Make no mistake: if He rose at all it was as His body; if the cells’ dissolution did not reverse, the molecules reknit, the amino acids rekindle, the Church will fall.
It was not as the flowers, each soft Spring recurrent; it was not as His Spirit in the mouths and fuddled eyes of the eleven apostles; it was as His flesh: ours.
The same hinged thumbs and toes, the same valved heart that–pierced–died, withered, paused, and then regathered out of enduring Might new strength to enclose.
Let us not mock God with metaphor, analogy, sidestepping, transcendence; making of the event a parable, a sign painted in the faded credulity of earlier ages: let us walk through the door.
The stone is rolled back, not papier-mâché, not a stone in a story, but the vast rock of materiality that in the slow grinding of time will eclipse for each of us the wide light of day.
And if we will have an angel at the tomb, make it a real angel, weighty with Max Planck’s quanta, vivid with hair, opaque in the dawn light, robed in real linen spun on a definite loom.
Let us not seek to make it less monstrous, for our own convenience, our own sense of beauty, lest, awakened in one unthinkable hour, we are embarrassed by the miracle, and crushed by remonstrance.
I asked a small child if Jesus' body is in the grave. She responded, "Yes. He died on the cross, but He lives in heaven now." A small child, of course. Perhaps a slip, a momentary confusion. Let's hope so.
But I wonder. This is how so many think of our death: bodies left behind to turn to dust, but the self, the awareness, the Real Me in heaven with Jesus forever. Our funeral liturgy is full of references to the resurrection. The prayers at the committal are for God to bless the body until the resurrection. But I do not think people hear those prayers anymore. We are gnostic, the body a shell, the material things temporary, the spirit world is our home.
That is not Christianity, not if you leave it at that. Not if this is the goal and hope for our future and eternity. It's gnosticism. Maybe even Islam, if you said "Paradise" instead of heaven.
I heard what the child said and I was afraid. I was afraid that after so long--generations? centuries? of going-to-heaven-to-be-with-Jesus talk, of leaving my body behind, of "that's not her anymore. That body is a shell" talk--that such heresy has passed from us to Christ. That when people here, "On the third day He rose from the dead and ascended into heaven," we think of Spirit-Jesus in heaven with Jesus, His body left behind, unnecessary any longer. Lord have mercy!
Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.(1 Cor. 15:12-14)
No. I am a stranger here on earth, but I await a new heaven and a new earth. I long to be with Jesus, but I also await the resurrection of the dead. My goal is not to be in heaven. My goal is to live, to rest in the grave and then rise, to be in Christ and with Christ.
Here is a nice post (though I hesitate to call it that, considering the angst involved) on the contemporary worship "blended worship" service at an LCMS congregation. Hardly news, yet his account is compelling in its own way, giving voice to the fractures that "diverse" and "divergent" consumerist worship services are creating among us.
Thanks to Mr. Magness for calling my attention to the fact that it was not the contemporary service he described, but the "blended"--all the more horror, as Dr. Nagel would say.
Here's an excerpt:
This blended service began as the pastor came out in a golf shirt and made a series of announcements about “mission and ministry opportunities.” He then sat down and let the band take over. As is typical in contemporary services, the band leader introduced the songs and functioned as an assisting minister. The people were supposed to sing along with the band, but few did on the verses of the first song. They were in a solo vocal style with a range and syncopation that did not invite communal singing.
It's not "live" yet, so I want your input, especially on the following:
1. Does it look good? 2. Is switching domains (again) too obnoxious? 3. Does it look professional, but not "cold"? 4. Do the fonts and colors look right? 5. Anything else I am missing...
Thanks for your help.
And I there is a reason for this rhyme. Same as it ever was. :)
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)
In one of the 138+ comments on this post at Weedon's Blog, we see why Lutheranism is broken:
"No. I think that your interpretation of what is confessional is wrong." (comment here)
I have to admit that I appreciate Pr. Louderback's refreshingly frank and good-spirited comments. Were the other foxes in the hen house so open and honest...
