Because people have commented on it, I felt the need to announce a change to the BJS homepage.
The “Flashback” feature was originally designed to bring some of our “oldie but goodie” posts to your attention periodically. Unfortunately for a year or so it’s been broken — one of the WordPress upgrades broke it; I didn’t notice it immediately, and by the time I noticed it it was too late to try to figure out which update broke it.
Anyway, I finally got fed up with it and researched the problem and am pleased to announce that it’s now fixed!
You will notice the 6th box down on the homepage has the Flashback graphic on the left side of it. Each time the homepage is replotted, 10 random posts are pulled from the “Flashback” category and cycle through that box. You can use the left/right buttons to go to a post you want if you see one you want to read more of.
You can also review all of our Flashback posts by clicking here or on the Flashback graphic to the left of the slider.
We would welcome recommendations for other posts that should be placed in this category .. since it has been non-functional for so long we haven’t even attempted to classify any new posts, and we didn’t do a complete survey of all our posts when we initially came up with the idea at our last redesign of the website. I’m sure we have many posts written since we first created this blog in June of 2008 that would welcome a reread. Of course, I’m sure there are some posts that we’d all rather forget about, but that the life of a blog.
Thanks for your attention, and a very blessed Reformation celebration to you!
P.s. sorry to all those who “complained” about it not working .. yes, I read your comments; I just couldn’t fit the time in to dig into the code to figure out what went wrong.
And .. for your enjoyment, here’s a duplicate of the flashback slider as seen on the homepage:
 |
Great Stuff Found on the Web — An Explanation of Closed CommunionThere has been lots of discussion on Pastor Scheer’s recent post .. one commentator pointed out this article by Pastor Paul McCain, which I thought should be brought to the attention of our readers. This is always a difficult subject, especially when you bring friends and family to church, and people need to hear it again and again. I see from a google search for the original document that it is used on quite a few church websites, but as I say we can never hear it enough. This article is extracted from Communion Fellowship by Paul T. McCain. A PDF of this document can be found here.
AN EXPLANATION OF CLOSED COMMUNION
At one time nearly all of the Lutheran church bodies in America (and indeed, most other Christian churches) practiced closed communion. Among Lutherans today only The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and a few other smaller Lutheran bodies retain this practice. In our church and others, only those persons who have been properly instructed in the meaning, use, and benefit of the Sacrament may receive the Sacrament. Practically speaking, this means that Holy Communion is offered only to those persons who are confirmed members in good standing of LCMS congregations and those church bodies in full pulpit and altar fellowship with us. It should be noted also that communion is not to be given to the unrepentant nor unbelievers. With this in mind it is to be understood that participation in Holy Communion is never a “right” to be “demanded” but rather a privilege which we receive with thanks and great joy. The pastor of the local congregation is responsible for deciding who is to receive communion and who may not receive communion at the congregation’s altar, by virtue of his office as a called and ordained servant of the Word. Missouri Synod Lutherans will not wish to receive communion at non-Missouri Synod Lutheran churches for the same reasons that members of other church bodies should not want to receive communion at a Missouri Synod congregation. Lutherans believe that Holy Communion is a sacrament-a very special gift from our Lord Jesus Christ. On the basis of Holy Scripture, we believe that Jesus Christ gives us his actual body and actual blood to eat and to drink, under the bread and wine, in this Sacrament. (See Mt 26:17ff; Mk 14:12ff; Lk 22:7ff; 1 Cor 11:23ff). We do not believe that the bread and wine are only symbols of Christ’s body and blood, or that they merely represent Christ’s body and blood. We take the Scriptures at face value and believe that the bread is the body of Christ and that the wine is the blood of Christ because Jesus said, “This is my body,” and “This is my blood.” We call this belief the doctrine of the Real Presence. We believe that when we receive the body and blood of Christ, under the bread and wine, God forgives our sins. This awareness causes us to be very careful in our celebration of the Sacrament. We know that those who do not discern the body of Christ in the Sacrament do so at their own risk. In other words, persons who are members of church bodies which do not confess the Real Presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper are better off not receiving it at our altar. In His Word, God says, “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27). The Sacrament of Holy Communion is not simply a personal, individual act. The celebration of Holy Communion is also a public act of confession. In other words, it testifies to our unity in the” teaching of the Apostles” (cf. Acts 2:42). When you receive the Sacrament at a church’s altar, you are giving public testimony that you agree with that church’s doctrinal position. This is why we believe, teach, and confess that Holy Communion is the highest expression of church fellowship. We believe that to agree about the Gospel is more than agreeing to some generalities concerning Jesus or the Bible. There is no such thing as a “generic” Christianity. When we commune together we testify to our agreement in the Gospel and all the articles of the Christian Faith. Holy Communion, in this sense, is a mark of confessing the Christian Faith. When we decline to give Holy Communion to persons not of our church body, we are not doing so because we think they are “bad people” or because they are “not Christians.” We practice a “closeness” at our communion rail because we sincerely believe that this is what the Word of God teaches and what God would have us do with his Son’s precious body and blood. Closed communion is not meant to be a judgmental practice, in the sense that we are condemning people. It is a practice which preserves and upholds the truth and power of the Sacrament. It is a practice which we Lutherans feel protects those who do not believe the same things as we do. It is a practice which recognizes that a person’s church membership does mean something. To belong to a church means to confess what that church believes and confesses. To commune at a church’s altar is the highest expression of confessing oneness with what that church teaches. A person must determine for oneself if what one’s church teaches is what the Word of God teaches. We respect each individual’s decision in this matter, but we cannot in good conscience create the impression that differences between churches are of no significance. Because the differences between churches concern the Gospel of our Savior Jesus Christ, we know that the differences are important and do matter. This is why we choose to practice closed communion, a practice which is found in the historic, orthodox Lutheran Church since the time of the Reformation and a practice which can be traced back to the very early years of the Christian church. We hope that our beliefs will be respected by those who differ with us. We certainly do not intend to offend anyone or do we wish to create ill-will and hurt feelings. Hopefully, this brief explanation will help you or someone else understand that our love for the Sacrament, and our love for the individual, are the motivations for our practice of closed communion. Hymns for the Book of Concord
The Augsburg Confession (AC) and Apology of the Augsburg Confession (Ap)
Formula of Concord (Epitome and Solid Declaration)
Justification is always the issue… Preaching
What we know about the Bible is that it all centers around Christ, who He is, and what He did. So practically, all teachings of Scripture tumble down if the Bible’s message about Christ’s reconciliation of the world to God and His justification for all people is not true. For one, how can a pastor forgive sins in Christ’s stead and pronounce with certainty the grace of God upon a sinner if he cannot see the sinner’s faith? If the pastor says to a sinner who inwardly does not have faith “I forgive you your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” does the pastor as a result lie or say something untrue? Of course not! If that were the case, then God would be a liar. Sure, the sinner does not personally receive by faith the forgiveness and will be ripe for destruction if he continues in his unbelief, but that does not make God a liar. Rather, it makes the unbeliever the liar. (Rom 3:3ff) If the pastor says to someone, “This promise is for you,” but he doesn’t believe, will the pastor then say, “Well, I guess it wasn’t for you!”? Of course not! This article of faith is not merely theological handy work; it is not merely unneeded elaboration. It is the very heart of the Gospel that Jesus mandated to be preached to all nations.
Here is what the Old Norwegian Lutheran Synod president Herman Amberg Preus (1874) had to say on this topic when a seminary professor was denying this teaching of Objective Justification:
This whole issue comes down to the preaching of the Gospel, that is, the preaching of the vicarious atonement for us, the objective redemption for us. This objective reality is proclaimed to us personally. Objective justification fills the Word with the assuring proclamation: “This redemption, this reconciliation, this justification, this forgiveness is for you; Christ is your righteousness.” At the end of his Pentecost sermon from Acts 2, Peter says, “Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38) Then Peter proclaims to them that this promise is “for you and your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself.” (Acts 2:39) Notice how Peter first calls them to repentance; he then immediately presents them with the gift of baptism and the Holy Spirit; then he says who this promise is for. The promise is for everyone, but Peter does not start with that. Rather, he first says, “This promise is for you and your children.” This is the implication of Objective Justification, namely a personal proclamation: “for you.” Preaching Objective Justification is not merely preaching the fact that Jesus died for the sins of all and rose again for the justification of all, then letting the people connect the dots. It is more direct than that.
God justified me. He justified me by faith on account of the justification already won for me by Christ (this is what propter Christum per fidem means), offered to me, given to me, and, inseparable from His Word, delivered to me personally by the Gospel for faith and through faith. (Rom 1:16-17) Adolf Koeberle makes this point that Paul saw no separation of God’s act of redemption and his mission to proclaim it. This is what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 :
Paul received it to deliver it and proclaim it “for you.” Again, Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5 that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and has given to us the Word of reconciliation.” God’s act of reconciling the world to Himself in Christ and His giving of the Word are perfectly united. Paul continues by uniting the office of the ministry to this Word of reconciliation. The office of the ministry cannot possibly be separated from the universal reconciliation that God accomplished for us in Christ. The primary task of the office of the ministry is to personally proclaim to people Objective Justification. And how is this done? It is done by preaching Christ for us. Objective Justification teaches not only who justifies but whom He justifies. For the sake of Christ’s obedient suffering and death, God justifies the ungodly (Rom 4:5). Objective Justification teaches to whom God gives this promise. As His Word proclaims, it is for all. Those who have faith receive it and are saved. Those who do not believe are condemned, and the wrath of God remains on them. Justification is always the issue in preaching, because that is what Christ has commanded His pastors to preach. When the pastor preaches that “Christ died for your sins, and He rose again for your justification,” he is preaching Objective Justification; he is preaching the Gospel. May we always remember the power of God’s Word, and from where this message gets its efficacy, namely the Vicarious Atonement. May we always take comfort in the certainty of the promise. We can have certainty in it; the Resurrection proves it!
Objective Justification and Rome
Now, Jackson also likes to point out what Preus wrote on page 72:
So Preus discusses here the distinction between procured and imputed righteousness. Jackson evidently does not see the procuring of Christ’s righteousness for all as part of Objective Justification. I suppose he is right that Quenstedt does not specifically say that God justified the world in Christ. Calov never used the term justification apart from faith. But this does not mean that they did not understand and teach the concept of Objective Justification. Preus gives a good explanation for the lack of outright Objective Justification language in the Lutheran Church Fathers. In his lecture notes, he writes (pg. 11):
Preus then goes on to show that Sebastian Schmidt confesses the concept of Objective Justification in his Romans commentary (Hamburg, 1704, pg. 350). Schmidt, in discussing Romans 5:18, finds a distinction between dikaioma and dikaiosis. The former is a justifying righteousness which came to all men; the latter, set in opposition to katakrima (act of condemnation), is “the very act of justification whereby God justifies us.” Preus also quotes Schmidt in Latin earlier in his notes (pg. 8): “Christ was given up for the sake of the sins of the whole world. In like manner he was risen for the sake of our justification, hic est of the whole world.” (Schmidt 328) Christ became the righteousness of all; His resurrection proves it. Jackson acts as if Preus had a huge breakthrough in his “Justification and Rome,” failing to realize that the Calov quote was in his lecture notes long before he wrote his essay; in these lecture notes he clearly confessed Objective Justification. If one believes Jackson that Robert Preus used this Calov quote in support of an apparent denial of Objective Justification, one would expect Preus to follow up this quote with such a denial. However, he instead shows the significance of what Calov is saying (“Justification and Rome” n74, pg. 131; c.f. Quenstedt Systema), showing that the Roman Catholics could not speak of forgiveness and righteousness as “objective realities which are offered in the Gospel.” For the Catholics, as opposed to the Lutherans, righteousness and forgiveness are only possibilities which become realities when one begins the process of justification/sanctification. The Gospel therefore is efficacious because it delivers that reality of righteousness and forgiveness already procured to all. Preus, then, demonstrates the reality of justification before faith, only that it is not imputed to me personally prior to faith. The only way one can conclude from “Justification and Rome” that Preus denied Objective Justification is if one reads it not in the context of his theological and scholarly life, but rather in light of one’s own presuppositions and reasoning. Why Biblical Inerrancy is Important — and Always Will Be
What was the issue in this intense church struggle? The doctrinal issue was expressed at the 1973 LCMS convention when it adopted Resolution 3-01, which included a resolved to accept “A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles” (hereafter “1973 Statement”) as the expression of “the Synod’s position on current doctrinal issues.” What was the result of this struggle within the LCMS? The standard reference work by E.T. & M.B. Bachmann, Lutheran Churches in the World: A Handbook (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989) states that by means of the departure of the Seminex faculty and the AELC, as well as the severing of fellowship with the ALC, the LCMS ’reclaimed its historic confessional stance on the doctrine of the authority of Scripture’ and reaffirmed its ban on the ordination of women to the pastoral office.(ibid., p. 607). “Biblical inerrancy” was the most contested idea and term in this struggle. Biblical inerrancy was affirmed absolutely, with plenary range and without qualification, in the 1973 Statement, which declared: We therefore believe, teach, and confess that since the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, they contain no errors or contradictions but that they are in all their parts and words the infallible truth. We hold that the opinion that Scripture contains errors is a violation of the sola scriptura, for it rests upon the acceptance of some norm or criterion of truth above the Scriptures. We recognize that there are apparent contradictions or discrepancies and problems which arise because of uncertainty over the original text. (see This We Believe: Selected Topics of Faith and Practice in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod[St Louis: The LCMS, n.d., p. 78]; also see online ). Conservative Protestants in the United States recognized that the struggle within the LCMS was similar to their own struggles. In 1978, four years after the “walk-out,” the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy adopted the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” (see Normal L. Geisler, Inerrancy [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979], 493-502; also see online ). The 1978 Chicago Statement has become a reference point for the definition of “biblical inerrancy” among conservative Protestants and Evangelicals. But then I have recently noticed—due to a number of books by Evangelical publishers, articles by Evangelical journals, and indications in Evangelical institutions–that the Chicago Statement and “biblical inerrancy” is being ignored, considered passé, even attacked. What does this mean? I cannot answer what this means for conservative Protestants and Evangelicals in America, since I do not participate in their conferences, conventions, or societies. But I can answer the question of what a rejection of “biblical inerrancy” means. It means that the Christian who attacks “biblical inerrancy” has uncritically accepted the arguments of Liberal Protestants; or maybe in some cases, has actually apostasized from the faith. I recognize that there are many laypeople in mainline and Evangelical churches who don’t affirm “biblical inerrancy” because they have never been taught it, or they don’t understand its significance. They affirm and believe in the saving faith as expressed in the three Christian creeds, and so for that reason are bona fide Christians. My concern is with all people who reject or attack “biblical inerrancy” when its meaning has been properly explained, e.g., in the 1973 Statement or the 1978 Chicago Statement. Such people are not bona fide Christians, but Liberals. I don’t mean “liberal” in the way it is commonly used as an adjective. I mean “Liberal” in the sense of a comprehensive philosophy of life that may include religious components. This is the definition of “Liberal” employed by Dr. Gary Dorrien, the Reinhold Niebuhr Professor of Social Ethics at Union Theological Seminary—New York and Professor of Religion at Columbia University. In his magisterial three-volume history of American Liberal Theology, Dorrien carefully defines the term “Liberal” in this way: Fundamentally [liberal theology] is the idea of a genuine Christianity not based on external authority. Liberal theology seeks to reinterpret the symbols of traditional Christianity in a way that creates a progressive religious alternative to atheistic rationalism and to theologies based on external authority (my emphases; see Gary Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology: Imagining Progressive Religion, 1805-1900 [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001], xxiii). Notice that Liberal theology is a third worldview, which Dorrien calls a “third way” between atheism and traditional Christianity (ibid., xxi). Liberal theology rejects external religious authority, i.e., it rejects the authority of the Pope, of Patriarchs, of creeds and confessions, of church councils, of church fathers, and especially of the Bible. In this respect, the 1973 Statement was absolutely brilliant when it declared: “We hold that the opinion that Scripture contains errors is a violation of the sola scriptura, for it rests upon the acceptance of some norm or criterion of truth above the Scriptures.” The norm or criterion of truth for Liberal theology is the internal authority of the religious-person’s own mind, informed by the preaching of the Liberal preacher and scholarship of the Liberal professor. So according to the Liberal perspective, whatever the religious-person finds offensive, or disagreeable, or contradictory, or problematic in the Bible must be an error and rejected by definition. The idea of “Biblical inerrancy” is thus not just an affirmation of the quality of the Bible, but is really a rejection of the fundamental principle of the Liberal worldview. Because of this historic-and-contemporary conflict in worldviews, i.e., between a Christian faith based on the external authority of Scriptures and the Liberal faith based on an internal authority, “Biblical inerrancy” has become the homoousion of the 20th and 21st centuries. It will never cease to be a dividing line, until the one worldview or the other collapses. Those Protestant churches which affirm the external authority of Scripture cannot abandon “Biblical inerrancy,” as explained either by the 1973 Statement (for Lutherans) or the 1978 Chicago Statement (for Evangelicals), without thereby actually adopting the Liberal religious worldview in whole or in part. And such a worldview is not Christian. The Challenges of Church Growth and Decline
Karla has a lot of common sense and is a good judgment of character. Till that point she had never heard a “church growth” speech. Her evaluation of the banquet on our way home that evening was something like, “Do you pastors have to listen to that sort of speech all the time? I don’t think he really knows what he’s talking about.” I had to agree. Everyone knows that the number of people who claim to be members of mainline churches in America is suffering a significant decline. Even more significant is the fact that the number of people who claim to be “Evangelical” is enjoying numerical growth. The Pew Research Center Religious Landscape Survey of 2007 found that these two general trends continue to hold true (see Religious Landscape Study, Chapter 1, pp. 17-18 here). The same survey reported that, among American Protestant denominations, the Missouri Synod is now among the top ten in membership and is ranked at #7 overall (see ibid., Chapter 1, p. 16). More to the point of that banquet speech twenty years ago: How are we Lutherans doing in retaining our children in our churches when they become adults? The same survey reported that the best faiths in the category of retention rate are the Hindus (84%), Jews (76%), Eastern Orthodox (73%), Mormons (70%), and Catholics (68%) (see ibid., Chapter 2, p. 30 here:.). Lutherans are among the top three Protestant Religious groups, when it comes to child-to-adult retention rates, with Baptists at 60%, Adventists at 59%, and Lutherans at 59% (see ibid., Chapter 2, p. 31). I think our LCMS dedication to children’s ministry, with parochial schools, high schools, Sunday School, and catechism class, has a lot to do with that, though I would like to see how we compare to the ELCA on that score. I think this should put at ease most fears that our grandchildren won’t have a Lutheran church to attend. After all, after twenty years, many of those grandchildren are already attending our churches. Still it is true that most congregations are faced with issues that are a result of decline in membership at their place. There are not as many volunteers to staff Sunday School, committees, guilds, and service groups as there used to be. Some congregations are eliminating an extra service on Sunday. Some congregations have had to close their school or form a multi-parish school. Some congregations have to “downsize” their staff. Some congregations have even closed permanently. All congregations are feeling the “pinch” due to the recession. What should we do about this decline? Blame the preacher? That is the natural response, I think. I have been reading: Durwood Dunn, Cades Cove: The Life and Death of a Southern Appalachian Community 1818-1937 (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1988). Chapter 4 is titled “Religion and the Churches,” and it tells the stories of the three congregations that were in Cades Cove, now part of Great Smoky Mountains National Park. These were a Methodist, Missionary Baptist, and Primitive Baptist church. One of my distant relatives was a vacancy preacher at the latter church before the Civil War, which is how I became interested in these churches. Dunn points out how the Primitive Baptist congregations had an independent-congregational polity. The tendency was to blame the preacher for any problem in the congregation; and the solution to that problem was always to fire the poor guy and find a new one. Since the preachers were illiterate, held other jobs, and were rarely paid, finding another illiterate guy who already had a paying job was not that difficult. Not surprisingly, with this sort of system, few preachers had a long tenure. Not surprisingly, the real root problems in the church and community were never addressed. Not surprisingly, Cades Cove and its churches remained a living stereotype of backwards illiterate “hillbillies” until the National Park service bought up the properties in 1937. What should we do about decline, where it exists in our congregations? Blame the lay leaders? That doesn’t do any good either. Pastors and lay leaders need to face their problems together. Our pastors who have an M.Div. degree–even the guys straight out of the seminary–have lots of knowledge that is useful to a congregation, not just about theology and the Bible. All our pastors have practical classes not only in worship and preaching, but also in evangelism, counseling, religious education, missions, administration, organizational management, and religious pluralism. They have also been taught how to analyze community situations in order to determine the best ways to minister and deliver the Gospel. Lay leaders have the advantage of knowing “the lay of the land” in a community. They have connections to community leaders and organizations. They know who is the best person or company to turn to for help or contracts. They know how communication actually works locally; and how the religious history of the community affects the work of their congregation. In addition to these critical matters of local wisdom, lay leaders also bring their talents and strengths to bear through volunteer service, work on boards, as officers, etc. We don’t need to “be more ecumenical, have women elders and lectors, have women pastors, and introduce contemporary worship” in order to hold our own, or even grow. Compared to our fellow Protestants we are already holding our own, and in fact, passing up other mainline churches in total membership! Could we be doing better? Of course. I think the biggest improvements that we could make at the present time is for: 1) pastors and lay leaders to stop blaming each other for problems in their congregation, and start working together on them; 2) congregations stop being so independent, or even hostile, to their fellow LCMS Lutherans, and start working together for their common good. An outward-focused congregation that works together to serve its own members, as well as non-members in the community, will always survive the hard-times and grow in the good times, because that is the sort of congregation that most people want to join. The Blessings of Weekly CommunionMy church has “forever” had communion every Sunday, but at alternate services. Early service for the 1st and 3rd Sundays, and late service for the 2nd and 4th Sundays. So people who wanted every-Sunday communion could do it by simply alternating which service they attend each week. I’m pleased that as of Easter Sunday 2011, we moved to communion in every Service. We spent a year working with the congregation talking about the change (We are Lutherans .. we don’t like change!), which included using CPH’s book, The Blessings of Weekly Communion. I can say that after several months, the congregation has fully accepted the practice and we are all enjoying the benefits of communion offered at every service. Here is the article written by our pastor from our April 2011 church newsletter; mailed out to all congregation members prior to the change. I thought it well written to describe the reasons for making the change, and perhaps useful for other congregations who are interested in moving towards every Sunday communion.
To appreciate the Sacrament of the Altar, and desire it regularly, you first have to understand what it is, and why Christ wants us to receive “often”. Far too many regular church-goers don’t understand. They think that they are doing God a service by coming to church. While they’re willing to do this for an hour or so each week, they’re unsure whether they want to commit to the longer Communion worship format each week. They feel like we are asking them to “up” their commitment to the Lord by asking them to stay in church twenty minutes longer every other Sunday morning or Wednesday evening. But attending church is not a service we perform for God’s benefit. It’s the other way around. God is doing us a far greater service when we come to church. For God has gifts that He wants to give to us in the divine service. Gifts found only in His Word and Sacraments. God’s reason for wanting you in worship is so that you can freely receive His gifts of forgiveness, life, and salvation. For worship is where God gives us these gifts in His Word and Sacraments. Long ago, Jesus Christ won forgiveness and peace with God for us by His cross. Then Jesus Christ gave us eternal victory over our enemies sin, death, and the devil by His resurrection. We call this good news — the Gospel. Christians gather weekly to hear this Gospel preached to us, and to receive this very same Gospel visibly, tangibly, and personally by receiving Christ’s body and blood. God wants to give us a double portion of His love and grace for us in Christ in worship centered on His preached Word and distributed Supper of forgiveness. As Christians we gather weekly in the confidence that Christ is present among us in His Word and Sacrament. For these, along with Holy Baptism, are the means of grace by which Christ has chosen to save us. Just as we come to church in order to hear about what Christ accomplished for us by His obedient suffering and death, so we come to receive with our lips that same Christ who comes to us in His own true body and blood. Like the sermon, the sacrament is the way that Christians shed their sins, receive God’s mercy and Christ’s forgiveness. Do we have to receive the Sacrament of the Altar weekly? Of course not. But should the church make the Lord’s Supper available for those who do desire it that frequently? Yes. When you realize that the Lord’s Supper is God’s gift to His people in Christ to strengthen faith, to forgive sinners, to turn hearts back to God, and to bring us Jesus — making it available every Sunday and every Wednesday really seems like a “no brainer”. Luther and the Lutherans after him thought so too. In our Lutheran Confessions, which all Lutheran Pastors and Congregations are sworn to uphold, we learn that during the Reformation Era and after, it was the practice of every Lutheran congregation to celebrate the Lord’s Supper at every service on every Sunday because of the extremely high importance that Lutherans have historically placed on the Gospel comfort that Holy Communion provides. The early Lutherans understood that as sinners Christians are constantly in need of what the Lord wants to give us in the Lord’s supper. It’s unfortunate that in the years following the Reformation that this church practice of offering the Sacrament of the Altar in every service faded away and was forgotten. Pietism and other spiritual movements within Christianity lessened the importance of the Lord’s Supper in the life of the Lutheran Church. When these lower views of the Sacrament became dominant, it lessened the frequency of a Christian’s desire to receive the Sacrament. People even became afraid of the Sacrament which God had intended only to bring abundant comfort and reassurance to believers. At this, the Lutheran Church’s lowest theological point, the Sacrament was only celebrated four times a year so that members did not run what they considered the great risk of receiving it unworthily. This happened as strict spiritual preparation for the Lord’s Supper became more important than the Gospel intent of the Lord’s Supper. Over time our Biblical understanding of the Lord’s Supper as Gospel, and the frequency of its use have made a comeback in Lutheran congregations. Most of the arguments against the practice of every Sunday, every service Communion are really not biblical objections at all, but rather utilitarian concerns such as: “Won’t it take too long?” Others will worry that it will take away from the specialness of the Lord’s Supper. However, we preach the Gospel every Sunday without any similar concern or objection. Others will fear that it will turn into a form of legalism by making members feel that they must come forward to the altar every time the Lord’s Supper is offered. However, we want it to be abundantly clear that our congregation is only making the Sacrament available to those who may desire it on a given Sunday, without making any judgments about those who will continue to prefer taking it less often. Finally, there are some logistic concerns that we need to work out. We are concerned that the service not run too long. We are also concerned with how to continue to fit in the children’s message. We ask for your love, your prayers, and your patience as we work through these details to get them right. I am thankful to serve a congregation in our more secular times which still recognizes the biblical importance of the Lord’s Supper and treasures its Gospel reassurance. I hope you are thankful to belong to such a church. God’s Steward of the Mysteries of God, Why Do Many Evangelicals Find It Difficult To Accept Infant Baptism?
During my past 9 years of pastoral ministry the discussion with Evangelicals that has resulted in the most confusion, tension, and conflict is most definitely the dialog over infant baptism. Otherwise stated, in my humble opinion there is nothing more offensive to our Evangelical brothers and sisters (those who believe that it is only proper to baptize those who are able to make a profession of faith) than the Lutheran view of infant baptism. Now, for you lifelong Lutherans you may find this hard to believe, how a precious gift from God can cause such strain, but it is true that it does. My wife and I have unfortunately lost friendships over ‘the infant baptism’ talk. Furthermore, at one point in time I too was very indifferent towards the sacraments and rather antagonistic towards those that boldly cherished them. But you may ask, “Why the offense? What could possibly be so threatening about sprinkling water on a cute and helpless baby?” In a previous article on Steadfast Lutherans titled, There Are Two Perspectives On Delayed And Legalistic Baptisms, I covered the basic confusion over the sacraments between many Lutherans and what I will call ‘Credobaptist’ Evangelicals. I stated,
While these confusions are very prevalent in conversations with Credobaptist Evangelicals and may cause conversational tension, there is something that is not mentioned in the previous paragraph, something that is much more offensive and something that repeatedly upsets the theology of Credobaptist Evangelicals. That something is infant baptism itself; it is the ‘infant’ part that causes tension. I believe that the reason for strain is due to infant baptism being the quintessential picture of divine monergism. Monergism, as you know, is completely contrary to any and all free will theologies, thus the reason why infant baptism is so difficult for many Credobaptist Evangelicals to accept. The most common criticism that I have heard against infant baptism is that it doesn’t allow for the baby to make a ‘decision’ for Christ or a ‘profession of faith.’ (At this point we could devote our time to show how the tenets of the Enlightenment have tainted this view of faith, but that can be saved for another time.) Many will protest that it is unjust to baptize a baby before the child can profess faith in Jesus and/or make a decision, therefore, one must wait until the baby reaches an older age. So, why would it be unjust to baptize a baby before they are able to make their decision? Generally speaking, it is unjust in credobaptist theology because infant baptism infringes upon, violates, and overthrows the doctrine of free will; it takes the child’s ‘choice’ in salvation away. To say that an baby is saved in infant baptism when no choice/decision/profession has been made comes across as extremely scandalous for theologies that embrace the doctrine of free will and it is very offensive towards the old Adam. The old Adam in all of us can’t stand monergism and he especially can’t stand the sacrament of infant baptism. The reason why, in infant baptism the old Adam has no room to play and exercise his supposed free will, but can only drown.
Advertently or inadvertently to guard the doctrine of free will, many Evangelical denominations and many Evangelical movements will postpone baptism until the child is able to make a choice. However, this rationale creates additional problems. How should one handle original sin and consider children when they sin between conception and their decision of faith? To counteract children’s sinful nature from conception until the time they make a decision of faith, an age of accountability status is developed, thus granting the child a period of grace. The age of accountability status embraces that children below a specific age who perish are not held responsible for their sins because they were incapable of understanding wrong from right and were unable to comprehend Jesus’ death on the cross. Furthermore, some Revivalistic and Pietistic traditions can also fall prey to this ideology. They will rightly baptize the child in the name of our Triune God, gifting the child faith and grace, but the baptism is only viewed as a grace that extends until the child can make a decision for Christ at a later point. At that point of decision, the decision then takes the place of the child’s baptism as the location of assurance. Both the Pietist’s view and the Evangelical’s view are ways that attempt to: protect free will theology and avoid the divine monergistic qualities of baptismal regeneration. So is infant baptism really that radical? One needs to keep in mind that infant baptism is not some rogue theology that is inconsistent with the rest of the scriptures. Take for example the miracles of Jesus. Individuals were not ‘mostly’ blind, but powerlessly blind from birth (e.g., Matthew 9). Individuals were not ‘kind of’ paralytic, but hopelessly and entirely paralyzed (e.g., Matthew 9). Individuals were not ‘partly’ leprous, but helplessly full of leprosy (e.g., Matthew 8). Individuals were not ‘almost’ dead, but dead-dead (e.g., John 11). These individuals are just like an infant, helpless. Yet in these miracles we see the power of the Word, a performative speech from Jesus, that speaks these miracles into existence. Jesus proclaims, “Let it be done to you! Stand up and walk! Be Cleansed! Come out!” The individuals, like an infant, contributed nothing to their healing. Just as the world was spoke into existence in Genesis, Christ spoke these healing miracles into existence. Furthermore, God’s word still speaks faith into existence today (e.g., Romans 10:17). The Word is performative; the Word works faith and this is even true with infants. As Lutherans we believe, teach, and confess that infant baptism does not work regeneration apart from faith (e.g., Mark 16:15-16, Romans 4:20-25). With that said, we also believe, teach, and confess that faith is not a product of the man’s intellect, or a result of mankind’s will, or conjured up by a person’s arousing feelings. Faith is a gift, a gift worked by the Holy Spirit through the Word (e.g., Romans 10:17, Ephesians 2:8). Thus, Luther rightly taught that the Word is in and with the water making baptism’s efficacy entirely dependent on the Gospel promises, promises that are connected with the water (e.g. 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 2:38). Otherwise stated, because the Gospel is attached to baptism, baptism is an effective means through which the Holy Spirit works faith and gives grace to infants, apart from any works of righteousness that they do or may do (e.g., Titus 3:5). As we converse with our dear Evangelical brothers and sisters on this subject, may we not forget that there is a silver lining. As we discuss infant baptism and its ramifications on free will theology may we boldly confess,
So why do many Evangelicals find it difficult to accept infant baptism? It is difficult for many to accept because it is bad news for the old Adam and presents a difficulty for decision/free will theology. In infant baptism faith cannot be misconstrued into an act of the free will—faith does not make baptism but receives its. With infant baptism salvation is most clearly seen as a gift of God descending to a helpless baby, rather than the old Adam using baptism as a token of his obedience. Alas, it is now very understandable why conversations on this subject will result in confusion, tension, and unfortunate conflict. Regardless of the possible blowback due to our Lutheran baptismal theology, may we graciously esteem our most excellent Baptism as our daily attire in which we walk constantly, that we may always be found in the faith, for infant baptism is not only the quintessential picture of divine monergism, but is divine monergism—rich life-giving water with the Word that works faith, delivers forgiveness of sins, rescues us from the jaws of death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation making us God’s own apart from any and all man-made contributions. In a very literally sense, via infant baptism, we do not wash ourselves but are washed by God. Praise be to God! May we and our Evangelical friends grow ever more appreciative of this great gift. PAX
Redeeming Holy Days from Pagan Lies: Christmas and SaturnaliaDid Christianity Steal the Date of Pagan Winter Solstice Celebrations? The Roman celebration discussed in this article is the multi-day festival of Saturnalia. The Mis-Use of Roman Sources: SaturnaliaIn these articles we have seen the texts from the early Christians that show their reasons why they calculated particular dates for the Incarnation and Birth of Christ. These dates were based on the Passover texts. Even their calculation for the dates of the Creation of the universe centered on the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ at the Passover. Saturnalia
Saturnalia is often talked about as if it were the same as Brumalia. And especially with reference to Christmas, these two occasions are also blended together with other hypothetical and real unrelated pagan festivals from various cultures. Here we are going to separate Saturnalia from Brumalia. The reason for this is simple, they are not the same thing. Though there are some ancient documents that speak about these two occasions as happening at the same general time of the year, there is considerable variation in the ancient texts as to when Saturnalia could actually be celebrated. Often the claims are that Saturnalia is the origin for Christmas caroling, gift giving, Christmas lights, and even the notion of celebrating the birth of a particular child. What was Saturnalia?One of the problems in describing Saturnalia is that there is no single ancient Roman document that describes the festival fully. The closest and fullest description comes from the 5th century A.D. by the hand of Macrobius in his work titled Saturnalia. Of course, by the 5th century the dates for the Christmas celebration had long been established. So, while the modern claim that Christmas had been moved to December 25th in order to suppress or “baptize” the Saturnalia celebration is without any merit, there are these other aspects of the Saturnalia celebration that modern Christmas revisionists claim the Church stole from the pagan festival. Saturnalia was a festival dedicated to honoring the pagan god Saturn. In Greece the name of Saturn was Kronos. Very often there are claims that the festival involved the celebration of a special birth. T.C. Schmidt has posted extensive quotations from Macrobius’ (5th Century AD) book titled Saturnalia. The quotations concern the nature and origin and history of the festival of Saturnalia. From the quotations of Macrobius it becomes apparent that the Romans did not have consistent stories about the origin or the dating of the festival. Macrobius outlined four different traditions for the origin:
Macrobius recorded these four variants on the origin of the festival, but none of them had to do with the birth of a child or the celebration of an infant. Notice that #3 lists the tradition of using candles and gift giving. #4 brings in feasts and master/slave role reversal. The implication in the modern revisionists is that Christianity is so un-original:
No, they say, Christians must have imitated these things from the Saturnalia festival. When Was Saturnalia?Macrobius wrote in Book 1 chapter 10 [23-24] of his Saturnalia:
In the paragraphs preceding this quotation Macrobius lists sources, quotations, and dates for the various claims about when the Saturnalia was celebrated and for how long. T.C. Schmidt posted the entire chapter and put the date information in bold print so that the reader can see uncertainty of dates associated with this celebration. The text follows: Saturnalia 1.10.1-23 [again, T.C. Schmid’s transcription of the Davies translation (1969)]
Schmidt comments:
The information from Macrobius is the most thorough. None of the more ancient sources contradict him. In fact, what we have of the ancient sources that speak of dates merely confirm what Macrobius wrote. Based on Macrobius as well as other ancient Roman sources, the date of Christmas has nothing to do with the dating of Saturnalia. [This is an updated and expanded version of my original article on Saturnalia] What to do in the congregation concerning the LCMS?
So what can be done locally in the parish? There will be some to suggest the political avenue: candidates, elections, resolutions, memorials, etc. This is fine, but it is not the congregational answer. It is also the answer which continues to show limited success since the system itself is starting to get in the way of faithful church practices. I would suggest bringing the issues of the LCMS into your parish in the form of special Bible Studies. A few months ago I began this in my parish. Do we talk the dirt of the LCMS? No. We have gone through the Constitution, which allowed for plenty of teaching of our theology, what it means, and what it looks like. Have we discussed aberrations and violations of the Constitution (like the clause about exclusive use of doctrinally pure hymnals?), yes, but the tone of the studies does not have to be “rainy day”. There are some really good things to teach about when you teach about the LCMS. Our history, our theology, our practices all come up. Face it, the laity are not ignorant on these things. They travel, they have family in the LCMS in other places. They see the mess and experience it firsthand. They can sense the dissonance when publications like the Lutheran Witness teach good stuff while other publications from RSOs teach other stuff. They can sense that something just doesn’t quite fit. One of the most helpful things in the discussion has been the ACELC study documents. They point out some of the issues certainly, but they also collect the Scriptures, the Confessions, and stances of the LCMS on these issues. It is a great repository of our confessional teaching that relates the teachings to our practices. They teach what we have believed and still believe. The ACELC video “If not now, when?” is also helpful as an overview of the ten issues the ACELC has identified to address. One thing that I have remembered to remind the people of through this is that our Lord Jesus Christ is ascended to the right hand of the God the Father Almighty. This has meaning as we look at the Church on earth. He who was crucified but is risen also now rules over all things for the good of the baptized. It is easy to get wrapped up and bound up into Synodical intrigue and the mess of ecclesiastical unsupervision that goes on, but that often leads to the temptation to despair. Despairing in Christ is no good at all. Despairing of your trust in princes is good (even ones who wear collars and claim churchly office), for Christ is still Lord of His Church (this is a Lutheran belief, if you want to trust a man, try the papists). Pastors – take the extra time to teach more. Teach the few who will come. Teach the many. In season and out of season. Laity – take advantage of the time to be taught. Show up. Listen. Ask Questions. Lutheran teachings are still treasures for the soul. One warning I would issue – in your teaching make sure to not overstress the issues at hand. From seminex we got a whole bunch of folks who believed that THE Lutheran distinctive was an “inspired, inerrant” Bible. While we believe this, it is not the center of what we confess. From this overemphasis, there were some who used that as a litmus test for joining churches and found fellowship with churches like the Assemblies of God possible. A contemporary example would be overemphasizing liturgy to the point that people think Eastern Orthodoxy is a good option. So have your studies. Talk it out. Teach. Learn. Pray. Encourage. Warn. Rebuke. These are good things. And whatever happens, know that Jesus Christ is Lord. The Evangelical Lutheran Church still gets its life from Him. The Call Process Primer Calling a new pastor is a great and glorious occasion. It can however be a hard time as well. Your congregation is going through a lot of things after losing its pastor. There is grief in many situations at his departure. There may be some who are glad. To make matters worse everyone seems to get an opinion on what should happen next. The following are some general thoughts/opinions/suggestions/clarifications about the Call Process. First of all, you will want to be familiar with your congregation’s constitution and bylaws to see the procedure that needs to be followed. It may be very specific, but could also be generic. Whichever it is, you will want to follow it to the letter. Your District President will likely want to be involved in the process. The call process is your congregation’s call process. It is not the District President’s process. Follow your Constitution and Bylaws. The Call List normally involves the input/counsel of the District President (and normally it should), but it does not always have to. Here is the exact section of the LCMS Bylaws which spells out the congregation’s responsibility and also District’s in regards to calls (District Bylaws cannot contradict these). Please note the only requirements are that you seek counsel of your District President (2.5.1) [the exact definition of “counsel” is not known] and that you call a man who is on the clergy roster of the LCMS (2.5.2) or follow the appropriate call process for calling from the seminaries. That is the congregation’s responsibility to follow for its continued membership in the LCMS. Anything else is recommendation or advice only.
There are really two directions which a call can go out to – the field and the seminary. The process changes based upon which type of call you want to pursue. Calling from the seminary involves an application for a candidate (a man ready to be ordained) and follows the bylaws involving the seminary and the Council of Presidents placement procedures. Calling from the field will follow more of what I describe below with nominations, sorting through the mix, and finally calling. Calling from the field indicates that the man you want to call is already ordained and on the roster (Minister of Religion – Ordained [we use IRS language]) of the LCMS. This man could already serve a congregation or could be on what is called “candidate” status. Much has been written on Candidate (formerly CRM) status, but to put it simply – a “Candidate” who is already ordained is a man ready and willing to serve an LCMS congregation. The rhetoric used about “damaged goods” or whatever about a Candidate is a violation of the 8th Commandment and should be rebuked. There are many reasons men may end up as candidates, but their official LCMS status says they are ready, able, and willing to be actively serving congregations as pastors. If such a man was unfit for the ministry he would be removed from the roster (which is the job of the District Presidents). There are different things which may be brought up in the way of counsel from District Presidents. These things are I believe brought up with the best of intentions, but may not serve the best interest of the congregation – getting a regular, faithful pastor sooner rather than later. Also, they tend to increase the length of pastoral vacancies (and in general the shorter the vacancy the better). Things like Intentional Interim Ministers might be brought up. In my opinion they are not a good option because of the temporary nature of their call, which is rather muddy when considered against the lifelong nature of a Divine Call (here is a good presentation paper on the topic of Interim Ministry). If there is reason to try an interim, why not just call a pastor who can help and stay rather than a man who is there for a bit and then gone? Having a regular, faithful pastor is the best (and simplest) option for any congregational situation. Similarly there are numerous self-studies or inventories or surveys which can be done in the congregation. This may provide some information as to the condition of catechesis in the congregation, but not much more. In my opinion they delay the best thing for a congregation – a regular, faithful pastor serving among God’s people. Usually there is a time when the congregation takes nominations from its own members. This can be a very good thing. Some members may ask other pastors for input or names. They may be familiar with pastors from their travels. They may be familiar with pastors from the internet. The #1 quality you want in any pastor is faithfulness to the Scriptures and Lutheran Confessions. Sadly, in a Synodical situation such as ours, some research about candidates may be necessary. The internet can very helpful in seeing the kind of pastors that are faithful shepherd types. Do a search for each pastors name and read some of his writings (Google Tip — put quotes around his name to find the specific pastor if it is a common last name). These names may be submitted to the counsel of the District President (remember it is still the congregation’s call process) and often will make it onto the official Call List for the call committee and congregation to consider. If the District President removes names from the nominations it is permissible to ask why the names were removed (sometimes reasons may be that the pastor has just taken another call, sometimes it may be an arbitrary rule like a pastor has to serve 3 years in his first parish [an unwritten rule which by no means has to be followed if the congregation desires to call a rostered clergyman with less than 3 years parish experience]). If he adds names to the ones nominated it is permissible and a good suggestion to ask why the names were added (in my present parish situation, the District President added some excellent names that had not come up from the congregation). In the end, so long as the congregation follows their constitution and bylaws with regards to process, consults the District President and then calls a man who is on the clergy roster of the LCMS, they can call anyone. Remember, it is the congregation’s call process. Usually a formal Call List will be established with the help of the District President. When you start getting official information about pastors, each one will have two documents, one will be called a SET (Self-Evaluation Tool). This includes a number of questions and answers on hot topic issues in the LCMS (worship practices, closed communion stuff, women and men, etc.). These answers will vary greatly. Plain speech is good to read, but often answers are not so plain. Some pastors will fill every space with their beliefs/practices, some will be brief. Some specific, some generic. Some theological, some political. It can be a hard document to read, and even harder to read between the lines. An opinion on the SET – The SET is a sad piece of evidence to the diversity of beliefs and practices allowed in the LCMS. It should be unnecessary, but since there is such diversity, it is necessary to be able to try to ascertain the beliefs and practices of the man you want to call. See a blank SET form here (PDF). The second document is the PIF (Personal Information Form) which is usually completed by both the pastor and his own District President. This has more basic family and living situation information with some theological/practical commentary by the District President. The commentary (often in the form of rating) is usually on strengths and weaknesses of the pastor. There is also some commentary (rating) on worship and preaching. The commentary (rating) is very subjective to the individual District President’s own views of things (or possibly another District President’s view if it has not been updated), which can be helpful if you know that District President, less so if you don’t. The PIF comes from the candidate pastor’s District President, which of course may not be the same as your own. Some tips for dealing with the subjectivity of the ratings could include asking the District President how many times he has heard the pastor preach (sometimes they may not have heard a sermon but still have to give a rating), what his last sermon was like, what does he mean by rating him as “liturgically flexible”, etc. Clarifying questions like those can help get a sense for what the District President really means (after all, that way of rating things isn’t exactly fair to them either). In more recent years, interviewing has become another way to sort through the candidates for a call. Interviewing in my opinion should be unnecessary, but in such an environment of the LCMS today it may indeed be necessary. This and the SET (and section of commentary on the PIF) are things that testify against us and we should grieve over their need to be used. From these things and your requirements for the call process (from your congregation’s constitution and bylaws) the Call meetings should proceed. The best result for any Lutheran congregation is to extend a call to a faithful candidate and have him accept it and work to begin his new pastorate serving God’s baptized people in your congregation. Some things along this: After a congregation extends (or issues) a call after the appropriate procedure, that pastor will need to be notified and information will need to be sent (Call Paperwork, other information [the sky is the limit here, newspapers, school information, extra congregational information, Constitution and Bylaws, anything to help in the deliberation process]). The pastor will begin his deliberations of the call (using prayerful reason). If he serves a congregation already he will need to notify them (this can be a time of anxiety in his current congregation). It is also an anxious time in the pastor’s family (if he has one). In the era of facebook and so forth, it is best to keep the call private until it has been publicly announced to the congregation he currently serves. He may set a deadline to his deliberation, but he may not (there is no hard and fast rule). If he accepts the call, he will begin his transition to your congregation (wrapping up at his current congregation, moving, installation dates, etc.). If he doesn’t accept it (returns the call), your congregation will have to have another Call meeting to extend the call to another pastor. This process is one that is a great and glorious, although as you can tell it has any number of opportunities for sin and temptation as well. Work together as a congregation, knowing that the Lord God who sends out laborers into the harvest is going to send a man to serve Him in your congregation. Here are some other tips while this process is ongoing: Pray. Prayer is essential to the call process. God has commanded us to pray in all situations, and even better, He has promised to hear our prayers. We expect God to provide pastors for His flocks (having a pastor is a need of the baptized, God supplies our needs). We are tempted to become anxious or despair. Prayer teaches us who is in control. It is an exercise of faith and piety. It helps us guard against the evil one. Pray for your congregation, your future pastor, his family, his congregation (if he is currently serving), your District President and Circuit Visitor, your congregational leadership, your vacancy pastor and whoever else is involved in the process. Love each other. The call process can quickly bring up divisions in congregations. Love covers a multitude of sins. Forgive one another as God in Christ has forgiven you (see the Lord’s Prayer in the Small Catechism). Study the Scriptures. The Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy; Titus) are a great resource when thinking about pastors. The texts about the pastoral office are also a great read. Here are just a “few” that you will likely hear at an ordination (a pastor’s first call) or installation (at any pastor’s subsequent call): Matthew 5:13-16; Matthew 9:35-38; Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-18; Luke 22:24-30; Luke 44-49; John 10:11-16; John 20:21-23; John 21:15-17; Acts 20:28; Romans 10:14-17; 1 Corinthians 4:1-5; 1 Corinthians 11:23-25; 1 Corinthians 15:58; 2 Corinthians 3:4-9; 2 Corinthians 4:6-7; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; 2 Corinthians 10:17-18; Ephesians 4:11-12; Philippians 1:3-8; 1 Timothy 3:1-7; 1 Timothy 4:6-7; 1 Timothy 4:14-16; 2 Timothy 1:13-14; 2 Timothy 2:1-5; 2 Timothy 3:14-17; 2 Timothy 4:1-5; Titus 1:5-9; Hebrews 13:17; Hebrews 13:20-21; 1 Peter 5:2-4; Joshua 1:7-8; Psalm 20:1-2; Psalm 27:1, 14; Psalm 84:7-8; Isaiah 6:1-8; Isaiah 40:9-11; Isaiah 42:1-9; Isaiah 52:7-10; Jeremiah 1:4-9; Jeremiah 15:19-21; Ezekiel 33:7-9; Ezekiel 34:11-16; Daniel 12:3. Study the Catechism. Here two parts are very important (study it all – its very short and even the most “mature” Christians ought to study it regularly). The Fifth Chief part on the Office of the Keys and Confession (absolution) and the Table of Duties on Preachers and Hearers. Prepare yourselves to receive your new pastor. Yes, this means planning for helping with the move and settling in. Yes, this means congregational celebrations. Yes, this means being a big help to your pastor’s family wherever you can (in the ways they would receive help also in mind). Yes, this means helping your pastor get settled and encouraging him as he settles in (he will be going through a strange “bitter sweet” time as he has left people dear to him and is glad to be now serving you). Perhaps you would want to help him by having some of the congregation’s current traditions and practices written down so he can know those things that are free (for an article on this click here). The absolute best way to receive your pastor is to attend Church (including his installation) and Bible studies.
Best Practices for “Ministry”? Report from Rev. Brian Flamme
That sums up the official information. It’s no secret, however, that this has become a popular destination for members of the Missouri Synod who are “missionally” minded. Why not? The well-organized conference is teeming with professional speakers at every turn, helpful volunteers, and delicious cookies. But this place isn’t about the externals. Spiritual things are happening. Here a deeper understanding of “ministry” is cultivated and reinforced. It quickly becomes apparent that there is not one ministry. Ministries are everywhere and they potentially belong to anyone who has a heart for it. These ministries are the fundamental activity of the church. It’s an externally oriented movement that continually adapts to the world’s circumstances so it can draw outsiders into a visible assembly of people who experience God. This is the church. Ministries are what it does. Why? Because the world is in crisis, and church’s ministries are its last hope. How does this work? Outsiders are brought in through relationships which are initiated through these ministries. Whatever the method of outreach, it’s about making a personal connections with people in a dying world. Once they’re in the door, they have an opportunity to deepen and grow into a new, experience laden, relationship with God. Out in the Synod that they so love, there’s opposition from the “confessionals” who challenge the very biblical basis for such a model. But here at “Best Practices” they’ll find reprieve from the nagging attacks that ceaselessly spring from the lips of the doctrine lovers and orthodoxy hounds. Sure, doctrine is important, but not all that necessary to talk about, especially when it comes to practical things, like outreach and ministries. Here they’re empowered and equipped to return to their congregations with renewed zeal and vision. There’s advice form one worker to the next on how to implement the latest changes of governance to facilitate the pastor’s role as a leader. They’ll learn how to disciple their followers and cultivate them into leaders so they too can establish and operate various ministries. The laying on of hands is common. Prayers are offered. Applause often reverberates through the gymnasium after a powerfully moving message and prayer. If I recall, there were nearly 1500 attendees. The sheer number of like-minded church workers offered the consolation that they’re not alone. Far from it. They are vast. They might even be growing. The language and themes that permeated from one room to the next revolved around empowerment, equipping, affirmation, and discipleship. In Bill Woolsey’s plenary session on “Giving Away Authority and How that Blesses Leadership,” they learned that authority cannot be appealed to, it must instead be given away to equip others, like the younger millennials, for ministry. “Start new, reach new.” Right? What that might say about those who appeal to the authority of God’s Word and the confessions, I’m not sure, but it doesn’t sound good. I’m a typical Fort Wayne grad. I’ve drunk from the streams of our confessional theology and delight in orthodoxy which is Jesus’ doctrine. Thus, much of the conference’s language and argumentation eluded me. This is a problem because I’m often in conversation with fellow pastors who use this wildly different ecclesial vocabulary. Church and ministry simply do not mean the same things between us. But these languages are not two equally valid options for articulating the same thing. One rests on the foundation of Scripture and the confessions. The other you can find in business seminars and the self-help section of the bookstore. The laity need to know this. They have to know that leadership principles and tips on interpersonal relationships are not to be equated with the Gospel, the holy ministry, or faithful pastoral practice. I came and heckled with Twitter, if you can call tweeting heckling. I thought it would be good if both the pastors and laity saw that the permeating themes of the conference are not approved by everyone in the Synod. Far from it. The tweets didn’t last long. One of the organizers explained that my use of their hashtag was harmful. It necessarily tied the reputation of the conference to many and various opinions of the speakers. The thought is that the conference was free to just about anybody, anyone could come and present, so it’s not fair to tag the conference in direct connection with the teaching of its presenters. Thinking back on it, I could have stood my ground and argued that nobody owns hashtags. They’re a way to identify your comments in relation to a place or idea. Nevertheless, the damage had already been done. Feelings were hurt and the good vibes of solidarity and peace were shaken. Someone explained to me that the reason so many attendees were upset with my comments was because they were there to be “rejuvenated and renewed.” By calling attention to problems with the conference and its presenters, it made it hard for these church workers to relax. After thinking about this comment, I became incredibly sad. I realized that many of these church workers, pastors, and laity had been fed program after program to implement by these folks in the past, but with limited to no results. Who do you blame when you come up short? They beat themselves up and head back out to Phoenix. Then they hear about the new, statistically proven program that grows congregations, and the next popular movement that’s bringing the most people into the church. When they hear this, they’re invited to jump on to the cusp of the wave of relevance. They’re equipped with more tools, more visions, and PowerPoint after PowerPoint of diagrams that show them how everything they’ve been doing wrong and the new plan to fix it. This is bondage to the Law. Pastors especially, who have suffered under their congregations’ criticism and feel the pain of losing member after member to secular society, come here to reload the magic bullets that are supposed the solve the numbers and money problem. This inevitably leads to a desire to change their behaviors and attitudes, reworking their own personality to become a better leader. It will also mean reorganizing whoever they have left in the pews to do the work of ministry for them, probably because they’ve proven themselves insufficient in making enough personal relationships to grow the church. Either way, by coming back to this conference, their consciences are being soothed with a false hope, a hope found in the ingenuity and strength of men. These pastors and church workers need to hear that Satan is raging against them. That he’s snatching one member after another from their congregations. The church is going to be assaulted by new winds of false doctrine and the cleverly devised myths of culture. Yes, the Lord has promised that his Church shall endure (Matt. 16:18), but that doesn’t mean that she’ll not suffer. When our churches suffer from loss of any type, this is the time for examination and repentance. Under the glare of God’s Law we’ll see all our good intentions and efforts at outreach have been laced with pride and vanity from the start. Terror and sorrow are soon to follow for the person who does not harden himself against the truth. But now what? Where do we find help? Do we wander the path of the Law, by seeking out new programs and visions to implement? No. This is the time for the Gospel. These pastors need to hear that they have come up short, but that Jesus’ promise of mercy has not abandoned them. True rejuvenation begins with absolution found at an orthodox altar. Repentance, not restructuring, the Lord’s promises, not new programs are what’s needed. It’s only from this starting point that both pastors and laity can relearn both the identity and the purpose of the Christian church. Upon this rock of atonement, forgiveness, and grace, they’ll learn that the church is not a fluid movement that defined by leaders and followers. The church is a rock, a holy institution of Christ where there the ministry of Law and Gospel preaching never changes. Yes the circumstances in the world change, but the Jesus’ own instituting words are never abandoned for the sake of relevance. There’s more than ample opportunity to talk about edifying practices, but this is pure poison if Jesus’ doctrine and institutions are not retained. The pastor must find his consolation in the Gospel, the forgiveness of sins, not the newest path to success that he can implement through his own works. While many of these sectionals would be fine as a secular seminar on interpersonal communication and business advice, I’m afraid that their place in the church corrupts and changes the very language that should be used to describe and think about the body of Christ. Orthodoxy, after all, is a conformity of language, a familiar pattern of expressing the faith that would be recognizable to both Christ’s apostles who first preached the Scriptures and our Lutheran fathers who confessed them. The best practices were established by Jesus, his preaching and sacraments which impart forgiveness and life, and these never change.
Analysis: Contemporary vs. Traditional WorshipHere is a posting that we found on the Vocation in the Valley (yamabe.net) written by Brian Yamabe, one of the commentors on this site. (Vocation in the Valley has been a past Issues Etc blog of the week.) While the arguments put forth below may not convince someone with a contemporary mindset, it will give people with a confessional bend some issues to use in an attempt to retain traditional services at their church. Brian was a delegate to the CNH district convention, and has some insights on that he has posted to his blog.
Why Christians Make the Sign of the Holy Cross (and a word on genuflection)In The Small Catechism, Martin Luther encouraged Christians to retain the practice of making the sign of the cross. The Missouri Synod, following Luther’s advice, has encouraged Christians to continue making the sign
The three main variations of finger position are 1) to use two fingers (either index & middle or thumb and index) to indicate the two natures of Christ; 2) to bring the tip of the thumb, index, and middle finger together to signify the three persons of the Trinity; or 3) to extend the thumb, index, and middle finger while folding the ring and little finger back against the palm, thus indicating both the Holy Trinity and two natures of Christ (as seen in the mosaic to the right). The other consideration when making the sign of the cross is the question of which direction to make the motion. There is (almost) agreement regarding the first two steps, beginning at the forehead and then going down to the sternum (or navel, in the East). Then the question is whether to go from right to left, or from left to right. The right to left pattern appears to be the more ancient practice and is the method most commonly found in the Lutheran rubrics (it is also used by the Orthodox). Theologically, this follows from the biblical preference of right over left (sheep on the right, goats on the left [Matthew 25:33] and Jesus’ ascension to the right hand of the Father [Acts 5:31]). The left to right pattern is the dominant method in the Roman church and is a reminder that Jesus first descended into hell (as indicated by beginning with the left) before ascending to sit at the right hand of the Father. Enough about procedure. There are various points in the liturgy where the sign of the cross may be made. The placement of the cross at these locations is not haphazard, but rather has theological significance. Much more could be said about this than what follows, but here are some thoughts to get you going.
Making the sign of the cross, while certainly not required, can be a very helpful practice and carries with it a great deal of theological significance. It is a reminder that in all things, “we preach Christ crucified” (1 Cor 1:23) and that the Christian life is one of bearing the cross (Matthew 16:24). A Word on Bowing/Genuflecting: In Ceremony and Celebration, Paul H.D. Lang offers the following comments on bowing and genuflecting:
Christians have also sometimes bowed their heads whenever the name of Jesus is spoken and also when we speak of worship during the liturgy (“we worship Thee” in the Gloria in Excelsis and “is worshiped and glorified” in the Nicene Creed). Christians may also genuflect during the Gloria Patri (“Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit”, which appears both at the end of the Introit and Nunc Dimittis), and also while singing the words of the seraphim from Isaiah’s vision of God in the Temple in the Sanctus (Isaiah 6:1-3). As an expression of reverence, it is appropriate to bow when the Divine Name is spoken (which reminds us of the importance of keeping God’s Name holy and using it rightly; cf. the 1st Petition & 2nd Commandment). The Sanctus (see also #6, above), with its related ceremonies of genuflecting and crossing, is particularly appropriate at this point in the Service of the Sacrament, for like the seraphim and the crowds on Palm Sunday, we are also in the presence of God (cf. Isaiah 6 & Matthew 21). Christians have also bowed at the words “and became man” during the Nicene Creed. It is appropriate for us to bow as we confess the Incarnation, even as the magi fell down and worshiped the Incarnate Lord (Matthew 3:11). Luther, in his typically colorful fashion, relates the following story about genuflecting during the Creed:
The most profound genuflection occurs during consecration and distribution as an act of worship to the bodily presence of Christ with us in, with, and under the bread and the wine. Communicants typically bend both knees (double genuflect) when receiving the Sacrament. A helpful discussion of the relationship between genuflecting and theology of the Sacrament can be found over at Gottesdienst. Some Quotes for Discussion of AC XIV
XIV Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.
“…it is with those who are legitimately chosen and called by God through the church, therefore with the ministers to whom the use or administration of the ministry of the Word and the sacraments has been committed.”
…[I]t is the response of the Lutheran theologians to the charge that John Eck made in his 404 Propositions that the Lutherans denied the existence of the sacrament of orders, called it a figment of human invention, and asserted that any layman at all can consecrate churches, confirm children, and so on (Wilhelm Gussmann, D. Johann Ecks Vierhundertvier Artikel zum Reichstag von Augsburg 1530 [Kassel:Edmund Pillardy, 1930], nos.267 to 268, pp.134 and 177-78). The Lutheran response is that laymen are not admitted to the really crucial tasks of publicly and responsibly proclaiming the Gospel and of administering the sacraments.
How the congregation organizes itself, for this no prescriptions are given, just as there are none for how the church’s ministry is to be organized. The apostles came to recognize that it would be helpful for their ministry if they were relieved of the work of caring for the poor and attending to money matters. So the office of the deacons was created as an auxiliary office. But the church was the church already before this office was created. So the church can at any time create auxiliary offices to meet the needs of the time. Examples of this in the history of the church are the office of an episcopate, or superintendency, or any other offices, whatever they may be called. But all these offices have their right of existence only insofar as they serve the one great office of the preaching of the Gospel and the administering of the sacraments. A bishop may be entrusted with the task of seeing to the running of a great diocese. But the meaning of such an assignment can only consist in this, that he thereby gives room and support to the church’s ministry. His actual office is the office of pastor, also when he is a pastor for pastors. By human arrangement he may have the work of superintendency. By divine mandate he has solely the office of preaching the forgiveness and justification of sinners for Christ’s sake.
Light from Light — Pictures from the 2015 BJS ConferenceThanks to BJS reader Rick Techlin for posting this pictoral review of the BJS conference on his blog, Light from Light:
The Brothers Of John the Steadfast held their annual conference in Naperville, Illinois on February 20 & 21, 2015 A.D. It was an excellent conference with a lot of insightful presentations, good food, entertainment, and enjoyable fellowship. The Brothers of John the Steadfast is a group of mostly LCMS (Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod) laymen and pastors dedicated to promoting Confessional Lutheranism. The conference was held at Bethany Lutheran Church and School.
The theme of the 2015 conference was, “When Heterodoxy Hits Home.” All the pictures in this post are from that conference.
The first session was with Pastor Bryan Wolfmueller. His topic was: “The Obligation and Temptation of Dealing with False Teaching.”
One of the challenges of taking photos at this conference was the new candle holders that Bethany had installed down the center isle. I tried to incorporate them into the photos as best as I could.
Audio presentations from the 2015 Conference can be found on the Brothers of John the Steadfast website. Video of the conference can be found at this link: on the BJS website.
Bethany Lutheran’s unique stained glass windows can be seen in the background.
This stained glass window depicts God’s gift of Woman to Man. (God was depicted in the window above this one, and was the source of the yellow rays of light that blessed our original parents).
Pastor Rossow introduced the next speaker. Pastor Rossow was an excellent and gracious host.
The second speaker on Friday was Pastor Clint Poppe of the ACELC.
The topic of Pastor Poppe’s presentation was, “The Barking Dog Approach.” Dinner followed, and then there was the evening prayer.
In commemoration of the martyrdom of Saint Polycarp, the liturgical color for the evening prayer was red. On Friday evening, the Brothers of John the Steadfast gathered in private homes for the “No Pietists Allowed” parties. Then the next morning on Saturday was the “Manly Man’s Breakfast” at Bethany.
On Saturday morning, Pastor Joshua Scheer introduced the Reverend Larry Beane.
Pastor Beane’s presentation was entitled, “Doctrine And/Or Practice?” During his presentation, he maintained that the entire Book of Concord was descriptive.
Pastor Hans Fiene was the second speaker on Saturday. Pastor Fiene is the creator of The Lutheran Satire. He spoke about when satire is appropriate to use in defense of the faith.
The last speaker was Pastor Todd Wilken from Issues, Etc. Pastor Wilken spoke about our need for perspective, patience, and perseverance. Please go to the Brothers of John the Steadfast website, and check out all theaudio presentations from the 2015 conference. Or check out the videos of the conference by clicking here.
The Lord blesses his people when we gather to hear, discuss, and ponder his word and Sacrament. Thank you to all who were involved in making this an enjoyable conference. Thank you.
Additional PicturesClick here for additional pictures from the 2015 BJS Conference. Click here for additional pictures from all the previous BJS Conferences(2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, & 2013). God’s blessing to you. Some Clarifications in Articulating Objective JustificationFirst, Objective Justification and Subjective Justification are not two different justifications, but rather two parts of the act of Justification. My brother David has put it well: Objective Justification = God justifies the sinner [through faith]. Subjective Justification = [God justifies the sinner] through faith.
Objective Justification refers to the work of God in Christ as well as the proclamation of the gospel and administration of the sacraments. Subjective Justification refers to faith, which is created by that proclamation and receives the benefits. Subjective Justification does not refer to the administration of the means of grace. While it is true that when we speak of the application of the the accomplished act of Christ we certainly speak of faith, nevertheless the application of the righteousness of Christ in the means of grace as such is objective. God, in Christ, reconciles the world to himself… entrusting the word of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19). It is all one motion. This is why the pastor can pronounce absolution on a sinner even though he does not know for sure –outside of the sinner’s confession — if he truly has faith. Article three of the Formula of Concord lists the necessary parts of justification (SD III, 25): the grace of God, the merit of Christ, and faith, which receives the righteousness of Christ in the promise of the gospel. The grace of God, the merit of Christ, and the promise of the gospel are all part of Objective Justification. Faith receiving the righteousness of Christ refers to Subjective Justification. Obviously the means of grace are involved when we discuss Subjective Justification, since it is in them that faith receives the righteousness of Christ. Similarly, the plan and work of our redemption are discussed as well. After all, they are not two different justifications. However, when we speak of Objective Justification, we are not only speaking of what God did back then, but also what he declares today in the promise of the gospel. When we speak of Subjective Justification, we are speaking specifically of faith receiving what is objectively given. The discussion of Objective and Subjective Justification is simply a distinction within one act. God quenches our thirst. This is one act. Nevertheless, we can distinguish between God preparing the water and pouring it into our mouths on the one hand, and us receiving it in our mouths on the other. It doesn’t change the fact that it is one act. The fact that a sinner can know that he is justified through faith presupposes that the righteousness of Christ is accomplished for all sinners and offered to all sinners. Redeeming Holy Days from Pagan Lies-Easter 2This is a reposting of a pair of articles published last year on the origins of Easter and some Easter traditions. The sources are given so that the reader can better be able to debunk the popular “historical” nonsense about the origins of Easter. The whole series is available at Diatheke Christianity and Paganism. — Second Part: Attacks On The Name and Traditions There are three main things people attack about this Holy Day:
All of these claims are false. That’s not to say that the materialism of modern culture hasn’t obscured the meaning of Easter through focusing on treats and bunnies. But even though factual information about the tradition of eggs at Easter is plentiful, and even though the use of the hare/rabbit has long history in Christian iconography the propaganda efforts of the anti-Easter crowd and the Neopagans through all kinds of media has overcome the truth. And the lies have found a firm footing in the social awareness of contemporary society. Through venues like the History Channel, college courses, and popular news media the lies have become accepted as historical fact. The Name of the Holy Day: Easter As we have demonstrated in the previous article, the choosing of the date for Easter had nothing to do with pagan practices. The original dates chosen and the reasons for adjusting the methods of determining those dates always had to do with determining when the Biblical Passover should be observed so that the festival of the Resurrection could be observed without discord. While most languages adapt the word פסח Pesach “Passover” as the term for Easter/Passover, German and English adopted the local month name. The local month name was adopted very early, by the records it was adopted while Rome was still active. Alexander Hislop claimed:
Notice how clever the argument is? Sir Austen Henry Layard just published his first works on Nineveh in 1848, 1849, and 1853. And in 1853, Hislop, who knew nothing about cuneiform or ancient Babylonian languages concludes that since the Babylonian name “Ishtar” sounds like the English word “Easter” they must be the same! Just so that the argument can not be disproved, Hislop claims that the Druids brought Ishtar to England. This is handy, because the Druids didn’t write anything down. And those records about Druids by others don’t record any such migrations or Ishtar worship.
But there is a possibility: Perhaps the word Easter does come from some pagan goddess. Was There Actually a Pagan Goddess Easter, Eostre, Ostara? A search of all the ancient literature left by the Germanic, Celtic, English peoples and their ancestors combined with a search of all ancient literature about those peoples by their contemporaries up to the 8th century A.D. turns up nothing. There is nothing in any Edda, nothing in any history, nothing. And it is not for lack of written records about the religious practices and beliefs of those peoples through those years. Note this date, the 8th century A.D. This is when the first mention of a possible “goddess” is made. The date of the Easter festival had already been long established. The use of the term Easter or Ostern (German) had already been long established. The first mention of such a goddess comes from the Venerable Bede in his 725 A.D. De Temporum Ratione. Bede wrote:
English
It would seem that Bede, who is listing out the English names of the months in this chapter, confirms that there was a goddess named Eostre. But neither Eostre nor a goddess he mentions in the previous sentence, “Hrethra,” are found in any other literature from either earlier nor later. It is not unlikely that Bede was conjecturing about the origin of the names given that month names have been named after false gods in other cultures; e.g., July, and August, named after Julius and Augustus upon deification. We will see a little later that there is another possibility, especially considering that all of the other English month names were seasonal descriptions or events during those times. January=Giuli; Sun gets stronger February=Sol-monath, Cake baking March=Rhed-monath, Otherwise unknown goddess Hretha April=Eostur-monath, Otherwise unknown goddess Eostra May=Thrimylchi, Milk the cows three times a day Month June=Lida, Gentle July also=Lida, Gentle August=Vueod-monath, Month the tares/grasses September=Haleg-monath, Holy Month October=Vuinter-fylleth; Winter starting with the full moon Month. November=Blod-monath, Cattle slaughter month. December=Giul; Sun gets stronger Claims are often made by using fake quotations preportedly from Einhard (c. 775 – March 14, 840) in his work Vita Karola Magni 817 to 833 AD. Examples of fake quotations:
Both of these fake quotes are from the website easter-origins and are found repeated in dozens of websites. Here is Einhard’s actual full section 29 on Charlemagne:
All Einhard says is that Charles the Great chose to keep the Germanic month names. There is nothing here that speaks about a pagan goddess named Ostara or Eostra. There is one more name with the term Eostra in it from this general period. Eosterwine. (650 – 7 March 686) was the second Anglo-Saxon Abbot of Wearmouth in Northumbria (England). Note that in none of these documents is there anything about who Eostra might have been, what purpose she might have served, who her consorts might have been. All the evidence shows us is that the old English had a month with the name Eostra. It shows us that a well respected writer of the church thought that the month name had pagan roots. But that name, even if used for the feast of the Resurrection, was not chosen because the Passover meal was pagan or polluted by paganism. It would be just like non Pagans today using the word Thursday for the name of a weekday. No one heard any more about Eostra/Ostara for a thousand years. That should be repeated: NO ONE heard any more about Eostra/Ostara for a THOUSAND YEARS! It wasn’t until 1835 when Jacob Grimm began publishing his work on Teutonic Mythology that the name Eostra as a goddess was noticed again. Everything that we think we know about Eostra comes from Grimm. But notice how what Grimm says is conjecture:
After making what now would be rightly considered an illegitimate venture into etymology of the name Eostre, Grimm continues:
Remember what Grimm is working with. He has only Bede and Einhard. Just like you and I have. According to the second volume of his Teutonic Mythology, Grimm even associates the Easter egg with Eostra. Though, we shall see, that particularly Christian tradition predates any mention of Eostra by 500 years. Grimm wrote:
Again, notice the conjectural language, but also the confidence he seems to have about his notions. Everything else about this so called “ancient” goddess Eostra/Ostara has been made up since the late 1800s. And it has been made up out of nothing. Recently an historian has offered another suggestion. In his article Ostern. Geschichte eines Wortes [D. H. Green The Modern Language Review Vol. 96, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 247-249] Jürgen Udolph suggested that by exampled usages and historical linguistics believes that the goddess names Ostara and Eostre are false conclusions. Rather Udolph traces “Ostern / Easter” from a Nordic root ausa “to pour water,” which was proposed by Siegfried Gutenbrunner in 1966. In this way both the linguistic form of the word in Bede and Einhard along with the name Eostrewine can be maintained, the listing of seasons and seasonal tasks is maintained in Bede, there is no need to create a potential mythology. The implication is that the word Easter would actually etymologically derived from the main baptism service during Easter night. Before all Sacramental Christians get excited about this article, we need to remember that it too is an historical conjecture. But this conjecture seems to address the evidence as evidence and requires not fanciful and imaginative mythology to be created in support of it. On the use of Ostern as “Baptize” see also “Ostern”, in: Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, Volume 22, 2000. The Neopagans and Wiccans have made up all kinds of claims that the Easter holiday had to do with fertility and reproduction. They claim that Ashtorah was a reproductive goddess. There is no evidence in the Bible that the asherah poles and other references to Ashera or Ashtorah had anything to do with fertility. And there is nothing that links the Ashtorah of the Bible with the old Babylonian goddess Ishtar. Some modern archaeologists who try to show the evolution of religions in the middle-east have conjectured that ancient Ugaritic goddess named Athirat might be linked to the Bible’s Ashtorah even though many Ugaritic documents say otherwise. A few of these scholars also conjectured that this Ugaritic goddess might be the equivalent of Babylon’s Ishtar, but this is only conjecture. So where are we with real history for “Easter”? The word Easter comes either from the old Anglo-Saxon word meaning “to shine”-possibly to describe the months of the year when the sun began to get brighter and higher during the day. Or it may come from the word “to baptize” indicating the Baptisms which took place on Easter. In 1525 William Tyndale used the Middle-English word “ester” = “Easter” as a translation for Passover and the day of Christ’s Resurrection. The word had already been long used and understood as referring to the day of Christ’s Resurrection when Tyndale made his translation. Despite what some modern Pagans and Wiccans wish the past might have been, there were no known pagan or wiccan celebrations of a pagan-easter in England or northern Europe in the period from the Middle Ages through the Reformation and up to the late 1800s. So there are two modern myths that we have debunked: first, it is not true that the name of Easter came from the worship of a pagan spring goddess; second, it is not true that the Easter celebration was a celebration of fertility and reproduction. Easter EggsWhere did the Easter Egg come from? There are several traditions which converge to bring us the Easter egg. And there is some modern nonsense that really has nothing to do with the use of eggs at Easter.
First, there is a sculpture on the Persepolis of ancient Iran of a line of people bearing gifts on the New Year day celebration on the Spring equinox. One of the many different gifts carried by the people in this sculpture appears to be an egg. This was carved by the old pagan Zoroastrians from ancient Persia (modern Iran). From this sculpture modern Pagans have conjectured that Christians stole the idea of using eggs at Easter from the ancient Zoroastrians. The problem is that none of the writers in the ancient Christian church mention this tradition where they came into contact with Zoroastrians. Still, the modern Neopagans and Wiccans assert that the egg is an ancient sign of fertility. That seems as bright a claim as saying that water is wet. Of the traditions that actually do contribute to Christianity using eggs in the Easter celebration there are three to consider. First: In the celebration of the Passover meal, which Christ celebrated the night before He was crucified, a roasted whole egg is placed as one of six food items on the Passover plate. The egg, called Beitzah symbolizes the Passover sacrifice that was offered in the Temple in Jerusalem and was then eaten as part of the meal on Seder night. The egg was introduced to the Passover meal after the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. The egg was the first dish served at Jewish funerals in the time of Christ’s ministry on earth. The egg was also used as a symbol of mourning the loss of the Temple where the Passover Lamb was sacrificed. It is usually eaten dipped in salt water which symbolizes the bitter tears of the people. Early Christians in the first and second century continued to celebrate the Passover along with the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Primarily the Passover was celebrated because of Christ’s institution of the Lord’s Supper. Second: the season preceding Easter is called Lent. The season of Lent is a fast. In the article on Lent we saw how ancient this practice was and where it started. In both the eastern and western Church this meant fasting from meat and bird flesh–including eggs. Eggs were used to break the Lenten fast on Easter Morning. In preparation for this breaking of the fast the eggs were decorated to commemorate the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as the Paschal Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world. The breaking of the shell became a symbol of Christ’s rending of the tomb. Indeed, the use of decorated eggs to celebrate Christ’s resurrection on Easter morning is so widespread across the world and so closely tied with the spread of Christianity that one cannot call it anything but a Christian tradition. But that doesn’t keep the Neopagans and modern commentators from trying to claim that Christian’s “stole” this so-called “pagan” tradition. So we turn to the third tradition: The Easter HareThe typical image used to demonstrate that that the Easter Bunny was the consort of Ostara/Eostra is this:
As we have seen above, Ostara/Eostra didn’t really exist. And since she didn’t exist she couldn’t have had a bunny as a consort. But where do they get this ancient looking, archaeological type statue of Ostara and the Rabbit? The problem with the image is that it is of a Mayan goddess (Guatemalen Ixchel). This false goddess can only be dated back to the 1600s A.D. Wrong continent. Wrong hemisphere. Wrong epoch. All those websites, videos, and well meaning people who try to argue that Easter is pagan and use this picture to do so have a basic problem with honesty. There is an interesting doubling up of the Easter bunny with the fictional goddess Ostara. The modern ‘histories” of Easter tend to claim 1) that Easter was originally a pagan fertility holiday 2) of devotion to the goddess Ostara (Eastre, however spelled), 3) she used eggs as a symbol of fertility, and 4) she always carried a pet bunny because it was so fertile. Now, all of these 4 claims are fiction. So where did the bunny really come from? According to Karl Joseph Simrok’s 1855 book called Handbuch Der Deutschen Mythologie Mit Einschluss Der Nordischen, “The rabbit is a pagan symbol and has always been an emblem of fertility.” (page 551) The old 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia cites this as proof that Christians cannot use the rabbit in celebration of Easter. But I cannot find this sentence in my copy of Simrok’s book. Perhaps mine is a different edition. What is interesting about the rabbit or hare is that it has been used by all kinds of religions around the world as a symbol. Each religion fitting its own teaching on the symbol of the rabbit. But in most cases the symbol refers to new life. In the ancient eastern Church the rabbit was used on tombstones and as a symbol of Christ. One author points out that some early Christians viewed the rabbit’s hole as a symbol of the tomb of Christ. Probably the most complete and systematic study to date is actually Birgit Gehrisch’s Lepusculus Domini, Erotic Hare, Meister Lampe” Zur Rolle des Hasen in der Kulturgeschichte, Inaugural-Dissertaion zur Erlangun, VVB Laufersweiler Verlag, Wettenberg, Germany, 2005. Christian art has several examples from the early times through the renaissance of rabbits as a symbol of Christ. To name just a few The three hare window in Paderborn, Germany and also in the monastery Muottatal in Switzerland, where three rabbits are together in a triangle with only one ear each showing, symbolizing the Trinity,
There are actually dozens of examples like this one above scattered all across Europe and Asia. Martin Schongauer’s 1470 engraving The Temptation of Jesus has three by three rabbits at the feet of Jesus Christ. His student Albrecht Dürer’s woodcut of 1497 The Holy Family with the Three Hares showing two hares next to each other and the other going down toward a hole with a stone rolled next to it;
Hans Baldung Grien 1512-1516 painted the altar for the Freiburg Cathedral with the second panel representing Mary’s Visitation to Elizabeth where he painted the rabbits about the feet of Mary and Elizabeth;
Titan’s Madonna and Child with St. Catherine and a Rabbit which was painted in 1530.
America owes the use of the Easter Bunny to the Pennsylvania Deutch settlers who came from Alsace, a German and French area on the border between the two countries. Back in 1678 Georg Franck von Frankenau in 1682 wrote against the excessive eating of Easter eggs which parents would leave in the name of the Easter Hare–the Resurrected Christ. The people from this region settled in Pennsylvania and brought with them their symbolism and traditions surrounding the hare representing Christ, the egg representing the tomb, and Christ’s resurrection with the giving and breaking of eggs when the fast of Lent was ended on Easter Sunday. SummaryYes, Easter, the eggs, the bunny, all of them are still being perverted into something else by our own society. The devil, the world, and our own flesh don’t want to hear about Christ’s resurrection and will attack any symbols used to teach the resurrection. But now you know enough of the real history of Easter and the symbols used by the Christian Church to celebrate this holiday. |
The Lutheran practice of “closed communion” is often a thorny issue in our church. It is bound to cause problems when a member asks the pastor if a friend or loved one of another denomination may take communion and the pastor says no. It seems down-right rude! The reaction may be, “Who do you Lutherans think you are anyway! Are Lutherans better Christians than other people?” Unfortunately, the practice of closed communion is not very well understood. This leads to upset and frustration when the doctrine is put into practice. The best way to overcome these difficulties is with knowledge and understanding of what the practice of closed communion is really all about. It is important to understand first what Lutherans believe about communion, and then we can begin to understand the practice of closed communion.
The 
About a year ago one of my professors gave me the lecture notes of my grandfather, Robert Preus, from when he taught a course on Justification at St. Catharines back in the 80’s. According to Dr. Jackson, Preus was an adherent of Objective Justification at that time, but Jackson claims that he demonstrates in his essay “Justification and Rome” that he had a breakthrough and realized that this is not a Lutheran teaching. The lecture notes consist of twenty pages of quotes from the Lutheran Church Fathers on Justification, and most of these quotes are found in his “Justification and Rome.” One of the quotes comes from Abraham Calov’s Apodixis articulorum fidei (Lüneberg, 1684, p. 249), and Jackson cites this quote in Preus’ book as proof that he denied Objective Justification by the end of his life. Here is the quote (quoted in “Justification and Rome, 131, n74):
Forty years ago, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (hereafter LCMS) was in an uproar. Its Saint Louis seminary president, John Tietjen, was suspended in the January 20, 1974 meeting of the seminary’s Board of Control. On January 21st the majority of the seminary students declared a “moratorium” on classes and the majority of the faculty went on strike. This resulted in the well-known “walk-out” of most of the faculty and students on February 19th, viewed on broadcast television throughout the United States. Subsequently the majority of students and faculty formed the “Seminex” seminary, graduating its first class on May 24, 1974. Two years later, in December 1976, the “Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches” (AELC) was formed with 250 former LCMS congregations and with “Seminex” as its partner seminary and guiding light.
When my wife Karla and I were first married, over twenty years ago, I invited her to join me for the banquet at our annual LCMS district pastor’s conference. The food was great, but the banquet speaker was not. His topic was on “church growth,” how the Missouri Synod is in decline, and how if we don’t do something about it—like being more ecumenical, having women elders and lectors, having women pastors, and introducing contemporary worship—we won’t have a church to pass on to our grand kids.
So with the news of the LCMS inability to deal with one of its most flagrant dissenters since the 1970s, it is sure to be an issue that the people of God need to learn about. One of the best things about the seminex time was the increase in laity knowing the issues and the truth of the matter.
The “Best Practices for Ministry” description is brief on the convention 
of the cross, notably at a number of places during the Divine Service. Several of these are indicated in Lutheran Service Book by the 
symbol, though there are a number of places in the liturgy where Christians have crossed themselves that are not indicated in LSB (see #3, 5, 6, and 7, below). Before we look at why the cross may be made at these places, first a word on how to make the sign of the cross.
The practice of crossing one’s self is an ancient practice and is derived from such passages as Deuteronomy 6:8, Ezekiel 9:4, Revelation 7:3, 9:4, and 14:1. The practice of tracing the cross on objects and one’s body is discussed by such church fathers as 
The following tale is told about a coarse and brutal lout. While the words “And was made man” were being sung in church, he remained standing, neither genuflecting nor removing his hat. He showed no reverence, but just stood there like a clod. All the others dropped to their knees when the Nicene Creed was prayed and chanted devoutly. Then the devil stepped up to him and hit him so hard it made his head spin. He cursed him gruesomely and said: “May hell consume you! If God had become an angel like me and the congregation sang: ‘God was made an angel,’ I would bend not only to my knees but my whole body to the ground! And you vile human creature, you stand there like a stick or a stone. You hear that God did not become an angel but a man like you, and you just stand there like a stick of wood!
Here are some quotes when considering 
