The Gottesdienst Crowd

[Gottesblog] Libido Numerandi — Larry Beane

Libido Numerandi

In his masterpiece The City of God, St. Augustine uses the term libido dominandi, which might be translated as “the lust for domination.” It is Augustine’s term for fallen man’s inclination to lord over others, to play God by seeking to control other people.

There is a variation of this libido that seeks power and the praise of men by an appeal to numbers: libido numerandi. Even animals turn to this form of self-aggrandizement in making themselves look big - often as a defense mechanism to frighten away predators, or as an appeal to a potential mate. But especially among fallen men, there is a determination to dominate others by an assertion of self-promotion: be it physical size, strength, influence, wealth, or the number of people in one’s organization.

This libido numerandi is everywhere. Companies will routinely boast in their advertisements that they are the world’s largest this or that, the biggest such and such a firm in the country, or the Number One seller of widgets in the state.

And this libido is all too common in the church. It is the main lust displayed by the Church Growth Movement (CGM), and has become justification for a lot of mischief - even abolishing the Mass and the usual public ceremonies, like the order of the readings, vestments, etc. - all in the name of boosting numbers.

Of course, we are called upon to evangelize, but we are also called upon to seek and save even the single lost sheep, and not just make a play for ever larger numbers of people for the sake of numbers itself. In our Lord’s parable, the shepherd leaves the ninety-nine on the plain to find one of his flock that isn’t even a new “recruit,” but rather a member who has wondered off. This legacy maintenance approach to ministry must seem a strange strategy indeed to the CGM advocate, who would likely rather be leaving one behind to look for ninety-nine new members, not to mention the vault of heaven resounding over a mere net gain of only one member!

And this is part of the curse of the Church Growth Movement - people just become numbers, tallies on a spreadsheet, abstract targeted goals in a corporate jargon-filled mission statement. The now (thank God) defunct Ablaze!™ program, that was sold not a program but as a “movement”, created such a dehumanizing secular marketing approach by laying out a numerical goal of a hundred million “critical events” to be racked up (defined as telling people about Jesus, but not defined as actually baptizing someone). It was pure libido numerandi. It downplayed the means of grace, it reduced people and human interactions to the place of tick marks in a database and a number to be reported by the suits at meetings, and completely forgot about the Holy Spirit and the Doctrine of Election.

How different than our Lord’s Parable of the Sower, in which the seed is cast far and wide in a way that looks foolish to the world, unconcerned with numbers, and not reporting them to a website or to the bureaucrats in the home office. And the sower doesn’t research to find out the best place to cast. He doesn’t use the techniques of modern agribusiness to bump up the fertility of the soil. He doesn’t employ genetic modification to make his seeds more “effective.” He doesn’t even use the latest and greatest technology. He just tosses the seed everywhere, seemingly recklessly, and he just leaves the results up to God the Holy Spirit. The sower’s job is to be faithful.

And that is another thing that the lust for numbers ignores. Which church is more “successful”? Is it Joel Osteen’s stadium full of tens of thousands, or is it the little LCMS congregation that uses the liturgy, the hymns, and is normed by the Bible and the Confessions and has maybe a couple dozen people in attendance? Is the metric for success, for a “healthy church” (in CGM lingo) based on the number of people present, or the degree of fidelity to the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ?

One rank example of the libido numerandi was when a previous district president said that he hoped my congregation would grow to 900 members in a year. How he came up with that number is a mystery. Maybe it was a subconscious reference to Oral Roberts’s 900 foot Jesus. Our building holds a couple hundred. Why would we want to be that large? Why wouldn’t it make more sense to have another congregation or two (or more) - providing responsible pastoral care - if there were that many members? And why not focus on the kind of growth that sees our members grow in the maturity of their faith, in their Christian life, in their sanctification, in their knowledge of the Bible and the confessions of the church? In their love for the liturgy and their children’s growing up immersed in the means of grace? Why is success seen merely as numerical growth?

Another example is when pastors (and not just pastors) get together, one of the first questions is “How big is your church?” Or the really revealing way in which this question is often put: “How many do you worship?” If that isn’t not only libido numerandi, but outright idolatry, then nothing is! The object of our worship is the Most Holy Trinity, not the number of people in the pews.

There was even a well-known pastor who would get into discussions online about theological matters. You could tell when he was losing the argument, because he would look up his opponent’s congregation’s statistics (which are, inexplicably, published online) and then berate him if his church had a net loss of members over the past year or over the pastor’s tenure at that congregation - as if that had any validity as a theological argument. Well, according to libido numerandi, it makes perfect sense.

There is that nasty little libido in all of us to lord over others by an appeal to our own perceived greatness. And in our culture, size matters.

It calls to mind when David’s census did not go well, and God punished his libido numerandi: “Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel…. But God was displeased with this thing, and He struck Israel…. So the Lord sent a pestilence on Israel, and 70,000 men of Israel fell” (1 Chron 21:1,7, 14). It also calls to mind the account of Gideon’s conquest of Midian with only 300 men. God deliberately shrunk Gideon’s army so as to conquer their libido numerandi: “The Lord said to Gideon, ‘The people with you are too many for Me to give the Midianites into their hand, lest Israel boast over Me, saying, my own hand has saved me’“ (Jud 7:2).

But according to the Word of God, the Spirit blows where He wishes. The Church expands, the Church contracts, and in the long run, the Church will drastically shrink. Jesus Himself said so. There is not a direct relation between faithfulness and size, and to the contrary, when one lives in a hostile culture, there may well even be an inverse relationship. This is not to say that we should strive to make our churches small, or denigrate those whose churches are growing. These things are typically beyond our control. Contrary to the premises of the CGM, numerical growth is often related much more to the secular demographic increase or decrease of a local population than anything we do.

And that is also a temptation to the Church Growthers.

Many years ago, I received a beg letter from a proposed church plant. In making the pitch, it appealed to the fact that the target subdivision demographic was suburban, well-to-do, and comprised of many young families. The implication is that your money won’t go to waste, because there is a better chance of success among people with money and kids. So the older people, the less-fortunate, and other outcasts who are not as likely to be an attractive demographic for investment can just do without evangelism, I suppose. The sower went looking for good soil, and limited his planting there, it seems. Should we assume that God blesses such an approach to evangelism?

Bishop Vsevolod Lytkin commented on the monetary inefficiencies of mission work - especially in his milieu of the vast terrain of the Lutheran diaspora in Siberia:

Speaking pragmatically, mission work always brings financial losses for the church, but we do not go to collect offerings. We go to proclaim the Word.

The worldly considerations and calculations of gains and losses, financial, or in terms of numerical bragging rights, do not enter the picture in evangelism that is done out of love for the lost. If we were to spend a million dollars and not one member joins the congregation, it is not for us to call it a success or a failure. The Word of God does not return empty. “We go to proclaim the Word.” - and to do so faithfully. The rest is up to God. Our boast is not in “how many we worship” or the balance sheet of our latest building project. Our boast is in Christ our Lord.

We must strive to replace our lust with love. And true love is not concerned with such details as numbers, personal vainglory, prestige, or impressiveness in the eyes of the world.

TGC 121 — Throwdown: Our Father in the Mass

There’s always friendly disagreements among the editors. In this episode, we explore one: the Our Father in the Mass. What is it’s placement? What is it’s function? Who says it? These are the main points of disagreement between Fritz Eckardt and Rick Stuckwisch.

Host: Fr. Jason Braaten

Regular Guest: Fr. Fritz Eckardt, Fr. Rick Stuckwisch

Become a Patron!

You can subscribe to the Journal here: https://www.gottesdienst.org/subscribe/

You can read the Gottesblog here: https://www.gottesdienst.org/gottesblog/

You can support Gottesdienst here: https://www.gottesdienst.org/make-a-donation/

As always, we, at The Gottesdienst Crowd, would be honored if you would Subscribe, Rate, and Review. Thanks for listening and thanks for your support. 

[Gottesblog] Mission Indecipherable — Larry Beane

Mission Indecipherable

This is funny because it’s true. All too often, churches sound like the worst that corporate, bureaucratic America has to offer. It is as though we could all have corporate-speak bingo cards during district conventions and when we read various church publications. And if it were made into a drinking game, it could cause the premiums for Concordia Plan Services to increase even more, especially as the demand for pastoral liver transplants were to increase dramatically.

Some of the gobbledygook that we hear from church bureaucrats sounds just like the above video. And that is what happens when we lose touch with the Scriptures and Confessions. Instead of using turns of phrase from the Bible and the Book of Concord and from the long and rich tradition of the Holy Church, we are often treated to something more akin to the jargon of a self-help book or bureaucratic babble from the latest work productivity guru.

Is it because they don’t read the Bible? Is it because the Book of Concord has become just another dusty volume on the shelf from seminary days? Is it because our “missional” brethren’s reading is normed by mission statements instead of the mission to spread the Gospel by means of sending pastors to serve at altars, fonts, and pulpits? Is it because they put more faith in the techniques of industrial organization, managerial leadership, and the Power of Positive Thinking than in the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the means of grace, and the Doctrine of Election?

Even our bureaucratic titles sound like a bad parody of the movie Office Space: District President (DP or sometimes DiP)? Mission and Ministry Facilitator (MMF)? That one is particularly begging for it. Mission Executive? Congregation Support Specialist? Coach? (Yes, some districts have titles that include “coach” - which may conjure up images of big hairy guys in shorts with a whistle and a clipboard). We have various directors, executives, and facilitators. The only saving grace is that the names for all of these titles aren’t still in German, or else it would sound like a World War II reenactors’ convention. We have task forces and blue ribbon commissions (which sounds like something to do with the prize heifer at the county fair). We have cheesy themes for this and that, and of course, the king of corporate argot, the Mission Statement. Sigh.

Wouldn’t it be nice if this all stopped in our churches, and instead of reflecting the world, our writing and speaking and even our polity were given fluency by the Word of God?

[Gottesblog] Nondenominationalizing Tendencies — Larry Beane

Nondenominationalizing Tendencies: Responses to A Tale of Two Synods

Response to “A Tale of Two Synods” has been interesting and illustrative: some people posting comments to the blog, some to the FB repost, and some to the editors via email. Although many of these responders would have no problem identifying themselves, I am protecting their privacy by not publishing their names and geographical clues that might identify them. It is their choice whether they wish to be made known or not. That’s not my call.

Clearly, this phenomenon is not just an American problem, as we received feedback from three countries. The slide of our churches into pop-music entertainment worship and/or a rejection of the liturgy is especially scandalous to those who, like me, converted to Evangelical Catholicism. It is often the convert who has actually studied the Book of Concord, and leaves a service scratching his head, wondering if the Lutheran congregation sold the building to a non-denominational church.

And since the faith is the most important thing in the life of the believer, he and his faithful wife are willing to pile the family into the car, sometimes with several young children, and travel ridiculously long distances to attend an authentically Lutheran Divine Service - often driving right right past several congregations who have traded away the treasure of their birthright for a bowl of junk food.

Maybe such families and individuals can’t do this every Sunday, but they strive to be faithful under trying circumstances.

Others have a similar story. And perhaps for political reasons, their stories are not told in Lutheran Witness, Reporter, in the publications of our seminaries, in our district publications, or in our congregational newsletters. It is as though they don’t exist, as they are stifled and hidden under the blare and bombast of the cacophony coming from the speakers of the “successful” church.

It is high time that we acknowledge this massive problem in our synod and in the various church bodies around the world that were either established by, or influenced by, the LCMS. And it is certainly overdue that we begin to push back against those pushing Nondenominationalizing Tendencies in our fellowship wherever that pressure occurs - whether it be in the seminary chapel, in the district office (the MMFs and DPs in particular), or in church publications.

I’ve been considering this issue quite a lot lately, and I believe there are indeed things that we pastors and laity can do together to take practical steps towards a renaissance of Lutheran Authenticity here and around the world. It will take persistence and patience - qualities that our progressive brethren have displayed over the long haul to get to where we are today. The time is long past for the ship to be righted. I’ll be writing more about that in the future.

But the first step is to get the problem out into the open and acknowledge it.

Here is a sample of some of the responses that we have received.

I wanted to convey to you the immense encouragement that I received from this post, which might seem somewhat unusual, because I think you wrote it with some exasperation about what's going on the LCMS.

Actually, it was just great to read something that someone had written that is so close to my thinking.... I actually wrote a public statement and left the [church body] in [country], which is much further gone than the LCMS. I can tell you more, but suffice to say, that I couldn't in good conscience remain. I've just started a small congregation here in [city], and I'm hoping to make some contacts with the ILC, and such churches. (I loved the video of Siberia that you posted.)

~ Responder

I also like how the older people tend to think that this is what us younger people want: bands and lights and smoke. Okay maybe it’s true. I want the one man band called the pipe organ, I want the candles, the incense, the liturgy, a meat and potatoes sermon that will feed me through the week. Divine Liturgy that lets me worship God by repeating his words back to him instead of repeating some endless chorus of the same watered down words of a praise song. I want to touch the hymn books and have the full experience. I want to hear the little children that can not read yet but have the Divine Liturgy memorized because church is the same every week instead of some rock concert.

~ Responder

Man this hits home! Okay, so, I live in [place name], which is the "Texas of [country], and the landscape here appears strikingly similar. That is to say, while the area itself is known to be politically conservative, the Neo-Evangelicalism by way of a lack of Confessional integrity, ejection of the hymnal and liturgy in favour of "creative worship" or non-denominational mega-church nonsense, is astounding. Like the LCMS, the divide… here is very real as well (although perhaps easier to navigate geographically as it appears to be east vs. west, generally speaking). I mean, even [among our seminaries], the attitude and emphasis is in such stark contrast that it is exactly as you say where it might as well be two synods (one catering to boomers, or the death of the [Lutheran] church, and the other authentically Confessional Lutheran serving as a beacon for the elect).

The proposed polity solution I could not agree with more and would love to see such a model…. . It would alleviate much of this tension and conflict, and perhaps be the answer to the problem of the microsynods who just can't stand to be in fellowship with a body that allows what it does. It also has historical precedence insofar as superintendents used to be in charge of setting the church order for their region and standardizing practice. Although, on that note, this would also be a good time to revert back to traditional language as Fr. Peterson makes a case for, opting for terms like diocese and bishop instead. Or, at least the Orthodox Lutheran districts can use such verbiage, the rest can continue to distance themselves from anything "traditional", "catholic", or "Lutheran" for that matter. Then if/when a split happens, it'll be much easier as everyone will already be organized and grouped together in their respective camps that honestly reflect what they believe and where they stand.

~ Responder

Anyone whose been around knows that you have to carefully check a church’s website or FB page to make sure they haven’t gone off the rails. “You should try the Lutheran church” could be the best or worst recommendation at the same time.

~ Responder

I want the Pastors, and District President (Bishop) of the Texas district to understand why and what I left. I converted to Confessional Lutheranism as an adult, a few years ago. Converting as an adult I left an American Evangelical church where I had volunteered as a small group leader, musician, and technical service (sound/lighting/projection). I was in a very comfortable position as a volunteer, esteemed by my co-volunteers, appreciated by the church staff. I walked away from it all. The concert sound, the theater lights, the visuals, and a musician I walked away from it all.

I walked away from rock concert church to join a "boring" small congregation with a pianist who doubles as the organist, and seasonally triples as a choir director. I walked away from the exciting flashy rock concert church so I could read the SATB notes in the service book and struggle to sing the bass line. I walked away from one church and don't think I won't walk away from an LCMS congregation that does the same, because I already did. I needed to attend an evening service on occasion and the closest LCMS church has a soft rock band. After posting on Facebook for another evening church I drive double the distance to go to a liturgical congregation.

It angers me to see our fellowship mixed with rock'n'roll, as if we could flirt with the world and not be changed by it. We don't avoid sins by flirting with them, which is what rock and roll church is all about. And on top of this all my wife was watching, and on rare occasion coming with me to see our services. She also left the same American Evangelical church only to find the same problem among us. Can you imagine a life long Baptist in a young marriage seeing what her husband is doing in such a different church and finding the same music that caused her to leave? She's already walked from a second Am. Ev. church! whose pastor she knew! Do you think she'll want to return to a congregation in our fellowship? As her husband I pray one day she does.

~ Responder

There is frustration, disorientation, and even pain in these responses, and in similar personal accounts that I have heard over the years - and yes, experienced myself as a layman who was actually shocked at what I saw in LCMS churches. It seems like our district offices are not listening, and they just down care.

Well, it’s time that they start caring. And the first step is to start listening.

TGC 120 – Argumentum ad Repititium

When contending for the historic liturgy of the church, we often hear the same arguments trotted out with a gotcha mic drop. In this episode, we look at a blog post by Larry Beane and build upon it to talk about how one responds to these same arguments.

Read the blog post here: Argumentum ad Repititium 

 

Host: Fr. Jason Braaten

Regular Guest: Fr. Larry Beane

Become a Patron!

You can subscribe to the Journal here: https://www.gottesdienst.org/subscribe/

You can read the Gottesblog here: https://www.gottesdienst.org/gottesblog/

You can support Gottesdienst here: https://www.gottesdienst.org/make-a-donation/

As always, we, at The Gottesdienst Crowd, would be honored if you would Subscribe, Rate, and Review. Thanks for listening and thanks for your support. 

[Gottesblog] Argumentum ad Repititium — Larry Beane

Argumentum ad Repetitium

When I get into discussions with people over the liturgy and traditional hymnody (over and against so-called “contemporary worship,”) a lot of the same arguments and assertions pop up.

First is the charge that I just want traditional worship because it is “just what I like.” In other words, it’s a matter of personal preference and taste. This accusation is more a revelation about what the one making the accusation believes, for “contemporary worship” is typically based on pop-music forms that are, well, popular. People want pop music because it is what they like, not because of its theology or particular confession, not because it reflects what God prefers from the Scriptures, or because it promotes the Word of God. No, people like pop music in worship because they like pop music elsewhere. If it’s good enough for listening to while driving to work, it’s good enough to listen to in the church service.

So the charge that traditional church music is “just what you like” sounds like a projection. For are there any people arguing that they don’t really like pop music, but it is the best music for worship? Is there anyone who champions guitars and drums in the chancel who leaves church and turns on the radio to listen to organ music and chorales? Admittedly, this is just a hunch, but I suspect that most proponents of “contemporary worship” actually prefer those music forms, and listen to them outside of the church service as well. In other words, “It’s what they like.”

One finger pointed at me, three fingers pointing back at thee.

To the contrary, my desire to uphold the traditional liturgy and hymnody of the church has nothing to do with my musical tastes. In fact, the vast majority of the music that I listen to is pop music. I like what is today called “classic rock.” I like hard rock and 1980s heavy metal. I do listen to some classical music as well, but the vast majority of my musical tastes are the very types of music that I would loath in the Divine Service, and would consider its use to be blasphemous against the Lord and a degradation to rock and roll. As the cartoon character Hank Hill famously told a Christian rocker, “You’re not making Christianity better, you’re making rock and roll worse.”

I’m a stickler for traditional liturgy and hymnody for several reasons. One of them is that this is what God likes. He is a God of order. He is a God of dignity. He is a God of beauty. He is a God of sacrifice, atonement, and forgiveness. One would be hard-pressed to find the self-serving desire to be entertained in Biblical examples of worship. In fact, after recording God’s worship style preferences over the course of seven chapters (Exodus 25-31): the beautiful tabernacle covered in magnificent fabric, an altar of bronze followed by a courtyard also outfitted with beautiful textiles and precious metals, exquisite priestly garments (as well as rubrics for ordination), the altar of incense, the bronze basin for ceremonial washing, the anointing oil and incense, and specific instructions for fine craftsmanship, we come to chapter 32: the rejection of all of this for a more entertaining worship style around the golden calf, “and the people sat down to eat and drink and rose of to play.” They played at their worship. There was no indication that God wanted the priests to “play” in the holy of holies, or that the laity should “play” while sacrificing animals as a type of the Lamb to come. Some believe the word translated as “play” may be a euphemism for erotic overtones in this worship service - something that comes to the fore in many popular “praise and worship” songs, many of which that can be embarrassing to read the lyrics out loud or to watch the gyrations of the often-female performers - or “ministers of music", “worship leaders”, or “worship pastors” as they are sometimes called.

By contrast, we see the Israelites who worshiped the true God repeating their ritual and liturgical actions of remembrance each year - and they were commanded to keep various feasts as a memorial. And to be a memorial, there must be continuity, both in ritual, and in the passing along of those rituals through the generations.

Every year, a lamb was slaughtered and it was cooked with bitter herbs. It was eaten on the same day each year, and the same ceremony was repeated again and again, century after century. There were readings, there were hymns, there were psalms to be chanted. Why? Because God commanded that it should be done each year. Why should it change, since ultimately, the Passover meal was a type of Christ, pointing us to the Eucharist and to the cross? The message doesn’t change, and therefore the rubrics of the meal do not change. For if they were to change even a little every year, in a hundred years it would look nothing like what it was supposed to remember.

And when God interacts with mankind, there is a coming of heaven down to earth. Something otherworldly, something holy is happening. “Holy” means “set apart.” So when Jacob saw the vision of the angels ascending and descending on the ladder, he set apart that place as holy, and marked it with a pillar that was anointed with oil. That place was no longer just a spot to bed down for the night, it was the gate of heaven.

God is also a God who is concerned with esthetics. He is the author of beauty. He is not indifferent about matters of style. For again, when God tabernacled with the children of Israel, he commanded a tent to be made up to His standards, with magnificent furniture, with gold and silver and fine-twined linen, beautifully woven fabrics of purple and scarlet. His tabernacle, and later his temple, was epitomized by exquisite beauty beyond what one normally had in his house and daily life. God ordered the priests to be vested, also in beautifully crafted textiles, rare jewels, and fine detailed ornamentation.

This is not my idea or preference. This was not the preference of the priests or architects of the House of the Lord. This was done according to God’s order. And God likes beautiful art - the cherubim above the mercy seat, the intricate carvings of almond flowers, palm trees, and pomegranates. Why? Because God likes this design. It’s what He wanted. It is not because the congregation liked it, or the priests, or the leaders. God also likes bells and incense. Why? I don’t know. He just does. He likes craftsmanship and high art. And this level of ornateness was not how ordinary people lived in their day to day life. The place where God made Himself present for, and with, mankind, this holy place, was set apart and beautiful.

How anyone can actually read the Bible and come away thinking that God prefers people to just “come as you are” and “don’t go to any trouble to make things nice” when they come into His presence? Or how can anyone conclude that God’s attitude is “do whatever makes you happy, whatever you like,” or “do whatever is cheap.” This is not the God of the Bible.

And related to this idea of God becoming present with His people, this is one major difference we have with Protestantism. We, along with the historic communions of Christianity, confess that a miracle happens on our altars when we celebrate the Mass, that Christ, the living God and King and Creator of the Universe, the Man who is perfect, comes to us literally and in incarnate form, as the bread and wine that are blessed by His Word are truly His body and blood.

And so, that Presence takes us out of our ordinary, pedestrian existence and places us at the table with God.

So is informality called for in times like these? Did Isaiah behave casually when he found himself in the throne-room of God, when the angels purged away his sin by bringing him a coal from the altar and placing it upon his lips? Did Peter, James, and John behave the same as they always did when Jesus transfigured before them on the mountain?

Do military men behave differently around an officer than when they are hanging out with their fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen, or marines? What about when a general enters the room? How about the president? Are there different protocols and ways of behaving around one’s superiors? And how would it be received if a soldier did not treat officers differently than their friends? Do these rituals and ways of carrying oneself communicate something? Are they for the good of the entire corps, the whole body of men united in service?

What if you were invited to a banquet at Buckingham Palace? Would you comport yourself the same as if you were at home in front of the TV with a bucket of KFC? Or would you maybe be more formally dressed, perfectly groomed, more aware of those around you, especially those of high social rank? Would you like to know what the rubrics for such an important meal are? Or would you be content to carry on the same way that you do at home?

Our formality in worship as Lutherans is crucial, because it is a confession that we do confess that Christ is miraculously present with us. We do not confess, as do many Protestants, that the Lord’s Supper is a symbol, or that our Lord’s flesh is far off in the heavens, leaving us with mere tokens that are at best some kind of “spiritual” presence. No, we confess that this is the eternal banquet that Jesus is always talking about, or at least a foretaste of it. The Divine Service is eschatological and brings us into contact with eternity. He is present under our roof, though we are unworthy. He says the Word, and we are healed. The King, God Himself, deigns to dine with us! This is not watching TV with KFC eaten out of a plastic container with a spork. Rather, this is the Holy of Holies, and Christ incarnate is present with us. And we not only eat with Him, but we feed miraculously on the true Passover Lamb, even as His blood is poured into us to mark us as His own, protected and saved from condemnation, from the Angel of Death.

And so, our worship is different than our day to day lives.

The hymnody comes from our rich tradition and is unbounded by fads or notions of what is popular today, but may well fall out of favor tomorrow. Our hymns not only praise God, but confess our faith rigorously and boldly. Our worship is dignified, and like the liturgical actions of remembrance of the children of Israel, it doesn’t change again and again, becoming unrecognizable in just a few years. Nor is it play - whether motivated by a desire for fun, or even tinged with eroticism.

Jesus said, “Do this in memory of Me.” He did not order us to change the liturgical action to bend it to our standards of entertainment, or to prevent it from not being “special.” And this is why the Church’s liturgy remains the same. It is a remembrance, just as the liturgical actions of the Old Testament Church were. Any changes are not made to reflect theological change, but perhaps to accommodate linguistic or technological shifts. And over the centuries, we have developed a corpus of the very best that the Church has in terms of liturgy and hymnody, not subject to fads and fashions. Our progressive culture routinely gets rid of the old in search of the ever-new. Our church’s heritage is a blend of the old and the new, not subject to “chronological snobbery” or Critical Theory that denigrates our own forbears.

And as a pastor, I want people to be taught (as ceremonies teach the people what they need to know about Christ, as our confessions teach us). I want my parishioners to have no doubts about what it is that we Lutherans confess about Jesus, and about what He Himself says in Scripture. This is communicated verbally in what is said, and nonverbally in what is done. Research suggests that 60% of what is communicated between people is non-verbal - meaning what we do and how we speak is as important, and perhaps even a bit more, than what is said in words alone.

An informal liturgy belies what is really happening: the miracle of heaven meeting earth and of Christ tabernacling with us. Pop music lowers the level of dignity, perhaps to the depths of frivolity and impropriety. And when we have centuries of magnificent hymnody, to settle for what is sung in Pentecostal or non-denominational churches is like choosing to eat cold Vienna sausages instead of the luxurious spread of delectable delicacies that you have been invited to partake of at the feast.

So far from being a matter of personal taste, the traditional liturgy and hymnody is what God wants, is a confession of who Jesus is and what He does, and is good pastoral care in terms of teaching and confessing our faith.

And this is why our forbears included Article 24. They did not just say, “Do whatever you like.” For while our Roman opponents were lumping us in with radical reformers that abolished the Mass, we vociferously deny such a scurrilous charge. To even suggest it is a gross insult, and resulted in an angry retort by Melanchthon, as well as a master class on what real worship is all about in the Augsburg Confession and the Apology.

It all boils down to Jesus, and what you believe about Him. Do you believe the Bible when it confesses that Christ is present with us? Do you take Jesus at His word when He says, “Do this in memory of Me?” Are you humbled at the Lord’s miraculous presence with us, like Moses, like Isaiah, like Peter, James, and John? Do you believe, teach, and confess that the presence of Jesus is the fountainhead of holiness, and so our worship in the holy place must itself be holy - as opposed to common and ordinary?

Are you willing to sacrifice your own personal tastes and desire to be entertained in the style to which you were accustomed in order to submit to Him and to receive His gifts - and to give Him thanks in return in the setting of His choosing? Do you actually believe what He says, and what the Church says about Him? Or do you hold the faith of another tradition, whose informal and casual worship is more fitting?

TGC 119 — The Lie of Secular vs Religious

We often hear touted the distinction between the church and the state, the religious and the secular. In this episode, our guest, Christian Preus, demonstrates the the lie behind this false dichotomy, particularly within education. There is no indifferent, middle ground, and that Christians need to be aware and beware of these false notions. 

For more information about Luther Classical College: https://www.lutherclassical.org

Host: Fr. Jason Braaten

Special Guest: Fr. Christian Preus 

Become a Patron!

You can subscribe to the Journal here: https://www.gottesdienst.org/subscribe/

You can read the Gottesblog here: https://www.gottesdienst.org/gottesblog/

You can support Gottesdienst here: https://www.gottesdienst.org/make-a-donation/

As always, we, at The Gottesdienst Crowd, would be honored if you would Subscribe, Rate, and Review. Thanks for listening and thanks for your support. 

[Gottesblog] A Christian Criticism of Critical Theory: a Word Fitly Spoken — Larry Beane

A Christian Criticism of Critical Theory: a Word Fitly Spoken

While on the treadmill at the gym, I was listening to a podcast, A Word Fitly Spoken. This particular program was about Critical Theory, and it was hosted by the Revs. Willie Grills and Zelwin Heide. The guests were the Revs. Adam Koontz and David Buchs. It was an outstanding presentation, and I commend all of our readers and listeners to give this episode a listen!

What was especially poignant for me was the juxtaposition of the bank of TVs on the wall and the messages being flashed before the eyes of the millions of viewers around the country. Right in front of me was a screen running the USA Network. There were closed captions, so I could glance at what was going on. But it was really the visual imagery that was telling - especially while listening to a biblical analysis of this very thing being promoted by the secular world in real time.

Television is a powerful medium. It not only sells Budweiser, Toyotas, Doritos, and innumerable pharmaceuticals, it gives something away for free: a worldview.

The USA Network was running a cop show (I think it was “Chicago PD”) featuring several encounters between police and criminals. In this episode, without exception, every violent thug was a white male. And with only one exception, every crime victim was black: the exception being a white female who was being brutalized by a white male.

Only glancing up at the screen without hearing dialogue or background music gave me a sense of disconnect that made it an interesting observation. One of the scenes involved a black female shoplifter who was attempting to steal a loaf of bread. The store owner, an angry white male, was aggressively trying to get the police to arrest her. He complained about junkies constantly ripping him off. The accused woman looked sad, sitting limply on the floor with big puppy-dog eyes. She told the female police officer that she wasn’t a drug user, but that she just wanted to make a sandwich for her boy. The female cop looked at her indulgently and sympathetically, and asked the scowling, angry white male shop-keeper the price of the loaf of bread which was a dollar fifty. But before paying for the woman’s bread, the cop told the shop-owner that she could probably find some code violations in the store. She immediately claimed to see mouse droppings on the floor, and a wire at the ceiling that was not up to code. She threatened to ticket the shop-owner for $20,000. In the face of this police shakedown, the store owner told the police to release the woman. The lady cop then paid for the woman’s bread and sent her on her way - before scolding the shop-owner one more time.

The racial component presented on shows like this are pushing a false narrative, one that simply doesn’t comport with reality, a narrative clearly designed to promulgate a lie to the detriment of the target demographic.

Another scene involved a cop questioning a suspect on the street by inserting the muzzle of his pistol into the suspect’s mouth and demanding answers in three seconds, then he started counting. Fortunately, the suspect was a white guy. Otherwise, the cops would have been seen as the baddies.

There was also a commercial for trans pride.

Since I don’t watch TV any more, this is all unfamiliar territory to me. But it’s very easy to see what’s going on. It’s brainwashing. It’s Critical Theory training in the guise of entertainment. It does not reflect reality, but it is designed to create resentment against the white male population. And it is working for people of every racial and sexual tribe. Whites are conditioned to hate themselves and see their own existence as toxic. Many a Christian parent has been shocked by their children coming back from college holding a completely different worldview - one formed by Critical Theory. Some return from school declaring themselves to be of a different gender identity, bearing a new sexual preference, holding radicalized political views, and even in some cases, confessing hostility to the Christian faith itself.

Parents generally blame the universities - albeit too late. But I think academe is only partly to blame. I believe that the universities are merely the last domino to fall. Children typically grow up watching a lot of TV. And all contemporary mainstream television programs - and the vast majority of movies and online series - are pushing a Critical Theory narrative. This is being done under the noses of everyone.

I don’t think Christian parents have a clue as to how formative and normative and powerful these TV shows are, nor the cumulative effect of the propaganda. They are based on a narrative - and the story is consistent, emotional, compelling, and part of a larger holistic model of re-education. But we have been boiled slowly like the proverbial frog in the pan of warm water. We are being lied to all the time. Reality itself is a casualty of Critical Theory.

As a Christian pastor, this is a source of frustration. If our parishioners attend Divine Service and Bible Class every week, we will get maybe two hours to preach and teach our Christian narrative, which is, the Biblical and liturgical Gospel of Jesus Christ that runs from eternity to eternity. The rest of the time, most of our parishioners are watching TV, movies, sports, and taking part in other aspects of popular culture - all of which push a narrative at odds with, and hostile to, the Christian faith. And as adults, we may well be able to roll our eyes and discern what we are seeing. But then again, let us not underestimate the power of the visual narrative on our minds and psyches. But think about children and youth - whose brains are still in a state of plasticity, whose minds and souls are being formed by a constant barrage of narrative in opposition to the Holy Scriptures.

So what should Christian parents - and even those who are not parents - do in the face of this onslaught? I would say to cancel the cable, and stop watching modern TV shows. Older TV is not nearly as toxic, and some of the older programs may even be neutral or uplifting. But even there, wisdom and discernment are called for. There are older movies - and perhaps a new one or two - that are not antagonistic to the Christian worldview. But allowing children unfettered access to highly suggestive Critical Theory training is, in the long run, as toxic as if they had such access to porn. These shows are designed not only to sell product, but to push a worldview, one that is, without exaggeration, Luciferian in its orientation.

Instead of sitting in front of the boob tube for hours on end, why not listen to podcasts that either uphold, or do not contradict, our worldview? Why not learn a new skill? Take up an instrument? Study a foreign language? Learn how to fix cars or quilt or do woodworking or cooking? How about daily reading or listening to the Bible and great literature?

One of the things that individuals and families can do is to replace the trash narrative of TV with the Holy Narrative of the Scriptures - by incorporating daily liturgical worship into their lives. The Treasury of Daily Prayer (which is also available as an app) is an accessible and yet robust resource for interacting with the Scriptures - especially the Psalms - in a liturgical way that counters the evil and unrealistic narrative and worldview promoted by the TV networks and by Hollywood. Children need to be reading a lot more and looking at screens a lot less. Adults too.

And the beauty of such prayer is that it is liturgical, providing an annual reading of the lion’s share of the Bible but set in a beautiful liturgical setting that can be spoken or sung, simple or elaborate. The liturgical repetition provides children with an anchor for their young memories. And technology has made it possible to hear and pray along with these daily prayer offices in their full majestic beauty as sung by the Concordia Theological Seminary Kantorei.

I recently stayed a couple days with a delightful Lutheran family that had three young children. They had a TV, but it was in the basement, and the children acted like they didn’t even know it was there. The kids were surrounded by books. They all excitedly clambered up next to me so I could read to them, and so they could read to me. These children really knew the Bible, the Catechism, and the liturgy of the church. The family prays Matins together every morning. Their six year old reads the One Year Bible (ESV) every day on her own - and was breathlessly explaining the narrative of the day’s readings to me. And the children’s reading was impeccable. Aside from Biblical names and foreign words (with the exception of the little toddler) the children could read and pronounce each word effortlessly and fluently - better than most adults that I know.

What was especially poignant was the fact that the biblical narratives are already embedded in the minds of these very young children. They know the stories of the biblical characters - and not just the usual felt-board Sunday School sections. They relate the Biblical accounts with excitement and intimacy as though they are telling about what happened at the swing-set with the neighbor children only yesterday.

These children are happy, well-adjusted, and intelligent. They are being well-prepared for a future in which their worldview will be challenged. They are being placed on the firm foundation of the Bible and the Confessions, of the liturgy and the Catechism, the Psalter and the hymns. These children clearly know the faith, and they know who (and whose) they are. And they weren’t only reading the Bible. They were also reading standard childhood storybooks and great literature and books covering a range of topics. But they weren’t reading anything about “Two Mommies” or any trashy kids’ books that one might find at a Drag Queen event.

In our modern world, there is huge pressure to conform. And children - especially if they are in public school - are subject to incredible peer pressure to watch those programs that are most at odds with our Christian worldview. This is increasingly the case even in kindergarten and nursery school. And by the time these kids face puberty, they are under enormous pressure to be anything but “normal.” It is, as though to be accepted, one must be of some exotic sexual identity or preference, not to mention, hold radical leftist political views and to question or repudiate the Christian faith. And if you understand Critical Theory, you will know that this is not by accident.

This is what Critical Theory is all about. We are seeing it bearing rotten fruit after many decades of patient brainwashing in school, on TV, in movies, in music, in sports, and in the mainstream media in general, not to mention benign neglect by Christian parents. It’s all about the replacement narrative and how to smash the old Christian worldview.

It is important for us Christians to know what the Enemy is up to, to sever our ties to Luciferian “entertainment,” to equip our children in our own Biblical worldview, and to instill it in their minds and souls through the church’s liturgy - which has formed minds into the mind of Christ our Logos for two millennia.

It is high time that the Church become unequivocally critical of Critical Theory and stop ignoring it or pandering to those who advocate it. We need to put our foot down and reject it at every level - from the parish and the district to the synod, from our publishing house to our universities and seminaries. Critical Theory is just one more serpentine “Did God actually say…?”.

I’d like to thank the guys at A Word Fitly Spoken for their solid analysis, and for their lively and informative program. What a blessing to have faithful pastors putting out programming that confirms, rather than contradicts, reality and the Christian worldview. The contrast between what I was hearing and what I was seeing could not have been more clear.

The Word is being fitly spoken indeed. The real question is, is it being fitly heard?

[Gottesblog] "Lutheran" Confessions Not Lutheran, Used by ELCA, Contain Hyper-Euro Sacerdotalism and Romanism, Authors Do Not Reply to Questions from GN — Larry Beane

"Lutheran" Confessions Not Lutheran, Used by ELCA, Contain Hyper-Euro Sacerdotalism and Romanism, Authors Do Not Reply to Questions from GN

Gottesdienst News (GN) has learned that the “Lutheran” Confessions (the Book of Concord) are not Lutheran.

The Book of Concord is used in an official capacity by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) - which denies the inerrancy of the Bible, ordains women, and is in fellowship with Greenpeace. Both LCMS seminaries: Concordia Seminary Saint Louis (which was named after a Roman Catholic saint - Roman Catholics deny the doctrine of justification and the inerrancy of the Bible) and Concordia Seminary Fort Wayne (founded by Wilhelm Loehe, hyper-euro opponent of C.F.W. Walther who did not believe in voters assemblies) use the ELCA approved texts in their seminary classes. Why would Bible-believing seminaries teach using the Book of Concord that is used by the ELCA?

Letters to both Dr. Thomas Egger and Dr. Larry Rast were not answered as of this publication.

The Book of Concord is a Romanizing book that never mentions the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod or C.F.W. Walther. The Book of Concord never mentions Walter A. Meier, nor does it denounce Seminex, Nadia Bolz-Weber, or Matthew Harrison. The Book of Concord never mentions the Brief Statement, and as far as we can tell, none of the authors of the texts even wore briefs.

 

Catholic

The Book of Concord never uses the word “Lutheran” or “Protestant,” but the word “Catholic” is used 13 times, and in the 1921 Triglotta translation, often even using an uppercase C. The Triglotta was published by Concordia Publishing House. Letters to Concordia Publishing House - demanding why a CPH product has uppercase-C “Catholic” being used to describe Lutherans - were not answered at the time of this publication.

The Athanasian Creed (which was not even composed by Athanasius) is included in the Book of Concord. The modernist Matthew Harrison-approved Lutheran Service Book (LSB) includes a translation of the Athanasian Creed that contains the following examples of Romanism: “Whoever desires to be saved must above all, hold the catholic faith.” This means that non-catholics go to hell. The Athanasian Creed says nothing about voters assemblies. The Athanasian Creed refers to the “catholic religion” and that “this is the catholic faith; whoever does not believe it faithfully and firmly cannot be saved.”

Letters to Pastor Athanasius were returned to GN unopened. The Roman Catholic Church - which denies the doctrine of justification, believes the pope to be the head of the church by divine right, and endorses funny hyper-euro hats, also approvingly confesses the Athanasian Creed.

President Matthew Harrison, who supports the use of Lutheran Service Book (LSB), has a mustache. Hitler and Stalin had mustaches. Many of the liberals who walked out of seminex had mustaches and long sideburns. C.F.W. Walther and Francis Pieper were clean shaven. Harrison is accused by some of not believing that congregations matter, that he, like Adolph Hitler, believe in centralizing his power. Letters asking why President Harrison continues to wear a mustache have not been answered as of this publication.

Pastor John Brentz, Minister of Hall, signed one of the documents in the ELCA-approved Book of Concord (the Treatise - which actually mentions “the Pope” in its official title - the Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church, which denies biblical inerrancy, the doctrine of justification, and does not celebrate Reformation Day) refers to the Lutheran Church as “the true and genuine catholic Church” and desribes Pastor Bugenhagen as “revered Father” (see below).

Neither Brentz nor Bugenhagen have responded to GN’s requests for an explanation.

 

Call No Man Father

The Book of Concord contains unbiblical language for pastors. Jesus said, “Don’t you be callin’ anyone yo’ daddy, y’all” (Matthew 23:9, ACT - A Confederate Translation). But the hyper-euro sacerdotalist Romanizers in the Book of Concord do not follow the words of Jesus. Pastor John Brentz called Pastor Johannes Bugenhagen “Father” (see above). Pastor Brixius Northanus of Christ Lutheran Church - Soest referred to “the Reverend Father Martin Luther” in his signature to the Smalcald Articles. The authors of the Formula of Concord (Pastor Jake Andrae, Pastor Marty Chemnitz, Pastor Dave Chytraeus, Pastor Nick Selnecker, and Pastor Andy Musculus) referred to Pastor Luther as one of “our dear fathers and predecessors.” Letters to Brentz, Bugenhagen, Luther, Northanus, Andrae, Chemnitz, Chytraeus, Selnecker, and Musculus have not been acknowledged or replied to by the time of publication.

 

Sacerdotalism

The word “priest” is used in the Book of Concord to refer to pastors more than a hundred times. The Latin word for “priest” is “sacerdos.” This is about double the amount of times the word “pastor” is used by the authors of the Book of Concord to refer to pastors. The Latin word for “pastor” is “pastor.” Often, especially in the Augsburg Confession and Apology, the expression “our priests” is used to refer to Lutheran ministers. Calls to Mister Melanchthon’s office at Wittenberg University were not returned.

 

Ordination as a Sacrament

Professor Melanchthon’s Apology (which is misleading, because he never says that he is sorry) includes other instances of sacerdotalism consistent with the hyper-euros when he calls ordination a sacrament: (“neither will we refuse to call the imposition of hands a sacrament”). Melanchthon also allows for marriage to be called a sacrament. The Roman Catholic Church, which denies the doctrine of justification and biblical inerrancy, as well as cheers for Notre Dame, likewise considers ordination and marriage to be sacraments. As of this publication, Professor Melanchthon has not written to GN to respond to our simple questions.

 

Mass

The Church Service is called “Mass” by sacerdotalists, Romanizers, and Hyper-Euros. The Augsburg Confession and the Apology both have an entire article (24) called “The Mass.” Melanchthon (see above) writes, “We have not abolished the Mass.” Roman Catholics use the term Mass. Roman Catholics deny the Doctrine of Justification, worship Mary, and often do not have red doors on their churches. Letters to both Melanchthon and the Pope in Rome seeking an explanation have not been answered. Science professors in the Concordia University System often refer to how much something weighs as “Mass.” Calls to Dr. Dean Wenthe and Dr. Daniel Gard, both formerly linked to CUS - both of whom have connections to Notre Dame University - have not been answered as of this writing.

 

Hyper Euro Polity

Instead of the biblical practice of having supreme voters’ assemblies, the Book of Concord advocates a hyper-euro system of bishops. Professor Melanchthon writes in the Apology (Article 14), “it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church regulations and the government of bishops]” and “we will gladly maintain ecclesiastical and canonical government, provided the bishops only cease to rage against our churches.” The Roman Catholic Church, which denies the Doctrine of Justification, teaches the unbiblical doctrine of Purgatory, and provides pointy hats for bishops, also has hyper-euro polity. It should be noted that the Ku Klux Klan has pointy hats as well. Calls to the KKK seeking an explanation were not answered.

 

Approvingly Quoted

The authors of the Book of Concord approvingly quote Bernard of Clairvaux and call him a “holy father” and a “saint.” Roman Catholic “Saints” Anthony, Dominic, and Francis are also called “holy fathers.” Pastor Clairvaux referred to Mary as a “shining and brilliant star” and that we should “call upon Mary” and that when we are troubled by sins to “think of Mary, call upon Mary…. invoking her.” The Matthew Harrison-approved LSB (which uses the English Standard Version as its biblical text) approvingly includes three hymns by Bernard of Clairvaux, and two by Thomas Aquinas (who taught Transubstantiation and engaged in philosophy).

Pastor Augustine of Hippo (whom, GN has learned, never even owned a hippo), a Roman Catholic bishop, is quoted approvingly in the Book of Concord - even in Latin, which was the language used by the Roman Catholic Church in its services (the Roman Catholic Church cheers for Notre Dame and does not have voters assemblies). Pastor Augustine is referred to as a “holy father” and a “saint” in the Book of Concord.

The Matthew Harrison-approved Lutheran Service Book has a day of “commemoration” for Augustine, “Pastor and Theologian,” as well as another day to honor Bernard of Clairvaux, “Hymnwriter and Theologian.” LSB also honors Hyper-Euro opponent of C.F.W. Walther, Wilhelm Loehe as well as various popes, including Gregory the Great (whom the Book of Concord quotes approvingly), Leo the Great (whom the Book of Concord also quotes approvingly), and Clement. Pope Gregory the Great and Hyper-Euro Wilhem Loehe both have a hymn each in the mustached-Harrison-approved LSB. Roman Catholic bishop Ambrose of Milan, who allowed himself to become a relic in a Catholic Church in Italy, is also approvingly quoted, has a “commemoration” in the Harrison-backed LSB, as well as three hymns.

The Book of Concord often approvingly quotes Roman Catholic canon law (which is misleading, as canon law has nothing to do with large mounted guns or a competitor to Nikon, the Roman Catholic Church also denies the Doctrine of Justification, Anathematizes the Gospel, and sings awful hymns). The Book of Concord never approvingly quotes the Brief Statement, the bylaws of synod, or Roberts Rules of Order (revised). Letters to General Roberts were returned to GN unopened.

 

Luther is Not Lutheran!

Pastor Martin Luther, author of three texts of the ELCA-approved Book of Concord, believed in “semper virgo,” the belief that Mary did not have other children (a belief shared by the Roman Catholic Church, which denies biblical inerrancy and does not cheer for any of the Concordia sports teams). Semper virgo is believed by the hyper euros today. Luther prayed a version of the Hail Mary prayer even after he became a Lutheran. Luther was baptized and ordained a priest in the Roman Catholic Church - and he was never called or installed to serve as a pastor by a proper voters’ assembly. Luther advocated for “high church hyper euro” worship practices, such as genuflecting and elevating and making the sign of the cross. Luther believed that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ even if they were not consumed. Luther urged people to go to private confession and equated it with being a Christian. Luther called his German liturgy the “German Mass.” Luther never submitted a resolution to the LCMS convention.

 

Silent But Deadly

The silence is deafening. Not a single author or defender of the Book of Concord has returned GN’s calls, letters, emails, semaphores, texts, communications by radio, missives, epistles, unsavory implications, inquisitions, demands that they stop beating their wives, requests for high school year books, or simple questionnaires inquiring if they have renounced Communism, Matthew Harrison, and the heartbreak of Psoriasis.

Note: This is satire. As much as I hate to have to say so, if I don’t, Aunt Pitty will get “the vapors,” countless boomers will write to Fritz demanding that he fire me, millennial pastors will burn themselves on their soy lattes and send me nasty emails telling that their wives demand that I “be kind,” and even some of our loyal readers will miss the whole point. So here it is, boys and girls and purple penguins: this is a tongue-in-cheek homage to Christian News. And if you took the time to write without reading to the end, the joke’s on you! Thank you, ~ The Management

TGC 118 — Medieval Biblical Interpretation

The Middle Ages is often looked down up as a time of great darkness, a time when not much was happening in terms of great insight into pastoral care, biblical studies, and doctrinal articulation. In this episode, Karl Fabrizius uncovers the myth of that thinking. He tells us about the great insights in biblical interpretation that is going in at that time, and not just by the super stars of the era, but even by the lesser known pastoral theologians. Fabrizius breaks down for us what great insights that they uncovered then that we should emulate today. And he gives us some practical advice in how to cultivate this in our daily lives. 

Host: Fr. Jason Braaten

Regular Guest: Fr. Karl Fabrizius 

Become a Patron!

You can subscribe to the Journal here: https://www.gottesdienst.org/subscribe/

You can read the Gottesblog here: https://www.gottesdienst.org/gottesblog/

You can support Gottesdienst here: https://www.gottesdienst.org/make-a-donation/

As always, we, at The Gottesdienst Crowd, would be honored if you would Subscribe, Rate, and Review. Thanks for listening and thanks for your support.