The Words Are Clear, We Don’t Choose

When Christ said in John 15:16 “You did not choose Me, but I choose you…” he didn’t actually mean to say “You did not choose Me, but I choose you, however, first you need to choose to accept Me into your heart."

If a person is going to make a case that the words of Jesus don’t mean what they clearly mean and instead can or should be understood to mean the exact opposite of what is recorded in the text, then the entirety of Scripture is suspect and should not be trusted.

Personally, I want nothing to do with a Bible that is subject to my whims and fanciful imagination.

A New Video from Pastor Fisk: Lutheranism for Attractive People

Pr. Jonathan Fisk from over at Worldview Everlasting answers more email and addresses predestination, devotional materials, and how to talk with your friends.

Time Out Episode 84

Dan over at Necessary Roughness has the newest Time Out: Time Out, Episode 84 posted.

The Scripture reading for this episode is Mark 7 with commentary from the Kretzmann Commentary Series. The hymn this time is “Who Trusts in God A Strong Abode” found on page 714 in the Lutheran Service Book.

Dan makes the case that “Mark 7 has all sorts of Gospel goodness in it. First Christ calls out the Pharisees for setting up rules that actually get in the way of hearing the word of God and obeying it. He then, by His word, declares all foods clean. Third, the faith of the Gentile receives the word of the Lord and responds according what is promised to you and me so that her daughter may be relieved of a demon. Finally, through his word, “Be opened!” He makes the deaf-mute hear and speak.”

The hymn “Who Trusts in God A Strong Abode” is a proclamation of security. Jesus’ saving merit is our hope and consolation, our defense against what we encounter in this life.

Be sure to stop by, say howdy, and thank Dan for doing such a great job on Time Out, Episode 84!

Previous Time Out episodes:

Time Out Episode 76
Time Out Episode 77
Time Out Episode 78
Time Out Episode 79
Time Out Episode 80
Time Out Episode 81
Time Out Episode 82
Time Out Episode 83

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…

Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 7

In my report of the Prayer and Spiritual Workshop I attended I said that there were several portions of the workshop that I thought were very good. These sections met with my approval because they were most identifiable the reformation era confessions, historical practices, and finally and most importantly Scripture. The portion of the class that stood head and shoulders above the rest was the section on the practice of private absolution and confession. I remember thinking that if only the rest of the class was good as this section was then maybe the goofy stuffy like suggesting that we emulate the practices of heretics like Julian of Norwich could “sorta” overlooked. Yep, the portion of the class covering the practice of private confession and absolution was that good. Really.

Since I posted part two in this series of posts where I briefly covered what was discussed concerning the practice of private absolution and confession I’ve been contacted by a reader of POTF (who is one heck of a lot smarter than me and a very, very well read individual) who informed me that this section might not be what it seems at first glance. Huh? Let’s take a closer look shall we?

The handout for the class covers the practice of private absolution and confession this way:


PRIVATE CONFESSION & FORGIVENESS

There is a quiet reformation going on in many Lutheran congregations. There is a return to the Reformation understanding of repentance, forgiveness, and the Holy Ministry. People are coming individually to their pastor to confess their sins and receive the forgiveness that Jesus died to win for them. Pastors are seeking fellow pastors toserve as father confessors. Some congregations have scheduled hours specifically for private confession. (cf. “Confession Makes a Comeback,” The Wall Street Journal, by Alexandra Alter, September 21, 2007).

Is private confession a Lutheran practice?

Our Augsburg Confession states that "private absolution should be retained and not allowed to fall into disuse." (Article XI) The Apology to the Augsburg Confession calls Holy Absolution the "voice of the Gospel," and states that "we must believe the voice of the one absolving no less than we would believe a voice coming from heaven." Luther included a short liturgy for private confession in the Small Catechism to teach people how to make confession. He also commended the practice highly from his own personal experience. The Lutheran fathers regarded this matter so highly that, in some places, they referred to it as a ‘sacrament.’ Thus the Apology of the Augsburg Confession states, "Therefore Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly sacraments. For these rites have God's command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament" (Ap. XIII.4).

Confession was known and practiced by the Apostles (James 5:16, 1 John 1:9) and is established on the authority of Jesus Christ to forgive and retain sins which He entrusted to His Church and exercises publicly through the Office of the Holy Ministry (Matthew 16:18-19, 18:15-20, John 20:19-23;I John 1:9; Psalm 51).

Our own Synod’s founding president Dr. Walther, strongly encouraged the practice, along with every leading Lutheran theologian since Luther (e.g. Concordia Theological Quarterly, October 1992, Vol. 56, #4, pp, 241-262, Fort Wayne, Indiana). The 2007 LCMS Convention urged a return to “Individual Confession and Absolution” (urged congregations to “study,” toward “recovering” the practice, to give “guidance to seminarians and pastors,” “encouraged to make greater use of” www.lcms.org/?13009, Res. 2-07a, page 117) and our new “Lutheran Service Book” includes the rite (pp. 292-3, Agenda, p. 41f.).

But isn't private confession a "Roman Catholic" practice?

Roman Catholics retained the practice, but focused it primarily on what the confessor said. The Lutheran reformers did not do away with private confession. Instead, they reformed it so that Christ's free forgiveness was the primary focus. The Lutherans set aside such legalistic practices as forcing the faithful to come to confession, requiring that every sin be confessed in order to be forgiven, and prescribing certain good works to offset the punishments of sin. Thus, the Lutheran reformers never would have imagined a Lutheran congregation without private confession.

What exactly is confession and absolution?

There are two works present. The first work is ours. We confess and tell the truth about ourselves from what God has revealed to us in His law. We say what we have done and what we have failed to do. We confess only those things that are known to us and that particularly trouble us. We need not torture our memories. Remember that God's forgiveness is always complete and perfect, while our confession will always be partial and incomplete.

The second work is God's. He absolves, or forgives, our sins on account of Jesus' sacrificial suffering and death in our place. God tells the truth about us in Christ, and that is a greater truth than the truth of our sins.

But can't I simply confess my sins before God alone?

Indeed you must, for Jesus teaches His disciples to pray daily for forgiveness in the Lord’s Prayer, and St. John says, "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." But the real question is: How is the forgiveness of sins applied to you when you pray to God by yourself? A sinner who is alone and isolated in his or her sin often will not "feel forgiven" and may not be consoled by reading or remembering a passage from the Holy Scriptures. St. Paul wrote that "faith comes by hearing," and so it is for the creating and strengthening of our faith that God has provided for Christ's forgiveness to be spoken into our ears by someone else.

Must I go to my pastor?

That's a Law question. You get to go to your pastor. He is Christ's gift to you (Ephesians 4:11). Nowhere is your pastor more a pastor for you than in private confession and absolution. He is Christ's ear and mouth for you. He is bound by a solemn vow in his ordination never to disclose to anyone what he has heard in confession.

What is the benefit of individual confession and absolution?

Just as a good shepherd tends his flock both as a group and each sheep individually, so a good pastor applies the blood-bought gifts of Christ to his congregation as a whole and to each member individually. In fact, individual absolution is a wonderful way to administer this gift. Here the pastor can apply the forgiveness of Christ to us specifically and personally.

Many a troubled Christian has been greatly blessed by disclosing the awful secret of his or her sin to a pastor only to hear Christ's beautiful word of forgiveness. Individual confession and absolution is also a very potent weapon in the struggle against habitual sins and addictions such as drunkenness, sexual immorality, laziness, greed, gluttony, etc. (cf. Steps 4 & 5 of the Twelve Steps)

How then is individual confession and absolution practiced in a Lutheran congregation?

Private confession is a confidential conversation between a pastor and a penitent. Our Lutheran Service Book Agenda book suggests that private confession take place where people regularly receive the Lord's Supper. A confessional chair may be placed near the altar. Alternatively, a chair or a kneeling bench might be set up in some part of the nave. A short liturgy of confession should be used. (cf. The Lutheran Service Book, pp. 292-3 or Luther's Small Catechism with Explanations, pp. 218-219)

It is helpful to have regular, published hours for private confession. Of course, the pastor will always be ready to hear confession and speak absolution at any time it is needed. Devotional literature should be made available to help people prepare for confession. Particularly helpful are the "penitential psalms" (Psalms 6, 32, 38, 51, 102, 130, 143) and the Small Catechism.

Suggested Reading:

P.H.D. Lang, "Private Confession and Absolution in the Lutheran Church: A Doctrinal, Historical, and Critical Study." Concordia Theological Quarterly (October, 1992) 56(4):241-262. Eric D. Stumpf. "Private Confession: A Call for Restoration in Pastoral Care." Concordia Journal (July, 1993) 19(3):218-233.
Fred. L. Precht. "Confession and Absolution: Sin and Forgiveness" in Lutheran Worship: History and Practice. Concordia Publishing House (1993). pp. 322-386 Wilhelm Loehe. "The Sacrament of Repentance." Translated by Delvin E. Ressel. Una Sancta 10(2):1-11 and 10(3):10-23.


Unlike the rest of the handout, this portion of the workshop quotes both Scripture extensively (and in context!) as well as the confessions of the Lutheran reformation. Also, the bibliography is solidly Lutheran without a goofy mystic who thinks God is a she and Christ is the literal maternal manifestation of the she-god anywhere in sight. The only non-Lutheran sources are found in the introductory paragraph when quoting a Wall Street Journal article and under the benefits of the practice of private confession and absolution where Steps 4 & 5 of the Twelve Steps are referenced. I don’t remember the Twelve Steps being included in any translation of the Lutheran Confessions but then again, as several people have pointed out, I’ve never been to seminary so that one might have slipped by me as I traipse through the casual reading stacked on the library table in my office.

Anyhoo, one would hope that everyone can see why I thought that this portion of the class was pretty good: the presenter ties the practice solidly to history through both Scripture and the Confessions and even includes contemporary Lutheran sources (as opposed to medieval mystics or laicized priests!) to substantiate the claim that this practice is one that Christians have practiced since the Apostolic age. Or does he? That reader of POTF, the one that I said is a good bit smarter than me, pointed out that there is one name missing from the bibliography of the workshop’s summary of the practice of private absolution and confession; the author who wrote the piece: Pastor William M. Cwirla. Here’s a link to the Pastor Cwirla’s original article.

Notice the similarity between Pastor Cwirla’s credited article and the presenter’s handout? It’s clearly the source document that the presenter must have used to put together the practice of private absolution and confession portion of the handout!

See anything different? The handout does include some extra stuff not found in the original piece. The genuine author of the “What is the benefit of individual confession and absolution” section certainly didn’t think it was necessary to reference the Twelve Steps program. Why do you think that is? It’s because the holy things of God don’t need validation from worldly programs to be good, right, and salutary. The practice of private absolution and confession is a holy thing because our Lord himself instituted the very practice and not because we can find examples of owning up to our mistakes in some program.

But something in that section is missing. The presenter didn’t include the last paragraph of the actual author’s explanation of the benefit of the practice did he? He left off the following:

The most important benefit is that we are given to hear a clear, external, objective, official word from God that applies the saving merit of Jesus’ death to us personally and individually.

Now why anyone would leave the last paragraph off? We can only speculate as to the reason but we might have the smallest of hints when the presenter stated, “I wouldn’t want to debate right and wrong because both are right. I would expect where ever each person is at in the room around this issue because it’s not right or wrong” when a participant declared in no uncertain terms that she would never teach her child to confess his sins to a pastor. So, even though the practice was instituted and commanded by Christ, we’re going to say that rejecting that same practice can be right or acceptable as long as a person is in a different place? I would argue that the last paragraph of the actual author’s piece was not included since the words “clear, external, objective, and official” do not lend themselves favorably to postmodernity’s rejection of the absolutes of right and wrong.

It’s odd really that the presenter went to such lengths to credit Jesuits who fought the reformers, mystics that believed that God is a she-god and that sin was a necessary part of life, laicized Roman Catholic priests who believed that the church grew primarily through healings and exorcisms, and even went so far as to ensure that even an unnamed Russian monk were properly credited in his bibliography but failed to credit the actual author who wrote 95% of what was in his handout. Folks, that’s just a little bit odd wouldn’t ya say? Shouldn’t somebody be doing some, uh, public confession and ask for forgiveness from the actual author: Pastor Cwirla.

Now, as I’ve stated before and as it’s been pointed out numerous times in this series of posts by numerous individuals, I’ve never attended seminary (I’ve been to seminaries, taken classes at seminaries, but never as a MDiv student). Even so, I have to wonder, just a teensie-weensie little bit, if there is some kind of, sort of word for when somebody takes another’s work, uses it as his own while making subtle changes and never crediting the person who wrote it? Gosh I wish I knew if there was a word for that, because there certainly should be. Shouldn’t there?

Maybe that wickedly smart reader who brought this to my attention knows if there’s some fancy thirteen-pfennig word that we could use here…

Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 1
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 2
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 3
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 4
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 5
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 6

Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 6

I said at the end of my last post I would address some questions that popped up since I wrote my first post on the Prayer and Spiritual Formation Workshop so here we go…

One thing that came up a lot more often than I expected was whether or not I was even qualified to critique the material in the workshop. More than one commenter suggested that since I had never gone to a seminary that any criticism, which I may offer, should be considered invalid. If that is the logic with which we are to live by then wouldn’t it be fair to say that a surgeon who amputates a leg instead of removing his patient’s tonsils as had been scheduled is also above critique from either the patient of his family? Certainly not! The wronged patient’s phone would be ringing off the hook because lawyers, who don’t usually have a degree in medicine and love an easy paycheck just like the rest of us, would love the opportunity to critique the doctor in front of a jury. Just because I don’t have a degree in theology from one of the Concordia seminaries does not mean I’m excluded from asking questions of a theological nature.

I have never claimed to be well read or even smarter than the average Joe pewsitter. And since I view myself as just a slack jawed yokel all I ever try to bring to the table to test what is said or promoted in the name of God by people that have been through seminary is the Bible and our Lutheran Confessions. If someone, even if they have been to a seminary, makes a claim that can’t be verified or corroborated by the Bible or our confessions, the burden of proof is on them to justify these new doctrines or practices and not me or anyone else sitting in a class where subjective truths trump that which is Scriptural, Confessional, and historical.

One of the questions I keep getting asked since posting what happened at the Prayer and Spiritual Formation Workshop is where are such teachings coming from. I’ve also been asked why would anyone from the LCMS promote practices and doctrines that seem to contradict both Scripture as well as the Lutheran Confession in that “spirituality” seems to be turned inward to our subjective imagination or our feelings.

I’m not sure it can be pinpointed where, when or who exactly thought that reintroducing the very things that led to the abuses of the medieval Roman church was a smart endeavor for growing the kingdom (Remember, the presenter said we should be all about growing kingdom but not necessarily the church and he didn’t care if people we talked to went down the street to XYZ church. Thank you post-modernity!). I do know that what was promoted in the workshop mirrors pretty close the practices and the epistemology promoted by those who follow the emergent or emerging church movement in their desire to return to a more ancient form of Christianity.

While it’s difficult to nail down specifics of the emergent theology (although not impossible as more of them write books detailing their heresies!) I think it’s fair to say that most emergent folks, in rejecting what tries to pass itself off as Americanized Christianity (think the purpose driven church movement or church growth by looking less like church and looking more like Stewart Smalley motivational seminars so that the “unchurched” can go away thinking they’re good enough, smart enough and gosh…. you know the drill.), have decided to go backwards in time in search of a genuine Christianity and who can blame them! With the state of Americanized Christianity the way it is why would anyone get up early on a Sunday morning to hear some clown in a polo shirt walk through a vapid PowerPoint presentation on how the Bible can make your life better if you’d just give a try and follow the seven easy steps. Admit it, wouldn’t you look for an authentic Christianity if you had to listen to watered-down life application speeches by Oprah wannabes week after week? Sure you would and I would too! (If you have a quibble with me on this point chances are you probable wouldn’t recognize the historic Christian church anyways and you should just skip down to the next section ‘cause this is going to be lost on you.)

Still, to jump back in time and completely skip over the Reformation and go back Roman Catholic monastic practices and desert mysticism in an effort to achieve an authentic church experience or spirituality while completely ignoring the teachings of the apostles is wrong whether you are following the emergent movement or you are a member of a congregation in the Southeastern District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. It is silly and naïve to think that it is possible to introduce the practices and theologies of mystics in such a way that they can be transformed into anything recognizable to a confessional Lutheran or a first century Christian. Ain’t gonna happen! An amalgamation of deconstructed Christianity and navel gazing mysticism is never going to be Christianity, ever!

Someone on message board asked me why in the world would people gravitate towards what was promoted at the workshop. This is just supposition on my part but I think that those who are the most receptive to such practices are basically sick and tired of going to churches that no longer bear any resemblances to the church that their grandparents went to. What’s funny, in a sick and perverse kind of way, is that in the last five years there have been two presentations in my own congregations (under the auspices of the Ablaze! banner) that encouraged us to look more seeker sensitive and not too much like our grandfather’s church so that we might have a chance at capturing the “unchurched” seeker demographic. One district official even told our congregation that if it came down to saving souls and being Lutheran that he would much rather be concerned with saving souls as if being Lutheran (and I would argue Christian!) is a detriment to reaching the lost.

Does anyone at the district office understand that in striving to become so seeker sensitive and not look at all like grandpa’s church just might be the very reason why so many can excited over a class teaching and promoting ancient practices even if those practices and theology is in direct conflict with Scripture, the history of the church catholic, and our Lutheran Confessions? Talk about falling off both sides of the horse…sheesh!

And while I’m on the subject of the Southeastern District, I’ve also been asked if district officials knew that such a class was being taught. The answer is yes, everybody all the way up to district president Dr. Jon Diefenthaler knows about the Prayer and Spiritual Formation Workshop. The class notes, as I’ve found out, have been on the SED website for as long as the class has been taught and that has been for some time now. In addition, DP Diefenthaler after getting numerous calls concerning the posts I put up here at POTF called individuals in my circuit personally to make inquiries as to what was going on with my blog. However, DP Diefenthaler failed to call either my pastor (who if I understand things correctly is directly under his ecclesiastical supervision) nor did he bother to call me to inquire if I could corroborate anything or everything that I reported in my posts. One would suppose that DP Diefenthaler would at least want to clarify a point or two that caused him so much concern to start calling people in the circuit to begin with, wouldn’t ya think?

Now some might say that DP Diefenthaler simply didn’t know how to get in touch with me and this might be the reason for calling around to people other than myself. Well, that’s sorta a red herring because DP Diefenthaler does know my pastor’s phone number and my pastor could certainly could have pointed him to at least a phone book if he didn’t want to give out my digits. But it wasn’t even that difficult because all of my contact information is already on file at the district office as I sit on several mission committees as well as serving as my congregation’s Ablaze! educator. All DP Diefenthaler had to do is turn to the letter “G” in his Rolodex if he didn’t want to crack open a phone book.

The question that really needs to be asked is why hasn’t DP Diefenthaler called me to investigate what I’ve written relating to the Prayer and Spiritual Formation Workshop?

Well, that’s just one of the many, many questions that somebody should be asking…

When I started these reports I said that I was even more concerned than ever before with the direction of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and my district. If everything that I’ve written concerning the Prayer and Spiritual Formation Workshop is accurate and be verified (as I’ve stated on more than one occasion) doesn't such a report raise serious concerns and what does this mean concerning the state of our beloved synod? The answer is yes and that the LC-MS as an institution and as a church body is in very serious trouble.

quod erat demonstrandum

Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 1
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 2
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 3
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 4
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 5
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 7

Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 5

And to quote the famous theologian and apologist Samuel L. Jackson from chapter three of the third book of Tarantino; “Well, allow me to retort…”

Let me first state that contrary to what some might think I’m not against people learning to get into the habit of daily praying or studying privately or corporately the Bible. I believe that if folks both prayed and read their Bibles with just modicum of regularity neither the Southeastern District nor the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod would be as confused and as divided as we currently seem to be.

It’s a plain fact that Saint Paul, an apostle of Christ, encourages us to both pray (see Rom 12, Col. 4, Eph 6 and numerous other passages.) and grow in Biblical knowledge so that we might not be deceived (see Eph 4 as well as 1 Peter 2 as being especially applicable!) by those who might offer us a “new” gospel. As Christians we need to pray and we need to read Scripture.

So, what’s my problem with the Prayer and Spiritual Formation Workshop if I’m all for encouraging folks to read their Bibles and pray more? Why would I not want to be, as the presenter claimed on the first night, reintroduced to “prayer forms and spiritual disciplines that were lost” and thereby reclaim “our ancient heritage going all the way back to the New Testament”? It really comes down to three things: it’s Scripture, history, and the Lutheran Confessions. It is these three criteria that should guide us in determining if what is taught in the name of God is actually from God and to be embraced or not from God and therefore to be condemned and avoided. Let’s walk though each of the practices using the only the handout provided by the presenter and test each (not according to how Frank Gillespie wants things to be using his imagination or even his feelings) to see if there is a sufficiency of evidence to say that such practices were clearly taught, by Moses or the prophets or Jesus and His disciples, and were always practiced by the church catholic as well as the Lutheran reformers who made it clear that they wished to not create a new church but reform the Roman Catholic church who had burdened the peoples consciences with practices that were to merit God’s favor and propitiate his wrath. It’s a simple three-part test that should clear things up in a pretty short order. Let’s begin shall we?

Breathing prayer In the breathing prayer we are told that “You are “offering your body as a living sacrifice to God.” Dedicate your feelings about your body to God. Express to God your intention to know God’s love through your breath and body” and that “You may find it helpful to envision breathing in the Spirit of peace and light and breathing out the darkness, distractions, stress or dis-ease you are holding”

Is there any place in either the Old or New Testament where it is explicitly taught that we breathe in the Holy Spirit and through such a technique we get to dedicate ourselves and our feelings to God? No. The handout lists Genesis 2:7 where God breaths life into Adam and John 20:22 when Jesus breathes the Holy Spirit onto the disciples as the proof texts but in both of those cases it is one of the Persons of the Trinity doing the breathing and it is not said nor implied that as humans we take any action other than the passive reception of life and Spirit. In other words, God is running the verbs not us.

What about the historicity of the breathing prayer? No evidence was presented or referred to in the handout.

The Lutheran Confessions? Augsburg V after stating how the Holy Spirit is given (and that’s “Through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments,” for those really not all that familiar with the Lutheran Confessions) condemns “the Anabaptists and others who think that through their own preparations and works the Holy Spirit comes to them without the external Word.” and therefore fails this part of our diagnostic. (Also, we could look at AC XXVII regarding monastic traditions and spiritual disciplines that had burdened the consciences’ of the people living under the tyranny medieval church but for the sake of brevity and since the Augsburg Confession is so precise and clear, I’ll only deal with that article in a future post if necessary based on the comments and discussion).

Conclusion on the breathing prayer? The breathing prayer should not be taught as the handout presents it.

Praying without words In Praying without words we were told that we should be praying bible stories though “holy imagination” and that we should pray images like stepping stones, forgiveness, healing.

The question that we must again ask is if there is any place in either the Old or New Testament where it is explicitly taught that we are to pray without words. While I do believe that a case could be made that we can pray a Bible story, running the words “holy imagination” through my computerized Bible yielded no hits, not one. The number of times that the handout uses the word imagination becomes troublesome when it comes to separating what is a valid prayer on a pericope from someone’s overactive imagination that seems holy because of warm fuzzy feelings. The Lord’s Prayer, using words as our Lord has instructed us, is missing in actions in our handout.

So is the prayer form of praying without words a historical practice according to the handout? The chief proponent of praying without words seems to be Ignatius Loyola who lived from 1491 to 1556 AD. Not exactly “going all the way back to the New Testament” is he? Ignatius Loyola is noted for founding the Jesuits in order to combat the Protestant reformation. A fine insight on Ignatius Loyola’s ability to differentiate objective truth versus holy imagination: Loyola's devotion to the Church can be summed up in Rule 13 of the Jesuits' "Rules for Thinking with the Church" by him: "I will believe that the white that I see is black if the hierarchical Church so defines it" The handbook neglected to tell us that Ignatius Loyola definitely not a friend of the reformation tradition.

Do the Lutheran Confessions make a claim that praying without words is either a scriptural or historical practice that the reformers would approve of? Let’s stick with AC V “the Anabaptists and others who think that through their own preparations and works the Holy Spirit comes to them without the external Word.” and put this in the garbage where it belongs.

Conclusion on praying without words? The prayer form that is described as praying without words should not be taught as the handout presents it.

Journaling We are told that journaling is an ancient form of prayer in action where we can “express your desire to have a conversation with God” by writing both sides of a conversation with God and that “The left side is for your words; the right side is for God. You are the scribe for both.” Where does God’s side of the conversation come from? Thoughts, feelings, and dreams can be used to record this inspired conversation.

Once again we ask ourselves if journaling is “an ancient form of prayer in action” is explicitly taught in either the Old or New Testament or is it from somewhere else. My computerized Bible failed to register any hits in either the Old and New Testament for journaling no matter which translation I searched so the answer to our question is no.

Does journaling pass the historicity test? The handout says that journaling’s advocate or supporter is a gal by the name of Julian of Norwich who lived from 1342 to 1417 AD. Thirteen hundred years after the apostles doesn't really seem to meet the criteria of being “an ancient form of prayer in action” going all the way back to the New Testament does it now? Who is Julian of Norwich and what special insight can she impart to the church today if Scripture doesn’t seem to teach journaling? She was a mystic who claimed that while ill she had several visions of Jesus (which went away when she got better… I wonder why that was!) , “believed that sin was necessary in life because it brings one to self-knowledge”, “believed that it was inaccurate to speak of God granting forgiveness for sins because forgiving would mean that committing the sin was wrong”, and believed that God was a mother and that “that the maternal aspect of Christ was literal, not metaphoric; Christ is not like a mother, He is literally the mother”. Would anyone like to debate me whether or not Julian of Norwich is somebody we should be looking to for spirituality advise? I’ll take the position that her character and her false theology prevent us from taking her journaling idea seriously.

The Lutheran Confessions? AC V “the Anabaptists and others who think that through their own preparations and works the Holy Spirit comes to them without the external Word.” makes it clear that we shouldn’t be putting too much stock in journaling.

Conclusion on journaling? The prayer form that is described as journaling should not be taught as the handout presents it.


Dreams In the dreams portion of the handout we told to “Take one of the symbols and write down anything you might associate with that symbol (memories, feelings, attitudes, etc.). Repeat the process with other symbols as time allows”, record the dreams in a journal, and “circle the associations that have the most energy behind them or give you an “ah-hah” feeling.”

Are dreams taught in either the Old or New Testament? Yes they are as the handout correctly points out. However, we need to ask if whether it taught that God revealed Himself or communicated to individuals or does our Lord promise to make Himself or His will known to all persons throughout all time? For example, God told Moses to stretch out his hand and part the Red Sea and Moses was able to lead Israel out of Egypt and away from pharaoh. But if I try to part the lake I like to kayak on in the summertime nothing happens because that which was given to Moses was not for me. Likewise, while dreams are prevalent in both the Old and New Testament they should not be considered a spiritual gift (Saint Paul certainly didn’t list dreams as a spiritual gift) meant for the church of all times and all places.

Does the teaching of dream work meet the historical test? The handout lists Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Origen, Clement, Tertullian, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, Ambrose, Augustine as people that had dreams where it is said that God communicated to them. That may be the case but does the handout doesn’t list any quotes in context from these Christians that would have us believe that they were journaling the “associations that have the most energy” or the ““ah-hah” feeling” brought on by a dream and attributing it to divine revelation.

For the Lutheran Confession test we can once again quote AC V condemning “the Anabaptists and others who think that through their own preparations and works the Holy Spirit comes to them without the external Word.” to anyone who wants us recording warm fuzzy feelings from our imaginations.

Conclusion on using dreams as a prayer form? The prayer form that is described as dreams should not be taught as the handout presents it.


Jesus Prayer In the Jesus prayer handout tells us to repeat continuously repeat ““Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me” for five to fifteen minutes.

The one verse of Scripture for justifying such a practice is Mark 10:47 where blind Bartimaeus asked repeatedly to be healed by Jesus. The handout states that such a prayer form is a valid because “We take seriously that there is power in the Name of Jesus” while ignoring that it was not Bartimaeus prayer that healed but rather it was his faith, at least that’s what Jesus told him. Also, nowhere in the rest of the New Testament are we told to repeat this Jesus prayer by either Christ or His apostles.

The handout’s historical case for the Jesus prayer seems to be Eastern Orthodox Christian monastics, or by the other name have for these chaps: the Desert Fathers, five centuries after the New Testament church and the anonymous 19th century Russian author of The Way Of The Pilgrim. If the best that we can do is the 5th or 19th century, I fail to see where the case is made that the Jesus prayer is “going all the way back to the New Testament”

The Lutheran Confessions don’t directly address folks using the Christ’s name as a mantra and the handout doesn’t state what the Jesus prayer is supposed to accomplish so it’s hard to say what the reformers would say exactly to this particular practice attributed to Eastern Orthodox monastics (Desert Fathers) and anonymous Russian authors outside of what the confessions address concerning matters of monastic vows and how they impacted the peoples ideas of what merited grace and propitiated wrath.

Conclusion on the Jesus prayer? The prayer form that is described as the Jesus prayer should not be taught as the handout presents it.


Healing Prayer With the healing prayer the handout makes the case that healing is part of Jesus Great Commission (Matthew 28) and that the Church, if she is to remain faithful to that commission should be able to do everything that Christ did as an act of obedience; including healing the sick, raising the dead, and casting out of demons. The handout quoting Francis MacNutt’s book “Healing” states “The test of orthodoxy is not doctrine alone, for doctrine remains incomplete unless it is accompanied by the power to make doctrine come true.”

Is healing prayer a prayer form that can be supported by scripture? Well, prayer is certainly all through Scripture as is the healing of the sick. Just like dreams, healing is not a gift that is given out universally so it’s troubling to read the handout claim “Lutherans have emphasized true doctrine or “explanation and proclamation,” almost to the exclusion of an experience of God and His powerful Spirit.” Does standing for sound doctrine automatically mean that Lutherans don’t pray for healing or experience joy if one of us is healed be it the Lord’s will? Certainly not and the handout has set a false dichotomy that pits those who hear Saint Paul in 2 Tim 3:16,17 say All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work with those who have not had an experiential event that involves healing! Lutherans have traditionally prayed the Lord’s Prayer (which was completely avoided throughout the workshop) and said “Thy will be done” in faith knowing that healing is not always going to occur.

What about the historical case for healing prayer and healing as ““signs” of the Kingdom of God”? The handout would have us believe that “the primary means of conversion was not preaching, but healing and exorcism” according to the unquoted church fathers Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Cyprian, as well as Tertullian. The problem with the statement goes back to Scripture and Saint Paul writing to the church in Rome and declaring that “so, faith comes by hearing, and hearing through the Word of Christ” in Rom 10:17 and not by healings, exorcisms, or any other miracle. It’s the word of God that grew Christ’s church then and the Word is what grows the church this very day! Certainly Christians throughout history have prayed as we are welcomed by our Lord to do but to suggest that Christians only seem “to associate "salvation" with saving souls for the afterlife” after the Black Plague during the Middle Ages, as the handout does, shows a remarkably uneducated understanding of not only Christian history but world history as well. It would serve anyone making such claims to actually read the church fathers said concerning healing and the prayers for healing and not what laicized Roman priests imagine the church fathers said.

The Lutheran confessions don’t speak specially to the issue of people praying a healing prayer but the reformers didn’t have people running around implying that if Jesus healed people, exorcized demons, and raise people from the dead then, if we really are a bible believing church, we should do even greater things than the Crucified and Risen Lord. The confessions do remind the Christian that our Lord desires each of us to call on Him whether we are on our deathbed and dying or in good health. In the Small Catechism we are taught that the forth petition of the Lord’s Prayer: Give us this day our daily bread, means we pray for our health and even the health of our neighbors as well. (The Large Catechism goes into this in great detail and is a wonderful read that I would recommend to anyone not all that familiar with the Lutheran Confessions) In both the morning and evening prayer we commend our bodies, our health to the Lord.

Conclusion on the healing prayer? The prayer form that is described as the healing prayer should not be taught as the handout presents it.


Lectio Divina In the Lectio Divina we are told to read a text and listen for the word or phrase that is touching our heart, repeating it silently within ourselves while not concerning ourselves with the literal meaning. Then we read it again, taking time to reflect and allowing our imagination to unfold while paying attention to the images, thoughts, feelings, and memories that are stirred in us. We read it a third time, listening for where God might be calling us (a change, new direction, area that needs some work) at this time in our life. “How are you being invited by God to respond?” we ask ourselves. After holding this in our heart we then take time to rest in silence.

Can a case from Scripture be made that the Lectio Divina is a prayer form from “our ancient heritage going all the way back to the New Testament”? Is there any place in Scripture where it is clearly taught that we should read verses that move us and allow images, thoughts, feelings, and memories to guide our meditations while not concerned with the literal meaning of what we are reading? Does Moses or the prophets tell us to follow this formula in the Old Testament? Does Jesus or His apostles tell us anywhere to not get hung up on what the Scriptures say but rather that we should trust that we can hear the Spirit speak to us though our imagination? If you guessed no then you know your Bible pretty good.

Can the Lectio Divina pass the historicity test? Well, that depends which Lectio Divina you’re referring to. The Lectio Divina promoted by the workshop is from the Roman Catholic monastic system which isn’t going all the way back to the Apostolic era as the presenter kept promising us that we’d return to. The handout rightfully accredits the Lectio Divina to Benedict of Nursia (the handout lists him as St. Benedict but I’ll have to look that one up later as I can’t find a good reference that Benedict is considered a saint outside of Roman Catholicism in any of the Lutheran books in my library…) who lived from 480 to 547 A.D., the father the western monastic system that had it’s hand in corrupting nearly everything spiritual by making grace something to be worked out through poverty, celibacy, and obedience in addition to the manual labor of monks of the Benedict’s order. There is a very short section that states Martin Luther practiced a form of the Lectio Divina. However… the handout, to its credit, correctly points out that Dr. Luther’s practice of Lectio Divina was a very different discipline and not the Lectio Divina of Benedictine monks that was promoted in the workshop. Dr. Luther knew darned well the damage that could be done practicing spirituality through imaginations and feelings because he endured the hell of the Roman monastic system. Isn’t it more that a bit strange that the form that Martin Luther practiced is but a paragraph tacked on the end of a two-page section like an afterthought?

For the Lutheran confession portion of our diagnostic we bring up AC V again which condemns “the Anabaptists and others who think that through their own preparations and works the Holy Spirit comes to them without the external Word.” because handout keeps trying to get us to look inward for some revelation and not explicitly Scripture alone. Revelation is always extra nos or outside ourselves and to keep telling folks to look inside themselves betrays those who would teach otherwise as not understanding concupiscence or how broken we are thanks to original sin.

Conclusion on the Lectio Divina? The discipline that is described as the Lectio Divina should not be taught as the handout presents it. If the handout had tried to even remotely be Lutheran and used Dr. Luther’s form of the Lectio Divina there would be something there to grab onto but the workshop just didn’t gravitate to the reformers or their confessions instead relying on mystics and the like.

So was there any part of the class that did pass the Scriptural, historical, and Confession test. Sure there was! The workshop was nearly dead on when it taught the church catholic’s practices of private confession and absolution as well as fasting. Both of these were practices that have both scriptural and historical precedence and our confessions acknowledge this. It was these two practices that had the longest sections in our handout and both were supported with numerous verses and passages from Scripture (and in context as well!) and the Lutheran Confessions and did not have to quote some desert mystic or Roman Catholic monastic moonbat to make the case that such practices are historical in nature. Both practices are good and salutary and have a long tradition going back to Old Testament and New Testament in the case of fasting and the New Testament in the case of confession and absolution as such practice was commanded by Christ Himself.

In the next post I’ll answer some questions that I keep getting as well as addressing the proverbial elephant in the room that had some advising me to not post anything about the Prayer and Spiritual Formation Workshop

Update: I forgot to include a link to the handout used in the workshop when I put up the post. I did intend to include the link because it seems that some have questioned whether or not I was being truthful and accurate in my reporting of what was said and presented at the workshop. As I have said before, I took extraordinary measures to insure that what I said was factual and could be verified. Here is the link to the handout that was given to us at the beginning of the workshop.

Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 1
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 2
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 3
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 4
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 6
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 7

Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 4

Let me first state that the account of the discussions during lunch were not part of the Prayer and Spiritual Formation Workshop nor were they heard by all who attended said workshop. There were two professional church workers, two laypersons, and the presenter at my table but not everybody participated in the conversation. It is because these discussions were not heard by all in attendance that I felt that what was debated deserved to be set aside and handled in a separate post; this post.

The first thing that popped into my head when the presenter sat down at my table for lunch was the line from Casablanca when Rick played by Humphrey Bogart says “Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she walks into mine” after an old love shows up in his bar one night. There were seven or eight other tables in the room that morning and the presenter picked mine to sit down and enjoy his lunch. What crazy random happenstance.

For what it’s worth I had absolutely no intention of asking the presenter any questions other than what I, or any other person for that matter, could ask during the workshop proper. When the pastor who was sitting at my table asked what I thought about the workshop before we started that morning I answered by stating that it seemed that what was being presented seemed to go against Scripture, the clear historical records, and our own Lutheran confessions but I also made it clear that as I was not a member of the congregation who was hosting the workshop and that since I was a guest, I would keep the majority of my concerns to myself, as I did not want be disruptive. The pastor I was chatting with made it perfectly clear that as the presenter was asking if anyone had any questions or comments that I should feel welcome to voice my concerns even if I was not a member of our daughter congregation.

Did I mention that the presenter sat with me during lunch?

The presenter and the other pastor at the table started up a brief conversation on why it was so important to teach a class like the one being presented. The gist of the presenter’s case was that church most folks “talk a lot about Jesus and the Father but we never seem to talk about Spirit and I think we need more talk of the Spirit in our churches.”

I could not tell from the presenter’s remark however if he was referring to historic Christianity, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, or what I call Americanized Christianity. I believe that in the context of the entire presentation the case could be made that the presenter may have been talking about all three groups but that is my supposition only. One thing is certain; the workshop was clearly focused on the Spirit in both the material provided as well as presenter’s discussions and instruction on how we are able experience things and how “access” the Spirit whether it is through imaginations, feelings, dreams, or the new prayer forms that were covered in the preceding posts. The Spirit was definitely front and center in the Prayer and Spiritual Formation Workshop.

After finishing up his short conversation on the importance of giving the Spirit right and proper praise the presenter turned his attention to me and asked, “Frank, what do you think of the class so far?”

I respectfully said that he seemed to be teaching things that were neither taught by Scripture, Jesus, or the apostles. The presenter tried to make a case that we no longer look or act like first the Christians in our spirituality but never referred to the New Testament texts to validate his assertion. I also asked, “You said last night that the apostles had to develop and use these new prayer forms so that the Holy Spirit would come because they tried the Lord’s Prayer, which you skipped over when it came time to talk about how we pray, and that the Lord’s Prayer didn’t work; where is that in Scripture and how can you make such a claim? Where is that in the account of Pentecost?” After claiming that “it’s in there, Frank” while not actually being able to state where such a statement could be established through a clear and plain reading of the book of Acts chapter 2, the presenter declared, “Well, it worked didn’t it?”

To be honest, hearing the presenter’s claim for what was the second or third time that Holy Spirit had come on the day of Pentecost not because of our Lord’s promise to send the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, but rather because of new prayer forms developed and used by the apostles but not listed anywhere in Scripture had me a bit flummoxed. Where does one go with someone whose epistemology is allowed to be influenced by his or her imagination, feelings, or individuals such as Julian of Norwich, Ignatius Loyola, Teresa of Avila, or a host of eastern mystics and monastics and not solely by Scripture?

Realizing that the I was getting nowhere appealing to the first two chapters of the Lukan account of how the Holy Spirit was sent to Christ’s church as Christ Himself promised, I thought I might make an appeal to the Lutheran Confessions and at least get us on the same sheet of music and then maybe we could work our backwards from there. I asked the presenter what he thought concerning our confessions when they condemned those who claimed they could experience and know the Spirit (or the Son or the Father!) through means other than God’s Holy Word. His response was that he simply didn’t think that any of our confessions spoke on the matter under discussion. When I got a bit too frustrated and insisted ACV and ACVII at bare minimum addressed the issue, the presenter simply said, “Frank, I’m just not all that familiar with the confessions.”

This ended our discussion on the purpose for teaching the Prayer and Spiritual Formation Workshop as I just had no more to say as Scripture and the historic Lutheran Confessions were no longer going to be the standard by which the workshop could be judged.

The only other thing of note was that shortly before the class resumed the presenter was talking with a young lady who hopes to someday be a professional church worker. The young women told the presenter that it is her hope to serve the church catholic as a deaconess. The presenter, always willing to talk about gifts of the Spirit, told the nice young lady sitting next to me that he wished that the LCMS would ordain women as he knows so many who “have the gift” and that one of the women on the SED staff, a deaconess, would make a fine pastor and wished it could be so. When I asked the presenter if the epistles of Saint Paul (whom he had said the night before over systemized the Christian faith and might have placed too much stock in doctrine to the exclusion of spirituality) would have anything to say on the office of pastor being extended to women working in the church the presenter looked at me and said, “Frank, I’m just not going to argue with you on this.” My reply was “That’s good, because I have Scripture on my side of the debate.”

If one can come to some kind of understanding that it was the apostles developing new prayer forms that caused the Holy Spirit to arrive at Pentecost, should we then really be all that surprised when that same SED representative states that Saint Paul’s qualifications for who may be called to be a pastor, even if Saint Paul is an apostle called by Christ Himself and writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, are to be considered archaic with relative ease?

Sadly, none of us should be stunned with the discussions at our lunch table. It should have just been appalling to see a representative of the SED argue with a layman who says that Scripture alone is our formal principle and that Holy Spirit never, ever point to Himself but instead He points Christ and His cross claiming that the LCMS is too concerned with systematics and sound doctrine; but more and more this is becoming normative in our beloved synod.

Now, let me remind everyone again; all of this was not some private conversation over a beer with a couple of people playing devil’s advocate but rather a continuation of the earlier class conducted by a representative of the Southeastern District of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. The dialogue between the presenter and myself, and everything that was said at the table, was public and witnessed by multiple persons so it can’t be said that such discussions were not meant for public discourse.

Finally, I want it to be know that I have taken extraordinary measures to make sure that my testimony in this and the preceding posts is unimpeachable, accurate, and truthful even as I know there are some who doubt what I have reported as being imprecise at best or outright lies and slander at worst. If anyone feels that I have made a mistake in my account or that I have bore false witness; I welcome the chance to be corrected if I did in fact err.

Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 1
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 2
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 3
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 5
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 6
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 7

Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 3

If there was any change in how the class was conducted in the morning to the afternoon it was that the presenter didn’t stray as much from the handout as he had the night before or in the morning session. The most likely reason for this was that there was still a lot to cover in class and to get through it all we’d have be a bit more focused to in the time that remained.

After we returned from lunch the presenter talked a little bit about forgiveness [6:00] and how Matthew 18:15-17 should be applied to avoid hostilities building up. The verse he quoted from Matthew:

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

The presenter said that we might try and make a list of people that we feel we have wronged and go and ask for their forgiveness. He also suggested [9:30] that we might want to pray a prayer for thirty days, maybe the image prayer, for people that we feel have wronged us. All of this was in context of freeing up stumbling blocks that would interfere with our prayer lives. The presenter rightly pointed out [13:45] that often we make our forgiveness conditional based on the perceived effect of the person we forgive and this isn’t something that Scripture teaches or advocates.

The presenter then moved onto the subject of spiritual direction and asked the participants [14:45] if we had a “spiritual director or spiritual guide.” The presenter said that he had been pointed to spiritual direction over twenty years ago and that he had retained the same spiritual director for what he believed was seventeen years now. The presenter continued [15:20];

”Martin Luther had John Staupitz, his father confessor, and really it’s very similar to that. I went through a school of spiritual direction, I am a certified spiritual director, it’s a two year program and so on, in which you’re trained, you don’t have to be trained to do this but it’s helpful. The spiritual directors meet, I meet with mine once a month, for an hour to an hour and a half, we pray together, he holds me accountable to my prayer, we talk about what’s going on, he was the one that suggested the stepping stones image to me (an earlier story where the presenter envisioned a series of stones to help him visualize a solution to a problem that he was experiencing). He will sometimes say it might be time to go on a personal retreat or this book might be helpful on your journey or I think it’s time for you to read the Gospel of John. Or, he will make suggestions to me, he will challenge me, it’s someone that journeys with you who is with, once and while it feels like counseling but it’s not counseling, the focus is about Jesus that usually you’ll begin with “what is God doing in my life right now and is God saying something right now in you life?”

The presenter said that sometimes we could use “accountability groups” or even friends as spiritual directors but warned us that friends aren’t the best choice because friends are often not able to be as “challenging” or “objective” as someone who is trained to be a spiritual director. He said that often spiritual direction is often started at retreat centers and sometimes might even be held at a church.

The presenter explained [17:00] that while spiritual direction could be conducted at a church it would be unusual for it to be done by a pastor because “as pastors we aren’t trained to do it, we aren’t trained in spiritual things very much”. And while this spiritual direction that we were going over was part of our historic church the presenter believed that many pastors simply didn’t even know such things. According to the presenter the exception in the universal church was the Roman Catholic and Episcopalian church bodies that retained training and formation in spiritual direction and spiritual directors. The presenter also stated that the SED was bucking the trend and had five spiritual directors on staff.

It was stated [19:50] that before the SED had spiritual directors we would have had to go to either a Roman Catholic or Episcopalian priest for spiritual direction; which would have been ok because spiritual direction is not about anyone teaching you their doctrine; it’s about someone journeying with you.

The presenter made clear [20:00] that spiritual directors could be ordained but a majority of the people in his circles seemed to be laity with more women than men involved in the movement. If we needed to find a spiritual director we were told to ask around or we could look one up on Spiritual Directors International if we couldn’t find one in our own circles. We were also pointed to several retreat centers like Richmond Hill which provide opportunities for spiritual direction (the training required to be a certified spiritual director could be taken at this facility as well which all were encouraged to do is they felt so moved) at no charge other than maybe a free will offering.

It was said [22:30] the even our district president has a spiritual director and reportedly he has said he could not do his job without the aid of this important individual. The presenter made the statement that there was no way he could have done his ministry without the aid of his spiritual director. Even if he had pastors to talk to, the presenter claimed [23:15], most pastors, being very completive and all, only seem to want to talk about “how many members do you have, what’s your latest building program, all that kind of stuff, which who cares? And that’s not what it’s all about relationships.” The presenter reiterated the point made earlier that pastors are simply not trained to work with others or in teams so the “being vulnerable with one another” in spiritual direction just doesn’t work well. Even if not true with every pastor the overall model of spiritual direction is something that makes the task nearly impossible and why he feels it’s necessary to look to those outside his brother pastors for guidance on matters of spirituality.

The presenter again recommended [26:30] that we go on a retreat for ourselves and suggested Richmond Hill. He said we could go as a group or by ourselves and we could even go on silent retreats where we didn’t have to say anything to anyone at all but just be alone. He stated that churches should sponsor retreats as a way to build communities and women’s retreats were becoming very popular.

We then moved on to the subject of journaling which according to the handout:

Journaling is an ancient form of prayer in action.

Use it to reflect on God’s presence in the events of your day.

Write about the results of your prayer practices, such as the Lectio or Examen.

Write your questions, thoughts, feelings, and desires in relation to God.

Record your dreams.

The presenter didn’t spend a lot of time on journaling compared with the other spiritual disciplines. He said that Julian of Norwich, (1342-1417 AD) advocated this particular discipline and explained [27:30] that journaling wasn’t the same as writing in a diary in that “it is much more reflective in nature.” He stated that he himself resisted journaling and really only did so when it was suggested by his spiritual director. He made clear that journaling was a very private thing and that if any of us were married that (from the handout) “If you are married, covenant that your journals will either be burned or buried with you (unread). You need this assurance to be totally uninhibited in your writing. This is a conversation between you and God alone.” The presenter said several times during this section that journaling was a private conversation in a prayer form with God and fear that a spouse would read it would hinder the spirit of the journal.

After a participant talked [30:15] about her experiences with journaling and how it showed her that God was answering 80 – 85% of her prayers in addition to helping her as a congregational worship leader the presenter commended the women for showing us her way of using journaling to dialogue with God. The presenter suggested [33:20] that we should draw a line down the center of our journals and on the left side of the line we should write down our side of the conversation while on the right side we should journal what God is saying to us. Said the presenter [33:30]:

"You do this in a time of prayer. And when I look back at some of those dialogues after I’m finished, I don’t remember writing what God said. I can not explain that, but God sometimes basically takes a hold of it, my hand and writes what is there, I believe that. Now I can’t explain it at all. But Ben (the presenter’s spiritual director) encouraged me to do that as well with my dreams. The bible nowhere indicates that God stopped speaking through dreams. The Bible is filled with dreams where God spoke in a winding way. I still believe that God speaks to us in our dreams, not every dream. The danger is that we take kind of a logical approach and this symbolizes this and this symbolizes, that’s really not a Christian approach to dreams and dream work. I’ve been in a dream groups and what they do in a dream group is basically you’re looking for a, you have a series of dreams and you begin to say is there a common theme here, does it seem like God is maybe pushing me in direction here? Is there something God might be trying to break through? And usually it’s confirmed by some other ways God might be speaking, I don’t know what it is but is but sometimes it is."

After recounting a visit from Christ who told him that He will always with him in everything he does (we were assured that this was indeed Scriptural) in one of his dreams the presenter recommended [38:47] that the easiest way to remember our dreams might be to start journaling and after some practice we could learn to remember our dreams. The presenter recommended [40:25] several books for our reading in the hope that we might not limit God in how he communicates with us. He said that dream work was next to impossible alone and recommended we seek out a spiritual director.

The presenter then moved to the subject of fasting and asked us if this was something that we did as part of our prayer disciplines. He said [45:30] that fasting was coming back and provided the medicinal benefits to fasting and said that as our bodies are cleansed through fasting and that the eastern way of looking at it, the Hebrew way of looking at it, is that the body and mind are one and the spirit can benefit from fasting in a way that is “an opening up” The presenter also said [43:30] that fasting wasn’t limited to food but could be used to discipline ourselves from watching too much TV or any other distraction that takes us away from being spiritual. The presenter also gave a fairly decent account [54:00], with the time allotted at least, of how normal and commonplace fasting was in Scripture; both Old and New Testament.

The presenter then started on the “Healing Prayer” portion of the workshop and it was this subject that most animated the participants. It was also this subject that the presenter stuck the closest to the handout we were given the night before. He stated [1:00:00] that this subject is one that he would not have talked about three or four years ago because too many people have the misconception that “that was then and this is now” concerning healings by prayer and if we might want to look to what’s happening in Africa before we discount that healing can performed by prayers. The handout stated that:

Like many other mainline churches, the Lutheran church focuses primarily on Jesus' teaching and preaching ministries (explanation of God’s love, content), while giving little attention to Jesus' healing ministry (experience of God’s love, action). This is puzzling, since 40% of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, and about a third of Luke and John, focus on healing. The book of Acts exhibits a similar abundance of healing miracles. Jesus sent His disciples out to (1) preach the Gospel, (2) heal the sick, (3) raise the dead, and (4) cast out demons (Matthew 10:1ff.; Luke 9:1ff, 10:1ff). These were “signs” of the Kingdom of God. All four of these are part of His commission to “teach them to obey all things I commanded you.”

The presenter praised [1:01:00] the Lutheran Service Book (the most recent hymnal) for including in the Agenda a healing service but then added:

"Here is where I have a problem because we say we are a biblical church but, and I have the Scriptures here, what did Jesus send his disciples to do? Four things at least; preach the Gospel, heal the sick, raise the dead, and cast out demons, and we only do one of the four. Now how can we do that? I don’t understand it, and when Jesus said to his disciples: You see what I’m doing; you’re going to be doing even greater things than that. Do we believe that? I didn’t, I think I ignored it. It’s hard to justify our lack of focus on healing when we don’t. And when you go through the Gospels; there’s loads. When you look at the early Christian church, when you study the church fathers, that’s how people came to faith. Go talk to in India today; there’s miracles, healing miracles. “And then they were told.” The head of Missional (sic) India, John DeVries, who’s an Apollo missionary with Apollo Missionaries, says we got too much explanation and not enough demonstration. And what he said, what they are teaching us in Africa and Asia, what we’re seeing there is where the bulk of Christianity is vital, leaps and bounds. We tend to think that Christianity is dying because of what’s happening in this country but it’s not, it’s bigger than ever, it’s crossing the world. But they access the whole Scripture, including healing, it’s essential, very important. And all healing, what I saw was all healing done in the name of Jesus, by the power of the Spirit and there was no focus was on the healer, it was all focused on giving Jesus glory because that’s what it’s all about."

After briefly discussing the mystery of why some are able to be healed and some are not and his training [1:03:00] in healing by a Roman Catholic priest who had been laicized (removed from the priesthood or defrocked) the presenter gave a list of pastors in the LCMS who specialize in “powerful healing ministry” which he said not should be confused with TV healing ministries who are but “charlatans”.

The presenter stated [1:09:00] that it was a shame that he had to go to an Episcopalian to receive healing when he needed some and lamented again the we just don’t like to even talk about healing in Lutheran circles while highlighting [1:14:00] cancers that had mysteriously disappeared during prayers conducted before surgeries to remove them. He also reaffirmed the portion in the handout which stated:

During the first 300 years of the Christian Church (until Constantine and the Edict of Milan, 313 AD), the primary means of conversion was not preaching, but healing and exorcism (cf. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Tertullian). According to Francis MacNutt, (Healing, p. 48) “The test of orthodoxy is not doctrine alone, for doctrine remains incomplete unless it is accompanied by the power to make doctrine come true.”

After we returned from a short break the topic we took up next but that received little attention was the “Jesus Prayer.” The handout explained that this particular prayer discipline was from the Eastern Orthodox Christian monasticism and draws it strength from the fact the “We take seriously that there is power in the Name of Jesus.” The handout laid out the basics:

Blind Bartimaeus stands by the side of the road and cries out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” (Mark 10:47) “Kyrie eleison”

Decide how long you wish to spend in this prayer (e.g. 5-15 minutes).

The Jesus Prayer can be done anywhere—as you take a walk, in your office, in the car, at church, or at the beginning of your regular prayer time.

Repeat silently “Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me”.

The repetition should be continuous

Allow the words to flow into your entire being.

It can be helpful to match them to your breathing.

When you have completed your time of prayer, observe for a moment God’s movement, and then express your thanks to God.

Resource: The Way Of The Pilgrim by an unknown Russian

The presenter gave his most forceful defense of the entire workshop when it came to the “Jesus Prayer” by pointing out that Matthew 6:7, which states; “And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words”, should never be taken a forbidding the “Jesus Prayer” Our Lord’s name has power said the presenter and therefore repeating “Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me” over and over was not the equivalent of the prayers offered by the Gentiles and their repeating empty phrases. Repeated the presenter more than once; “our Lord’s name has power!” and therefore Matthew 6:7 was not a text to be used to refute the discipline of the “Jesus Prayer.”

On the topic of labyrinths the presenter gave the shortest introduction to walking a labyrinth as a prayer form and pointed us to several Episcopalian institutions along with Richmond Hill retreat center as places to go to practice this particular discipline.

We wrapped up the workshop not by a review of the spiritual disciplines we had learned about but rather a short talk from the presenter on how important it was that we as a church body support President Gerald Kieschnick’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Structure and Governance. It was stated by the presenter that the LCMS would benefit greatly from the proposed recommendations and that we should pray for our synod that these changes are implemented.

And that concluded the workshop.

A programming note: As promised, the next post will cover the conversation during lunch with the presenter after he sat down at my table for the lunch break. The reason for this is that not everybody heard the conversation we had at lunch so my thinking is that what was said at our table needs to be dealt with separately.

Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 1
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 2
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 4
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 5
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 6
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 7

Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 2

The next morning we started first thing with a short talk on the importance having of a good study Bible. To his credit the presenter held up The Lutheran Study Bible by CPH as a great resource. When the issue of translations came up someone asked what the presenter’s preference was he responded that the NIV is his preferred translation but that he also likes to have his copy of the Message close by. The presenter said “the Word has power so whatever translation you can understand” is the one you should use.

The presenter [4:05] then read Matthew 6:1-8,9;

“1 Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.2 “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

5“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”

The presenter then said “the appointed text then goes on to verse sixteen, I don’t mean to skip over the Lord’s Prayer, but we’ll try to pick it up at verse sixteen”

16 “And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 17 But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18 that your fasting may not be seen by others but by your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."

Everyone will need to keep the fact that the presenter skipped over the Lord’s Prayer in the prayer and spiritual formation workshop on the back burner until post number four as why he skipped over the Lord’s Prayer above and his explanation of why the Apostles developed new prayer forms used (but not listed) in Acts to bring about the Holy Spirit will become essential to understanding what is going on here.

The presenter discussed what he said was the primary disciplines of Lent (the workshop was held during Lent) and said that alms giving, prayer, and fasting were really started by the apostles and are just as important “as we journey with the Lord.” He said that we would be talking about all of these disciplines along with individual confession that he said seems to be returning to the church. He said that these disciplines would “help us with our journeys”

We then had a brief discussion on what helps (reunion groups and prayer closets) and what hinders (like various distractions that plague our busy lives) our prayer lives. One of the more unusual statements was when one of the participants said that singing helped her focus a bit and helped her to deal with her distractions. The presenter responded [18:03] with “yes, singing. Sometimes we will have musicians and they bring their guitars and we’ll be singing together, and that really helps and moves us. I don’t know what you do at your contemporary service but I love when they have a time of prayer and praise at the beginning, about twenty minutes of singing, it really does move you into worship and prayer, it’s powerful. Ours, (his congregation) we sing, in the beginning of our normal service, it’s a traditional service, and somehow, the old German Lutheran Hymns just don’t do it for me in getting me into worship. I’m not against them by the way but I need more.” He then followed up with a question his wife asks “does every Lutheran hymn have to sound like Lent?” The group thought her question was hilarious!

After listing on the whiteboard all the helps and distractions the presenter continued with the prepared material [23:00] and told a story a women in Africa who is a powerful healer and preacher who goes out to garbage dumps to heal the deaf so that they can hear the Gospel first and then make sure that the leapers are healed next to show how productive prayer can be. This powerful movement of the Spirit wouldn’t be possible if she hadn’t developed a prayer regiment. He said that circumstances like this is one of the reasons he started looking at ancient prayer forms; to find out how such thing could be accomplished. There will be a lot of material to cover in the next post concerning healing prayers and what role the presenter feels that healing played in the rapid expansion of Christianity and what it means for us today.

We then dived into the Lectio Divina which was defined as “an ancient way of listening to the voice of God” that was lost to the church but has enjoyed rediscovery in modern times. Through this prayer form we were informed that we could read and understand the Scriptures not for information but “formation, which is a heart centered way of experiencing God and our world.” This is what the presenter uses for his formation and was taught such at the Richmond Hill Retreat Center [44:00] which trained a couple of the twelve spiritual directors employed by the SED.

It was explain that the Lectio Divina has four main parts or movements:

1. Silencio (Preparation for sacred reading) We are silent to allow God’s voice to be heard by us. In letting go we shift from control to receptivity, from information to formation, from observation to obedience.
2. Lectio (reading/listening - “sensing”)
3. Meditatio (pondering - “thinking”)
4. Oratio (Invites us to respond from the heart – “feeling”

We had already spent a good deal of time talking about Deut 6:4 saying that the Lord wants us silent to hear him so we didn’t spent much time on the Silencio movement. I won’t bore anyone with the presenter’s story of sometimes looking at the clouds for the purpose of prayer….

The presenter made it clear that not all of these prayer forms are for everybody [46:45]: “again these different prayer forms are not for everybody all the time. It’s kind of life stages to it; at certain life stages certain prayer forms just don’t connect, so, I think what I’m trying to say is that you show your desire to connect to God"

We did spend a goodly amount of time on the Lectio movement were we that should “Choose a passage from Scripture. Read the passage to yourself. Don’t be concerned about the literal meaning. Rather, listen for the word, phrase, or person that catches your attention or touches you [59:00]. Silently focus on that word or phrase. Repeat it a few times. Allow it to sink into your heart and mind.”

The presenter had us put what he was teaching into practice as he read a passage from Luke 5:17-26. If we did what we were instructed we would listen for God speaking to us in silence as we tried to pick out “words or phrases that jumped out at” us when we used our imaginations, feeling, and memories. When the verses had been read three times the majority of the participants said that they did in fact feel God had spoken or revealed something new to them through their silence, feelings, or imaginations. The presenter reassured them that something powerful was happening.

When questioned [1:16:45] on if we can trust what comes from our minds and how we hold what we think might be right up to the doctrines of the church the presenter said this:

“That’s a hazard in our church body because we do place high value on correct interpretation and, and I’m not putting that down, I think that the truth of doctrine of our church and understanding of texts is kind of a foundation upon which we build on. But when go into prayer on a text we’re not sitting there studying our notes first so we get it right. This is not about getting it right. If we believe that the Holy Spirit is in charge here, I think the Holy Spirit the one getting it right for us. He’s uses all our knowledge and background and Scripture and all that but that can be (correct interpretation and doctrines) a tremendous distraction to “am I really understanding it correctly here?”

Everyone understands that if I put something in quotes then that means the presenter said what is in quotes; word for word and in context, dontchya? Just making sure folks...

After telling us that correct interpretation and doctrine might be a hindrance to our spiritual formation the presenter skipped the Contemplatio (resting in the presence of God – “intuitive”) and the Incarnatio (Living a life of service to God’s glory) portion in the participant’s handout and moved to Luther, who we were told, practiced a form of the Lectio Divina. What “form” of the Lectio Divina Luther practiced was never discussed or defined in any historical context.

Nobody questioned the presenter on why Luther left his monastic order if all these prayer forms helped his spiritual formation as they would us. I believe it would be fair to say that most of the members of the class went away with the misconception that they were taught a “form” that the reformer would have approved of. But, the presenter informed us that the Lectio Divina is “a simple process” and should be encouraged.

The presenter told us [1:12:30] that youth were very open to learning new prayer forms and “youth directors could really have fun with this one.”

After a short break, a section on using our imagination to insert ourselves into the Biblical narrative so that we might have the Spirit move us in ways we can’t imagine so that Jesus can give us hugs and tells us why He heals particular people, and a short commercial for the presenter’s other profession as holy land tour guide, (he uses these tours he conducts as something of a pilgrimage for his own spiritual formation) the presenter talked a bit concerning using images [2:00:00] from our imagination to pray. He told us that he would sometimes stop his preaching in the middle of his sermon if he didn’t “feel the energy” in the room and had his parish imagine things. He continued [2:14:15] on how he personally prepares for worship using his imagination:

“I will use images that, I, when I look at people, and before I preach. I find it most helpful in mornings before I have to preach I go, I always go through the sanctuary and I touch each pew and I try to imagine the people sitting there and that God would bring them to this place. Because I don’t think it’s an accident that we arrived. I think that God calls us to that place. Maybe it happened on our part but God called us to that place. So I kind of touch each pew and connect with it and it’s a way of, my way of praying through the sanctuary that God would have people hear what they need to hear and not necessarily what I speak.”

He continued:

“Imaging, I think it’s helpful too, for the leaders of the church or certainly the boards of elders to be praying during the worship service. And they can do that right away or they can be in another room praying or I would always that ask my leaders during the sermon especially, I need you to be praying, more than listening because if God is gonna have an effect here its not going with my words it’s gonna be with God the Holy Spirit. So you be praying that God would have an effect on their hearts and minds of people and it will make a difference, a huge difference in terms of your worship.”

This led to a question about anointing prayers and what was the role of anointing prayers during a worship service and could anointing prayers be used, as had been done in the questioner’s former congregation, to anoint particulars seats, pews, or spaces that people, women specifically, sat in. A question was also raised concerning praying for our enemies. The presenter recommended [2:18:00] the following:

“You see, a lot of prayers are changing my heart and not God’s mind. It changes my heart. If you pray for your enemy you gonna treat them not as enemies. That’s why Jesus wanted us to pray for our enemies, so we treat them differently. Small groups, it’s very helpful to always have an empty chair when you form small groups in a church. And pray over that chair. That chair is for someone who doesn’t know Jesus. So you, praying over that chair (and say) “Jesus, fill that chair with someone who doesn’t know you yet so they can sit there. Fill that chair” It’s a really a powerful way to do evangelism”

We concluded the morning session by going over the practice of absolution and confession, a Lutheran practice that was the most historic and recognizably Lutheran practice of the day according to the presenter’s own testimony. The presenter did a fair job in explaining that the practice is not a Roman Catholic only practice but something given to us by Jesus himself. When one of the participants said [2:38:30] that she would never teach her child to confess his sins to a pastor but rather she would tell him to go talk with her spouse a certain slack jawed yokel was heard defending both corporate and private confession and absolution when those with a masters of divinity failed to do so. The presenter ended up saying:

“I wouldn’t want to debate right and wrong because both are right. I would respect where ever each person is at in the room around this issue because it’s not right or wrong, God’s forgiveness is valid what ever way. I would just say that if this is something that might be helpful and if you’d like to experience it. I have found the experience, I don’t do this all the time, but the experience of private confession for me there is a power and I can’t explain it other than I know that the Holy Spirit is there.”

I’m sure it was just a slip of the tongue [2:38:00] when presenter “he or she is the mouthpiece of God” when referring to the pastoral office. Maybe the post on the discussion over lunch will shed some light on what he was thinking...

And then we broke for lunch.

A programming note: in the next post I’ll cover the second half of Saturday’s class. The forth post will be devoted exclusively to the conversation I had with the presenter after he sat down at my table for the lunch break. The reason for this is that not everybody heard the conversation we had at lunch so my thinking is that what was said at our table needs to be dealt with separately.

Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 1
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 3
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 4
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 5
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 6
Prayer And Spiritual Formation Workshop Part 7