Tagged! -- Here Are My "Influences"

Father Hollywood has tagged me to respond to the following question -- What five people, past or present, inspire your spiritual life?? There's an additional rule, which is, being Lutherans, it is assumed that Jesus Christ and Martin Luther would be on the list. Which, in terms of direct influences not just on, but from, what I believe to-day, pretty well sums it up. My reading to-day is about 100% listed on the sidebar element "Book List". So the question really is, What five people, past or present, besides Jesus Christ and Martin Luther inspire your spiritual life? And my answer is not so much who has inspired its content, since they are assumed and not listed, but who got me ready, humanly speaking, to hear it.

1. Archbishop Fulton J Sheen.

Growing up in the pre-conciliar Roman Catholic Church, it was his weekly shows, which I never missed, that brought a greater depth and clarity to what I was taught in school in the Baltimore Catechism series. This was absolutely the foundation of my faith. In later years, I read some of his books, most notably "Life of Christ", which I have seen in Lutheran parish and pastor libraries.

2. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, SJ.

Before the groaning starts, let me mention I first heard of him in one of Bishop Sheen's telecasts, who spoke approvingly of him, surprise, surprise. The Divine Milieu, particularly, was of great influence in seeing redemption and salvation inclusive of all creation, and far from being the jumping off place to heterodoxy that he was for some, to me reinforced the pre-conciliar faith.

3. Godfrey Diekmann, OSB.

The only one of the five I knew personally. He was a peritus at Vatican II and one of the leading lights for "reform", liturgical and otherwise. Though him and those around him I got to see "the changes in the church" from the inside out, to know them as those who advocated them, what I am saying, formed them, knew them. I agreed with him on absolutely nothing, but I can find no better description of him than the one Father Hollywood wrote for Pastor Marquart: "Aristocratic in bearing, devout in faith, articulate in discourse, and yet genuinely humble and ever ready to help anyone in need, he was completely fluent in several languages and was gifted in rhetoric. He brought a kindness and warmth to his teaching, which was always designed to make the material accessible to his students - no matter how difficult the subject matter. He was a true gentleman, churchman, scholar, educator, and above all, a genuine pastor." If, at the Heavenly Table, I have a choice for Communion distributors, I shall be in his line.

4. Rabbi J.H. Hertz.

Joseph Herman Hertz was Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Empire from 1913 until his death 14 January 1946. His "Pentateuch and Haftorahs" -- the Torah portions for each Sabbath and festival, with each's associated portion from (usually) the Prophets, along with his extensive notes and essays, was the bedrock for my devotional life during most of the time I was a Righteous of the Nations, ie, not a convert to Judaism but a Gentile who acknowledged the God of Israel and lived by the Noahide Law incumbent on all mankind (which, according to the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts, it still is). His commentary exposed, years before time of the particular proponents I read in theology in college, the utter baselessness of the historical-critical school and method. And, understanding the Scripture from a Hebrew perspective did more than any Christian apologetics to allow me to see Jesus was indeed the Christ.

5. Friedrich Nietzsche/Richard Wagner.

Yeah I know, that's two guys, but as Nietzsche, the only philosopher worth reading, said himself, the two are forever bound to-gether. Though hijacked in support of things grossly at odds with what they had to say, as Nietzsche himself foresaw they would be, the two represent a re-introduction into modernity through new art forms of the Greek classical concept arete, which may be rendered excellence, not at all of the kind meant in "mission statements" littering modernity now. For a completely different stumbling across arete in modernity, try Robert Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance".

Honourable Mention, that being the rest of the guys who belong on the list if the number weren't limited to five.

Conrad Diekmann, OSB, brother of the better-known Godfrey, whose World Lit I was the greatest class of my life, as the ancient Greek tragedians and comedians (that's when a comedian was someone who wrote non-tragic plays, not someone who mugs in front of the camera to get you to laugh) and Homer came to life. His course on haiku was great too.

Gerard Farrell, OSB, an Eastman School of Music graduate who taught us music from the venerable Eastman Series, which is part-writing based on the Bach (the "Fifth Evangelist" and I sometimes think the best Lutheran I ever read, so to speak) chorales, which taught me to hear music as a linear event in time, making sense out of pretty much any music, and would lead to the next named person. He was also director of the abbey schola cantorum in which I sang, until he was removed and exiled in the pogroms following the Revolution, er, Vatican II.

Heinrich Schenker, the only real music theorist in centuries -- and who like Nietzsche and Wagner has been hijacked in support of things he did not say, though stuff about "structural levels" boring the hell out of college music students is not likely to cause the damage the hijacking of Nietzsche and Wagner has, though it may cost an academic his job here and there.

Lao Tsu, whose Tao-Te-Ching, if there is no revelation, is the highest to which Man can reach.

The Confessional Lutheran Blogosphere, especially the blogs listed on my sidebar element "Lutheran Blogs", who at first showed me that, whatever else there may be in LCMS, it is where Lutherans such as myself are too in greatest numbers, and now continue to feed me. In particular, the blogs by Pastors Weedon, Beane and Snyder.

That's it. I'd have put BB King, the other Luther in my life, Allison, and Modern Jazz Quartet in there but they didn't ask about music. I don't know who to tag either, since the ones I would think of tagging have already been tagged. So, if you want to be tagged, you're it!

It's Fall -- Thanksgiving, Advent, What Happened to Sukkot?

Past Elder, the blog, commenced operations 22 February 2007. In my second year, I have taken to posting a few posts again, with revisions here and there, that relate to our cycle of observances of major parts of our faith in the church year, especially as they relate to the fulfillment of the cycle of observances in the Jewish calendar. Fall is unique -- where the Jewish calendar is full of stuff in Fall, the Christian church calendar has nothing! What's up with that? Here's the 2008 version of my post about it.

In my posts about Holy Week, Easter and Pentecost, I mentioned that the Christian pattern of yearly worship derives from the Jewish one. And, that this is precisely what one would expect if the Messiah had come and fulfilled the Law.

In the religion God delivered to the Jews in the Old Testament, he commands three major festivals: Pesach or Passover; Shavuot or Pentecost, also called Weeks; Sukkot, called Tabernacles or Booths. In addition to Sukkot in the Fall there is also Rosh Ha-Shana or New Years (actually one of several new years, there being a new year for trees and a new year for kings which begins the year in terms of the festivals) and Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, the holiest day of the year.

We saw Passover transformed by Christ at the Last Supper into what we call Holy Communion, and ratified by his Death and Resurrection which we celebrate as an event in time on Good Friday and Easter. Then we saw God himself count the commanded Omer and transform the celebration of the giving of the Law at Sinai at Pentecost by the giving of the promised Holy Spirit to the Apostles, which we celebrate as an event in time on the day also called Pentecost. Then, what -- the whole thing seems to fall apart!! Where's the transformed Rosh Ha-Shanah, where's the transformed Yom Kippur, where's the transformed Sukkoth, which begins 15 Tishrei in the Jewish calendar, falling this year (2008) at sunset, the start of the Jewish day, 13 October?

Nowhere, it seems. The Christian calendar is entirely absent of such things. Fall, full of observances in Judaism, comes and goes with nothing until the secular Thanksgiving and then Advent which is a time of preparation for Christmas. So does the parallel fall apart here, or perhaps show itself to be irrelevant anyway if it exists at all? Just give me Jesus, man.

No. Consider how Jesus gives himself. Christ has himself become our atonement, that to which the Day of Atonement led. The "Day of Atonement" is the historical Good Friday, once for all. Rosh Ha-Shanah too, the day on which creation was completed and God judges each person for the coming year, has been fulfilled in God's having re-created lost Man by making justification possible because of the merit of Christ's sacrifice. That is how we are now inscribed, not just for the coming year but for eternity. They are absent because they have served their purpose and been fulfilled.

And what of Sukkot? At Sukkot, one lives, or at least takes one's meals, in a temporary structure called a sukkah in Hebrew -- a booth, a tabernacle, not in one's actual home. This is to remember the passage of the people after the Passover and Pentecost to the Promised Land. Zechariah (14:16-19) predicts that in the time of the Messiah the feast will be observed not just by Jews but by all humanity coming to Jerusalem for its observance. That would be a pretty big event. It ain't happening. And there isn't even some sort of transformed Sukkoth in the Christian calendar. So what is the deal here?

Consider. Christ is our Passover in whose blood we are washed and made clean, and the Holy Spirit has empowered the spread of this Good News beginning on that Pentecost recorded in Acts. But the end of the story, unlike the arrival in the Promised Land, has not happened. The real Promised Land is not a piece of geography but heaven itself, the ultimate Jerusalem. So, there cannot be a Christian Sukkoth because we are still in our booths, as it were, not in our permanent homes, still on our pilgimage to the Promised Land, and what Zechariah saw is happening as "the nations", all people, join in this journey given first to the Jews and then to all Man, the Gentiles. Our Sukkot is our life right now, in our "booths" or temporary homes on our way to heaven. So this feast awaits its transformation, and that is why it is absent. The first two of the "pilgrimage festivals", the Shalosh Regalim, have been transformed, into the basis of not just our calendar but our life and faith itself, but the third will be heaven itself, toward which we journey as we live in our booths here on the way.

While we do not, therefore, have a certain observance of a transformed Sukkot in our calendar, being in our booths presently, we do have something of it as we go. Our nation, and others too, have a secular, national day of Thanksgivng at the end of harvest time, preserving that aspect of thankfulness for our earthly ingathering of the fruits of our labour. And in the final weeks of the Sundays after Trinity, we focus on the End Times in our readings, the great ingathering that will be for all nations when our Sukkoth here is ended, not just at death personally but finally at the Last Day.

At my wife's funeral, the Saturday after Thanksgiving 1997, the pastor concluded the sermon by saying: A few days ago most of us celebrated a thanksgiving that lasted one day, but Nancy began one that lasts an eternity.

So is the promise to us all. And that's what happened to Sukkot.

It's Your Grandfather's Church Even When It Isn't!

Pastor Christopher Esget, on his excellent blog Esgetology (link in my sidebar element "Lutheran Blogs"), just recently posted the following two passages from the first president of the LCMS, CFW Walther.

Written well over a century ago, they are amazing in that they could have been written this morning. Not only are these two passages a magnificent expression of true Lutheran thinking on doctrine and doctrine in motion (often called worship or liturgy) so needed now, they show too that the trends and forces against which they are needed are hardly the latest and greatest thing, but a temptation to leave what we were founded to stand for and stand for something else thinking we have done no such thing which has been a part of our beloved synod's history from the start. As Bishop Sheen used to say, Old Errors New Labels. Here they are.

-----

Whether our Synod gains friends or makes enemies, wins honor or invites disgrace, grows or declines in numbers, brings peace or incites enmity, all this must be unimportant to us-just so our Synod may keep the jewel of purity of doctrine and knowledge. However, should our Synod ever grow indifferent toward purity of doctrine, through ingratitude forget this prize, or betray or barter it away to the false church, then let our church body perish and the name Missourian decay in disgrace.

-C.F.W. Walther, First Sermon Delivered at the Opening of Synod, 1 Corinthians 1:4-5

-----

We know and firmly hold that the character, the soul of Lutheranism, is not found in outward observances but in the pure doctrine. If a congregation had the most beautiful ceremonies in the very best order, but did not have the pure doctrine, it would be anything but Lutheran. We have from the beginning spoken earnestly of good ceremonies, not as though the important thing were outward forms, but rather to make use of our liberty in these things. For true Lutherans know that although one does not have to have these things (because there is no divine command to have them), one may nevertheless have them because good ceremonies are lovely and beautiful and are not forbidden in the Word of God. Therefore the Lutheran church has not abolished “outward ornaments, candles, altar cloths, statues and similar ornaments,” [AP XXIV] but has left them free. The sects proceeded differently because they did not know how to distinguish between what is commanded, forbidden, and left free in the Word of God. We remind only of the mad actions of Carlstadt and of his adherents and followers in Germany and in Switzerland. We on our part have retained the ceremonies and church ornaments in order to prove by our actions that we have a correct understanding of Christian liberty, and know how to conduct ourselves in things which are neither commanded nor forbidden by God.

We refuse to be guided by those who are offended by our church customs. We adhere to them all the more firmly when someone wants to cause us to have a guilty conscience on account of them. The Roman antichristendom enslaves poor consciences by imposing human ordinances on them with the command: “You must keep such and such a thing!”; the sects enslave consciences by forbidding and branding as sin what God has left free. Unfortunately, also many of our Lutheran Christians are still without a true understanding of their liberty. This is demonstrated by their aversion to ceremonies.

It is truly distressing that many of our fellow Christians find the difference between Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism in outward things. It is a pity and dreadful cowardice when a person sacrifices the good ancient church customs to please the deluded American denominations just so they won’t accuse us of being Roman Catholic! Indeed! Am I to be afraid of a Methodist, who perverts the saving Word, or be ashamed in the matter of my good cause, and not rather rejoice that they can tell by our ceremonies that I do not belong to them?

It is too bad that such entirely different ceremonies prevail in our Synod, and that no liturgy at all has yet been introduced in many congregations. The prejudice especially against the responsive chanting of pastor and congregations is of course still very great with many people — this does not, however, alter the fact that it is very foolish. The pious church father Augustine said, “Qui cantat, bis orat–he who sings prays twice.”

This finds its application also in the matter of the liturgy. Why should congregations or individuals in the congregation want to retain their prejudices? How foolish that would be! For first of all it is clear from the words of St. Paul (1 Cor. 14:16) that the congregations of his time had a similar custom. It has been the custom in the Lutheran Church for 250 years.

It creates a solemn impression on the Christian mind when one is reminded by the solemnity of the divine service that one is in the house of God, in childlike love to their heavenly Father, also give expression to their joy in such a lovely manner. We are not insisting that there be uniformity in perception or feeling or taste among all believing Christians-neither dare anyone demand that all be minded as he. Nevertheless, it remains true that the Lutheran liturgy distinguishes Lutheran worship from the worship of other churches to such an extent that the houses of worship of the latter look like lecture halls in which the hearers are merely addressed or instructed, while our churches are in truth houses of prayer in which Christians serve the great God publicly before the world.

Uniformity of ceremonies (perhaps according to the Saxon Church order published by the Synod, which is the simplest among the many Lutheran church orders) would be highly desirable because of its usefulness. A poor slave of the pope finds one and same form of service, no matter where he goes, by which he at once recognizes his church. With us it is different. Whoever comes from Germany without a true understanding of the doctrine often has to look for his church for a long time, and many have already been lost to our church because of this search.

How different it would be if the entire Lutheran church had a uniform form of worship! This would, of course, first of all yield only an external advantage, however, one which is by no means unimportant. Has not many a Lutheran already kept his distance from the sects because he saw at the Lord’s Supper they broke the bread instead of distributing wafers?

The objection: “What would be the use of uniformity of ceremonies?” was answered with the counter question, “What is the use of a flag on the battlefield? Even though a soldier cannot defeat the enemy with it, he nevertheless sees by the flag where he belongs. We ought not to refuse to walk in the footsteps of our fathers. They were so far removed from being ashamed of the good ceremonies that they publicly confess in the passage quoted: “It is not true that we do away with all such external ornaments.”

-C.F.W. Walther
Explanation of Thesis XVIII, D, Adiaphora, of the book The True Visible Church
Delivered at St. Paul’s Lutheran Church in Indianapolis, Indiana, beginning August 9, 1871, at the 16th Central District Convention
Translated by Fred Kramer, printed in Essays for the Church [CPH: 1992], I:193-194.

-----

Well now ain't that the dingest dangest thing, as a great Missourian of another kind, Jesse James, used to say. Those who would deliver us from being our "grandfather's" synod said the same stuff to grandpa! Well, not mine; he WAS a Methodist of the type to which Walther refers, then turned RC, but you get the idea. Old errors, new labels, so they think it's new. Or emerging, or purpose driven, or ablaze, or whatever new labels they may devise.

Here's how to REALLY not be our grandfather's synod -- leave that nonsense behind!

Lourdes: The Catholic Benny Hinn

On 24 December 496 or 498, Remigius, bishop of Reims -- to which he had been elected when he was 22 and a layman -- baptised King Clovis of the Franks. Clovis began the identifiable history of France after the collapse of the Roman Empire. But also, the Franks were the first of the Germanic tribes that brought about that collapse to convert to catholic Trinitarian Christianity rather than Arian Christianity. This earned France the title "the eldest daughter of the Church".

To-day in the eldest daughter of the Church, about half identify themselves as Catholic, and about 5% attend Mass. Recently the current pope said an outdoor Mass in Paris, in the homily of which he spoke against materialism and commercialism which he saw as creating a new modern idol with consumerism as something of a religion with its own values and mindset replacing Christian ones.

On Saturday, 13 September 2008, he continued to Lourdes, France, which is celebrating the 150th anniversary of the reports to her local pastor of Bernadette Soubirous, a 14 year old peasant, that she was having visions of Mary the mother of Jesus, beginning 11 February 1858. There were 18 visions, ending 16 July 1858. In the ninth vision, 25 February, the woman told the girl to go to a spring and drink and bathe in it, but she reports finding only a puddle, the spring starting the next day.

Lourdes, in the foothills of the Pyrenees, the natural border between France and Spain, at the time was a village of about 4000 people, whose local dialect Occitan resembles both French and Spanish. In the area, there had long been legends of people returning from Purgatory, called revenants, and there had for some time been childrens' and other reports in the area on both sides of the border of Marian apparitions, and at the time in nearby Garaison there was a popular pilgrimage centre of Marian devotion arising from supposed apparitions to 12-year-old Angleze de Sagazan in 1515.

While the Catholic Church has determined the visions to be real, a Catholic is not obliged to believe they were real, and nothing doctrinal is based on them. Nonetheless, to-day Lourdes is a major tourism destination, hosting between 5 and 6 million pilgrims annually, and the town of now about 15000 nonetheless has more hotels than anywhere in France other than Paris. Some of the pilgrims come seeking cures in the water of the spring. The current baths for those seeking cures have come a long way since Emile Zola's 1892 description that the waters were so filled with various things coming off the bathers that the miracle is that anyone come out of them alive, being built in 1955 and last updated in 1980. The streets are lined with vendors selling trinkets. Everyone from street vendors to the local economy to corporations makes money off it.

Of the hundred of thousands who have sought cures there, only 67 inexplicable cures have been recognised by the Lourdes Medical Bureau, sanctioned by the Church. One wonders if a physician could practice 150 years with only 67 successful treatments if his practice would continue to attract patients in the hundreds of thousands. The pope said it was not so much a place to go seeking miracles as a place of hope. One wonders, hope for what, hope in what? He drank from the water, and authorised special indulgences regarding observance of the anniversary.

They come by the millions, every year, spending money whether seeking cures or not. A site of whose authenticity is not required for belief of its followers by the church who deems it authentic, which has become a major lucrative tourism industry based solely on the legends, does not seem consistent with a message against commercialism and consumerist values, let alone bolster it. A guy in white, stories of miracles in the background of the whole event while they line up in droves money pouring in, the guy saying it's really not about all that -- sounds like the last time Benny Hinn came to town.

Here's a little better advice for those seeking hope:

Let everyone stay in his own parish. There he will find more than in all the shrines even if they were all rolled into one. In your own parish you find baptism, the sacrament, preaching and your neighbour, and these things are greater than all the saints in heaven, for all of them were made saints by God's word and sacrament. (Martin Luther, from To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation)

A PS -- in her own language, Bernadette's name is Bernadeta, a diminuative from her full name Maria Bernarda Sobiros. She never herself said this was Mary, although she did say the woman called herself the Immaculate Conception, now a familiar phrase but then not, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception having been defined as binding dogma only four years earlier at the time and in a pre-media age not likely something an impoverished uneducated peasant girl would know. She did herself drink the water for her lifelong asthma, with no return of symptoms, although she did not seek such treatment when she contracted tuberculosis, from which she died at age 35 in 1879 on 16 April, now her feast day everywhere but France, where it is celebrated 18 February, date of the third apparition and the first in which the woman spoke. She later said the statue put in the grotto in 1864, now the representation of Our Lady of Lourdes, was nothing like the woman who appeared to her. Her body has been exhumed three times and found to be incorrupt. After the last time, in 1925, a wax mask was made. I think I once viewed the body with the mask, though as this was some forty years ago and in a considerably more confused period of my life, it may have been some other saint, although I am not sure there are that many incorrupt saints viewable in southern France. The high school from which I graduated was named after Lourdes, local pronunciation sometimes adding the final "s" and sometimes not from the French, and the town's name in the local language is Lorda anyway.

And BTW poor old Garaison is still in business though not doing nearly so well, and on the web too! http://www.garaison.com/

New Book and New Blog

Having a hard time getting a daily prayer life going? Want to be a little more connected to these books the pastors talk about being so important but can't find the time or don't know how? Looking to feel like there's a little more to this than just me and here and how I'm feeling about that? Wondering why these "confessional" types get excited about things others call musty, irrelevant and dead but they don't?

Our beloved synod is about to present itself and the church generally with a Treasury of Daily Prayer, which looks to answer all of the above and a good deal more. You can preview it by looking at the material for November at this link
http://cyberbrethren.typepad.com/cyberbrethren/files/treasury_excerpt.pdf
and see how simple the book is to use at this link
http://cyberbrethren.typepad.com/cyberbrethren/files/how_to_use_the_treasury.pdf
and order a copy of the Regular Edition (or link to the Deluxe Edition) at this link
http://www.cph.org/cphstore/product.asp?category=&part_no=124318&find_category=&find_description=&find_part_desc=treasury+of+daily+prayer

Also, if you're wondering what all this stuff we blog about has to do with the Third Use of the Law, how works not in order to be saved but because we are saved looks, how all this looks when it's not balanced elements in a composite but simply aspects of a single whole, try this blog:
Mercy Journeys with Pastor Harrison
http://mercyjourney.blogspot.com/

St Monica and Vatican II For Lutherans

We Lutherans -- that is, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, insofar as the name has not been removed or hidden so people don't think we're some kind of frozen chosen, maintenance rather than missional mentality, wannabe Catholics stuck in a Eurocentric liturgical straight-jacket for worship rather than ablaze to bring you to a critical event and get you all on fire with our praise band -- recently celebrated the Feast of St Monica on 27 August.

Thing is, the Feast of St Monica is 4 May.

Huh? Who cares? What difference does that make? And who is and why bother about this Monica anyway? The last Monica anyone heard about was Lewinsky anyway. Besides, it's all adiaphora anyway, why trample on my Christian Freedom with all this dead weight from the past?

Monica was the mother of St Augustine. Geez, whozzat? Well, arguably the most influential Christian theologian ever. We'll leave whether that was for better or worse, as well as biographies, to your searches or Wikipedia. Except for this part. Augustine was quite non-Christian, anti-Christian really, and a celebrated figure in his time, and his conversion was brought about by the example and prayers of his Christian mother, Monica, which is why the church honours her.

When the church sets up a day in honour of someone, the traditional practice is to choose the day on which the person died, if known, since that is the day they were born into eternity. St Augustine's date of death, his heavenly birthday, is 28 August 430, so 28 August is his feast.

St Monica's feast day was not a part of the overall observance of the Western Church for about three-fourths of its elapsed history to date, until about the time of the Council of Trent in the Sixteenth Century. However, it was long observed by the Augustinian Order. Geez, whazzat?

The "Augustinian Order" is a rather motley assortment of religious associations rather than a clear cut single entity -- in this way rather like my guys, the Benedictines -- all of them tracing their origin to St Augustine and his rule of life, or regula in Latin. That's what it literally is to be regular -- you live under a regula, or rule. Readers here may have heard of one such Augustinian. Guy named Martin Luther. Anyway, in the Augustinian Order but not the church as a whole there was, besides the observance of the feast of St Augustine, another one whose focus was his conversion to Christianity, which conversion in turn influenced the entire church.

This Augustinian feast, the Feast of the Conversion of St Augustine, was/is celebrated on 5 May. So they celebrated the single biggest human factor in bringing about that conversion, the example and prayers of his mother, St Monica, the day before, 4 May. The Conversion feast never did make it into the overall Roman Calendar, and when St Monica's did, since her date of death is not known, the traditional Augustinian date was retained, 4 May.

Until the Revolution. Er, Vatican II.

One of the stated aims of the "liturgical reform" at Vatican II was to pare down the historical hodgepodge of stuff into something more straightforward and accessible. So they effectively banned the old stuff and came up with an entirely new order (novus ordo) sporting four orders Mass each with its own "Eucharistic Prayer", each with several options for key parts of the Mass, and a lectionary of readings spread out over three years and a new calendar -- a new hodgepodge crafted from an even wider spread of historical sources! Oh well, it was the 1960s after all. I guess you gotta make allowances for that.

One item in this was relocating the Feast of St Monica to 27 August, the day before the feast of her son. There's a logic to that, obviously. And as far as the institution of Christ and fidelity to Scripture goes, you can celebrate the Feast of St Monica on 4 May, 27 August, any other day, or not at all.

It's not the 1960s any more. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to learn or be taught that we honour St Monica because of her example, particularly her example of the power of persistent prayer, in the conversion of her pagan son who went on to be one of the church's greatest saints, and we do so on 4 May because in the religious order that looks to her son as their patron saint they had long celebrated it then as the day before they celebrated the conversion of their patron. And to stay connected to and become a part of that ongoing history by leaving it there rather than turning one's back on all that and relocating it.

Sorry, Roman dudes. There already was a liturgical reform. It was to pare down all right, but in view of what contradicts Scripture, not our ideas of what makes something more "accessible", and to zealously guard and defend the worship of the church's order, not invent a new one. It's called the Lutheran Reformation. You're a few centuries late to the party. If the Roman hierarchy and associated academics are going to busy themselves with something other than preaching Christ and him crucified, and along the way explain the history of this movement, let them put off the period clothes, get married and raise a family and learn something of real benefit to their fellow man, like heating and air conditioning repair.

Yet, we and other Christian bodies fall in line with them as if there had been no Reformation! The 1960s Roman novus ordo, with emendations and adaptations, is now the common property of pretty much all heterodox Christian denominations with liturgical aspirations, rather than the traditional order of the Western Church.

And "our beloved synod" falls into line too, even those parts of it trying to remain true to our Confessions in the Book of Concord. We moan and groan why other parts of our beloved synod seem to be heading off on all sorts of tangents, or rather, variations on the tangent of chasing after the success in attracting numbers of the American suburban "evangelical" megachurches and their next stage, the Prosperity Gospel American suburban megachurches that will drive you with purpose and give you your best life now. We wonder how our people could be taken in by these false hopes and promises, yet why should our people not wonder why these are not also valid options when we set before them as confessional "options" derived from 1960s Rome equally with our common catholic history, this historical mass and that Vatican II For Lutherans mass, this historical lectionary and that Vatican II For Lutherans lectionary, this historical calendar and that Vatican II For Lutherans calendar. Why not listen to Willow Creek and Saddleback and Lakewood too? Why should they not think it's all about options, personal preference, all OK? We let something in through the back door then wonder why it comes knocking at the front!

Judas H Priest with a ham and cheese sandwich -- as a recovering academic, rather than offering extra credit for getting that one I'll just say it, a ham and cheese sandwich is doubly un-kosher, ham of course being not kosher but even if it were a kosher meat one does not consume meat and dairy products at the same time lest one unknowingly seethe a kid in its mother's milk, forbidden in the Law -- even in a small matter like when a saint's day is observed the whole rotten mess in the church is revealed!

St Monica gave St Augustine physical birth, but her greatness for which we honour her is in her role in his spiritual birth in this life. Therefore she is better honoured by leaving her day where it is for the reason it is there, or better yet finally inserting the Conversion into the Calendar, rather than moving it from a day which does have inherent reference to her to the day before her son's feast, which does not.

Once again, the calendar, lectionary and ordo of Vatican II misses the mark, even of its own intended reform, the product not of the church but one denomination headed by an office bearing the marks of Anti-Christ -- regardless of its current occupancy by a nice and learned German guy -- and now the common property of all heterodox liturgical churches in the West, utterly irrelevant to Christ's Church and therefore should be utterly irrelevant to Lutherans. Right along with Saddleback, Willow Creek and Lakewood, it no less than they "contemporary worship" whose forms derive from and express a content that is not ours and rejects ours, and therefore into which our content does not fit.

"Passion and Lutheran Worship"

Do not miss this post from Father Hollywood, aka Pastor Beane!

It is as good an explanation as there is of why Lutherans worship as they do, at least when they are worshipping as Lutherans do, and even more valuable by presenting the whole thing in the context of "passion".

So if you've ever wondered if what we do is just some motions to go through, the mere going through of which is supposed to be some big deal, read Father Hollywood. And even if you like our liturgy but are attracted by the emotion of the TV type services, whether on TV or at your local trendy church, read Father Hollywood.

http://fatherhollywood.blogspot.com/2008/08/passion-and-lutheran-worship.html

Brand Names

Frank over at Putting Out The Fire has a great post. The link is below. While it's about church websites, it really addresses the issue of whether what's inside the door matches what the name over the door stands for. And that's an issue these days.

FWIW, my parish's website hasn't gone as bad as some of the things he mentions, however, I notice the words "Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod" disappeared from under the parish's name some months ago.

Political operatives are often criticised by political true believers for not standing for something. To which they counter, political parties aren't about standing for something, they're about getting elected. Maybe we have a similar thing in the church -- is it about standing for something, which will of course include explaining what that something is and why it would be good for you too, or is it about producing numbers and packing them in.

http://puttingoutthefire.blogspot.com/2008/07/things-you-shouldnt-put-on-your-churchs.html

25 July A.D. 306 in Eboracum, Britannia

So what was up 1,702 years ago to-day in wherever Eboracum is, whatever that is.

Eboracum was the name of a city founded by the Romans in AD 71 in England. Yeah, that's a long way from Rome. The Romans began conquering what is now England in AD 43. A group called the Brigantes originally collaborated with the Romans but became more troublesome and eventually the Roman Ninth Legion under General Quintus Petillius Cerialis was sent to put and keep them in order. This accomplished, a fort was established and given a Latinised version of the native Celtic name for the place, "field of yew trees". General Cerialis was named Governor of Britain by Roman Emperor Vespasian, who ruled from 69 until he died in 79, and was himself a distinguished military officer and had participated in the original Roman invasion in 43.

Eboracum was a centre of Roman power in England for some time to come. Running such a far flung empire was a bit of a job -- no radio, TV, Internet, phones, air travel, railroads, motor vehicles, etc -- and in AD 293 the Roman Emperor Diocletian became the last emperor of an undivided empire, splitting it into Eastern and Western sections, each to be ruled by an Augustus with a Caesar as assistant. This arrangement was called the Tetrarchy. Diocletian became Augustus of the East and Galerius the Caesar, and Maximian became Augustus of the West with Constantius the Caesar. Diocletian and Maximian co-abdicated as co-emperors in 305 and the Caesars became Augusti, Galerius then ruling the East and Constantius the West.

Now, Constantius had this wife Helena. Well maybe. I mean, he had this Helena but whether she was wife or concubine is not documented. Anyway they had this son in 272 and he was named Constantine. But in 293 when Diocletian named Constantius as the Western Caesar, part of the deal was he divorce Helena and marry Theodora, the step-daughter of Maximian, the Augustus whose Caesar he was to be. Which he did. She did not remarry and lived afterward in obscurity though her son was very devoted to her. Her son was also hoping to become Caesar, but a military officer named Severus got the nod instead at the insistence of Gelarius the Eastern guy. Constantine served with his father's military campaigns in England, and when his father died on 25 July 306 in Eboracum, his army immediately proclaimed him Augustus, but, Galerius said Severus had the job.

Obviously, there would be controversy ahead. Constantine notified Galerius, and Galerius got so mad he about burned the portrait Constantine had sent. In the end, he gave him the title Caesar, not Augustus, which still went to Severus. Constantine conquered his way back toward Rome, showing an ever more clear disgust for the "barbarians" beyond the Empire's frontiers. In Rome he was put down as the son of a harlot, a reference to Helena's unclear status, and Maxentius, son of Maximian, claimed the title Emperor. Maximian proposed a deal -- his daughter Fausta to be Constantine's wife, though he already had one, but hey, and he gets the title Augustus and will lay off Maxentius. Constantine took the deal, dumped his wife and married Fausta in Augusta Treverorum (now Trier in Germany, nice place!) in 307. The next year Galerius was so concerned about the West's inability to settle down that he called a council with himself, Maximian and the retired Diocletian, whose compromises no-body accepted. By 310 Maximian was in open revolt, committed suicide, leaving Constantine without the prop of legitimacy through Maximian, whose son Maxentius was ready to take up the fight, and on 25 July Constantine began to appeal to a supposed ancestry and a vision from Apollo as the authority for his rule rather than the tetrarchy and councils. Constantine won over Maxentius' forces throughout Italy and took Rome.

Constantine went to Milan to forge an alliance with the new guy in the East, Licinius. That was the marriage of Constantine's sister to Licinius. Why Milan, not Rome? In 293 Diocletian made it the Western Roman capital, having made Nicomedia (in Turkey, you'll hear about one of its bishops later) the Eastern Roman capital in 286. Supposedly this meeting is the origin of the Edict of Milan, granting tolerance to Christianity. Actually, it wasn't an edict, wasn't from Milan and wasn't the granting of tolerance. Galerius had done that just before his death in 311, and the Edict of Milan is actually a letter to the governor of Bithynia, a Roman province in what is now Turkey containing a town named Nicaea, by Licinius granting tolerance to all religions and restoration to Christians of property taken from them during persecutions, and signed by both emperors. The "Edict" was more of a middle ground from tolerance per se into a favoured status with special provisions for Christians, leading to the eventual proclamation of Christianity as the state religion.

But the alliance fell apart. War broke out between the two, Constantine in the West and Licinius in the East, and by 320 Licinius began persecuting Christians again, allied with Goths of the native pagan religions, and by 324 full scale civil war was underway. Constantine's forces won, sporting a symbol said to have been revealed to him, the labarum, or chi-rho. Licinius surrendered, on a deal that his life be spared, but Constantine had him killed the next year anyway.

That next year, 325, was a big one. From that point on, Constantine was the emperor both West and East. He began to rebuild Byzantium, close by Nicomedia, as the second or New Rome (Nova Roma), later renaming it Constantinople, Constantine's City, imagine that. He also, though not a bishop, not a priest, not even a baptised Christian, called a church council to settle correct theology about Jesus against primarily the Arians. You get to do that when you rule your known world.

To top that, next year in 326 he did something even more amazing than calling a council of the Christian church when you're not a Christian -- that is, if you believe Baptism is a means of grace uniting one to the life of Christ rather than through a personal decision -- namely, he had his son and wife killed, with his mother's prodding. Exactly what that was all about will probably never be known, but it was one of two things. Supposedly Fausta his wife was raped by Crispus his son (how classically Greek) or the two were having an affair, and either he discovered this and had them both killed, or, Fausta lied that it happened to keep Crispus, who was not her son, from being named emperor over her sons, he believed it and had his son killed, then found out she lied and had her killed. Either way, wow.

Days Of Our Lives and then some more. Crispus was the son of Constantine and his wife Minervina, whom Constantine had to divorce to marry Fausta to get on with his upward career mobility. And here's Helena his mother, who got dumped by gramps Constantius for exactly the same reason. How bizarre is that? Fausta won though -- Crispus was executed but her three sons all became Roman emperors. Oddly, none of them revoked the damnatio memoriae, the removal of all traces of the person, of her enacted by Constantine. At any rate, the whole thing changed Constantine forever, and he never set foot in the Western Empire again.

So he who was first proclaimed emperor in a far flung northwest outpost of the Western Empire (by an authority that had not the authority to do it, the army) ends up solidifying the Roman Empire in the East as the West slowly crumbles. By 337 Constantine was wearing out being Great and all, and he finally sought Baptism on 22 May just before he died from, not one of the victorious Trinitarians at the Council of Nicaea he called, but Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, long a court favourite despite a brief exile and chief apologist for Arius. Really. I'm not making this up.

Not to mention Constantine retained the title pontifex maximus, the title of Roman emperors as head of the pre-Christian Roman pagan state religion priesthood. Maybe that's why there's no pope in the East. The West was crumbling. It finally fell 4 September 476 when the last Western Emperor was deposed, and the title pontifex maximus passed to the bishop of Rome. The Eastern Empire would last another millennium, until 1453 when it was overthrown by the Ottomans, who themselves would last until 1922. Well, actually, there are "popes" in the East, but not in the pontifex maximus sense of the Roman one.

While the end of the persecutions was welcome per se, the favoured status of Christianity also transformed the religion from one for whose truth one would rather die than betray to a religion one joined for political and social gain. The transformation of Christianity's status was complete when Theodosius I, on 27 February 380, declared Nicene Trinitarian Christianity the official, universal, or catholic, state religion of the empire. He deposed some bishops and appointed others, ended state subsidy for the former state religion, for example closing the Temple of Vesta, putting out its fire and disbanding the Vestal virgins, and ending the Olympic Games, which had been held since BC 776, after the ones held in 393. So much for my kingdom is not of this world.

Theodosius was the last emperor of both the East and West, the split then becoming permanent. But the state religion of the Roman Empire, East and West, with their respective churches, would outlast the empire which created them, East and West, and lasts to this day, 1,702 years since Constantine was proclaimed emperor by his army. And it would continue to combine Christian, non-Christian and political elements into a hybrid or synthesis, and continues to this day. The Holy Spirit, though, inspired a Reformation of the church back to its true content and nature starting with the very barbarians, aka Germans, dissed by Constantine on his conquering way to Rome setting off the whole mess.

And what happened to Eboracum? It's still there. After the Western Roman Empire fell in 476, the Angles -- more Germans -- invaded and took over, and called the city Eoferwic. Then the Vikings -- not Germans exactly, but Germanic -- blew in in 866 and called in Jorvik, probably a re-pronunciation easier on Viking ears. Then in 1066 the Normans -- not a bunch of guys named Norman, but people from Normandy across the English Channel -- really blew in and took over, William the Conqueror sacking the place, and in time the name morphed from Jorvik to York, with variant spellings. And so it is to-day, York, England. We have a York in Nebraska too, and everyone knows of the new York in, well, New York.

So what's that all about, a French smoothing over of rough Germanic edges? Well not exactly. The Normans themselves came about from Vikings raiding the area, joining up with the locals, providing a hedge against more Vikings raiding, taking on the local culture but adding their original one, and becoming The Northmen, from which the name Norman and Normandy derives. So it's Frenched over Vikings on top of Vikings on top of Germans on top of Romans on top of Celts on top of, some say, the Old Ones. That's where my ancestors come from. And they say we came to a melting pot. True that, but we came from a melting pot too.

Whew. You can't make this sort of stuff up. The great thing is, all you really need to know is laid out in The Little Catechism. And the thing I like best about poking around in all this stuff is to appreciate ever more fully how true it is that all you really need to know is laid out in The Little Catechism. And what a miracle it is that we have it.

A Different St Nicholas

To-day, 17 July 2008, is the 90th anniversary of the murder of Nicholas II, Emperor of all the Russias, with his wife and children.

The brutality of these murders would in time to come be visited upon millions of Russians, as the regime which ordered and carried them out blossomed into a world power. While we hear endlessly about the six million victims of one group specifically targeted by Nazi Germany, that was only roughly half of the total number of the victims of the regime. And if relatively little is said about the other half, even less is said about the even greater number murdered under our ally against Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia under Stalin. By the most conservative estimates, this would be 4 million from direct repression and 6 million from the results of enforced economic theory, namely, collectivisation, for a total of 10 million -- well in excess of 6 million and roughly equal to estimates of Nazi victims, however more recently available material generally indicates a total of around 20 million, nearly twice by our ally of what our enemy managed to attain in toto and over three times the 6 million of that particular specifically targeted group.

The course of that regime itself passed into history on 26 December 1991. Ten years ago, 17 July 1998, the 80th anniversary of their murders, the bodies of Tsar Nicholas and Tsarina Alexandra and three of the children (not all were then found) were buried with state honours in the Cathedral of Sts Peter and Paul in St Petersburg, where all Russian Emperors since Peter the Great are buried. The President of post Communist Russia, Boris Yeltsin at the time, attended along with members of the House of Romanov. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia had declared them saints and martyrs in 1981, and on 14 August 2000 the Russian Orthodox Church itself declared them saints and what are called Passion Bearers, people who were killed, though not specifically for their faith, and who met their deaths with Christian humility and dignity -- not a judgement on his rule, rather universally regarded as weak and incompetent at best, but rather on the why and manner of death. On 16 June 2003 Russian bishops consecrated the "Church on the Blood", built on the site of the house where the royal family was murdered.

There is still a Russian Orthodox Church, there is still a House of Romanov, and there is still a Russia.

Nicholas' feast day is to-day, 17 July.

United States, Free Churches

What if you woke up one morning, turned on the TV, logged on your Internet service provider, or opened the morning paper, and you saw or read something like this:

The President of the United States has declared that churches in the United States will no longer direct their own affairs or constitute their own leadership, and this function will now be assumed by a new government department, the Department of Religious Affairs and Education, and a commission will be appointed to write a common worship service book for the new United Church.

All candidates for ordination will indicate whether they support the Union, their ordination vows will express support for the Union, seminary professors and other religion professors will support the Union, and denominational designations such as "Lutheran" will be dropped from church names.

That is absolutely unthinkable in the United States of America.

And that is exactly what happened in the Kingdom of Prussia under King Friedrich Wilhelm the Third. Over time, but you get the idea. The decree about writing a new common liturgy for all churches was in 1798, the new agenda was completed in 1821, the order for its sole use was the next year, 1822, and the mandated name changes came in 1829. Resistance was widespread among Lutherans; by 1834, pastors who resisted the decrees were suspended from the ministry and those who persisted were imprisoned, and many began to leave for other countries seeking the freedom to worship and teach according to their confessions. One such emigration led to the formation of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod in the United States.

It was different here in the US. Being founded out of colonies of a country with an established, which is to say, a state religion, a specific denomination endorsed and supported, including financially, by the state, and many of these colonies owing their origin to escaping the burden of being outside the state religion, this new country specifically rejected the establishment of any particular church.

This does not at all mean that no religious presence shall be allowed in the public sector, but that no particular church shall be a part of the government and the government shall not be a part of any church.

We are here free to be Lutherans -- and the Catholics are free to be Catholics, the Methodists free to be Methodists, the Baptists free to be Baptists, on and on, and for that matter the Jews are free to be Jews, the Muslims free to be Muslims, and so forth.

So for us Lutherans here in the United States, in addition to the many benefits that are ours in common with all here in the United States due to our independence as a nation, we celebrate our freedom to be Lutheran, itself our version of a benefit shared by all here. Throw in an extra firework for that one!

Wouldn't it be an irony beyond measure, a sadness beyond description, if we were to squander this great freedom and do to ourselves what the government cannot, our church do here what the government did there -- alter our liturgy to be more in common with other churches, alter our teaching so as to seem less distinct from other churches and therefore more appealing, start dropping the word "Lutheran" from our usage, tie financial and other church support to acceptance of such church actions, even keep an eye on the 500th anniversary of the Presentation of the Augsburg Confession just as Friedrich Wilhelm had his eye on the 300th?

Yes, wouldn't it. Or rather, isn't it.

May we Lutherans here in the United States, who have recently celebrated our national independence allowing our great freedoms and blessings here, renew our dedication to the faith declared to the government there in the Augsburg Confession, whose anniversary we have also recently just celebrated, and free of state and state churches, never act as if we were not, doing to ourselves in freedom what the government cannot, but believe, teach and confess the faith presented in the Augsburg Confession against all efforts to suppress, modify or co-opt it in our day as they did in theirs.

Issues, Etc. Rides Again!

Check out the new website for Issues, Etc., once again offering just what it says, Christ-centered, Cross-focused Talk Radio! What a great way to kick off Year 479 of the Augsburg Confession!

http://www.issuesetc.org/

The Augsburg Confession, 478 Years On

To-day is the 478th anniversary of the Presentation of the Augsburg Confession.

I could not possibly write a better expostition of what this presentation is about, whether presented in its own time, in our time, or in the future, than Father Hollywood's post on his blog.

Treat yourself and read it!

http://fatherhollywood.blogspot.com/2008/06/sermon-presentation-of-augsburg.html

Tim Russert, RIP

One of the great voices of journalism suddenly fell silent to-day, 13 June 2008.

Growing up with those who more or less defined broadcast journalism -- Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Walter Cronkite -- it's been rather difficult to find that kind of stature among broadcast journalists lately, when the main qualification seems to be either to look real nice or have a smart mouth.

Tim Russert, though, was of such stature. Many find it in the quality of his preparation, the thoroughness of his interviews, and other things, all of which were top-notch.

But I think the real secret was that he, unlike so many of his -- my, our -- generation, knew that that generation did not invent the wheel, let alone the world, but saw and understood that those who came before understood much, had much that had been passed on to them, and had much to pass on to us. And he took his place in that passing on.

I will miss him. But his legacy will live on in those who take their place in the same chain.

Lutheran Public Radio Is On The Air -- And Online!

Issues Arising! The Christ centred, Cross focussed programme once known as Issues, Etc. and formerly offered by the radio station of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod is back! Click the link below:

http://www.piratechristianradio.com/

God speed!

Putting out the fire, for the real, not strange, fire.

A huge hat tip to Frank at Putting Out The Fire for the following link to an article by David Berger of Concordia Seminary St Louis. No summary from me, just jump in, this is good.

http://seminary.csl.edu/facultypubs/Home/tabid/36/ctl/Details/mid/512/ItemID/109/Default.aspx

21 May 1997

It's been an eerie feeling, listening to the reports of Senator Kennedy's diagnosis, in Boston and just before Memorial Day.

On 21 May 1997, my pregnant wife called me at work from her work to say she had had a moment or two of paralysis in her arm on one side, had called her ob/gyn who said something like that is not a pregnancy thing and get to the hospital right away for some tests. That was about noon.

By late afternoon, the diagnosis was in -- three cancerous brain tumours, an aggressive adenocarcinoma, about three months to live, meaning an unusually early artificial birth for our second son who would likely have serious developmental difficulties if he even survived.

You really don't need days like that in your life. Those who've had them know.

As it happened, there was a radiation oncologist from Massachusetts General Hospital doing a locum (a temporary period at another institution) here, who said the treatments available here though very good would not do much, but if we could come to Boston, a place I have known and loved for years, there was a treatment they could do, available in only one other place, that would kill these tumours though not cure the cancer, which would add another three months giving time enough for a reasonably normal birth. He was a Christian from China.

So we did. And it unfolded exactly as he said. The tumours were killed by proton therapy and the Summer passed fairly well considering the circumstances. Then in late August, about five to six weeks before the expected due date, she stopped making amniotic fluid, for reasons medically inexplicable. So our son was born by Caesarian section, came along quite well in neonatal intensive care, and went home about his due date at the start of October. Then within a week or two of that, the cancer began to spread everywhere, and she died the night before Thanksgiving, 26 November 1997, six months almost to the day from diagnosis.

Pretty amazing timing in those six months.

Even more amazing, I did not curse God and turn my face to the wall. I've been me for a while now. That is what I would do. After all the religious upheaval in my life, now this last insult from a God who doesn't exist anyway. That's me, but that isn't what happened.

When they say faith is entirely the work of the Holy Ghost, they ain't kidding. That's for real, as real as it gets. What has happened in me is entirely beyond my ability to produce.

What happened in her was beyond her ability to produce either. I remember at the hospital our vacancy pastor came by to call on her. She didn't particularly like him, found his preaching and pastoral style wooden and formal. I watched him head off to her room thinking of all the guys we get this one -- no rapport, not particularly liked by the person, not even clerical garb as a prop, nothing that is but fidelity to his call. Turns out, that was enough; she later said his visits to her in the hospital really turned it around for her, and she was ready. Hmm.

And I heard at her funeral sermon the most magnificent Gospel proclamation I think I shall ever hear -- from our new pastor just out of sem. You could not possibly have missed in that funeral sermon that the only dead people at this funeral were the ones not alive in Christ.

The sermon concluded with words I will always hear as if just spoken: a few days ago most of us celebrated a thanksgiving that lasted one day, but Nancy began one that lasts an eternity.

That's a miracle, both in that God has done this for us in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and in that I believe it.

I wish you well, Senator. There is not a better place on earth than Massachusetts General Hospital if you're ill, and this from a guy who about grew up in the lobby of Mayo Clinic.

The doctor from China is no longer there. His English first name became our second son's middle name -- Calvin. Probably the only cradle Lutheran kid in the world with Calvin in his name. Got nothing to do with theology.

Oh, and don't worry about calling a new sem grad. On anything that really matters, he'll be just fine. I hear we got a bunch available.

Revised Blogroll

Please check out the sidebar Lutheran Blogs. I have made a number of changes.

Since a couple of blogs already on the blogroll have changed not only locations but names, I have updated them and also supplied the last name, where applicable, of the authors of all blogs listed on the blogroll.

The Issues, Etc. disgrace has called forth a number of new blogs, and created deeper awareness that the issues about Issues are symptomatic of issues well beyond Issues. My sidebar "Reformissional Resistance" has a link to find them all. The ones that address the larger situation I have included in my blogroll itself.

You will see one by a guy named Diekmann, of whom I said "not THAT one". So who's THAT one? Godfrey Diekmann, OSB. A leading light in the "reforms" of Vatican II and a peritus (that's Latin for "expert") at the Council, a major figure in my undergraduate experience, with whom I disagreed on nearly everything, as cultured, articulate and compassionate a person as I have ever met, deeply convinced of the benefits of that in which he believed, and I look forward to experiencing the Heavenly Table with him where we all shall, to borrow the thought of the death note of Philipp Melanchthon, no stranger to controversy himself, go to the light, see God, look upon His Son, and learn the wonderful mysteries we have not been able to understand in this life.

A "Quia Subscription" to Trent

We Lutherans sometimes encounter a challenge to our Book of Concord that runs something like this: if you guys are really into sola Scriptura, by Scripture alone, that Scripture alone is the norm for the church, then why do you make such a big deal about your confessional documents collected in the Book of Concord?

There are some who use the name Lutheran who indeed see the BofC as a document of immense historical significance, but whose insights as with all documents contain limitations deriving from its time and place, which admit of further development and deeper understanding by later times and places. Not unlike the approach taken to Scripture itself in some, usually the same, circles!

In an article in 1858, CFW Walther, the first president of the Missouri Synod (or The Synod of Missouri, Ohio and other States -- Synode von Missouri, Ohio und andern Staaten, actually -- as it was known at that time) wrote that while a Lutheran is not bound to historical references or matters of science, logic, "indifference" (adiaphora) or the manner of presentation contained therein, he is bound by the doctrine it contains, and this not insofar as (quatenus) it agrees with Scripture but because (quia) it agrees with Scripture.

Thus, regarding the symbolic books of our church, the ones that contain our doctrine, whose servants we would be, those who hold such a position are said to have a "quia subscription" to the Book of Concord. We accept the doctrine stated in the Book of Concord not as a document that is a point in the gradual development of doctrine, that itself may admit of further development or understanding -- John Henry Cardinal Newman, the Anglican convert to Roman Catholicism who brought much of this type of thinking into the Roman church, which crystallised in Vatican II, was 57 in 1858 and his famous Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, written when he was yet Anglican, was published in 1845, in which same year he converted to Roman Catholicism, just 13 years before the Walther article -- but because it agrees with and accurately states and presents the doctrine of Scripture. Period. End of story.

Not period and not end of story with a quatenus subscription, which though a phrase of Lutheran origin describes an approach taken in many churches toward their own confessional documents (statements of binding doctrine) and Scripture itself. And so we come to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, pka (let's start something, pka for popularly known as!) the JDDF, which was prepared and signed by official representatives of the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation (to which LCMS does not belong) in 1997 in which same year it was formally adopted by the by far largest American denomination with the word Lutheran in its name, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (pka ELCA and which does belong to the LWF). Might be worth noting that in the same convention the ELCA also adopted a Formula of Agreement declaring full communion with the Presbyterian Church USA, the Reformed Church in America, and the United Church of Christ, finding those of their positions which the BofC soundly condemns right along with Rome's errors acceptable and even complementary diversities.

LCMS was quite forthright in its rejection of the JDDF -- as well as the actions of the ELCA, which we leave for another time. No way, no how, can one do or say such things and call it Lutheran. You may find a short and then a longer official statement of our position at the following links:

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2212
http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/justclp.pdf

So the Lutheran side. But guess what? There's a lot of Catholics out there who also think that when a church formally says what it teaches it means what it says, and you don't come along later and say well hey, that was great for that time and place but it ain't such a big deal now, and/or now that we think about it we understand it better and it ain't what we thought, so here's what we think now with our new and deeper understanding which doesn't mean anybody was ever wrong, just that we were on the same path but couldn't see it at the time and now we do. You might say, these Catholics have a quia subscription to their documents just as we do to ours. And to them, the Joint Declaration betrays what is Catholic as much as it betrays what is Lutheran to us. With the consequence that it may place the Roman church under its own anathema. That's serious stuff, if you're a Roman Catholic, which I once was.

Ad fontes, as we say -- to the sources! Let them speak for themselves. Here is the conclusion to a Letter to Friends and Benefactors from October 1998 by a District Superior of the Society of Saint Pius X, Father Peter R. Scott. The full document can be found on the Society's website, sspx.org.

"However, the most damning of the condemnations of this decree of the Council of Trent, and the most necessary for our time, is the very last one. For the very least that the Joint Declaration can be said to do is to state that the "doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century do not apply" (§13), and that they are no longer (if ever) for the good of the Church, providential and helpful for making the Church and the Faith more clearly known. And yet it is this very statement which is condemned by a solemn, binding, infallible anathema. Even those who accept the Catholic teaching on Justification, but refuse to accept that the clear definitions of Trent are truly for the good of the Church, are anathematized. This is the sense of Canon 33, Dz 843:

If anyone shall say that because of this Catholic doctrine of justification as set forth by the Holy Synod in this present decree, there is in some degree a detraction from the glory of God or from the merits of Jesus Christ our Lord, and that the truth of our Faith, and in fact the glory of God and of Jesus Christ are not rather rendered illustrious; let him be anathema.

Horror crawls up our spine at the thought of Catholic prelates falling under such an explicit anathema, and attempting to officially bind the Church itself to be condemned by its own anathema. Yet we must face up to this sobering reality if we are to understand the gravity of the present crisis in the Church, which is truly a crisis of Faith in the most profound way, and not just of discipline. May the Blessed Mother grant to us all the interior life, a life of prayer budding forth from sanctifying grace, to see through this confusion and keep up the combat of Faith for the kingdom of truth and life, the kingdom of holiness and grace, which Our Lord pours into our souls from the Cross."

There you have it. I suggest there is more "ecumenism", more brotherhood though we are separated by substantial differences, between Lutherans and Catholics who are really Lutheran and Catholic than between those who are false to either and both, and proclaim thereby some sort of new unity or stage toward unity. Soldiers can understand each other as soldiers, though they wear the uniforms of different armies. I get it about my brother (generic) who holds a quia subscription to his confessional documents, though those documents do not confess at some key points what mine do.

And I wish him well and God speed, whether he is Roman or for that matter Episcopal, Presbyterian, Reformed or any other body under assault by those who would "develop" or "deepen" what he subscribes to into something else under the same name.

He's got a far more dangerous opponent in his own ranks than he does in me. And I betcha he knows the same about me. And I'd say we both know, and if we don't we'd better start, that in the end we now face the same ultimate opponent regardless of uniform more than each other.

The opponent for damn sure does about either of us.

Pentecost / Shavuot / Pfingstfest 2008

(The 2008 edition of my Pentecost post.)

So why does the "birthday of the church" have the Greek prefix for fifty in it?

Because it wasn't originally the birthday of the church, but an observance commanded by God in the Law of Moses which is to be held fifty days after the second day of Passover with each day formally counted.

The counting is called the Counting of the Omer. What's an omer? Omer are the sheaves of a harvested crop. During the days of the physical Temple, the priests would offer newly harvested barley on the second day of Passover, which represents the start of the seven week harvest season. Which is why Pentecost is also called the Feast of Weeks. In the Law, Shavuot is called Hag ha-Katzir, the Holiday of Harvest's End.

Ah, so we have a harvest festival, taking its place among the various harvest festivals in world culture and religion. Well, yes and no. Yes, it's another harvest festival, another instance of a human cause for celebrating a human milestone, the end of the harvest, particularly in a pre-industrial society. But there's something a little different about this one. The Talmud (What's a Talmud? Ancient rabbinical writings -- for more, look it up, Wikipedia is linked to the right of the page) says it was on the 6th of Sivan (a month in the Jewish lunar calendar), which is the first night of Shavuot, that God gave the Ten Words, better known among Gentiles as the Ten Commandments. Consequently, a popular observance has been an all night Bible study at home or in the synagogue, breaking for morning service, called shakharit, the ancestor of our, well, morning service. This all nighter is called tikkun. Traditionally only dairy foods are eaten on Shavuot, and while no-one knows why for sure, the thinking is that on the first Shavuot they had slaughtered all these animals for food but after the Law was given it turned out they were not kosher so they only ate dairy foods. In the liturgy of the synagogue, the readings for the service for the first day of Shavuot are: Torah portion Exodus 19:1 - 20:23 and Numbers 28:26-31; haftorah Ezechiel 1:1-28 and 3:12. (Sorry, grew up pre Vatican II RC, so those Greek Septuagint derived spellings for OT names kind of persist!) In case you're a little rusty, this is the Exodus account (actually the first of two Exodus accounts, the other being Chapter 34, and there's another in Deuteronomy) of the giving of the Law, specifically the Ten Words, and Ezechiel's account of the chariot of fire -- you know, the flying saucer.

This is the feast that Acts 2:1 (in the Epistle for Pentecost, which even the Vatican II three year lectionary couldn't overturn) refers to when it speaks of Pentecost arriving, and why there were men from all over everywhere in Jerusalem for it. It's to celebrate the giving of the Law, the whole reason why there was a Passover and a deliverance, the most important event in Judaism. And like Passover just had been, it was about to be transformed!

For God himself had become Man in Jesus Christ, suffered the condemnation for our sins in his death, and then rose again. Now, if this were all to the story, why didn't he just stick around, proof positive that he had risen? If the whole point were "All you need is Jesus", "I am saved because Jesus died for my sins and rose again", "Jesus first, as long as you believe that the rest isn't that important", then what would make that point better, what would make that point more irrefutable, than if he had stayed right here, so you could see him, talk to him face to face, hear him teach, and say to those who don't believe "Look, there he is right there, go ask him yourself".

But it didn't happen that way, because that is not the whole point and not all to the story. Just as the Passover and exodus from bondage in Egypt had been not for its own sake but in order to gather with God so he could give his people his Law, so the Passover of the full paschal lamb Jesus had been not for its own sake but in order to gather with God so he could give his people his Spirit! Just as God had commanded the counting of the Omer, the fifty days connecting Pesach, Pascha, and Shavuoth, Pentecost, so now God himself counts the Omer from the Pascha of the Lamb he provided, his Son, to the Shavouth or Pentecost so that on the very day where his people once celebrated only the giving of the Law, they still celebrate that and added to it is the giving of the Spirit!

And what happened as a result of that? His Apostles, men who knew all you need is Jesus, men who knew for a physical fact that Jesus had died and risen again, men who knew Jesus is first, men who had all that and like any men on that basis alone were scared and afraid and huddled around each other in the comfort of others who had all that, tending to their prayers and the internal matters of their little band, did something utterly amazing on this day of celebrating the giving of the Law -- they gave the Law, and the Gospel. Not only that, each one there heard it in his own language, addressed directly to him!

And what did the people do? Same as the Apostles had done when the women told them the tomb was empty and he had risen. They didn't believe them. Some thought this is just a foolish wishful story, others sought to figure out what this means, others thought they're just crazy, probably drunk, out of their minds. That's what happened first. Pretty much what still happens when people hear the mighty works of God told to them -- when WE hear the mighty works of God told to US. It's a really nice story stemming from our deepest wishes; let's talk about this and dialogue as to what it all means; those guys are crazy. That's what happened first. The rest didn't happen until something else happened.

Peter then stood with his brothers in the Office of Holy Ministry and laid it right out for them, clean and clear. This is what Joel and David had spoken about, Jesus delivered by the plan of God to us whom we in our sinfulness abandoned the Law and in turn delivered him to the power and law of the world to be killed, Jesus delivered by the power of God from the power of death and our sinfulness which inflicted that on him, Jesus risen again and now placed on the throne of David at the right hand of God, Jesus having been given the promise of the Spirit so that now you see and hear this: Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

That's the Law. And when they heard the Law, given now for the first time in its fulfillment on this day of celebrating the giving of the Law long ago, they were cut to the heart. People by nature want a religion of works, stuff they can do to make it all right, stuff they can do to feel OK with God, with each other, and within themselves. And the world offers all sorts of versions of that. Some of them go by the name Christianity. And the feelings and purpose they impart are utterly false. God himself has shown us in the Law exactly the stuff he wants us to do, and we showed ourselves absolutely incapable of it by our own reason and strength, to the extent that we handed his prophets and finally the One he sent over to the power of our own ideas and law to be killed, and still reject their message to this day. So much for a religion of works. We can't do it even when God himself shows us exactly how, no matter how hard we try in purpose driven living or to attain our best life now. What's worse, just like those on this Pentecost, we don't get it even when the mighty works of God are directly addressed to us even with wondrous signs, preferring instead to think it over or think they're just nuts!

Pentecost came to-gether not in the signs and wonders, which can still leave us in unbelief, but when Peter and his brothers in the Office of Holy Ministry laid it out clean and clear. It still does. It was then, when Peter had given the Law in its horrible consequences, that they, we, thought not about what it all means, not let's think this over, not maybe there's some good ideas here, not maybe these guys are nuts, but instead were cut to the heart by the fruitlessness of their, our, own reason and strength, and asked Peter and his brothers, Men and brethren, what shall we do? It was then and only then that they could tell them the Good News, the Gospel.

Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

What happened then? Same thing that happens now. They that gladly received his word were baptised, and they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Guess what! There's an emerging church all right. Not just lately, not out of some marketing scheme supposedly crafted to the taste of the times, but ever since the outpouring of the Spirit on that Pentecost whose historical happening we celebrate every feast of Pentecost.

We may not be in Jerusalem, the Temple is not physically there to go to in one accord, and Peter and the other Apostles are not personally our preachers. And it makes not the slightest difference. The taste of our or any time has no taste for the Gospel and it is worthless to pander to it thinking that will produce a taste for the Gospel. That will produce only what it always produces -- a religion of works, stuff to do to catch the God buzz in a quest after one's own feeling better, on the surface all about Jesus or God but really all about me, or, a lot of discussion about what it all means, or, a rejection of it as wishful thinking at best and lunacy at worst.

What produces a taste for the Gospel is the Law. That's why the Spirit was given to proclaim the Gospel on the feast celebrating the giving of the Law! And we have the reality of Pentecost before us no less than they. The Temple is in ruins and Peter and the Apostles are gone. So how's that, how is Pentecost not just another thing you read in a book that supposedly comes from God, maybe it does. maybe it doesn't. Because the true Temple Jesus has been raised again on the third day, and has taken his place with the Father, and has sent his Spirit as he promised. And that Spirit speaks the same message to us as it did that day in unbroken continuity and succession, not that Peter and the Apostles are still physically here, not that other men are still here in a succession of corporate hierarchy, not in those who produce signs and wonders or miracles of church growth and attendance in his name, but that the clean and clear laying out of Law and Gospel as was heard that Pentecost continues to be heard in the faithful preaching of those in the Office of Holy Ministry unto the ends of the earth despite sin, the world and the gates of hell itself.

And when this happens, the same thing follows as did then. Those who receive this proclamation of Law and Gospel are baptised, they continue steadfastly in the Apostles' teaching handed on in the church, especially in those books upon which the church has said you can absolutely rely as the inspired word of God without error, the Bible, and in preaching by those called to do so of that Word, they continue steadfastly in fellowship and community and gathering with each other, they continue steadfastly in the breaking of the bread, the mass, the church's liturgy, wherein Jesus was only fully discerned for who and what he is even when he was bodily here for forty days after he rose, and they continue steadfastly in prayer.

That is the gift of the Holy Ghost, and every bit of it is as available here and now as it was on that day we read about in Acts, in the Epistle or Christian haftorah for Pentecost, every bit of what was pointed to in Ezechiel's chariot of fire we read about in the original Pentecost haftorah. Pentecost comes to-gether, despite all our vain and sinful efforts to make it happen in some other way more to our liking, the same now as then as ever. Accept no substitute! There is no substitute, even if it claims his name or produces signs and wonders and warm feelings in his name, as true and false teachers and even Satan himself alike can do!

Pentecost is about the one thing they cannot produce and only the true Sprit of God can. As the Little Catechism explains:

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Christian church; the communion of Saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting.

Amen.What does this mean? I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian church He daily and richly forgives all sins to me and all believers, and will at the Last Day raise up me and all the dead, and give unto me and all believers in Christ eternal life.

This is most certainly true.