Missional Moments?

The Minnesota South District Convention will occur later this week. In reading the agenda, I notice that there is time allotted for eight "Missional Moments" throughout the convention. What in the world are "Missional Moments"?

If I had to guess, I'd say that these will be five minute videos or testimonials of some sort, showing how this or that congregation or these or those individuals are "sharing their faith" in some fashion. If I'm right, these videos or testimonials will probably be accompanied by emotionally-manipulative music playing in the background as the convention witnesses how the lost are being reached (have your hankies ready!).

I'm basing this guess on a couple of factors: 1) I have seen this sort of thing personally in the past at my own district conventions. I think they were called "Ablaze!(tm) Moments" or "Great Commission Moments" or "Faith-Sharing Moments" or something like that. They were cheesy and not at all in line with our Lutheran Confession of the faith (of course, saying that these days is seen by many as being akin to kicking puppies, but so be it), but they had just the right amount of emotional manipulation to cast a spell over many in the assembly, leading them to believe that these sorts of "___________ Moments" was what the Church was all about, the real "ministry" and "mission" happening not via the preaching of the pure Gospel and right administration of the Holy Sacraments in the Divine Service, but out there in the world whenever a Christian has a "critical moment" with an unbeliever unchurched person and makes a "gospel contact." 2) The "Guiding Principles" of the MNS District, which sees its mission as "developing missional leaders in congregations and schools" and wants all Christians in their district to see themselves as Missionaries, who "fervently seek opportunities to speak of Jesus with friends and neighbors," and wants congregations in their district to see themselves as "mission outposts." This, of course, comes with all sorts of goal-setting, since it is important to keep track of how well this "everyone a missionary" strategy is working (i.e. how many souls are being saved by the Missionaries - all Christians - in the district). Plus, if all those Missionaries are not being as fervent as they ought, these goals can be referenced to guilt motivate them to get out there with more fervency to reach the lost (after all, as our former synodical president often quipped, "Every time I snap my fingers, someone goes to Hell!"). So, I'm guessing that these "Missional Moments" will be used in the spirit of these Guiding Principles - opportunities to reinforce the idea that everyone is a Missionary and to motivate all to get out there and save the lost, already!

The irony in all of this is that those who follow the "everyone a minister/missionary" philosophy (which comes from decidedly un-Lutheran sources - just sayin') think that, in doing so, they are fulfilling the so-called "Great Commission." Really, though, what they are fulfilling is what I like to call the "Great Omission," since, well, they actually omit the things Jesus Himself says makes disciples in their missional, Jesus-follower-making model. The things that actually make disciples (Baptism, catechesis, absolution, preaching, reception of the Lord's Supper - all under the authority of Jesus in the Church He established and in which He continues to be Present) are secondary to the real "ministry" and "mission," which happens whenever a Christian Missionary confesses the Gospel shares his/her faith with an unbeliever unchurched person out in the world. In the "Great Omission," what is really important are the "gospel contacts" all the Missionaries (all people) make. The real "Gospel Contacts" (Baptism, catechesis, absolution, preaching, reception of the Lord's Supper) are often not even counted in the goals of those who follow the "Great Omission" (e.g. none of these actual "Gospel Contacts" were important enough to be counted in the running tally of soul-saving that used to stain grace our synodical website in the "Ablaze!(tm) Ticker"). 

But, I know, I'm just a nasty, polarizing "confessional," who doesn't care about saving the lost. If I did, I would jump on board with the program and start teaching the people I am blessed to serve that they are Missionaries, who need to get out there in the world and start saving the lost - pronto! But, alas, I love them too much to burden them with the guilt of allowing so many people go to Hell because of their obvious laziness. Plus, I still hold the crazy belief that saving the lost is something best left to the Holy Spirit, who does that lost-saving work via the means of grace (Holy Word and Sacraments), which He Himself established for this purpose. So, I teach the people I serve to live out their God-given vocations and to always be ready to confess the faith if and when the Holy Spirit presents the opportunity, but to also be comforted by the fact that they are not "missionaries" and that saving the lost is not their job, which, of course, means that neither myself nor the congregation I serve will ever be featured in a district's "Missional Moments" at a convention. Oh well, I suppose I'll have to learn to live with that. 

Whatever these "Missional Moments" turn out to be at the upcoming MNS District Convention, I think it is safe to conclude, based on the actions of the MNS BoD toward University Lutheran Chapel, that none of the following pics would be considered by them to be "Missional Moments." On the contrary, what you see depicted in the pics below has to be eliminated so that they can fulfill the "Great Omission" by selling and destroying ULC to make way for students to be raised up as Missionaries, so that more "gospel contacts" can be made and less people will have to go to Hell whenever we snap our fingers.

Rejoicing in, and Celebrating, Our Pretend Unity

Pr. David Juhl has a post over at BJS which shows how the Missouri Synod used to handle difficult doctrinal issues. It is quite eye-opening. Unfortunately, the way we handle difficult doctrinal issues today is nothing like what they did back in 1860. Today, the way we handle difficult doctrinal issues is to simply pretend that they don't exist by claiming that we have God-given unity and Christ-centered diversity, and that we should rejoice in that unity and celebrate that diversity. A good example of this can be seen in the following proposed resolution, which will be taken up in a few weeks at the Michigan District Convention:

(NOTE: This resolution lists four overtures as its reference, one from a circuit forum and three from congregations, my own included, all of which were nearly identical in wording and called for the establishment of liturgical mission congregations in the district. Evidently, the floor committee decided to ignore those overtures and write its own resolution, as the resolution below doesn't even come close to the purpose expressed in the overtures it references, and no other overtures of the nature of this resolution were submitted for consideration. In an ironic twist, they include a "whereas" below which states that our "Life Together" involves trusting one another.)

1-02 To Rejoice in our God-given Unity and Celebrate our Christ-centered Diversity  

Whereas, all members of Synod have pledged to submit to Scripture, have subscribed to the Confessions, and have signed our constitution; and

Yes, because we all know that no one could have ever pledged falsely, and that no one could ever forsake the confession they once pledged to hold, and that our true unity resides in the pledges we made, not in the things to which we pledged.

Whereas, we are commanded in Scripture, "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3); and

Yes, we must make every effort to agree to disagree, live and let live, and keep the peace, for this is the true unity of the Spirit and bond of peace, not the pure preaching of the Gospel and right administration of the Sacraments.

Whereas, Scripture grants Christians a certain freedom in determining how they worship the Lord (Romans 14:5); and

Yes, because Romans 14:5 is all about freedom in determining how we worship the Lord, even though it has nothing to do with that. But, since God is nearly silent in His Word about how He is to be worshiped (except for all the principles He lays forth in the second half of Exodus and Leviticus and throughout the Old Testament, and except for the fact that God Incarnate upheld those principles throughout His earthly ministry and was filled with holy zeal for His Father's House, chasing those who were exercising their freedom out with a whip), this verse was all we could come up with to support the very clear testimony of God in His Word that Christians are free to worship Him however they please.

Whereas, the Confessions assert "For this unity, we say, a similarity of human rites, whether universal or particular, is not necessary" (AP VII) (see also AC XXVI and FC Ep X); and

When you also see AC XXVI and FC Ep X, please ignore all the instances where it sounds like we Lutherans do not have limitless freedom, but focus only on those parts that talk about our freedom and tell us that rites and customs and ceremonies do not have to be the same everywhere, because that really gets at the heart of all that is said in our Confessions about worship.

Whereas, our Constitution lists one of the objectives of Synod to "Encourage congregations to strive for uniformity in church practice, but also to develop an appreciation of a variety of responsible practices and customs which are in harmony with out common profession of faith" (Article 3.7); and

Yes, and "uniformity in church practice" is achieved if you mention Jesus in your Service or "worship experience" or whatever you like to call it, as is "responsible practices and customs." Just make sure to mention Jesus and anything goes in our wonderfully diverse and truly blessed variety of worship.

Whereas, our liturgy greatly aids in grounding, teaching, and exercising its participants in the faith and our confession of the same; and

We added this "whereas" to pay lip service to the overtures sent in, which called for the establishment of liturgical mission congregations in our district, and to make sure that we make it clear that we are willing to tolerate even those liturgical types in our anything-goes freedom when it comes to worship (but, we're certainly not going to allow the overtures they presented to see the light of day among us, since they make the crazy claim that we may not be as unified as we know we are).

Whereas, Walther's Church and Ministry sites Chemnitz as saying "This office [of pastor] has power granted to it by God" to "with the consent of the congregation introduce ceremonies that serve the ministry, are not at variance with God's Word, do not burden consciences, but promote order, dignity, propriety, peace, and edification" (Concerning the Holy Ministry Thesis V); and

Which, of course, means that the pastor is free to develop his own "worship experience," since order, dignity, propriety, peace, and edification can be defined in many wonderful and diverse ways among us.

Whereas, "Life Together" involves trusting one another to understand both the particular needs of the communities in which we serve and to correctly apply Biblical teachings to those needs; so therefore be it

Yes, because we all know that the Bible is filled with verses exhorting us to trust one another (there's so many that we don't even need to reference one here), and we also know that each and every congregation has its own particular needs: Some need Rock 'N Roll Jesus, some need Blended Jesus, and still some others need the old, worn out, Traditional Jesus, and pastors and other church leaders, whom we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we can trust, are capable of choosing which version of Jesus their congregations need.

Resolved, that as People of Hope we imagine a District that rejoices in our God-given doctrinal unity and celebrates Christ-centered diversity in worship practices; and be it further

Yes, because doctrine is one thing and practice is a completely different thing, and just because one congregation removes the altar to make room for the praise band and "rocks out for Jesus" each week, while another congregation retains the altar and kneels before the very Body and Blood of Jesus which is distributed from it, both congregations obviously believe the same exact thing, even though their practices might suggest otherwise. I mean, after all, as we stated in the very first "whereas," we've all pledged the same vows, so we must all believe the same thing.

Resolved, that pastors be encouraged to continue instructing their congregations, catechumens, and new members in the Biblical principles of worship; and be it finally

You know, like the Biblical principles of worship clearly laid forth in Romans 14:5, which we referred to in the third "whereas" above, and which has nothing to do with how we are to worship the Lord, but, again, the Bible is silent on that, so, really, the Biblical principles of worship are that you are free to do whatever you want, however you want, so long as you mention Jesus in there somewhere.

Resolved, that we therefore affirm the Theses on Worship adopted by our Council of Presidents (COP) and commended by our 2010 Synod convention.

Because, of all men, we can trust them most assuredly. Not only have they pledged to submit to Scripture, subscribed to the Confessions, and signed our constitution, but they are experts in interpreting our "covenants of love" and know exactly what God-given unity and Christ-centered diversity mean, in synodical terms. And, besides that, these "Theses on Worship" do a wonderful job of ignoring much of what our Lutheran Confessions say about our Lutheran theology of worship, honing in on those instances where they speak of our freedom in worship, which provides us with the justification we need to produce resolutions like this one that also ignores much of what our Lutheran Confessions say about our Lutheran theology of worship and hones in on our freedom. Furthermore, we really, really, really like the way our COP blames the "worship wars" on those polarizing confessional rascals among us, who have the gall to claim that we are not perfectly united doctrinally just because some worship like methobapticostals and others worship like Lutherans, since, as we have said a few times here, we know that we're all united because we have all pledged the same vows. This provides us with the further justification to ignore all those nasty, polarizing overtures that were submitted in favor of the liturgy (except to give it lip service in that one "whereas" above), since, in our Christ-centered diversity, we know that we can worship like methobapticostals and still retain our Lutheran unity with those who worship like Lutherans. Did we mention that we all pledged the same vows?

Spring Tea

Yesterday, we held a Spring Tea to honor our mothers. Nothing elaborate, just a short and sweet time of fellowship and fun. Finger sandwiches, veggies, fruits, and yummy desserts were served, along with hot and iced tea, coffee, lemonade, and water, which were served to the ladies by some of the wonderful manfolk in our congregation. We began with prayer, the ladies enjoyed the goodies of food and conversation and laughter, Cassie led a trivia game, and we concluded with a litany, praying the Our Father, and the benediction. All the ladies left with a little packet which included packages of tea, seeds, and other goodies, and sixteen of the ladies were blessed to win a potted plant by answering the questions asked in the trivia game. Lots of fun! The idea to do this was introduced by Cassie just a few weeks ago, but you would have never known that we threw things together quickly, and we were extremely pleased to have such a good turnout on short notice. The ladies had a wonderful time together. We'll definitely do this again next year!

Some pics of the occasion:

Day Trip to Fort Wayne

Yesterday, a small group from our parish took a day trip south and visited Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne. The "Visit the Sem" idea originated in our Thursday morning Bible Study a while back, but it always remained one of those "We should do that someday" things - until yesterday.

We began our visit by attending Divine Service in Kramer Chapel at 10 a.m., which was greatly enjoyed by everyone. For all but two of us, this was the first time at the sem and, thus, the first time in Kramer Chapel to hear the beautiful voices of the seminary choir and community resounding through that Holy Place during worship and, as expected, they were blown away by it all. After chapel, we headed over to the Student Commons for coffee and got to chat with a few profs and students, including the venerable Dr. Scaer (the older version) and a couple of guys I have become acquainted with online, who have received calls and will soon be sent out to be ordained and serve as pastors. After coffee in the Commons, we headed over to tour the new Walther Library, which is coming along marvelously - future students will be extremely blessed by that wonderful project. Then, we headed over to take a peek at Sihler Auditorium and ran into a bit of good luck. It was locked, but Rev. Tom Zimmerman, Dean of Students, happened to be walking by and graciously came over and unlocked it for us, turned on some lights, and chatted with us for a few. After Sihler, we had lunch in Katie Luther Dining Hall, and then it was off to the bookstore, which always gives me the feeling I imagine teenage girls must have when going to the mall - I could spend hours in there! :) After the bookstore, we walked through the halls of Loehe and Wyneken quietly, as classes were in session, and finished our tour by visiting the food and clothing co-ops and other buildings on the grounds. It was a wonderful visit and everyone enjoyed themselves and would like to do it again.

Yesterday's visit was completely non-structured. We just decided to go a couple of weeks ago, put things together quickly, and several people were not able to come with us this time. So, next year, I'm hoping to plan a "Visit the Sem" day well in advance and coordinate it with the sem, so that we can have a little more structure to our visit (get a real tour, meet more of the faculty, and maybe sit in on a class, etc.). Hopefully, if we plan far enough in advance, we'll be able to bring a much larger group. We'll see.

The rest of the group headed back home in the afternoon, but I stuck around and spent the night, which allowed me to attend Divine Service at Redeemer in the evening, which was awesome! On Thursday evenings, they have Divine Service in the beautiful little chapel located behind the narthex, which is just perfect for the feeding of 20-30 sinners with our Lord's Holy Word and Sacrament. TLH p. 15. Pr. Petersen preaching (superbly, as usual). Kantor Reuning playing. The Body and Blood of Christ received. Simply sublime!

After the Divine Service, Pr. Petersen graciously invited me to go have a beer, so we headed over to Mad Anthony's and nursed a couple of beers while chatting for a couple of hours. Greatly enjoyed spending some time with him! My only regret is that I wish I would have had the waitress take a picture of us, so that I could have sent it to Adriane Dorr and rubbed it in. :)

It was a great day all around.

A few pics of the group at the sem:

Installation of Pr. William Weedon

Pr. William Weedon was installed today as the LCMS Director of Worship and Chaplain of the International Center. I look forward to his service to our synod as he fulfills these new offices and I am confident that both the folks at the IC and our synod as a whole will be richly blessed as he does so. Pr. Weedon has been a true gift to many in our synod for many years through his blogging (who doesn't visit his blog daily?), his unique ability to converse with others in various forums in a way that is polite, but steadfast (we could all learn from him in this area), his writing and editing of various publications, his service as a catechist and speaker at various conferences/venues (e.g. Higher Things, International Center, Concordia Deaconess Conference, etc.), his many appearances as a regular guest on Issues, Etc., his supervision of vicars and field workers, his service as a PALS coordinator, his service as pastor to the saints he's been called to serve, and his counsel to brothers in the Office, of which I have been blessed to receive on several occasions, and in many other ways, I'm sure. I can think of no one more suitable to fulfill these offices and pray that our Lord will use Pr. Weedon's many talents to bless our synod in the area of worship for years to come, even as He has been using him to bless us in the many ways mentioned above.

Here are some thoughts he shared about his new areas of service with Rev. Jason Braaten of Gottesdienst, some photos of the occasion of his installation, and some videos posted below.

Congrats on your new post, Pr. Weedon! The Lord be with you, dear brother.
 

Indiana Jones Movie Marathon

So, a couple of months ago, we were talking about the Ark of the Covenant in Confirmation Class, and one of the kids asked where the Ark ended up, and where it is now, to which I responded by telling them that it is housed in a box inside a warehouse belonging to the U.S. Government. None of them caught the reference, so I added more details, explaining that the Ark had been hidden and buried in the lost city of Tanis, but that Indiana Jones had found it and secured it from the Nazis, bringing it to the U.S., etc. They had no clue what I was talking about. "Who is Indiana Jones?" one of them asked.

Six catechumens and not a one of them had ever heard of Indiana Jones. I told them that I found this devastatingly tragic, and that we would have to watch the movies someday. This, of course, led to repeated inquiries week in and week out about when we would watch the movies, which led to the scheduling of the "Indiana Jones Movie Marathon/Lock-In" we held last night.

We started with pizza and snacks at 6:30 pm, and began "Raiders of the Lost Ark" at 7:30. We followed that movie with a showing of "The Last Crusade" around 10:00 (yes, this is the third movie in the series, but it is so much better than "Temple of Doom," and we had six adults in attendance besides the twelve youths and me, who would be bailing out after the second movie, so we watched this one second). After "The Last Crusade," we made root beer floats, to go with the popcorn and many other unhealthy snacks we gobbled down throughout the night, and began "Temple of Doom" after midnight. We lost a few to sleep during that one, but several kids were still awake when we began "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" at around 2:30 am. I think I made it through about a half hour of that one before drifting off, along with several others, leaving only four or five who made it through all four movies.

Surprisingly, everyone was up by 9:30 this morning. I woke up around 8:00 and a few others arose shortly after. Aaron and I made pancakes and sausage for everyone and, after eating, we began the process of cleaning up the massive mess we had created. The kids all chipped-in with the clean-up, along with a couple of adults who came over to help around 10:00, and we had the place looking spic-and-span by 11:00. Not too shabby! :)

Everyone had a blast and the kids are already talking about having a "Star Wars" or "Pirates of the Caribbean" Movie Marathon in the future, which brings me to the moral of the story: Be careful what you say in Confirmation Class! :)

Some pics of the event:

Peace Book Club

Our Peace Book Club met last Monday to discuss John Grisham's, "The Litigators."  After taking on Stephen King's mammoth "11/22/63" the previous two months, this book was like eating cotton candy. It's a fun, fast-paced read, and everyone thought it was entertaining from beginning to end. Grisham brings his characters to life and, as always, knows his way around a court room and the world of lawyers. He gives the reader a peek into the unethical realm of the "tort wars" raged between lawyers trying to score big settlements from companies trying to prevent that from happening. In this tale, a small boutique law firm tries to ride on the coattails of the big boys, looking for that dream payday, only to find out that they have bitten off far more than they can chew in the end when the big boys abandon ship and leave them to fend for themselves. Thankfully, a young, Harvard-educated lawyer, who joins their firm after leaving a huge law firm in downtown Chicago, where he had become burned out working 100 hours a week in a small office, bails them out in the end. And, even though this is predictable as you read the tale, it is a fun ride to the finish line.

We gave "The Litigators" a 4 on our 1-5 rating scale. Not a lot of depth, but a lot of fun to read, and a good ending.

The book we will read this month to discuss in May is "The Knights of Rhodes" by Bo Giertz. I'm a huge Giertz fan - "The Hammer of God" is one of my favorites; have read that multiple times - so I'm really looking forward to getting into this one. 

An Unpublished Letter to the Editor

I wrote the following letter to the editor of our local newspaper back on March 27. It was written in response to an article written by one of the paper's regular columnists, Les Rosan, titled "The Twilight Zone." After sending it to the editor and not hearing anything for a few days, I emailed him to inquire about it and was informed that they were going to get it in. But, it's been over two and a half weeks now and it has neither been published nor have I heard anything further about it. Don't know what happened. Perhaps it just got lost in the shuffle, or they simply couldn't find room, or they just decided that they didn't want to publish it. Don't really care at this point. But, since I did take the time to write it, and since this is my blog and I have full editorial superpowers here, I thought I'd post it here. :)  So, here it is (you should read the article to which I'm responding, linked above, first, though):

Letter to the Editor

March 27, 2012

“Reality Is Calling, Mr. Rosan”

I can understand why Les Rosan feels like he is living in “The Twilight Zone.” When you spend your time on websites like www.politicususa.com, you truly have entered “the dimension of imagination.” I spent a little time surfing that website after reading Mr. Rosan’s article and I am convinced that those people are living in a “fifth dimension beyond that which is known to men” – very Twilight Zone-ish, indeed. Scary stuff!

Luckily, I was able to exit that imaginary dimension simply by clicking on the X in the top, right corner of the page and leaving the site. Pshew! But, before I did, I took the time to actually do a little research into some of the pro-life legislation propagandized on that site under the tab, “The War on Women,” and found that the actual proposed legislations do not even come close to matching the descriptions and summarizations found on the site, which are echoed in Mr. Rosan’s piece. Evidently, doing a little research and arriving at actual facts is taboo in the “fifth dimension.” You can check this out for yourself. That’s the thing about living in the “Age of Google”; you can actually locate and read for yourself the pieces of legislation mentioned on sites like this and compare them to the wildly inaccurate spin that is spun in the “Land of Imagination.” Or, you can just drink the Kool-Aid served in the “middle ground between light and shadow,” as Mr. Rosan does.

When you imbibe of the Kool-Aid served in the “Twilight Zone,” you will continue to employ the 1973 argumentation that abortion-on-demand is about providing women protection under the law to make “medical decisions about their own bodies.” Medical science has proven this to be patently false, but when you are trapped in the “fifth dimension,” reality is an elusive critter. The truth is that most pro-abortion advocates have moved on. They know that what resides in a pregnant woman’s womb is a human being with his/her own body and unique DNA, and that the “woman’s body” argument can no longer be taken seriously (except by those who dwell in that other realm, that is). For this reason, they have had to craft a new argument to justify the killing of human beings in the womb, and that new argument is known as the “Personhood” argument.

In sum, the “Personhood” argument goes like this: Yes, what resides in a pregnant woman’s womb is a unique human being, but that unique human being is not yet fully developed and, thus, cannot yet be considered a “person.” It is, therefore, permissible to kill these human beings who are not yet “persons.” That is the new argument, folks. Those who continue to linger in the elsewhere dimension Mr. Rosan calls home need to get with the times. Reality is calling.

Pro-life advocates have responded to the “Personhood” argument by pointing out that, if you take this argument to its logical end, then it should be permissible to kill human beings long after they’re born, since they do not make their entrance into this world fully developed. A newborn baby is not fully developed. Neither is a two-year-old or thirteen-year-old, etc. How can it be said that a newborn baby is a “person,” but a baby three or six or eight months along in the womb is not? It cannot. To say that is lunacy.

Picking up on this, two bioethicists from Australia published an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics last month titled, “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?” They argued that, wherever abortion-on-demand is accepted, it should also be legal to kill newborns, since there is no difference between a fetus and a newborn. Both are human beings, but neither are “persons,” for neither is fully developed and they both share the same “moral equivalency.” The scary thing is they’re right. You cannot argue for abortion-on-demand and against what they call “after-birth abortion” without putting logic aside.

You probably did not hear too much about this, as most media outlets in our country steered clear of it. You certainly are not going to hear about it on the websites Mr. Rosan frequents and uses for his sources – in fact, I searched the website mentioned above and not a peep about this article, which was published in a publication highly renowned in the fields of science and medicine, was found. But, that’s to be expected from those in the “fifth dimension,” where abortion-on-demand continues to be lauded as the grand protector of “women’s rights,” where all who argue against it are depicted as crazy, “religious fanatics” and “women-haters,” and where pro-life women are not considered “real women,” because, in the “Twilight Zone,” you can only be a real woman if you favor killing babies.

Reality is calling, Mr. Rosan.

Rev. Thomas C. Messer

Peace Lutheran Church

Alma, MI

Matins at the IC - with the CTS Kantorei

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":

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."