LCMS Presidential Nominee Rev. Matt Harrison . . .

addressing the LCMS Black Ministry Convocation a couple of days ago:

IT'S TIME!

New LCMS Mission Statement?

"Time is short, Hell is hot!" 

It's About the Relationship of Doctrine to Practice

President Kieschnick's report before the convention yesterday morning sounded a lot more like a campaign speech than a report to the synod.  It also sounded exactly like I thought (and predicted) it would sound.  I had heard that he would be attempting to set the record straight on his oft-repeated, and oft-criticized, statement, "This is not your grandfather's church."  And that's exactly what he did.  But, this is nothing new.  He attempted the same thing in his book, "Waking the Sleeping Giant," and I commented upon that in a post a while back.  I won't rehash that now; you can read my thoughts on this by clicking here if you wish.  You can also read an excellent article Pr. Wilken wrote a while back on this subject here.

Anyway, as I watched Pres. Kieschnick's report this morning (which you can watch here or read here - and, hey, if you want the ultimate experience, open the video and the pdf at the same time and read along while you watch!), I was sincerely impressed, as I always am, at the passion with which he speaks.  It's a little over-dramatic for my particular taste, but there is no denying the fact that this man wholeheartedly believes in what he's saying.  I don't doubt his sincerity one bit.  He really, honestly, genuinely believes that the vision he has for the future of our synod is both god-pleasing and completely in line with what our grandfathers would want for our church body.  And, he is very persuasive.  He's a very good public speaker.  If I was Grandma Schmidt watching at home, I might readily stand up and give him a standing ovation at the conclusion of his speech.

I will also say, as I have said in the past, that I consider Pres. Kieschnick a brother in Christ.  He loves Jesus and has an undeniable passion to reach the lost.  I also appreciate very much the many points of doctrinal agreement I do share with Pres. Kieschnick.  He is right about the fact that we in the LCMS do enjoy a tremendous amount of doctrinal unity when compared to other mainline Protestant denominations.  I think he often goes a little overboard in stressing this point, and comes off as boastful when pointing out that we are the "envy of other church bodies," but his point is well taken, nonetheless.  And there is also no denying the fact that he is on the right side of the many social issues we face today, and has done a good job throughout his tenure as president of speaking for our synod on these.

But, see, here's the deal:  Lutherans have never been content with agreement on many, most, or nearly all, doctrinal matters.  Lutherans have never been minimalists.  Lutherans have never been fundamentalists.  Lutherans have always been all in, or all out - doctrinally speaking.  You can't be partly, or even mostly, Lutheran.  It just doesn't work that way.  If you're not all Lutheran, you aren't Lutheran at all.  That's why it is required of pastors in our synod that they subscribe unconditionally to our Lutheran Confessions.  

I know how ridiculous that sounds to our postmodern ears, but it's the truth.  It's kind of like the old saying, "You can't be a little bit pregnant."  You is either pregnant or you ain't!

This is where I find an obvious and serious disconnect with Pres. Kieschnick (and those who believe as he does).  He does believe that we can be mostly Lutheran, with a little bit of this or that other thing mixed in.  And this belief is built upon the faulty notion that doctrine and practice need not go hand in hand.  It's the belief that our Lutheran doctrine can be maintained and retained even while we adopt and employ the practices of those whose doctrine is not in line with, and even contradictory to, what we Lutherans believe, teach, and confess.

This is what stands at the heart of all the divisions we suffer in our synod.  On one side are those like Pres. Kieschnick who believe that practice can be divorced from doctrine, so that what we do has no effect on what we believe.  On the other side are those who believe that doctrine and practice cannot be separated, for they are simply two sides of the same coin - practice is simply doctrine in action; what we do goes hand in hand with what we believe, and what we believe guides and shapes what we do.

Recognizing this very serious and obvious disconnect, suddenly the many points of doctrinal agreement often referred to by Pres. Kieschnick no longer seem as wonderful.  Actually, a great many of those points of doctrinal agreement are points shared by conservative Christians of a variety of stripes.  I mean, I have a Baptist friend, who is also a pastor, and with whom I am in agreement on a great many doctrinal points (at least, on paper).  I can rejoice in the areas of agreement we have, but those areas are simply not enough for he and I to be in altar and pulpit fellowship with one another.  Further, while there are many doctrinal points with which my Baptist friend and I claim to be in agreement, it is obvious that, when we flesh out and define what we really believe about those doctrinal points, we are not in agreement.  The same is true within our own synod.  Pres. Kieschnick can create as many long lists of what he perceives to be points of doctrinal agreement among us, but, at the end of the day, when those points are fleshed out and further defined, it turns out that we are not in agreement as advertised.

Now, to be fair, Pres. Kieschnick has readily admitted time and time again that he acknowledges that we have areas of serious disagreement.  He has pointed to the disagreements we have concerning 1) the administration of Holy Communion, 2) how we worship, 3) the role of women, 4) participation in civic events, 5) fellowship with others, etc.  But, where he goes astray is in believing that these areas of disagreement do not affect the doctrinal unity he claims we share.  In other words, from his perspective, these areas of disagreement all fall within the realm of practice and, since he is of the mind that doctrine and practice can be separated, they do not infringe upon our doctrinal unity.  He would say that we need to work toward settling our disagreements, but not because we find ourselves in doctrinal disunity, but rather because it would be better for our synod and give us greater opportunity to reach the lost if we would stop bickering about these disagreements.  For Pres. Kieschnick, the purpose of resolving our differences is not to bring us into doctrinal agreement - we already have that, in his view - but to better enable us to do the mission he believes we are called to do.

With that in mind, the biggest problem our synod faces, from Pres. Kieschnick's perspective, is that we don't get along as well as we should.  But, he (and others like him) fails to realize that the reason we don't get along as well as we should is not because our synod is filled with a bunch of naturally disagreeable people, but rather because we have very real and very serious DOCTRINAL disagreements.  That point is simply lost on him, and we can certainly understand why.  I mean, when you place all of our problems into the "practice basket," which is distinct from the "doctrine basket," then the solution must be that we need to stop arguing about things that do not infringe upon the doctrinal unity we share.  Our real problem then, according to Pres. Kieschnick, is attitudinal and behavioral, not doctrinal.

I wholeheartedly and most vehemently disagree with this.  And, contrary to Pres. Kieschnick's assessment and passionate plea to the delegates yesterday, I am supremely confident that our grandfathers would wholeheartedly and most vehemently share my disagreement.

So, the delegates serving at the convention this week have a very serious decision to make.  Pres. Kieschnick is right in noting that this convention "is a pivotal event in the life of the LCMS" and that the elections and decisions made by these delegates "will determine the direction of the LCMS in the years ahead."  The decision the delegates will have to make boils down to how they view the relationship of doctrine to practice.  If they believe, as Pres. Kieschnick believes, that the two are distinct and need not go hand in hand, then they should vote for him and allow him to continue to lead our synod in the direction he has been leading us for these past nine years.  If they believe that doctrine and practice do go hand in hand, that practice is simply doctrine in action, then "It's Time" to elect a president who shares that belief and will lead us toward serious discussion about the real divisions we suffer, with the Word of God and our Lutheran Confessions guiding us.  That, of course, would be Rev. Matt Harrison.

I, for one, am thankful that Pres. Kieschnick went with the campaign speech he did yesterday.  He made it vividly clear where he stands, and where he stands is not upon the same doctrinal ground our grandfathers stood.  But, I fear that this fact will be lost on many delegates, and that the focus will instead be on the passion with which Pres. Kieschnick made his plea.  I pray that won't be the case.  I pray that the delegates will see through that passion and recognize the real issue at stake here, that it's about the relationship of doctrine to practice.  We'll see . . .

What Is Divine Worship?

The LCMS National Convention tentative schedule had listed for yesterday afternoon from 4:00-5:30 p.m.:  "Opening Convention Divine Worship with Holy Communion."  I was curious as to what was meant by "Divine Worship."  I mean, I've heard of Divine Service.  I've also heard of Contemporary Worship.  But, what is "Divine Worship"?  Is it a descriptor being used in reference to the activity of the worshipers, as if that activity is so sublime, so inspirational, so godly that the only way to describe it is to call it "Divine"?  Or, is this a descriptor of the Divinity being given the opportunity to do a little worshiping of Himself?  What is this thing called "Divine Worship"? 

Curious and interested by this strange terminology, I tuned it to watch what was being described as "Divine Worship."  After doing so, I get it now.  "Divine Worship" is what you get when you try to mix and match elements of the Divine Service with Contemporary Worship in the attempt to please a crowd full of people who have a variety of "worship tastes."  It's what you get when you use the ordo of the historic liturgy (for the most part - since when did the Kyrie take place before the Absolution, and what in the world was up with that Sanctus?), but spice it up with a funky, almost-psychedelic-like light show, and intersperse Christian hymns with Contemporary Christian pop-music.  It's what you get when you try to have Divine Service with a rock-n-roll concert at the same time.  It's what you get when Lutherans try to be Lutheran and Charismatics at the same time.  That, I guess, is what is meant by "Divine Worship."

Anyway, I don't like it.  I know:  Surprise, surprise!  And, I suppose that being critical of the opening "worship service" of our synod's national convention just further proves that I'm a stubborn, intolerant, inflexible, uncompromising, liturgical type.  So be it.  I'll stick with the Divine Service.  If I want a light show and amplified music with a back-beat that moves me to groove along with it, well, I'll go to a rock concert.

Oh well.  Such is life in our synod today, which "is not your grandfather's church the church our grandfather's dreamed of" (more on that later).  Funny, I can't imagine our grandfather's dreaming of this so-called "Divine Worship."  I can't imagine them ever dreaming about the day when the processional crucifix(?) looked like some weird, ice-sculpture-type-thing of a figure looking like it's signaling a touchdown, or the day when a television screen was built into the altar (for a pic of the altar, click here), or the day when "Holy Spirit-whirly-pennants" would be processed in and wielded over the crowd, or the day when a comfy, red-chair would be placed before the altar to be used in some innovative liturgical element that I'm still scratching my head about, or the day when Lutherans would be standing up during the Distribution of the very Body and Blood of our Lord to wave their hands in the air and move their bodies to the beat of the pop-song in the background (actually, you can't see this happening in the video, but those who were there have reported that it was happening), and so forth.  Nope, can't imagine our grandfathers dreaming of the day when what happened at this "Divine Worship" would be fitting for the opening worship service at their synod's national convention, and put on display for the whole world to see.  Can't imagine that at all.

If you're interested in seeing what "Divine Worship" is, you can go here to watch it in action.  For Fr. Beane's take on it, with which I am in full agreement, click here. 

A New Brother In Our Circuit

This afternoon, I was privileged and blessed to attend the Ordination and Installation of Matthew Makela (oops, that's Pastor Matthew Makela now) at St. John's Lutheran Church in Midland, Michigan, where he has been called to serve as Assistant Pastor.  The Service was wonderful and very well attended for a steamy July afternoon.  Beautiful hymns were sung (LSB 682 "God of the Prophets, Bless the Prophets' Sons"; LSB 602 "The Gifts Christ Freely Gives"; "The Lord, His Peace Bestowing" [another Starke original]; and LSB 586 "Preach You the Word"), the Law and Gospel was preached most excellently by Pr. David Kahle, who served as Pr. Makela's vicarage supervisor and made the over 1,000-mile trip from some weird place called Nebraska (I think that's somewhere out West or something :) to participate, and the laying on of hands was done by the many Pastors in attendance. 

I pray the Lord's richest blessings upon Pr. Makela as he begins serving Christ's people in His stead and by His command, and I look forward to getting to know him better in the months to come.  He's gotta be one cool dude and a theological stalwart - I mean, he did graduate from Fort Wayne, after all. :)  He's actually the sixth consecutive Fort Wayne grad to be placed into our circuit in the past six years, so as I told him this afternoon, he is privileged to belong to the absolute best circuit in the Michigan District! :)

A couple of pics of the occasion:

  (Pr. Makela is front and center)

(Pr. David Kahle and Pr. Makela)

Mustache Momentum . . .

makes its way to mid-Michigan, where members of Peace Lutheran, Alma are hangin' at the campground:

Heck, even before Lisa and I arrived at the campground, that mustache phenomenon infiltrated my truck.  I turned to look at my wife and this is what I saw (clearly, Lisa thinks, "It's Time!"):

Then, when we arrived at the campground, imagine my surprise when I was greeted by this (Sharyn thinks "It's Time," too!):

And then, from out of nowhere, Zane came up to me and said, "It's Time!":

I turned and saw that Annie also thinks "It's Time!":

Pretty soon, the mustaches were everywhere, and the whole group was heard saying, "IT'S TIME!":

DOO, DAH, DI-PI-TY!
:{)

An Excellent Issues, Etc. Web Extra

Just finished listening to the latest "web extra" over at IE:  "Profiles in Presidential Leadership in the LC-MS."  This is definitely worth a listen!

C.F.W. Walther with Dr. Martin Noland of Trinity Lutheran-Evansville, IN
Friedrich Wyneken with Dr. Larry Rast of Concordia Theological Seminary-Ft. Wayne, IN
Friedrich Pfotenhaur with Dr. John Wohlrabe of Concordia Lutheran-Geneseo, IL
J.A.O. Preus Jr. with Dr. Paul Zimmerman, author of “A Seminary in Crisis”
A.L. Barry with Dr. Ken Schurb of Zion Lutheran-Moberly, MO

A transcript of this episode is available here.  Pics of all the LCMS presidents, along with links to biological info, can be found here (I hope the next picture is of a man with a healthy mustache!:).

Issues, Etc. Blog of the Week

Thanks to Jeff Schwarz for making this blog his choice for blog of the week earlier today (based on this post).  Also, congrats to Brian Yamabe, video-maker-extraordinaire (still have to watch his "This or THAT" video multiple times daily), for being chosen by Pr. Wilken for this post.  You can listen to the segment below or over at the IE website. 

I'm slowly becoming a Fisk-aholic!

I just can't seem to get enough of the excellent, entertaining, thought-provoking, and thoroughly Lutheran videos being made and shared by Pr. Jonathan Fisk.  You can visit his youtube page here and watch all his videos.  A couple of Pr. Fisk's latest offerings have been especially enjoyable to me, since he is addressing a topic I have spent a lot of time studying and am currently writing a book about (release date:  June of some future year:).  That topic is the End Times, which is a topic that has always fascinated me, and, as I said, one in which I have devoted a lot of time studying.

Anyway, in the first video below, titled, "Heaven Ain't *My* Home," Pr. Fisk deals with the misconception that so many Christians have that the heaven our spirits go to when we die will be our eternal residence.  I have taught about this very thing many times in the parish I serve, and I know that many of the faithful members I serve had that same misconception before being taught differently, just as I had myself many moons ago before learning differently.

Heaven is not where we will spend eternity.  It's where our spirits go when our bodies die to rest in the Lord until the Last Day.  Our eternal residence will be in the "new heavens and earth," that is, the eternal kingdom our Lord will usher in on the Last Day when He returns in great glory.  We will dwell in that eternal kingdom in body and spirit, as our earthly bodies will be resurrected and reunited with our spirits.  And, we will LIVE in that eternal kingdom - we will live life in that eternal kingdom the way life was meant to be lived.  This will not be the boring, eternal existence of sitting on a cloud and playing a harp forever, as is so often wrongly portrayed.  No, this will be LIFE, and life to the full.  It will be much like the lives we live now, only without the devastating effects of sin to deal with.  There will be plenty to DO in the eternal kingdom to come.

And so, as Pr. Fisk rightly exhorts, stop thinking of heaven when you contemplate eternity.  Instead, start thinking of the resurrection and the "new heavens and new earth" - the eternal kingdom in which you and all the faithful will dwell in the very same bodies you have now, only resurrected and glorified (or, if you happen to be alive when our Lord returns, "changed and glorified").  Perfect bodies living in the Perfect Paradise of our Perfect Lord's Eternal Kingdom to come, finally freed from sin, death, and the devil, where there is no more pain or tears, suffering or mourning, but only peace, comfort, glory, and joy - that's what eternity will be.

The problem for us is that we still live in this sinful world in these sinful bodies and simply lack the ability to imagine what living without sin will truly be like.  And so, our ability to talk about, or adequately describe, life in the eternal kingdom to come is greatly limited.  Not to mention that our Triune God, in His eternal wisdom, has not revealed all that much to us about life in the eternal kingdom, so much remains a mystery to us, and many of the questions we have and want answered will simply have to go unanswered until we find out for ourselves on that great and glorious day.  But, we can be sure that life in the eternal kingdom will be more awesome than our feeble minds can imagine, which is why we continue to pray, "Amen.  Come, Lord Jesus.  Amen." 

Anyway, here are the videos of Pr. Fisk to which I'm referring (the second one includes answers to questions Pr. Fisk received in response to the first video, including an excellent little overview on "millennialism" and "dispensationalism").  Enjoy:

My, how times have changed . . .

I recently received a wonderful treasure from a dear parishioner, Sharyn (a.k.a. Trixie), which she came across a couple of weeks back.  It is an old copy of The Lutheran Witness, dated February 19, 1918.  I finally had some time to read through it today.  Wow!  This is not The Lutheran Witness I have come to know in our day and age.  The times, they have definitely changed.  This old copy of The Lutheran Witness is filled with theological articles and all of them are most decidedly Lutheran through and through.  There is no "fluff and puff" to this publication whatsoever.  This is deep stuff.  Theological stuff.  Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions emphasized throughout.  Quotes from Dr. Luther, other Lutheran theologians, and the church fathers.  Warnings against embracing the surrounding culture.  Warnings against following in the footsteps of the false teachers of the age (e.g. Billy Sunday).  Decidedly Lutheran.  Unashamedly Lutheran.  Unapologetically Lutheran.  Through and through!  Heck, even the cover screams Lutheran, complete with a picture of Dr. Luther along with his bold confession:  "Here I stand.  I cannot do otherwise.  God help me.  Amen."  

I read through this old copy of The Lutheran Witness and then scanned through the latest copy of The Lutheran Witness which I received recently.  Simply no comparison.  The content and focus is so decidedly different that it is a shame that they bear the same title.  I'm not trying to be mean.  I'm sure the folks who produce today's version of this publication mean well and work hard at putting out a quality publication.  And, there are often some good articles in today's version.  But, let's be honest.  Today's version is not exactly deep on theology.  The focus is more on promoting synodical projects and programs, highlighting "successful" congregations and synodical personalities, sharing testimonials and feel-good stories, and so forth.  Today's version is more like synodical propaganda than bearing witness to the Lutheran confession of the faith.  Not so with this version from 1918.  Just take a look at the contents of this 1918 version and compare them with today's version:

"Crucified" (cover story)

Wow!  What an absolutely wonderful article this is.  It takes the reader through the prophecy of the crucifixion to the place of the crucifixion and finally deals with the shame of the crucifixion, all the while emphasizing in vivid detail what our Lord, Jesus Christ, did to accomplish our salvation.  Just to give you a taste, here are a few excerpts from the article:

"And they crucified Him."  Sublime brevity!  Divine eloquence!  The most stupendous fact of all ages is recorded without the least tremor of emotion.  Truly, the Evangelist was inspired by the Spirit to restrain his pen.  "And they crucified Him!"

Yes, He was counted a transgressor that we might be counted free; for "God hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him."  2 Cor. 5,21.

Naked hung He there - the Lord of heaven and earth.  He was naked that we might be clothed with the garments of salvation and the robe of righteousness.  The soldiers divided His garments among themselves and cast lots - raffled - for the cloak, that it might be fulfilled as the Psalmist prophesied in the 22nd Psalm, v. 18:  "They part My garments among them, and cast lots upon My vesture."

Furthermore, Tertullian, in his Apology, states the circumstances of the crucifixion were announced by the Procurator himself in a dispatch to the Emperor Tiberius; and Justin, in his Apology to the Emperor Antonius, mentions the Acta Pilati, or public records, in which a full account may be found.

"A Christian's Cheer under All Conditions"
Phil. 1, 12-21.
Studies in St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians.

This is the third article in a series the author is doing on Philippians.  Imagine that - a thorough study of a Biblical book in the synod's official organ.  What a concept!  Here's an excerpt:

Yea, the Apostle rejoices and will rejoice, even in his bonds, even though the world places such a strong restraining arm upon him; for, whatever may befall him, he knows he has his beloved Philippians with him in daily intercession and prayer.  And he knows that this prayer is not in vain, but that the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Jesus Christ, will be with him, and will abundantly supply him with strength and courage sufficient for any emergency, v. 19.  He knows this, he is assured of this; he knows that his earnest expectation, and the hope which he has fondly cherished all the time, will not be put to shame in any particular.  It cannot be, being well placed; for it is built on the gracious words and promises of Jesus Christ, and both his life and the service in the course of which he was imprisoned, is given to that same Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  So he will not be ashamed, he will not meet with failure, no matter what will happen to his frail body . . . If he continues to live, his life, even in prison, will be spent in the service of Jesus Christ, unto the glory of His blessed name, and for the spreading of His Gospel.  And if he should die a martyr's death, that, too, will be to the glory of Jesus' name, in whose service he will gladly lay down his life.  So, why should he be downcast and despondent?  He is cheerful and will be cheerful.  The source of his cheer is Jesus Christ.  "I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me."  Gal. 2, 20.

"Thou Art the Man."

An excellent study of repentance and faith, based on the Biblical example of David, who was rebuked by the prophet Nathan (cf. 2 Sam. 12).  This article is sermonic in tone, addressing and applying the Biblical text under study personally to the reader (it is not identified as a sermon, but I'm guessing that it is).  It is quite good and, again, quite deep, theologically speaking.  A few excerpts:

David is a picture of you and me.  We are all in like condemnation, even though we have not fallen into similar atrocious and manifest sins.  "For there is no difference; for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."  Rom. 3, 22.23.  And so, like him, we all need to repent and seek the same pardon and forgiveness.  Let us apply to ourselves, then, the words of Nathan to David:  "Thou are the man."

And therefore the words, "Thou art the man," become also a call to faith.  It was not a sermon of despair, but of hope, that Nathan preached to David.  When he had made his contrite confession, "I have sinned against the Lord," the prophet did not tell him that his sin was too great to find forgiveness, but this was what he said:  "The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die."

Concluding paragraph:  My friend, whoever you may be, remember, "Thou art the man," the man that has sinned against the Lord, and therefore the man that needs to repent of his sin and confess it to his God; but also the man that is sure to find forgiveness with his God.  Come, then, and taste the bitterness of this pardon.  For indeed,

Blest the man, forever blest,

Whose guilt is pardoned by his God,

Whose sins with sorrow are confessed,

And covered with his Savior's blood.

 "The Advantages of a Long Pastorate"

I really enjoyed reading this article, which, as the title suggests, makes the case for long pastorates.  I think this article should be required reading for seminarians before they receive a call and are placed in a parish.  Too often, we think with a "first call" mentality.  Indeed, "first call" has become a regular feature of our vocabulary today.  The implication is that there will be a "second call" (or a third, fourth, etc.), and thinking in this way leads many to view their "first call" almost like an audition, as if they use their "first call" to get their feet wet, gain some much needed experience, experiment with different pastoral styles and approaches, and prepare themselves for the place where the Lord will call them to settle in later.  To be sure, there are a great many factors which sometimes necessary lead to a short pastorate, as the article rightly notes, but neither the pastor nor the congregation should ever assume that their relationship will be short.  Both the pastor and the congregation should enter into their relationship assuming just the opposite, that they will be together for as long as the Lord gives the pastor to serve in this vale of tears.  The relationship should be like that of a marriage.  The pastor and congregation take vows to love and support one another through good times and bad for as long as the Lord keeps them together.  The difference being, of course, that these vows are not made "until death we do part."  The Lord may very well call that pastor elsewhere.  But, unless and until the Lord does so, the pastor and the congregation should plan on being together for a long time, which means that they will have to learn how to live together, being ready and willing to forgive one another's shortcomings and annoyances, just as newlyweds have to learn.  The relationship takes work.  But, both should be ready and willing to work at it, recognizing that the Lord Himself has joined them together.  A couple of excerpts from this excellent and important article:

One argument which is at times advanced in favor of frequent changing of pastors is that it gives the people something new, and freshens their interest in church-work.  But who does not know that novelty soon wears off?  After hearing the new pastor once or twice, those who are gadding about for novelties will be satisfied, and will relapse into their former indifference.  Even the most sensational evangelists, however freakish their manner, however strange their antics, however entertaining their few stock phrases, cannot hold the crowds longer than a few weeks.  Many of the men who have given much time and money and labor to efforts to stir up new interest by frequent changes of evangelists and pastors are the ones who are most disgusted with the results.

We are not theorizing; we are saying something which the experience of nearly two thousand years bears out.  It is this:  To do real successful church-work means to feed the flock of Christ, give each one his portion in due time, apply the Law and the Gospel to each case, proclaim both these elements of God's Word publicly from the pulpit, and then defend this flock earnestly and zealously against the false prophets that go about in sheep's clothing, but are wolves within.  If this is done by one who has the ability to do it in a field of labor with which he is familiar, the fruits will not be missing.

Our restless, changeable age needs to be taught the lessons of fidelity to duty, of perseverance in well-doing, of self-effacement in the interest of service; we need to flee from the circus methods of such men as Billy Sunday back to the faithful, diligent, untiring work of the husbandman in the vineyard of our Lord.  

Wow!  When one reads this article (and, indeed, this entire publication) in light of what appears in the modern version, it is stunning how different is the content and focus.  "Successful church-work" back then simply meant being faithful to what the pastor has been called to do:  Feed the flock, preach Law and Gospel, defend the flock against false teachers, etc.  And - AND! - note the emphasis in these excerpts to remain faithful and to steer clear of the latest fads and gimmicks ("circus methods") of false teachers (like Billy Sunday), and to stay the course in this "restless, changeable age."  The modern version of this publication often sends the opposite message, namely that we need to adapt to our surrounding culture, learn how to make our churches more appealing to outsiders, and use the methods and styles of non-Lutherans who have had success, which is measured not in terms of faithfulness, but solely in terms of numbers, in order to experience the same "growth" they've experienced.  Yeah, quite a difference, indeed!

The remaining articles in this 1918 publication of The Lutheran Witness include:  "The Crescent or the Cross?" (a short article lamenting the support given by many American citizens to the Shriners, who worship the false god, "Allah," and including commentary on the war); "The Progress of Our Colored Missions" (a short article explaining the mission work being done among African Americans in the "Black Belt" of Alabama - some of the language in this article would most definitely be offensive to our modern ears, but the message is clear, namely that bigotry is wrong and decidedly un-Christian, and that Lutheran Christians will reach out to all people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, regardless of skin color, and regardless of the persecution they will face for doing so); "Washington in War Times" (a short article about the goings on in Washington, D.C. during this time of war, including some satirical railings against the antics of Billy Sunday, and an edict which was issued by the local fuel administrator ordering that the churches be closed for a few weeks in order to save fuel and help with the war effort; that edict was quickly overturned and changed to allowing the churches to heat their buildings from 7:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on Sundays, but to be heatless the rest of the time - very, very interesting reading).  After these articles, there is an Editorial section, in which several short, interesting articles appear, all of which offer commentary on various issues of the day from a Lutheran perspective.  Then comes a section titled "Church News," which contains a few short articles discussing happenings around the synod; then a section titled "Mail Bag," which has a few letters sent in from here and there and is extremely interesting reading.  Next is a very short section titled "The Reviewer," which gives a short and positive review of a German prayer book for children (which costs a whopping $0.15), and finally, the publication is rounded off with a section titled "Miscellaneous," which contains information about ordinations and installations, dedications, synodical calendars (lists all the dates for the upcoming District Conventions and, interestingly, lists the titles of the theological papers to be delivered at them - what a concept; meeting as a District to learn, discuss, and consider theology!), treasurer's reports, and so forth. 

My, how times have changed!  How wonderful it would be to return The Lutheran Witness to its original form and content, as a catechetical tool to instruct the people in our synod in our Lutheran confession of the faith.  You know, to live up to the name it bears and be a witness to what Lutherans believe, teach, confess, and practice.  Yeah, that would be wonderful indeed!

Anyway, thanks again, Trixie, for this wonderful treasure! 

The latest Issues, Etc. promotional video

I just saw this at the IE website . . . must have missed it when it came out a couple of weeks ago.  Anyway, below is the latest IE promotional video.  I think the "you can't teach laypeople theology" myth is still very much alive and well in our synod.  First of all, you CAN teach laypeople theology.  IE has been doing it for almost two decades now, and faithful pastors having been doing it ever since there have been faithful pastors.  Secondly, behind this myth is the idea that laypeople are just not interested in learning theology.  So, the solution to that has been, for many pastors over the years:  Don't bother them with theology.  But, see, that's the actual problem.  The solution should be:  Teach them how important it is for them to learn theology and then, well, teach them theology.  Don't give up.  Keep exhorting them to learn.  Keep teaching them.  Yeah, it's hard work, but that's a bit of the hard work pastors are called to do.  Sure, there will be some who are simply disinterested, but there will also be plenty who are more than ready and willing to learn.  One of the qualifications of a pastor given by St. Paul is that he be "able to teach" (1 Tim. 3:2).  To be able to teach not only means that he has the theological knowledge required to teach, but also that he has a passion for learning theology himself and the desire to pass on what he has learned to the flock under his care.  Any pastor who says, "You can't teach laypeople theology," is really saying, "Teaching laypeople theology isn't important."  And, any pastor who says that is in dire need of someone teaching him a little theology, since he has either forgotten what he has learned or didn't pay attention to what he was taught in the first place. 

In any event, you CAN teach laypeople theology.  I know.  I am blessed to serve a parish full of laypeople who are very interested in learning theology, and I have watched them grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, right before my eyes over the years.  And, I am ever so thankful for resources like Issues, Etc., which has been a blessed aid not only in my ongoing theological development, but also in my ongoing catechesis of the parish I serve.  Anyway, enough rambling.  Here's the excellent video:

Mmm . . . Good!

Dinner Tonight:

Steak marinated in Catalina dressing, sauteed potatoes, green beans, and skewered onions

Man, was it GOOD!

Hungry, aren't ya? :)

You can get with . . .

THIS:

or you can get with . . . 

THAT: 

 

Just for Trixie!  (The first pic is of the IE bumper sticker on her car; the second is of the IE bumper sticker on my truck - I think I'll go with THAT!  Oh, and . . . Doo, Dah, Di-pi-ty!) :)

Sometimes, a Rainy Day Can Be a Real Blessing!

The last few weeks have been pretty hectic for me.  Getting ready for, and hosting, Sarah's Luau Open House (not to mention the cleaning up afterward); the unexpected death of a dear friend and parishioner, Freda; spending time at the folks' cottage over the 4th; a couple of extra writing assignments to complete, and all that other pastor stuff to accomplish.  Anyway, having returned yesterday afternoon from a few days of rest and relaxation at the cottage (floating in the lake, skiing, tubing, playing lots of pinochle and yahtzee, a couple of rounds of golf with my dad, cooking out, reading, and so forth), there is much to do in the way of catching up.  And so, the rain was a welcome sight today, since it has allowed me to spend some much needed time in front of my computer, make some necessary phone calls, and begin the process of getting caught up and functioning again - all without that guilty feeling that I should be outside taking care of the pool, garden, and lawn. :)  I still have a ways to go to get caught up, but I'm a lot better off now than I was when I woke up this morning.  Yeah, sometimes a rainy day can be a real blessing, indeed! 

Actually, as soon as I started writing this, the rain stopped and now the sun is coming out.  Maybe I spoke too soon! :) 

On Saving Our Synod

The lighthearted and absolutely hilarious "This or THAT" video created by Brian Yamabe (see my last post) has created quite the buzz around the blogosphere.  Some are crying out for Mr. Yamabe to yank the video from Youtube and apologize for making it, because they claim it is offensive.  Hogwash!  The video was made in response to the Jesus First video, "THAT Church" (see a few posts down).  It was meant to be funny, while, at the same time, sending a serious message, and it accomplishes its goal in spades.  The difference between the videos produced by Jesus First and Mr. Yamabe boils down to one very important word - honesty!

The Jesus First video presents a dishonest message, implying that our synod (THAT Church) has been, and will remain, blissfully united under the leadership of synodical president Rev. Gerald Kieschnick.  Notice that there is no mention of the division which exists in our synod.  That division is glossed over with an attempt to pull at the heartstrings of the viewer.  Pr. Chuck Mueller, Jr. shares a touching story about baptism, says a few positive things about Pres. Kieschnick and our synod, and a chorus of happy people cheer:  "I want to belong to THAT Church!"  The Jesus Firsters applaud this sort of approach, because they see this as a positive approach.  But, it's not positive.  It's dishonest.  And dishonesty is never a positive thing.   

In comparison, Mr. Yamabe's video is refreshingly honest.  The division which exists in our synod is highlighted.  Is that division as cut and dried as the video makes it appear.  Well, no.  It is surely more nuanced than that, but that's not really the point.  The point is that we do have "this" and "that" in our synod.  The point is that we're not as blissfully united as Pres. Kieschnick has so often portrayed, and as his biggest supporters, the Jesus Firsters, claim.  We have very real and very serious divisions among us, and "It's Time" that we were honest about that.

Anyway, this leads me to the point of this post:  How can our synod be saved?

In the course of catching up with all the hoopla surrounding Mr. Yamabe's video, I followed a link to the following video, which is posted over at The Wittenberg Trail:



Find more videos like this on The Wittenberg Trail

I understand the thought process in the video and agree that a big part of the problem which exists in our synod has developed from many who have forsaken our Confessions in order to follow after the pop-theology of false teachers like Rick Warren.  Actually, though, the problem runs much deeper than that.  The real root of the problem started many years ago when Lutherans became increasingly unsatisfied with Lutheranism and began looking elsewhere in the attempt to satisfy themselves.  So, we had a bunch who were enamored by what they saw as a far more intellectual way to approach Holy Scripture, and they embraced the Higher Critical Method of Biblical Interpretation, which led to seminex.  But, we also have had, and still have, many among us who have been, and are, unsatisfied with our Lutheran theology of worship.  These Lutherans began flirting with the Church Growth Movement (CGM) which posits as one of its central principles the idea that we need to make worship more appealing to the "unchurched' if we are to grow and thrive.  This is what has led to the replacement of the Divine Service with rock concerts.  According to the CGM, the Gospel needs to be repackaged in a way that the consumer (the "unchurched") will desire to purchase it.  This means that any and all "barriers" need to be removed in order to make the "unchurched" feel right at home during worship.  And, certainly, Pres. Kieschnick is part of the group within our synod which has bought into many of the principles of the CGM.  He has publicly endorsed books written by those who are enamored with these principles, and has continually endorsed and promoted pastors and congregations in our synod who have put these principles into practice.  And, his own book, released earlier this year, is dripping with CGM principles.  

But - but! - we need to make sure we are clear about two things:  1) Pres. Kieschnick is not THE problem and 2) Presidential Nominee Rev. Matt Harrison is not THE solution.

Whether intended or not, this video gives the impression that we can save our synod by electing Rev. Harrison as our synodical president.  That is not true.  We cannot save our synod and neither can Rev. Harrison, as he would most readily confess.  What we can do is elect the best candidate our Lord has made available to us; the candidate who knows and understands that God alone has the ability to save our synod; the candidate who has laid out a plan which involves us returning in faithfulness to the Word of God and our Lutheran Confessions in order to address and, hopefully, solve the very real and very serious divisions which exist among us; the candidate who is at home in the house of our fathers and is completely satisfied with being, and remaining, Lutheran in doctrine and practice, and who actually believes that being, and remaining, Lutheran in doctrine and practice is not only a good option, but, like our fathers, necessary and vital - and that candidate is Rev. Harrison.

Rev. Harrison will not be our savior, but I believe, if given the opportunity, he will faithfully serve us by always pointing us to our true Savior, Jesus Christ.  I believe that he understands that the Word of God is living and active, mighty and powerful, and does have the ability to save our synod, as that Word leads us to repentance and faith.

And so, I wouldn't say that we can save our synod or that Rev. Harrison can do so.  But, I will say that God can save our synod and that Rev. Harrison is the candidate who not only understands that, but desires to implement a plan which would allow God to do so through His Word.  That is why I, and many others, support Rev. Harrison.  We don't see him as a savior, but as a penitent sinner who is dependent upon the salvific work of Jesus Christ, and we believe that his desire is to lead our synod toward a greater and broader dependence upon Jesus as well.