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:
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,
Which way is the arrow aimed when it comes to the sacraments? What? In other words, are the sacraments something that we do toward God as a way of showing our obedience OR are the sacraments the way that God shows His commitment to us and gives grace to us? Are the sacraments things that we observe in response to hearing the Gospel (i.e. fruits of faith) OR are the sacraments ways that God responds to our sinfulness with the Gospel; are they a result of His compassion and pursuit of sinners? Do the sacraments belong in our discussions on man’s obedience OR do the sacraments belong in the discussion of God’s justifying grace? Who does the verb in the sacraments?”
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,
I frankly confess that, for myself, even if it could be, I should not want ‘free-will’ to be given to me, nor anything to be left in my own hands to enable me to endeavor after salvation; not merely because in face of so many dangers, and adversities, and assaults of devils, I could not stand my ground and hold fast my ‘free-will’; because, even were there no dangers, adversities, or devils, I should still be forced to labor with no guarantee of success, and to beat my fists at the air. If I lived and worked to all eternity, my conscience would never reach comfortable certainty as to how much it must do to satisfy God. Whatever work I had done, there would still be a nagging doubt as to whether it pleased God, or whether He required something more. The experience of all who seek righteousness by works proves that; and I learned it well enough myself over a period of many years, to my own great hurt. But now that God has taken my salvation out of the control of my own will, and put it under the control of His, and promised to save me, not according to my working or running, but according to His own grace and mercy, I have the comfortable certainty that He is also great and powerful, so that no devils or opposition can break Him or pluck me from Him.” (Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will)
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.
What I mention in this article is my opinion and thinking out loud. It was prompted by the Synod President’s comments after the same-sex marriage decision of the Supreme Court (see his interview with Issues Etc.). He stated that student loans may become a problem which would greatly affect the Concordia University System. Here is a way around it I offer as merely a starting idea (which would of course require all sorts of expertise to actually make happen). I know many people are tied to their colleges and they have served a good purpose in the past, but if we are looking at losing the whole system, it may behoove us to be forward-thinking enough to prepare to sustain something for the good of the church.
Time to disconnect from the government’s provisions (that money comes with strings attached, and we will see them very clearly in the future). This means likely that we could sustain only one University/Seminary on our own and keep it viable. The solution then is to sell off/rearrange/reallocate the Concordias.
The trick would be to pick which one to keep. An obvious suggestion would be Concordia Austin as it resides in a state that has shown itself more protective of religious freedom than others. Another probable situation would be the Fort Wayne campus, which has room to expand, but also has some stipulations that it reverts back to the original donor if Synod tries to close it down or sell it. (there would be financial gain from selling Austin). There are probably other properties with similar arrangements, but I don’t know of them.
The sell off would be interesting. We have a lot of premium property. There is a lot of money that could be raised for the support of the new single Concordia University and Seminary. This would still be in keeping with the purpose of the Concordias because the goal is to have one that is sustainable without government funding.
The rearrangement of staff could also be good. There have been problems reported from the Concordias in regards to teaching and the need for more Lutheran teachers. A consolidation of universities into one allows for the “cream of the crop” to become the new faculty. Imagine a theology faculty built from the best of the two seminaries and Concordias? Other departments would benefit as well from such a centralization. The result would be a quality Lutheran education taught by outstanding Lutheran teachers no matter what major.
The reallocation is the biggest question mark for me. No doubt, many gifts and endowments have been given to the various Concordias. How they all get moved to the new one is a legal matter I have no expertise over, but someone out there has it, and honestly the point of this article is to get people thinking about how to get “lean and mean” as a Church, starting with one of the areas that will likely be hit first.
Think of other possibilities. The headquarters for the LCMS could also be housed in this new campus, and the current corporate headquarters could be sold and its proceeds could help support the church’s work in the new place.
The changing landscape of American culture should stir us to forward thinking about how to prepare. If we wait to react on many of these kind of things, it will be too late.
This is all just ideas. The Synod Convention is an opportunity for some of these ideas (or others) to be brought forward to be acted on (even if study is necessary as a first step). Please feel free to comment with ideas about the Concordia Universities below.
Thanks 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 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.
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.
I had the opportunity to hear an excellent presentation this afternoon from a neighboring pastor (Rev. Shawn Kumm of Zion, Laramie) on Lutheran worship. One of the best points that he made was related to how worship is meant to prepare the Christian for death.
I have often found that all theology finds its best expression on the deathbed. It is there that Lutheran teachings become so distinct from others that one can really see the pure Gospel versus impure ones. What struck me about this worship leading to death thing is the difference between liturgical and “contemporary” services.
Liturgical worship seeks through repetition to not only give the gifts of God to the believer, sustaining his faith in the here and now and into the hereafter. It has an eternal perspective on things, which is reflected in its rich heritage. It is fitting for those at the beginning of life who cannot read and yet through the constant repetition can still learn, all those in between, and even those at the end of life who have lost their minds in relation to most things but still remember the things which they repeated each week in Church. Opposite to that, and lacking eternal focus, CoWo tends to feed an always changing “milk” at best (avoiding deeper concepts/teachings which may drive people away), with the goal of making all people feel comfortable and excited about what is going on (certainly striving so that they may never feel bored [where does boredom with God’s Word reside, in a worship form or in an undisciplined, Old Adam loving heart?]. CoWo does not teach the children, it does not help those who have lost their reason or senses. It is exclusive. There is not the repetition of the Scriptures as you find it in the liturgy, but instead a constant changing in order to keep relevant to the individual and the whims of the visitor (because if the visitor or age determines the worship, it will have to change). I often wonder if underlying these two very different things in worship isn’t the focus of God vs. man, the changeless from the always changing, the trustworthy and reliable vs. the unreliable.
There is another key – relevance. CoWo is meant to be relevant to the here and now, with forms that change and messages that pertain to “real life” here and now. Liturgical worship is meant to be relevant to the then, here, now, and even times to come. It prepares a soul to have a full library of texts, tunes, and prayers housed inside of it to be recalled at later times. These later times could include the deathbed, but also all those steps that we must take in this vale of tears to that point. One thing the pastor noted today was the question: “how many praise bands have you seen at the nursing home?”
Liturgical worship allows the Christian to be prepared to make his confession. The Words are familiar, ones which he has been taught and confessed before. CoWo forces the Christian to say words that he may not believe (or make the spot discernment to not confess something). Pastors who like to “tinker” with the liturgy, you may want to consider how your tinkering forces your sheep to confess things which they have had no prior warning that they would be confessing. Does such constant changing instill anything of value to your people? (other than catechizing them to grab onto the new, follow their emotions, and don’t dare to learn anything deeper or ancient)
Pastors who use CoWo, what is your pastoral care at the nursing home look like? Do you sing them the most popular and relevant songs of the day, or do you then and there return to the solid pattern of words that was taught by the hymnals which these saints have used for years? What will you do for those young ones now feeding off of constant change when they are experiencing your visit while they await death? What well can you possibly draw from when all you dug were puddles that changed as the seasons went by? What does your message sound like when talking to one undergoing great trial and tribulation? Is it there that you put aside the theology of glory and go back to the cross? In the end (of life that is) it seems that CoWo falls flat and actually shows a good amount of spiritual neglect in the scope of preparing souls to go to their Maker.
A passage comes to mind in this: 2 Timothy 3:1-7
But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.
I think many of those things in that passage could do with CoWo theology, but the one that I have really started to key into is the “always learning and never able to arrive at the knowledge of truth”. With all of the constant changes, there is always learning going on, but no one ever gets something solidly sunk in, so that when they approach death they can have such a vast deposit of knowledge to draw upon.
If you are a layperson under the influence of CoWo teachings, consider what will happen when your reason and senses start to go (after all you are dying too). What will remain of all the varied and many things that you have experienced? What will have been engrained into your mind as to remain when various ailments take the things which did not get reinforced in this life?
Below is a letter of resignation from a pastor in the LCMS. It came our way and we feel it is important news for our readers and a helpful warning for us all.
By publishing this letter we are not endorsing the action of this pastor. We do not claim to know all the ins and outs of this situation but we have experienced enough doctrinal foolishness in the LCMS to recognize a warning shot when we see one. We completely understand his frustration and can imagine all that he says to be the case with maybe one exception. This pastor says he found no confessional, brotherly support in the LCMS. That has not been our experience. Are there large pockets of little or no support? Yes, and Pastor VonMehren was apparently in one of those but there also larger pockets of great support and we hope that the posts on this website are proof of such.
We are glad to see this pastor not lay his frustration entirely at the doorstep of President Harrison, Like Pastor VanMehren we are pleased with the leadership and work of President Harrison. Thanks to President Harrison and his team good things are happening in the LCMS to restore purity of doctrine and faithfulness of practice. The pace may not be the same pace as you or I might pick. Some of us would want things to happen faster and some even more deliberately than the current pace but overall, we are being steered in a good direction.
So we submit for your edification and as a warning shot over the bow of the battleship Missouri the heartfelt and accurate letter of a frustrated, former LCMS pastor. May this letter further egg us on to uphold pure doctrine and faithful practice.
Pres. Matthew Harrison
Int’l Center, LC-MS
1333 South Kirkwood Rd.
St. Louis, MO 63122-7295
22 May, 2012
Dear President Harrison,
Hope all is well with your family, health and your service to Christ’s people. I write to inform you of a decision that I have been compelled to make by both circumstances and conscience, a decision that will bring delight to my current and past district presidents, as well as my current and past circuit counselors. I am moved to tender my resignation from the clergy roster of the LC-MS effective the date of this letter. As with the painful eventuality that many have the misfortune of experiencing, a divorce, the end of a slowly dying marriage, I grieve; not for what was, but for what should have been.
I have served in the LC-MS for 15 years and I have finally had enough of, on the one hand, the open heterodoxy in both word and practice that is not only tolerated, but promoted and encouraged in the LC-MS. On the other hand, I tire as well from being treated worse than a heathen infidel by those who deceitfully claim to be “servants of servants.”
I was recently forced to resign from a parish I served for 8 years, Emmaus Lutheran, Redmond, OR for no reasons. I was charged or accused of absolutely nothing, not a single reason was brought to my attention as to why I needed to resign. Even when directly asked, those responsible for this travesty would just shrug their shoulders and give no response. Yet, when it happened, my district “servant of servants”, with no reason given, no communication attempted or made, no letter, no phone call, no email, no contact whatsoever, put me under discipline effectively terminating my career.
The circuit meetings I have attended have been nothing but a shameful waste of time. Not only do the pastors not engage in any theology, casuistry or brotherly support or admonition, several seem to delight in nothing other than sheer buffoonery. I do not exclude the circuit counselors (“circuit clownselors”).
There still has been no indication that Missouri recognizes the public sin of Dr. Benke, nor that it ever will. Faithful pastor’s have no friends in Missouri. They and almost exclusively they take their career and Calling in hand caught between the all too frequent viciousness of goats in their own congregations and the lying hypocrisy of other “brothers” and their “servants of servants” in their district offices. It has been and is open warfare against faithful shepherds as those whose father is the devil work to subvert and destroy them.
The Holy Ghost indeed calls and gathers sinners into His Christian church. Unfortunately, they then begin industriously building their Towers of Babel a.k.a. institutions (synods). They then begin serving “the company” rather than Christ. All with the best of intentions of course. Missouri is the victim of her own “success.” Too many pastors have purchased their peace and retirements with obsequies service to “the company.” On the other hand, too many in the pew agree, eschewing any semblance of honor and respect for the Holy office and the catechesis that should be coming from it. Added to that is the aforementioned deceit and treachery of “ecclesiastical supervisors.” I suppose if monies to district came through and at the pleasure of pastors rather than congregations, there would be a sudden and drastic turn of affairs in the relations between pastors and district presidents. Then, all the “company men” would stand in gaping wonderment, declaring gleefully, “Look at what the Spirit did; the Spirit, O the spirit!” In the meantime, Missouri gladly ignites itself and would have gone down in flames had you not have had the God blessed faith, integrity and spine to put out the blaze.
I do thank God for you and what God has and is doing through you. Ever since the first Emmaus Conference you attended with the presidents of the WELS and ELS I have led my then congregation Emmaus in prayers every Sunday for all three of you. May God bring about a (what needs to be) massive upheaval of renewal and restoration within Missouri.
All of the sins and folly I have described herein that I have seen and experienced within Missouri appears to be starkly absent in the ELS which I am colloquizing into. Brothers are not shy of either supporting or admonishing one another; they actually do theology at their Winkles and act respectably. The Lutheran Confessions are actually known, believed and put into practice. There are no parasitic district offices and little to no “company” (at least as far as the local pastors and congregations are concerned) to lure men away from Christ and into the service of “the company”; they issue no grey flannel suits like Missouri does.
Again, to the delight of my district presidents, past and present, and my circuit counselors, past and present, I bid Missouri a sad but free adieu.
May god continue to forgive me my tongue which is all too often too sharp and for a faith that is all too often weak and insufficient with a patience that is at times entirely absent. May He also give to you and those working with you His continued blessing of strength, courage, integrity and health, both you and all your family’s. God’s blessing!
______________________
Pastor Randy VanMehren
Grace Lutheran Church
4125 SW Salmon Ave
Redmond, OR 97756
cc: Mr. Paul Linneman
Mr. Peter Pagel
Pastor Randall Ehrichs
Pastor Doulas Fountain
President John Moldstad
Pastor Steve Sparley
Pastor Glen Obenberger
Mr. Warren Schumacher
Mr. John Luther
I presented on this topic for the 3rd annual Wyoming District Men’s Retreat this past weekend. What follows are my thoughts which I expanded for the presentation. Sadly, the recording of this was lost due to technical errors.
Being a Man in the Church
2015 Wyoming District Men’s Retreat
Be at Church – The Divine Service as Priority in the Man of God’s Life
There are two reasons Christians go to church, Command and Promise. First the Command – Remember the Sabbath Day by Keeping it Holy. What does this mean? The Small Catechism links this to hearing preaching and learning the word of God. This has to do with attending Church, and really as the history of preaching unfolds, attending Bible Study as well. The average sermon used to be much longer, rivaling the length of modern Bible Study time (and in such times there wasn’t Bible Study), but in the past two centuries we have shortened sermons and added Bible Study as the time when more in depth teaching has occurred. This experiment has probably been for the worse as less people attend Bible Study than Divine Service. Preaching is God’s Word, and the Christian man loves to hear and learn the Word of God. It is God’s Will for you to be in Church and learning the Word of God.
The second reason for Christians to go to church is the Promise. This is language of the Gospel, for it is at church where you hear that word of Gospel (lookup Romans 10:5-17). You hear the absolution (lookup John 20:19-23). You are taught the very word of God (lookup Isaiah 55:6-11). That Word of the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation (lookup Romans 1:16-17). Besides this, the Divine Service is a reminder of your baptism (see every sign of the cross in the service, where was that sign first made over you?). This then can remind us of the promises of God concerning our baptism (Matthew 28; Mark 16; Romans 6; Titus 3; Ephesians 5 [how to be a good husband? More on that later]). The Divine Service is also the place for the reception of the Lord’s Supper (lookup Matthew 26; Mark 14; Luke 22; 1 Cor 14). Given and Shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. (How often? How often do you come to church with sins?) In fact, that is what everything in the Church ought to be ordered around – the forgiveness of sins (remember that as leaders). These promises of God should make the Christian man eager to come to church.
Based upon these two, the commandment and the promises of God, when is it acceptable to miss the Divine Service? How can we as men of God teach this to ourselves, our households, and our congregations?
Being an Example to Others
Phil. 3:12-21 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained.
Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.
SOME STATS ON MEN AND CHURCH… (Caveat about stats… and church growth/3rd Article of the Creed)
The typical U.S. Congregation draws an adult crowd that’s 61% female, 39% male. This gender gap shows up in all age categories.
On any given Sunday there are 13 million more adult women than men in America’s churches.
This Sunday almost 25 percent of married, churchgoing women will worship without their husbands.
Midweek activities often draw 70 to 80 percent female participants.
The majority of church employees are women (except for ordained clergy, who are overwhelmingly male).
Over 70 percent of the boys who are being raised in church will abandon it during their teens and twenties. Many of these boys will never return.
More than 90 percent of American men believe in God, and five out of six call themselves Christians. But only one out of six attend church on a given Sunday. The average man accepts the reality of Jesus Christ, but fails to see any value in going to church.
Churches overseas report gender gaps of up to 9 women for every adult man in attendance.
Christian universities are becoming convents. The typical Christian college in the U.S. enrolls almost 2 women for every 1 man.
Fewer than 10% of U.S. churches are able to establish or maintain a vibrant men’s ministry.
Church is good for men:
Churchgoers are more likely to be married and express a higher level of satisfaction with life. Church involvement is the most important predictor of marital stability and happiness. (NOTE ON BOTH SPOUSES IN THE SAME PEW EVERY SUNDAY AND DIVORCE)
Church involvement moves people out of poverty. Its also correlated with less depression, more self-esteem and greater family and marital happiness.
Religious participation leads men to become more engaged husbands and fathers.
Teens with religious fathers are more likely to say they enjoy spending time with dad and that they admire him.
And men are good for the church:
A study from Hartford Seminary found that the presence of involved men was statistically correlated with church growth, health, and harmony. Meanwhile, a lack of male participation is strongly associated with congregational decline.
– See more at: https://churchformen.com/men-and-church/where-are-the-men/
American Churches are in numerical decline. The youth are gone, and honestly so are many of the people 50 and under (the ones older are there but the Lord is working on taking them home). A man’s presence in church is a blessing to his own household, but also to the household of God. The most influential Sunday School teacher I ever had was a man. Men are examples, “heads” and that is just a created ordering of the world and also is a fact in the Church (whereas the rest of the body is present, the head receives attention). And the absence of men is also an example – a bad one for all those who are there at church (or not if you and your household are not at church). There is a great “traditioning” joy in being an example for imitation of good and godly virtues and practices (NOTE on being a man and confessing sin to others). Some of these virtues and practices include:
Being a man of prayer. Exemplify prayer before, during, and after the Divine Service. Take the time to pray for yourself, your household, and everyone whom God has gathered together for this service. Pray for your pastor, that he might serve faithfully in his conducting the liturgy, preaching, teaching, and administration of the Sacraments.
Singing the hymns. There is nothing that can beat the sound of men singing. Many pastors could regale many stories of hearing the seminary chapel filled with the sounds of men’s voices. There is something robust and courage inspiring in hearing men bolster out our excellent Lutheran hymns. Hymns are your confession of faith, they are a sacrifice of praise as well (in response to what God has done). Hymns teach. Not singing teaches also. Here, yes, people want to talk about not being able to sing – but singing is learned by doing it.
Exemplifying reverence. At Divine Service, you are in the very presence of God (NOTE: not the same way as in outdoors). This gracious God has promised through His Word that day (spoken through the man who hold His Divine Office) and His Sacraments (based upon His Words of Institution) to grant you the forgiveness of your sins, life, and everlasting salvation. This is the God who created the heavens and the earth. This is the God who controls all of history, directing it for the good of His Church (of which you are a part). This is the God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – a God whom we should fear, love, and trust in above all things. Reverence is expected in such a situation. What we wear at Divine Service, how we act, the motions and gestures we do all say something about what is going on there. These things are important in being an example.
The Example of the Catechism Man
The Catechism provides a good example of manhood. A baptized man of God knows the commandments, what they are, what they mean, what sins they show, what things they institute, what actions they command in relation to God and the neighbor. Obviously in relation to men in Church this includes the Third Commandment. It also means the Fourth Commandment (pastors are included in those “other authorities”). In the age of persecution and so forth, this may also include the Fifth Commandment and others (Seventh). It includes a knowledge of reputation (which men understand reputation well, but get confused as to the content of a Christian reputation). The Catechism Man fears God more than man. The Catechism Man knows the earthly gifts of God included in the First Article of the Creed and also in daily bread. He knows that because of all of this it is his duty to thank and praise, serve and obey God. The Catechism Man knows it is Christ Jesus who has saved him, and is concerned about the proper teaching of who Jesus is and what He has done, because that message is the one which saves. The Catechism Man realizes that the Church is the work of God, the Holy Spirit calling, gathering, etc. and that our entire congregational life (holy Christian Church, the communion of saints) ought to be ordered around the forgiveness of sins leading to the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting [This is the how the Holy Spirit works]. The Catechism Man prays. In private and in public (especially including at Church). He still regards himself as a child of God, even in old age. He listens and learns so that he can know how God’s name is kept holy among us, being taught in its truth and purity. He guards his conduct and fatherly/brotherly helps his brothers and sister in Christ to lead holy lives according to the Word. He knows that one day he will die and so prepares himself for it. He knows the pattern of the Baptized life, daily dying to sin and rising again to newness of life. He knows how to confess his sins (against those he has wronged and also privately to his pastor) and does not refrain from doing so in order to preserve his reputation in front of others (we must fear God more than other men). He knows the treasure of the Lord’s Supper and gladly prepares himself to receive it often.
Can you imagine if this was the example of Christian manhood put before our congregations?
Hearers (disciples [and Catechists])
Luther’s Small Catechism says there are two vocations in the Church, that of preachers and hearers. Preachers are easy to figure out, they are the ones in the pulpit. Hearers similarly are easy, they are the ones in the pews (or chairs if you must). The tasks of the hearer involve more than just hearing (although that is a good start). Actively engaging with the service in listening to hymns, lessons, prayers, and sermons is indeed a good start and goes a long way in letting God work on you as a man in His Church. This involves discipline in putting away the cares and concerns of this world and also possibly still having to deal the family vocations that God has given to you (dads still have to help with kids…). Such listening takes time to develop and grow, but it is the kind of listening that God would have you mature into. This “inward digestion” of the Word of God is important for every single vocation you have. Moving from the milk of the Word (simple doctrines and plain truths) to the meat (more in depth theology and the application of law and gospel in our day to day lives) is a hard thing, but one wrought by God through His Holy Spirit using the Word (where do we hear the Word?). It is God’s Will for you to grow into spiritual maturity (it is very possible to be old in age but immature in the faith). Let’s take a look at the verses that Luther assigned to the task of hearers in the Table of Duties in the Small Catechism (from www.cph.org/catechism):
What the Hearers Owe Their Pastors
The Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. 1 Cor. 9:14
Anyone who receives instruction in the word must share all good things with his instructor. Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Gal. 6:6–7
The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.” 1 Tim. 5:17–18
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other. 1 Thess. 5:12–13
Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. Heb. 13:17
Servants
Luther once said that a Christian is a free lord, subject to none and yet a Christian is also a servant of all, subject to all. Our Christian freedom is meant for service. Being a man is not about domination, but serving. In this we look to the pinnacle of Manhood – Christ Jesus Himself. He who would be greatest among you is not the one with the most stuff or the greatest “machismo” – but the one who serves. This is against the message of the world and what it says for men. In the Christian Congregation this means serving the neighbor (other parishioners and pastors) by serving in any way we have gifts and talents to serve. If you are gifted at fixing things or organizing volunteers, serve as a trustee. If you know the faith well, and are an example of Christian manhood, serve as an elder. If you understand Stewardship, serve on that board. If you know the Gospel well and want others to know it join the Evangelism board and lead that way. If you want little ones to learn the Scriptures, offer to teach Sunday School. We as the Church need more men in these positions, as the example of faithful men doing good work is a great one. Our role as “heads” also means taking positions of authority in our congregations, for it is not good for women to exercise authority over men (according to St. Paul). Step up, volunteer. Say yes to the nomination and encourage each other on in honorable manhood and service in your congregations.
This means that we as men in the church need to be in the know. Take interest in what is going on in your congregation, in the circuit, in the district, in the synod. As you use your American Citizenship to keep informed about the goings on in our country, use your citizenship of the kingdom of God to take interest in how things are going on in that Kingdom on earth. There is nothing more helpful in congregational, district, and synodical matters than a steadfast layman who knows what is happening and is willing to help in the ways required.
Givers
Yes, men in the church should be givers. Men are the head of the household, directing the household’s priorities in how resources are spent. This means first and foremost the support of the congregation to which the Holy Spirit has place you into. So set aside a portion of the firstfruits. Give cheerfully knowing full well what this offering supports – where would you be without the preached Word? Where would your household be? Where would the other members be? Where would the new members be? How valuable is true teaching of the Scriptures? How about Holy Baptism? Just how great is it to have the resource of a man of God who will pronounce absolution to you after every confession? How precious is the body and blood of Jesus given and shed for you for the forgiveness of your sins? God’s treasures, from Christ to you in the Church – what dollar amount can be placed on making sure that the needs of the pastor and the congregation are met? Firstfruits, not last fruits. The first item in our budget (even just the one in your mind) should not be mortgage, insurance, light bills, car payments, or even the grocery bill. It should be our firstfruit, proportionate offering to our congregation. God is more generous than you are, and He will never let you out give Him. Repent of thinking that what you have is what you have earned for yourself. It is all a gift of God, your jobs have been given to you by Him to serve your neighbors. The paycheck is meant to support this body and life, but it is also meant to be given to the Church.
Leaders
Defenders of the Faith (Confessors) and Protectors of the Faithful
Men are used to hearing about themselves as defenders and protectors, and it is no different in the church, except the defense and protection is against false teachers and false teachings. In the Scriptures, it is very clear that God is concerned about His people being led astray. Women in particular are mentioned as being susceptible to this delusion (2 Tim 3:6; Gen 3?). It is the Christian man’s vocation to protect against this. This of course implies knowing the truth (get your Catechism out, study the Scriptures, ask your pastor to teach the Lutheran Confessions). So men defend and protect and in this join in a category of Christians called “confessors”. Confessors are Christians who confess the faith boldly and courageously for the sake of others. Even in the face of pressure to give up the faith (or even small parts of it), confessors stand firm (see Ephesians 6). This is what God has called you to do as a man in His Church.
There is another side to leadership in the Church, and we hinted at it already in the “example” section. A Christian man leads in weakness and service. We do not approach from above, but instead from below. When someone is caught in actual sin, we humbly approach them, knowing that the same Original Sin and corruption resides in us. We honor those older than us and treat everyone as someone more deserving of the higher place or better seat. We rejoice in weakness, so that the strength of Christ may be even more present. We do not rule like the Gentiles, lording our authority over one another, but we use whatever authority God has given us to serve the others. As Paul admonishes – let this mind dwell in you… Philippians 2:1-11
So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Being a Man with a clean conscience
All of the various callings we have will no doubt produce guilt over not doing things well or enough. Original Sin is still alive and well (the Old Adam is a good swimmer). This means that actual sins will manifest in our lives as Christian Men in the Church. We will fail to study, listen, and confess as we should. We will seek to dominate through power than serve with authority. We will fail to serve on boards in Christian love. We will not guard and protect our women and children as we should. These failures are more than that – they are sins. Examine your lives in your congregations according to the Ten Commandments? You will find much sin. This sin, if left to fester will spoil the conscience. Behind each revealed is the temptation to self-justify, either in works to make up for it, or in denying the sin altogether, or in many other ways. No effort to justify our sin will suffice before God in heaven. The only justification that avails before God in heaven is that which is worked by Jesus Christ. And what He has done is given freely by grace and is received by faith (itself a gift of God). A clean conscience is very important to being a man in the congregation, as in leading and serving a clean conscience allows for a good confession of the faith. A clean conscience will allow us to be better men, husbands, fathers, sons, brothers, uncles, hearers, citizens, bosses and workers.
Love flowing from Love and how a man does good for his family, friends, coworkers, and community.
As a Christian man attending Divine Service (get there) you are being taken care of in so many ways in order to serve others. The forgiveness of sins which grants the clean conscience is invaluable in the service of others. Besides that, the motivation of having love for the neighbor is also fueled by having God’s love shown to you. First He loves us, then we are able to love others (not in a self-serving way as we did prior to Christ). How can you love your wife better? Receive God’s love in the Divine Service. How can you love your kids better? Receive God’s love in the Divine Service. How can you love anyone better? Receive God’s love in the Divine Service.
Appendix 1
THE MOTIVES AND QUALIFICATIONS OF A GENUINE CHURCH MEMBER
Walther’s Words of Welcome to New Members (who in his day would have been only men)
by C.F.W. Walther
By signing the constitution of our congregation, you have shown that you approve of it and have solemnly promised to abide in it. In the name of the congregation I welcome you as voting members. Permit me to add a few remarks.
Only that is a good deed which is promoted by proper motives and performed in a proper spirit. Alms, for example, are good deeds only when given out of love, not under pressure or merely to make people believe that you are a Christian. Diligence in our earthly calling is a good deed only when it issues from the desire to please God, who wills that we eat our daily bread in the sweat of the brow, and not because you wish to gain riches.
The same holds true with respect to joining a Christian congregation. That, too, is a good deed only if we do so because it is Christ’s will that believers unite in proclaiming His Word, conducting public worship, and building and spreading His kingdom. The same step would be sinful if taken for the sake of earthly gain, as we read of Simon, the sorcerer, who joined the Christian congregation in Samaria to enrich himself in a material way. (Acts 8)
What has been said holds true also in the case of those who unite with a truly Evangelical Lutheran congregation. And this step is a good deed only if they wish to join such a congregation in preference to a congregation of another denomination because they are convinced that only the Evangelical Lutheran Church teaches the pure, unadulterated doctrine of God’s Word. Were someone, however, to seek voting membership in a Lutheran congregation simply because he was born and reared in its midst, or to please his parents, or because his friends are members of that congregation, or because the location of its church makes it convenient to attend its services, he would not perform a good deed, even though God may have led him into that church for the purpose of making him a true Lutheran, in other words, an orthodox Christian.
What has been said emphasizes three factors that are essential in the make-up of a genuine member of a Lutheran congregation.
A genuine member of a Lutheran congregation must have a thorough understanding of pure Lutheran doctrine or at least must desire to grow in the knowledge of it. Such a one will imitate the Bereans in searching the Scriptures daily, he will not lay aside his Catechism when he has completed his elementary school training, but throughout his life continue to review it in order that he may understand it better and become more thoroughly grounded in it. He will read other good orthodox books and periodicals to become ever more firmly established in the pure doctrine. In Hebrews 5 those Christians who are neglectful in this point are censured. We read: “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. “
A member of a Lutheran congregation must be able to defend his faith and to prove its correctness from God’s Word. St. Peter writes, I Peter 3:15: “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.” A sad state of affairs is revealed when members of a Lutheran congregation, asked about their faith, say, “You will have to ask my pastor about that.“
A member of a Lutheran congregation should be able to distinguish pure doctrine from false doctrines. Only spineless Lutherans can say: “What do I care about doctrinal controversies! They do not concern me in the least. I’ll let those who are more learned than I am bother their heads about such matters.” They may even be offended when they observe that religious leaders engage in doctrinal disputes. A genuine Lutheran will not forget that in the Epistle of Jude also lay Christians are admonished “earnestly to contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints.” What is more, Christ warns all Christians: “Beware of false prophets.” And St. John writes in his first epistle: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God, because many false prophets are gone out into the world.“
It is a settled fact that whoever is indifferent to false doctrine is indifferent also to pure doctrine and his soul’s salvation, and has no right to bear the name Lutheran and the name of Christ.
From: Church Membership: Addresses and Prayers at the meeting of the Evangelical Lutheran Joint Congregation of St. Louis, MO., and Its Board of Elders, by Dr. C.F.W. Walther, CPH, St. Louis, MO. 1931. Hebrews 5:12 has been amended by the pagemaster from the original translation to the NASB for clarity.
The reasons for Communion every Sunday are surprising. The reasons Lutheran churches fell away from this practice also are surprising.
Pr Klemet Preus, the author of the article republished below, was surprised about the reasons for and against. After visiting a congregation that had written into its constitution that Communion would be given at each Sunday service and hearing its pastor, John T. Pless, speaking definitely in favor of it, he was prompted to study.
He found reasons for frequent Communion in the:
• Gospel
• Bible
• early Church
• Church before the Reformation
• Lutheran Reformation
But suddenly, in the 19th Century, things changed. Many Lutheran churches offered Communion only monthly, and some only four times a year. Why? What happened? Oh, of course ….
More recently, every Sunday Communion has been making a comeback, and that is a good thing. Still, there are some practical concerns.
All of this and more are revealed in the following article, “Communion Every Sunday, Why?” written by Pr Klemet Preus, Epiphany, 2001.
+ + +
Communion Every Sunday, Why?
by Pr Klemet Preus
In the early 80s I was the Campus Pastor at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks. Each year we would get together with college students from the various Universities in the Upper mid-west and have a joint retreat. In 1983 we traveled from Grand Forks down to Minneapolis to the University of Minnesota and were hosted by Pastor John Pless and University Lutheran Church. During the Sunday service we celebrated Holy Communion as was typical at these retreats. But this time I noticed something different. ULC had written into its constitution that Communion would be given at each Sunday service. The Augsburg Confession was sited as support for this practice. “Among us the Mass is celebrated every Lord’s day and on other festivals, when the sacrament is made available to those who wish to partake of it, after they have been examined and absolved.”[1] Pastor Pless explained that the church had committed itself to the practice every Sunday communion.
Two things initially struck me. First, I thought that Pastor Pless was being a little extreme. This was a very radical notion I thought. And all the reasons why I would oppose such an idea immediately rushed into my mind. Wouldn’t this require much more work for the altar guild, the secretary, the pastor and the communion assistants? When would the church do Matins or Morning Prayer? Wouldn’t people begin to take Holy Communion for granted? People like to invite non-Lutheran family and friends to church when there is no communion. With communion every Sunday how could you do this? Isn’t this kind of Catholic? John is high church and very liturgical. So I initially figured this was a high church fad. But I wondered.
Second, I was surprised and a little miffed at myself that I had not really read this in the Lutheran Confessions before. Of course I had read the Confessions. I had read them at least four times, and many times since. And I had pledged to teach according to these documents as every Lutheran Pastor has. But I had not noticed this particular phrase before. Since I have always prided myself in being a true and faithful Lutheran pastor and theologian I was put off that I had to be educated by someone else. I had taken one course on the liturgy in the seminary. In it we learned how to do the various liturgies. We never really thought about how often to have the sacrament. We were taught to give it “often” whatever that meant. In the doctrine courses we learned that the true body and blood were given for the forgiveness of sins. But we had simply accepted the practices of our churches as proper. That practice was communion once a month or twice a month. Now I was being challenged to think again about the frequency of communion.
So, I spent the next year studying the issue. And I asked the right questions. What does the Bible say? What does our doctrine say? What do the Lutheran Confessions say? What was the practice of the earliest Christians? What is the custom of the church throughout the centuries? What are the positive and negative influences in history which shaped the church’s practice throughout the centuries and particularly our practice? Is the whole issue worth all the trouble? It took me about a year of thought, study and discussion with other pastors and Christians. I was not about to change my mind and worship patterns easily. This is what I found.
COMMUNION FREQUENCY AND THE GOSPEL
The Bible never tells us exactly how often to have communion. Of course the Bible never tells us how often to have church services either. And the Bible never tells us how often to receive absolution. The Bible never says at exactly what age to baptize children.
There is a reason for this.
You can’t place laws and rules upon the gifts of the gospel. God tells us that we are saved in our baptism, in the Gospel and the Lord’s Supper. He never tells us how often to hear his word. He just figures that we will hear it as often as we can. He does not place rules on how often we should be absolved of our sins. He figures that we will take the forgiveness as often as we can. He simply forgives us through the gospel all the time. He never tells us how soon to baptize our babies. He just tells us how much they need it and what a blessing we have in Baptism. He figures we will baptize as early as possible.
So also with Holy Communion. He never tells us to receive it daily, weekly, monthly, yearly or once in your life. He simply tells us how much we need it and how great it is and He figures we will act accordingly. Then He tells us to do it often. He figures we will receive the Lord’s Supper as often as we can.
The Lord’s Supper is like kissing your wife or husband. The minute you have to place rules on how often, then the kiss loses its affectionate force. No one who is in love would ever say, “I think we have kissed enough,” or “That kiss will have to do for the rest of the day.” No one says, “How often do we have to kiss?” Instead we ask, “How often do we get to kiss?” We kiss and get kissed as often as we can.
The Lord’s Supper is more than a kiss from God. Through Holy Communion God gives us the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation through the body and blood of Jesus. We need and want these blessings all the time. So the question should not be, “How often do we have to take communion?” Rather we should ask, “How often do we get to take communion.”
Logistically, the Lord’s Supper is more difficult to give than a kiss. First you have to gather the church together. You have to provide a place as well as the elements of unleavened bread and wine. You need to instruct as to the proper meaning of the Sacrament. And you have to do all this with a sense of respect and decorum. So, how often should the Lord’s Supper be given? In the Scriptures, in the practice of the early church, at the time of the Reformation, in the Lutheran Confessions, and until quite recently the answer has always been, “We give the Lord’s Supper at every Sunday Service.”
COMMUNION FREQUENCY IN THE BIBLE
In the New Testament there is no mention of Sunday services without a mention of the Lord’s Supper. In Acts 2:42 Paul describes the earliest Services, “And they continued steadfastly in the Apostle’s teaching, in fellowship, in the breaking of bread and in prayer.” So the “breaking of bread” or Communion was a common part of the normal Christian services. These services were held in the evening since most of the people worked on Sundays. (It wasn’t until the year 321 AD that Sunday became a day of rest for Christians.) Another reference to Sunday services is found in Acts 20:7 where Luke says, “On the first day of the week we came together to break bread.” Then it describes a service with preaching followed by the “breaking of bread.” You get the impression from these verses that Sunday evening were reserved for two things: instruction in doctrine and Holy Communion.
I Corinthians shows the same thing. In chapter 11 the people “come together as a church.” Part of the coming together was to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Here the people would precede their services with a meal called “the love feast.” These feasts are also mention in Jude 12. In Corinth the people would exclude some of the poorer people from the love feast by starting the dinner before the common laborers got off work. “Wait for them,” Paul says. The people had gathered for the Lord’s Supper but were abusing it. Paul criticizes them for their abuse and corrects it by explaining how their services should be done. Listen to his works,
I hear that when you come together as a church there are divisions among you and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper you eat…I received from the Lord what I also give to you: that the Lord Jesus on the night he was betrayed took bread, etc. [2]
So Paul corrected the bad and kept the good. To Paul, the exclusion of people who were part of the church was bad. To Paul, Communion at every service was good.
COMMUNION FREQUENCY IN THE EARLY CHURCH
The Earliest Christians gathered together on Sunday evenings. The services had two parts: the instruction and the Communion. Today these two parts of the service are reflected in some of our hymnals and our bulletins. There is the service of the Word and the service of the Sacrament. The recently published Lutheran Service Book, a hymnal of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, divides the Sunday services into three parts, “Confession and Absolution,” “Service of the Word” and “Service of the Sacrament.”[3] These divisions reflect what the church of Paul and the earliest Christians did in their services. The early Christians may not in all cases have had services every Sunday. Persecution, hardship, travel difficulty, and large distances may have made this impossible. But every time these Christians gathered together they received from their Lord His Word and His Sacrament.
The literature of the fist two centuries shows that Word and Sacrament were the universally common Sunday practice among Christians. One of the earliest Christian writings besides the Bible is called the Didache. It was written about the year 100 AD and possibly earlier, even before the last apostles had died. In this writing the people are directed to, “Assemble in common on the Lord’s own day to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure.”[4] The earliest account of a Sunday service was written by a man named Justin Martyr in about the year 150 AD. This is his account:
On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good thing. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president [the pastor or minister who presided] in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.[5]
Notice how the Lord’s Supper was just as much part of the services as was the instruction in the Word. The earliest surviving Christian liturgy, called the Apostolic Traditions, was written about the year 215 by Hippolytus. This work is something like our Lutheran Agenda, the book which the pastor uses in leading the services. In Apostolic Traditions the Bishop and the people exchange greetings, “The Lord be with you, And with your spirit, Lift up you hearts, We lift them to the Lord, Let us give thanks to the Lord our God, It is right and proper to do so.” Then immediately follows the Words of institution. This was the every Sunday expectation of the early churches.[6]
I could provide quotations from the liturgies or theology books from almost every century until recently. All would show that the Sacrament of the Altar was celebrated every time the people of God gathered.
COMMUNION FREQUENCY BEFORE THE REFORMATION
Over the years the church corrupted the sacrament. Sermons were eliminated from the Divine Service. The Sacrament gradually was viewed as a sacrificial act of worship by the priest rather than the gift of God’s salvation. The language used in the liturgy was Latin and not the language of the common people. It was thought that those in the pew didn’t really need to understand the words since they were spoken to God and not to the people. The people communed less and less often while the priests communed more and more. At the time of Thomas Aquinas (1277) communion was considered frequent if a person went two to four times a year. Alarmed at this paucity of participation edicts were periodically pronounced mandating the reception of the Sacrament. Everyone was to go to communion at least four times a year and especially on Easter. The press of the masses at Easter would require so much time that the custom of withholding the cup from the laity became widespread. This custom became church law in the church in 1415 AD so that by the time of Luther no lay-Christian had sipped upon the blood of Christ for more than a century. Superstition lead people to pilfer pieces of the bread and bring them home to worship. The people no longer sang the hymns or liturgical parts. The monks did this. Christianity had truly become a spectator religion. The grace of God was simply not received and consequently not treasured by the common Christian.[7]
Yet, through all the centuries and despite the crass and Christless corruptions of the Eucharist, the services in God’s house always featured the Sacrament of the Altar.
COMMUNION FREQUENCY AND THE LUTHERAN REFORMATION
Martin Luther became embroiled with the Papists over the church’s understanding of grace. (Early Lutherans never viewed themselves as fighting with the Catholic Church but with the Pope, so they referred to their opponent as Papists.) Luther believed that grace was the forgiveness of sins earned for all by Christ and freely given in the Absolution, the Word, Baptism and the Lord’s supper. The Lord’s Supper, to Luther, is not something that the priest did for God but something that Christ has given to us. You can imagine the changes that were made.
Luther refused to change anything that was not wrong. He retained as much of the liturgy as the gospel would allow. So the collects, the prayers, the creeds, the readings, the order of service and the basic structure of Word and Sacrament were retained. And these are faithfully employed today in all Confessional Lutheran churches.
But changes were required. The Lutherans’ greatest concern was that the people get to know God better. Preaching was reestablished in the churches, since it had fallen into disuse. Luther wrote the liturgy in German. Now the people were treated to the Divine Service in their own language. They could understand what was being said and done. The Bible was translated into German so that the readings could be understood. Luther and many of his contemporaries wrote hymns so that the people could be taught the truths of Christ simply and could participate in the proclamation in the service. Catechisms were written and produced so that the people could be trained easily. The words of institution were no longer mumbled in Latin by the Priests. They were spoken or chanted loudly to the people in their own language. The main emphasis of the Reformation was that the people could understand the grace of God. These changes had salutary effects on the hearts and habits of God’s people. Communion attendance increased dramatically. In fact the Lutherans were attending the Sacrament so often that their Roman Catholic neighbors got a little jealous. Ironically, “the practice of frequent communions in the Church of Rome today owes much to Reformation inspiration.”[8]
But old habits die hard. Many Lutherans were reluctant to take communion every week. Some were afraid to receive the blood in the Sacrament. So the early Lutherans slowly and painstakingly taught and explained the need and blessings of the Lord’s Supper. They did not force. They simply taught. And they realized that people need time to adjust to change, even necessary change.
One change that Luther and the early Lutherans never considered was to drop the celebration of the Sacrament from the Sunday morning service. Luther Reed summarized the practice of the Early Lutherans.
“The appreciation and unbroken use of the Service by the Lutheran Church in all lands is noteworthy…. The church has everywhere retained the Service for its normal Sunday service. Other Protestant churches promptly abandoned the historic liturgy and established a type of preaching service separate from the Holy Communion…. The Lutheran Church restored the “primitive synthesis” of the early church by including in balanced proportion the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacrament in the principal service of the day.[9]
COMMUNION FREQUENCY IN THE 19TH CENTURY
What happened? At the time of Luther the church celebrated communion every Sunday. By the middle of the twentieth century, when I was born, most Lutheran churches offered communion only once a month. What happened? It was my discovery of the answer to this question that convinced me to teach that we must return to the historic practice of communion every Sunday.
Old habits die hard. And praiseworthy liturgical habits must be guarded with great vigilance. Three factors lead to the loss of the practice of weekly communion among the Lutherans. The first is called Pietism. The Pietists stressed the importance of personal preparation for communion. This, in itself, is good. Luther said that fasting is good outward preparation. And the Lutheran Church has always insisted that communicant be prepared by learning the basic teachings of the catechism and by making a confession of sins. These practices are reflected in the Book of Concord, “Among us…the sacrament is available for all who wish to partake of it after they have been examined and absolved.”[10] But the preparation expected by the Pietists was different. It was not learning the true faith at all.
The Sacrament was surrounded with an atmosphere of awe and fear; excessive emphasis was place upon personal and intensely introspective preparation; and there grew up in the people’s minds a dread of possibly being unworthy and of “being guilty” of the body and blood of Christ. These morbid and exaggerated emphases upon preparation for the Sacrament, rather than upon the Sacrament itself, are still occasionally in evidence.[11]
I see this fear of the Sacrament occasionally today. I’ve heard people say that the reason they are uncomfortable with weekly communion is that they require time and spiritual effort to prepare themselves for the Sacrament. “If I take it too often I will not be able to be prepared.” These sentiments, while sincere, are not what Jesus wants. He does not want us to focus on our sins and our repentance so much that we neglect the forgiveness in the Sacrament. How does one prepare for the Sacrament? You learn the catechism. Remember your baptism. Go to confession. Receive the absolution. Believe. That is preparation.
The second factor that caused the Lutherans to give up weekly Communion is far worse. It is Rationalism. Pietists were Christians with a misplaced faith. Rationalists were not Christian at all. Leading rationalists were men whose names you vaguely remember from Western Civilization class in high school: Descartes, Rousseau, Voltaire, Locke. Rationalists believed that their reason and understanding was the measure of all things. Their creed was that creeds were bad. The Rationalists spawned the Unitarian Church, the FreeMasons, Secular Humanism and the general age of unbelief in which we live. Rationalists rejected the belief that people are sinful. They denied the great events of God in Christ. Churches were turned into lecture halls. Preaching Christ was discarded in favor of flowery addresses intended to inspire. Sunday services became a time in which we could be impressed with each other and the Lord’s Supper is not conducive for that. In Germany the frequency of Sacramental celebration plummeted dramatically in the 1800s until the Liberal Lutheran practice approximated that the Roman Catholic Church prior to the Reformation.
The Lutheran Church that began migrating to America in the 1840s was not healthy. Its worship was impoverished and it practices lax. It had lost much of its doctrinal heritage and true doctrinally sound confessional pastors were rare. The pastors who did come to America, while dedicated, were often young and inexperienced. The New World was not flowing with milk and honey. Rather, it was teeming with forces that were foreign to Lutherans and to the gospel itself. Fred Precht has said, “The cumulative effects of the Thirty Years War, Pietism and Rationalism spanning almost two centuries, left the worship and the life of the churches at a low ebb at the opening of the 19th century…. It is to be noted that it was in this period of the church’s history that the large migrations of Confessional Lutherans to America took place.”[12]
The third factor, which led to a decrease in the frequency of the Sacrament especially in America, is the influence of Reformed and baptistic theology and preachers. Followers of John Calvin, early American revivalistic preachers, usually Baptistic in theology, denied that the Lord’s Supper is the true body and blood of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. To them it was fellowship meal of bread and grape juice, which was not needed more than a handful of times annually. Many early Lutherans came to America to escape the unbelief in the churches in Europe. These pioneers often found themselves with neither church nor pastor. They lived among the Mennonites, Moravians, and Methodists of America. The faithful Lutheran pastors who did serve the Lutherans often had to attend the needs of literally dozens of parishes. These “Circuit Riders” could visit their parishes only periodically and the people never could find a rhythm of regular Divine Services. Further, the abundant Baptistic and Methodistic itinerant preachers often enticed faithful New World Lutherans from their doctrinal roots. These revivalists did not believe in the saving benefits of the Lord’s Supper. Revivalism continues to influence Lutherans to this very day.
So Pietism, Rationalism and the Reformed Churches all worked their influence on Lutherans until we lost something very precious. Reed Summarizes,
Luther and his associates never would have approved of the “half-mass” commonly found among us today as the normal Sunday worship of our congregations. For two hundred years, or nearly half the time from the Reformation to the present, the normal Sunday service in Lutheran lands was the purified Mass, or Hauptgottesdienst, (High Divine Service) with its twin peaks of Sermon and Sacrament. There were weekly celebrations and the people in general received the Sacrament much more frequently than before. The ravages of war, the example of Calvinism, the later subjective practices of Pietistic groups in a domestic type of worship, and the unbelief of rationalism, however, finally broke the genuine Lutheran Tradition.[13]
COMMUNION FREQUENCY TODAY
Realizing our ragged history, honoring our heritage and treasuring the grace found in it, Lutherans of late have begun to teach the importance of communion every Sunday. The practice of equally stressing both the sermon and the Sacrament is not only consistent with the bible and practice of the first Christians it is uniquely Lutheran. The Roman Catholic Church has historically stressed the Sacrament, often to the exclusion of preaching. Protestants have historically stressed preaching often to the exclusion of the Sacrament. Lutherans have always tried to maintain a balance between the two. This balance has been called “The Twin Peaks,” “The primitive synthesis,” “The High Divine Service” or simply, “the Service of Word and Sacrament.”
Within Lutheranism in America and specifically in the Missouri Synod the frequency of communion has gradually increased over the last half century. Many life-long Lutherans born in the 20s or 30s can remember when communion was offered quarterly. By the sixties and seventies most Lutheran Churches celebrated the Supper at least monthly. Today almost all churches offer the Sacrament twice monthly. Certainly there has been an increase in the frequency of communion. In 1995 the Convention of the Lutheran church Missouri Synod passed the following Resolution:
Whereas, the opportunity to receive the Lord’s Supper each Lord’s Day was a reality cherished by Luther and set forth clearly with high esteem by our Luther confessions (Article XXIV of the Augsburg Confession and of the Apology); and
Whereas, Our Synod’s 1983 CTCR [Commission on Theology and Church Relations] document on the Lord’s Supper (p. 28) and our Synod’s 1986 translation of Luther’s Catechism both remind us that the Scriptures place the Lord’s Supper at the center of worship (Acts 2:42; 20:7; I Cor. 11:20, 33), and not as an appendage or an occasional extra; therefore be it
Resolved That the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod in convention encourage its pastors and congregation to study the scriptural, confessional, and historical witness to every Sunday Communion with a view to recovering the opportunity for receiving the Lord’s Supper each Lord’s day.
The result of such study has lead many Lutheran congregations to establish every Sunday Communion. I am convinced that more and more congregations and pastors, as they study the issue, will make the change to communion every service if they have not already done so.
LEX ORANDI LEX CREDENDI
In the fifth century a theologian named Prosper of Aquitaine spoke these words. They mean: “The law of worship is the law of faith.” As we worship so we shall be believe and as we believe so we shall worship. The greatest teacher in the church has always been the Divine Service itself. Every child of seven who goes consistently to church knows the words of the Liturgy. We know what to expect. If something is missing we know. If something is added we know. If something is changed we especially know. Our children know the creed, the Lord’s prayer, the words of institution, John 1:29, I John 1:8-9, Hebrews 1:1-2 and a host of other passages because they say them each week. We learn how to confess our sins in the confession. We learn how God absolves. Our children know that God calls the pastor because they see him dressed in robes each week. We all know that the sermon is God’s word because we place it into a pulpit spoken by God’s pastor. We learn about Baptism when the babies are baptized. The Liturgy teaches. The Liturgy teaches us about the Lord’s Supper too.
The best way to teach our children and ourselves is to make them see the same blessings from God each week. Certain parts in the Sunday Services need to be observed and received each week. That way we immediately notice if they are gone. Each week we pray the Lord’s Prayer, we confess the Creed, we hear the Scriptures and we reflect upon the sermon. If these parts were missing we would feel like something was taken away. By using Worship Services which contain the same things week after week we are teaching ourselves and our children that these are blessings from God which are part and parcel of His service to us. I have talked to people who have gone to churches where one or more of these ingredients were missing, whether the creed or the Lord’s Prayer or even the sermon. They have shared with me that they felt like they had not fully been to church. The same thing should be said of the Lord’s supper.
We all teach our children and ourselves the importance and surpassing value of the Sacrament of the Altar. And that is good. We must make the Sacrament so much part of the Sunday morning expectation that all would immediately know that something was missing if it were not there. If we want to impress on our children the importance of vegetables we must serve vegetables every day. If we teach our children to love the Sacrament then we must serve it at every Divine Service. When our children grow up and attend some Reformed church with their friends let them say, “It was nice but they didn’t have the Lord’s Supper.” We need to change our expectations of the every Sunday service.
COMMUNION EVERY SUNDAY: PRACTICAL CONCERNS ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION
But before such a practice is implemented, no matter how praiseworthy people need a chance to think about it. I studied the issue for over a year before I began to teach it. You should have the same chance for reflection. That is why I offer you this paper. It is to give you a chance to consider the Bible teaching and the history of the Church. But consider also your feelings. Below are many questions I have heard. Answers are given.
Q. Some have said, “Were we doing wrong not to have communion every Sunday?”
A. Of course not. Many early Christian communities did not have any kind of services every Sunday. They were not doing wrong. It is not a question of right and wrong. But once those communities were able to have services every Sunday they did so. So should we.
Q. Isn’t Communion every Sunday Roman Catholic?
A. Communion every Sunday is biblical. It was practiced long before there was a
Roman Catholic Church. In fact Lutherans have a stronger history of frequent communion the Catholics do. Besides, things are not bad just because they are Catholic. Silent Night was written by a Roman Catholic but we do not on that account stop singing it. The first Lutherans did not change things unless they were wrong. Presbyterians, Methodist and Baptists changed their worship style simply because it was Roman Catholic. The habit of changing worship or practice just because it is Roman Catholic is un-Lutheran.
Q. Isn’t this practice a bit extreme?
A. This was my initial reaction. I discovered that weekly communion is the common practice of most Christians throughout history and certainly of the first Christians and the first Lutherans. It may seem extreme to us because it is new to us. And, in fact, it is extreme. It is extremely comforting for sinners to be forgiven by Christ’s body and blood every week. It is extremely important to have the strength and assurance, which only the Sacrament can give.
Q. We practice closed communion. If I bring my friend or relatives to church I don’t want to have to make them uncomfortable about not communing. If we don’t have communion on a given Sunday I can bring my friends. Now what can I do?
A. This is real and valid concern. Of course we don’t want to make guests feel unwelcome. In the early church Christians would bring family and friends to the service of the Word. Then those who wished to commune would move to a different room altogether to have the Lord’s Supper. The doors would be closed before the service of the Sacrament began and no guests were allowed. That is how those Christians handled the issue.
I think that we need to consider why this is such a problem today. There is little doubt that the questioning of closed communion among us is a reflection of the influence of those churches around us who do not believe in the Lord’s Supper. In most churches today everyone is asked to commune. This is the common historic practice of all Reformed churches (Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Non-Denominational, etc.). It has become the practice of the ELCA because of the profound influences of Reformed theology upon that church. Many pastors in the LC-MS refuse to practice closed communion even though they have promised to do so upon entering the Synod. They often feel pressured by churches around us that simply have a different practice. But we must remember that these churches do not believe in the bodily presence of Jesus in the Sacrament.
When we refuse communion to someone we appear judgmental about a person’s faith. Such is not the case. We simply need to communicate that Holy Communion is an extremely intimate sharing between members who have a common confession based on the bible. Those who share this intimate meal should be known by us and confess with us. This is not a casual thing. Again, it’s like kissing your spouse. There has to be a certain commitment before that kiss can happen.
Practicing closed communion especially toward members of the ELCA is particularly difficult. Most of us have family and friends in the ELCA who are fine Christian people. Sometimes it is difficult for us to admit that our family members or friends belong to false churches. But it is necessary if we are to give an effective witness. Closed Communion forces this upon us. It is uncomfortable. We don’t like it. But it is necessary. These family and friends need to hear in a loving way that they are in a church which could seriously harm their faith or destroy it altogether.
I recently heard an inspiring essay from a pastor who is a professor and former bishop of the ELCA. In his essay he asked the rhetorical question, “We must ask whether this ELCA…any longer qualifies as bona fide Lutheranism. Indeed, is it a Christian Church?” We must love the Christian people in the ELCA enough to pray for them and follow of the example of this courageous Bishop who concludes his essay: “I have dedicated the remainder of my life to attempting to open the eyes of my brothers and sisters in the ELCA to the liberating, glorious truth of the infallible inerrant Word of God.”[14]
If you are inviting a friend or relative to church you probably would like them to join our church. Sooner or later they will have to be told about closed communion. Tell them right away. Don’t be embarrassed or ashamed. Simply speak the truth in love. I am convinced that any fair-minded person will accept our position and practice if it is explained patiently.
Q. Won’t Communion every Sunday be a lot of work?
A. Yes. And it is pretty obvious who the new work will fall upon – The altar guild. They must set up and take down the Sacrament twice as often. This requires either twice as many workers or the same people doing twice the work. So no new practice should be implemented until the guild has had an ample opportunity to recruit and train new workers. If elders help in the distribution of the Sacrament they would also have to help twice as much. This might require the congregation to approve and appoint more elders to help distribute the Sacrament.
Q. Won’t the services last longer? We are so rushed on Sunday as it is.
A. The Divine Service lasts longer than Matins or Morning Prayer. This is so because these other services were not originally intended to be Sunday morning services. They were morning services prayed and sung by the church in the middle of the week. Communion every Sunday might require us to examine again the best way in which to use our time on Sunday mornings. Congregations might have to tweak their schedules a bit. Most churches can devise ways in which to commune more quickly. That should be examined at any rate. At the same time it should be remembered that the 60-minute Divine Service is a recent American invention which has no mention in the bible and no historical precedent. Perhaps we need to reconsider our expectations that the Service of God be limited to only one hour a week.
Q. But kids are tough enough in church for 60 minutes and we are a church with lots of kids.
A. Again the practice of the early church solved this problem by not even allowing the uninstructed children to come into the Sacrament room. We probably don’t want to do this today. But there are solutions for the problem of antsy children which don’t require their parents to be deprived of the Blessed Sacrament. Work on it.
Q. I like Matins and Morning Prayer. I will miss them. Can’t we still do them?
A. A congregation could schedule mid-week Matins or Morning Prayer for those who really wanted to attend. But the time press of people’s midweek lives might render such prayer opportunities meager indeed. Many of the great songs in these liturgies, The Venite, The Magnificat, The Te Deum, even the Gospel Canticle can easily be employed occasionally in the Divine Service. These treasures of the church need not fall into disuse.
Q. I need time to think about these things.
A. Changes in the church, even salutary changes should be made slowly and with great deliberation. Take your time. Talk to your pastor. Study the issue. Talk to others in the church. Talk to the elders.
THE LUTHERAN ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGING THE SUNDAY SERVICES
Change should always be initiated with painstaking care, especially change in the liturgy. Too often pastors have promoted their own personal hobbyhorses without considering the feelings of the church. Consequently God’s people are sometimes harmed by the very men to whom God has entrusted their souls. This should never happen.
The early Lutherans were especially sensitive to this. Luther himself never initiated changes without first explaining to the people exactly why such a change was needed. And he was quite patient especially for a man with such strong convictions. One true anecdote will help to illustrate this. Luther believed very strongly that those who communed should receive both the body and blood in the sacrament. They called it “communion in two kinds.” But Luther also believed that the people needed to be taught the practice so that they could understand when it was implemented. When he was absent from Wittenberg for a few months his colleague, Andrew Karlstadt, began to give to the laypeople both the bread and the wine in Holy Communion. Luther believed that the people had not been given adequate time to get used to the idea. He returned to Wittenberg and promptly stopped the practice. At the same time he preached a series of eight sermons intended to explain the way the Gospel works. In his fifth sermon he said:
Now let us speak of the two kinds. Although I hold that it is necessary that the Sacrament should be received in both kinds, according to the institution of the Lord, nevertheless it must not be made compulsory nor a general law. We must rather promote and practice and preach the Word, and then afterwards leave the result and execution of it entirely to the Word, giving everyone his freedom in this matter. Where this is not done, the Sacrament becomes for me an outward work and a hypocrisy, which is just what the devil wants. But when the Word is given free course and is not bound to any external observance, it takes hold of one today and sinks into his heart, tomorrow it touches another, and so on. Thus quietly and soberly it does its work and no on will know how it all came about.[15]
It seems to me that Luther’s wise counsel would apply to us in a couple of ways. First, even a necessary change should never be imposed upon people against their will. Rather the Word changes people’s hearts. Then the change is made. Second, people accept change at different rates. It is wrong to force people to accept change before they are ready. People should not feel forced to do anything they do not want. Even taking the Lord’s supper, saving as it is, should never be forced upon people. Third, people should be allowed to receive the Lord’s Supper each Sunday just as people at Luther’s time were allowed to receive both kinds in the Sacrament. Eventually all the Lutherans began to receive the Sacrament in both kinds. But it took time. I am convinced that eventually the Lutheran churches will all offer the Sacrament at all their Sunday services. But it will take time. No one should feel forced. No one should treat a gift like a duty. Everyone should be free to change at the rate at which they feel comfortable.
One of the occupational hazards of being a minister of the Gospel is to expect things of people that you yourself never did. I took me a year to really be convinced that the Sacrament belongs in every Sunday service. Yet I often feel impatient when others don’t make the adjustment in a couple of weeks. Luther constantly reminds me that I need to give others the same chance that I was able to have.
God’s people are justifiably very cautious about any change. Pastors are justifiable jealous to give to the people as much of God’s blessings as they possibly can. Often people stubbornly refuse to be taught by their pastors. And often pastors have been insensitive if well intended. Pastors are called to teach and the people are called by God to learn from their divinely appointed pastors. But, unfortunately many in our churches have been hurt by change and have often felt as if change were imposed upon them. All should feel comfortable with even the best changes. Pastors are given the freedom and challenge to balance the responsibility of ministry with the needs of the people. That is why no pastor should ever promote programs where he is the beneficiary. Weekly communion is a practice it which all of God’s people benefit eternally. When God’s grace is promoted and served and people receive it in faith then the church is blessed.
CONCLUSION
Should the churches of Christ celebrate the Sacrament every Sunday? Yes they should. The Bible teaches it. The confessions of our church require it. The Gospel expects it. The history of the church shows it. The liturgy demands it. Our children need it. Our faith thrives on it. Our heritage gives it. Our God provides it.
When should this happen? Tragically we live in a time when the question actually needs to be asked. It should happen when the people of God have learned and are ready and eager to receive all the blessings of Christ on every Sunday service.
Klemet Preus
Epiphany 2001
[1] Augsburg Confession, Apology, Article XXIV paragraph 1
[2] I Corinthians 11:17-23
[3] Lutheran Service Book Concordia Publishing House, 2006
[4] Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1948, p. 23
[5] In the Stead of Christ, Kent Heimbigner, Repristination Press, 1997, p. 69-70
[6] A Study of Liturgy, Ed. Cheslyn Jones, SPCK, 1978 p. 213
[7] This is My Body, Herman Sasse, Augsburg Publishing house 1959, p. 52
[8] The Lutheran Liturgy, Luther Reed, Muhlenberg Press, 1948, p. 244
[9] Reed, p. 243-244
[10] Augsburg Confession, Apology, Article XXIV paragraph 1
[11] Reed, p. 244
[12] Lutheran Worship: History and Practice, Fred Precht, Concordia Publishing House, 1993, p. 83
[13] Reed, p. 244
[14] “ELCA Journeys: Personal Reflections on the Last Forty Years,” Michael McDaniel, paper given at the 2001 Symposium on the Lutheran Confessions, p. 7.
[15] Luther’s Works, Muhlenberg press, 1959 Vol. 51, p. 90
The Book of Concord is a wonderful devotional book as well as being the formal confession of faith for the Lutheran Church. To aid in using the Book of Concord for devotion I have provided a copy of the hymns I use for teaching the Book of Concord. In addition for the Large Catechism, I have provided Psalms, as well as the classic Lutheran catechetical hymns, to aid in catechesis for these sections. The hymns are taken from the Lutheran Service Book (LSB), The Lutheran Hymnal (TLH), and “The Hymns of Martin Luther” by Peter Reske (THML). Of course one should feel free to use which ever hymnal you have to sing these treasured hymns, with of course as many verses as you can get your hands on (or of course in their original tongues of English/German/Latin/Greek). I pray that this resource will be useful to all those who believe, teach, and confess what is in the Book of Concord. You can find a PDF copy if you go to my original post at the First Lutheran Church of Boston website.
I was too young to remember the struggles in the church during the 1970’s and I’ve never been too interested in diving into this part of LCMS history. But Pr. Scheer recommended a debate to me this past week on the conflict so I decided to take a look.
The panelists for the program were Rev. Samuel J. Roth, Gerald A. Miller , Rev. Thomas A. Baker, and Rev. Herman J. Otten.
I found the exchange at 43:45 most interesting. Pr. Otten asks if there is room for men in our church that say that Christ is not the only way to salvation and that maybe some of these people who die without are going to be save. Pr. Roth says that there is no other way to salvation except through Jesus Christ but he starts with the grace of God and God is free to save anyone in anyway He wants.
The other exchange I found interesting was at 1:03:50 on the historicity of Jonah.
In the comments section of Friday’s post by Pastor Rossow titled “Per DP’s Advice LCMS Pastor Cancels Participation in Joint Service but Still Supports Unionism,” arguments were made that having a joint worship service with congregations of other fellowships, such as Methodists, or Baptists, or Presbyterians, is not unionism. Holy Scripture, our Confession, Lutheran theologians, and our own synodical statements disagree with that position. Here are a few quotations from across the centuries to illustrate the point.
From the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod Constitution:
“Article VI Conditions of Membership
“Conditions for acquiring and holding membership in the Synod are the following:
1. Acceptance of the confessional basis of Article II.
2. Renunciation of unionism and syncretism of every description, such as:
a. Serving congregations of mixed confession, as such, by ministers of the church;
b. Taking part in the services and sacramental rites of heterodox congregations or of congregations of mixed confession;
c. Participating in heterodox tract and missionary activities.” [emphasis added]
The official position of the Synod from “Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod”:
“28. On Church-Fellowship. – Since God ordained that His Word only, without the admixture of human doctrine, be taught and believed in the Christian Church, 1 Pet. 4, 11; John 8, 31. 32; 1 Tim. 6, 3. 4, all Christians are required by God to discriminate between orthodox and heterodox church-bodies, Matt. 7,15, to have church- fellowship only with orthodox church-bodies, and, in case they have strayed into heterodox church-bodies, to leave them, Rom. 16,17. We repudiate unionism, that is, church-fellowship with the adherents of false doctrine, as disobedience to God’s command, as the real cause of the origin and continuance of divisions in the Church, Rom. 16,17; 2 John 9.10, and as involving the constant danger of losing the Word of God entirely, 2 Tim. 2,17 ff.”
From the Christian Cyclopedia on the LCMS website:
“Religious unionism consists in joint worship and work of those not united in doctrine. Its essence is an agreement to disagree. In effect, it denies the doctrine of the clearness of Scripture.” (Quoted from The Concordia Cyclopedia, St. Louis, 1927)
From the 1974 CTCR document “A Lutheran Stance Toward Ecumenism”:
“C. On the Congregational Level
“When congregations become members of the Synod they voluntarily accept certain limitations of their autonomy. For the sake of good order and the benefit of all, congregations consent to regulate the exercise of their rights according to a compact freely entered into and mutually accepted. Congregations, for instance, agree to be served only by such pastors as have been certified for placement by the Synod’s seminary faculties and who are members of the Synod. Similarly, congregations agree that they will practice fellowship only with those congregations which belong to a church body with which the Synod is in fellowship. Once such an agreement has been made, confusion and disorder result when congregations act
independently by practicing selective fellowship. The Synod has, therefore, on several occasions stated its position on selective fellowship. Key sentences from a resolution adopted in 1969 give the Synod’s position:
“WHEREAS, The members of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod have voluntarily united in a fraternal agreement to determine fellowship relations with other church bodies or congregations, not individually but through convention action (Handbook 1.21) . . . ” Resolved, That the Synod urge all its members to honor their fraternal agreement with all members of the Synod by refraining from practicing altar and pulpit fellowship with congregations of church bodies with whom the Synod has not yet declared fellowship.
“D. On the Individual Level
“1. In the exercise of their office pastors will follow synodical policy. Except in emergency situations and in such cases where their action cannot rightfully be construed as disregard for pure doctrine, for the responsibilities of their office, or for the concerns of their brethren in the ministry, pastors will ordinarily commune only those individuals who are members of the Synod or of a Lutheran church body with which the Synod is in fellowship. Pastors will not participate in joint worship services with pastors of denominations with which the Synod has not established fellowship relations. When pastors affiliate with ministerial alliances or associations, they will participate in such activities and service opportunities as do
not imply ecclesiastical fellowship where it does not yet exist.”
From the 2001 CTCR document “The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship”:
“The promise not to participate in worship services with those not in church fellowship with the LCMS applies particularly to pastors, who are the official representatives of both their congregations and the LCMS. Their solemn commitment to the scriptural and confessional position of the LCMS must be their guide and will supersede personal feelings or preferences. Trust among LCMS pastors, congregations, and leaders allows everyone to carry out their commitment to fellowship practices to which they have mutually agreed. This trust is undermined when these commitments, as they are set forth in the official documents of the LCMS, are openly violated. Public knowledge of such violations strains relationships and makes reasoned discourse of real issues difficult. This in turn hinders pastors from exercising discretion in unclear situations.”
The following quote is taken from the September 18, 1917 edition of The Lutheran Witness. It points out that the LCMS would have no joint worship services with other Lutheran synods on the Reformation Jubilee, because there was no unity in doctrine. Obviously, this refusal to hold joint worship services with other Lutheran synods would also apply to other non-Lutheran denominations:
“Joint Reformation Celebrations. — Many of our congregations will take part in joint celebrations of the Jubilee. The churches of the Synodical Conference in many centers of population will gather in imposing union services. But there will be no participation of our churches in general Lutheran or Protestant gatherings.
“The reason for this position of our Synod has been stated before, but in view of the approaching celebration demands restatement.
“We hold it to be self-evident truth that, where there is no unity of faith, there ought to be no unity of worship. If the texts of Scripture which forbid unionism (for example, Rom. 16, 17; 1 Tim. 6, 3 ff.) do not apply here, they are devoid of meaning.
“We hold it to be a truth that may be readily verified by investigation that there are real differences in doctrine between the synods composing the Synodical Conference on the one hand and, for instance, the Ohio Synod, the Iowa Synod, the General Synod, the General Council, and the United Synod of the South, on the other. [The predestinarian controversy is mentioned.]
“…There are other differences, as, for instance, on the Sabbath question and other adiaphora (liquor question, etc.). The evolution doctrine is taught in some church-papers. For a full discussion of these differences and others read Prof. Bente’s book: Was steht der Vereinigung der lutherischen Synoden Amerikas im Wege? which contains a sufficient array of facts to convince the Christian reader that there are very real and effectual bars to Lutheran union. But where there is no unity, there can be no joining worship nor joint celebrations of the Jubilee.
“The question is not: What do individual Christians in these bodies believe? but this: What is the public and official stand of these synods in matters of Christian doctrine? We believe that there are true Christians in all these Churches, because the essentials of the Gospel are still preached. Even so there are, no doubt, children of God in the Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, even in the Episcopal and Roman Catholic Churches. But all these Christians are permitting men who have departed in some point from the Gospel of Christ to determine the public and official doctrine of their bodies. These Christians are misled. They follow blind leaders. We may make every allowance for human weakness, and thus, in a measure, condone their fault. We recognize the stress of circumstances. But we cannot do one thing: we cannot enter into relations of fellowship with them so long a they do not obey the word of Jesus and proclaim their undivided adherence to His teachings.
“These words are not written for the purpose of instructing our own people, to whom all these statements are commonplaces, but for the benefit of the outsider. No Missouri Synod Lutheran rejoices in the fact of division. But he recognizes the fact. And by dispassionately exhibiting this fact, we appeal to the conscience of all good Christians who are now separated from us because of affiliation with men who teach falsely, and would have them remove the offense from their midst in order that there may be Lutheran unity throughout the length and breadth of the land.
“There is no other possibility of the removal of division except by speaking plainly to Christians concerning the error which they support by their membership. In the performance of this duty we must not grow negligent, not even in this year of Jubilee.”
Hermann Sasse, “Concerning the Unity of the Lutheran Church,” Letters to Pastors, No. 25, translated by Matthew C. Harrison:
“True ecumeny, which sees the one church of Christ wherever the means of grace are yet preserved—through which the Lord calls to His church—even beyond the boundaries of one’s own ecclesiology, stands opposed to false ecumeny, which treats Christians of all denominations as brothers in faith. This false ecumeny tries to make visible and tangible that which we humans cannot see and touch, the church as the people of God, as the Body of Christ, as the temple of the Holy Spirit. This false ecumeny changes the ‘article of faith’ about the church into an ‘article of sight.’ It understands the unity of the church, which only the Holy Spirit can create and maintain, as something which we humans can produce. And it tries to produce this unity, in that it works to realize the one faith, the one baptism, the one sacrament of the altar as a compromise of various forms of faith, various interpretations of baptism, and various understandings of holy communion. In so far as it does that, this false ecumeny overlooks [the fact] that the various understandings of the means of grace are not only different possibilities of understanding the truth, but rather that soul-murdering errors and church-destroying heresy also hide among them. True ecumeny sees this. Therefore, it is able to recognize the true unity of the church only there, where it recognizes the one correct faith, the one correct baptism, the one communion of the Lord Christ. True ecumeny asks, therefore, not first about unity, but rather about truth. It knows that where the true church is, there, and there alone, is also the one church. In this sense it understands the high priestly prayer of the Lord, too, in which the ‘that they may all be one’ is linked inseparably with ‘sanctify them in Your truth; Your Word is the truth’ (John 17:17, 21).”
Wilhelm Loehe in Three Books About the Church:
“Let the great ‘It is sufficient’ with which the Augsburg Confession insists upon unity in doctrine and sacrament be our war cry, our watchword, our banner.”
Dr. Franz Pieper, from “Unity of Faith”, an essay delivered at the 1888 Convention of the Synodical Conference, translated by E.J. Otto:
“We dare not allow any other concept of unity to arise among us than the unity of faith which is in harmony with Scripture, the agreement in all articles of Christian doctrine.”
Charles Porterfield Krauth, from “The Right Relation to Denominations in America,” in Lutheran Confessional Theology in America:
“When the Lutheran Church acts in the spirit of the current denominationalism it abandons its own spirit. It is a house divided against itself. Some even then will stand firm, and with the choosing of new gods on the part of others there will be war in the gates. No seeming success could compensate our church for the forsaking of principles which gave her her being, for the loss of internal peace, for the destruction of her proper dignity, for the lack of self-respect which would follow it. The Lutheran Church can never have real moral dignity, real self-respect, a real claim on the reverence and loyalty of its children while it allows the fear of the denominations around it, or the desire of their approval, in any respect to shape its principles or control its actions. It is a fatal thing to ask not, What is right? What is consistent? but, What will be thought of us? How will the sectarian and secular papers talk about us? How will our neighbors of the different communions regard this or that course? Better to die than to prolong a miserable life by such compromise of all that gives life its value.”
Johann Gerhard, quoted from Cyberbrethren, trans. by Rev. Dr. Benjamin Mayes:
“Not just any unity of faith and doctrine is a mark of the Church, but only the unity of true faith and doctrine, that is, of prophetic and apostolic doctrine, for that alone is of immovable and perpetual truth. Therefore the unity of faith that is a mark of the Church must be based on one foundation of doctrine: the apostolic doctrine. Accordingly, the Church is said to be ‘built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles’ (Eph. 2:20). It is said about the heavenly Jerusalem that “its wall has twelve foundations and on them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb”( Rev. 21:14). Accordingly, in Zech. 8:19 ‘truth and peace’ are joined. In fact, truth is set ahead of peace so that we may understand that God approves of only that peace, concord, and unity which enjoys the foundation and bond of truth. John 8:31: ‘If you remain in My Word, you are truly My disciples.’ John 17:21: ‘That they may be one in Us.'”
Johann Michael Reu, from the pamphlet “In the Interest of Lutheran Unity'”:
“We find this attitude of tolerance quite frequently among unionists. It is often used to assuage a troubled conscience, one’s own as well as that of others; for the unionist declares that every one may continue to hold his own private convictions and merely needs to respect and tolerate those of another. This attitude is totally wrong, for it disregards two important factors: (a) in tolerating divergent doctrines one either denies the perspicuity and clarity of the Scriptures, or one grants to error the right to exist alongside of truth, or one evidences indifference over against Biblical truth by surrendering its absolute validity; and (b) in allowing two opposite views concerning one doctrine to exist side by side, one has entered upon an inclined plane which of necessity leads ever further into complete doctrinal indifference, as may plainly be seen from the most calamitous case on record, viz., the Prussian Union.”
Dr. Theodore Graebner, from his essay “The Leprosy of Unionism”:
“No one believes that any Missouri Synod man would dare to propose at this time (1918) official synodical collaboration with the Reformed sects in church-work. That is a late development at which one does not arrive at a jump. On the other hand, the danger is ever present that on the specious plea of advancing the cause of “Lutheranism,” we be tempted to enter into fellowship with members of synods Lutheran in name, but only partly Lutheran in doctrine and practice. There is danger that we get a taste of applause and flattery; that we become eager for “recognition” as a great church-body; that we compromise our doctrinal stand for the purpose of meeting emergencies. And the time to become aware of that danger is NOW.
“It is a bad sign when hearers become angry at their pastor for “preaching against other churches.” It is a worse sign when pastors, bowing to such disapproval, begin to withhold instructions concerning the errors of the sects. It is a most alarming symptom when pastors and parishioners fraternize. . . with those who represent a different conception of Lutheranism. It becomes denial of the Truth when they associate with such for the purpose of “making church-work more effective” or “keeping the Lutheran Church on the map.”
“As we love our church, let us so teach our people so that they will fear the contagion of error as they would fear to breathe the air of a small-pox hospital. Let us exhibit to them the damnableness of false doctrine. Let us preach Luther on this point, who saw only the work of Satan in every deviation from the truth of Scripture. If our people learn to recognize every false doctrine as a snare of the devil, spread to catch victims for hell, they will not need to be held with a rein lest they stampede into unionism. .. .
“Let it be understood that any undertaking or activity which is, in effect, the doing of religious work jointly with those from whom we ought, according to Scripture to separate, is unionism. Here, if ever, the old sayings must apply: “Nip the evil in the bud.” Our first duty is that of watchfulness. There is no higher duty now because there is no greater danger.”
Dr. Martin Luther, quoted in F. Bente’s Historical Introductions to the Lutheran Confessions:
“Whoever really regards his doctrine, faith, and confession as true, right, and certain cannot remain in the same stall with such as teach or adhere to false doctrine.”
On All Hallows’ Eve 1517 a monk named Martin Luther posted a list of points for discussion and debate at the University of Wittenberg campus church. The campus church is named All Saints’ Church. The regular bulletin board for such announcements was the front church door. All Saints’ Church was the largest repository of relics of the saints outside of Rome. Many of those relics would be put on display on All Saints’ Day. Indulgences would be granted to those who came to the Church to view the relics of the saints on that day.
The location, the date, the practices: all of these helped focus the issue on and ensure a wide audience to the topic of Luther’s posted points.
The topic of the points for discussion: The Saints of the Church, and whether paying for a Papal Indulgence benefits the Saints, whether dead or living.
In They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].
It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.
Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.
No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.
Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.
They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.
Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope’s pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;
For these “graces of pardon” concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.
They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.
Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.
Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.
So, on the Eve of All Saints [Halloween], at All Saints’ Church, among the relics of the saints, during the veneration of the saints, and probably the reciting of the Litany of the Saints.
From late antiquity the cult of the saints grew within the ChristianChurch. It was lucrative–kind of like a circus side-show where the prize for the price of admission was not just to see the relic of a saint, but also to get some time out of purgatory or some grace to do good works to keep from going into purgatory.
In short, the Christian Church was a mess: plugged chock full of prayers to dead people that were declared by officials of the Church to be saints; overflowing with relics of dead people which were to be venerated, adored, and even prayed to in some cases; teaming with pilgrimages to these relics, artifacts of a nominally Christian Church that had abandoned God’s grace through faith in Christ and turned to salvation by other means.
The Church had adopted innumerable pagan practices. And no particular festival day showed the fact more clearly than All Saints’ Day. No particular church building could have been a clearer example than All Saints’ Church in Wittenberg, the largest focal point for pilgrimage to venerate the relics of the saints outside of Rome.
So it is instructive to see what was done by Luther and the Lutheran Reformation.
All Saints’ Church was not torn down. Some of its statuary were removed, but not all. Some of its art was changed, not just to get rid of particular saints, but to add some as well. One in particular was buried inside the church with a visible sepulcher and an image of the deceased.
The Litany of the Saints was not abandoned, but cleaned of its false worship. In fact, the Litany of the Saints is the basis for the Lutheran Litany found in most Lutheran hymnals today.
The observation of All Saints’ Day was not prohibited. Rather, it was expanded to include the teaching of God’s Word on what a saint truly is through faith in Christ alone. The abuses imported by the Church for the worship of the saints through the ages were rejected. But the value of remembering them, how God preserved them, and what God worked through them is retained, celebrated, and taught.
The attitude of Luther and the Lutheran Reformers was not to throw away everything that the Roman Church had done. Rather the purpose was to retain as much of the historic Christian practice as could be without violating the central teaching of Scripture: that we are Justified by God by His grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone as taught only in His Scriptures.
We retain All Saints’ Day, All Hallows Eve’, the honoring and remembering of the Saints who have gone before us–who pointed to Christ alone as their and our salvation. We confess in the Augsburg Confession of 1530:
Article XXI: Of the Worship of the Saints.
1] Of the Worship of Saints they teach that the memory of saints may be set before us, that we may follow their faith and good works, according to our calling, as the Emperor may follow the example of David in making war to drive away the Turk from his country. 2] For both are kings. But the Scripture teaches not the invocation of saints or to ask help of saints, since it sets before us the one Christ as the Mediator, Propitiation, High Priest, and Intercessor. 3] He is to be prayed to, and has promised that He will hear our prayer; and this worship He approves above all, to wit, that in all afflictions He be called upon, 1 John 2:1: 4] If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, etc. 5] This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers. This being the case, they judge harshly who insist that our teachers be regarded as heretics. 6] There is, however, disagreement on certain abuses, which have crept into the Church without rightful authority. And even in these, if there were some difference, there should be proper lenity on the part of bishops to bear with us by reason of the Confession which we have now reviewed; because even the Canons are not so severe as to demand the same rites everywhere, neither, at any time, have the rites of all churches been the same; 7] although, among us, in large part, the ancient rites are diligently observed. 8] For it is a false and malicious charge that all the ceremonies, all the things instituted of old, are abolished in our churches. 9] But it has been a common complaint that some abuses were connected with the ordinary rites. These, inasmuch as they could not be approved with a good conscience, have been to some extent corrected.
We thank God not by trashing all the heritage of Christian liturgical practice, but by learning it, appreciating the lessons of those who have gone before to shape this practice into a reflection of the bare truth of God’s Word.
The Apology XXI states in part:
4] Our Confession approves honors to the saints. For here a threefold honor is to be approved. The first is thanksgiving. For we ought to give thanks to God because He has shown examples of mercy; because He has shown that He wishes to save men; because He has given teachers or other gifts to the Church. And these gifts, as they are the greatest, should be amplified, and the saints themselves should be praised, who have faithfully used these gifts, just as Christ praises faithful business-men, 5]Matt. 25:21, 23. The second service is the strengthening of our faith; when we see the denial forgiven Peter, we also are encouraged to believe the more that grace 6] truly superabounds over sin, Rom. 5:20. The third honor is the imitation, first, of faith, then of the other virtues, which every one should imitate according to his calling. 7] These true honors the adversaries do not require. They dispute only concerning invocation, which, even though it would have no danger, nevertheless is not necessary.
There are many today who, like the church of late antiquity and the middle-ages are tired of the testimony of the Saints who have gone before us. They also reject historical liturgical practice and with it the historical confession of the faith. All in favor of newness and a self-satisfied feeling of genuineness in their own expression of worship. So they add, they tweak, they abandon not for the sake of clear biblical teaching, but for the sake of the audience. Whatever gets them in the door. Whatever can attract them to keep them coming.
That is, in part, how the cult of the saints started and twisted the observation of All Saints’ Day off its course before the Reformation.
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.
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.
Warning: this post contains sexually explicit material
Pornography is wicked. So is the sinful flesh, which is why porn sells. One source reported a “conservative estimate” of U.S. pornography revenues around $8 billion in 2012. Pornography is just as damnable a sin as any other sexual sin, but for all the outcry from (orthodox) churches over the legalization of homosexual marriage, where is the same outcry against the legality of pornography? Pornography is a much greater problem than homosexuality, statistically speaking. Maybe this one hits too close to home?
Pornography is such an abomination because, like all sin, it dehumanizes people. In the case of pornography, it reduces living, breathing human beings, made in the image of God, to nothing more than objects for sexual pleasure. In The Four Loves, C.S. Lewis observes:
We use a most unfortunate idiom when we say, of a lustful man prowling the streets, that he “wants a woman.” Strictly speaking, a woman is just what he does not want.
He wants a pleasure for which a woman happens to be the necessary piece of apparatus. How much he cares about the woman as such may be gauged by his attitude to her five minutes after fruition (one does not keep the carton after one has smoked the cigarettes).
Speaking against the evil of masturbation in Volume 3 of The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis, he writes:
For me the real evil of masturbation would be that it takes an appetite which, in lawful use, leads the individual out of himself to complete (and correct) his own personality in that of another (and finally in children and even grandchildren) and turns it back; sends the man back into the prison of himself, there to keep a harem of imaginary brides.
And this harem, once admitted, works against his ever getting out and really uniting with a real woman.
For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifices or adjustments, and can be endowed with erotic and psychological attractions which no woman can rival.
Among those shadowy brides he is always adored, always the perfect lover; no demand is made on his unselfishness, no mortification ever imposed on his vanity.
In the end, they become merely the medium through which he increasingly adores himself. . . . After all, almost the main work of life is to come out of our selves, out of the little dark prison we are all born in. Masturbation is to be avoided as all things are to be avoided which retard this process. The danger is that of coming to love the prison.
At the risk of making a very obvious point: sexually explicit magazines sell because of the aesthetics, not because of the words. Take all of the articles away, make it purely a picture book, and I guarantee it will still sell. Porn is all about the aesthetics.
The same is largely true of CCM “praise” music. It’s not about the words; it’s about the sound, the aesthetics. The texts tend to be very shallow, and sometimes even teach false doctrine. Just as pornography encourages lust for a “woman apparatus” over intimate knowledge of a spouse, so-called “praise music” is nothing more than a cheap “God apparatus” that encourages lust for a catchy beat over intimate knowledge of God’s Word. Consider the chorus to “Trading My Sorrows”:
And we say yes Lord yes Lord yes yes Lord
Yes Lord yes Lord yes yes Lord
Yes Lord yes Lord yes yes Lord Amen
I know, it’s profound. It’s not for no reason this genre has earned itself the label “7-11” songs (songs where you sing the same seven words eleven times). So why do some churches tolerate this nonsense? For the same reason pornography sells: because of the aesthetics. Remember Nirvana? Nobody could understand what Kurt Cobain was saying, and if you finally did figure it out, it was mostly nonsense. Granted Nirvana wasn’t a praise band, but this principle remains true of much praise music. Much of what passes for “praise music” is shallow, nonsensical, and sometimes even false. True praise of God consists of declaring who God is and what He’s done, not in singing about how much we like to sing about Him. Consider this gem (“I Love to Praise Him”):
Verse 1:
I Love to praise Him (I Love to praise His name) {x3}
I Love to praise His holy name
I Love to praise Him (I Love to praise His name)
I Love to praise up my Lord (I Love to praise His name)
I Love to praise Him (I Love to praise His name)
I Love to praise His holy name
I Love to praise Him (I Love to praise His name)
I Love to put my hands together and praise Him (I Love to praise His name)
Is there anybody out here feel the same tonight (I Love to praise His name)
I Love to praise His holy name
Verse 2:
For He’s my rock (He’s my rock, my rock, my sword, my shield)
He’s my will (He’s my will in the middle of the week)
I know He’ll never (I know He’ll never, never let me down)
He’s just a Jewel (He’s just a Jewel that I have found)
Hallelujah (hallelujah)
Hallelujah (hallelujah)
I Love to praise His name
Hallelujah (hallelujah)
Hallelujah (hallelujah)
I Love to praise His name
Hallelujah (hallelujah)
Hallelujah (hallelujah)
I Love to praise His name
I Love to praise His holy name
Repeat Verse 2:
For He’s my rock (He’s my rock, my rock, my sword, my shield)
He’s my will (He’s my will in the middle of the week)
I know He’ll never (I know He’ll never, never let me down)
He’s just a Jewel (He’s just a Jewel that I have found)
Hallelujah (hallelujah)
Hallelujah (hallelujah)
I Love to praise His name
Hallelujah (hallelujah)
Hallelujah (hallelujah)
I Love to praise His name
Hallelujah (hallelujah)
Hallelujah (hallelujah)
I Love to praise His name
I Love to praise (x8)
I Love to praise His holy name
I Love to praise Him (I Love to praise) {x3}
Make me feel good to praise Him (I Love to praise)
He’s worthy of the praise (I Love to praise)
He’s worthy of the glory (I Love to praise)
Everybody Love to praise Him (I Love to praise) {x2}
Help me say
I Love (I Love) {x15}
I Love to praise (x8)
I Love (I Love) {x16}
I Love to praise (x8)
I Love (I Love) {x16}
I Love to praise
Well-meaning Christians are sometimes even able to tolerate false doctrine in a song they really like. Consider, for example, the once-popular Michael W. Smith song “Breathe”, which sounds quite pantheistic:
This is the air I breathe
This is the air I breathe
Your holy presence living in me
Or consider “Dance with Me” by Jesus Culture, which asks God to “romance me” and frames our relationship with God as if we were His sexual partners:
Won’t You dance with me, Oh
Lover of my soul,
to the song of all songs?
Romance me, Oh
Lover of my soul
to the song of all songs.
Hymns, on the other hand, are not about the aesthetics. They are about the Word, not the music. We sing them because of what they teach us about the faith. Augsburg Confession XXIV.2—3 says:
Meanwhile no conspicuous changes have been made in the public ceremonies of the Mass, except that in certain places German hymns are sung in addition to the Latin responses for the instruction and exercise of the people. After all, the chief purpose of all ceremonies is to teach the people what they need to know about Christ.
Likewise, the Apology (XXIV.3) says:
The purpose of observing ceremonies is that men may learn the Scriptures and that those who have been touched by the Word may receive faith and fear and so may also pray. Therefore we keep Latin for the sake of those who study and understand it, and we insert German hymns to give the common people something to learn that will arouse their faith and fear.
In a good hymn (and certainly they are not all created equal), the music serves the text. I suspect this is why many people dislike hymns today: they are more interested in singing something that has a catchy beat than in learning something about God’s Word through music.
This is why most praise music is ear porn. People like it because of the feeling it creates; they listen for the aesthetics, not for the words. Nobody sings or listens to this stuff because it’s such an eloquent expression of the faith; they like the way it sounds.
This is not to say that there are not any doctrinally sound, substantive praise songs out there. However, the genre is flooded with songs that are mostly shallow, and when they do teach doctrine, it is usually false. There aren’t too many orthodox theologians writing praise songs these days, and most of those who write CCM songs are hardly orthodox theologians. And even where the text is orthodox, the music still usually takes center stage and the text is an afterthought. The music should serve the text, not the other way around.
Aesthetics do matter, especially in God’s house. Which is more suitable for use in the presence of the living God? A genre of music where the emphasis is clearly on the music and not the message (not to mention is a genre that has strong ties to sex, drugs, and rock and roll), or a genre that seeks to decrease so that Christ might increase?
When a congregation begins toying with the idea of contemporary worship, one of the usual driving factors is an attempt to be more “inclusive.” “The Church needs to appeal to more people than the gray-hairs that attend every Sunday. Get rid of that tired plodding organ and get some more lively instruments in there! Why force modern Americans to sing nothing but 16th century German hymns?” The impression that advocates often give is that contemporary worship is something that opens the church up and broadens it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather than providing a breath of fresh air, contemporary worship is a narrow and constrictive force that can strangle a congregation.
First, the contention that traditional Lutheran hymnals are simply a collection of music that only old people could like is rather dubious. Consider: The commonly used Lutheran hymnal (LSB) includes songs dating back from almost two thousand years ago all the way to today. Most of its hymns were written centuries before any of our elderly were even born. If they enjoy it, it cannot possibly be because it was the music of their generation–something that only they would like. Generationally exclusive music is, however, precisely what contemporary worship seeks to impose. Rather than selecting the best from a broad ocean of church music that spans cultures, continents, & thousands of years of history, contemporary worship restricts music: first to the last few decades, then to America, then to a subset of the youth. Towards the end of his book, Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism, James K. A. Smith describes a “radically orthodox” church service that he considers to more “catholic” than the services we may be used to. Nevertheless, the mishmash of eclectic chairs, jazz bands, and Anne Sexton poetry he advocates would only appeal to the neo-hipster, Whole Foods, communitarian demographic. That’s about as far from universal as you can get. In the name of being inclusive, contemporary worship excludes everyone but the young and hip by trading the rich heritage found in the liturgy for a handful of passing fads.
Second, Contemporary worship restricts music’s capacity to communicate. Every age has its own insights & blind-spots, and its preferred styles reflect these. One advantage to a broad hymnody is that the excesses of one age cover often the deficiencies of another. Contemporary worship lacks this safeguard. If you compare hymns written in the past 75 years or so to the hymns that preceded it, you’ll quickly notice some general differences in the lyrical structure. Older hymns tend to be built around sentences and make statements. Modern hymns, on the other hand tend to be built around phrases and are designed to give an impression. While the former style serves a variety of purposes (confession, catechesis, prayer, praise, etc), the latter style is suited almost exclusively toward praise and self-expression (it’s no accident they’re usually called ‘praise bands’). Now, while self-expression has very little place in the divine service, there’s certainly nothing wrong with singing praise songs in church. Beautiful Savior, for example, is a classic hymn that makes use of this kind of phrase-based songwriting for precisely this purpose. The problem arises when almost every hymn is like that. Practically speaking, restricting a congregation to contemporary songs restricts them to praise music. By neglecting the ability to make meaningful statements in music, the hymnody begins to forget why we’re responding to God with praise in the first place. When this goes on long enough, all that remains is a desperate attempt to use music to manipulate the emotions into producing what once flowed naturally from what God has done for us.
Finally, contemporary worship generally doesn’t make people feel more comfortable or welcome–at least not in Lutheran churches. In the movie Better of Dead, there’s a scene in which John Cusack’s family invites a French exchange student over for dinner. In order to make her feel more welcome, the hostess serves a meal consisting of French fries, French toast, and French bread. Needless to say, regardless of the hostess’ efforts, the student did not exactly feel comfortable. Frankly, this is pretty much how Lutherans come off when we pander to those young, hip Americans of whom we have only the most shallow understanding by attempting to adopt their musical styles in church. Those we pander to might (or might not) be too polite to say that such imitation looks more like a bad parody, but they’re often thinking it.
Perhaps there’s another thing we might learn from this analogy when we seek to invite unbelievers into the church. The Church is in the world, but not of it. No matter how we arrange our music, unbelievers who visit us are in a foreign land. The last thing an exchange student is looking for is a grossly inferior version of their own culture. The entire point of being an exchange student is to be immersed in something other. If the Church tries to make herself look like the world, not only will she do a poor job of it, but she will deny those who come to her the opportunity to find something more than what they already have. Our heritage is something any generation can be brought into. If we seek to be more inclusive and welcoming, we would do well to embrace it.
I’m a lay person who has been constantly being educated in what it truly means to be a confessional Lutheran. I love it! It’s been a slow learning, growing process over more than a decade now. I have always been a Lutheran, born and bred. Baptized into the Lord’s family at three weeks of age, I have always just believed. I felt awe, fear, and respect for our great God, and knew he loved me so much He sent His only Son to save me from my sins. John 3:16 was my confirmation verse, and I had to do my pre-confirmation speech on it.
It wasn’t until I was an adult that I started having a lot more contact in my life with people of other Christian persuasions. It came as a surprise to me that you had to ask Jesus to live in your heart! I had learned as a Lutheran that He was always with me, and I could pray to Him whenever, wherever I wanted. Life had always been lived with worship on Sunday, but most of the rest of the week was spent doing ordinary family things, like kids home work, cooking, cleaning, working outside the home, etc. I attended Bible Studies sometimes when offered. I was involved in the LWML, helped with VBS in the kitchen or crafts, and started reading my Bible.
My parents did not teach my siblings and me to be hymn-Nazis. Rather, they simply taught us good hymns and good theology, and they encouraged us to keep singing good hymns and to read good theology. So for my first post on BJS, I would like to briefly give my case for why I can hardly stand one particular hymn: “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross” by Isaac Watts (LSB 425, 426).
The hymn does not once mention the forgiveness of sins, the cancellation of guilt, Christ bearing our sins or satisfying the wrath of God, or anything about the merit of Christ’s passive obedience credited to us poor sinners. It seems as though Watts based this hymn off of Philippians 3:7- 8 where Paul says that he counts all his works but loss for the sake of Christ. One can hardly criticize him for paraphrasing Paul’s powerful words in Philippians 3; however, he did not include the full thrust of Paul’s words:
For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— (Phil 3:8b-9)
Watts fails to include the comforting promise of the alien righteousness credited to us by faith. Instead, the hymn dwells on the self discipline the Christian undertakes by meditating on the cross of Christ. Certainly, there is nothing blatantly erroneous in Watt’s hymn; however, this apparently cross-centered hymn fails to express the central theme of the Atonement, the great and blessed exchange where God’s wrath on all mankind and His mercy on all mankind meet in the suffering of His own Son. We like to call this Objective Justification.
Last summer I was talking theology with my brother Stephen, and naturally, we stumbled onto the topic of justification and the preaching of the gospel. After we agreed that it is unacceptable for a pastor to preach a sermon without preaching the atonement and the forgiveness of sins (which did not take long), my brother eventually referred me to an article that Dr. Kurt Marquart wrote, entitled “The Reformation Roots of ‘Objective Justification.'” As I read the article, I noticed that Marquart quoted Luther in Against the Heavenly Prophets. Here is what Luther said, as quoted by Marquart (The Reformation Roots of “Objective Justification.” A Lively Legacy: Essays in Honor of Robert Preus. 1985, pg 124):
If now I seek the forgiveness of sins, I do not run to the cross, for I will not find it given there. Nor must I hold to the suffering of Christ, as Dr. Karlstadt trifles, in knowledge or remembrance, for I will not find it there either. But I will find in the sacrament or gospel the word which distributes, presents, offers, and gives to me that forgiveness which was won on the cross. (LW, 40, 212-13)
Marquart continues to demonstrate that Objective Justification is simply the objective promise, which is the Gospel. But this promise is not merely information. He writes (127):
Far from being a mere reminder or ‘assurance’ of a forgiveness we already have in some other way, the Gospel is God’s actual – and only – means of granting forgiveness…
This “only means of granting forgiveness” has been taught by faithful Lutheran parents to their children and faithful pastors to their congregations for hundreds of years. Reading this article deepened my conviction that Watts’ hymn is far from Lutheran, which makes sense, since he wasn’t a Lutheran. As much as Justification is the central article of Lutheran theology, it should remain the central theme for Lutheran doxology. Doxology which is not evangelically didactic is a waste of time. Especially when we sing hymns about the cross, the words should edify us by teaching the truth of the cross: “One has died for all, therefore all have died… For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Cor 5:14b, 21)”
Biographical info:
My name is Andrew Preus. I grew up mainly in northern Minnesota, and I earned my BA at University of Minnesota, Morris. I am in my final academic year at Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary in St. Catharines, ON, at which I am also the editor for our student journal Propter Christum. I am married, and my wife and I have one son. I come from a family of twelve children, and my dad is a pastor up in North Dakota and northern Minnesota. So far seven of my brothers are either in the seminary or are already pastors. I love to talk theology, and throughout my studies, I pray for a deeper understanding of that Love of God which surpasses all understanding.
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.
2.5 Calling Ministers of Religion by Congregations
2.5.1 Congregations shall seek the counsel of their respective district presidents when calling ordained or commissioned ministers.
2.5.2 Congregations that are members of the Synod shall call and be served only by (1) ordained ministers who have been admitted to their respective ministries in accordance with the rules and regulations set forth in these Bylaws and have thereby become members of the Synod; (2) candidates for the pastoral ministry who have satisfied the qualifications and requirements for assignment of first calls by the Council of Presidents acting as the Board of Assignments; or (3) ordained ministers who are members in good standing of church bodies that have been formally recognized to be in altar and pulpit fellowship with the Synod when agreements for such calls are in place.
2.5.3 Congregations that are members of the Synod shall call only (1) commissioned ministers who have been admitted to their ministries in accordance with the rules and regulations set forth in these Bylaws and have thereby become members of the Synod; (2) candidates of LCMS colleges and universities who have satisfied the qualifications and requirements for assignment of first calls by the Council of Presidents acting as the Board of Assignments; or (3) commissioned ministers (or those holding positions comparable to commissioned ministers) who are members in good standing of church bodies that have been formally recognized to be in altar and pulpit fellowship with the Synod when agreements for such calls are in place.
2.5.4 Congregations that violate these requirements and persist in such violation shall, after due admonition, forfeit their membership in the Synod.
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.
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.
Augsburg Confession, article V
1 So that we may obtain this faith, the ministry of teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted. 2 Through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Spirit is given [John 20:22]. He works faith, when and where it pleases God [John 3:8], in those who hear the good news that God justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ’s sake. 3 This happens not through our own merits, but for Christ’s sake.
4 Our churches condemn the Anabaptists and others who think that through their own preparations and works the Holy Spirit comes to them without the external Word.
Concordia : The Lutheran Confessions, Edited by Paul Timothy McCain (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2005), 33.
Augsburg Confession, article XIV
Our churches teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church, or administer the Sacraments, without a rightly ordered call.
Concordia : The Lutheran Confessions, Edited by Paul Timothy McCain (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2005), 39.
Did 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: Saturnalia
In 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:
The first tradition claims that the festival was instituted by Janus so that humans would honor their ruler Saturn (who had disappeared) for the gifts Saturn gave to humans: arboriculture, fertilizer, using symbols of Saturn’s effigy holding the sickle (Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.7.24-26)
“[24] It was during their reign that Saturn suddenly disappeared, and Janus then devised means to add to his honors. First he gave the name Saturnia to all the land which acknowledged his rule; and then he built an altar, instituting rites as to a god and calling these rites the Saturnalia—a fact which goes to show how very much older the festival is than the city of Rome. And it was because Saturn had improved the conditions of life that, by order of Janus, religious honors were paid to him, as his effigy indicates, which received the additional attribute of a sickle, the symbol of harvest.
[25] Saturn is credited with the invention of the art of grafting, with the cultivation of fruit trees, and with instructing men in everything that belongs to the fertilizing of the fields. Furthermore, at Cyrene his worshipers, when they offer sacrifice to him, crown themselves with fresh figs and present each other with cakes, for they hold that he discovered honey and fruits. Moreover, at Rome men call him “Sterculius,” as having been the first to fertilize the fields with dung (stercus). [26] His reign is said to have been a time of great happiness, both on account of the universal plenty that then prevailed and because as yet there was no division into bond and free—as one may gather from the complete license enjoyed by slaves at the Saturnalia.”
Another tradition says the festival was instituted by men Hercules left behind on Saturn hill. In this version the festival was created to help men be respectful of gods. (Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.7.27)
[27] Another tradition accounts for the Saturnalia as follows. Hercules is said to have left men behind him in Italy, either (as certain authorities hold) because he was angry with them for neglecting to watch over his herds or (as some suppose), deliberately, to protect his altar and temple from attacks. Harassed by brigands, these men occupied a high hill and called themselves Saturnians, from the name which the hill too used previously to bear, and, conscious of the protection afforded to them by the name of Saturn and by the awe which the god inspired, they are said to have instituted the Saturnalia, to the end that the very observance of the festival thus proclaimed might bring the uncouth minds of their neighbors to show a greater respect for the worship of the god.
A third tradition claims a different geographic origin, that the festival was instituted by the Pelasgians who had migrated into Sicily at the oracle. In this tradition the festival was made to honor and thank Saturn, Dis, and Apollo. This tradition claims that at the festival people originally offered human sacrifices, but Hercules came and convinced them to make masks and burn candles in stead of the human sacrifices. In this particular tradition it is claimed that people of position and power demanded gifts, for a while, from the poor during the festival. (Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.7.28-33)
[28] I am aware too of the account given by Varro of the origin of the Saturnalia. The Pelasgians, he says, when they were driven from their homes, made for various lands, but most of them flocked to Dodona and, doubtful where to settle, consulted the oracle. They received this reply: “Go ye in search of the land of the Sicels and the Aborigines, a land, sacred to Saturn, even Cotyle, where floateth an island. Mingle with these people and then send a tenth to Phoebus and offer heads to Hades and a man to the Father.”8 Such was the response which they received, and after many wanderings they came to Latium, where in the lake of Cutilia they found a floating9 island, [29] for there was a large expanse of turf—perhaps solidified mud or perhaps an accumulation of marsh land with brushwood and trees forming a luxuriant wood—and it was drifting through the water by the movement of the waves in such a way as to win credence even for the tale of Delos, the island which, for all its lofty hills and wide plains, used to journey through the seas from place to place. [30] The discovery of this marvel showed the Pelasgians that here was the home foretold for them. And, after having driven out the Sicilian inhabitants, they took possession of the land, dedicating a tenth of the spoil to Apollo, in accordance with the response given by the oracle, and raising a little shrine to Dis and an altar to Saturn, whose festival they named the Saturnalia.
[31] For many years they thought to propitiate Dis with human heads and Saturn with the sacrifice of men, since the oracle had bidden them: “Offer heads to Hades and a man (xa) to the Father.” But later, the story goes, Hercules, returning through Italy with the herds of Geryon, persuaded their descendants to replace these unholy sacrifices with others of good omen, by offering to Dis little masks cleverly fashioned to represent the human face, instead of human heads, and by honoring the altars of Saturn with lighted candles instead of with the blood of a man; for the word (porta means “lights” as well as “a man.” [32] This is the origin of the custom of sending round wax tapers during the Saturnalia, although others think that the practice is derived simply from the fact that it was in the reign of Saturn that we made our way, as though to the light, from a rude and gloomy existence to a knowledge of the liberal arts. [33] I should add, however, that I have found it written that, since many through greed made the Saturnalia an excuse to solicit and demand gifts from their clients, a practice which bore heavily on those of more slender means, one Publicius, a tribune, proposed to the people that no one should send anything but wax tapers to one richer than himself.
The last listed tradition says the festival was instituted in Greece further back and adopted by Rome. “The day is kept a holiday, and in country and in town all usually hold joyful feasts, at which each man waits on his own slaves.” (Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.7.36-37)
[36] You have referred, said Praetextatus, to a parallel instance of a change for the better in the ritual of a sacrifice. The point is well taken and well timed. But from the reasons adduced touching the origin of the Saturnalia it appears that the festival is of greater antiquity than the city of Rome, for in fact Lucius Accius” in his Annals says that its regular observance began in Greece before the foundation of Rome. [37] Here are the lines:
In most of Greece, and above all at Athens, men celebrate in honor of Saturn a festival which they always call the festival of Cronos. The day is kept a holiday, and in country and in town all usually hold joyful feasts, at which each man waits on his own slaves. And so it is with us. Thus from Greece that custom has been handed down, and slaves dine with their masters at that time.
[These Macrobius quotations are Tom Schmidt’s transcriptions of Percival Vaughn Davies Edition, 1969 by Columbia University Press]
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:
that it could have no other real reason than stealing from Saturnalia as justification for using light to celebrate “the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.” Certainly nothing more ancient than Roman Saturnalia, like, for example: Isaiah 60; or a separate tradition at that same time of the year such as the Feast of Dedication/Chanukah (John 10:22) from the period of the Maccabees;
that without Saturnalia Christians could not possibly conceive of giving gifts in honor of the Christ Child, like those gifts the Wise Men gave to celebrate the Birth of Christ (Matthew 2); or
that the poverty of the incarnation of the Son of God, the King of Creation to serve poor sinners could not be the example for having a 19th century Anglican carol about a 10th century Bohemian king serve the poor.
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:
Saturnalia used to be celebrated on only one day, the fourteenth before the Kalends of January [=19th Dec.], but that it was afterward prolonged to last three days: first, in consequence of the days which Caesar added to the month of December, and then in pursuance of an edict of Augustus which prescribed a series of three rest days for the Saturnalia. The festival therefore begins on the sixteenth day before the Kalends of January [=17th Dec.] and ends on the fourteenth [=19th Dec.], which used to be the only day of its celebration. However, the addition of the feast of the Sigillaria has extended the time of general excitement and religious rejoicing to seven days. …
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)]
[ 1 ] But to return to our account of the Saturnalia. It was held to an offense against religion to begin a war at the time of the Saturnalia, and to punish a criminal during the days of the festival called for an act of atonement. [2] Our ancestors restricted the Saturnalia to a single day, the fourteenth before the Kalends of January, but, after Gaius Caesar had added two days to December, the day on which the festival was held became the sixteenth before the Kalends of January, with the result that, since the exact day was not commonly known—some observing the addition which Caesar had made to the calendar and others following the old usage —the festival came to be regarded as lasting for more days than one.
And yet in fact among the men of old time there were some who supposed that the Saturnalia lasted for seven days (if one may use the word “suppose” of something which has the support of competent authorities); [3] for Novius, that excellent writer of Atellan plays, says: “Long awaited they come, the seven days of the Saturnalia” [Ribbeck, II, 328]; and Mummius too, who, after Novius and Pomponius, restored the long-neglected Atellan to favor, says: “Of the many excellent institutions of our ancestors this is the best—that they made the seven days of the Saturnalia begin when the weather is coldest” [Ribbeck, II, 332].
[4] Mallius, however, says that the men who, as I have already related, had found protection in the name of Saturn and in the awe which he inspired, ordained a three-day festival in honor of the god, calling it the Saturnalia, and that it was on the authority of this belief that Augustus, in his laws for the administration of justice, ordered the three days to be kept as rest days.
[5] Masurius and others believed that the Saturnalia were held on one day, the fourteenth day before the Kalends of January, and their opinion is corroborated by Fenestella when he says that the virgin Aemilia was condemned on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of January; for, had that day been a day on which the festival of the Saturnalia was being celebrated, she could not by any means have been called on to plead, [6] and he adds that “the day was the day which preceded the Saturnalia,” and then goes on to say that “on the day after that, namely, the thirteenth day before the Kalends of January, the virgin Licinia was to plead,” thereby making it clear that the thirteenth day too was not a festival.
[ 7 ] On the twelfth day before the Kalends of January there is a rest day in honor of the goddess Angeronia, to whom the pontiffs offer sacrifice in the chapel of Volupia. According to Verrius Flac-cus, this goddess is called Angeronia because, duly propitiated, she banishes anxiety (angores) and mental distress. [8] Masurius adds that an image of this goddess, with the mouth bound up and sealed,1 is placed on the altar of Volupia, because all who conceal their pain and care find, thanks to their endurance, great joy (voluptas) at last. [9] According to Julius Modestus, however, sacrifices are offered to Angeronia because, pursuant to the fulfillment of a vow, she delivered the Roman people from the disease known as the quinsy (angina).
[10] The eleventh day before the Kalends of January is a rest day in honor of the Lares, for whom the praetor Aemilius Regillus in the war against Antiochus solemnly promised to provide a temple in the Campus Martius.
[11] The tenth day before the Kalends is a rest day in honor of Jupiter, called the Larentinalia. I should like to say something of this day, and here are the beliefs generally held about it.
[12] In the reign of Ancus, they say, a sacristan of the temple of Hercules, having nothing to do during the rest day challenged the god to a game of dice, throwing for both players himself, and the stake for which they played was a dinner and the company of a courtesan. [13] Hercules won, and so the sacristan shut up Acca Larentia in the temple (she was the most notable courtesan of the time) and the dinner with her. Next day the woman let it be known that the god as a reward for her favors had bidden her take advantage of the first opportunity that came to her on her way home. [ 14] It so happened that, after she had left the temple, one Carutius, captivated by her beauty, accosted her, and in compliance with his wishes she married him. On her husband’s death all his estate came into her hands, and, when she died, she named the Roman people her heir. [15] Ancus therefore had her buried in the Velabrum, the most frequented part of the city, and a yearly rite was instituted in her honor, at which sacrifice was offered by a priest to her departed spirit—the rest day being dedicated to Jupiter because it was believed of old that souls are given by him and are given back to him again after death. [16] Cato, however, says that Larentia, enriched by the profits of her profession, left lands known as the Turacian, Semurian, Lintirian, and Solinian lands to the Roman people after her death and was therefore deemed worthy of a splendid tomb and the honor of an annual service of remembrance. [17] But Macer, in the first Book of his Histories, maintains that Acca Larentia was the wife of Faustulus and the nurse of Romulus and Remus and that in the reign of Romulus she married a weajthy Etruscan named Carutius, succeeded to her husband’s wealth as his heir, and afterward left it to her foster child Romulus, who dutifully appointed a memorial service and a festival in her honor.
[18] One can infer, then, from all that has been said, that the Saturnalia lasted but one day and was held only on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of January; it was on this day alone that the shout of “Io Saturnalia” would be raised, in the temple of Saturn, at a riotous feast. Now, however, during the celebration of the Saturnalia, this day is allotted to the festival of the Opalia, although the day was first assigned to Saturn and Ops in common.
[19] Men believed that the goddess Ops was the wife of Saturn and that both the Saturnalia and the jOpalia are held in this month of December because the produce of the fields and orchards are thought to be the discovery of these two deities, who, when men have gathered in the fruits of the earth, are worshiped therefore as the givers of a more civilized life. [20] Some too are of the opinion that Saturn and Ops represent heaven and earth, the name Saturn being derived from the word for growth from seed (satus), since such growth is the gift of heaven, and the name Ops being identified with earth, either because it is by her bounty (ops) that life is nourished or because the name comes from the toil (opus) which is needed to bring forth the fruits of trees and fields. [21] When men make prayer to Ops they sit and are careful to touch the earth, signifying thereby that the earth is the very mother of mortals and is to be approached as such.
[22] Philochorus says that Cecrops was the first to build, in Attica, an altar to Saturn and Ops, worshiping these deities as Jupiter and Earth, and to ordain that, when crops and fruits had been garnered, the head of a household everywhere should eat thereof in company with the slaves with whom he had borne the toil of cultivating the land, for it was well pleasing to the god that honor should be paid to the slaves in consideration of their labor. And that is why we follow the practice of a foreign land and offer sacrifice to Saturn with the head uncovered.
[23] I think that we have now given abundant proof that the festival of the Saturnalia used to be celebrated on only one day, the fourteenth before the Kalends of January, but that it was afterward prolonged to last three days: first, in consequence of the days which Caesar added to the month of December, and then in pursuance of an edict of Augustus which prescribed a series of three rest days for the Saturnalia. The festival therefore begins on the sixteenth day before the Kalends of January and ends on the fourteenth, which used to be the only day of its celebration.5 [24] However, the addition of the feast of the Sigillaria has extended the time of general excitement and religious rejoicing to seven days.
Schmidt comments:
Macrobius does an excellent job summarizing authorities that were available to him, most of which I think have been lost. His conclusion is quite clear, Saturnalia originally was one day and occurred on the 14th day before the Kalends January, but when Caesar altered the calendar it was extended to three days and started on the 16th, later a new Festival of Sigillaria extended the celebrations to complete seven days, meaning that the Festival ended on either the 10th or ninth day before the Kalends of January depending on how we count. Of course neither of these days fall on the eighth day before the Kalends of January, that is December 25.
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.
(from Mollie) Today we commemmorate Johann Sebastian Bach, the most wonderful composer of all time. Or, as the Aardvark put it last year:
Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750) is acknowledged as one of the most famous and gifted of all composers past and present in the entire western world. Orphaned at the age of ten, Bach studied with various family members but was mostly self-taught in music.
He began his professional career as conductor, performer, composer, teacher, and organ consultant at age 19 in the town of Arnstadt. He traveled wherever he received good commissions and steady employment, ending up in Leipzig, where the last 27 years of his life found him responsible for all the music in the city’s four Lutheran churches.
Acclaimed more in his own time as a superb keyboard artist, the majority of his compositions fell into disuse following his death, which musicologists use to date the end of the Baroque Period and the beginning of the Classical Era. However, his compositional ability was rediscovered, in large part due to the efforts of Felix Mendelssohn. The genius and sheer magnitude of Bach’s vocal and instrumental compositions remain overwhelming. Also, whether due to nature or nurture, he was but one of the giants in, perhaps, the most talented musical family of all time.
Christendom especially honors J. S. Bach, a staunch and devoted Lutheran, for his lifelong insistence that his music was written primarily for the liturgical life of the Church, glorifying God and edifying His people. For an overview of the Christological basis of his work and a strong argument that he was among the theological giants of Lutheranism, please read J. S. Bach: Orthodox Lutheran Theologian?.
Today we remember his “heavenly birthday,” for it was on 28 July AD 1750 that the Lord translated Mr. Bach to glory.
Soli deo gloria — To God alone the glory! These words appear on most manuscripts of Bach’s compositions as testimony to his faith and his idea of music’s highest, noblest use.
Our Lord said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matthew 28:19) What part of that do we not understand? In regard to the whole topic at hand, when it comes to “headship,” be it in the church and home, that about covers it all, wouldn’t you say? Headship belongs to Christ.
In his letter to the church at Ephesus, St. Paul talks about how God the Father raised Christ from the dead “and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all. (Ephesians 1:20-23)
We also have these wonderful words in Paul’s letter to the Colossians, that Christ “is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities- all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.” (Colossians 1:15-19)
Do me a favor and reread both of the previous passages and consider all that they say about our Savior, the One to whom “every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:10-11)Indeed, you and I in our personal devotions cannot spend too much time considering what it means that Jesus is Lord… that Jesus is my Lord and the ramifications of the same.
I would venture to say that most people do, in fact, understand conceptually that Christ is the head of the church. They likewise understand that He is the head of the home. The problem or issue is not a matter of “comprehending.” Rather, it is one of accepting, embracing, admitting and confessing this spiritual truth with one’s lips and in one’s very own life. How is that working for you?
In our daily reflection of our life in Christ, we need to again and again ask ourselves if we are only paying lip service to the fact that Jesus is Lord and that He is head over all things in heaven and earth. Certainly, Christ’s headship is not contingent upon our acknowledging the same and living accordingly. He is head and Lord over all regardless of our actions. Still, we fervently pray that Christ may truly be head over our lives – in our home and in our church – and that this is oh-so evident in the way we think and in what we do and say.
So how does that happen? It happens when we, by the power of the Holy Spirit, listen to and obey the words which come from the holy mouth of our most sacred Head. It happens when we read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the Scriptures and apply the same to any and all aspects of our lives. Then and only then are we upholding the headship of Christ.
When our Lord says one thing in His holy word and we have the audacity to say another, when we change and rearrange His words (even if it is ever so slightly) or interpret His will to fit our will, our desires… we have, in reality, triedto usurp the power and authority of Christ. In these instances, we have tried to take Christ’s headship from Him and make it our own, declaring ourselves to be in charge.Dare I say that we, through our actions, declare ourselves to be God? And if not God, we try to at least be His “vicar,” standing in His place, functioning and acting like some pope.
Sadly, this happens a lot in our homes and in our churches. It has been the case down through the centuries and it is still to this very day. So how is it in your home? How is it in your congregation? How is it in our Synod? In these places, is Christ the head? He is, of course. He always is. But is it true in regard to what we are doing?
As I mentioned in my first article, we will now turn our attention first to the home and examine what all is happening there in regard to spiritual headship. Such a discussion will be anything but boring.
I was just in a conversation with two younger men who were seriously saying that listening to the audio pornography and vile filth of Eminem is appropriate for Christians. One suggested that because only what comes out of a man is what makes him sinful that it matters not what he sees, or hears, as a Christian. These two young men are sadly typical of a poorly formed understanding of the life of good works to which we are called as Christians that seems pandemic in the Christian Church, where apparently some can wax eloquent about how they are striving to be faithful to God’s Word, but then turn right around and wallow in the mire and squalor of sin. This all the more underscores for me the point that we have a serious lack of emphasis on sanctification in our beloved Lutheran church. There is much teaching that is not being done, that must done. Simply repeating formulas and phrases about justification is not teaching and preaching the whole counsel of God. Comforting people with the Gospel when there is no genuine repentance for sin is doing them a disservice. There is a serious “short circuit” here that we need to be mindful of. Let this be clear. Listening to the “music” of swine such as Eminem is sinful and willfully choosing to listen to it is sin that drives out the Holy Spirit. This is deadly serious business. Deadly. Serious.
Pastors who wash their hands of this responsibility claiming that they want to avoid interjecting law into their sermons when they have preached the Gospel are simply shirking their duty as preachers and are being unfaithful to God’s Word.
We have done such a fine job explaining that we are not saved by works that we have, I fear, neglected to urge the faithful to lives of good works as faithfully and clearly as we should. This should not be so among us brethren.
I’m growing increasingly concerned that with the necessary distinction between faith and works that we must always maintain, we Lutherans are tempted to speak of good works and the life of sanctification in such a way as to either minimize it, or worse yet, neglect it. I read sermons and hear comments that give me the impression that some Lutherans think that good works are something that “just happen” on some sort of a spiritual auto-pilot. Concern over a person believing their works are meritorious has led to what borders on paranoia to the point that good works are simply not taught or discussed as they should be. It seems some have forgotten that in fact we do confess three uses of the law, not just a first or second use.
The Apostle, St. Paul, never ceases to urge good works on his listeners nad readers. I recall a conversation once with a person who should know better telling me that the exhortations to good works and lengthy discussions of sanctification we find in the New Testament are not a model at all for preaching, since Paul is not “preaching” but rather writing a letter. This is not a good thing.
A number of years ago an article appeared that put matters well and sounded a very important word of warning and caution. It is by Professor Kurt E. Marquart of Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana. I strongly encourage you to give it your most serious attention.
Antinomian Aversion to Sanctification?
By Doctor Kurt Marquart
An emerited brother writes that he is disturbed by a kind of preaching that avoids sanctification and “seemingly questions the Formula of Concord . . . about the Third Use of the Law.” The odd thing is that this attitude, he writes, is found among would-be confessional pastors, even though it is really akin to the antinomianism of “Seminex”! He asks, “How can one read the Scriptures over and over and not see how much and how often our Lord (in the Gospels) and the Apostles (in the Epistles) call for Christian sanctification, crucifying the flesh, putting down the old man and putting on the new man, abounding in the work of the Lord, provoking to love and good works, being fruitful . . . ?”
I really have no idea where the anti-sanctification bias comes from. Perhaps it is a knee-jerk over-reaction to “Evangelicalism”: since they stress practical guidance for daily living, we should not! Should we not rather give even more and better practical guidance, just because we distinguish clearly between Law and Gospel? Especially given our anti-sacramental environment, it is of course highly necessary to stress the holy means of grace in our preaching. But we must beware of creating a kind of clericalist caricature that gives the impression that the whole point of the Christian life is to be constantly taking in preaching, absolution and Holy Communion-while ordinary daily life and callings are just humdrum time-fillers in between! That would be like saying that we live to eat, rather than eating to live. The real point of our constant feeding by faith, on the Bread of Life, is that we might gain an ever-firmer hold of Heaven-and meanwhile become ever more useful on earth! We have, after all, been “created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10). Cars, too, are not made to be fueled and oiled forever at service-stations. Rather, they are serviced in order that they might yield useful mileage in getting us where we need to go. Real good works before God are not showy, sanctimonious pomp and circumstance, or liturgical falderal in church, but, for example, “when a poor servant girl takes care of a little child or faithfully does what she is told” (Large Catechism, Ten Commandments, par. 314, Kolb-Wengert, pg. 428).
The royal priesthood of believers needs to recover their sense of joy and high privilege in their daily service to God (1 Pet. 2:9). The “living sacrifice” of bodies, according to their various callings, is the Christian’s “reasonable service” or God-pleasing worship, to which St. Paul exhorts the Romans “by the mercies of God” (Rom. 12:1), which he had set out so forcefully in the preceding eleven chapters! Or, as St. James puts it: “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” (1:27). Liberal churches tend to stress the one, and conservatives the other, but the Lord would have us do both!
Antinomianism appeals particularly to the Lutheran flesh. But it cannot claim the great Reformer as patron. On the contrary, he writes:
“That is what my Antinomians, too, are doing today, who are preaching beautifully and (as I cannot but think) with real sincerity about Christ’s grace, about the forgiveness of sin and whatever else can be said about the doctrine of redemption. But they flee as if it were the very devil the consequence that they should tell the people about the third article, of sanctification, that is, of new life in Christ. They think one should not frighten or trouble the people, but rather always preach comfortingly about grace and the forgiveness of sins in Christ, and under no circumstance use these or similar words, “Listen! You want to be a Christian and at the same time remain an adulterer, a whoremonger, a drunken swine, arrogant, covetous, a usurer, envious, vindictive, malicious, etc.!” Instead they say, “Listen! Though you are an adulterer, a whoremonger, a miser, or other kind of sinner, if you but believe, you are saved, and you need not fear the law. Christ has fulfilled it all! . . . They may be fine Easter preachers, but they are very poor Pentecost preachers, for they do not preach… “about the sanctification by the Holy Spirit,” but solely about the redemption of Jesus Christ, although Christ (whom they extol so highly, and rightly so) is Christ, that is, He has purchased redemption from sin and death so that the Holy Spirit might transform us out of the old Adam into new men . . . Christ did not earn only gratia, grace, for us, but also donum, “the gift of the Holy Spirit,” so that we might have not only forgiveness of, but also cessation of, sin. Now he who does not abstain from sin, but persists in his evil life, must have a different Christ, that of the Antinomians; the real Christ is not there, even if all the angels would cry, “Christ! Christ!” He must be damned with this, his new Christ (On the Council and the Church, Luther’s Works, 41:113-114).
Where are the “practical and clear sermons,” which according to the Apology “hold an audience” (XXIV, 50, p. 267). Apology XV, 42-44 (p. 229) explains:
“The chief worship of God is to preach the Gospel…in our churches all the sermons deal with topics like these: repentance, fear of God, faith in Christ, the righteousness of faith, prayer . . . the cross, respect for the magistrates and all civil orders, the distinction between the kingdom of Christ (the spiritual kingdom) and political affairs, marriage, the education and instruction of children, chastity, and all the works of love.”
“Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty God, unto Thy Church Thy Holy Spirit, and the wisdom which cometh down from above, that Thy Word, as becometh it, may not be bound, but have free course and be preached to the joy and edifying of Christ’s holy people, that in steadfast faith we may serve Thee, and in the confession of Thy Name abide unto the end: through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord. Amen.”
Ecclesia semper reformanda est – I don’t know who coined that phrase, but it’s ever so true. And always has been – see Galatians. In this sense, there has never been a golden age and we should not be disheartened by the mess our little patch of the una sancta finds herself in. The Missouri Synod is indeed by schisms rent asunder, by heresies distressed: the worship wars, Seminary Lite (SMP), a few charismatics here, a few would be women-ordainers there, usw.
So where to begin? What should Confessional Lutherans be focusing on in Missouri? I appreciate the work that folks like the ACELC are doing – but we need focus. You can’t move on all fronts at once. We need an issue that captures the attention of all Confessional Lutherans and one that is theological (not political), clearly based in the Scriptures and the Confessions, and as objective and black and white as possible.
It just so happens that we have this issue: Missouri’s 1989 revision of the Augsburg Confession sans Article XIV (it is the shortest article, so it’s a small revision, right?). “Lay ministry” – the intentional, “licensed,” and ongoing practice of having men who have not been called to and placed in the Office of the Ministry administer the Sacraments and preach the Word in our parishes. This is simply contrary to the Scriptures, contrary to the Confessions, and contrary to all the practice of historic Christianity.
If Confessionals cannot unite to undo this wrong, then what is the point of being Confessional? Let us make 2013 the Year of AC XIV.
Gottesdienst is getting the ball rolling with a one day conference on AC XIV and Lay Ministry in Kearney, Nebraska, on July 25th. While the whole Synod is affected by this problem, the Great Plains and the Northwest are the epicenters. Pastors, lay people, district officials, and the lay ministers themselves are invited and encouraged to attend.
Especially if you are in Nebraska or Kansas, please make plans to attend. If you know folks in those areas, tell them to attend. If you are for or against the Missouri Synod’s present practice, come and join us to study this issue. Here is the full conference information:
AC XIV and Lay Ministry Zion Lutheran Church, Kearney, NE July 25, 2012
Schedule
9:00 – Registration (Coffee and rolls)
9:30 – Matins
10:00 – Presentation and breaks
12-1:30 – Lunch (at local establishments of your choice)
1:45 – 3:00 – Panel Discussion
3:00 – Gemuetlichkeit
Registration fee: None. The offering at Matins will defray Zion’s costs.
To register email Rev. Micah Gaunt mgaunt2000 at yahoo dot com.
All Saints’ Eve, All Saints’ Day: Origins and Samhain-ization
Today it seems that everyone knows that Halloween is originally a Celtic pagan holy day named Samhain [pronounced: Sow-in] which the Christian Church supplanted for the sake of forcing pagans to convert to Christianity. Obviously, in this line of thought, Christianity has nothing of it self to offer and must co-opt, adopt, adapt, and use non-Christian sources for the sake of gaining converts from the world outside of Christianity.
A read through the Old Testament will show that the people of God have many times adopted religious practices and celebrations from the pagan nations around them: Sometimes in an effort to gain peace with those nations, sometimes to attract members, sometimes so they could fit in better with surrounding nations, sometimes in outright rebellion to God. The Acts of the Apostles, their Epistles, and the book of Revelation also show various ways that the Church adopted the cultural and religious practices of the pagans around them. The writings of the early Church Fathers contain many, many documents against the adoption of pagan practices and writings against those false teachers who adopted aspects of pagan worship and faith.
So, it is not like it would be unusual for the Church to do something like stealing a pagan holy day, claim it for its own, and use this to attract those outside the Church (pagans) by making them feel more comfortable—or by coercion. Both have happened.
Some might wonder what the point is of trying to establish which came first: pagan or Christian. Indeed, one website described this kind of effort as a “pissing match” to establish who’s holy day is older. That attitude misses the point of doing the history. The issue is that Neo-Pagans and Wiccans, in an effort to discredit Christianity, have made many assertions about the history of these holy days that are patently false. Most of their claims are based on an intellectual heritage that comes through the Folklorists of the 19th and early 20th centuries—which itself was deeply influenced by the wealth of philosophy, arts, and literature from the Romantic movement (particularly Gothic fiction).
When one looks at individual claims about the supposed antiquity of the Neo-Pagan/Wiccan holy day of Samhain one finds the actual historical evidence lacking.
Of course, then some claim “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” This is supposed to prove that since we are not able to find any evidence of the observation of Samhain before the 9th century, and since lack of evidence cannot prove something was not there; the whole line of research is fallacious—NeoPagans/Wiccans therefore have the upper-hand and win! Too bad, poor Christians!
Actually their claims must be tested by evidence, not just ours. If one were to claim that NASA put a man on Mars long before the Framers signed the Constitution, most people know just enough of history to begin to question such a ludicrous claim.[Footnote 1]
So, for example, the Neo-Pagan claims “Samhain was celebrated on October 31st by the Druids all over Europe before Christianity came.” Then there are some specifics that can be examined: what kind of calendar did the Celts use? Does it have a date called “Samhain”? Was it actually a single date, or a prolonged season/time/festival/fast? If it was a single date does that date equate to October 31? Is that before or after the Gregorian calendar reforms? How is Samhain described in the earliest literature? When was that? How did it change over time? Are there records of suppression of this holy day?
On the other hand: if one were to assert: “All Saints’ Day came from non-Celtic regions, was known in the East and West, and was moved to November 1st long before there were any explicitly pagan ideas associated with Samhain.” Again there are specifics one can examine. All along the same lines of inquiry outlined just previously.
This article is an effort to gather together resources on the origin and historical development of All Saints’ Day, the evening before which is called All Saints’ Eve, or Halloween. I have tried to provide links to online versions of these resources to make it easier for the reader to go through the original documents. But many of the resources are in print editions only. The information is presented as a chronologically arranged annotated/narrated bibliography on the subjects of Samhain and All Saints’ Day.
Since so many people today believe that the origin of All Saints’ Day and Halloween are to be found in the Celtic festival of Samhain we consider it first.
Documentary History of Samhain
The ancient Celtic calendars that we actually have and know about are luni-solar. That is, the months were lunar months tied to the phases of the moon, and that an extra batch of days was added at the end or in other places to tidy up with the solar year. Because the calendar was based on the phases of the moon the claim that October 31 must be historic Samhain is patently false.
Samhain as Part of the Ancient Celtic Calendar-A.D. 2nd Century
The oldest fairly complete ancient Celtic calendar we have that includes a mention of something like Samhain is the Colingy Calendar. The Colingy Calendar was found at Colingy, Ain, France in 1887 and is now held at the Gallo-Roman Museum in Lyon, France.
The Calendar itself is dated to the late 2nd century AD on the basis of its linguistic features.
The wikipedia article on the Colingy Calendar has a good bibliography for extended research. You can see the calendar and how Archaeologists, Historians, and Linguists have worked to interpret the text at the Roman Britain Organisation’s website by Kevan White, as well as at John Bonsing’s website.
Some of the things learned from this Celtic calendar are pointed out by Kevan White;
1. “The Celtic month started at the full-moon, rather than the new-moon, probably because the full-moon is easier to observe and record. Each month alternately contained 29 or 30 days, making a Celtic year 354 days in length.
2. “The calendar took into account the differing time periods taken by the moon and the sun to circle the earth (prevalent geocentric terminology used), and reconciled the differences by inserting an extra month on a regular cycle. This method of intercalation meant that most years contained twelve months, and approximately every third year contained thirteen months. This extra month was called Mid Samonios, and was intercalated between Cutios and Giamonios in the calendar.
3. “The month was divided into two parts, a ‘light’ half, and a ‘dark’ half, each approximately of two week’s duration; the division marked by the word Atenoux ‘returning night’ on the Coligny fragments. This confirms that the new-moon also played a part in the Celtic calendar, and very likely had some religious significance. This also bears-out the impression we get from the traditional Celtic folk-stories which maintain that the normal period of Celtic timekeeping was the fortnight.”
Both White and Bonsing have done calendar calculations attempting to synchronize this ancient Celtic calendar with our current system. A very important point to note is that for the years worked out AD 24 to AD 54 the first day of Samhain never occurred on October 31. It occurred on November 1 only once in that span of years in AD 38.
Also, there is no mention of or description of any calendrical festival cycle that would in any way compare to the Neo-Pagan and modern Wiccan “Wheel of the Year”.
See also the bibliography on the Colingy Calendar at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coligny_calendar
Finally, there is no explicit mention of a holiday called Samhain in this calendar. No such holiday is mentioned until 1,000 years later.
Now, we must admit, we can not claim that this one calendar actually represents a uniform practice of all the different areas where Celts lived. They may, as was in ancient Greece, have had different calendars for each area. In which case, we can not say for certain anything about a pan-celtic or even local practice until such evidence can be found.
Welsh King Hywel Dda (Hywel the Good) reigned 880 AD to 950 AD. The earliest copies of laws attributed to his rule are from 1285 AD. In this calendar the “calends of winter” = Samhain is used to fix an end to an economic activity. No festival is mentioned. Of course, King Hywel Dda lived in a time after the festival of All Saints’ Day had been introduced to the British Isles. The manuscript comes from well after the November 1st date had been established in the region.
Tochmarc Emire (“The Wooing of Emer“) maybe 10th century AD, certainly older than the 15th c.
from the Ulster Cycle in Irish mythology.
The earliest manuscript is from the 15th or 16th century A.D. Some scholars conjecture that the story may go back to the 10th or 8th century AD. But there is no manuscript evidence for this. In any event, this is after the Christianization of Ireland and after the celebration of All Saints’ Day had been introduced in that land. In this document the word Samhain is understood to mean “the end of summer.” While this document describes druids working ritual at Beltane, there is nothing mentioned of ritual at Samhain. Even if the story goes back to the 10th century this is still after the festival of All Saints’ Day had been established on November 1st in the region.
Serglige Con Culainn (“The Sick-Bed of Cú Chulainn”), written maybe the 10th or 11th century A.D.
Also known as Oenét Emire (“The Only Jealousy of Emer:) is a narrative from the Ulster Cycle of Irish mythology. This is the oldest reference from the medieval period and it comes from a 12th century AD manuscript. Note that this is well after All Saints’ Day is established on November 1st in the region.
This text mentions a festival in connection with Samhain:
“EVERY year the men of Ulster were accustomed to hold festival together; and the time when they held it was for three days before Samhain, the Summer-End, and for three days after that day, and upon Samhain itself. And the time that is spoken of is that when the men of Ulster were in the Plain of Murthemne, and there they used to keep that festival every year; nor was there an thing in the world that they would do at that time except sports, and marketings, and splendours, and pomps, and feasting and eating; and it is from that custom of theirs that the Festival of the Samhain has descended, that is now held throughout the whole of Ireland.”
Samhain in the Early Folklorists-16th Century and Later
Seathrún Céitinn, known in English as Geoffrey Keating, c1569-c1644
Irish Roman Catholic priest, poet and historian from County Tipperary
Keating wrote what looks like an observation of folk customs:
“there the Fire of Tlachtgha was instituted, at which it was their custom to assemble and bring together the druids of Ireland on the eve of Samhain to offer sacrifice to all the gods. It was at that fire they used to burn their victims; and it was of obligation under penalty of fine to quench the fires of Ireland on that night, and the men of Ireland were forbidden to kindle fires except from that fire; and for each fire that was kindled from it in Ireland the king of Munster received a tax of a screaball, or three-pence, since the land on which Tlachtgha is belongs to the part of Munster given to Meath.” (p. 247)
Keating’s account of the Feast of Tara and his treatment of Samhain has been found to be creative anachronistic fiction by Daniel. Binchy pp 129-130 of his 1958 ‘The Fair of Tailtu and the Feast of Tara’, Eriu, 18:113-38.
Grimm, Jacob 1785-1863
German philologist, jurist and mythologist who was very creative in his association of ideas and imaginative in his conclusions.
1883 Teutonic Mythology, Volume 2, Tr. James Steven Stallybrass, from the 4th ed. 1877, George Bell and Sons.,
-p. 614 in his discussion of religious fire his claim is based on sources which repeat Keating;
First Professor of Celtic at Oxford University. Citing Keating and his experience in contemporary folklore, Rhys was the first to suggest that Samhain was the ‘Celtic’ new year celebration.
Hutton notes two recent authors who have revived Keating’s fiction.
Gantz, Jeffrey.
1981 Early Irish Myths and Sagas. London: Penguin Books picks up Keating’s story and conjectures about a possible ancient mythological nature of Samhain.
MacCana, Proinsias
1970 Celtic Mythology. New York: Hamlyn, bases some mythological conclusions on the same discredited evidence.
[Hutton, Stations of the Sun, 361f, 508]
Frazer, James 1854-1941
Scottish social anthropologist very influential in the early stages of the modern studies of folklore, mythology and comparative religion, especially with respect to his 1890 publication, The Golden Bough.
Frazer was the first to suggest that Samhain was an ancient pan-Celtic festival of the dead that had been taken over by the Church.
Frazer’s comparative religion and folklore research methods and analytical methods have been largely discredited today.
At this point we are up to the 20th century and there is no real credible evidence that Samhain was any kind of ancient pan-Celtic festival of the dead, or that it was a new years celebration, or that it was even a fixed festival.
Documented Origins of All Saints’ Day
Earliest record of an annual commemoration of martyrs.
The earliest surviving record of an annual commemoration of a saint or saints dates to the 2nd century A.D. There is no reference to any pagan festival. The purpose of the day is to remember the testimony to faith in Christ that the saints gave with their lives and deaths. Polycarp’s martyrdom ties together both Rome and Smyrna on the southwestern edge of modern Turkey.
The documentary evidence laid out below demonstrates that the practice of a day dedicated to All Saints originates in non-Celtic regions well before documentary evidence of a festival of Samhain begins, and that this festival is established on November 1st without any reference to pagan practices relating specifically to Samhain.
Origins of annual commemoration of martyrs in the East
Through the persecutions of the early centuries so many Christians were killed because of their faith, that churches in different areas began setting aside a particular day of the church year dedicated to All the Saints and Martyrs.
According to the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia Ephrem notes the observance of an annual Festival of All Saints’ in Edessa on the thirteenth of May. We are looking for an English translation.
Canon 51 established that the annual commemoration of Saints’ days (their nativities) that take place during Lent should be held on the Sabbath or Sunday following so that they can be commemorated with the full Liturgy rather than with the partial liturgies that were prescribed for weekdays in Lent.
NPNF2-14: p. 156 [https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.viii.vii.iii.lvi.html]
St. Basil of Caesarea AD 379 a city in Central Anatolia, Turkey.
Also noted in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Basil chose a day when the churches of his bishopric would honor the memories of all Saints known, and unknown, alive or in heaven. We are looking for the reference.
Mershman, F. (1907). All Saints’ Day. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from New Advent: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01315a.htm
John Chrysostom, died AD 407 of Constantinople.
The Reference typically given is to his 74th Homily, or his Homily for the First Sunday after Pentecost. In this referenced sermon Chrysostom wrote that a festival of All Saints was observed on the first Sunday after Pentecost in Constantinople during his episcopate.
See especially;
2006 John Chrysostom: The Cult of the Saints: Select Homilies and Letters. Introduced, translated and annotated by Wendy Mayer and Bronwen NielSt Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
[This book is helpful in understanding how important and widespread in the Church the commemoration of the martyred Saints had become at such an early date.]
Canons 60-61 prescribed that Christians should not celebrate Greek feasts or go to improper entertainments or the games at the circus, especially if those celebrations coincided with the memorial of a Martyr, a Sunday, or a Church Festival.
NPNF2-14: p. 473 [https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iv.iv.lxi.html ]
Council in Trullo (The Quinisext Council) AD 692 in Constantinople
Documented celebrations of the festival in the West
Readers should be aware that the East and the West were not isolated from each other. Even before Polycarp’s martyrdom, he and others before him had traveled to Rome. And others from the West had traveled to places in the East. We find documents from Rome that the annual celebration of an All Saint’s day which was widespread in the East was also the practice in Rome and the West.
Pope Boniface IV in AD 610
All Saints Day commemoration celebrated May 13 at the dedication of Sancta Maria ad Martyres
Ferri, G. (1904). Le carte dell’Archivio Liberiano dal secolo X al XV. Archivio della Societa Romana di Storia Patria (in Italian) 27.
There was also liturgical contact between Rome and England. Under Boniface IV, Mellitus, the first Bishop of London, went to Rome “to consult the pope on important matters relative to the newly established English Church” Bede, H. E., II, iv.]
Standardizing the Date in the Western Church
While an annual celebration of All Saints was widespread throughout the east and the west from very early, the dates chosen for this festival differed. The documentary evidence we have shows a movement as early, and possibly before AD 740 to celebrate the festival on November 1.
Pope Gregory III, died AD 741
Gregory dedicated a chapel in Saint Peter’s, Rome, for the relics “of the holy apostles and of all saints, martyrs and confessors, of all the just made perfect who are at rest throughout the world.”
[“All Saints Day,” The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd edition, ed. E. A. Livingstone, Oxford University Press, 1997, pp. 41-42
Arno, bishop of Salzburg (†821), had it adopted by a synod in the year 798.
Alcuin (†804) mentions the date in a letter of that year,
Manuscripts of the Martyrology of Bede have it on November 1st as marginal addition at about the same time.
A November commemoration of All Saints was already widespread in Frankish lands during Charlemagne’s reign (†814).
Pope Gregory the Fourth, under Gallican influence, ordered the observance of the first of November as a feast of All Saints,
Early ninth century an English calendar (of Oxford) on November 1st ranks the day as a principal feast. There were over twelve hundred ancient church dedications to All Saints in England,
In Ireland
Saint Óengus of Tallaght ( Oengus the Culdee) died c. AD 824
Félire Óengusso (The Martyrology of Oengus the Culdee) 8th or 9th century
A metrical martyrology ascribed to Oengus which contains a note on All Martyrs on the seventeenth of April and of All Saints of Europe on the twentieth of April.
The earliest Manuscript for this from the early 15th century. Internal evidence, the names of the particular kings listed, indicates the text was originally written before 833 AD.
A narrative martyrology ascribed to Oengus which also confirms the practice of this festival in Ireland before the end of the first millenium.
1857 Calendar of Irish saints, the martyrology of Tallagh, with notices of the patron saints of Ireland, and select poems and hymns (Google eBook) Matthew Kelly, Tallaght abbey, J. Mullany,
All Saints’ Day is included in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, from 1549.
Note:
Footnote 1: Ironically, the parallel to this example is very close. Wicca and NeoPaganism is a mid-20th century invention, having no demonstrable historical ties to any ancient or medieval pagan religions—but having very clearly demonstrable origins through the writings and works of people like Eliphas Levy, Alistair Crowley, Gerald Gardiner, Robert Cochrane, Doreen Valiente, Margaret Murray, Alexander Sander, Zusana Budapest, Starhawk, the Buckleys, Margo Adler, and many others.
A while back, the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America adopted a statement on the doctrine of justification that decisively rejected the teaching of objective/subjective justification – which had been an earmark of the “Synodical Conference” tradition of Lutheranism. The pastors of the Association of Confessional Lutheran Congregations, which up until now has been in fellowship with the ELDoNA, have now prepared a formal theological response to the ELDoNA document, which is available on the ACLC website. I am not a member of, or a spokesperson for, the ACLC, so I would not expect to be discussing their document very much in this forum. But since their document does address a subject that I have discussed on this blog in the past (here and here), and since those previous posting garnered quite a bit of discussion among the readers of this blog, I thought that it would be of interest to those readers also to made aware of these developments, and of the ACLC document.
One of the many points falsely claimed in Christ Myth Theory about the supposed dependence of Christ upon the legends of Egypt is the claim that Horus was born of a virgin.
The claim is utterly false.
Egyptian mythology is not a single, monolithic source. The legends differed from time to time and region to region. But there is a very consistent treatment of this particular point in Egyptian mythology.
This post contains graphic language and visually graphic Egyptian artwork about this particular claim. Both the language and the artwork are necessary to demonstrate the claim as invalid. However some readers may not wish to go further in this post.
The Bible’s teaching about the Virgin Birth of Christ has these basic components:
1. The mother is a normal human being, not divine.
2. The mother, while inheriting human nature and a sinful nature from Adam, was not engaged in any actions in violation of the 6th Commandment. In other words, Mary was not fornicating or sleeping around.
3. The conception of her Son was accomplished by God declaring His will through His angel, without any sexual action on her part or on the part of any other human or spirit.
The story of Isis, while containing many human elements, is about a goddess, not about a normal human female.Isis was married to Osiris, her twin brother. Think about that just a little bit before going on with the rest of the claim that there is some kind of legitimate comparison between Isis and Mary.
Osiris, her brother-husband, was killed and dismembered, parts buried in 14 different places with, according to some legends, his penis being thrown into the Nile and eaten by either a catfish or a crayfish.
Isis found his body parts, wove him together. And as a reanimated corpse–not resurrected in the biblical sense–she copulated with her dead brother-husband to get his seed in order to conceive Horus. In a couple versions she could not find his penis so she took his seed from his body by her divine powers. So, even in these versions, she needs to acquire Osiris’ seed somehow.
The Hymn to Osiris on the Stela at the Louvre describes Isis’ search for the body parts of Osiris and her taking his seed from his corpse.
“Mighty Isis who protected her brother,
Who sought him without wearying.
Who roamed the land lamenting,
Not resting till she found him,
Who made a shade with her plumage,
Created breat with her wings.
Who jubilated, joined her brother,
Raised the weary one’s inertness,
Received the seed, bore the heir,
Raised the child in solitude,
His abode unknown.
[“The Great Hymn to Osiris” on the Stela of Amenmose, Louvre C 286
Lictheim, Miriam, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vol. II: The New Kingdom, University of California Press, Berkely, 1976, p. 83]
The following is a drawing of a painted limestone relief in the tomb of Seti I, dating to about 1280 BC.
The text with the picture states:
Abb. 5: Das bemalte Kalksteinrelief aus dem Totentempel Sethos’ I. in Abydos (1280 v.Chr.) zeigt den toten Osiris auf einer Bahre. Auf seinem erigierten Phallus empfängt Isis als Falkenweibchen postum den Rächer und Erben des Osiris, Horus. In menschlicher Gestalt hält Isis rechts ihre Hände schützend über den toten Bruder. Links wohnt Horus mit Falkenkopf seiner eigenen Erzeugung bei.
Fig. 5: ( 1280 BC) The painted limestone relief from the mortuary temple of Seti I at Abydos shows the dead Osiris on a stretcher. On his erect phallus is Isis, as falcon female, she posthumously receives Horus, the avenger and heir of Osiris. In human form Isis is holding her hands protectively right over the dead brother. On the left stands Horus with his falcon’s head involved with his own production.
Even in Wallis Budge’s translation “Legend of the Birth of Horus, Son of Isis and Osiris” we find the same lack of virgin birth:
Budge: Legends, pl. 14
15. She flew round and round over this earth uttering wailing cries of grief, and she did not alight on the ground until she had found him. She made light [to come forth] from her feathers, she made air to come into being by means of her two wings, and she cried out the death cries for her brother. 16. She made to rise up the helpless members of him whose heart was at rest, she drew from him his essence, and she made therefrom an heir. She suckled the child in solitariness and none knew where his. place was, and he grew in strength. His hand is mighty (or, victorious) within the house 17 of Keb, and the Company of the Gods rejoice greatly at the coming of Horus, the son of Osiris, whose heart is firmly stablished, the triumphant one, the son of Isis, the flesh and bone of Osiris.
[Budge, Wallis. “Legends of the Gods, The Egyptian Texts: Introduction: Summary: V. Legend of the Birth of Horus, Son of Isis and Osiris.” p. 105.
Accessed December 23, 2014. https://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/leg/leg08.htm.]
Plutarch wrote about the Egyptian myths of Isis and Osiris in the first century after Christ’s ascension.
The traditional result of Osiris’s dismemberment is that there are many so‑called tombs of Osiris in Egypt; for Isis held a funeral for each part when she had found it. Others deny this and assert that she caused effigies of him to be made and these she distributed among the several cities, pretending that she was giving them his body, in order that he might receive divine honours in a greater number of cities, band also that, if Typhon should succeed in overpowering Horus, he might despair of ever finding p47the true tomb when so many were pointed out to him, all of them called the tomb of Osiris.Of the parts of Osiris’s body the only one which Isis did not find was the male member, for the reason that this had been at once tossed into the river, and the lepidotus, the sea-bream, and the pike had fed upon it; and it is from these very fishes the Egyptians are most scrupulous in abstaining. But Isis made a replica of the member to take its place, and consecrated the phallus, in honour of which the Egyptians even at the present day celebrate a festival. [emphasis mine] [Isis and Osiris by Plutarch published in Vol. V of the Loeb Classical Library edition, 193, p. 358]
Looking at this evidence it is dishonest to maintain that Isis was a virgin in any sense that compares with that of Mary. Looking at the means of conception used by Isis in the legends it is dishonest to argue that Horus was conceived by virgin birth. And it is dishonest to argue his father, Osiris, was not involved in a bodily way with the conception of Horus.The legend of Horus does not in reality demonstrate any kind of continuity of ideas of a virgin birth.
One of the many points falsely claimed in Christ Myth Theory about the supposed dependence of Christ upon the legends of Egypt is the claim that Horus was born of a virgin.
What I mention in this article is my opinion and thinking out loud. It was prompted by the Synod President’s comments after the same-sex marriage decision of the Supreme Court (see his interview with Issues Etc.). He stated that student loans may become a problem which would greatly affect the Concordia University System. Here is a way around it I offer as merely a starting idea (which would of course require all sorts of expertise to actually make happen). I know many people are tied to their colleges and they have served a good purpose in the past, but if we are looking at losing the whole system, it may behoove us to be forward-thinking enough to prepare to sustain something for the good of the church.
I had the opportunity to hear an excellent presentation this afternoon from a neighboring pastor (Rev. Shawn Kumm of Zion, Laramie) on Lutheran worship. One of the best points that he made was related to how worship is meant to prepare the Christian for death.
I presented on this topic for the 3rd annual Wyoming District Men’s Retreat this past weekend. What follows are my thoughts which I expanded for the presentation. Sadly, the recording of this was lost due to technical errors.
He found reasons for frequent Communion in the:
The 
A Pick in Exile
My parents did not teach my siblings and me to be hymn-Nazis. Rather, they simply taught us good hymns and good theology, and they encouraged us to keep singing good hymns and to read good theology. So for my first post on BJS, I would like to briefly give my case for why I can hardly stand one particular hymn: “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross” by Isaac Watts (LSB 425, 426).
My name is Andrew Preus. I grew up mainly in northern Minnesota, and I earned my BA at University of Minnesota, Morris. I am in my final academic year at Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary in St. Catharines, ON, at which I am also the editor for our student journal Propter Christum. I am married, and my wife and I have one son. I come from a family of twelve children, and my dad is a pastor up in North Dakota and northern Minnesota. So far seven of my brothers are either in the seminary or are already pastors. I love to talk theology, and throughout my studies, I pray for a deeper understanding of that Love of God which surpasses all understanding.
