Showing posts with label Confessio Augustana. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Confessio Augustana. Show all posts
Saturday, August 28, 2010
The Most Awesomest Video Introducing The Lutheran Confessions… Ever
Pastor Jonathon Fisk, who shepherds St. John Lutheran Church up in Springfield, PA, and whose blog is a favorite of mine over at Worldview Everlasting, has put up his newest video which is a high octane introduction to the Lutheran confessions of the Book of Concord. Watching this video is a bit like drinking history and theology through a fire hose but Pastor Fisk has created a ten-minute e ticket ride that you’d wait hours in line for if you had to. Fortunately, the replay button is a virtual one and you get right back on watch the most awesomest video introducing the Book of Concord… evah!
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Liturgical Dancers To The Left Of Me, Drum Circles To The Right
This morning I found in the inbox my monthly Youth Ministry E-bulletin from the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. The E-bulletin focused on the recent national youth gathering that wrapped up down in New Orleans a few weeks ago. One thing really caught my eye…
Rev. Dr. Terry Dittmer, the director of the Youth Ministry Office of the District and Congregational Services , in his final thought this month, looks back at the national youth gathering and distinguishes what he believes was really the highlight of the conference.
Now, just what do ya’ll think that most memorable moment was? Was it the liturgical dancers? No. Was it the dynamic drum circle that hypnotized the crowd? No. Was it classes where the youth were taught prayer walking so that they can go out and reclaim lost spiritual territories? No. Or was the most memorable moment “the elegance of divine service and the liturgy” or “the celebration of the Lord's Supper with the 24,000 youth and adults”. No, that was not the most memorable moment for the head of youth ministry in our beloved synod.
Instead, the most memorable moment, according to Rev. Dittmer’s was:
But, to me, the single most moving, dignified part of that service was the procession of Christ's body from the cross down the center aisle of the Superdome. The story of Christ's crucifixion was recounted. At the end of the story, Christ's body was taken from the cross to be put in the borrowed tomb. His body was placed on a gurney and carried out of the dome on the shoulders of young people. Now, everybody knew it was an actor portraying Jesus laying on the stretcher. But, spontaneously, as the body was transported from the stage, the assembly rose with profound respect for what the scene was depicting. There wasn't a sound in the house. In that dramatic moment, the truth of what we know about Christ's suffering, death and resurrection were shown as real. Here was the truth - fully on display. Christ died for our sins. WE BELIEVE.
I’m, not having been to a seminary and not being a pastor and all, well, I’m just a little unclear on something here… exactly how are we brought to faith? And how exactly is that faith in Christ and His salvific work given to us by God sustained? I thought that we believed by the hearing of the Word as St. Paul says in his epistle to the Romans and the Galatians and not by things that we see as the writer to the Hebrews states. Isn’t that what Lutherans teach and confess in the Augsburg Confession?
I wonder what happens to the youth (and the adults as well) when they go home to their congregations and don’t have so dramatic a worship experience. I wonder…
Rev. Dr. Terry Dittmer, the director of the Youth Ministry Office of the District and Congregational Services , in his final thought this month, looks back at the national youth gathering and distinguishes what he believes was really the highlight of the conference.
Now, just what do ya’ll think that most memorable moment was? Was it the liturgical dancers? No. Was it the dynamic drum circle that hypnotized the crowd? No. Was it classes where the youth were taught prayer walking so that they can go out and reclaim lost spiritual territories? No. Or was the most memorable moment “the elegance of divine service and the liturgy” or “the celebration of the Lord's Supper with the 24,000 youth and adults”. No, that was not the most memorable moment for the head of youth ministry in our beloved synod.
Instead, the most memorable moment, according to Rev. Dittmer’s was:
But, to me, the single most moving, dignified part of that service was the procession of Christ's body from the cross down the center aisle of the Superdome. The story of Christ's crucifixion was recounted. At the end of the story, Christ's body was taken from the cross to be put in the borrowed tomb. His body was placed on a gurney and carried out of the dome on the shoulders of young people. Now, everybody knew it was an actor portraying Jesus laying on the stretcher. But, spontaneously, as the body was transported from the stage, the assembly rose with profound respect for what the scene was depicting. There wasn't a sound in the house. In that dramatic moment, the truth of what we know about Christ's suffering, death and resurrection were shown as real. Here was the truth - fully on display. Christ died for our sins. WE BELIEVE.
I’m, not having been to a seminary and not being a pastor and all, well, I’m just a little unclear on something here… exactly how are we brought to faith? And how exactly is that faith in Christ and His salvific work given to us by God sustained? I thought that we believed by the hearing of the Word as St. Paul says in his epistle to the Romans and the Galatians and not by things that we see as the writer to the Hebrews states. Isn’t that what Lutherans teach and confess in the Augsburg Confession?
I wonder what happens to the youth (and the adults as well) when they go home to their congregations and don’t have so dramatic a worship experience. I wonder…
Friday, August 06, 2010
Lutherans Didn’t Invent Contemporary Worship And Comparing CCM To Psalms
In spite of this month being one of the busiest I’ve experienced in years, I took a friend up on her offer to participate in a discussion where a commenter on her site was trying to make the case that songs of the contemporary Christian music variety’s focus on the “personal relationship” was no different that that of the personal nature of the Palms. Wrote the commenter:
As for the “personal relationship” aspect of new hymns, read the psalms, the hymnbook in our bible, and it is so personal, you can’t escape the first person, personal expression, speaking out to God, crying out to God aspect of it. Three kinds of psalms – mad, glad or sad. All personal.
So many traditional Lutheran hymns are just loaded with secondary discourse – you can sing them and keep your distance and stay far away as you doze off, waiting for them to be done soon.
And later:
As for expediency, I just find it is way easier to reach people in worship using modern contemporary sounding music whether it is amazing grace with guitar, A Mighty Fortress on Guitar, or something being written today.
I’ve heard they have Luther’s original chart of A Mighty Fortress, arranged on… guitar. Lutherans broke the mold with indigenous contemporary worship but, for the most part, have let the evangelicals pave the way, the Lutherans sticking to what was familiar to them. We are not doing what Luther did. We stay comfortable rather than reach new people. We prefer insider language and music. Seems different to me than what Jesus would have done. Didn’t he leave everything to reach those far from God?
If contemporary worship music helps us reach new people, and traditional hymnody honestly just scares many people away, are we sticking with our traditions at the expense of the great commission?
Boy howdy, talk about bringing a knife to a gunfight! Those two hundred and thirty eight words have enough fodder for a month’s worth of posts!
First, the statement "Lutherans broke the mold with indigenous contemporary worship" is simply untrue even if it is repeated entirely too often. It was many, many years before the reformers even moved the Divine Service from Latin to the vernacular German. In the Augsburg Confession (ACXXIV) the Lutheran reformers went so far as to confess that they preserved the order of the mass, save the parts sung in Latin and the hymns which were in German to “to teach the people. For ceremonies are needed to this end alone that the unlearned be taught [what they need to know of Christ].” Again, what was that about teaching being “secondary”? No sir, teaching in traditional Lutheran hymnody was always a primary function of these hymns and not something “secondary” or something to “doze off” to.
The most elementary look at church history would find that singing by the congregations had almost disappeared by the time of the reformation. By the sixteenth century most of the singing was entrusted only to professional choirs or musicians. It was the reformers who brought back sung confessions of the church catholic to the laity in the Greek, Latin, and yes, German hymnody (and by Greek and Latin I mean the style of the hymns and not the languages) so that these hymns would strengthen Christ’s church.
To think that the hymns of saints whom have fallen asleep no longer have anything to offer us today is as theologically uninformed as it is arrogant. Traditional Lutherans sing the hymns they do because of their theological depth and their clear confession of Christ and His work and not because they are trying to use “insider language and music” and keep to themselves. A singing, confessing church is a proclaiming church and in doing so she is in fact carrying out the Great Commission. A singing, confessing church uses her hymnody to make disciples by teaching all that her Lord has given her in song as well as by the Word.
But what of the Psalms? Do they show us that we need to follow the contemporary Christian music’s trend to make the “personal relationship” the material principle of our sung confession and not follow the reformation tradition of hymn as a catechetical device?
I take issue with the Psalms being perceived as personalized in the same way that the majority of modern Christian music accomplishes its personalization. The easiest way to test contemporary Christian music is to simply look at the grammar: scrutinizing who the song about by looking at who is the subject of the verbs. If we, or our feelings, or our works, or our actions are the subject of the song, it is about us and is not about us the work and person of Jesus. Using the Psalms as a baseline is actually a pretty good idea in that our hymnody should at least measure up to the various psalmists in both proclamation as well as theological content. When put side by side with the Psalms, the vast majority of contemporary Christian music simply doesn’t measure up as it’s clichéd and vapid with it’s banality guaranteeing it’s proper place in the pile of forgotten one hit wonders currently playing on K-LOVE.
Yep, I’ll be happy to use the Psalms as a “traditional” benchmark any day of the week!
As for the “personal relationship” aspect of new hymns, read the psalms, the hymnbook in our bible, and it is so personal, you can’t escape the first person, personal expression, speaking out to God, crying out to God aspect of it. Three kinds of psalms – mad, glad or sad. All personal.
So many traditional Lutheran hymns are just loaded with secondary discourse – you can sing them and keep your distance and stay far away as you doze off, waiting for them to be done soon.
And later:
As for expediency, I just find it is way easier to reach people in worship using modern contemporary sounding music whether it is amazing grace with guitar, A Mighty Fortress on Guitar, or something being written today.
I’ve heard they have Luther’s original chart of A Mighty Fortress, arranged on… guitar. Lutherans broke the mold with indigenous contemporary worship but, for the most part, have let the evangelicals pave the way, the Lutherans sticking to what was familiar to them. We are not doing what Luther did. We stay comfortable rather than reach new people. We prefer insider language and music. Seems different to me than what Jesus would have done. Didn’t he leave everything to reach those far from God?
If contemporary worship music helps us reach new people, and traditional hymnody honestly just scares many people away, are we sticking with our traditions at the expense of the great commission?
Boy howdy, talk about bringing a knife to a gunfight! Those two hundred and thirty eight words have enough fodder for a month’s worth of posts!
First, the statement "Lutherans broke the mold with indigenous contemporary worship" is simply untrue even if it is repeated entirely too often. It was many, many years before the reformers even moved the Divine Service from Latin to the vernacular German. In the Augsburg Confession (ACXXIV) the Lutheran reformers went so far as to confess that they preserved the order of the mass, save the parts sung in Latin and the hymns which were in German to “to teach the people. For ceremonies are needed to this end alone that the unlearned be taught [what they need to know of Christ].” Again, what was that about teaching being “secondary”? No sir, teaching in traditional Lutheran hymnody was always a primary function of these hymns and not something “secondary” or something to “doze off” to.
The most elementary look at church history would find that singing by the congregations had almost disappeared by the time of the reformation. By the sixteenth century most of the singing was entrusted only to professional choirs or musicians. It was the reformers who brought back sung confessions of the church catholic to the laity in the Greek, Latin, and yes, German hymnody (and by Greek and Latin I mean the style of the hymns and not the languages) so that these hymns would strengthen Christ’s church.
To think that the hymns of saints whom have fallen asleep no longer have anything to offer us today is as theologically uninformed as it is arrogant. Traditional Lutherans sing the hymns they do because of their theological depth and their clear confession of Christ and His work and not because they are trying to use “insider language and music” and keep to themselves. A singing, confessing church is a proclaiming church and in doing so she is in fact carrying out the Great Commission. A singing, confessing church uses her hymnody to make disciples by teaching all that her Lord has given her in song as well as by the Word.
But what of the Psalms? Do they show us that we need to follow the contemporary Christian music’s trend to make the “personal relationship” the material principle of our sung confession and not follow the reformation tradition of hymn as a catechetical device?
I take issue with the Psalms being perceived as personalized in the same way that the majority of modern Christian music accomplishes its personalization. The easiest way to test contemporary Christian music is to simply look at the grammar: scrutinizing who the song about by looking at who is the subject of the verbs. If we, or our feelings, or our works, or our actions are the subject of the song, it is about us and is not about us the work and person of Jesus. Using the Psalms as a baseline is actually a pretty good idea in that our hymnody should at least measure up to the various psalmists in both proclamation as well as theological content. When put side by side with the Psalms, the vast majority of contemporary Christian music simply doesn’t measure up as it’s clichéd and vapid with it’s banality guaranteeing it’s proper place in the pile of forgotten one hit wonders currently playing on K-LOVE.
Yep, I’ll be happy to use the Psalms as a “traditional” benchmark any day of the week!
Thursday, November 05, 2009
The God Whisperers: Catechetical Goodness Wrapped In Bacon
Because ya’ll already have too many things to do and too little time to get it all done… I’d like to recommend that you good folks squeeze in one more thing onto your to do list and subscribe to The God Whisperers podcast.Pastors Craig Donofrio and Bill Cwirla are an absolute hoot! Their weekly podcast is only about an hour long and is an in-depth study of what it means to be Christian and how we as Christians have historically read and understood God’s Word.
Right now I’m listening to these good earthy Lutheran pastors teach the Christian faith by walking us through the Augsburg Confession; a sixteenth century defense of the Christian faith against a Roman church that looked to indulgences and papal decrees instead of God’s gracious gift of His only son Jesus and Scripture alone to comfort terrified souls.
If such a study sounds uninteresting or tedious, I beg you to give Pastors Donofrio and Cwirla a try and see for yourself how much fun theology can be! What a blessing it is that we have such talented pastors willing to use new media without compromising one iota. Please do yourself a favor and give ‘em a try, I’m certain that you’ll be glad you did.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Thoughts On A Thesis Of Worship(?)
The following is what I sent to a friend of mine after he emailed me the Theses on Worship issued by the Council of Presidents and asked for my ever so humble opinion (I actually hadn’t seen them myself until Monday as I’ve been pretty busy with matters outside and off of the interweb):
While I have a love for theology I’m certainly not a trained theologian. I’m also by no means a wordsmith or anything approaching a good communicator. That being said; this document is a convoluted mess that a council of trained theologians should be embarrassed to issue! My thoughts on the thesis are as follows:
· We’ve surrendered the word worship to the evangelical view that worship is something that we do instead a Divine Service where it is God who gives His gifts.
· The liturgy is adiaphoria so we can each do what is right in our own eyes and anyone who says otherwise is only doing so to burden the souls who seek to experience God through their worship. In other words, AC XV 1 should be ignored and we amend AC XV to simply say all liturgy is a human tradition and therefore contrary to the Gospel. AC XXIV should also be amended to reflect the same.
· Our view of the Old testament is now equal to that of the Mormons where the liturgical rites that prefigure temple and synagogue worship were plan A and B and where overturned By Jesus and the apostles and are rightfully ignored and condemned. Our understanding of these rites as essential to understanding the vicarious atonement of Christ at Golgotha is as old fashioned as those dusty sixteenth century confessions and need to condemned.
· Worship is about you and community (read into this the emergent influence and undertones). Your calling is to expand your community so that more folks can understand that worship is about you and community.
· There can be true forms of worship just don’t tell me that there are wrong forms of worship because that will make me sad and I’ll accuse you of burdening my conscience.
· We should talk about the above until everyone agrees with us and can then claim unity.
Well, that’s my thoughts on this nonsensical drivel.
Pastor Klemet Preus also has some things to say about the thesis over at a post on Steadfast Lutherans.
While I have a love for theology I’m certainly not a trained theologian. I’m also by no means a wordsmith or anything approaching a good communicator. That being said; this document is a convoluted mess that a council of trained theologians should be embarrassed to issue! My thoughts on the thesis are as follows:
· We’ve surrendered the word worship to the evangelical view that worship is something that we do instead a Divine Service where it is God who gives His gifts.
· The liturgy is adiaphoria so we can each do what is right in our own eyes and anyone who says otherwise is only doing so to burden the souls who seek to experience God through their worship. In other words, AC XV 1 should be ignored and we amend AC XV to simply say all liturgy is a human tradition and therefore contrary to the Gospel. AC XXIV should also be amended to reflect the same.
· Our view of the Old testament is now equal to that of the Mormons where the liturgical rites that prefigure temple and synagogue worship were plan A and B and where overturned By Jesus and the apostles and are rightfully ignored and condemned. Our understanding of these rites as essential to understanding the vicarious atonement of Christ at Golgotha is as old fashioned as those dusty sixteenth century confessions and need to condemned.
· Worship is about you and community (read into this the emergent influence and undertones). Your calling is to expand your community so that more folks can understand that worship is about you and community.
· There can be true forms of worship just don’t tell me that there are wrong forms of worship because that will make me sad and I’ll accuse you of burdening my conscience.
· We should talk about the above until everyone agrees with us and can then claim unity.
Well, that’s my thoughts on this nonsensical drivel.
Pastor Klemet Preus also has some things to say about the thesis over at a post on Steadfast Lutherans.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
My Email To The Lutheran Witness Concerning A Recent Article On DCEs
I just thought I’d share what is only my second letter to the editors of the official periodical of the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod, The Lutheran Witness, concerning the latest article on Directors of Christian Education or DCE’s:
I apologize for taking so long to write this email but my vocation has had me quite busy as of late. It is the matter of vocation that I write today.
One of the blessings of the reformation was the freeing of the people of consciences that had been burdened by the Roman system of works. Under this system, people had been taught the only good works and vocations were those done for the service of the church by the priests, nuns, and monks (I’m sure there are other sub-vocations but those escape me at the moment). The Roman culture was so corrupt that by the time of the Reformation; there are in fact reports of parents, fearing for their children’s eternal souls, giving up their infants directly to monasteries or nunneries to insure that they might merit heaven by a life of service to God’s church. I have great difficulty imagining, as most would today, the fear of just not doing enough to merit our Lord’s grace to the point that I would leave my child with a religious order.
The question I have now is this; are we really all that far away from the same mind set the faced the reformers five hundred years ago? Are we now ourselves burdening consciences with the idea that unless you do something for the church, your vocation is a lesser vocation? I think sometimes we do indeed say that even if it is not what we intend and I think the recent article on DCE’s very much propagates this false notion.
Under “What is a DCE?” found on page 19 of the August issue of the Lutheran Witness; an explanation from the website of Concordia University Texas is used to describe what the vocation of a DCE is and states:
A director of Christian education (DCE) is a synodically certified, called, and commissioned life-span educational leader prepared for team ministry in a congregational setting.
In this setting a DCE is
· a called minister of the Gospel;
· a trained parish-education specialist;
· a team minister who works with the pastor, staff, and lay leaders of the congregation;
· a teacher of the faith; and
· a trainer of the laity for service
Ok, I have little problem with bullet points 2 and 5 as a DCE is educated to be an educator. However, on bullet points 1, 3, and 4, I find these explanations to be confusing at best and an outright rejection of the Lutheran father's bold confessions during the reformation at worst.
DCE’s are not ministers, period. The ministry is only for those men called by our Lord through our congregations as we confess in AC XIV: Our churches teach that no one should publically teach in the church or administer the Sacraments, without a rightly ordered call1. In this article of confession, we clearly confess that it is the pastors who are charged to be ministers and teachers of the faith. It is through this Office of the Holy Ministry that our Lord uses these under-shepherds to feed his sheep until his glorious return. The office of ministry belongs to pastors and to pastors alone.
Putting the best construction on the matter I’ll presume that this blurring of educator and minister is a mere oversight. The danger of such confusion is that with catechesis in this country as poor as it is, there will undoubtedly be some people reading this article and thinking, like so many in Americanized Christianity do, that as the saying goes; everybody’s a minister. What typically goes with that thought is that only “ministry” is a God pleasing vocation. This is a dangerous idea that has burdened many souls since medieval times. This is a dangerous idea that runs rampant all across our country as people create idols out of “finding God’s purpose for you” and serving one’s neighbor but only through sanctioned sanctification.
Maybe one might say that “Well, that terminology would be understood by any Lutheran reader so you’re just splitting hairs!” I would hope that I would be able to share any article with my non-Lutheran next door neighbor but I can’t honestly say I would share this particular piece. Shouldn’t the Lutheran Witness be a clearer witness and not having all of us dig out our secret decoder rings and explaining to our neighbors that we say DCE’s are ministers but not really? Is should mean is here or a better way to say it is that is shouldn’t even have been used.
DCE’s are trained as educators and we should hold up this valuable vocation for what it is. DCE’s are not trained to be ministers and neither are our ushers, the people who clean our sanctuaries, or the people who fix our church secretaries’ favorite copier. Just because I’m a metrologist doesn't mean I’ve a metrology ministry. I could go on and on but my point is that we all have valuable vocations that are God pleasing and allow us to serve our neighbor but we are not all ministers!
Often people try to elevate vocations by tearing down another and many times the Office of the Holy Ministry seems to be a favorite target. By reproducing Concordia University Texas’s misleading website information on the role of a DCE; the author or the editor risked unnecessarily burdening the consciences of the readers of the Lutheran Witness. As the official periodical of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod; better care should have been taken to use language that is distinctively confessional (even if unpopular) and Lutheran (also, even if unpopular) and then explained if such was an explanation was required.
I hope that in the future more discernment will be used when reporting on the subjects of vocation as well as ministry.
1 For the record, I am quoting the Augsburg Confession article XIV from Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions. A Reader’s Edition (CPH) which has passed a doctrinal review from the LCMS Commission on Doctrinal Review; an undertaking I’m not entirely sure the Concordia University Texas’s website could muster.
In Christ,
Frank Gillespie
CC Concordia University Texas Webmaster
Friday, February 20, 2009
Concordia Irvine Offers New Worship Drama Degree
In the inbox this morning was a story in the Reporter, the official LCMS newspaper that Concordia University, Irvine, Calif., has approved a minor in worship arts leadership. From the story;
The minor includes courses in music, theology, song selection, how to put a service together, and how to select a worship team. It is designed to provide training in various worship styles, the use of technology and media in worship, service planning, and the use of drama and visual arts.
I thought I remember President Kieschnick saying sometime last year that we were a united bunch. Didn’t I read that somewhere? I’m sure I did, somewhere...
Now at first I thought President Kieschnick was just holding to the Lutheran confessions which I know he holds most dear which state in Article XXIV: Of the Mass.
Falsely are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is retained among us, and celebrated with the highest reverence. Nearly all the usual ceremonies are also preserved, save that the parts sung in Latin are interspersed here and there with German hymns, which have been added to teach the people. For ceremonies are needed to this end alone that the unlearned be taught [what they need to know of Christ].
But after reading President Kieschnick’s piece I now realize that he meant that we are unified not by our confession of what Scripture teaches, (he later said we do indeed have “disagreements”) or our worship but rather we are unified by the passing of the synod’s marketing campaign in convention and election of synodical bureaurocrats. Sorry, I’m really getting off topic here (although the two issues are joined at the hip), anyhoo...
So, to further buttress our stated unity the Concordia system is now offering courses on how to create new worship services? Really? Do we now need to modify ACXXIV to say we have indeed abolished the Divine Service for some new fangled thing(s) that we trained people to create so as to be relevant? Do we also need to say that we no longer sing the historic hymnody that has been sung and confessed for millennia instead we look for songs to sing and that we no longer consider a pastor as an undershepherd who leads us in worship but rather that we now use teams to lead us? Are we so incompetent at preaching Christ and Him crucified that we need to resort to drama teams to entertain us on a Sunday morning?
Yes sirree buddy, all we need in the LCMS is more drama…
The minor includes courses in music, theology, song selection, how to put a service together, and how to select a worship team. It is designed to provide training in various worship styles, the use of technology and media in worship, service planning, and the use of drama and visual arts.
I thought I remember President Kieschnick saying sometime last year that we were a united bunch. Didn’t I read that somewhere? I’m sure I did, somewhere...
Now at first I thought President Kieschnick was just holding to the Lutheran confessions which I know he holds most dear which state in Article XXIV: Of the Mass.
Falsely are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is retained among us, and celebrated with the highest reverence. Nearly all the usual ceremonies are also preserved, save that the parts sung in Latin are interspersed here and there with German hymns, which have been added to teach the people. For ceremonies are needed to this end alone that the unlearned be taught [what they need to know of Christ].
But after reading President Kieschnick’s piece I now realize that he meant that we are unified not by our confession of what Scripture teaches, (he later said we do indeed have “disagreements”) or our worship but rather we are unified by the passing of the synod’s marketing campaign in convention and election of synodical bureaurocrats. Sorry, I’m really getting off topic here (although the two issues are joined at the hip), anyhoo...
So, to further buttress our stated unity the Concordia system is now offering courses on how to create new worship services? Really? Do we now need to modify ACXXIV to say we have indeed abolished the Divine Service for some new fangled thing(s) that we trained people to create so as to be relevant? Do we also need to say that we no longer sing the historic hymnody that has been sung and confessed for millennia instead we look for songs to sing and that we no longer consider a pastor as an undershepherd who leads us in worship but rather that we now use teams to lead us? Are we so incompetent at preaching Christ and Him crucified that we need to resort to drama teams to entertain us on a Sunday morning?
Yes sirree buddy, all we need in the LCMS is more drama…
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
The More Things Change…
One of the quickest ways to get my Sunday high school class to perk up and take notice is to talk about history. It has been my experience that one of the things that youth love to learn is the whys and the hows of how we got to where we are today. In their European history classes they all learn that Martin Luther kicked off the Reformation by nailing his ninety five theses to the some door protesting the church in Rome. What very few of them learn is that those ninety five theses are largely in opposition to the indulgences and the satisfaction of sins through human works which contradicts Scripture. It’s always fun to see the looks on their faces when you tell them that the Bishop of Rome still sells indulgences and still declares he has the authority to declare as righteous those who give charitable contributions, pray certain prayers, perform devotions or go on pilgrimages. Yep, the more things change…
I’m gonna have fun in my Sunday school class with this news story titled “For Catholics, A Door to Absolution Is Reopened” detailing the Roman churches very public return to a more open form of indulgences. From the story:
“Why are we bringing it back?” asked Bishop Nicholas A. DiMarzio of Brooklyn, who has embraced the move. “Because there is sin in the world.”
Yes, there is sin in the world but no work that we do will ever make satisfaction for the sin that do every second of every day whether we are aware of it or not. The satisfaction has been made at the cross and with Jesus’ atoning work we have been declared righteous by grace. The old Lutherans knew this when they confessed the one true faith at Augsburg in Article IV of the Augustana:
1] Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for 2] Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. 3] This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.
The Roman opponents opposed justification by faith and not by works five hundred years ago and nothing at all has changed.
There are a good many folks in Lutheran circles these days that believe that the old Lutheran confessions need to be thrown away or put back in the dusty old vaults from whence they came. There are even those in leadership that call the people who look to the confessions and say these historic documents still confess the faith and condemn heresies as a bunch of “museum keepers” or “useless wordsmiths”. It’s evident from the news story that there are a good many people who really should dust off the historic confessions, read up, and see that errors that would take our eyes off Christ and His cross will always need to be condemned. That shouldn't be so hard, should it?
I’m gonna have fun in my Sunday school class with this news story titled “For Catholics, A Door to Absolution Is Reopened” detailing the Roman churches very public return to a more open form of indulgences. From the story:
“Why are we bringing it back?” asked Bishop Nicholas A. DiMarzio of Brooklyn, who has embraced the move. “Because there is sin in the world.”
Yes, there is sin in the world but no work that we do will ever make satisfaction for the sin that do every second of every day whether we are aware of it or not. The satisfaction has been made at the cross and with Jesus’ atoning work we have been declared righteous by grace. The old Lutherans knew this when they confessed the one true faith at Augsburg in Article IV of the Augustana:
1] Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for 2] Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. 3] This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.
The Roman opponents opposed justification by faith and not by works five hundred years ago and nothing at all has changed.
There are a good many folks in Lutheran circles these days that believe that the old Lutheran confessions need to be thrown away or put back in the dusty old vaults from whence they came. There are even those in leadership that call the people who look to the confessions and say these historic documents still confess the faith and condemn heresies as a bunch of “museum keepers” or “useless wordsmiths”. It’s evident from the news story that there are a good many people who really should dust off the historic confessions, read up, and see that errors that would take our eyes off Christ and His cross will always need to be condemned. That shouldn't be so hard, should it?
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Preparing For Sunday School
I apologize ahead of time for the lack of a decent post this week. I’m out of town and stuck in a rat trap hotel trying to put together my Sunday school lesson. Needless to say, that task will certainly be keeping me busy.
This Sunday we start our study on the Confessio Augustana. Last week our vicar gave a history lesson on the politics and the different theological battles going on that led up to the reading of the Augsburg Confession in 1530 at the Diet of Augsburg.
Where do we start? Why, at the beginning of course:
Article I: Of God
1] Our Churches, with common consent, do teach that the decree of the Council of Nicaea concerning the Unity of the Divine Essence and concerning the Three Persons, is true and to be believed without any doubting; 2] that is to say, there is one Divine Essence which is called and which is God: eternal, without body, without parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, visible and invisible; and 3] yet there are three Persons, of the same essence and power, who also are coeternal, the Father the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And the term "person" 4] they use as the Fathers have used it, to signify, not a part or quality in another, but that which subsists of itself.
5] They condemn all heresies which have sprung up against this article, as the Manichaeans, who assumed two principles, one Good and the other Evil: also the Valentinians, Arians, Eunomians, Mohammedans, and all such. 6] They condemn also the Samosatenes, old and new, who, contending that there is but one Person, sophistically and impiously argue that the Word and the Holy Ghost are not distinct Persons, but that "Word" signifies a spoken word, and "Spirit" signifies motion created in things.
Yep, I’m going to have fun!
This Sunday we start our study on the Confessio Augustana. Last week our vicar gave a history lesson on the politics and the different theological battles going on that led up to the reading of the Augsburg Confession in 1530 at the Diet of Augsburg.
Where do we start? Why, at the beginning of course:
Article I: Of God
1] Our Churches, with common consent, do teach that the decree of the Council of Nicaea concerning the Unity of the Divine Essence and concerning the Three Persons, is true and to be believed without any doubting; 2] that is to say, there is one Divine Essence which is called and which is God: eternal, without body, without parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, visible and invisible; and 3] yet there are three Persons, of the same essence and power, who also are coeternal, the Father the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And the term "person" 4] they use as the Fathers have used it, to signify, not a part or quality in another, but that which subsists of itself.
5] They condemn all heresies which have sprung up against this article, as the Manichaeans, who assumed two principles, one Good and the other Evil: also the Valentinians, Arians, Eunomians, Mohammedans, and all such. 6] They condemn also the Samosatenes, old and new, who, contending that there is but one Person, sophistically and impiously argue that the Word and the Holy Ghost are not distinct Persons, but that "Word" signifies a spoken word, and "Spirit" signifies motion created in things.
Yep, I’m going to have fun!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)