Tell the Good News About Jesus

Where have I gone?

PastorUAC — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:20:32 GMT

I really haven't disappeared forever.

I spent a month fighting blue screen of death.

Two months fighting no internet.

Now, I have been bumped from my house. (The Lutheran Church in town rents the old espicopal parsonage, and they want to remodel it, so we get to move sometime in the next six weeks.)

Look for my triumphant return sometime after the new year.

A Great Devotional Resource... Almost

PastorUAC — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 00:17:00 GMT

I eagerly listened to the free CD’s from CPH with the liturgy settings and a few hymns from LSB. What a tremendous devotional resource it would be... almost.

I realize that the goal is to help pastors and church musicians get familiar with the settings, so I suppose it serves its purpose in that sense.

But I have a request for CPH : Could you re-issue it without the narration? And if you really wanted to offer something extraordinary, music from the Daily Offices would not be amiss. I know that it was done when LW was released. (How much has the world changed since then? Those recordings were on vinyl! Now, CD’s are almost obsolete.)

So here’s my suggestion for CPH : Make the services (without narration) a downloadable purchase in MP3 format. Either record the daily offices, or digitize the LW ones. Cost is minimal. License it so that for each purchase, a set of CD’s for personal use can be made. (You could also do group licenses for churches so that one congregation can make as many as it wants for its members. Cost could be based on average attendance.) What a way to teach the liturgy to the young! What a gift to give to shut ins and the sick! What fun to listen to while traveling! I would buy it.

As for the hymns - another great resource that is almost great but for the talking.

PTM, if you’re reading this, what say you?

A Hymnal for Everyone

PastorUAC — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 15:41:52 GMT

I found this among my seminary notes. It was a what-if list of professor-produced hymnals. Some of the professors aren’t at the seminary anymore. Others have joined the church triumphant. As I read it, the publication of the new synodical hymnal made this old joke seem new again. I offer it as a loving tribute to the men who so well prepared me to serve as a shepherd of the church :

Art Just : Lutheran Synaxis

William Weinrich : Hymnal of Lutheranicity

Charles Geischen : Lutheromorphic Hymnal

David Scaer : Stamp-out Lutheranism Hymnal

Daniel Reuning : Copes, Chant, etc. Hymnal

Douglas McClellan Judish : Ye Olde Hymnal

Dean Wenthe : Lutheran Torah

Richard Resch : Sola Bach, Sola Luther, Sola Gerhardt

Eugene Bunkowski : Missio Dei, the Broadway Soundtrack Album

Cameron MacKenzie : The Illustrated Hymnal

Melvin Zilz : The What-do-you-want-to-call-this Hymnal

Heino Kadai : I’ve Seen This Hymnal Before

Walter A. Maier : The Wamnal

Gregory Lockwood : The Over-the-Page Hymnal

Roger Pittelko : Hymnal of the English District, et. al.

Richard Meuller : Ordo Worshipos

James Bollhagen : That-Song-Reminds-Me-Of-A-Joke Hymnal

Student editions include :

Year 1 : I Don’t Understand This Hymnal

Year 2 : I Know More Than This Hymnal

Year 3 (Vicarage) : I Wish I Was Using This Hymnal.

Year 4 : Songs I Love to Sing ... About My Vicarage

What hymnals do you see being produced? Pick your favorite person, and figure out what they would call a hymnal.

Thoughts From a Draft Dodger

PastorUAC — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 21:37:00 GMT

I spent a blissful week in Hay Springs, NE. I thought about the synodical convention only twice, and that was briefly. Otherwise, I was teaching children about the church year.
For some reason, I kept talking about Baptism.
I always end up talking about Baptism.
I love talking about Baptism.
After getting news of Dr. Kieschnick's third term last Sundday, I took off for the nursing home for our monthly commmunion service there (I have several members in our town's one NH.) As I walked in to preach the mysteries, and to give the eternal and everlasting flesh of our Lord to members whose flesh is failing them, I thought to myself, "Which event today is more important to our Lord, the wealthy men in the Houston temple giving from their bounty, or the poor widows in the nursing home giving their two mites?" I think I already know the answer.
So, my complete and total analysis of the Synodical convention is this :

Jesus, Jesus, only Jesus, can my heartfelt longing still. (Mysteriously left out of the latest hymnal.)

And that’s all I have to say about that.

Now, I must prepare for a funeral tommorrow, and then go pick up the latest Harry Potter book, before going to bed.
To all those who were elected delegates, and who now get to endure Houston again in TWO years for reasons unknown at this time, I say :
~~Ha-Ha!~~ I mean, "You have the thanks of a grateful synod."

Ahhh, Texas in July

PastorUAC — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:19:00 GMT

I suppose it could be worse. If the synodical convention were held in December, we would surely meet in Anchorage.
Anyway, I am not going, having weaseled out of being elected to anything. It turns out many in the blogosphere are going.
I will be teaching 7-8 grade kids at camp next week.
To be honest, I think my week will be spent doing more important things than all the folks in Houston.
But then, when I sing, "Trust not in princes, they are but mortal" I think it hypocritical to follow up with, "Unless we get the guy we want."

"We're from the Government, and We're Here to Help"

PastorUAC — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:14:00 GMT

The annual “Social Security Statement of Benefits” arrived today. They admit that by 2041 they have only enough money to pay 75% of the money they will ‘owe’. But that’s not the problem.

For many years Social Security has been taking in more than they pay out. Where does that money go? A coffee can under a mattress? A vault somewhere in Fort Knox? No. By law, the government must invest the money. This means that the “Social Security Trust Fund” is earning interest. A lot of interest. But guess what, the government can only invest the money in... Government Savings Bonds!

So the government collects the money from your pay check. It then loans the money to itself. It then spends the money. (Starting to see the problem?) In 2017, it has to start paying back the money. With interest.
More people my age beleive in UFO's than belive they will ever see money from Social Security. I wonder why...

A challenge - Win $50!

PastorUAC — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 14:58:00 GMT

I will pay $50 to anyone who can find a definitive theological reference to “seriatim prayers” under the following conditions :

1) The reference must be from before September 23, 2001.

2) The reference must not be from LMCS President Emeritus, the Reverend Dr. Ralph Bohlman.

Anyone else care to offer money for the challenge? I’ve said before that this is an invention of bureaucrats. Now I’m putting my money where my mouth is. I’d put more money there, but I have kids; my mouth isn’t that rich anymore.

Anyone who believes that this idea has theological merit, prove it! Take my $50, and give me a big old helping of crow to eat.

The Fool Says In His Heart...

PastorUAC — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 22:57:00 GMT

I read today that among members of the national Academy of Sciences, only 7% believe in a god. With numbers like that, their could also be those who are too afraid to admit it, even to pollsters. But what of the seven percent? How vocal are they? Will they admit it to their colleagues?

There is one ironclad rule in academia, and even more so in science : There can be no God.

You can be an anarchist communist avant-garde nudist polygamist, and be accepted into the fraternity of academia. The only rule that can never be broken is that you may not be a theist. Those who dare to believe in a higher power are looked down on as intellectual lightweights. That 85% of the population or more does believe in a supreme being is only proof to them that they are superior and above the fray.

The church’s moral authority to speak to any issue of science was irrevocably lost during the whole “Galileo incident”. But then what of doctors and their authority to treat patients? After all, wasn’t there that whole leeching thing? (Which arguably killed our first president)

Of course, we laugh at such medical antics now, but they are no different from the church misinterpreting the scriptures regarding the center of the universe. But such comparisons are not made. After all, you can’t blame the church for leeching.

So what of those academics who dare to challenge the received orthodoxy of atheism? The suffering inflicted on such heretics is at least as bad as that which Galileo suffered. (If not in quality then certainly in quantity.)

Convention Elections

PastorUAC — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 17:12:00 GMT

I am known to my friends as someone who enjoys the occasional political discussion. So it is only natural to expect that at some point I will comment on elections at the upcoming synodical convention. So here it is, for those who were wondering :

Trust not in princes they are but mortal; Earthborn they are and soon decay. Naught are their counsels at life’s last portal, when the dark grave doth claim its prey. Since then no man can help afford, trust ye in Christ our God and Lord. Hallelujah! Hallelujah!.

And that’s all I have to say about that.

Required Reading

PastorUAC — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:58:00 GMT

This should be required reading for all pastoral candidates.

Dr. Marquardt's article on "Liturgical Commonplaces", written in 1978, already foresaw all of the liturgical problems which we face today.

If you haven't read it, it is worth your time. (And it doesn't take too much of that.)

Richard Dawkins Doesn't Get It

PastorUAC — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 17:03:52 GMT

I was in Barnes and Noble today, and I found Richard Dawkins new book, “The God Delusion”, written against intelligent design. He allegedly proves that the universe is simply an accident. I only read a few bits, but apparently his argument against intelligent design goes like this :

Yes, getting a specific bit of information at random if you start over each time is impossible. But if you “Save” the best bits of information for the next round, then you can achieve the information you seek randomly after only about 50-75 “generations”.

The problem with this theory is that :

1) Some outside force determines which information should be saved for the next round.

2) At each step of the process, until very late in the game, the “information” is useless (he himself admits this, but ignores the implications). That is, it performs no useful function. One of the important critera for natural selection is survival of the fittest. Not sure how his example proves this. (It's not enough to prove "random order" or "natural selection". You must also prove that the two can work together.)

3) He hasn’t begun to prove that genetic information is at all similar to his computer model to construct a sentence using only intelligent randomness. (Michael Behe proves just the opposite in his latest book.)

4) He argues that the appearance of order in our universe is actually random. Any one bit would be ordered (if everything could fly) but because some things fly, some swim, some walk, there is randomness. Or perhaps just a grand ordering.

After reading only a few pages, I am convinced. In fact, I have a new theory. Stonehenge is actually caused by random forces of nature, like the “old man of the mountain” in New Hampshire. I think that some sort of earthquake broke loose the rocks in exactly rectangular shapes. Then, through millions of years of earthquakes, floods, etc. the stones found there way half way across England. Finally, a strong wind at some point set them up just as we see them today, lined up with the solstices..

Now to be fair, I realize that there are a lot of other unexplained circles of rocks in the world. I’m not at all saying those were formed in this way. I still don’t know how they got there. But, in all the world, it isn’t too much to say that at least one of them was formed this way.

In a similar vein, I have attached a piece of aluminum foil to my wall, and have hooked up a power cord to it. It’s my new big screen TV. Again, I don’t’ recommend that everyone try it, but given all the people in the world, it has to work for at least one of us. I’ll let you know how it goes.

Romanist rebellion

PastorUAC — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:40:00 GMT

A post at Gottesblog heralds the impending return of the Tridentine Mass. While the vote for traditionalism is welcome, I can't get all that excited about a mass that, at its heart, is blasphemous.

Of course, the pope saying that the ancient blaspheme is allowed again doesn't really change the reality of modern worship in Romanist churches.

I suppose if Lutherans can have a bed for an altar, then the Romanist's having liturgical pole dancers shouldn't surprise.

???!?!!???!!

PastorUAC — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:23:00 GMT

With all due seriousness and respect to our brothers and sisters in the ***A :

NO. WAY.

The first is the Press release. The second is the commentary on the First Things website.

I'd comment further, but I am too stunned.

Internet security

PastorUAC — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:29:00 GMT

For some reason (I'm guessing those helpful folks in congress are behind it.) banks now require what they call "multi factor"' authorization to get to a bank account.
My health insurance doesn't. My credit card doesn't. My credit record doesn't. My insurance information doesn't. I would bet that it's now easier to get my FBI file than to get into my bank account.
The premise is this : Now, only someone who knows what I know can get into my account.
You mean like a password?
You can register your computer, but that only works if you are dumb enough to leave cookies lying around on your computer (Google only keeps them for two years now, instead of 38).
I hate the new system. Every bank is going to it, but no one else is, which means that congress must be behind it somehow.
Hey congress : Stay out of the internet. Let the market work. If people don't like the secuity level of their bank's information, they can CHANGE BANKS!
With approval ratings of around 14%, I suspect that they are now competing with al qaeda for "least popular group in America." So of course, let's "fix" internet security.
They are also trying to "fix" talk radio. And don't even get me started about all the "fixing" they are doing to immigration. (Apparently under the new plan, members of the Nazi party can seek reparations.)
I wish they'd just build there bridge to nowhere, and leave people alone.

Wisdom Gained

PastorUAC — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:13:00 GMT

Paul Beisel is usually my hero. But for as cynical as he can be, he recently exhibited a stunning naiveté regarding the workings of LCMS-inc. (More on that later) It was actually kind of cute.

He claimed to lose his innocence. He didn’t. To be innocent is to be free from guilt. To be naïve is to be ignorant of sin. What then of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? What sort of knowledge did it give? An experiential knowledge. According to our creation, humanity didn’t even understand what evil was. It was only by engaging in sin that we were able to have a knowledge of what sin is. But knowledge is not of itself sinful. It is the experience that generally goes along with sin which ruins innocence. (Do you “know” what it means to be drunk? Or to lust? etc.)

Scripture tells us to be innocent in our action, but not naïve in understanding the world.

Paul, you are still innocent in your actions, and in this way, still a babe in regards to evil. But you are now less naïve in regard to this same evil. In that sense, this is a good thing.

Advice on Credit Cards II

PastorUAC — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 07:39:17 GMT

Get a Citibank card. I have never had any problems with them. They are helpful, solve problems, are understanding if you have trouble, and have some of the lowest interest rates around.

Do not assume that because you get a credit card through a “fraternal organization” that you are working with that organization. They may outsource to a company that, to put the best construction on things, wants to make sure they give every customer all the attention they need by getting rid of excess customers. They just didn’t seem to want us as customers. This isn’t good. And now, when I see the name of this fraternal organization I think of the credit card company that didn’t want us. I sent an e-mail to this fraternal organization, and despite promises of a response in “48 business hours” it has now been three weeks with no answer.

Ironically, my wife is on the board of the local chapter of this fraternal organization. It was her credit card. Not the way to treat board members.

Yes! Yes! Yes! On Second Thought, Never Mind

PastorUAC — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:10:00 GMT

I have noticed a trend in our synod, regarding just about every doctrine we hold. We say, “Yes, Yes, Yes! A thousand times yes!” until someone actually suggests we do what we believe. Then we all hurumph and claim, “We don’t want to bind consciences.”

Weekly celebration of the Sacrament, the practice of Confession and Absolution, Using “Doctrinally pure hymnbooks”, etc. We say, “Yes, that is the way it should be.” But any resolution that would actually do more than simply “encourage” it in the vaguest possible language and the author is likely to be charged with legalism.

Our confessions state quite clearly that we observe the practice of not admitting someone to the sacrament of the altar until they are “Examined and absolved.” In the context in which it was written, this is obviously a reference to the historic practice (as taught in the catechism) of going to the pastor privately and confessing sins, in order that one might receive the absolution.

Now, whether I like the idea of forcing people to come to confess and be absolved or not, our confessions state quite clearly that, if someone is to be admitted to the fellowship of the altar, they are to confess and be absolved. But when you mention it to other pastors, they get that, “Gee, not in my neighborhood” look on their faces, and say “But aren’t you commanding something that is supposed to be Gospel?” No more so than you are when you tell someone they have to go to church and receive the sacrament or they are going to be removed from membership. No more than you are when you insist that a parent baptize their child, or they are despising the Gospel and will be excommunicated.

Yes, the Gospel is free. But pastors that encourage their people to despise the Gospel, are acting like hirelings. And so a resolution at a pastors conference that would “encourage” private absolution, not by simply saying, “Ahh sucks, it’s so good why not try it...” but by actually asking pastors what they are doing to encourage it in their parishes, by compiling statistics that outlines its use, and that reports those in a general way, in order to help the District President provide resources for pastor to help teach their people the value in this - and to help teach pastors the value of it as well - is voted down as “binding consciences.” Well, we all agree it is a good thing, but we don’t want to bind consciences.

That’s why our synod has churches that use invented creeds, instead of creeds that confess the faith, churches that have never heard of the liturgy, churches that practice open communion, churches that have women preachers (but don’t worry, thy aren’t ordained), that teach the earth was not created in six days, Jesus wasn’t born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, there is no bodily resurrection, etc. Because we wouldn’t want to “bind consciences.”

When we stand before the altar of God and vow to conduct our ministry in accord with Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, we do not bind consciences. We bind ourselves to these God-given statements of what we believe teach and confess. And if we don’t act according to them, and actively encourage others to do the same, then we are not “freeing consciences”, we are violating them.

Adiaphorism

PastorUAC — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:07:00 GMT

Adiophorists (sounds better than libertines) go on and on about “Christian liberty” as if they are free to do anything. (As an extreme example I once suggested to a congregation - not the congregation I serve - that because scripture doesn’t specifically forbid it, perhaps we should have pastors go to strip clubs and sit around handing out pamphlets. They thought it was a good idea. Obviously my wife was not so much in favor. I didn’t suggest that pastors should frequent prostitutes and pay them for their time to hear the Gospel. Not sure how they would have responded to that one, but I’m pretty sure I know what my wife would say.)

This libertinism usually manifests itself in the liturgy. This inability to defend the historic liturgy, even though our confessions “religiously defend” it, has left us open to attacks of sectarianism from those who have left the fold for the greener pastures of Rome and Constantinople (they don’t realize that the grass over there has just been painted on - it doesn’t exist. The sometimes withering grass of Missouri is still better than the green painted dirt of the heretic bodies).

Anyway, my point is this : Those who prattle on about “freedom” as if they were in a Mel ~~Brooks~~ Gibson movie clearly have not actually read FC X on adiaphora. This article is quite clearly about those things which - though neither commanded nor prohibited - have become so because of our opponents, and are therefore no longer free. So we are not free to change the liturgy because we think it is cool, especially when the Baptists say, “The only way you can grow is to adapt to the bankrupt culture which surrounds you.” (Which they do say) The only confessional response we can give to that is “Perhaps, all things being equal we might have been able to change the liturgy (not likely, see UAC XXIV) but because you now cast doubt on the efficacy of the word of God to accomplish God’s will without human intervention, we can not change one jot or tittle.” We use that same argument against them in the matter of immersion baptism - which is odd, because they already reject our baptismal practice because we baptize infants. Yet, in “Christian liberty” we are bound to baptize in a manner which they reject, so that they can see that our liberty will not be curtailed by them. Similarly, if the Roman church were to say, “You must not have walk-in baptisteries” then we would have to turn around and build them, simply to show the errorists that we are free to do just that - and in that freedom are now bound to use them.

So when someone says, “If you want your church to grow, you have to ditch the liturgy” - which liturgy we “religiously defend”, we must therefore say, “Now I will not change one note, one word, one syllable, and you will see that, in my freedom, now forced to do what you denounce, God will still accomplish his will.

Convention Resolutions

PastorUAC — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:04:00 GMT

I have been loathe to talk about the upcoming synodical convention, as I generally agree with the assessment of Gregory Nazianzus regarding such gatherings. But there are a couple of points that should be made.

1) There are several resolutions that would change the bylaws to make them conform to CCM rulings. I am unclear why this is necessary, since the CCM simply interpreted the bylaws. Why do we need to change the bylaws, if they have been interpreted, unless there is a need to validate that interpretation? And why the need to validate the interpretation, unless it is questionable? And if it is questionable, why not examine the matter more thoroughly, instead of just continually changing the bylaws to match what the CCM says the bylaws say? It makes me think that the bylaws don’t really say what they say they say.

2) One of the above mentioned changes would specifically exempt the LCMS from following the laws of the state of Missouri, if there was ever a conflict. (See Gottesblog for more) Now this is problematic for several reasons. Leaving aside the tremendous legal repercussions of such short-sighted stupidity, there is a significant doctrinal problem.

In the early church, the martyrs could always claim to be faithful to the emperor (even though they would not be heard.) No one could bring against them a charge of disobeying the law - except in the very narrow instance of offering the sacrifice. Back when I was raised, I was taught that we always follow the law whenever possible, even if it is inconvenient or disagreeable to us - even going out of our way to comply with laws that might not, strictly speaking, apply. (Schools seeking state accreditation, etc.) In this way, if we ever must disobey for doctrinal reasons, we can say, “Look at our actions, we have always obeyed everything in the law that we can. But this we can not obey. It will only be in this narrow instance that we will disobey, and we do it with great regret. But this thing we can not do. All other laws we are happy, yes, even eager to obey.”

If this passes, we will no longer be able to make such a claim. Should the religious climate in our nation turn cold, we only set up problems for pastors and congregations. The authorities can say, “Their governing documents declare them to be lawless.”

Lest we think it can never happen here, I would direct your attention to WWI, when suddenly, being a Lutheran was dangerous. Or perhaps you should look North, where it is all but illegal to say that homosexuality is wrong. Perhaps Europe would be an example, where “tolerance” of others means tolerance of all beliefs except Christian.

It is not too large a step from the freedom we enjoy to being put in prison for teaching the truth. This change to our synods governing documents is simply foolish. (To say nothing of it being against our own doctrine!)

That is my comment on the resolutions for the convention. I have one brief comment on elections, yet to come.

By the way, if anyone can find the quote from Gregory I am referencing above about despising gatherings of bishops, please post a comment. I have searched, but been unable to find it.

Take and Parade...

PastorUAC — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:03:00 GMT

Gottesblog has a post responding to Cyberstones post on Corpus Cristi. While I agree that more reverence for the Sacrament would be meet, right, and salutary in our churches and among our pastors (beginning with myself), the idea that Luther had a blind spot and so could not see the beauty of a Corpus Cristi procession is like saying that he had a blind spot, and so could not see the elegance of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

The abuse of the sacrament, and the reverence for the body and blood, apart from the context of “take eat” and “take drink” was one of the major beefs that the Evangelicals had with Rome. Luther called it an abomination. From the looks of the festival Pr. Eckhardt viewed, I would say that not enough time has passed for the CC festival to be rehabilitated in Germany. In areas in America where the procession is still practiced, I would also say that it is best left undone. In areas with a strong reformed influence, if the procession is left out, then perhaps the festival could be celebrated for the edification of the church.

But this idea that the CC festival (and procession) is really just misunderstood is bunk. Luther knew what was being done, and what is taught by that. That’s why he abolished it. The idea that this procession shows a real reverence for the sacrament is like saying that the Abomination of the Mass shows a real respect for prayer. No it doesn’t. It is an abomination. It was in Luther’s day, it is in our day. It will be, as long as the body of Christ in the Sacrament is torn asunder from the words “take eat”.

By the way, as for the “Divine favor” shining down on the parade, I prefer to think that the glare is there so that you can not gaze on the abomination.