Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones: Romanizing Bunker Blaster?

We had our first-ever Feast of the Annunciation of our Lord on March 25 at my parish. Because we are rotating pulpits for Lent, my friend Pr. Eric Brown presided here, while I served a contemporary Lenten service at another congregation. He did a good job, my spies report. :)

When the Director of Music and I were selecting hymns for the service, I immediately thought of "Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones." But there was controversy: do we sing "Alleluia" for this feast or refrain because we are still in Lent? I decided not to sing "alleluia". Correct me if I am wrong.

The big issue, however: how in the world did this hymn ever make it past our doctrinal review? Here are the words.

Ye watchers and ye holy ones,
Bright seraphs, cherubim, and thrones,
Raise the glad strain: “Alleluia!”
Cry out, dominions, princedoms, pow’rs,
Archangels, virtues, angel choirs:
“Alleluia, alleluia!”
Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia!

O higher than the cherubim,
More glorious than the seraphim,
Lead their praises: "Alleluia!"
Thou bearer of the eternal Word,
Most gracious, magnify the Lord:
“Alleluia, alleluia!”
Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia!

Respond, ye souls in endless rest,
Ye patriarchs and prophets blest:
“Alleluia, alleluia!”
Ye holy twelve, ye martyrs strong,
All saints triumphant, raise the song:
“Alleluia, alleluia!”
Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia!

O friends, in gladness let us sing,
Eternal anthems echoing:
“Alleluia, alleluia!”
To God the Father, God the Son,
And God the Spirit, Three in One:
“Alleluia, alleluia!”
Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia!

First issue: Lutherans generally don't talk to our guardian angels, nor any other angel. The Confessions portray that talking to creatures we cannot see as prayer, and thus it would be idolatrous.

This leads to the second issue, the second stanza. Our Orthodox friends will recognize this stanza immediately. It's Marian, that is, addressed to the Virgin Mary. She is higher than the cherubim and more glorious than the seraphim because she "bore the eternal Word" in her womb. The cherubim and seraphim attend the the throne of God. She is the seat where the Son of God took residence.

But do Lutherans speak this way about the Virgin Mary? Not usually. Is it incorrect? I don't think so. But there's still a problem: we address her in this stanza. As a life-long Lutheran, I know it's one thing to address an angel ("pray to an angel"), but addressing the Virgin Mary? Das geht nicht.

Which is the issue in the last two stanzas as well, calling upon the saints and martyrs likewise to praise the Lord.

Now... I don't think I will call the wrath of the Brute Squad down on me for saying I'm very glad this hymn is included. I personally do not think it is incorrect. It is not idolatrous in the least.

But I cannot see how it jibes with the rhetoric of the Confessions which state:

But the Scripture teaches not the invocation of saints or to ask help of saints, since it sets before us the one Christ as the Mediator, Propitiation, High Priest, and Intercessor. 3] He is to be prayed to, and has promised that He will hear our prayer; and this worship He approves above all, to wit, that in all afflictions He be called upon, 1 John 2, 1: 4] If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, etc. (AC XXI)

...Scripture does not teach the invocation of the saints, or that we are to ask the saints for aid. But since neither a command, nor a promise, nor an example can be produced from the Scriptures concerning the invocation of saints, it follows that conscience can have nothing concerning this invocation that is certain. And since prayer ought to be made from faith, how do we know that God approves this invocation? Whence do we know without the testimony of Scripture that the saints perceive the prayers of each one? 11] Some plainly ascribe divinity to the saints, namely, that they discern the silent thoughts of the minds in us. They dispute concerning morning and evening knowledge, perhaps because they doubt whether they hear us in the morning or the evening. They invent these things, not in order to treat the saints with honor, but to defend lucrative services. 12] Nothing can be produced by the adversaries against this reasoning, that, since invocation does not have a testimony from God's Word, it cannot be affirmed that the saints understand our invocation, or, even if they understand it, that God approves it. (AP XXI)

Welcome, our Conquering Liberal Overlords!

The Connecticut Legislature is debating a bill that would madate Roman Catholic Churches be administered by an elected lay board, upon which the pastor and his bishop would have no vote. Obviously, many Catholics are up-in-arms, as it would redefine Catholicism. An editorial in The Advocate notes,

"Free exercise" of religion includes the way a Church chooses to organize. Strip the bishops and priests of their role in financial matters and their message becomes subject to the approval of those holding the purse.

Historically, "under trustee control, not only was pastoral authority practically eliminated, but the Church's message was utterly dependent upon the congregation's cultural and political condition."

The writer grants that many protestant churches have chosen such an arrangement. Nevertheless, the First Amendment grants churches the right to choose.

There are a multitude of directions this can go. I may pursue some of them in the days to come. Here is one:

Patrick Archbold at Creative Minority Report writes,

Some have written, what is the big deal? It is not likely to pass. It is a big deal, passage or not. This is how fictional rights are created and real rights eliminated. First is always the trial balloon. It is destined for failure, but passage is not the intent. The intent is to bring it into the conversation. The intent is to start a trend in other states with lawmakers proposing similar statutes, all under the guise of protecting regular folks. Then, after you have heard about it several times, it doesn't seem like a big deal anymore. Then maybe, just maybe, it passes somewhere. Then the gates will be opened and religious liberty in this country is over.

It reminds me of the proverb that error first demands toleration, then equality, lastly superiority. The slippery slope. How to boil a frog.

We see the same in every arena: politics, church, home. The trial balloon, the testing of boundaries, followed by further discussion and deliberations, and finally new laws or rights to protect us. The ELCA has been at this approach regarding homosexual unions for a decade or more. It looks like they will finally get their prize in allowing ministers to shack up with whatever they wish, as long as it's not serial or unseemly.

Beware the exploratory committee. Make sure you know what and where they are exploring. And remember, they will be back.

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus: 1936-2008

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus reposed just a few minutes ago, as First Things reports. May he rest in peace.

Neuhaus began his vocation in the LCMS, attending my alma mater Concordia Seminary. He eventually left the LCMS and was briefly a pastor in the ELCA before famously converting to Roman Catholicism in 1990. He was the author of numerous influential books, including The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America. He was also the founder of the excellent journal First Things.

While some in the LCMS consider him a traitor and pariah (not kidding--LCMSers hate people who leave), he was by all accounts a faithful Christian and a profound thinker. He will be missed.

Pr. Beecroft of Grace, Tulsa in the Paper Again: Still Not in the "Crime" Section

A friend of mine--and fellow Okie--Pr. Mason Beecroft is featured in a sidebar in this article from the Tulsa World (the "sidebar" is at the end of the article). I find it encouraging that the World thought to feature a Lutheran spin on a very Catholic article.

Also of note is the results of the "liturgical reforms" that Pr. Beecroft has introduced in the congregation:

But he sees a hunger for a return to traditional liturgical worship.

Attendance at Grace Lutheran has more than doubled since he arrived four years ago, bringing with him a more traditional worship.

“To be engaged by something beyond ourselves fills a deep void,” he said.

Young people, in particular, want the transcendent, he said.

“The biggest advocates for contemporary worship are the baby boomers,” he said. “My kids don’t want to see me up on the stage playing a guitar.”

Book of Concord-itis Part II

But it can readily be judged that nothing would serve better to maintain the dignity of ceremonies, and to nourish reverence and pious devotion among the people than if the ceremonies were observed rightly in the churches.

Thus says the Augsburg Confession under the heading ARTICLES IN WHICH ARE REVIEWED THE ABUSES WHICH HAVE BEEN CORRECTED, paragraph 4. But do we subscribe to this? Should we say that this statement is what we believe, teach and practice?

I think the clear answer is "no," though it would be nice if we could say with one voice, "Reverence and pious devotion are no better nourished and maintained than by worship that retains the ceremonies. Likewise our worship ought to be dignified by our retaining as many ceremonies as possible." It's like a classic paper written some time ago which asked, "Why do people complain that our worship is 'too catholic?' Why don't members complain 'It's not catholic enough!'"

But we don't subscribe to this statement. It is a rhetorical device, possibly a description. And it is a rhetorical device or a description that many in the LCMS would vehemently argue with today. In fact, many (most?) pastors and many lay people assume the opposite, that dignity in worship is not important. Most of society, most of life is now completely undignified anyway. Reverence is outmoded. Being irreverant is a compliment in society, and in most churches, too, I fear. Most people would argue that retaining the ceremonies (this means all that Catholic stuff big time) actually hurts piety and faith. We need not rites and cermonies and rigor and bows and crossing and smells but direct, unvarnished, simple worship from the heart. Something to grab us, something to engage us, something that expresses our emotions and so forth. That's what they say, anyway.

This is not to say taht faith isn't from the heart. What I am saying is that the reformers believed and argued that retaining as many ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church as possible would maintain dignity and nourish faith and reverence like nothing else.

And we don't have to agree with this statement.

And it's convenient, because we certainly disagree with it in the LCMS.

Judgment and Repentance

It is certain that on the Last Day we will be judged on what we have done. "And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done" (Rev. 20:12 ESV; see also Matt. 25:35).

It is certain that our salvation depends not upon our keeping the Law, but upon the grace of God who gives us faith (Eph 2:8-10). Salvation cannot be earned or merited. Salvation--having eternal life in the Body of Christ is something outside of us that must be granted to us. Christ came to make the dead live, after all, and the dead cannot make themselves alive. Salvation is a gift.

So how do we reconcile these two views which appear to contradict one another? The one is the image of being judged, of being weighed, while the other shows that we never deserve it based on our own works or abilities.

They are not contradictory. Faith is a gift, but it must show fruit. Making alive is the work of Christ, but alive people do living things, not things of death. As James says, "Faith without works is dead." (Jam. 2:26)

This may be one of the greatest differences between Protestants and the Orthodox and Catholics. Protestants tend to ignore the judgment seat of Christ that weighs our works. When they think of the Last Judgment at all, they think of forensic justification, that our deeds will not be counted at all, that Christ will recognize Himself in us, as it were, and the subject of what we actually did in this life will never be mentioned.

It seems to me that Catholic and Orthodox Christians alike focus on Christ as our Judge. He says He is, after all (Matt. 25:31ff). And they recognize that He will judge our actions. When they consider their spiritual lives, they think of that Judgment seat of Christ. They think of their souls being laid open before Him. This vision alone should preserve all people from any sense of works-righteousness. This thought alone should keep every one of us from ever trusting in our own good works or holiness. Thinking of every thought, word and deed open and visible to our God, what could we possibly hope in besides the mercy of God?

Notice, I did not write that the leading Protestant views and the Catholic views (as I understand it) are incompatible. Both things are true. God does remove our sins as far as the east from the west. (Psa. 103:12) But He does "come to judge the living and the dead" and the works we have done. Both of these views must be kept together. Faith is not faith if it does not repent of our wicked deeds and strive to please God. Judgment will be...harsh...if we trust that we are basically good folks and trust in our niceness and generosity instead of throwing ourselves on the undeserved mercy of God.

Our Christian life, however empowered by the Holy Spirit, is not on autopilot. Christ commands that we be active in this life of the fruits of repentance, by taking up our cross, by seeking the kingdom, by hearing the word of God and doing it. The violent (that is, the forceful) bear it away. (Matt. 11:12)

Briefly: Incense and Worship

I remember when I first realized that Roman Catholics burned incense in church. I had been in Catholic parishes before, but never during worship. I was impressed by how holy they looked and how good they smelled...but never knew why their churches smelled so much better than Lutheran churches.

When I finally figured out why--in high school--I was shocked. All I could think of was passages such as "Solomon loved the LORD, walking in the statutes of David his father, only he sacrificed and made offerings at the high places (1 Kings 3:3);" or, "A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick (Isaiah 65:3 KJV). Burning incense was what the wicked do in Scripture...or what pot-heads and hippies did--or so I thought.

But as with many things, the difference between the way of the Holy Trinity and the way of idolaters is more defined by what is in your heart than mere outward action. What matters is whom you burn incense to, and for what purpose. In fact, God commanded incense in the Law of Moses:

And Aaron shall burn fragrant incense on [the Altar of Incense]. Every morning when he dresses the lamps he shall burn it, 8 and when Aaron sets up the lamps at twilight, he shall burn it, a regular incense offering before the LORD throughout your generations. (Exo. 30:7-8).

More instructions follow. And the Old Tesament is full of references to the Altar of Incense and its use. In the New Testament, the references are few, but Revelation says, "And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints (Rev. 5:8)

Incense has been a part of Christian worship as far back as anyone can guess. It makes sense, considering that Christian worship was always practiced with an eye to Temple and Synagogue worship--sometimes rejecting elements, sometimes re-fashioning it Chrsitian-style, sometimes copying elements.

The use of incense is not somehow un-Lutheran either. Frankly I'm not sure when or why it ceased to be of regular use in Lutheran parishes. At the seminary incense was used, albeit infrequently. Honestly I've never seen it in use in an actual parish, though. I'd imagine that the congregations which use it must be quite exceptional, as most Lutherans would oppose it on some instinctual level.

Tomorrow: a clip from a secular report about the effects of incense on the body.

Luther and the Apocraphya

Here's a brief introduction to these books of the Bible by Rev. Paul McCain:

In the past several decades, there has been a resurgence of interest in the so-called "missing books" of the Bible. The work of persons such as Elaine Pagels has made a career of trying to popularize the Gnostic Gospels and other Gnostic literature. The most dramatic discovery of Gnostic texts occurred in the upper Egyptian city of Nag Hammadi. The Gospel of Thomas was found as a complete text. These Gnostic texts are often referred to in populist works and the major media as the "missing books of the Bible." Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. They were never regarded as being part of Christian Scripture. Gnosticism, in its variety of forms, was a mixture of pagan philosophy and Christian stories.

A whole cottage industry has developed around these "missing books," pumping out volumes of misleading books and information, leading people to believe that somehow there has been a grand conspiracy to cover up and hide the "real facts" about Christ and Christianity. All one has to do to quickly demonstrate the difference between canonical Scripture and these false Gnostic Gospels is read them. Frankly, the Gnostic Gospels sound like something produced by a person writing under the influence of LSD or other such hallucinogens. So, set the Gnostic literature aside and let's talk about some books that have always been in our Bibles, until the Lutheran Church moved into the English language.

There are, in fact, "missing books" of Scripture: the Apocrypha. For too many years Lutherans, like Protestant denominations everywhere, have thought that these books are only part of the "Roman Catholic Bible." Let's sort out the facts here, and conclude these brief remarks with an excellent introduction to the Apocryphal books by Pastor Richard Sawyer, which I'll provide below.

But let's first talk about how, when and why the Apocryphal books became relatively unknown to English speaking Lutherans. When the first complete edition of the Bible by the Wittenberg Reformers was published, in 1534, Luther and his colleagues included the Apocryphal books, though distinguished from the more universally accepted books, by setting them apart in their own appendix to the Old Testament. Luther's Bible was the first major edition to have a separate section called Apocrypha. Books and portions of books not found in the Hebrew Old Testament were moved out of the body of the Old Testament to this section. The books of 1 and 2 Esdras were omitted entirely. Luther placed these books between the. For this reason, these works are sometimes known as inter-testamental books. The point is that Apocryphal books were never rejected by orthodox Lutherans, but always included in every edition of the Luther Bible and in many German editions of the Bible as well, for instance all German Bibles published by Concordia Publishing House as long as German bibles were publishedl. The Roman Catholic, at the Council of Trent, did something never before done in the history of the church: it put the Apocryphal books on the same level of authority as the rest of the books of the Bible. Why? Because it is in the Apocryphal books that Rome claims to find justification for several of its false doctrines: chiefly, the doctrine of purgatory. But this fact never dissuaded Lutheran Christians from using these books or including them in their Bibles.

In the early years of the 20th century, as Lutherans in the USA began replacing German with English in their churches, and in their Bible translations, the Apocryphal books simply went missing, indeed "missing in action" is pretty much what happened to them. In recent years, interest is increasing in these books, as Lutherans look to reclaim more of their heritage. There is no reason to allow Rome to claim these books as their own, for indeed, they are not the sole possession of Rome, or Eastern Orthodoxy. It will take a lot of careful pastoral instruction to help the members of English speaking Lutheran congregations distinguish the Apocryphal books from the Gnostic non-Biblical books, and to help explain what the Apocryphal books are, and what their traditional place in the Bible has always been in the Lutheran Church. For that matter, the Apocryphal books are featured throughout Western European culture. Perhaps the best way to help Lutherans who are unfamiliar with these books understand their place in the Lutheran Church's own culture and hymnody is to point them to a well-known hymn from the age of Lutheran Orthodoxy: Now Thank We All Our God, written by Martin Rinkart circa 1636 when the devastating Thirty Years War was nearing its end. It depends very much on Luther’s translation of the Apocryphal book of Sirach, Chapter 50.

(from Cyberbrethren)

God, Others, Me and Tickling

Here's another brilliant post by Matthew Archbold at Creative Minority Report--an excellent blog.

Why Can't We Tickle Ourselves?

My six year old approached me this morning with what seemed by her facial expression to be an important and serious question. Why couldn't she tickle herself, she asked. Her fingers danced without effect around her neck as her little eyebrows remained perplexed and crooked.

I don't know, I answered. I honestly didn't. But I told her I had an idea but I could only whisper it to her as this was the most secretest secret ever. As she slowly approached (smelling a rat and smirking suspiciously) I seized her onto my lap and tickled her neck mercilessly until she screamed with laughter. When she was completely out of breath, repeating after me that I was the greatest Dad in the whole world, and begging for mercy I finally relented and sat her up.

"I think you can't tickle yourself because God wants me to tickle you," I said. "And maybe just maybe God knew that if we could tickle ourselves we'd never do anything else. And you'd miss out on all the fun of tickling your brother and sisters."

Her eyes lit up and she launched herself from my lap and ran off into the play room from where shortly after emanated insane and breathless laughter from her little brother.

It seems to me that so much of this world calls us out of ourselves and points us away from ourselves and in the direction of others. The world calls us quite simply to love. And to tickle.

Liturgical and Historical Questions

St. Hippolytus the Anti-Pope (what a great name!) wrote Apostolic Traditions out of concern that certain ancient customs were being lost. The Traditions date to the early 3rd century. He includes some early liturgy, and here is the anaphora/Eucharistic Prayer:

We give thanks to you God, through your beloved son Jesus Christ, whom you sent to us in former times as Savior, Redeemer, and Messenger of your Will, who is your inseparable Word, through whom you made all, and in whom you were well-pleased, whom you sent from heaven into the womb of a virgin, who, being conceived within her, was made flesh, and appeared as your Son, born of the Holy Spirit and the virgin. It is he who, fulfilling your will and acquiring for you a holy people, extended his hands in suffering, in order to liberate from sufferings those who believe in you. Who, when he was delivered to voluntary suffering, in order to dissolve death, and break the chains of the devil, and tread down hell, and bring the just to the light, and set the limit, and manifest the resurrection, taking the bread, and giving thanks to you, said, "Take, eat, for this is my body which is broken for you." Likewise the chalice, saying, This is my blood which is shed for you. Whenever you do this, do this (in) memory of me. Therefore, remembering his death and resurrection, we offer to you the bread and the chalice, giving thanks to you, who has made us worthy to stand before you and to serve as your priests. And we pray that you would send your Holy Spirit to the oblation of your Holy Church. In their gathering together, give to all those who partake of your holy mysteries the fullness of the Holy Spirit, toward the strengthening of the faith in truth, that we may praise you and glorify you, through your son Jesus Christ, through whom to you be glory and honor, Father and Son, with the Holy Spirit, in your Holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen.

Note the "words of institution" (verba) included in the prayer directed to God, and the "offering" language. Note as well that Hippolytus' prayer does not indicate the celebrant offers to God the body and blood of Christ for appeasement, but that the elements are offered and the Holy Spirit is called upon the gifts (epiklesis).

For my Lutheran readers, these are big bugaboos, to say the least. Some of you know that while I am very interested in the Early Church and worship, I am by no means a scholar. And so I need your help.

In my Sunday Bible study on Church History I introduced this text and gave some exploratory thoughts on how this differs from the later Canon and Sacrificial language used in Medieval Roman Catholicism and that this is what the Lutherans were arguing against, a propitiatory sacrifice to God.

Please correct me if I'm wrong...and for my Orthodox readers, how does this jive with the Orthodox view?

Thanks.

PS...the labels on this post are like the Triple Crown of the LCMS Brute Squad :)

This comes from one of my favorite blogs--Creative Minority Report. It's a beautiful essay on apathy (the sin, you know), fatherhood and faith.

I'm A Wii Catholic

You know how you buy Christmas gifts for people and then you just never get around to seeing them. I've had two candy-cane gift wrapped boxes in the corner of the television room for months. I've actually dusted them. So on Thursday my wife begged me to go see this friend of ours who I speak to on the phone and exchange emails with often but never see.

So I went over to drop off gifts for him and his wife. We all laughed about the gifts and had a good time. While I was there my friend showed me his children's video game system. A Wii. Now, mind you his twins are four years old so something tells me the Wii is more for him than for the children but...we played an inning of baseball (OK, a few innings.) I didn't do so well as "my friend" wasn't very forthcoming with the "how to play" instructions. He reveled in the fact that my poor Mets were destroyed.

The whole thing felt a little awkward to me though. You're standing in the middle of a room throwing invisible balls and swinging invisible bats. Weird. You're doing all the motions but not really accomplishing anything.

On the way home, I had my rosary beads out as is my habit and I prayed while listening to the radio. When I returned home I took care of the children essentially by reading near where they played. That night, my wife and I sat silently on the couch watching a movie. There was a stack of bills and a pile of laundry nearby mocking me, depressing both my wife and me but neither of us had the energy to charge those hills.

Something just hit me on Friday though. I wondered if sometimes I was a Wii Catholic, a Wii parent, A Wii husband? I've been going through the motions but not really accomplishing anything. Faking it. I think at times I live a Wii life. I realized that reading near the children is not raising them. Watching t.v. next to my wife is not spending time with her. Praying while listening to talk radio is actually just listening to talk radio. I've been where I was supposed to be but not really accomplishing anything.

I need to remind myself to live more intentionally. Sometimes folding laundry, doing dishes or paying bills is the most loving act you can do for your spouse. Sometimes reading a story to a child is what they want most- even when Hannah Montana's on. Sometimes the rosary is the best thing you can do for everyone.

I know I sometimes enjoy my interior life too much. I am comfortable in the well worn grooves of my mind. I think sometimes I just have to disconnect a bit from my own thoughts to reconnect with others. And the funny thing is that I always discover that life outside of my head is a lot more...unpremeditated. Effusive. Enjoyable.

At Ikea Saturday, my three year old son whispered to his sisters that he wanted to ride the six foot tall paper mache pony statue. My six year old warned him security would kick him out. My five year old daughter looked around and said, "You know, I haven't seen security around in a while." I think most days I would've missed that.

Last night, my wife gave me the choice of DVD to put in. Now normally that means it's "Lord of the Rings" time at the Archbold house. Instead, I turned off the television and we talked. About work. Neighbors. Funny stories about the kids. Worries about the kids.

On Sunday, my children and I drove over to Valley Forge as the sun went down. My kids love the open fields, the excitement of woods, the unexpected interruption of deer, and walking through the old log cabins.

We rolled ourselves down a long grassy hill to see who could roll fastest. I tried to come in last but at some point once you get me rolling I pick up speed...that is until I collide with a six year old who can't roll straight. We all laid there at the bottom until we were able to stand again. We watched the clouds brightening as they passed briefly before the Sun and then fade into darkness, their edges purpling as they drifted over the forest.

It was a great day. A non-Wii day. I don't think rolling down hills accomplishes anything necessarily but at least I felt like I was back in the game. The real one.

Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey

The survey (breathtaking in scope) was released last week. You can view all kinds of interesting stats and download the whole thing here.

I created a little spreadsheet to compare various denomination's results on questions that I was particularly interested in. There are some interesting trends. The questions I looked at in particular were:

Belief in God

Importance of Religion in One's Life

Frequency of Attendance at Religious Services

Frequency of Prayer

Frequency of receiving answers to prayers Literal Interpretation of Scripture Interpretation of Religious teachings View of One's religion as the One True Faith Views about Abortion Views about Homosexuality

The LCMS, ELCA, and Catholic response rates for the various views on each question are about the same--usually within a few percentage points of each other. The Southern Baptist responses are significantly different than the others--sometimes by 20 percentage points or more on certain responses to questions.

There were a few exceptions, for instance, on the question of how the literalness of the Bible, the LCMS responses were somewhere between the ELCA/Catholic and the SBC.

If you want to see for yourself, get the report, or download my spreadsheet here.

Fascinating Discussion

Take a few minutes to read the comments on "Another Pastor Leaves" below. I appreciate the comment authors' candor, gentleness and insights. I've learned a few things too.

Another Pastor Leaves

Dan Woodring announces his conversion to Roman Catholicism on his blog. Dan was active in Higher Things, a confessional Youth Organization, and somewhat prominent in the Confessional scene within the LCMS.

The story of his conversion is interesting and troublesome. He writes several times of dreading going to another congregation to work to make them Lutheran. That sentiment definitely strikes a chord with me.

I think every Lutheran pastor feels this way at times, and we shouldn't have to. Every congregation has in theory agreed to make the Book of Concord their confessional identity and standard. In theory, one should be able to go to a congregation, show them what the Confessions say and be done with it. Obviously, it's not that easy. People and emotions are involved, personal and family histories, local tradition, biases and prejudices. If District Presidents were concerned about the doctrine and practice of the congregations in their district and supported pastors in reforming the congregations it might be different. Often they do nothing, or even work to undermine the work of the pastor. It is a sad reality for those who take the Lutheran Confessions seriously, and a serious problem we face.

On the other hand, show me a congregation that does not require remedial work--in any denomination. If there is a standard, I reckon few congregations in any denomination meet it. This is part of the work of the ministry, in bringing the word of God to bear on people, not systems; on actual congregations, not in theoretical situations. In this respect I wonder if pastors who change church bodies for this reason should not rather simply leave the Lutheran ministry. The grass is not greener somewhere else.

The grass is not greener--but sometimes the conflict is about what is important. If I did not worry about my own members rejecting the liturgy, the confessions--if one morning I woke and all doctrinal and liturgical and practical controversies were miraculously gone...there would still be the hard work of repentance and faith, of leading the people--not to programs and committees, but to the life-giving waters of Christ. This is the real work of the Holy Ministry--bringing Christ and the life-giving Word into the lives of people.

This is not to say doctrine and practice are not important--but they are in a sense secondary to the real life of Christian repentance and faith. If your church is fighting about how often to celebrate communion, how much liturgy, how formal or informal, who to commune or not, then everyone's attention is on these controversies and not on their own sin and forgiveness. Right doctrine and practice are incredibly important--but are not substitutes for repentance and faith. When our attention is on the controversies, the important work of repentance goes neglected. Piety and faith are not found in theological knowledge, discussions of liturgy, history and facts, correct formulations and the more. Piety and faith is found in hearing the Word of God and doing it, receiving the sacraments and living a prayerful Christian life and witness.

Ultimately what Woodring and others have found is that these concerns of practice and problematic congregations are secondary to the Truth. As Woodring relates, he resigned because he could no longer affirm the vows he once made, and could not make them again. He affirmed that one cannot be a good Lutheran within the Catholic Church, not matter what Fr. Neuhaus says. Lutheranism has many problems, and some may be insurmountable. But what is at stake is Truth and salvation. This is what Woodring realized. He believed the fullness of the Truth to be elsewhere: a genuine conversion, like it or not.

I hope he will be happy, though I disagree with his ultimate conclusion.

--------
P.S.

Contrary to one who posted this comment, I do commend Dan for following his conscience. That is an honorable thing. Too few of us believe in that kind of honor anymore or find the strength to practice it. Keeping our word and integrity often falls to matters of expediency and comfort. Dan did not fall into this trap, thanks be to God.

No, the Tiber Isn't THAT Swimmable

Getreligion.org reports on the feeding frenzy that shouldn't have been. Turns out the Pope "rehabilitating" Luther story that so many of us commented on was based on poor reporting in the first place, and summer camp whisper game in the second.

The Vatican denies it all. Everyone, replace your tab collars with polos again. Party's over.

"New Sins" According to the Vatican (Green Ones Too)

Reuters reports that the Vatican has made a statement about "new sins" of the current era. The decidedly modern sins include pollution, genetic manipulation and other bioethical issues, drug trafficking, and others.

Obviously such sins aren't new; the Vatican is not saying that such sinful things would have been permissible before today. But sometimes one needs to clarify how contemporary practices must be seen in light of God's unchanging Law.

The angle the Reuters' story took was the "green one," which raises the question, is it sinful to have a "large carbon footprint?" Should Christians be obligated to reduce emissions and buy fluorescent bulbs for their homes? Is it sinful not to?

We are forbidden as Christians from "polluting" our body (2 Cor. 7:1 NJB), but this does not address junk food and polyunsaturated fats. It addresses sin, and the passage hardly applies to environmentalism. But we are called to be stewards of all that we have received from God. Most of the time we describe this in terms of time, talents, and treasure, but our use of the gifts of the earth and the fruit thereof are not excluded. As Christians we ought to honor the Earth as Creation, not in and of itself, but as something God made good. Spoiling and despoiling our environment without regard for the one who created would be sin for sure.

Let us not forget that brazen, intentional pollution, littering and the like are also illegal and show despise for others.

Benedict on Luther

This has been plastered all over the Lutheran blogs, but in case you missed it, Pope Benedict XVI is re-considering the Church's treatment of Luther--or at least will be. Here's the story.

The implications for this remain to be seen after the document is released in September and we find out exactly what the Pope will say. Until then, I think the most prudent thing to do is what and see.

A Lovely Post on Being a Good Man and Father

You can find it here: Creative Minority Report. It's a great blog: well written and addressing culture from a conservative Catholic perspective (but good reading for those of all Christian confessions).

What?? No Lutheran Fruits??

For those of you who are concerned about Lutheranism, and/or like to read posts by those who are (I suppose if you didn't you wouldn't be reading here), please go and check out "You Will Know a Tree by its Fruit" over at Pr. Benjamin Harju's blog, Paredwka:Dropping the Ball. It has some great observations and good food for thought.

Being Tuned-In...or Not

Pr. Brown at Confessional Gadfly writes about anti-Catholicism in Oklahoma in this post. His parish is about five miles west of mine, and some of my members are relatives, ex's, in-laws and out-laws, former members, future members or childhood friends of his members.

What was strange for me is that I haven't noticed such strident anti-Catholicism at my parish, and I've been here a few more years than he has. I don't doubt his observation; his post described their "epiphany" quite well. But I haven't noticed it much at this place. There may be several reasons for this:

1. I'm oblivious. When I teach Bible study, I have my agenda and I try to foment discussion, but perhaps I just haven't realized the cultural milieu here. To be sure, even from the beginning I haven't sensed much animosity felt for Catholics, but perhaps I ignore it.

2. They are not the "threat." There are two good-sized Catholic parishes in town, but Baptist churches surround us, and the Church of Christ and Disciples of Christ come in a close second. It seems many folks around here are more "for them" than against others.

3. I have an agenda. One of my elders recently described me as "swimming upstream here." He said it with good-natured respect, and I must admit, with an alarming insight of my theological proclivities. I'm not a closet Catholic, to be sure, but as readers here may know, I am more of the Evangelical Catholic bent.

4. While I do contrast Lutheran theology with that of others, from the very beginning of my ministry here I have intentionally attempted to also emphasize what we have in common with others who call on the name of Christ. For example, I believe decision-theology often is an attempt to describe the choice and commitment of believers after they have been enlightened by the Holy Spirit. While the language of decision-theology strikes Lutherans as semi-Pelagian, good Baptists who talk that way are often not meaning what they say, but are sometimes talking about good ol' fashioned sanctification and our cooperation in it. So perhaps the lack of anti-Catholicism I sense is due to my setting this more irenic tone (which is a struggle for me at times, I admit).

5. Pastor Brown's congregation is rural. Most of his members have been there since birth. My congregation has it's fair share of cradle members, but is 50 years younger than his and is located in town. No one would call Enid cosmopolitan, but I have a good share of members who have lived elsewhere and have more contact with others who are "not frum here." We're still a more rural congregation than others, but it's relative, ain't it?

All of these considerations probably factor in to what I have experienced here. It is probably the case that I see what I want to see--I'm hard-headed at times. But I do think I'll start asking around how much anti-Catholic feelings there are.