrow.

What Christians have: thesis 37

37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.

What happens if you write a sermon out?

I know that writing out one's sermon is a cherished idea. I suspect it starts with homiletics class, where we wrote the sermon out in advance, so the professor could critique the sermon. The problem is that guys keep doing writing them out. And woe to those who deviate from the written sermon. Supposedly, this is a path to rank heresy.

The problem is not with the written sermon itself. It's what it does to the preacher and the preaching style. We all know those guys who talk in a perfectly normal voice over coffee but develop a stained-glass voice for sermons. Not an interesting, beautiful voice, but what they hope to be A Holy Voice. And what they do is end up sounding pretentious.

I honestly think that pulpits are also part of the problem. It's not uncommon in Missouri Synod circles to mock those who preach outside the pulpit as "chancel prancers" or the like, but let's objectively look at what preaching from the pulpit suggests. It looks like a lectern, and is likely to make the preacher think he's lecturing. And the congregation becomes -- rather than the sheep being fed by the shepherd -- a group of students, dutifully hearing their weekly dose of religious instruction.

And a church is not a classroom. A sermon is not a lecture. Celebration of the Eucharist shows that we are giving forth life, and faithfully -- per the Augsburg Confession -- giving and receiving Christ's Body and Blood is one of the best ways to reinforce that church is not -- per Melanchthon -- a "heavenly academy."

More tomorrow.

Those pesky "letters of pardon": thesis 36

36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.

cf. John 1.11-14: "He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Should preachers write their sermons out?

Been doing some non-theology reading recently (as I said earlier, it's good mental cross-pollination, and helps us stay fresh), and this book has me intrigued with the discussion of the differences between oral language and written language.

The vast majority of the world's languages have never been written out. Those of us who speak one of the world's big 20 languages forget that. At least I do. But most language is a spoken thing, ever-changing, ever growing and fluid.

McWhorter speaks at some length about how our language changes when we write it down. We imagine that it doesn't, but it's almost always vastly different. Which leads me to the question of the day: should preachers write their sermons out?

A sermon is a preaching of the gospel. It is not a religious discourse, a lecture, or a holding forth on issues of contemporary interest -- though it might incidentally be any or all of these. But the primary purpose of preaching is to proclaim the word of God to those who hear.

Some sermons are wonderful. We're all heard those that spoke immediately, crisply and succinctly to what we needed to hear. And we all know the duds. Those without direction, without a point, hard to listen to, and even harder to remember.

I've begun to wonder if writing out a sermon can be the first step to irrelevance. I shouldn't use the word. It's a 60s buzz word, when an irrelevant sermon meant one that didn't address the Vietnam war. But I mean irrelevant in the broader sense of the word, a sermon that doesn't connect the gospel to those who hear.

There are horror stories. C. F. W. Walther -- if I remember correctly -- mentions preachers in Germany who lectured on potato growing. And I distinctly remember a preacher who regularly recycled sermons. Which is not bad in itself, but please, please change illustrations that are dated or have no connection with the congregation listening.

Anything written out acquires an importance just by being written. We tend to think of it as A Learned Discourse. Something for a journal. Or at least a newspaper.

But the point of a sermon is NOT to preach something that people will read later, that people will admire, that someone will put in a collection of sermons. It's to give the word of life to dying souls. and I think that writing out a sermon tends to untether it from the reading that the sermon should be expositing.

More tomorrow --

Is contrition needed?

Thesis 35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessional licenses.