Friday, April 13, 2012
Specifics, Bob
This is a scene from the movie, "Phenomenon," starring John Travolta, where Travolta's character, George Malley, is forced by the CIA to undergo a psychological interview:
"Specifics, Bob."
I understand Malley's frustration in the above scene. It is akin to the frustration many of us feel whenever we hear someone issue warnings about the dangers associated with the so-called "high church movement" in the LCMS. We are told that these dangers exist, but rarely, if ever, provided with any specifics.
To add to the frustration, whenever these warnings are issued, many people are eager to chime in and "high five" those issuing the warnings with more non-specific comments. We hear about these "two extremes" that supposedly exist in our synod and are to be avoided like the plague. We hear that both the so-called "high church" crowd and the "abandon the liturgy altogether" crowd are guilty of the same "I did it my way" sin. But, again, no specifics.
"Specifics, Bob."
After another round of warnings were issued about the so-called "high church movement" last month (see, for example, "The High Church Danger to the Lutheran Church," "Every Sunday Pro-Choice Sunday?," "When the 'I Did It My Way' Approach . . ."), I wrote a response on my blog. Others chimed in, too (see, for example, posts by Pr. Beane, Pr. Esget, Pr. Biesel, and a whole host of other posts found in that time frame over at Gottesdienst Online). Shortly after I posted my response on my blog, I was invited to post something further on BJS in defense of the so-called "high church movement," stressing how relatively small any "high church errorists" are. I began writing the post you are now reading back then, but didn't finish it until now. Parish duties, gearing up for Holy Week, and other factors, kept me from finishing it. But, there is also this: I really cannot offer a full and complete response to this issue any more than George Malley could answer Dr. Bob's non-specific questions in the scene from "Phenomenon" above. I mean, how do I respond to the dangers of the so-called "high church movement" without a definition of what exactly it is? How do I stress how relatively small any "high church errorists" are when I don't know what is meant by "high church errorists"? What constitutes "high church"? Is making the sign of the cross "high church"? Is chanting, elevating, and genuflecting "high church"? Is there a certain posture of the Celebrant that is deemed to be "high church"? Is using the word "Celebrant" "high church"? Is wearing a chasuble "high church"? Is the use of the word "Mass," or pastors being addressed as "Father," considered "high church"? Is preferring the use of a crucifix, instead of an empty cross, "high church"? Is using incense "high church"? Something else? What is "high church"? Who are "high church errorists"?
"Specifics, Bob."
What adds to the confusion and inability to respond appropriately to the supposed dangers of the so-called "high church movement" is the fact that some who are wont to issue warnings 'round the interwebs also make it clear that they have no problem with most, if not all, of the things I just mentioned. The problem with that, of course, is that when most people hear "high church," they have exactly these sorts of things in mind. So, unless they are prone to follow these fellas around the blogosphere to hear all that they have to say on this subject, they're left to believe that these are indeed the sorts of things we are being warned against. I wonder how many commenters on posts where these warnings are issued would take their "high fives" back if they knew that those issuing the warnings had no problem with most, if not, all of the things they normally associate with "high church."
So, if those things that most people associate with "high church" are not the problem, what is the problem? We are told by those issuing the warnings that the problem is that there are "extremists" among us who "demand" that some or all of these things normally associated with "high church" must be done or else there does not exist "genuine Lutheranism." The problem here is the same problem mentioned above - no specifics. We are just to assume that such "extremists" exist, that they demand these things, and that they are a danger to our synodical unity. These "extremists" have been referred to in many ways in the past: "Liturgical Pietists," "Liturgical Nazis," "Purists," "Romanizers," "The Gottesdienst Crowd," "hyper-Euros," "Sacerdotalists," and a new one I just heard for the fist time recently, "Liturgians," which is my new personal favorite. I apologize if I'm leaving any derogatory tittles out; I'm sure there are more (I can hear John Bender saying, in a scene from another movie, "You forgot ugly, lazy, stupid, and disrespectful!"). But, who are they? Where are they? And, what exactly are they doing that makes them "extremists"? Where have they demanded that certain ceremonies must be done for genuine Lutheranism to exist?
"Specifics, Bob."
Unless and until those issuing warnings against the so-called "high church movement," which, as it turns out, are really warnings against so-called "extremists," can introduce me to specific examples of real, live "extremists," showing me the things they're doing or saying that makes them "extremists," I'm afraid I simply cannot take them seriously. Sorry.
Furthermore, given the fact that those issuing the warnings have no problem with the various ceremonies most people would probably consider to be the very things they mean by "high church," as mentioned above, I am left with no other choice than to conclude that there are not actual "dangers" in view, but that these warnings are really nothing more than the grinding of personal axes. This conclusion seems all the more probable when those issuing the warnings refuse to clarify what exactly they mean, will not respond to direct questions asked of them, and hold up some pastors as examples to emulate, while denigrating other pastors, even though both sets of pastors employ virtually the same exact ceremonies in their conduct of the Divine Service. Something is fishy indeed about this, and I know from discussions in which I have been involved around the blogosphere that my nose is not the only one picking up on the smell.
But, what about the fact that some LCMS pastors have left for Rome or gone East? This always gets brought up in these discussions. Doesn't the fact that most of the pastors who have gone swimming employed ceremonies that many would associate with being "high church" prove that there is a danger here? No. It is not the liturgy's fault, nor the fault of any aspect of ceremonial conduct, that they left. They left because they no longer believed what Lutherans believe, and could no longer confess what Lutherans confess. I commend them for having the integrity to admit that, and for the courage to leave, rather than stick around, live out a lie, and spread that lie to others, which is exactly what many LCMS pastors on the other side of the hill do. Tell me, when is the last time you heard about an LCMS pastor leaving because he had the integrity to admit that he was no longer Lutheran, but Pentecostal, or Baptist, or "Evangelical"? I'm sure there have had to be some along the way, but I can honestly say that I cannot recall hearing about a single one.
None of this is to say that it is impossible for a pastor to turn the liturgy or the ceremonial conduct of the liturgy into an idol. Sure, that possibility exists. We sinners can turn virtually anything into an idol to worship. So, I am not against general warnings in this regard. Our Lutheran Confessions themselves provide them. What I am against are warnings laden with implications and accusations that this or that group of pastors is guilty of doing this, without any specific evidence to back up such claims. Such warnings are issued from afar by those who judge motives and use assumption and gossip as their justification to warn the synod against this supposed dangerous brood, which is not only tacky, but, well, quite un-Christian.
"Specifics, Bob."
Anecdotal evidence supplied by subjective persons do not specifics provide. There are two sides to every story, and we should reserve judgment about someone/something until we hear both sides. Thus, when so-and-so contacts you and says, "Pastor so-and-so is teaching us that incense is the smell of Jesus, and that we have to use incense in the Mass or else it is not a proper Mass, and that any Lutheran pastor or congregation that doesn't use incense is not fully Lutheran," your sanctified reason should alert you to something being afoul here. You should encourage so-and-so to talk with Pastor so-and-so about his/her concerns, suggesting that maybe, just maybe, it is possible that he/she misunderstood the Pastor. And, if you really want to understand Pastor so-and-so yourself, well, then, you should contact him and find out exactly what's up. What you should not do is take what so-and-so said and blather about it all over the interwebs, as if what you have heard is Gospel.
Now, I realize that this is an absurd example, but it is exactly the sort of thing people do time and time again, and it is something that I have heard those issuing warnings against the dangers of the so-called "high church movement" doing often. They will say things like, "I have been contacted by several pastors and laypeople around the synod about several pastors out there trying to force their 'Romanizing' practices down the throats of good Lutherans." Really? Did you happen to suggest that these several pastors and laypeople ought to take up their concerns with these "Romanizing" pastors? Did you take the time yourself to contact them to hear their side of the story? No? You mean, you just took what these several pastors and laypeople told you as fact and felt the need to blog to the world about it and warn everyone about these supposed scoundrels? Well, aren't you special.
Don't get me wrong here. What I am saying here does not apply to those things put out for public consumption by pastors and congregations. It is perfectly appropriate to offer public comment and/or criticism regarding things posted to the web for the world to see. That is quite a different thing than spreading gossip, for now you are dealing with something specific and public. Some would argue that we still should not comment upon, or criticize and discuss, even those things put out for public witness and consumption before contacting the pastor and/or congregation putting them out, but I wholeheartedly disagree. What is put out publicly is fair game for public scrutiny. But, what is shared in private via gossip is not. There is a world of difference between the two, which some individuals do not seem able to grasp.
"Specifics, Bob."
Not only does anecdotal, subjective, one-sided evidence fail to provide objective specifics about which to converse and discuss, but so, too, does the oft-tried practice of providing a snippet from the writings of past Lutheran theologians in the attempt to make them allies of the self-appointed guardians, who feel some strange sense of duty to warn people about the supposed danger of the supposed "high church movement" in our synod today. I mean, I'll see your Luther, Walther, Sasse, etc. quote and raise you another quote from the same. Do we really want to play that game?
This is in no way to suggest that we should not listen to our fathers in the faith. I'm all for that. What I'm not for is the attempt to manipulate their words to such an extent that one applies them to someone/thing those words never meant to address. For example, this quote from Dr. Luther has been used recently in posts warning people about the supposed dangers of the supposed "high church movement":
We Lutherans are not minimalist proof-texters. We leave that to the Baptists and others. We're into context, so that we can arrive at specific meaning. We don't come up with a position on something and then go looking for snippets from Scripture or the writings of our fathers in the faith to bolster our position. Again, that's what others do.
To show the insanity of this game-playing, I could pull out several quotes of Luther where he speaks highly (and sometimes even seems quite demanding) of the practice of genuflecting during the Creed and make the claim that those who do not do this are "dangerous low-churchers," since, well, they obviously don't revere the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ as they should. I could do the same with a variety of other aspects of ceremonial conduct that some today may consider "high church." Here's the rub in all of this (the dirty, little secret that the self-ordained "guardians" against "high-churchism" among us today want to keep well hidden): Dr. Luther, the Blessed Reformer, would feel far more at home in those congregations among us where "higher" aspects of ceremonial conduct are practiced. Sorry. He just would. Even so, Dr. Luther and our other Lutheran forefathers rightly recognized that ceremonies do not have to be the same everywhere, and so, while it is tempting to play the "I'm more Lutheran than you are" game, it is not a game we should be playing. What we should be doing is analyzing and testing specific practices to see whether or not they uphold our Lutheran confession of the faith, for practice is nothing more than doing our confession. The chief purpose of ceremonies is to teach the faithful what they need to know about our Lord Jesus Christ. Do our ceremonies do this? If so, well and good. If not, which ones don't? Be specific.
"Specifics, Bob."
"Specifics, Bob."
I understand Malley's frustration in the above scene. It is akin to the frustration many of us feel whenever we hear someone issue warnings about the dangers associated with the so-called "high church movement" in the LCMS. We are told that these dangers exist, but rarely, if ever, provided with any specifics.
To add to the frustration, whenever these warnings are issued, many people are eager to chime in and "high five" those issuing the warnings with more non-specific comments. We hear about these "two extremes" that supposedly exist in our synod and are to be avoided like the plague. We hear that both the so-called "high church" crowd and the "abandon the liturgy altogether" crowd are guilty of the same "I did it my way" sin. But, again, no specifics.
"Specifics, Bob."
After another round of warnings were issued about the so-called "high church movement" last month (see, for example, "The High Church Danger to the Lutheran Church," "Every Sunday Pro-Choice Sunday?," "When the 'I Did It My Way' Approach . . ."), I wrote a response on my blog. Others chimed in, too (see, for example, posts by Pr. Beane, Pr. Esget, Pr. Biesel, and a whole host of other posts found in that time frame over at Gottesdienst Online). Shortly after I posted my response on my blog, I was invited to post something further on BJS in defense of the so-called "high church movement," stressing how relatively small any "high church errorists" are. I began writing the post you are now reading back then, but didn't finish it until now. Parish duties, gearing up for Holy Week, and other factors, kept me from finishing it. But, there is also this: I really cannot offer a full and complete response to this issue any more than George Malley could answer Dr. Bob's non-specific questions in the scene from "Phenomenon" above. I mean, how do I respond to the dangers of the so-called "high church movement" without a definition of what exactly it is? How do I stress how relatively small any "high church errorists" are when I don't know what is meant by "high church errorists"? What constitutes "high church"? Is making the sign of the cross "high church"? Is chanting, elevating, and genuflecting "high church"? Is there a certain posture of the Celebrant that is deemed to be "high church"? Is using the word "Celebrant" "high church"? Is wearing a chasuble "high church"? Is the use of the word "Mass," or pastors being addressed as "Father," considered "high church"? Is preferring the use of a crucifix, instead of an empty cross, "high church"? Is using incense "high church"? Something else? What is "high church"? Who are "high church errorists"?
"Specifics, Bob."
What adds to the confusion and inability to respond appropriately to the supposed dangers of the so-called "high church movement" is the fact that some who are wont to issue warnings 'round the interwebs also make it clear that they have no problem with most, if not all, of the things I just mentioned. The problem with that, of course, is that when most people hear "high church," they have exactly these sorts of things in mind. So, unless they are prone to follow these fellas around the blogosphere to hear all that they have to say on this subject, they're left to believe that these are indeed the sorts of things we are being warned against. I wonder how many commenters on posts where these warnings are issued would take their "high fives" back if they knew that those issuing the warnings had no problem with most, if not, all of the things they normally associate with "high church."
So, if those things that most people associate with "high church" are not the problem, what is the problem? We are told by those issuing the warnings that the problem is that there are "extremists" among us who "demand" that some or all of these things normally associated with "high church" must be done or else there does not exist "genuine Lutheranism." The problem here is the same problem mentioned above - no specifics. We are just to assume that such "extremists" exist, that they demand these things, and that they are a danger to our synodical unity. These "extremists" have been referred to in many ways in the past: "Liturgical Pietists," "Liturgical Nazis," "Purists," "Romanizers," "The Gottesdienst Crowd," "hyper-Euros," "Sacerdotalists," and a new one I just heard for the fist time recently, "Liturgians," which is my new personal favorite. I apologize if I'm leaving any derogatory tittles out; I'm sure there are more (I can hear John Bender saying, in a scene from another movie, "You forgot ugly, lazy, stupid, and disrespectful!"). But, who are they? Where are they? And, what exactly are they doing that makes them "extremists"? Where have they demanded that certain ceremonies must be done for genuine Lutheranism to exist?
"Specifics, Bob."
Unless and until those issuing warnings against the so-called "high church movement," which, as it turns out, are really warnings against so-called "extremists," can introduce me to specific examples of real, live "extremists," showing me the things they're doing or saying that makes them "extremists," I'm afraid I simply cannot take them seriously. Sorry.
Furthermore, given the fact that those issuing the warnings have no problem with the various ceremonies most people would probably consider to be the very things they mean by "high church," as mentioned above, I am left with no other choice than to conclude that there are not actual "dangers" in view, but that these warnings are really nothing more than the grinding of personal axes. This conclusion seems all the more probable when those issuing the warnings refuse to clarify what exactly they mean, will not respond to direct questions asked of them, and hold up some pastors as examples to emulate, while denigrating other pastors, even though both sets of pastors employ virtually the same exact ceremonies in their conduct of the Divine Service. Something is fishy indeed about this, and I know from discussions in which I have been involved around the blogosphere that my nose is not the only one picking up on the smell.
But, what about the fact that some LCMS pastors have left for Rome or gone East? This always gets brought up in these discussions. Doesn't the fact that most of the pastors who have gone swimming employed ceremonies that many would associate with being "high church" prove that there is a danger here? No. It is not the liturgy's fault, nor the fault of any aspect of ceremonial conduct, that they left. They left because they no longer believed what Lutherans believe, and could no longer confess what Lutherans confess. I commend them for having the integrity to admit that, and for the courage to leave, rather than stick around, live out a lie, and spread that lie to others, which is exactly what many LCMS pastors on the other side of the hill do. Tell me, when is the last time you heard about an LCMS pastor leaving because he had the integrity to admit that he was no longer Lutheran, but Pentecostal, or Baptist, or "Evangelical"? I'm sure there have had to be some along the way, but I can honestly say that I cannot recall hearing about a single one.
None of this is to say that it is impossible for a pastor to turn the liturgy or the ceremonial conduct of the liturgy into an idol. Sure, that possibility exists. We sinners can turn virtually anything into an idol to worship. So, I am not against general warnings in this regard. Our Lutheran Confessions themselves provide them. What I am against are warnings laden with implications and accusations that this or that group of pastors is guilty of doing this, without any specific evidence to back up such claims. Such warnings are issued from afar by those who judge motives and use assumption and gossip as their justification to warn the synod against this supposed dangerous brood, which is not only tacky, but, well, quite un-Christian.
"Specifics, Bob."
Anecdotal evidence supplied by subjective persons do not specifics provide. There are two sides to every story, and we should reserve judgment about someone/something until we hear both sides. Thus, when so-and-so contacts you and says, "Pastor so-and-so is teaching us that incense is the smell of Jesus, and that we have to use incense in the Mass or else it is not a proper Mass, and that any Lutheran pastor or congregation that doesn't use incense is not fully Lutheran," your sanctified reason should alert you to something being afoul here. You should encourage so-and-so to talk with Pastor so-and-so about his/her concerns, suggesting that maybe, just maybe, it is possible that he/she misunderstood the Pastor. And, if you really want to understand Pastor so-and-so yourself, well, then, you should contact him and find out exactly what's up. What you should not do is take what so-and-so said and blather about it all over the interwebs, as if what you have heard is Gospel.
Now, I realize that this is an absurd example, but it is exactly the sort of thing people do time and time again, and it is something that I have heard those issuing warnings against the dangers of the so-called "high church movement" doing often. They will say things like, "I have been contacted by several pastors and laypeople around the synod about several pastors out there trying to force their 'Romanizing' practices down the throats of good Lutherans." Really? Did you happen to suggest that these several pastors and laypeople ought to take up their concerns with these "Romanizing" pastors? Did you take the time yourself to contact them to hear their side of the story? No? You mean, you just took what these several pastors and laypeople told you as fact and felt the need to blog to the world about it and warn everyone about these supposed scoundrels? Well, aren't you special.
Don't get me wrong here. What I am saying here does not apply to those things put out for public consumption by pastors and congregations. It is perfectly appropriate to offer public comment and/or criticism regarding things posted to the web for the world to see. That is quite a different thing than spreading gossip, for now you are dealing with something specific and public. Some would argue that we still should not comment upon, or criticize and discuss, even those things put out for public witness and consumption before contacting the pastor and/or congregation putting them out, but I wholeheartedly disagree. What is put out publicly is fair game for public scrutiny. But, what is shared in private via gossip is not. There is a world of difference between the two, which some individuals do not seem able to grasp.
"Specifics, Bob."
Not only does anecdotal, subjective, one-sided evidence fail to provide objective specifics about which to converse and discuss, but so, too, does the oft-tried practice of providing a snippet from the writings of past Lutheran theologians in the attempt to make them allies of the self-appointed guardians, who feel some strange sense of duty to warn people about the supposed danger of the supposed "high church movement" in our synod today. I mean, I'll see your Luther, Walther, Sasse, etc. quote and raise you another quote from the same. Do we really want to play that game?
This is in no way to suggest that we should not listen to our fathers in the faith. I'm all for that. What I'm not for is the attempt to manipulate their words to such an extent that one applies them to someone/thing those words never meant to address. For example, this quote from Dr. Luther has been used recently in posts warning people about the supposed dangers of the supposed "high church movement":
As far as possible we should observe the same rites and ceremonies, just as all Christians have the same baptism and the same sacrament [of the altar] and no one has received a special one of his own from God (LW, Vol. 53, p. 61).Great quote from the Blessed Reformer. Love it! But, to use this quote as some sort of proof-text against the so-called "high church movement" in our synod is, to put it quite bluntly, lunacy. Why? Because, first of all, those who use this and similar quotes have failed to define for us what the so-called "high church movement" is, as mentioned above. Secondly, using quotes like this without providing any specifics regarding the dangers being addressed leads people to assume that so-called "high churchers" are guilty of observing their own rites and ceremonies, as if they have received some special revelation from God to do so, which could not be further from the truth. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, to use this quote as a warning against the so-called "high church movement" reveals that those who do so do not know Dr. Luther very well at all. I've read a ton of Luther in my day - still read him all the time - and I am quite confident that he had a pretty "high" view of the Divine Service and the ceremonial conduct that should accompany the dishing out of our Lord's Divine Gifts.
We Lutherans are not minimalist proof-texters. We leave that to the Baptists and others. We're into context, so that we can arrive at specific meaning. We don't come up with a position on something and then go looking for snippets from Scripture or the writings of our fathers in the faith to bolster our position. Again, that's what others do.
To show the insanity of this game-playing, I could pull out several quotes of Luther where he speaks highly (and sometimes even seems quite demanding) of the practice of genuflecting during the Creed and make the claim that those who do not do this are "dangerous low-churchers," since, well, they obviously don't revere the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ as they should. I could do the same with a variety of other aspects of ceremonial conduct that some today may consider "high church." Here's the rub in all of this (the dirty, little secret that the self-ordained "guardians" against "high-churchism" among us today want to keep well hidden): Dr. Luther, the Blessed Reformer, would feel far more at home in those congregations among us where "higher" aspects of ceremonial conduct are practiced. Sorry. He just would. Even so, Dr. Luther and our other Lutheran forefathers rightly recognized that ceremonies do not have to be the same everywhere, and so, while it is tempting to play the "I'm more Lutheran than you are" game, it is not a game we should be playing. What we should be doing is analyzing and testing specific practices to see whether or not they uphold our Lutheran confession of the faith, for practice is nothing more than doing our confession. The chief purpose of ceremonies is to teach the faithful what they need to know about our Lord Jesus Christ. Do our ceremonies do this? If so, well and good. If not, which ones don't? Be specific.
"Specifics, Bob."
Monday, April 9, 2012
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Sunday, April 1, 2012
First Holy Communion
Some pics:
He Enters the Holy City as a King
He enters the Holy City as a King. But, He does not ride in on a glorious war stallion wearing a royal robe. He is mounted on a donkey and wears a peasant’s cloak. He enters the Holy City as a King. But, He is not surrounded by a vast and powerful army. He is surrounded by peasant pilgrims and children. He enters the Holy City as a King. But, He is not headed to a luxurious palace to sit on a golden throne and don a beautiful crown of jewels. He is headed to a hill outside the city walls to be enthroned on a cross while donning a crown of thorns. He enters the Holy City as a King. But, it is not an earthly Kingdom He comes to establish. His Kingdom is not of this world. He enters the Holy City as a King. And, as a King, He comes to conquer His enemies. But, He will not employ His army, which is not of this world, to conquer His enemies by force. His battle-plan is the most peculiar ever drawn up in the history of man, for it calls for His army to stand idle while He, the King, allows Himself to be handed over to His enemies, mocked and beaten, spit upon and treated shamefully, and finally nailed to a cruel instrument of torture to suffer an agonizing and painful death. And while it seems so ludicrous to our sinful human reason, the successful execution of this bizarre battle-plan, which was crafted before the foundation of this world was laid, accomplished the complete and utter defeat of this King’s enemies. His death won the victory He set out to accomplish – the victory over sin, death, and the devil.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Holy Week Schedule
Speaking of Holy Week, here is the schedule we'll follow at Peace this year:
Palm/Passion Sunday
9:30 am - Divine Service
w/Palm Sunday Procession with Palms and St. Matthew's Passion read responsively
Holy Monday
9:30 am - Divine Service
w/Palm Sunday Procession with Palms and St. Matthew's Passion read responsively
Holy Monday
7:30 am - Matins
12:00 pm - Divine Service
4:30 pm - Vespers
7:00 pm - Divine Service (same as Noon)
Holy Tuesday
7:30 am - Matins
12:00 pm - Divine Service
4:30 pm - Vespers
7:00 pm - Divine Service (same as Noon)
Holy Wednesday
7:30 am - Matins
12:00 pm - Divine Service
4:30 pm - Vespers
7:00 pm - Divine Service (same as Noon)
Holy/Maundy Thursday
7:30 am - Matins
12:00 pm - Divine Service
4:30 - Vespers
7:00 pm - Divine Service (different than Noon; w/Stripping of the Altar)
Good Friday
7:30 am - Matins
12:00 pm - Divine Service (Chief Service)
3:00 pm - Devotion at the Sacred Hour
7:30 pm - Tenebrae
Holy Saturday
7:30 am - Matins
10:00 am - Divine Service (Holy Saturday)
Decorating of Church for Easter following Divine Service
7:00 pm - Easter Vigil
Champagne Reception following Vigil
Easter Sunday
7:30 am - Matins
8:00 am - Easter Breakfast
9:30 am - Divine Service (Feast of the Resurrection of Our Lord)
NOTES ON THE SCHEDULE: Matins from Holy Monday through Holy Saturday, Vespers from Holy Monday through Holy Thursday, and Divine Service from Holy Monday through Holy Thursday at Noon, and on Holy Saturday morning, will all be spoken. The Divine Service from Holy Monday through Holy Wednesday will be the exact same Service at both Noon and 7 pm. The Divine Service on Holy Thursday evening will be sung, and will conclude with the Stripping of the Altar. The Chief Service on Good Friday at Noon will include the celebration of the Most Holy Sacrament; Tenebrae in the evening will not. Matins on Easter Sunday will be sung.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Another New Member at Peace
We were blessed this past Sunday to welcome Gabriel Blair II into our fellowship via the Rite of Confirmation. It was a blast going through the catechetical process with Gabe, who was diligent in his studies and eager to learn. He was baptized at Peace as a baby, but away from the Church until he started attending with his parents last year. I was thrilled when he came up to me after church a few months back and told me he wanted to go through classes and become a member. Gotta love it when the Lord brings His children back into His fold! Some pics:
Peace Book Club - 11/22/63
11/22/63 is the date of Kennedy's assassination, of course, and King suggests in this book that this was a pivotal, world-changing event, and leads the reader to wonder what the world would be like had Kennedy lived. The main character in the book, Jake Epping, an English high school teacher living in 2011, is introduced to a rabbit hole by his friend, Al, an eccentric cook, which leads back to 1958. His friend stumbled onto this rabbit hole and had been using it for years to go back in time and explore, and to purchase hamburger at a ridiculously cheap price to bring back and offer cheap burgers at his diner. Over the years, it occurred to Al that maybe the rabbit hole could be used to change history, and eventually he arrives at the belief that changing what happened on 11/22/63 would change the world for the better in a drastic way. He sets out to do this himself, but becomes deathly ill with lung cancer and cannot complete his mission to stop Oswald's dirty deed, which is why he turns to his friend, Jake.
When you go through the rabbit hole and enter 1958, no matter how long you stay there, only two minutes have elapsed in 2011 time. And, each time you go back through the rabbit hole, a complete reset occurs, so that anything you've changed from a previous visit is undone. Jake goes through a few times and makes some changes to test things out before deciding to take up his dying friend's request to stay in the Land of Ago for the five years it will take to a) determine for sure if Oswald had acted alone to assassinate Kennedy, and b) to stop that from happening.
And, that's all I'm gonna tell you. :) If you want the rest of the story, you'll have to read the book, which is no easy undertaking, weighing in at nearly 850 pages. Our Peace Book Club gave everyone two months to complete it, and most of our members did so. What I will say is that this book offers much to ponder in the way of ethical dilemmas. If you knew that someone was going to do something evil and stopping that evil from occurring required you to commit evil yourself, would you do it? If you met the love of your life, would you be willing to let the world go to hell to be with her, or would you save the world and let her go? Is it okay, and even honorable, to lie and deceive in order to accomplish a greater good? Lots of stuff like that comes to the surface throughout the book.
I purposely stayed away from reading any reviews of the book before we met tonight, as I wanted to hear what our group thought of it and share what I thought of it before doing so. So, we had our discussion and we were really all on the same page. Everyone enjoyed the book very much, but the one criticism we all had was that it was about 300-400 pages too long, as King spent way too much time telling us about the movements of Oswald, his family, and his associates. Interestingly, after we had our discussion, we all read several reviews together and this was the same criticism shared by many - great book, but too much time on the reconnaissance of Oswald and company. It is obvious that King did TONS of research into Oswald's life in the years and months leading up to 11/22/63. It is also obvious that he didn't want a smidgen of that research to go to waste, as he spends over 300 pages having us follow Oswald around. For the first half of the book, it's a real page-turner, but when he gets to the Oswald reconnaissance part, it stalls. But, then, it picks back up again and ends in page-turning fashion.
Even so, it was well worth the read and I'd readily recommend this book. Our group always gives the books we read a rating between 1-5, and this one, after rounding up, received a 4. It really was a fun and thought-provoking read and King's talent enables the reader to get through the mundane section mentioned above relatively unscathed.
We decided that the book we'll read this month is the latest John Grisham offering, "The Litigators." Always fun to read Grisham; looking forward to it.
Monday, March 12, 2012
The Imagined Danger of High Churchers
"Our churches are falsely accused of abolishing the Mass. The Mass is held among us and celebrated with the highest reverence. Nearly all the usual ceremonies are also preserved, except that the parts sung in Latin are interspersed here and there with German hymns. These have been added to teach the people. For ceremonies are needed for this reason alone, that the uneducated be taught what they need to know about Christ" (AC XXIV:1-3, emphasis mine).
From time to time, there are those among us who issue warnings against those they deem to be "high church" or "too ceremonial." We are told that these "high-churchers" are guilty of some sort of infatuation with medieval rubrics and seek to incorporate these into their conduct of the Divine Service to produce a golden manner of ceremonial conduct that all Lutherans should readily emulate, and that they claim that those who do not emulate this conduct are less than ideal and sub-Lutheran. We are also told that these "high-churchers," with their ultra-ceremonial leanings, are just as guilty of abandoning true Lutheranism as those who pitch the liturgy altogether and do their own thing, which is never really their own thing, but always a mimicking of those who believe and practice a decidedly different thing than Lutherans. The idea is that there are supposedly two extremes, both of which are to be avoided.
Two such "fraternal warnings" have been issued just this past week, the first from Rev. Paul McCain over at his blog, Cyberbrethren; the second from Rev. Mark Schroeder, who commends Rev. McCain's post and expands on it over at BJS. In the attempt to justify the need for their warnings, Rev. McCain includes a quote from Hermann Sasse, where he warns Lutherans to steer clear of the "Liturgical Movement," which he believes leads to Rome, and Rev. Schroeder adds quotes from an Anglican (C.S. Lewis), a Roman Catholic (Hans Urs Von Bathassar), and a Lutheran (Dr. Luther himself). Additionally, in the comment section of Rev. Schroder's post on BJS, Rev. McCain adds some lengthy comments he received from a Confessional Lutheran in Germany on the issue, and Rev. Dr. Martin Noland applauds Rev. Schroeder's post and provides some historical background regarding the "Liturgical Renewal" movement.
The problem is that none of these guys actually provide any examples of what they see as dangerous from the so-called "high church" side of the equation. What exactly are we being warned to avoid here? Rev. McCain tells us:
Likewise, Rev. Schroeder posits that both "high churchers" and "contemporary worshipers" are guilty of turning the liturgy into a "tool" each "side" uses, according to its own tastes, to build the church up in its own image (or something like that), but, again, neglects to put any meat and bones on the straw man he has followed Rev. McCain in erecting.
Warning people about the danger of "high churchers" in our midst has been a hobby horse Rev. McCain has been riding for a long time. One would think that, as often as he mounts this particular hobby horse, he would have compiled for us a long list of examples of these nasty fellas who imply, suggest, or even say outright that there is a golden form of the Lutheran liturgy to which all should aspire, and that those who do not adhere to this golden form are less than Lutheran. But, he hasn't. Instead, we get the same old warnings about this supposed boogeyman who is as big a threat to our synodical unity as those who abandon the liturgy altogether, but we're never introduced to him.
I've challenged Rev. McCain on this issue several times in the past. When pressed hard enough, he'll tip his hand to reveal who he has in his cross-hairs, but, as it turns out, those he targets are not, in fact, guilty of his accusations, which makes them false. Who does he target? "The Gottesdienst Crowd" (a name Rev. McCain coined himself a while back), which refers to the editors of the excellent quarterly journal on the Lutheran Liturgy, Gottesdienst, and the editors of the Gottesdienst Online blog, as well as those who subscribe to, support, and follow the journal and blog (that would include me and many others).
Now, it is true that "The Gottesdienst Crowd" loves to study and talk about the liturgy. It is also true that they promote a ceremonial conduct of the liturgy that brings to life what we Lutherans believe, teach, and confess about what is actually taking place in the Divine Service, namely that our Lord Jesus Christ is Present in His Holy Word and in His Holy Body and Blood in the Sacrament. "The Gottesdienst Crowd" believes that this reality ought to inform our practice and conduct when in our Lord's Holy House. For that reason, it is common practice among those who belong to "The Gottesdienst Crowd" to bow, genuflect, make the sign of the cross, elevate the Body and Blood, employ reverence and care in Distributing the Sacrament and dealing with the reliquae, wear chasubles, chant, etc. Some view such ceremonial conduct as "high church," which is not a Lutheran, but an Anglican descriptor. But, fine. If someone wants to call this "high church," knock yourself out, but to claim that such ceremonial conduct does not belong to our Lutheran heritage and/or should be avoided is not fine, but, quite simply, wrong.
But, Rev. McCain claims that his warnings are not necessarily against such ceremonial conduct. He has even said that he loves all this stuff. He knows that such liturgical practices are part of our Lutheran heritage. So, what's his continual fuss all about? You can get an idea from this comment he made yesterday on FB in response to someone who said that we need not fear liturgical practices that are part of our heritage:
This is patently false. "The Gottesdienst Crowd" has never made such a claim. Not in their journal. Not on their blog. Not at their conferences, many of which I have been blessed to attend. In fact, on the contrary, while they believe the kind of ceremonial conduct mentioned above best matches our Lutheran confession, all of them, to a man, has made it clear, time and time again, that these things are not "essential" and that the lack of these things does not make one less or un-Lutheran. Rev. McCain has been assured of this many times in the past and yet the accusations still fly, which means that he either refuses to listen or he believes that these men are liars.
In this latest go-round, which, unfortunately, provoked the BJS post in support of Rev. McCain mentioned above, as well as conversations on Gottesdienst Online and on FB, Rev. McCain honed in on a document containing an Ordinary of the Holy Mass on the website of Zion Lutheran in Detroit, where Pr. Mark Braden serves. Rev. McCain claims he was alerted to this Ordinary by a Lutheran pastor in Germany, which produced another post by Rev. McCain on his blog. However, what the reader of his blog post or his comments about this elsewhere were not made aware of is the fact that both Pr. Braden and a couple of his parishioners told Rev. McCain (publicly on FB and, evidently, via private correspondence as well) some weeks ago that the Ordinary used at Zion had been changed by Pr. Braden when he began serving there. Thus, Rev. McCain already knew full well that Pr. Braden had corrected some of the less than desirable portions of the Ordinary Zion had used in the past. One would think that Rev. McCain would have mentioned this little tidbit of information in his post linked above or in his comments elsewhere. Instead, he gave the impression that he was unaware of this and posted links to the controversial Ordinary in several places.
When called out on this, Rev. McCain made the point that, even though he was aware of the fact that Pr. Braden had made changes to the Ordinary used at Zion, he believed that the link to the old Ordinary should not still appear on their congregation's website. Fine. Maybe he's right about that. But, again, one wonders why he didn't make it known to readers of his blog and his comments elsewhere that he was aware that changes had been made. By not doing so, he gave the impression to those who clicked on the link to this Ordinary, which, again, he readily posted in several places, that Zion was still using it. That's bad form. It's reminiscent of the sort of media coverage we've been getting from the liberal left surrounding the HHS controversy, where facts are inconveniently left out to promote an agenda. I would expect more from a person in Rev. McCain's position, but, unfortunately, this has been his SOP for some time. Sad, that.
I recently wrote an op-ed piece for our local newspaper in response to a couple of articles that had appeared therein, which I titled, "Red Herrings, Straw Men, and Outright Lies." The piece was about the way our local opinion writers were simply regurgitating what the liberal media had served up in the aftermath of the hearing held to discuss how the HHS mandate infringed upon religious liberty, the hearing that featured the excellent testimony of our own synodical president. I find it sad that I can easily write a piece with the same title addressing the way Rev. McCain incessantly fusses over what he deems to be dangerous "high churchers" in our synod, for all we ever get from him are red herrings, straw men, and outright lies. Besides the convenient little "silver bullet" of the Ordinary posted at Zion's website, which turned out to be not-so-silver-bulletish after all, he has never produced any evidence that his accusations and warnings are warranted. It's a shame that others have now picked up his false mantel and are intent on producing warnings against the straw man he has erected.
If those labeled as dangerous "high churchers" in our synod actually claimed that anyone who does not employ the ceremonies they employ in their conduct of the Divine Service is not a genuine Lutheran, I would be the first in line to correct them. But, they have never, and do not now, make that claim. They employ the ceremonies they do because they want to conduct the Mass (Divine Service) with the "highest reverence" and "teach the people what they need to know about Christ," per AC XXIV above. In this way, ceremony is used as a "tool" of sorts, for all the bowing, genuflecting, elevating, etc. are not mere play things or tastes so-called "high churchers" love to dabble with, but a confession of the Lutheran faith they hold dear; a reverent confession of the Real Presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Mass. Is it really dangerous to make such a confession through the teaching aspect of ceremony? How any confessional Lutheran could answer in the affirmative is beyond me.
Furthermore, even if it could be proven that there are "high churchers" in our midst who are guilty of the accusations Rev. McCain often hurls, it does not follow that they would be "just as guilty" as those who abandon the liturgy altogether, an oft-made charge Rev. McCain (and now, others, sadly) make. As I posted on FB yesterday:
. . . to this . . .
. . . and claim that both are equally guilty of the same thing is simply ridiculous. That should be self-evident. That it's not to some is rather disturbing.
Ceremonies teach, my friends. They also add beauty and dignity. Every Lutheran pastor in every LCMS congregation employs ceremonies. And, the people are taught by those ceremonies what they should believe. What those who are deemed "high churchers" advocate for are ceremonies that match our Lutheran confession of the faith. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. If you attend a Divine Service where such "high churchers" serve, what you will be taught by the ceremonies employed is that it is believed and confessed in that place that our Lord Jesus Christ is Really Present and that, because of that reality, you are in a Holy Place, where reverence and awe are the order of the day. You simply cannot help but notice this, as great care is taken by such "high churchers" to take very seriously how they conduct themselves in the chancel, and how they approach the task of preaching, leading the liturgy, and consecrating and distributing the Most Holy Sacrament.
At the same time, those who are deemed "high churchers" and often feel the brunt of the false accusations hurled at them also take seriously the fact that our Lutheran Confessions make it vividly clear that ceremonies do not have to be the same everywhere. Indeed, even among "The Gottesdienst Crowd" often in Rev. McCain's cross-hairs, ceremonies differ from place to place. This is perfectly fine. Not every pastor has to conduct the liturgy in the exact same, lock-step way. Not every pastor absolutely must make the sign of the cross and bow and genuflect at all the customary places. Not every pastor must wear chasubles or chant or elevate, etc. There is no ultimate "Golden Form" of ceremonial conduct that all Lutheran pastors must aspire to or else live with the label of being less than Lutheran. To suggest that anyone teaches this is wrong and absurd.
But, what should be non-negotiable for any Lutheran pastor is that he take seriously what he is doing and strives for reverence and dignity as he fulfills his duty to be a steward of the mysteries of God. If his ceremonial conduct is such that those in attendance are taught to believe that Jesus is not really Present, but "up there in heaven," or that what's going on is not a holy encounter with our Holy God, but a time for fun and entertainment, chock full of dramas and skits and testimonials and "get-down-with-Jesus" songs and motivational messages by a pastor who goes out of his way to be hip and cool and "just one of the homies," well, then, the people are not being taught what they need to know about Christ, and the Lutheran confession of the faith is not being put into practice. Ceremonies teach. The question Lutheran pastors should always be asking is, "What are the ceremonies I'm using teaching the people?"
So, ceremonies do not have to be the same everywhere. No one is arguing that they do. But, the ceremonies we use do teach, and we should keep that always in mind, which is what "The Gottesdienst Crowd" has always been about, as you can glean for yourself in several recent posts offered at their blog here, here, here, here, and here.
With these repeated warnings and false accusations against so-called "high churchers," we are led to believe that it is somehow wrong to strive for the best in ceremonial conduct by Lutheran pastors, which seems quite odd. Do those warning and accusing really want to suggest that we should not strive for the best ceremonies to employ as we conduct the Divine Service? It would seem that striving for the best ceremonies to employ is automatically equated to "doing your own thing" and "creating a Golden Form everyone must emulate or else." Isn't it possible that those who strive for what they believe to be the best ceremonies to employ for the teaching of the faithful and the beauty and dignity of the Service are simply doing their best to uphold and foster our Lutheran confession of the faith? Are they not permitted to exercise their Lutheran piety without being accused or labeled? Evidently not, which is a shame.
What is the alternative to this? What is the goal of those who warn and accuse the "high churchers"? Is it that every pastor in our synod employ the same ceremonies and conduct the Divine Service in the exact same way - you know, not too "high" and not too "low," but "just right"? What does "just right" look like? And, if there is a "just right," then aren't those who advocate for it guilty of finding some Golden Form of ceremonial conduct that all Lutherans should aspire to or else be less than fully Lutheran? What's that saying about a pot and a kettle?
It's all rather silly, my friends. As I said above, all this "high, middle, low church" stuff is not the stuff of Lutherans. It has been imported from elsewhere. Lutherans believe, teach, and confess that ceremonies do not have to be the same everywhere. Yes, we should strive for uniformity as much as possible. Yes, it would be wonderful if we all used the same hymnal. Yes, it would be outstanding if you were able to attend any LCMS congregation on a Sunday morning and know that you were going to follow the liturgy (in one of our hymnals) and receive the Divine Gifts of forgiveness, life, and salvation via our Lord's Holy Word and Sacraments. We should strive for as much uniformity among us as is possible. But, Lutherans have never argued that such uniformity should extend to every aspect of ceremonial conduct among pastors and parishioners. Lutherans have never argued that it is necessary that all Lutheran pastors wear the same vestments, bow at all the same places, chant, elevate and genuflect, etc. Lutherans have never argued for such rigid uniformity because Lutherans recognize that there is a great deal of freedom allotted for ceremonial conduct, even while maintaining that such freedom is not limitless. What we can do is encourage one another in this area, putting forth and suggesting to our brothers ceremonies we have found to be effective in teaching the faithful and fostering reverence and dignity. Nothing wrong with that, even though that is the very thing that amazingly causes so much angst for some, for that is the only thing being done by those whom they accuse.
But, I have no confidence that this nonsense will end any time soon. This go-round will simmer out, but a few months from now, Rev. McCain or someone else will post something about the dangerous "high churchers" again. Oh well. As a friend of mine said the other day, "Some people just love to go searching for dragons to slay." Exactly, and when the dragon doesn't actually exist, but is a figment of one's imagination, he'll never actually get slain, so round and round we go.
Now, where'd I put my rosary? :)
From time to time, there are those among us who issue warnings against those they deem to be "high church" or "too ceremonial." We are told that these "high-churchers" are guilty of some sort of infatuation with medieval rubrics and seek to incorporate these into their conduct of the Divine Service to produce a golden manner of ceremonial conduct that all Lutherans should readily emulate, and that they claim that those who do not emulate this conduct are less than ideal and sub-Lutheran. We are also told that these "high-churchers," with their ultra-ceremonial leanings, are just as guilty of abandoning true Lutheranism as those who pitch the liturgy altogether and do their own thing, which is never really their own thing, but always a mimicking of those who believe and practice a decidedly different thing than Lutherans. The idea is that there are supposedly two extremes, both of which are to be avoided.
Two such "fraternal warnings" have been issued just this past week, the first from Rev. Paul McCain over at his blog, Cyberbrethren; the second from Rev. Mark Schroeder, who commends Rev. McCain's post and expands on it over at BJS. In the attempt to justify the need for their warnings, Rev. McCain includes a quote from Hermann Sasse, where he warns Lutherans to steer clear of the "Liturgical Movement," which he believes leads to Rome, and Rev. Schroeder adds quotes from an Anglican (C.S. Lewis), a Roman Catholic (Hans Urs Von Bathassar), and a Lutheran (Dr. Luther himself). Additionally, in the comment section of Rev. Schroder's post on BJS, Rev. McCain adds some lengthy comments he received from a Confessional Lutheran in Germany on the issue, and Rev. Dr. Martin Noland applauds Rev. Schroeder's post and provides some historical background regarding the "Liturgical Renewal" movement.
The problem is that none of these guys actually provide any examples of what they see as dangerous from the so-called "high church" side of the equation. What exactly are we being warned to avoid here? Rev. McCain tells us:
I have read, in many places, and at various times, that there are those who wish to imply, suggest, or even say outright, that there is in fact a certain form of the Lutheran liturgy to which all should aspire in order for the Lutheran liturgy to be conducted most appropriately and most properly. Such claims, while well intentioned, are wrong.It would be nice if Rev. McCain would cite some of these implications, suggestions, and outright claims, so that we would be able to properly determine whether or not they are wrong and dangerous. As it is, this is akin to when that parishioner comes to the pastor and says, "People are saying . . ." What people?
Likewise, Rev. Schroeder posits that both "high churchers" and "contemporary worshipers" are guilty of turning the liturgy into a "tool" each "side" uses, according to its own tastes, to build the church up in its own image (or something like that), but, again, neglects to put any meat and bones on the straw man he has followed Rev. McCain in erecting.
Warning people about the danger of "high churchers" in our midst has been a hobby horse Rev. McCain has been riding for a long time. One would think that, as often as he mounts this particular hobby horse, he would have compiled for us a long list of examples of these nasty fellas who imply, suggest, or even say outright that there is a golden form of the Lutheran liturgy to which all should aspire, and that those who do not adhere to this golden form are less than Lutheran. But, he hasn't. Instead, we get the same old warnings about this supposed boogeyman who is as big a threat to our synodical unity as those who abandon the liturgy altogether, but we're never introduced to him.
I've challenged Rev. McCain on this issue several times in the past. When pressed hard enough, he'll tip his hand to reveal who he has in his cross-hairs, but, as it turns out, those he targets are not, in fact, guilty of his accusations, which makes them false. Who does he target? "The Gottesdienst Crowd" (a name Rev. McCain coined himself a while back), which refers to the editors of the excellent quarterly journal on the Lutheran Liturgy, Gottesdienst, and the editors of the Gottesdienst Online blog, as well as those who subscribe to, support, and follow the journal and blog (that would include me and many others).
Now, it is true that "The Gottesdienst Crowd" loves to study and talk about the liturgy. It is also true that they promote a ceremonial conduct of the liturgy that brings to life what we Lutherans believe, teach, and confess about what is actually taking place in the Divine Service, namely that our Lord Jesus Christ is Present in His Holy Word and in His Holy Body and Blood in the Sacrament. "The Gottesdienst Crowd" believes that this reality ought to inform our practice and conduct when in our Lord's Holy House. For that reason, it is common practice among those who belong to "The Gottesdienst Crowd" to bow, genuflect, make the sign of the cross, elevate the Body and Blood, employ reverence and care in Distributing the Sacrament and dealing with the reliquae, wear chasubles, chant, etc. Some view such ceremonial conduct as "high church," which is not a Lutheran, but an Anglican descriptor. But, fine. If someone wants to call this "high church," knock yourself out, but to claim that such ceremonial conduct does not belong to our Lutheran heritage and/or should be avoided is not fine, but, quite simply, wrong.
But, Rev. McCain claims that his warnings are not necessarily against such ceremonial conduct. He has even said that he loves all this stuff. He knows that such liturgical practices are part of our Lutheran heritage. So, what's his continual fuss all about? You can get an idea from this comment he made yesterday on FB in response to someone who said that we need not fear liturgical practices that are part of our heritage:
"Liturgical practices that are part of our heritage" are one thing, making people think that certain high church practices are essential to what it means to being and remaining a genuine Lutheran is quite something other.So, Rev. McCain's beef with "The Gottesdienst Crowd" is not with their love of the liturgy or their promotion of ceremonial conduct that matches what we Lutherans confess about our Lord Jesus being Present among us, but rather he is (and has been for some time) accusing them of claiming that their "high church practices" are "essential" and that anyone who doesn't employ them cannot be or remain a "genuine Lutheran."
This is patently false. "The Gottesdienst Crowd" has never made such a claim. Not in their journal. Not on their blog. Not at their conferences, many of which I have been blessed to attend. In fact, on the contrary, while they believe the kind of ceremonial conduct mentioned above best matches our Lutheran confession, all of them, to a man, has made it clear, time and time again, that these things are not "essential" and that the lack of these things does not make one less or un-Lutheran. Rev. McCain has been assured of this many times in the past and yet the accusations still fly, which means that he either refuses to listen or he believes that these men are liars.
In this latest go-round, which, unfortunately, provoked the BJS post in support of Rev. McCain mentioned above, as well as conversations on Gottesdienst Online and on FB, Rev. McCain honed in on a document containing an Ordinary of the Holy Mass on the website of Zion Lutheran in Detroit, where Pr. Mark Braden serves. Rev. McCain claims he was alerted to this Ordinary by a Lutheran pastor in Germany, which produced another post by Rev. McCain on his blog. However, what the reader of his blog post or his comments about this elsewhere were not made aware of is the fact that both Pr. Braden and a couple of his parishioners told Rev. McCain (publicly on FB and, evidently, via private correspondence as well) some weeks ago that the Ordinary used at Zion had been changed by Pr. Braden when he began serving there. Thus, Rev. McCain already knew full well that Pr. Braden had corrected some of the less than desirable portions of the Ordinary Zion had used in the past. One would think that Rev. McCain would have mentioned this little tidbit of information in his post linked above or in his comments elsewhere. Instead, he gave the impression that he was unaware of this and posted links to the controversial Ordinary in several places.
When called out on this, Rev. McCain made the point that, even though he was aware of the fact that Pr. Braden had made changes to the Ordinary used at Zion, he believed that the link to the old Ordinary should not still appear on their congregation's website. Fine. Maybe he's right about that. But, again, one wonders why he didn't make it known to readers of his blog and his comments elsewhere that he was aware that changes had been made. By not doing so, he gave the impression to those who clicked on the link to this Ordinary, which, again, he readily posted in several places, that Zion was still using it. That's bad form. It's reminiscent of the sort of media coverage we've been getting from the liberal left surrounding the HHS controversy, where facts are inconveniently left out to promote an agenda. I would expect more from a person in Rev. McCain's position, but, unfortunately, this has been his SOP for some time. Sad, that.
I recently wrote an op-ed piece for our local newspaper in response to a couple of articles that had appeared therein, which I titled, "Red Herrings, Straw Men, and Outright Lies." The piece was about the way our local opinion writers were simply regurgitating what the liberal media had served up in the aftermath of the hearing held to discuss how the HHS mandate infringed upon religious liberty, the hearing that featured the excellent testimony of our own synodical president. I find it sad that I can easily write a piece with the same title addressing the way Rev. McCain incessantly fusses over what he deems to be dangerous "high churchers" in our synod, for all we ever get from him are red herrings, straw men, and outright lies. Besides the convenient little "silver bullet" of the Ordinary posted at Zion's website, which turned out to be not-so-silver-bulletish after all, he has never produced any evidence that his accusations and warnings are warranted. It's a shame that others have now picked up his false mantel and are intent on producing warnings against the straw man he has erected.
If those labeled as dangerous "high churchers" in our synod actually claimed that anyone who does not employ the ceremonies they employ in their conduct of the Divine Service is not a genuine Lutheran, I would be the first in line to correct them. But, they have never, and do not now, make that claim. They employ the ceremonies they do because they want to conduct the Mass (Divine Service) with the "highest reverence" and "teach the people what they need to know about Christ," per AC XXIV above. In this way, ceremony is used as a "tool" of sorts, for all the bowing, genuflecting, elevating, etc. are not mere play things or tastes so-called "high churchers" love to dabble with, but a confession of the Lutheran faith they hold dear; a reverent confession of the Real Presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Mass. Is it really dangerous to make such a confession through the teaching aspect of ceremony? How any confessional Lutheran could answer in the affirmative is beyond me.
Furthermore, even if it could be proven that there are "high churchers" in our midst who are guilty of the accusations Rev. McCain often hurls, it does not follow that they would be "just as guilty" as those who abandon the liturgy altogether, an oft-made charge Rev. McCain (and now, others, sadly) make. As I posted on FB yesterday:
To make the claim that those who some deem to be "high churchers" are just as dangerous to the Lutheran confession of the faith as those who abandon the liturgy altogether and mimic the practices of those our Lutheran Confessions condemn is absurd. It's like saying that a husband who shows too much affection toward his wife is just as bad as a husband who cheats on his wife. Please, friends, stop drinking that kool-aid.I mean, that anyone could compare this . . .
. . . to this . . .
. . . and claim that both are equally guilty of the same thing is simply ridiculous. That should be self-evident. That it's not to some is rather disturbing.
Ceremonies teach, my friends. They also add beauty and dignity. Every Lutheran pastor in every LCMS congregation employs ceremonies. And, the people are taught by those ceremonies what they should believe. What those who are deemed "high churchers" advocate for are ceremonies that match our Lutheran confession of the faith. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. If you attend a Divine Service where such "high churchers" serve, what you will be taught by the ceremonies employed is that it is believed and confessed in that place that our Lord Jesus Christ is Really Present and that, because of that reality, you are in a Holy Place, where reverence and awe are the order of the day. You simply cannot help but notice this, as great care is taken by such "high churchers" to take very seriously how they conduct themselves in the chancel, and how they approach the task of preaching, leading the liturgy, and consecrating and distributing the Most Holy Sacrament.
At the same time, those who are deemed "high churchers" and often feel the brunt of the false accusations hurled at them also take seriously the fact that our Lutheran Confessions make it vividly clear that ceremonies do not have to be the same everywhere. Indeed, even among "The Gottesdienst Crowd" often in Rev. McCain's cross-hairs, ceremonies differ from place to place. This is perfectly fine. Not every pastor has to conduct the liturgy in the exact same, lock-step way. Not every pastor absolutely must make the sign of the cross and bow and genuflect at all the customary places. Not every pastor must wear chasubles or chant or elevate, etc. There is no ultimate "Golden Form" of ceremonial conduct that all Lutheran pastors must aspire to or else live with the label of being less than Lutheran. To suggest that anyone teaches this is wrong and absurd.
But, what should be non-negotiable for any Lutheran pastor is that he take seriously what he is doing and strives for reverence and dignity as he fulfills his duty to be a steward of the mysteries of God. If his ceremonial conduct is such that those in attendance are taught to believe that Jesus is not really Present, but "up there in heaven," or that what's going on is not a holy encounter with our Holy God, but a time for fun and entertainment, chock full of dramas and skits and testimonials and "get-down-with-Jesus" songs and motivational messages by a pastor who goes out of his way to be hip and cool and "just one of the homies," well, then, the people are not being taught what they need to know about Christ, and the Lutheran confession of the faith is not being put into practice. Ceremonies teach. The question Lutheran pastors should always be asking is, "What are the ceremonies I'm using teaching the people?"
So, ceremonies do not have to be the same everywhere. No one is arguing that they do. But, the ceremonies we use do teach, and we should keep that always in mind, which is what "The Gottesdienst Crowd" has always been about, as you can glean for yourself in several recent posts offered at their blog here, here, here, here, and here.
With these repeated warnings and false accusations against so-called "high churchers," we are led to believe that it is somehow wrong to strive for the best in ceremonial conduct by Lutheran pastors, which seems quite odd. Do those warning and accusing really want to suggest that we should not strive for the best ceremonies to employ as we conduct the Divine Service? It would seem that striving for the best ceremonies to employ is automatically equated to "doing your own thing" and "creating a Golden Form everyone must emulate or else." Isn't it possible that those who strive for what they believe to be the best ceremonies to employ for the teaching of the faithful and the beauty and dignity of the Service are simply doing their best to uphold and foster our Lutheran confession of the faith? Are they not permitted to exercise their Lutheran piety without being accused or labeled? Evidently not, which is a shame.
What is the alternative to this? What is the goal of those who warn and accuse the "high churchers"? Is it that every pastor in our synod employ the same ceremonies and conduct the Divine Service in the exact same way - you know, not too "high" and not too "low," but "just right"? What does "just right" look like? And, if there is a "just right," then aren't those who advocate for it guilty of finding some Golden Form of ceremonial conduct that all Lutherans should aspire to or else be less than fully Lutheran? What's that saying about a pot and a kettle?
It's all rather silly, my friends. As I said above, all this "high, middle, low church" stuff is not the stuff of Lutherans. It has been imported from elsewhere. Lutherans believe, teach, and confess that ceremonies do not have to be the same everywhere. Yes, we should strive for uniformity as much as possible. Yes, it would be wonderful if we all used the same hymnal. Yes, it would be outstanding if you were able to attend any LCMS congregation on a Sunday morning and know that you were going to follow the liturgy (in one of our hymnals) and receive the Divine Gifts of forgiveness, life, and salvation via our Lord's Holy Word and Sacraments. We should strive for as much uniformity among us as is possible. But, Lutherans have never argued that such uniformity should extend to every aspect of ceremonial conduct among pastors and parishioners. Lutherans have never argued that it is necessary that all Lutheran pastors wear the same vestments, bow at all the same places, chant, elevate and genuflect, etc. Lutherans have never argued for such rigid uniformity because Lutherans recognize that there is a great deal of freedom allotted for ceremonial conduct, even while maintaining that such freedom is not limitless. What we can do is encourage one another in this area, putting forth and suggesting to our brothers ceremonies we have found to be effective in teaching the faithful and fostering reverence and dignity. Nothing wrong with that, even though that is the very thing that amazingly causes so much angst for some, for that is the only thing being done by those whom they accuse.
But, I have no confidence that this nonsense will end any time soon. This go-round will simmer out, but a few months from now, Rev. McCain or someone else will post something about the dangerous "high churchers" again. Oh well. As a friend of mine said the other day, "Some people just love to go searching for dragons to slay." Exactly, and when the dragon doesn't actually exist, but is a figment of one's imagination, he'll never actually get slain, so round and round we go.
Now, where'd I put my rosary? :)
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Dignified Informality
What is "dignified informality"? Dignified means "having or showing a composed or serious manner that is worthy of respect," and informality means "a manner that does not take forms and ceremonies seriously."
So, evidently, what this means is that those who conduct worship services should be serious and respectful, while not taking the ceremonies they're conducting seriously.
The point of this "dignified informality" is, seemingly, to give the worshiper some "sense of the presence of the Spirit of God in pastor and people," while not overwhelming them in such a way that they take that "presence" too seriously, the goal being to please everyone, so that the hearts and heads of both those who want some dignity and those who seek informality in their worship experience are satisfied.
So, reverent, but not too reverent; respectful, but not too respectful; serious, but not too serious. Or, another way to express it is Lutheran, but not too Lutheran.
Still another way to express this is to use that infamous line many a heartbroken boy or girl has heard from his/her boy/girlfriend upon breaking up, "I love you, but I'm not in love with you."
Monday, February 6, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
