Here is an article I wrote that was published in Touchstone in October. It is online here.
The November issue of Touchstone is out. It is excellent as always.
Wearing the Cross
On Servant Leadership & other Pastoral Fads
I have been a pastor for only thirteen years, but I have already seen several models of pastoral ministry—each the latest thing and the final word—come and go. Scores of workshops, programs, and even whole industries have promised to make me a better shepherd. Many offer new paradigms, new techniques, new strategies, summed up in great catchphrases, to increase my effectiveness and success.
Servants & Visionaries
When I entered the holy ministry, the buzzword was “servant leadership.” The best way to exercise pastoral care was to be a servant. Pastors did not exercise authority; they served. They did not tell lay people what to do or think; they enabled parishes and people to become healthy and whole. Servant leaders were experts at facilitating and assisting, all of it aimed at better functioning in life.
Sounded great. This soon segued into another “hot” paradigm: being the visionary. Visionaries did not concern themselves with the nuts and bolts of pastoral ministry (you wouldn’t find them at a hospital bed; they had a “vision” for multiplying ministry so that others could care for the sick).
They were intent on setting the vision, outlining the future and the bright horizon toward which the congregation was pressing. This visionary leadership was inspirational and uplifting, for it drew others into its orbit as they “felt ownership” of the vision painted by the pastor and then coalesced to carry out his vision for the congregation.
This visionary prototype was often presented alongside a CEO pattern for pastors. The CEO would delegate tasks, concentrate on efficiency, see the big picture, set up programs, and make the congregation responsive to the customer (the newcomers and unchurched reputedly lurking at the doors of the church and wanting to come in, if only the church were responsive to their needs). The CEO pastor was a growth pastor who would grow the church with strategies and processes and approaches taken from the corporate world.
Many of these paradigms are still around. But lately I have encountered yet another one. Now I am being told to forego all of that “office work” and be an evangelist. The buzzword is no longer “vision” or “leadership”: It is “sharing,” one-on-one sharing of the gospel.
Whereas in years past I was advised to hold meetings, compose vision statements, and concentrate on systems therapy to diagnose my congregation, now I am encouraged to get out of the office and go down to the corner barbershop or the 7-Eleven and share what Jesus means to me with the teenage girl who cuts my hair or the clerk behind the counter. No longer am I supposed to be Lee Iacocca, guiding the ship; I am now supposed to be John Wesley, revealing the warm glow Jesus has put in my heart so as to win souls.
What I have found in my short time as a pastor is that none of this has much to do with really being a pastor. I think that much of this yearning for models and systems has to do with the weakness all pastors feel, the inherent conflict, the cross that a shepherd must bear in the apostolic office.
These fads and models are all based on effectiveness and on measuring what happens in the church, on setting up measurable goals that tell us if what we are doing is working. This sounds so sweet to the ears of a pastor. It sounds wonderful, for it lifts that cross off the pastor’s back.
What is that burden? What is that cross the pastor bears? The burden of forgiving and relieving people of sins and guilt, people who come back the next week or, often, the next day with a full plate of disgust and filth needing to be rinsed again.
The Cross of Uncertainty
The pastor’s burden is to preach the gospel, a message that is the power of God for salvation, to a congregation full of people who can barely be roused to pay attention for an hour a week and who, then, as far as human sense can often make out, fall back into the carnal slumber from which they were so briefly awakened at Sunday liturgy. The pastor’s crucifixion takes this form: to work in a calling where the results are by nature invisible, where the harvest is hidden from our eyes in the heavenly wedding hall, and where we now sludge forward with only faith that what we do matters at all.
What the paradigms and models and programs do is to take faith out of the equation. They lift the burden and the cross from our backs. There it is, finally, results I can see and count. Even if I fail, at least I can know it for sure. There it is in the spreadsheet: attendance is up . . . alleluia! Attendance is down . . . weeping and gnashing of teeth. But there is no uncertainty either way, no cross to bear.
With statistics and paradigms and quantifiable, goal-driven ministry, I do not have to wonder if the fumbling words with which I try to catechize the squirming bunch of adolescents will ever really shield them from the sorrows and sadness of life. Instead, I can count the number of newcomers I have enticed to come through the door. I don’t have to wonder if the baby I am baptizing, whose parents are of uncertain piety and dedication, will know the joy of growing up in the Church. Instead, I can devise a new program, measure results, have a meeting.
The Lord’s Farmer
It is funny how our Lord never promised his apostles great success, or told them to count, or offered them a concrete program of pastoral ministry. He just said, “Follow me, take up your cross, baptize, teach all things I have commanded, do this in remembrance of me.” He gave his pastors a crucifix, not a plan; he led them to walk in his footsteps, in the darkness of faith, with his promises only.
Most often as a pastor I feel like an uneducated but pious farmer who pushes his seeds into the dark soil and then prays. I do a lot of seed-pushing and I do a lot of praying. I suspect this is how it is supposed to be.
I have come to know a few things for certain in this uncertain ministry I pursue. I have an idea that the Church that survived persecution and success, growth and decline, knew that the pastoral life is one of faith. I think the Church of all the ages, the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, gave me a paradigm of pastoral care at my ordination: to preach, to administer the sacraments, to visit the sick, to forgive the sins of the penitent.
I am pretty sure that I am not supposed to know or have any measurable ground on which to stand. Rather, I have been given the words of my Lord: baptize, teach, do this. I am convinced that when my parishioners open their mouths to take the Body of Christ, they are being cared for in an ineffable, uncountable, non-statistical, heavenly way, the way our Savior intended.
I do know this: When I preach to my little flock, when I give them the gospel, then I am most a pastor; when they hear from my lips not the latest marketing technique but the eternal truth of Jesus and him crucified.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Books
I am being swallowed by books. I have stacks and stacks of books that I have acquired in the past year or so (or more who knows) that I am waiting to read or in the process of reading.
In just little one stack is :
Christ Present in Faith : Luther’s View of Justification
Edward Kilmartin’s Eucharist in the West
Volume 2 of the Elvis’ biography … Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley (Who in 1955 would have thought that Elvis would merit a serious, scholarly, meticulously researched, 2 volume, 1400 page bio?)
The Later Roman Empire, 284-602, vol. 1
Robert Farrar Capon’s The Supper of the Lamb, the strangest cookbook I have ever seen … it is one recipe spread out over 16 chapters and spiced with theological reflections
American Jesus : How the Son of God Became a National Icon
That is just one small stack. I have several in various spots.
So, Saturday, I take my kids to the library and I am wandering around and what do I do : I check out a book! I am now reading to the neglect of all the others …. A Biography of Joe Namath. Yes, Broadway Joe, the quarterback for the NY Jets. It is very well written and interesting. A good test for a biography is if makes you interested in a subject whom you otherwise would never have cared about.
I am off to read more about Joe. He is still in college at Alabama. Just busted his knee.
In just little one stack is :
Christ Present in Faith : Luther’s View of Justification
Edward Kilmartin’s Eucharist in the West
Volume 2 of the Elvis’ biography … Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley (Who in 1955 would have thought that Elvis would merit a serious, scholarly, meticulously researched, 2 volume, 1400 page bio?)
The Later Roman Empire, 284-602, vol. 1
Robert Farrar Capon’s The Supper of the Lamb, the strangest cookbook I have ever seen … it is one recipe spread out over 16 chapters and spiced with theological reflections
American Jesus : How the Son of God Became a National Icon
That is just one small stack. I have several in various spots.
So, Saturday, I take my kids to the library and I am wandering around and what do I do : I check out a book! I am now reading to the neglect of all the others …. A Biography of Joe Namath. Yes, Broadway Joe, the quarterback for the NY Jets. It is very well written and interesting. A good test for a biography is if makes you interested in a subject whom you otherwise would never have cared about.
I am off to read more about Joe. He is still in college at Alabama. Just busted his knee.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Petersen on Leaving Missouri
Pr. Petersen has posted a nice article about leaving Missouri for the Roman church or the Orthodox church.
There is also quite a little discussion going on in the comments.
There is also quite a little discussion going on in the comments.
Friday, October 28, 2005
The Sex Pistols, Sin and Martin Luther
Unlike my friend, Pr. Petersen, I find it hard to listen to Bach in the car. Perhaps this is from my wasted youth, begun by listening to the Beatles and the Knack in 9th grade or the fact that my Dad played Hank Williams, Elvis and Tennessee Ernie Williams at home on Sunday morning before we went to church and the country station in the car on the way but then cursed any contemporary worship in the liturgy. I delight in Bach in church but need a little rock and roll in my car.
Anyway, a friend of mine recently gave me a CD with a bunch of rock and roll on it. Some of the tunes were from a band way back in the mid 1970's called the Sex Pistols. Perhaps you have heard of them. They are sometimes called the first punk band (although that is really not true... don't get me started on rock history.) They were a really stupid bunch of guys who played too sloppy, were real angry (or at least acted that way) and fell apart in a pool of drugs and alcohol and self abuse.
But, they wrote some good songs! And one of these is called "No Feelings". And the chorus is a little masterpiece, not only of rock and roll, but it is also a bit of a theological gem. (The rest of the lyrics besides the chorus are incomprehensible.) The chorus is a perfect expression of the state of sin. I do not know if the Pistols were serious when they wrote it (I think most of what the Pistols did was a big joke). But they nicely express here the mind of the sinful man:
I got no emotions for anybody else
You better understand I'm in love with my self
My beautiful self
No feelings No feelings
no feelings
For anybody else.
In fact they are echoing something Martin Luther wrote some years back in his Lectures on Romans in 1515-16:
Our nature, by the corruption of the first sin, is so deeply curved in on itself that it not only bends the best gifts of God towards itself and enjoys them (as is plain in the works-righteous and hypocrites), or rather even uses God himself in order to attain these gifts, but it also fails to realize that it so wickedly curvedly, and viciously seeks all things, even God, for its own sake.
Rock and roll and contemporary music is often good at that. Expressing the desires and thoughts and experience of man as he lives apart from God.
Anyway, a friend of mine recently gave me a CD with a bunch of rock and roll on it. Some of the tunes were from a band way back in the mid 1970's called the Sex Pistols. Perhaps you have heard of them. They are sometimes called the first punk band (although that is really not true... don't get me started on rock history.) They were a really stupid bunch of guys who played too sloppy, were real angry (or at least acted that way) and fell apart in a pool of drugs and alcohol and self abuse.
But, they wrote some good songs! And one of these is called "No Feelings". And the chorus is a little masterpiece, not only of rock and roll, but it is also a bit of a theological gem. (The rest of the lyrics besides the chorus are incomprehensible.) The chorus is a perfect expression of the state of sin. I do not know if the Pistols were serious when they wrote it (I think most of what the Pistols did was a big joke). But they nicely express here the mind of the sinful man:
I got no emotions for anybody else
You better understand I'm in love with my self
My beautiful self
No feelings No feelings
no feelings
For anybody else.
In fact they are echoing something Martin Luther wrote some years back in his Lectures on Romans in 1515-16:
Our nature, by the corruption of the first sin, is so deeply curved in on itself that it not only bends the best gifts of God towards itself and enjoys them (as is plain in the works-righteous and hypocrites), or rather even uses God himself in order to attain these gifts, but it also fails to realize that it so wickedly curvedly, and viciously seeks all things, even God, for its own sake.
Rock and roll and contemporary music is often good at that. Expressing the desires and thoughts and experience of man as he lives apart from God.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
The Chicago Cubs: A False Religion
My Houston Astros are down three games to none in the World Series and are facing almost certain elimination. I figure it is time to attack one of the few franchises who have had it worse than the Astros: the Chicago Cubs. So, with tongue firmly in cheek …
I am a steadfast and loyal Houston Astros fan. This is, I firmly believe, the way God intended all people to be.
(Note: I am not one of those jelly-spined postmodern fans who say things like “Oh, you root for your team and I’ll root for mine and won’t that be fun. Oh, and why don’t you come over for the big game and we’ll root and cheer and support each other and sip tea and nibble crackers.” NO, NO, A THOUSAND TIMES NO! Sporting events are meant to be accompanied by the swilling of foul tasting beverages, large consumption of artery clogging snack foods and the calling down of God’s wrath to heap disgrace and ruin upon the opposing team.)
As I said, God, I am sure, intended all people to be Astros fans. Some however, blinded by error, wander in the paths of ignorance. One of these pitiful wretches is my wife. She is a Cubs fan. Is there any other foolishness worse than this execrable superstition? The Cubs? Oh sure, she mutters things like, “I was raised in Chicago” and other nonsense such as “ivy” and “wrigley” and “day games in the bleachers” and “it doesn’t matter if they win or not” and “if they won, they wouldn’t be the Cubbies”.
When my wife says such things, I give her a kind look and say in my kindest loving, husband voice, “What in the mighty cow blazes are you talking about?” Losing is an abomination, an opportunity to growl curses at the announcers and to sink in despair. These calm beatific Cub fans really give me the creeps, even my wife when she gets that faraway Cub look in her eyes.
So it is time to go watch the Astros lose in all likelihood and pray that my wife will someday soon see the error of her ways.
I am a steadfast and loyal Houston Astros fan. This is, I firmly believe, the way God intended all people to be.
(Note: I am not one of those jelly-spined postmodern fans who say things like “Oh, you root for your team and I’ll root for mine and won’t that be fun. Oh, and why don’t you come over for the big game and we’ll root and cheer and support each other and sip tea and nibble crackers.” NO, NO, A THOUSAND TIMES NO! Sporting events are meant to be accompanied by the swilling of foul tasting beverages, large consumption of artery clogging snack foods and the calling down of God’s wrath to heap disgrace and ruin upon the opposing team.)
As I said, God, I am sure, intended all people to be Astros fans. Some however, blinded by error, wander in the paths of ignorance. One of these pitiful wretches is my wife. She is a Cubs fan. Is there any other foolishness worse than this execrable superstition? The Cubs? Oh sure, she mutters things like, “I was raised in Chicago” and other nonsense such as “ivy” and “wrigley” and “day games in the bleachers” and “it doesn’t matter if they win or not” and “if they won, they wouldn’t be the Cubbies”.
When my wife says such things, I give her a kind look and say in my kindest loving, husband voice, “What in the mighty cow blazes are you talking about?” Losing is an abomination, an opportunity to growl curses at the announcers and to sink in despair. These calm beatific Cub fans really give me the creeps, even my wife when she gets that faraway Cub look in her eyes.
So it is time to go watch the Astros lose in all likelihood and pray that my wife will someday soon see the error of her ways.
Alms on Vocation
First let me say that I am speaking of vocation as experienced by a Christian in his vocation.
That is, God does use vocation (primarily that of the pastor but certainly parents as well) to give the Gospel. Vocation (someone else acting toward me) is God’s way of caring for me, forgiving me and judging me.
But the Christian does not experience his own vocation as Gospel. That is, a Christian is to not to find forgiveness, life and salvation in his actions as a parent. No, the Gospel come to us outside of ourselves and always as apart from our own actions, no matter if those actions spring from true faith or are rotten hypocritical fruit.
My vocation as father may bring me joy and happiness but this is not Gospel. As father, I am indeed the hands of God cleaning the diaper and feeding the baby and correcting the teenager but this is no Gospel. It is me, New Adam, rejoicing in fulfilling the good law of God but no gospel. My vocation as prince or president or mayor may give me satisfaction as I provide peace and safety to people but this is no Gospel. A Christian experiences vocations as gifts from God for they give him a place to exercise his new born will and Spirit-given powers of love but this is no Gospel. It is precisely the fulfilling of the Law.
Because we are sinner/saint people, the same vocation which may be the occasion for God given joy are also places of God given crucifixion and discipline in repentance. God presses His law upon is ourr vocations which are carried out by sinner sin sinful world. The Law is the sinner’s primary experience of the world as demand. The world imposes upon us as part of our existence “demand” that we cannot fulfill. Original sin means that our lives are lived as debtors to God and this is an existential condition that we experience precisely in our vocations as parents, children, students etc.
That is, God does use vocation (primarily that of the pastor but certainly parents as well) to give the Gospel. Vocation (someone else acting toward me) is God’s way of caring for me, forgiving me and judging me.
But the Christian does not experience his own vocation as Gospel. That is, a Christian is to not to find forgiveness, life and salvation in his actions as a parent. No, the Gospel come to us outside of ourselves and always as apart from our own actions, no matter if those actions spring from true faith or are rotten hypocritical fruit.
My vocation as father may bring me joy and happiness but this is not Gospel. As father, I am indeed the hands of God cleaning the diaper and feeding the baby and correcting the teenager but this is no Gospel. It is me, New Adam, rejoicing in fulfilling the good law of God but no gospel. My vocation as prince or president or mayor may give me satisfaction as I provide peace and safety to people but this is no Gospel. A Christian experiences vocations as gifts from God for they give him a place to exercise his new born will and Spirit-given powers of love but this is no Gospel. It is precisely the fulfilling of the Law.
Because we are sinner/saint people, the same vocation which may be the occasion for God given joy are also places of God given crucifixion and discipline in repentance. God presses His law upon is ourr vocations which are carried out by sinner sin sinful world. The Law is the sinner’s primary experience of the world as demand. The world imposes upon us as part of our existence “demand” that we cannot fulfill. Original sin means that our lives are lived as debtors to God and this is an existential condition that we experience precisely in our vocations as parents, children, students etc.
Law, Gospel and Vocation
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
PIetism: Look at Me
Cyberstones has an excellent post on pietism, an excerpt from a paper by Dr. Feuerhahn in STL.
The quote below is quite good. It reminds us that the baptized never progress past the Old Adam but are always in a state of battle. The mark of Pietism is the focus on us, even on God's work in us rather than on God outside of us, for us. For the Christian there is no sense of, "Whooppee I have made it," rather he is always aware of his faults and the great gift of salvation.
They [the Pietists] liked to deal with regenerate man as a fixed quantity and therefore spoke of the fruits of regeneration. The Reformer [Luther] remained engaged in the struggle between the old and the new man. The (Pietist) problem of attainability he [Luther] deferred in favor of the state of affairs which he described strikingly with the word "temptation" [Anfechtung]. This state of affairs taught the "heeding of the word" (Isaiah 28:19) and the consolation of divine grace in the forgiveness of sins. Out of the liberating message that Jesus Christ had done everything for him, the new man came forth. Thus the Christian, who was always becoming, looked never to himself nor to the rank of his being a child of God. 'Flesh' and 'spirit,' as they are harshly contrasted to one another in the seventh and eighth chapter of Romans, remained for him irreconcilable opposites.... [ellipsis original] The believer did not progress beyond Anfechtung and Luther judged a condition without it to be of gravest danger. That is why a Christian never fixed his eyes upon himself, but upon his Lord and depended upon his Word... [ellipsis mine] The pietists sought to advance again the importance of Luther's teaching of a living faith. In so doing, however, they shifted the emphasis: the vivacity, which made itself recognizable in good works, was valued more by them than faith itself. Yet Luther understood faith to cling to the divine promise and to depend upon the promise itself, so that the believer was acceptable to God with his entire being... [ellipsis mine] The fruits of faith became more important for the pietists than their source, faith, on which everything was dependent for Luther.
The quote below is quite good. It reminds us that the baptized never progress past the Old Adam but are always in a state of battle. The mark of Pietism is the focus on us, even on God's work in us rather than on God outside of us, for us. For the Christian there is no sense of, "Whooppee I have made it," rather he is always aware of his faults and the great gift of salvation.
They [the Pietists] liked to deal with regenerate man as a fixed quantity and therefore spoke of the fruits of regeneration. The Reformer [Luther] remained engaged in the struggle between the old and the new man. The (Pietist) problem of attainability he [Luther] deferred in favor of the state of affairs which he described strikingly with the word "temptation" [Anfechtung]. This state of affairs taught the "heeding of the word" (Isaiah 28:19) and the consolation of divine grace in the forgiveness of sins. Out of the liberating message that Jesus Christ had done everything for him, the new man came forth. Thus the Christian, who was always becoming, looked never to himself nor to the rank of his being a child of God. 'Flesh' and 'spirit,' as they are harshly contrasted to one another in the seventh and eighth chapter of Romans, remained for him irreconcilable opposites.... [ellipsis original] The believer did not progress beyond Anfechtung and Luther judged a condition without it to be of gravest danger. That is why a Christian never fixed his eyes upon himself, but upon his Lord and depended upon his Word... [ellipsis mine] The pietists sought to advance again the importance of Luther's teaching of a living faith. In so doing, however, they shifted the emphasis: the vivacity, which made itself recognizable in good works, was valued more by them than faith itself. Yet Luther understood faith to cling to the divine promise and to depend upon the promise itself, so that the believer was acceptable to God with his entire being... [ellipsis mine] The fruits of faith became more important for the pietists than their source, faith, on which everything was dependent for Luther.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Shameful Incarnation?
This is a remarkable selection from Tertullian (c. 200 A.D.), a church father who here writes against Marcion. Marcion was a Gnostic who rejected the Incarnation and held that physicality was unbecoming for God. Tertullian writes forcefully of Christ’s love for us dirty, foolish men. He maintains Christ’s love even for our flesh, the flesh that God created and which constitutes our existence.
The selection is from “On the Flesh of Christ” and the translation is here.
It remains for you to reject and arraign (the Incarnation) as undignified. Beginning then with that nativity you so strongly object to, orate, attack now, the nastinesses of genital elements in the womb, the filthy curdling of moisture and blood, and of the flesh to be for nine months nourished on that same
mire. Draw a picture of the womb getting daily more unmanageable, heavy, self-concerned, safe not even in sleep, uncertain in the whims of dislikes and appetites. Next go all out against the modesty of the travailing woman, a modesty which at least because of danger ought to be respected and because of its nature is sacred. You shudder, of course, at the child passed out along with his afterbirth, and of course bedaubed with it. You think it shameful that he is straightened out with bandages, that he is licked into shape with applications of oil, that he is beguiled by coddling.
This natural object of reverence you, Marcion, bespittle: yet how were you born? You hate man during his birth: how can you love any man? … Christ, there is no doubt of it, did care for the sort of man who was curdled in uncleannesses in the womb, who was brought forth through organs immodest, who took nourishment through organs of ridicule. For his sake he came down, for his sake he preached the gospel, for his sake he cast himself down in all humility even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. Evidently he loved him: for he redeemed him at a great price …
In any case, along with man he loved also his nativity, and his flesh besides: nothing can be loved apart from that by which it is what it is. … Nativity he reshapes from death by a heavenly regeneration, flesh he restores from every distress: leprous he cleanses it, blind he restores its sight, palsied he makes it
whole again, devil-possessed he atones for it, dead he brings it again to life: is he ashamed to be born into it?
The selection is from “On the Flesh of Christ” and the translation is here.
It remains for you to reject and arraign (the Incarnation) as undignified. Beginning then with that nativity you so strongly object to, orate, attack now, the nastinesses of genital elements in the womb, the filthy curdling of moisture and blood, and of the flesh to be for nine months nourished on that same
mire. Draw a picture of the womb getting daily more unmanageable, heavy, self-concerned, safe not even in sleep, uncertain in the whims of dislikes and appetites. Next go all out against the modesty of the travailing woman, a modesty which at least because of danger ought to be respected and because of its nature is sacred. You shudder, of course, at the child passed out along with his afterbirth, and of course bedaubed with it. You think it shameful that he is straightened out with bandages, that he is licked into shape with applications of oil, that he is beguiled by coddling.
This natural object of reverence you, Marcion, bespittle: yet how were you born? You hate man during his birth: how can you love any man? … Christ, there is no doubt of it, did care for the sort of man who was curdled in uncleannesses in the womb, who was brought forth through organs immodest, who took nourishment through organs of ridicule. For his sake he came down, for his sake he preached the gospel, for his sake he cast himself down in all humility even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. Evidently he loved him: for he redeemed him at a great price …
In any case, along with man he loved also his nativity, and his flesh besides: nothing can be loved apart from that by which it is what it is. … Nativity he reshapes from death by a heavenly regeneration, flesh he restores from every distress: leprous he cleanses it, blind he restores its sight, palsied he makes it
whole again, devil-possessed he atones for it, dead he brings it again to life: is he ashamed to be born into it?
Friday, October 21, 2005
Lacerating critics of the academic Left
This website offers this old interview with Eugene and Elizabeth Genovese, whom I had never heard of. They are old sixties radicals in the academic world who have since become fierce critics of the Left.
This introductory paragraph made me an instant fan :
Eugene Genovese and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese have been dubbed "the royal couple of radicalism" by Vanity Fair. Long regarded as the nation’s leading Marxist historian, an expert on the antebellum South and slavery, Eugene Genovese has of late become a lacerating critic of the academic Left and a defender of the Southern Right. Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, whose most recent book is titled Feminism Is Not the Story of My Life, was a pioneer in the field of women’s studies—yet she has become a pariah in feminist circles, not least for her defense of traditional families.
As a girl, Mrs. Fox-Genovese had three ambitions: to become the first woman president, to marry a black man, and to have 21 children. As a boy, her husband dreamed of a Communist America. They got a happy marriage instead. Editors Bill Kauffman and Scott Walter interviewed the couple at their Atlanta home.
The interview is very good. I do not agree with everything they say but they come at it right.
This introductory paragraph made me an instant fan :
Eugene Genovese and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese have been dubbed "the royal couple of radicalism" by Vanity Fair. Long regarded as the nation’s leading Marxist historian, an expert on the antebellum South and slavery, Eugene Genovese has of late become a lacerating critic of the academic Left and a defender of the Southern Right. Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, whose most recent book is titled Feminism Is Not the Story of My Life, was a pioneer in the field of women’s studies—yet she has become a pariah in feminist circles, not least for her defense of traditional families.
As a girl, Mrs. Fox-Genovese had three ambitions: to become the first woman president, to marry a black man, and to have 21 children. As a boy, her husband dreamed of a Communist America. They got a happy marriage instead. Editors Bill Kauffman and Scott Walter interviewed the couple at their Atlanta home.
The interview is very good. I do not agree with everything they say but they come at it right.
Justification and Incarnation
Justification, say Lutherans, is the article by which the church stands or falls. But if justification is the prime article of the faith then the incarnation is the foundation on which justification rests.
Justification by faith, the declaration of God that sinners are righteous by virtue of Christ, is meaningless without the Incarnation. Without a solid grounding in incarnational theology, a false view of justification, becomes a free pass for all sorts of mischief. Justificaton is distorted to mean that God says yes to everything and that the central truth of the Christian religion is permission. God becomes a kind old grandpa who is unable to say no to anything. This sort of distortion is central to much of liberal protestantism.
The cure for this is not to push the Law in after the Gospel as some sort of protective fence around the gospel (Yes, you are forigven but...) but it is the Incarnation. Justification is not a free floating principle untethered to any other items in theology. Justification is the chief article but not the only article. Justification by fiath is attached to the Incarnation, to the Gos become flesh in Jesus. The Incarnation grounds justification in a specific act, a specific human being, a specific history and a God who justifies in specific ways.
The Incarnation ties justification to the history of the Old Testament people who produced Mary who concieved by the Holy Spirit and gave birth to the God-man. The Incarnation ties justification to a creator God who acts through the creation he made and who inhabits the world of flesh and blood and is unashamed to make human flesh his own. The Incarnation ties justification to a real sense of the outrage of sin and the awful punishment of God's wrath heaped out in stern measure upon the man Jesus. The incarnation locates justification within the the credal Trinitarian reality of God who justifies and sanctifies through earthly created means. The Incarnation places justification in the context of the church, the office of the ministry, the sacraments.
Justification by faith, the declaration of God that sinners are righteous by virtue of Christ, is meaningless without the Incarnation. Without a solid grounding in incarnational theology, a false view of justification, becomes a free pass for all sorts of mischief. Justificaton is distorted to mean that God says yes to everything and that the central truth of the Christian religion is permission. God becomes a kind old grandpa who is unable to say no to anything. This sort of distortion is central to much of liberal protestantism.
The cure for this is not to push the Law in after the Gospel as some sort of protective fence around the gospel (Yes, you are forigven but...) but it is the Incarnation. Justification is not a free floating principle untethered to any other items in theology. Justification is the chief article but not the only article. Justification by fiath is attached to the Incarnation, to the Gos become flesh in Jesus. The Incarnation grounds justification in a specific act, a specific human being, a specific history and a God who justifies in specific ways.
The Incarnation ties justification to the history of the Old Testament people who produced Mary who concieved by the Holy Spirit and gave birth to the God-man. The Incarnation ties justification to a creator God who acts through the creation he made and who inhabits the world of flesh and blood and is unashamed to make human flesh his own. The Incarnation ties justification to a real sense of the outrage of sin and the awful punishment of God's wrath heaped out in stern measure upon the man Jesus. The incarnation locates justification within the the credal Trinitarian reality of God who justifies and sanctifies through earthly created means. The Incarnation places justification in the context of the church, the office of the ministry, the sacraments.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
The Astros, fathers and loyalty
Ah, that was sweet. The Astros win after the agony of Monday night. Oswalt dominant.
All of this makes me think of my father: Paul Edward Alms. Fathers and sons have a strange type of bond. So much of a father/son relationship is mediated indirectly, mostly, (at least over here in ’Merica) through sports. Playing catch in the yard, watching baseball, going to games. A lot of fathers do not speak directly about how they feel. They are not good at articulating what “relationships” mean. Fathers just share something with their sons: a baseball, a love of a city and her teams, a loyalty.
The closest I ever felt to my dad was when we were watching some Houston team. My best memories are his taking me to see the Astros in San Francisco when I was 7 years old or bundling up in a snow suit to go see Earl Campbell play for the Oilers against the hated Cleveland Browns. We did not talk about ourselves or analyze what we felt; we watched the game and we rooted and we cheered and were disappointed and we did it together.
Alot of folks think being a sports fans is stupid (Granted, there are some dunderhead fans!). There is no exercise involved in watching a game on TV. Our societal fascination with sports makes us boorish and too competitive and it drains money away from education or the arts. But one thing my father taught me with sports and being a fan is loyalty.
My father was born and raised in Houston and was a diehard Houston fan. He moved away and spent the last 35 years of his life in places far from Houston. But that did not matter. Astros, Oilers, Rockets, Univ. of Houston, he was passionately followed all of them. They never won much and Dad cussed some, threw radios every now and again, and swore he would never root for the blankety blank Oilers again. But he was always back.
My dad had the same loyalty to his family, to his church body, to his country. He often did not like what was going on in his LCMS, or with his kids or in his country. He often threatened to leave the LCMS and give up on all politics. But the LCMS was his church, this was his country and his family, flawed as they were and are, belonged to him.
I do not understand my wife’s dealings with my daughters. They have a psychic, weird connection. They can communicate and explode and cry and laugh and I don’t even know whats going on. My connection with my dad was never direct like that. We always met in the midst of something else: a baseball and a mitt, the sports section of the paper, a beer, a team, a game. That's alright, that’s good. We shared a loyalty to one other and to a team, a city of teams.
I have not lived in Houston since I was 6 years old. But one gift my father gave me was learning how to be loyal.
Go Astros.
All of this makes me think of my father: Paul Edward Alms. Fathers and sons have a strange type of bond. So much of a father/son relationship is mediated indirectly, mostly, (at least over here in ’Merica) through sports. Playing catch in the yard, watching baseball, going to games. A lot of fathers do not speak directly about how they feel. They are not good at articulating what “relationships” mean. Fathers just share something with their sons: a baseball, a love of a city and her teams, a loyalty.
The closest I ever felt to my dad was when we were watching some Houston team. My best memories are his taking me to see the Astros in San Francisco when I was 7 years old or bundling up in a snow suit to go see Earl Campbell play for the Oilers against the hated Cleveland Browns. We did not talk about ourselves or analyze what we felt; we watched the game and we rooted and we cheered and were disappointed and we did it together.
Alot of folks think being a sports fans is stupid (Granted, there are some dunderhead fans!). There is no exercise involved in watching a game on TV. Our societal fascination with sports makes us boorish and too competitive and it drains money away from education or the arts. But one thing my father taught me with sports and being a fan is loyalty.
My father was born and raised in Houston and was a diehard Houston fan. He moved away and spent the last 35 years of his life in places far from Houston. But that did not matter. Astros, Oilers, Rockets, Univ. of Houston, he was passionately followed all of them. They never won much and Dad cussed some, threw radios every now and again, and swore he would never root for the blankety blank Oilers again. But he was always back.
My dad had the same loyalty to his family, to his church body, to his country. He often did not like what was going on in his LCMS, or with his kids or in his country. He often threatened to leave the LCMS and give up on all politics. But the LCMS was his church, this was his country and his family, flawed as they were and are, belonged to him.
I do not understand my wife’s dealings with my daughters. They have a psychic, weird connection. They can communicate and explode and cry and laugh and I don’t even know whats going on. My connection with my dad was never direct like that. We always met in the midst of something else: a baseball and a mitt, the sports section of the paper, a beer, a team, a game. That's alright, that’s good. We shared a loyalty to one other and to a team, a city of teams.
I have not lived in Houston since I was 6 years old. But one gift my father gave me was learning how to be loyal.
Go Astros.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Nevin vs. Finney
Charles Finney, whom I mentioned yesterday, did not peddle his formula for ecclesiastical success without opposition. One of his foremost opponents was John W. Nevin, a Reformed theologian of the Mercersburg school of theology (If you want to know more about Mercersburg theology ... check with Dr. Rast at Concordia Seminary in Fort Wayne.)
Mike Horton has an article on Finney on the web which may be a reprint from somewere else. Anyway, he has this to say of Nevin and Finney. Pay attention to the quotes from Nevin and how he insists upon the relationship between style and substance.
This attachment to popular forms, which, more than theology, drew the ire of so many among the established New England clergy, was pointed out by the Presbyterian and, later, German Reformed theologian, John Williamson Nevin (1803-86), who insisted in The Anxious Bench that he did not oppose revivalism because of its earnestness:
Its professional machinery, its stage dramatic way, its business-like way of doing up religion in whole and short order, and then being done with it--all made me feel that it was at best a most unreliable mode of carrying forward the work and kingdom of God.
Nevin complains,
All is made to tell upon the one single object of effect. The pulpit is transformed, more or less, into a stage. Divine things are so popularized as to be at last shorn of their dignity as well as their mystery. Anecdotes and stories are plentifully retailed, often in low, familiar, flippant style....The preacher feels himself, and is bent on making himself felt also by the congregation; but God is not felt in the same proportion.
For Nevin, the issue of style was no less indicative of one's theological convictions than the matter of creed. There was not only a Reformation theology, but a Reformation style of evangelism and churchly life as well. Nevin added the following introduction to his rather lengthy critique of the revivalistic enterprise:
The system of New Measures has no affinity whatever with the life of the Reformation, as embodied in the Augsburgh Confession and the Heidelbergh Catechism. It could not have found any favor in the eyes of Zwingli or Calvin. Luther would have denounced it in the most unmerciful terms. His soul was too large, too deep, too free, to hold communion with a style of religion so mechanical and shallow. Those who are actively laboring to bring the Church of Luther, in this country, into subjection to the system, cannot be said to be true to his memory or name....The system in question is in its principle and soul neither Calvinism nor Lutheranism, but Wesleyan Methodism. Those who are urging it upon the old German Churches, are in fact doing as much as they can to turn them over into the arms of Methodism. This may be done without any change of denominational name. Already the life of Methodism, in this country, is actively at work among other sects, which owe no fellowship with it in form....And whatever there may be that is good in Methodism, this life of the Reformation I affirm to be immeasurably more excellent and sound....If we must have Methodism, let us have it under its own proper title, and in its own proper shape. Why keep up the walls of denominational partition in such a case, with no distinctive spiritual being to uphold or protect? A sect without a soul has no right to live. Zeal for a separate denominational name that utters no separate religious idea, is the very essence of sectarian bigotry and schism.
Although Nevin and Schaff, with roots in Princeton's Old Calvinism, did not always see eye to eye with Hodge and Warfield, the Mercersberg Theology sought to recover not only the theology, but the liturgical style and form, of the Reformation and, when matched with the penetrating theological critiques of their close colleagues and mentors, Hodge and Warfield, the combined resources appear striking.
Mike Horton has an article on Finney on the web which may be a reprint from somewere else. Anyway, he has this to say of Nevin and Finney. Pay attention to the quotes from Nevin and how he insists upon the relationship between style and substance.
This attachment to popular forms, which, more than theology, drew the ire of so many among the established New England clergy, was pointed out by the Presbyterian and, later, German Reformed theologian, John Williamson Nevin (1803-86), who insisted in The Anxious Bench that he did not oppose revivalism because of its earnestness:
Its professional machinery, its stage dramatic way, its business-like way of doing up religion in whole and short order, and then being done with it--all made me feel that it was at best a most unreliable mode of carrying forward the work and kingdom of God.
Nevin complains,
All is made to tell upon the one single object of effect. The pulpit is transformed, more or less, into a stage. Divine things are so popularized as to be at last shorn of their dignity as well as their mystery. Anecdotes and stories are plentifully retailed, often in low, familiar, flippant style....The preacher feels himself, and is bent on making himself felt also by the congregation; but God is not felt in the same proportion.
For Nevin, the issue of style was no less indicative of one's theological convictions than the matter of creed. There was not only a Reformation theology, but a Reformation style of evangelism and churchly life as well. Nevin added the following introduction to his rather lengthy critique of the revivalistic enterprise:
The system of New Measures has no affinity whatever with the life of the Reformation, as embodied in the Augsburgh Confession and the Heidelbergh Catechism. It could not have found any favor in the eyes of Zwingli or Calvin. Luther would have denounced it in the most unmerciful terms. His soul was too large, too deep, too free, to hold communion with a style of religion so mechanical and shallow. Those who are actively laboring to bring the Church of Luther, in this country, into subjection to the system, cannot be said to be true to his memory or name....The system in question is in its principle and soul neither Calvinism nor Lutheranism, but Wesleyan Methodism. Those who are urging it upon the old German Churches, are in fact doing as much as they can to turn them over into the arms of Methodism. This may be done without any change of denominational name. Already the life of Methodism, in this country, is actively at work among other sects, which owe no fellowship with it in form....And whatever there may be that is good in Methodism, this life of the Reformation I affirm to be immeasurably more excellent and sound....If we must have Methodism, let us have it under its own proper title, and in its own proper shape. Why keep up the walls of denominational partition in such a case, with no distinctive spiritual being to uphold or protect? A sect without a soul has no right to live. Zeal for a separate denominational name that utters no separate religious idea, is the very essence of sectarian bigotry and schism.
Although Nevin and Schaff, with roots in Princeton's Old Calvinism, did not always see eye to eye with Hodge and Warfield, the Mercersberg Theology sought to recover not only the theology, but the liturgical style and form, of the Reformation and, when matched with the penetrating theological critiques of their close colleagues and mentors, Hodge and Warfield, the combined resources appear striking.
Uh, Astros, ...??
A devastating loss, no doubt. Not sure what is going to happen now.
But the Astros still need only one more win.
What is more, some of my favorite Lutheran bloggers are die-hard Cardinal fans, Pastor Walt Synder, Pastor Todd Peperkorn and Bunnie Diehl.
Well, I will still read them. Hopefully, I will read them while watching the 'Stros in their first World Series.
But the Astros still need only one more win.
What is more, some of my favorite Lutheran bloggers are die-hard Cardinal fans, Pastor Walt Synder, Pastor Todd Peperkorn and Bunnie Diehl.
Well, I will still read them. Hopefully, I will read them while watching the 'Stros in their first World Series.
Monday, October 17, 2005
The New Measures are Pretty Old
The church growth movement, entertainment worship, obsession with techniques and tactics to get new members: Only a recent phenomenon in Christianity?
No.
Actually, Charles Finney wayback in the 1830's and 1840's devoted his career to just these items, calling them new measures to shake up and revitalize the church.
Read this :
"Without new measures it is impossible that the Church should succeed in gaining the attention of the world to religion. There are so many exciting subjects constantly brought before the public mind, such a running to and fro, so many that cry 'Lo here!' and 'Lo there!' that the Church cannot maintain her ground without sufficient novelty in measures, to get the public ear."
That is Charles Finney.
Read all about him here in this article by Dr. Larry Rast (from Concordia Fort Wayne) who is something of an expert on Finney.
Much of what we are suffering in this area is the directly descended from Finney.
No.
Actually, Charles Finney wayback in the 1830's and 1840's devoted his career to just these items, calling them new measures to shake up and revitalize the church.
Read this :
"Without new measures it is impossible that the Church should succeed in gaining the attention of the world to religion. There are so many exciting subjects constantly brought before the public mind, such a running to and fro, so many that cry 'Lo here!' and 'Lo there!' that the Church cannot maintain her ground without sufficient novelty in measures, to get the public ear."
That is Charles Finney.
Read all about him here in this article by Dr. Larry Rast (from Concordia Fort Wayne) who is something of an expert on Finney.
Much of what we are suffering in this area is the directly descended from Finney.
Astros
Ok I may be counting my proverbial chickens but I am big Astros fan and after yesterdays game I am pretty excited about their chances to get into the series for the first time ever.
Go 'Stros.
I know there are a few LCMS Cardinal fan bloggers out there but ... looks like Houston will eject the Cardinals just like the umps did yesterday!
Go 'Stros.
I know there are a few LCMS Cardinal fan bloggers out there but ... looks like Houston will eject the Cardinals just like the umps did yesterday!
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Parents ... What a Concept
Parents are not perfect. I remember when I realized this about my own father. He had faults! Wow.
As a teenager and young adult I tried hard to think act opposite of my own father. What he thought I disagreed with. He hated long hair; I grew mine out. He was a Republican; I became a far left liberal Democrat.
Eventually I came to my senses and realized he was far wiser than I in my youthful ignorance had ever imagined. I am now a parent of teenagers and the older I get the more incredible I think parenthood is.
I mean what was God thinking? "Here I am going to create new life, precious, valuable, made in my image lives and I am going to entrust them completely to ….. whacked out sinners!" Flawed selfish, messed up people like me.
Every Mothers and Fathers day I think about how flawed parents can be. I think about myself and my huge mistakes. I think of the abuse and neglect that is out there and how hard it must be for some children to think of fathers and mothers and say "God gave me this mom" or "God gave me this Dad." It is a cross to bear for many to try and see God, a loving God, in their parents. It is hard for parents to think that God is using us to raise children. But so it is.
Well, so far my thoughts. Luther says it better: (from the Large Catechism, 4th commandment):
We must, therefore, impress it upon the young that they should regard their parents as in God's stead, and remember that however lowly, poor, frail, and queer they may be, nevertheless they are father and mother given them by God. They are not to be deprived of their honor because of their conduct or their failings.
It is also our duty before the world to be grateful for benefits and every good which we have of our parents. But here again the devil rules in the world, so that the children forget their parents, as we all forget God, and no one considers how God nourishes, protects, and defends us, and bestows so much good on body and soul; especially when an evil hour comes, we are angry and grumble with impatience, and all the good which we have received throughout our life is wiped out [from our memory]. Just so we do also with our parents, and there is no child that understands and considers this [what the parents have endured while nourishing and fostering him], except the Holy Ghost grant him this grace.
As a teenager and young adult I tried hard to think act opposite of my own father. What he thought I disagreed with. He hated long hair; I grew mine out. He was a Republican; I became a far left liberal Democrat.
Eventually I came to my senses and realized he was far wiser than I in my youthful ignorance had ever imagined. I am now a parent of teenagers and the older I get the more incredible I think parenthood is.
I mean what was God thinking? "Here I am going to create new life, precious, valuable, made in my image lives and I am going to entrust them completely to ….. whacked out sinners!" Flawed selfish, messed up people like me.
Every Mothers and Fathers day I think about how flawed parents can be. I think about myself and my huge mistakes. I think of the abuse and neglect that is out there and how hard it must be for some children to think of fathers and mothers and say "God gave me this mom" or "God gave me this Dad." It is a cross to bear for many to try and see God, a loving God, in their parents. It is hard for parents to think that God is using us to raise children. But so it is.
Well, so far my thoughts. Luther says it better: (from the Large Catechism, 4th commandment):
We must, therefore, impress it upon the young that they should regard their parents as in God's stead, and remember that however lowly, poor, frail, and queer they may be, nevertheless they are father and mother given them by God. They are not to be deprived of their honor because of their conduct or their failings.
It is also our duty before the world to be grateful for benefits and every good which we have of our parents. But here again the devil rules in the world, so that the children forget their parents, as we all forget God, and no one considers how God nourishes, protects, and defends us, and bestows so much good on body and soul; especially when an evil hour comes, we are angry and grumble with impatience, and all the good which we have received throughout our life is wiped out [from our memory]. Just so we do also with our parents, and there is no child that understands and considers this [what the parents have endured while nourishing and fostering him], except the Holy Ghost grant him this grace.
Joy ?
Joy is such a slippery word. It does not mean "happy"; it doesn't mean a pentecostal, ecstatic escape; it does not mean some sort of "I-won-the-lottery-whippee!" feeling.
Joy comes from receiving from the Lord. Receiving is our basic, created posture toward God. Receiving is not an innovation God made up when sin came into the world. Reception, to be on the accepting end of God's goodness is how God set things up. Faith is how we were designed to live: relying on God and his gifts.
Joy comes when you see that God is the giver that there is nothing you can do but that God gives, all the way to crucifixion, all the way to body and blood given to eat and drink. God is the giver and we are his beneficiaries, today and always. That is joy: a burden lifted, a life given .
You can hear something of this in these excerpts from the Apology to the Augsburg Confession:
Apology IV 49
It is easy to determine the difference between this faith and the righteousness of the law. Faith is that worship which receives God's offered blessings~ the righteousness of the law is that worship which offers God our own merits. It is by faith that God wants to be worshipped, namely, that we receive from him what he promises and offers.
Apology IV; 310
Thus the service and. worship of the Gospel is to receive good things from God, while the worship of the law is to offer and present our goods to God. We cannot offer anything to God unless we have first been reconciled and reborn. The greatest possible comfort comes from this doctrine that the highest worship in the Gospel is the desire to receive forgiveness of sins, grace, and righteousness.
Apology IV 154
The woman came, believing that she should seek the: forgiveness of sins from Christ.
This is the highest way of worshipping Christ. Nothing greater could she ascribe to him. By looking for the forgiveness of sins from him, she truly acknowledged him as the Messiah. Truly to believe means to think of Christ in this way, and in this way to worship and take hold of him.
Joy comes from receiving from the Lord. Receiving is our basic, created posture toward God. Receiving is not an innovation God made up when sin came into the world. Reception, to be on the accepting end of God's goodness is how God set things up. Faith is how we were designed to live: relying on God and his gifts.
Joy comes when you see that God is the giver that there is nothing you can do but that God gives, all the way to crucifixion, all the way to body and blood given to eat and drink. God is the giver and we are his beneficiaries, today and always. That is joy: a burden lifted, a life given .
You can hear something of this in these excerpts from the Apology to the Augsburg Confession:
Apology IV 49
It is easy to determine the difference between this faith and the righteousness of the law. Faith is that worship which receives God's offered blessings~ the righteousness of the law is that worship which offers God our own merits. It is by faith that God wants to be worshipped, namely, that we receive from him what he promises and offers.
Apology IV; 310
Thus the service and. worship of the Gospel is to receive good things from God, while the worship of the law is to offer and present our goods to God. We cannot offer anything to God unless we have first been reconciled and reborn. The greatest possible comfort comes from this doctrine that the highest worship in the Gospel is the desire to receive forgiveness of sins, grace, and righteousness.
Apology IV 154
The woman came, believing that she should seek the: forgiveness of sins from Christ.
This is the highest way of worshipping Christ. Nothing greater could she ascribe to him. By looking for the forgiveness of sins from him, she truly acknowledged him as the Messiah. Truly to believe means to think of Christ in this way, and in this way to worship and take hold of him.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Church furniture
The greatest enemy of Biblical Christianity is the separation of flesh from spirit, the material from the spiritual. I have written this before on this blog but it affects so much from the sacraments, to our piety, to our view of Christ, even to our church furniture.
The separation of the physical from the spiritual is the main reason why adiaphora has become such a driving force in today's Lutheran churches. If the Sprit operates freely, outside of and with no relation to the physical then everything we do in worship instantly becomes adiaphora. The spirit is floating above the fray and we can do whatever we wish, build whatever building we wish, sing whatever song, take whatever action, it doesn't matter because the Spirit, the Gospel, God, is not involved in such things.
Even church furniture. Church furniture and how we arrange our pews, organ, font, altar, pulpit, candles etc. is a classic adiaphoristic question. It is not answered in the Bible or Confessions.
Yet, we cannot say it does not matter, that somehow God and the Gospel and the Spirit is not involved in our answers to such questions. When we place the font at the entrance to the chancel or the entrance to the sanctuary itself we are making a statement we are saying something about God and the sacraments and yes, about Jesus. Suddenly the skinny no-count adiaphora takes on weight, it confesses. The content becomes attached to the form, the Spirit to the matter, the divine to the human.
The separation of the physical from the spiritual is the main reason why adiaphora has become such a driving force in today's Lutheran churches. If the Sprit operates freely, outside of and with no relation to the physical then everything we do in worship instantly becomes adiaphora. The spirit is floating above the fray and we can do whatever we wish, build whatever building we wish, sing whatever song, take whatever action, it doesn't matter because the Spirit, the Gospel, God, is not involved in such things.
Even church furniture. Church furniture and how we arrange our pews, organ, font, altar, pulpit, candles etc. is a classic adiaphoristic question. It is not answered in the Bible or Confessions.
Yet, we cannot say it does not matter, that somehow God and the Gospel and the Spirit is not involved in our answers to such questions. When we place the font at the entrance to the chancel or the entrance to the sanctuary itself we are making a statement we are saying something about God and the sacraments and yes, about Jesus. Suddenly the skinny no-count adiaphora takes on weight, it confesses. The content becomes attached to the form, the Spirit to the matter, the divine to the human.
Monday, October 10, 2005
10 Things I remember about being in Youth Group
10 Things I remember about being in a Youth Group in the (late) 1970's
10. Larry Norman albums
9. Saying prayers in a circle, holding hands, wishing I was holding the hand of a girl further down the way
8. Trying really hard to have quiet times with Jesus like my youth group leader told me but ending up listening to the White album instead
7. Saying the sinner's prayer and giving my heart to Jesus in the basement of an LCMS church
6. Overhearing the "older" kids in the youth group talk about getting drunk and driving to New Jersey (I was too pious for that ... I did not get drunk until I went to a Concordia college!)
5. Underlining and underlining Bible passages that had personal meaning for me (all Law passages as it turns out)
4.Wondering why my inner feelings did not seem to match up with what I was "supposed" to feel
3. Getting really emotional and close to the Lord on summer week long retreats
2. Forming incredibly close friendships
1. Honestly, though much of what happened was a theological disaster, I gained a certain "Christian" awareness and those couple of years led me eventually to the seminary and to a discovery of a deeper, sacramental, Scriptural faith we call confessional Lutheranism
10. Larry Norman albums
9. Saying prayers in a circle, holding hands, wishing I was holding the hand of a girl further down the way
8. Trying really hard to have quiet times with Jesus like my youth group leader told me but ending up listening to the White album instead
7. Saying the sinner's prayer and giving my heart to Jesus in the basement of an LCMS church
6. Overhearing the "older" kids in the youth group talk about getting drunk and driving to New Jersey (I was too pious for that ... I did not get drunk until I went to a Concordia college!)
5. Underlining and underlining Bible passages that had personal meaning for me (all Law passages as it turns out)
4.Wondering why my inner feelings did not seem to match up with what I was "supposed" to feel
3. Getting really emotional and close to the Lord on summer week long retreats
2. Forming incredibly close friendships
1. Honestly, though much of what happened was a theological disaster, I gained a certain "Christian" awareness and those couple of years led me eventually to the seminary and to a discovery of a deeper, sacramental, Scriptural faith we call confessional Lutheranism
Friday, October 07, 2005
The Vernacularist Illusion
I ran across this essay from First Things way back in 1995. It punctures the myth that people demand and enjoy simpler and simpler non-churchly language.
I pasted in a few paragraphs. The whole article is here.
The Vernacularist Illusion
Peter L. Berger
In recent decades, both among Roman Catholics and Protestants, there has been much talk about liturgical reform and a great amount of activity resulting from this talk. Some people have even described these developments as a liturgical revolution.
There have been different theological and pastoral rationales given for the changes in worship, and, of course, some changes have been more radical than others. But there is one central assumption that underlies most of the changes-namely, that the traditional, pre-reform modes of worship were too remote from the lives of ordinary people and that the language of worship had become incomprehensible. Much of the liturgical reform of recent decades was consequently a great turn toward the vernacular.
As a sociologist of religion I was already struck at the time of the Second Vatican Council by the fact that there was little if any empirical evidence to indicate that ordinary Catholics found the Latin mass remote or difficult to understand (especially with English missals in hand). The remoteness and the incomprehensibility were posited a priori by theologians and prelates. The same lack of evidence pertains to all the other programs of vernacularization.
But there is another, massive movement in contemporary Christianity that sheds unexpected light on the rationale of the vernacular movement: the worldwide ascendancy of Pentecostalism.
The rapid growth of Pentecostalism in the United States is a well-known fact. It has also become clear that this phenomenon is international in scope. Given the massiveness of this phenomenon, it is very unlikely that any single factor can explain its remarkable success. But it is noteworthy that there is one universal and indeed defining characteristic of Pentecostal Christianity-its language of worship.
Pentecostals are Christians whose worship is dominated by glossolalia, the "speaking in tongues." Pentecostals, of course, explain this practice by the presence of the Holy Spirit, who, as at the original Pentecost reported in the Acts of the Apostles, descends upon the faithful and allows them to speak in alien tongues. This is not the place to dispute this explanation theologically. I only want to make here one simple, empirical observation. The fastest-growing Christian community in the contemporary world, and one that consists overwhelmingly of very ordinary people, worships by way of glossolalia- that is, in a language much more remote from the vernacular than Latin, Elizabethan English, or any other archaic language (including church Slavonic).
This observation is hardly conclusive, but it suggests what may well be the underlying mistake of the vernacularist assumption. It is, to be sure, not the only mistake. There is also the patronizing notion that ordinary people are unable to find their way through proceedings in an unfamiliar idiom-a notion, as noted before, that is almost certainly mistaken when it comes to liturgical language. But there is a more fundamental error in the notion that worship must minimize the remoteness of God as much as possible. To be sure, the error is not total. Of course any form of worship will seek to mediate between the remoteness of the supernatural and the reality of everyday human existence. Of course the Bible, if it is to be read by ordinary people, must be translated into a language that they can understand (far be it from me to disapprove of Luther's great achievement in this matter). And of course it makes no sense for a preacher addressing, say, a German congregation to speak in Greek. Thus there must be a place for the vernacular in Christian worship.
But vernacularism, as it has come to be widely established in the churches, may well be described as a subtle and yet very damaging heresy. It is fundamentally misguided to use linguistic means to deny the transcendent remoteness altogether, to pretend that we can speak of God as we speak of politics or commerce, to try to conceal the divine otherness. The Pentecostals, lustily uttering their incomprehensible and untranslatable glossolalia, offer a welcome corrective.
I pasted in a few paragraphs. The whole article is here.
The Vernacularist Illusion
Peter L. Berger
In recent decades, both among Roman Catholics and Protestants, there has been much talk about liturgical reform and a great amount of activity resulting from this talk. Some people have even described these developments as a liturgical revolution.
There have been different theological and pastoral rationales given for the changes in worship, and, of course, some changes have been more radical than others. But there is one central assumption that underlies most of the changes-namely, that the traditional, pre-reform modes of worship were too remote from the lives of ordinary people and that the language of worship had become incomprehensible. Much of the liturgical reform of recent decades was consequently a great turn toward the vernacular.
As a sociologist of religion I was already struck at the time of the Second Vatican Council by the fact that there was little if any empirical evidence to indicate that ordinary Catholics found the Latin mass remote or difficult to understand (especially with English missals in hand). The remoteness and the incomprehensibility were posited a priori by theologians and prelates. The same lack of evidence pertains to all the other programs of vernacularization.
But there is another, massive movement in contemporary Christianity that sheds unexpected light on the rationale of the vernacular movement: the worldwide ascendancy of Pentecostalism.
The rapid growth of Pentecostalism in the United States is a well-known fact. It has also become clear that this phenomenon is international in scope. Given the massiveness of this phenomenon, it is very unlikely that any single factor can explain its remarkable success. But it is noteworthy that there is one universal and indeed defining characteristic of Pentecostal Christianity-its language of worship.
Pentecostals are Christians whose worship is dominated by glossolalia, the "speaking in tongues." Pentecostals, of course, explain this practice by the presence of the Holy Spirit, who, as at the original Pentecost reported in the Acts of the Apostles, descends upon the faithful and allows them to speak in alien tongues. This is not the place to dispute this explanation theologically. I only want to make here one simple, empirical observation. The fastest-growing Christian community in the contemporary world, and one that consists overwhelmingly of very ordinary people, worships by way of glossolalia- that is, in a language much more remote from the vernacular than Latin, Elizabethan English, or any other archaic language (including church Slavonic).
This observation is hardly conclusive, but it suggests what may well be the underlying mistake of the vernacularist assumption. It is, to be sure, not the only mistake. There is also the patronizing notion that ordinary people are unable to find their way through proceedings in an unfamiliar idiom-a notion, as noted before, that is almost certainly mistaken when it comes to liturgical language. But there is a more fundamental error in the notion that worship must minimize the remoteness of God as much as possible. To be sure, the error is not total. Of course any form of worship will seek to mediate between the remoteness of the supernatural and the reality of everyday human existence. Of course the Bible, if it is to be read by ordinary people, must be translated into a language that they can understand (far be it from me to disapprove of Luther's great achievement in this matter). And of course it makes no sense for a preacher addressing, say, a German congregation to speak in Greek. Thus there must be a place for the vernacular in Christian worship.
But vernacularism, as it has come to be widely established in the churches, may well be described as a subtle and yet very damaging heresy. It is fundamentally misguided to use linguistic means to deny the transcendent remoteness altogether, to pretend that we can speak of God as we speak of politics or commerce, to try to conceal the divine otherness. The Pentecostals, lustily uttering their incomprehensible and untranslatable glossolalia, offer a welcome corrective.
Thoughts on Church and Culture
The church has its own culture, manners, history and language. At the same time the church has always "personalized" herself to her surroundings. There is always a balance to the sameness and the difference between the church and the community the church is “in”.
But the recent decades (centuries, really) has seen a steady attack in the West on the churchly structures by which the church has always lived. Its traditions, ways of living and its language have slowly been replaced by the urge to destructively assimilate to the culture and mores of the society surrounding the church.
This urge is such a natural one, even for the church, that it has largely been adopted. It is natural because the church has always incarnated herself to the human culture she is in. This is part of the human/divine character of the church. She is a human body with a divine head. She is made up of people who live in the "real" world and the church speaks to and lives with those very "worldly" people.
Thus the orthodox churches became "ethnic" in that they became part and parcel of those very nations and cultures. But those cultures were Christian in their roots and were formed by the very church which adapted herself to them. There was a marriage between church and culture. It was a marriage between spouses who were both Christian.
In the present western world, when the church adapts herself to the reigning culture she is marrying a pagan husband. This is much like the Old Testament, where the Lord warned Israel not to intermarry with the pagans who surrounded her because the idolatrous culture would tempt and seduce her. SO, the church today has married an idolatrous pagan culture and finds herself slipping into the habits and ways of the pagan culture she has joined herself to.
The result is that to remain authentic and faithful, the church in the West today, must define herself in opposition to the culture she finds herself in. This is extremely difficult to accomplish since the people who make up the church and fill her pews are proponents and carriers of the very culture to which the church must oppose herself. The natural and otherwise helpful urge of the church to incarnate herself in the present becomes a dangerous temptation to compromise.
But the recent decades (centuries, really) has seen a steady attack in the West on the churchly structures by which the church has always lived. Its traditions, ways of living and its language have slowly been replaced by the urge to destructively assimilate to the culture and mores of the society surrounding the church.
This urge is such a natural one, even for the church, that it has largely been adopted. It is natural because the church has always incarnated herself to the human culture she is in. This is part of the human/divine character of the church. She is a human body with a divine head. She is made up of people who live in the "real" world and the church speaks to and lives with those very "worldly" people.
Thus the orthodox churches became "ethnic" in that they became part and parcel of those very nations and cultures. But those cultures were Christian in their roots and were formed by the very church which adapted herself to them. There was a marriage between church and culture. It was a marriage between spouses who were both Christian.
In the present western world, when the church adapts herself to the reigning culture she is marrying a pagan husband. This is much like the Old Testament, where the Lord warned Israel not to intermarry with the pagans who surrounded her because the idolatrous culture would tempt and seduce her. SO, the church today has married an idolatrous pagan culture and finds herself slipping into the habits and ways of the pagan culture she has joined herself to.
The result is that to remain authentic and faithful, the church in the West today, must define herself in opposition to the culture she finds herself in. This is extremely difficult to accomplish since the people who make up the church and fill her pews are proponents and carriers of the very culture to which the church must oppose herself. The natural and otherwise helpful urge of the church to incarnate herself in the present becomes a dangerous temptation to compromise.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Baby Worship
This is an article from way back in 2001 in Touchstone. Somehow I saved it onto my computer and ran across it recently. A nice read on the sentimental and theologically dangerous exaltation of babies.
A few excerpts:
To give an extreme example, my Christian book-store's newest fad is a product called the "Baby Cross." There are 29 different varieties in stock, but each features a cute little boy (in powder blue pajamas) or a cute little girl (in pink pajamas) suspended on the cross beams of a crucifix. If this strains credulity, just go to the Christian Armory Bookstore on Morse Road in Columbus, Ohio-you can't miss the display rack. I have no idea what the rival makers of this product thought they were doing, but they have created an icon in which the anonymous baby literally takes the place of the personal Christ.
In Jenkins's and LaHaye's apocalypse, Baby Worship rises to a literally unsurpassable height, as every baby on earth is raptured off to heaven to be with God. Before the rapture, the godly Pastor Billings predicts that those left behind will see "the pain and heartache of a world without precious children."3 And so it happens. Following the rapture, "it looks like all children are gone, even unborn ones." "Not one was left!" A quick look back through the novel reveals ten passages where infant rapture is discussed; there are probably more.
The undeveloped, unredeemed state of nature is, it seems, equivalent to the state of grace. This is, I think, the heresy of Baby Worship. Left Behind has put forth a set of propositions that logically require what the Baby Cross can only imply. The heresy of Baby Worship is, then, a belief in the beatitude of the undeveloped state of nature. Of the developed state of nature, Baby Worship speaks negatively enough, or perhaps too negatively. As in Blake's religion, experience itself is a fall, and infancy itself salvation.
A few excerpts:
To give an extreme example, my Christian book-store's newest fad is a product called the "Baby Cross." There are 29 different varieties in stock, but each features a cute little boy (in powder blue pajamas) or a cute little girl (in pink pajamas) suspended on the cross beams of a crucifix. If this strains credulity, just go to the Christian Armory Bookstore on Morse Road in Columbus, Ohio-you can't miss the display rack. I have no idea what the rival makers of this product thought they were doing, but they have created an icon in which the anonymous baby literally takes the place of the personal Christ.
In Jenkins's and LaHaye's apocalypse, Baby Worship rises to a literally unsurpassable height, as every baby on earth is raptured off to heaven to be with God. Before the rapture, the godly Pastor Billings predicts that those left behind will see "the pain and heartache of a world without precious children."3 And so it happens. Following the rapture, "it looks like all children are gone, even unborn ones." "Not one was left!" A quick look back through the novel reveals ten passages where infant rapture is discussed; there are probably more.
The undeveloped, unredeemed state of nature is, it seems, equivalent to the state of grace. This is, I think, the heresy of Baby Worship. Left Behind has put forth a set of propositions that logically require what the Baby Cross can only imply. The heresy of Baby Worship is, then, a belief in the beatitude of the undeveloped state of nature. Of the developed state of nature, Baby Worship speaks negatively enough, or perhaps too negatively. As in Blake's religion, experience itself is a fall, and infancy itself salvation.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Roman Catholic "Relevancy"
Here is a nice post on the silliness of the Roman Catholic church trying to be "relevant" by borrowing imagery from the Matrix movie. Thanks to Mere Comments for the tip.
Here is as sample:
Oh well. I guess it isn’t the end of the world. It just seems to me like the Catholic Church is following the evangelicals down a bad road. It goes in the same direction as the secular road because its direction is determined not by us but by the world. We zealously imitate them trying to be “relevant” and in the end only get laughed at for our pains.
Here is as sample:
Oh well. I guess it isn’t the end of the world. It just seems to me like the Catholic Church is following the evangelicals down a bad road. It goes in the same direction as the secular road because its direction is determined not by us but by the world. We zealously imitate them trying to be “relevant” and in the end only get laughed at for our pains.
Monday, October 03, 2005
Sunday Morning Coming Down ...
is the name of a song by Kris Kristofferson, detailing a dissolute man's hungover encounter with a Sunday morning. I use the phrase for the post liturgy feeling that envelopes me after the service, after the adrenaline and caffeine has drianed a bit.
Before the serivce and particularly before the sermon I am often overwhelmed with feelings of inadequacy. How dare I do this? How dare I tell others what to beleive, what God wants, has done, will do for or to them? "Unworthy! Unworthy! You are unworhty!" is what echoes in my head.
The only remedy for such things is to step out of the sacristy and and say, "OK, ok true, true, true, but God has put me here. Let God work it out. I am unworthy but Christ is worthy." And it is he who works in the liturgy not me. The refrain in the Orthodox ordination liturgy is axios! axios! : worthy. The ordinand is worthy on account of Christ. That is the meaning of vestments and ordination.
After service there is a dfferent feeling. A feeling not of unworthiness but of often of uselessness. What good has this done? What has changed? What difference does this make?
All satanic whisperings, I know. The harvest is hidden, the work, what God does through the church, invisible. Faith! Faith! Faith!
Before the serivce and particularly before the sermon I am often overwhelmed with feelings of inadequacy. How dare I do this? How dare I tell others what to beleive, what God wants, has done, will do for or to them? "Unworthy! Unworthy! You are unworhty!" is what echoes in my head.
The only remedy for such things is to step out of the sacristy and and say, "OK, ok true, true, true, but God has put me here. Let God work it out. I am unworthy but Christ is worthy." And it is he who works in the liturgy not me. The refrain in the Orthodox ordination liturgy is axios! axios! : worthy. The ordinand is worthy on account of Christ. That is the meaning of vestments and ordination.
After service there is a dfferent feeling. A feeling not of unworthiness but of often of uselessness. What good has this done? What has changed? What difference does this make?
All satanic whisperings, I know. The harvest is hidden, the work, what God does through the church, invisible. Faith! Faith! Faith!
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Jesus ... brought to you by Pepsi
Article in the Washington Post details Luis Palau's evangelism approach. Festival evangelism he calls it. Every entertainment option they can manage. He also uses corporate sponsorship: Pepsi, BB&T and others.
There is also intentional avoidance of controversial topics like doctrine!
There is also intentional avoidance of controversial topics like doctrine!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)