The Gottesdienst Crowd

[Gottesblog] "Apostolic Succession in the Roman Catholic and Lutheran Churches" – Larry Beane

Apostolic Succession in the Roman Catholic and Lutheran Churches

I ran across an interesting website: https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/.

It is actually a database of all Roman Catholic bishops, past and present, with their histories. What is really fascinating is that their chain of consecrations are listed, their “family tree” of having hands laid on them by bishops. For Roman Catholics, this unbroken chain of apostolic succession of bishops is considered to be absolutely necessary in their theology for the confection of the sacraments. Or so it seems.

Here’s the problem: their records of consecrations don’t even go back as far as the Reformation.

I looked at the episcopal lineages of popes Francis, Benedict, and John Paul. Their consecrations find a common “ancestor” in Pope Clement XIII - who was consecrated in 1743. I looked up the local Roman Catholic archbishop of New Orleans, Gregory Aymond. His “ancestry” also runs through pope Clement XIII. Ditto for his predecessor Alfred Hughes. And his predecessor Francis Schulte. And his predecessor Philip Hannan. As a random exercise, I plugged in the bishop of Owensboro, Kentucky: William Medley. Yes, him too.

Just for kicks, I looked up the bishop of Mombassa, Kenya (Martin Musonde). Yes, his lineage also runs through Clement XIII, and in fact, he shares a closer link with Abp. Aymond of New Orleans, going back to Pope Pius X (1884). They’re practically kissing cousins.

Here is what is interesting: Pope Clement XIII’s lineage (and thus, it seems, all modern Roman bishops) hits a dead end with Scipone Cardinal Rebiba, the titular Roman Catholic patriarch of Constantinople, who was consecrated as a bishop in 1541. But we have no idea who consecrated him. The line of records stops here. Thus, the oldest recorded history of episcopal lineage for modern Roman bishops is more recent than the Reformation!

Interestingly, there are also no lineages for the first several hundred years of popes. The second bishop of Rome, Linus (served 68-79 AD), has no known lineage. Neither does Gregory the Great (590-604). John XVII - pope in the year 1000 - has no known lineage. Pope Julius III - pope in 1500 - has only two known generations. Leo X (of Reformation fame) has a whopping four generations. That’s it.

So Rome, who ostensibly bases its entire validity on canonical episcopal consecration cannot even trace its own clergy back to the Reformation. Roman Catholics simply have to take it on faith that their bishops (and thus the priests they ordain) are legitimate.

Scandinavian Lutheran bishops - and their “descendants” in the Baltics, Russia, and Africa - are likewise consecrated in apostolic succession (though not recognized as such by Rome), as the custom of traditional polity (bishop, priest, and deacon) and episcopal ordination were retained by the Scandinavian Lutherans as salutary traditions in accordance with the desire to do as so stated in our Book of Concord (Ap 14:1).

German Lutheran pastors after the Reformation were not ordained by bishops - but rather by other pastors - in a kind of presbyterial succession - which has indeed happened in antiquity and in the middle ages. This is so because Lutheran pastors do not ordain themselves, nor are they ordained by the laity. Our confessions speak of the church ordaining pastors “using their own pastors for this purpose” (SA 3:10, Tr 72). Dr. Arthur Carl Piepkorn referred to this as a “de facto succession of ordained ministers,” and he points out that Jerome considered not only bishops, but presbyters as well, to be “successors of the apostles.”

Piepkorn cites several historical instances of presbyters ordaining other presbyters and deacons, including in second century Alexandria and Lyons, as well as the Council of Ancyra (314) that includes a canon (13) that speaks to presbyters carrying out ordinations. Piepkorn also points out that John Cassian (360-435) records the fact that the Egyptian presbyter-abbot Paphnutius ordained his succesor both as a deacon and as a priest, and also that while before their episcopal consecrations, Sts. Willehad and Liudger, in the eighth century, were carrying out ordinations. Piepkorn also cites historical records from the thirteenth and even the fifteenth centuries - including papal bulls - recognizing presbyterial ordinations as valid (see “The Minister of Ordination in the Primitive and Medieval Church,” page 80 of The Church: Selected Writings of Arthur Carl Piepkorn).

It seems that the Roman Catholic rejection of Lutheran orders based on our lack of canonically-consecrated bishops as ministers of ordination (as we find in the Papal Confutation in response to AC14) is not based on consistent theology and practice in the Roman Church.

Piepkorn participated in “Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue” - which yielded some surprising conclusions (see Volume IV on Eucharist and Ministry). One of the Roman participants (Fr. George Tavard) concluded that presbyterial successions are a matter of history, and said:

I would be prepared to go further, and to admit that episcopal succession is not absolutely required for valid ordination…. The main problem, in our ecumenical context, does not lie in evaluating historical lines of succession, but in appreciating the catholicity of Protestantism today.

Fellow participant Fr. Harry McSorley concluded, after a thorough study of the Council of Trent:

We can say without qualification that there is nothing whatever in the Tridentine doctrine on sacrament of order concerning the reality of the eucharist celebrated by Christians of the Reformation churches. Catholic theologians who have maintained that there is no sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in Protestant churches because Protestant ministers are radically incapable of consecrating the eucharist are incorrect if they think this opinion is necessitated by the teaching of Trent.

Of course, we Lutherans don’t really care whether or not the papal church recognizes our ordinations or our eucharists as valid (though they do as a matter of course recognize our baptisms). But when examined in light of both actual history and the history of their theology, their exclusive claims regarding apostolicity come unraveled, even by their own pronouncements.

And here is the final irony: while modern Roman Bishops cannot prove their line of consecrations even as far back as the Reformation, Lutheran bishops consecrated by means of the Swedish line, can indeed trace their lineages back further. This paper includes an appendix showing the succession of Swedish bishops back to its Roman Catholic “ancestor” who was consecrated in 1524. This means that confessional Lutheran bishops in various church bodies around the world have a greater claim to apostolic succession in the historical sense than even the Roman pope.

Here is the episcopal lineage of the Church of Sweden from the paper “Den apostoliska successionen i Svenska kyrkan. En studie av den apostoliska successionens roll i dialogen med Church of England.”

6. Appendix: Svenska kyrkans historiskt dokumenterade vigningslinje

Paris de Grassi, biskop av Pesaro, vigde 1524 i sitt hus i Rom
Petrus Magni till biskop för Västerås stift som 1531 vigde
Laurentius Petri till ärkebiskop för Uppsala stift som 1536 vigde
Botvid Sunesson till biskop för Strängnäs stift som 1554 vigde
Paul Juusten till biskop för Viborgs stift (1563 Åbo) som 1575 vigde
Laurentius Petri Gothus till ärkebiskop för Uppsala stift som 1577 vigde
Andreas Laurentii Björnram till biskop för Växjö stift (1583 Uppsala) som 1583 vigde
Petrus Benedicti till biskop för Västerås stift (1587 Linköping) som 1594 vigde
Abraham Angermannus till ärkebiskop för Uppsala stift som 1595 vigde
Petrus Kenicius till biskop för Skara stift (1608 Strängnäs, 1609 Uppsala) som 1601 vigde
Olaus Martini till ärkebiskop för Uppsala stift som 1608 vigde
Laurentius Paulinus Gothus till biskop för Skara stift (1609 Strängnäs, 1637 Uppsala) som 1641 vigde
Jonas Magni Wexionensis till biskop för Skara stift som 1647 vigde
Johannes Lenaeus till ärkebiskop för Uppsala stift som 1668 vigde
Johannes Baazius d.y. till biskop för Växjö stift (1673 Skara, 1677 Uppsala) som 1678 vigde
Olaus Svebilius till biskop för Linköpings stift (1681 Uppsala) som 1695 vigde
Mattias Steuchius till biskop för Lunds stift (1714 Uppsala) som 1726 vigde
Eric Benzelius d.y. till biskop för Göteborgs stift (1731 Linköping, 1742 Uppsala) som 1742 vigde
Henrik Benzelius till biskop för Lunds stift (1747 Uppsala) som 1757 vigde
Carl Fredrik Mennander till biskop för Åbo stift (1775 Uppsala) som 1781 vigde
Uno von Troil till biskop för Linköpings stift (1786 Uppsala) som 1787 vigde
Jacob Axelsson Lindblom till biskop för Linköpings stift (1805 Uppsala) som 1809 vigde
Carl von Rosenstein till biskop för Linköpings stift (1819 Uppsala) som 1824 vigde
Johan Olof Wallin till biskop för Kungliga Serafimerorden (1837 Uppsala) som 1839 vigde
Hans Olof Holmström till biskop för Strängnäs stift (1852 Uppsala) som 1855 vigde
Henrik Reuterdahl till biskop för Lunds stift (1856 Uppsala) som 1864 vigde
Anton Niklas Sundberg till biskop för Karlstad stift (1870 Uppsala) som 1890 vigde
Martin Johansson till biskop för Härnösand stift som 1904 vigde
Olof Bergquist till biskop för Luleå stift som 1932 vigde
Erling Eidem till ärkebiskop för Uppsala stift som 1948 vigde
Gunnar Hultgren till biskop för Visby stift (1950 Härnösand, 1958 Uppsala) som 1959 vigde
Ruben Josefsson till biskop för Härnösand stift (1967 Uppsala) som 1970 vigde
Olof Sundby till biskop för Växjö stift (1972 Uppsala) som 1975 vigde
Bertil Werkström till biskop för Härnösand stift (1983 Uppsala) som 1986 vigde
Gunnar Weman till biskop för Luleå stift (1993 Uppsala) som 1995 vigde
Anders Wejryd till biskop för Växjö stift som blev ärkebiskop för Uppsala stift 2006

As an appendix to the appendix, Paris de Grassi, also known as Paride de Grassis (the bishop of Pesaro Italy who consecrated the first Swedish bishop), has a few more “generations” in his lineage:

Achille Cardinal Grassi † (1506)
Bishop of Bologna

• Pope Julius II (1481)
  (Giuliano della Rovere †)

• Pope Sixtus IV (1471)
  (Francesco della Rovere, O.F.M. †)

• Guillaume Cardinal d’Estouteville, O.S.B. †
  Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia (e Velletri)

Cardinal Guillaume was consecrated a bishop in 1439.

Thus modern Lutheran bishops have historical documentation of their successions dating back to 1439 - more than a century earlier than Roman bishops, whose records dead-end at 1541.

[Gottesblog] "Pastors: Be Comfortable in Your Own Skin" – Larry Beane

Pastors: Be Comfortable in Your Own Skin

When I was a first-year seminarian, one of our professors told us that we had to become comfortable in our own skin. He advised us to buy a clerical shirt and go walk around the mall. Of course, it’s awkward to do this for the first time. People look at you. You feel weird. But it’s an important rite of passage to begin to see oneself leaving the secular world and being formed into a pastor, leaving behind the old life, and becoming a fisher of men.

The reactions that one gets varies, depending on time and place.

My first time wearing a clerical shirt was more than 20 years ago, and culturally-speaking, it might as well be a hundred years. In the present, the Church is increasingly pressed to the margins. Christians are more and more hated. Pastors are targets of the devil’s wrath as much now as in any time in recent years.

Of course, it’s easy to bury one’s talent and cover up one’s vocation. It’s a simple thing to hide one’s discomfort in one’s own skin, which is to say, to lurk around like Peter in denial of who one is, as one who is linked to Jesus in hostile times: to just dress like everyone else and fly under the radar.

One of our professors who was retiring (an ordained man who never wore clericals) even mocked pastors and seminarians who wore the collar as he preached a final sermon at chapel. Men of his generation really seem to have a hang-up about it. Of all the things to say in his final proclamation of Jesus to seminarians, he just felt compelled to take that swipe.

Early in my ministry, the older pastors mocked their typically-younger colleagues who wore the black shirt outside of the Sunday service. The older pastors were generally well-heeled and sported the suit and tie, or perhaps a polo shirt and khaki pants. I even had a lay church worker on one occasion joining the fun by mocking the “blackshirts” as well.

I attended a district convention a couple years out of seminary, and I remember being in the minority as a pastor wearing a clerical shirt. I left the elevator, and a gaggle of my “brothers” mocked me on the way out with a snarky comment and laughter. Cowards. They literally waited until the door was closing to take their Parthian shot. I suspect there were low testosterone issues. Somebody, after all, is buying the product from Pfizer that is not a Covid vaccination.

I remember older pastors, and even district presidents, who insisted on dressing like the laity and introducing themselves by their first names. It was an affectation of the Woodstock and Casual Friday generation. It certainly gave the impression that these men were not comfortable in their own skin, but sought to blend in with the salesmen, bankers, and CEOs, not desiring the target on the back or the burden of everyone knowing that they were supposedly Jesus’ called servants, fishers of men.

Thankfully, as pastors of a certain age have been riding into the sunset, heading to the glue factory, and being replaced by younger pastors, this kind of nonsense is going the way of the rotary phone and bell bottoms. But there are still a few of these insufferable types in circulation.

Not too long ago, I was out of town and attended a congregation that was recommended. Unbeknownst to me, the pastor took a call, and the parish was then being served by a baby-boomer interim. My wife and a friend were sitting with me in the pew. We were dressed for church. I was in my clericals. The pastor came to our pew and right away started with the clerical jokes: “You wear your clericals on vacation? Do you sleep in them?”

OK Boomer.

Next, he explained that he had served previously in a southern state where if he wore clericals, people would think he was an exorcist. He crossed his index fingers as if warding off a demon. I wanted to say, “Well, you are an exorcist.” But I opted for politely smiling instead.

Thanks be to God that this kind of buffoonery and cluelessness is on the wane. Younger pastors are indeed more comfortable in their skin. Unlike their retirement-aged colleagues, they have read the passage in Bo Giertz’s Hammer of God in which the older pastor addresses a younger colleague who desires to be seen just as an ordinary person, and was refusing to wear his clericals. He said:

Would you respect an officer who as a matter of principle appeared at maneuvers in mufti? Or a Salvation Army soldier who doffed his uniform when his corps was assembled in the market square?” Torvik was becoming irritated. “You must certainly understand that I want to come as an ordinary human being.” But the rector continued his argument. “Then you are sailing under false colors. You are no ordinary person. You have been ordained by the Church as a servant of the Word. You have been elected and called by the Christian congregation at Ödesjö to be its pastor. You get support from the fields which godly forbears donated for the pastor’s upkeep. It is pure dishonesty to take the money, if you want to be just an ordinary person.”

Clerical garb, whether a clerical shirt and collar or a cassock, is a kind of uniform. It identifies the office that the man holds. Can you imagine a United States Marine who would be embarrassed to wear his dress blues? Can you imagine a pilot in the Air Force who would be ashamed to sport his wings? Even Muslim women are comfortable enough in their own skin to wear an identifying mark of their religious beliefs - even while eating at a fast-food restaurant or shopping. One would think that Christian pastors - especially those of us who come from a tradition of a “uniform” - would be comfortable enough in our skin to be identified as one of Christ’s men, a shepherd of the church, one who is under holy orders to preach, teach, absolve, and administer sacraments.

I’m being a bit rough on the boomers here, and I want to acknowledge that there are exceptions to the insufferable nature of their generational culture. That generation had (and has) its own rebels and non-conformists in the ranks. Many of our editors at Gottesdienst took on their contemporaries at a time when it was very unpopular to do so, when defying the general culture in Lutheran circles caused pastors to pay a price, whether it be personal or professional. These men paved the way for those of us who came along later, even as many of us are now seen as “elder statesmen” by confessional pastors currently coming out of seminary.

We are grateful for the guys who took the slings and arrows of a culture formed by Vatican II, by Roman Catholic priests in suits and ties and nuns in blue jeans, by the dumbing down of liturgy and hymnody, and the uglification of church architecture. It took courage to stand up to the pietistic and bureaucratic powers-that-be before they started walking with canes and inserting hearing aids.

The pendulum is thankfully coming back in the other direction. Younger Lutherans generally don’t want non-liturgical worship, nor do they want pastors who are not comfortable in their skin. We are living in dark times. Being identified as a pastor is often uncomfortable. And this is exactly why the members of the ministerium need to be courageous and comfortable in their own skin. We need to be easily identifiable to Christians everywhere. We need to be willing to be identified as one of Jesus’ men, to be clearly marked as such, to friend and foe alike.

We are at war. And we are the shepherds, the officers, the ones charged with putting our hat on our sword and riding to the sound of the guns. This is not a time for timidity. We must put on the whole armor of God, which for us pastors, includes the insignia of our office. And in the words of the old song:

With our front in the field, swearing never to yield,
Or return like the Spartan in death on our shield.

Of course, I’m not trying to set a law and say that we should never dress causally at any time. But increasingly, we are being called to be pastors everywhere - not just on Sunday morning in the chancel. And so when we are going to be in public, whether at the grocery store, the restaurant, or the airport, we would do well to consider putting on the uniform and being comfortable in our own skin. And as for those respectability-seeking haters and hiders, they are increasingly dropping out of sight, and even those who remain are increasingly impotent. Let their casual culture die off with them. And instead, may our young (and not so young) pastors gird up their loins, be comfortable in their own skin, and be prepared to hoist the black flag and go into mortal combat against the devil, at any time and in any place.

TGC 109 – Racism and the Church, Part 2

Racism has become a household word, dividing our country, our churches, and our families and friends. In Part 1, Larry Beane and I discuss the postmodern roots of the modern race and culture debates, and how they are influencing the voice of the church. In this episode, we look at what the Bible says about racism and what it has to say about the modern usage of the charge "Racist." 

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] "The Onus of Preaching and Hearing" – Larry Beane

The Onus of Preaching and Hearing

“People don’t have to be taught how to listen to the sermon. Preachers have to be taught how to preach sermons that people want to listen to. The onus is on the Shepherd, not the sheep.”

— RECENT COMMENTER ON GOTTESBLOG

In terms of the sermon, the author of the above quote places the “onus,” that is, the burden, on the preacher of the Word, and on not the hearer.

He posits that the sermon should be one “that people want to listen to.” He paints a picture of the hearer of the Word as a passive vessel waiting to be wowed. This assessment is a helpful and accurate snapshot of our culture, in which the consumer of entertainment waits for the performer to do or say something worth the listener’s time and attention. And in our cultural milieu, the very worst thing a preacher can be is “boring.”

Pastors must compete with 24-hour high-octane entertainment on demand, in which his hearers are accustomed to thumbing the remote and looking for better options if the current channel is not stimulating enough. Our culture is awash with special effects, naked girls, car crashes, rock music, and hi-def visual and audio. By contrast, preaching is a rather lackluster affair in the eyes of the world: just a guy talking.

This is why many pastors and congregations have gone to great lengths to make the sermon, and the entire service, something “that people want to listen to.” They ditch the liturgy for drum kits and guitars. The sermon incorporates video clips of Hollywood movies, the pastor makes emotional faces and uses his voice for effect, with dynamic and dramatic gestures, perhaps ambulating around or speaking casually along the lines of a TED talk. Dancing girls and skits are also sometimes used to hold people’s jaded attention.

Certainly, there is an onus on the preacher: not necessarily to preach sermons that “people want to listen to,” but rather to faithfully preach the Word of God, in season and out of season, both Law and Gospel, delivering from the Good Shepherd that Word with which the sheep need to be fed, and to do so with fidelity to Biblical doctrine and the order of salvation. And yes, pastors are to be “able to teach.” They are to know their theology. They are to be able to proclaim the Word of God with alacrity and precision. They are to understand the texts upon which they preach. They are also to know their hearers, knowing what is going on in their lives as well as in the community and the culture at large.

This is indeed a great onus upon the pastor, which is why the Holy Spirit has called your pastor to serve you. The typical LCMS pastor has been rigorously trained and has been certified for service. And every man has his own strengths and weaknesses. One person’s favorite preacher may not be someone else’s cup of tea. Some people may have very short attention spans and/or know very little about the Scriptures. Such people might need more milk and catechesis. Others may wish the sermons were longer, more theological, and meatier, as such people are themselves apt theologians. The onus is on the preacher to navigate this diversity among his hearers and to find a way to preach to all - with the Spirit’s guidance - in a way as to deliver the Word effectively. This is no mean task, and the pastor is himself a human being, subject to unseen stresses, illnesses, burdens, mental lapses, physical pain, etc., and so he may be better one Sunday than another.

But the commenter above was responding to a pastor who was himself responding to the specific question of how to be a better hearer of the Word, specifically, “What could the people in the pew, the hearers, do help the pastor in the pulpit and study get some traction on how to become a better preacher?” And in that sense, there is also an onus on the hearer, just as there is an onus on the preacher. And even as our table of duties does not place the onus entirely on one party or the other, but all people: parents and children, employers and employees, preachers and hearers, holders of each and every vocation, have their own corresponding onuses.

The pastor projects the Word using his own mind and voice, delivering the explication of the Word of God (the Word is itself supernatural and beyond his control). Once it leaves his mouth, he can no longer control it. The reception of the Word is indeed the onus not of the shepherd, but of the sheep. The hearer of the Word is to, well, hear the Word. It enters his ear and mind and penetrates to the heart and soul. It is up to the hearer to receive it, to welcome it, not to push it to the margins in favor of a daydream or something more interesting going on in the church or outside the window.

Indeed, we followers of Jesus are “disciples.” It means that we are “students.” And the vocation of student is difficult. I have been a teacher now for 17 years. I always tell my students that their job is harder than mine. I know, because I have been a student much longer than I have been a teacher. Being a student is not like being a vacuum cleaner bag that passively waits to be filled by a mechanical suction action from the outside. Being a student is hard work: mentally and even physically. Learning is an active endeavor.

If you are a student, you have the onus to listen and learn from those who teach. It may involve taking notes. It may involve asking questions of the professor in the hallway or during office hours. It may involve going to the library or doing online research. It certainly means showing up at lectures and paying attention. And every prof is different. Some are funny and have a schtick. Some are dry and monotone. Some have speech impediments or accents. Some may have a tough time translating the ideas into layman’s terms. But it is still the student’s job, his onus, to figure out a way to learn the material. It is not his job to sit passively and wait to be spoon fed or entertained.

And it goes without saying that students, like teachers, have bad days and good days. They may be under stress, in pain, lacking sleep, tending to their children, or just not mentally there that day. They may have difficulty hearing or concentrating. That too is the onus of the person struggling to be a better hearer of the Word, just as the preachers deal with the real world invading the Holy Nave.

Finally, though there is an onus, an obligation, placed on both preachers and hearers, maybe a better way to frame the situation is to speak of the privilege and the blessing that both have. Preachers have the greatest job in the world: to be Christ’s instruments to deliver forgiveness, life, and salvation to people who need Good News. We get to lead worship and deliver the Gospel to people as part of our day-to-day work. We get to study the Scriptures and pray as part of our vocation. There is nothing that could be a greater joy - though indeed, the work has its unpleasant and even brutal aspects to it as well. But let us focus on the joy of the calling we have been given.

And the same goes for hearers of the Word as well. What a privilege and a blessing to gather around altar, font, and pulpit, where the Lord comes to you supernaturally, out of love, to deliver to you forgiveness, life, and salvation. What a joy to sit and hear the Word of God proclaimed from the pulpit and taught in the classroom. And what a blessing it is that the Holy Spirit sent you a preacher and a teacher! No, he is not perfect. He may have mannerisms that you don’t like. Maybe his voice is raspy or could be louder. But what a privilege that the Lord has sent him to your parish to deliver eternal life to you!

Perhaps this is one meaning of what our Lord said: “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden (onus) is light.”

At any rate, that is a better frame of mind to hear God’s Word than crossing one’s arms, sitting passively, and hearing - instead of the Word of God - rather the voice of Kurt Cobain singing, “Here we are now. Entertain us.”

[Gottesblog] Take the Vaccine! – Larry Beane

Take the Vaccine!

“Q: Would Jesus get a Covid vaccine?
A: Since Jesus is the ‘Great Physician,’ the answer is a resounding ‘Yes.’ Jesus would get the Covid vaccine. In fact, He’s open a vaccination center and have the disciples vaccinate as many people as possible, starting with the poor, the sick, refugees, and Samaritans.”

— A MEME POSTED BY "THE CHRISTIAN LEFT"

The above meme was posted by a Facebook group called “The Christian Left.” An interesting discussion followed, including some speculation about whether or not our incarnate Lord would be capable of being sickened by the virus, and whether or not His omniscience would make it impossible for Him to be a carrier.

But as the group’s name suggests, the real intent is to get Jesus to bless a Leftist political position, given that the vaccine has become a highly divisive political football. The Christian Left decided to dust off the old “What Would Jesus Do?” bracelet and practice some Christological speculation and eisegesis.

I decided to weigh in:

The real Jesus does even better: He offers the Medicine of Immortality. Even if the vaccine works, you still die. The mortality rate is 100%. Our Lord comes to us to give us eternal life: “Whoever feeds on My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:54).

His disciples are still distributing this Medicine today. In fact, we never stopped.

You don’t have to speculate about what Jesus would do. Just look at what he does.

This point should be received universally among Christians, no matter where one stands on the Covid vaccine. The reference to the “Medicine of Immortality” comes from St. Ignatius of Antioch’s Epistle to the Ephesians, chapter 20.

The moderator of the group replied:

Just curious. Does this mean that you are for or against people getting vaccines.

The fact of the matter is that I didn’t mention the Covid vaccine at all. I wanted to point to the greater and more eternal ramifications of what it means that Jesus is the Great Physician. He doesn’t just inoculate us against a narrow strain of Coronavirus, rather He cures us from death itself. For that is what our Great Physician does.

I replied:

I am for people getting the vaccine of the Word of God and His holy, life-giving sacraments. I have committed my life to offering this vaccine “for the life of the world.” But I only offer it. I preach and teach. I would not compel people even if I had the power of the state. Jesus calls, He does not compel. I would love all to receive the Medicine of Immortality, but not all take our Lord up on this vaccine.

My interlocutor replied by deleting everything that I wrote and blocking me from posting to the site.

He later posted this:

Anti-vaxxers are not welcome on The Christian Left. Please exit the page. Thanks.

Of course, I said nothing about the Covid vaccine, pro or con. I simply pointed out that our Lord Jesus Christ offers something infinitely greater than temporary medical care on this side of the grave. Rather, He offers us His Word and Sacraments as the antidote to death itself. Our discourse has become so politicized that not only are healthcare discussions completely spoiled by poltical partisanship, so too is even discussing Jesus and salvation itself.

My interlocutor stopped up his ears because of his perception that I would not give a “loyalty oath” one way or the other regarding the Covid vaccination. And that was enough to cancel our Lord’s own words about the vaccination He offers, : an eternal vaccination that prevents everlasting death, and cures us from the very thing that results in 100% of us dying: sin.

A Facebook friend named David Clapper, who I assume is a Lutheran layman, commented on my Facebook page with a wise and astute citation from Dr. Luther’s Large Catechism, applying the label “medicine” to Holy Baptism - and I am grateful for his reminder of this poignant quote:

For consider, if there were somewhere a physician who understood the art of saving men from dying, or, even though they died, of restoring them speedily to life, so that they would thereafter live forever, how the world would pour in money like snow and rain, so that because of the throng of the rich no one could find access! But here in Baptism there is brought free to every one’s door such a treasure and medicine as utterly destroys death and preserves all men alive. (LC IV:43)

So no matter what one believes about the Covid vaccine and whether one should receive it or not, and regardless of whether one is politically Left, Right, or something else, anyone who describes himself by the adjective “Christian” should agree that the greatest vaccine of all is Christ and His free gift of eternal life. And we Lutherans - along with the other historic communions within the Church that predate the Reformation, all believe, teach, and confess that our Lord carries out His healing as our Great Physician by offering a vaccination that comes to us packaged sacramentally.

Take the vaccine!

TGC 108 – Racism and the Church, Part 1

Racism has become a household word, dividing our country, our churches, and our families and friends. In this episode, Larry Beane and I discuss the postmodern roots of the modern race and culture debates, and how they are influencing the voice of the church. In Part 2, we look at what the Bible says about racism and what it has to say about the modern usage of the charge "Racist." 

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] The Disruption – Larry Beane

The Disruption

There is an online TV series called The Chosen that is about the life of our Lord and His disciples. I decided to watch it and write not so much a formal review as a response of my impression of it. I fully expected it to be bad, given Hollywood and Christian filmmaking in general. But I was pleasantly surprised.

Most confessional Lutherans probably won’t like it - at least not at first glance - but I actually do. I’m well beyond the age of trying to fit in. It is one of the few benefits of getting old.

We Lutherans are often sticklers for historical accuracy, and in many ways, this series accurately conveys the first century Greco-Roman world: the geography, level of technology, the various groups of people and stations in life, etc. Some of my friends who are experts in military uniforms and period fabrics might disagree with me, but from my perspective as a lay observer, the screenplay is convincing and humanizes our typical mental view of the Roman world of marble statues with broken off arms and no irises in the eyes. The ancient Roman world was, in fact, colorful and vibrant, and first century urban life featured roads, shopping complexes, apartments and houses, sports arenas, schools, theaters, marketplaces, brothels, soldiers, government bureaucrats, and families with children. Some people even had running water thanks to Roman technology. Video is a medium that can “colorize” our distant, sanitized, bloodless, and dehumanized mental picture of the ancient world.

But there are non-historical details as well: Jews being portrayed as a multi-racial people (from northern-European-looking whites to African blacks), and women serving in social roles that they would not have had in the first century. While the Roman Empire was certainly multicultural, it is certainly being overplayed in The Chosen. Some of this may be a concession to the modern “woke” sensibilities - a common reality in modern filmmaking that is certainly annoying to me. However, to put a better construction on it, it may also be simple artistic license to appeal to modern viewers who come from a more multicultural way of life than Judea and Samaria of the first century - not to mention being biblically and culturally illiterate.

And this is key to understanding the series. It is not a documentary. It is not a bio-pic. It is, rather, art - and art does not always deal in literalism.

For example, the oldest icon that we have of Jesus is shown above. It is Christ the Pantocrator from St. Catherine’s Monastery in Sinai. It dates back to the mid sixth century, and is likely a copy of earlier icons that are no longer extant. This particular icon is, like the depiction of our Lord and his environs in The Chosen, both a matter of historical accuracy and of artistic license.

Upon first glance, the icon looks like a photograph. It depicts Jesus in a way that has become common in attempts at realism in illustrating our Lord: a youngish middle-eastern man with dark skin and eyes, bearded, and with a full head of hair. The details of this icon - and others like it - bear a similarity to the man on the Shroud of Turin.

But there is also an artistic deviation from the actual Jesus of history, namely the asymmetrical facial features of our Lord. This is an artistic rendering of the two natures of Christ. Nobody looking at this icon is going to believe that Jesus literally had two different sets of facial features. Moreover, He has a halo over His head, and is holding a book - anachronistically not a scroll, but rather a codex: a modern book with covers and leaves. The icon is an artist’s attempt to convey something about Jesus through the visual arts.

Christian art often makes use of such license, be it iconography or statuary, paintings or stained glass windows. Even passion plays from the middle ages that are still performed today may or may not reflect exact details. The Stations of the Cross that adorn both Roman Catholic churches and very old Lutheran churches take such artistic license in both depiction and narrative. The keys in St. Peter’s hands in medieval statuary are not made to look like first century implements.

When I say that Lutherans are sticklers for historical accuracy, that’s not always true. We tend to like anachronistic woodcuts of biblical illustrations from the 1500s and 1600s showing biblical characters dressed like German nobles and peasants, looking out over medieval castles that bear no resemblance to the clothing and the domiciles of first century Jews.

Some dour Lutherans - of which there are more than a few among the confessional and liturgical crowd - even prefer the old black and white Luther movie with its wooden, melodramatic acting than the more human and colorful Luther film of more recent vintage - even though we all know that the world did not suddenly become colorized in the late 1960s.

And what Lutheran is going to complain of an altarpiece depicting Luther and Melanchthon standing at the cross as our Lord bleeds into a chalice? This is the kind of artistic license The Chosen takes in its depiction of our Lord and His disciples.

So, we do have a tradition within Christianity and within Lutheranism for historical inaccuracy and anachronism for the sake of art.

All of that said, the dramatic portions of The Chosen that reflect actual events from the Gospels are portrayed accurately. Unlike some portrayals of Jesus (in movies and plays) there is no attempt to rewrite biblical text, nor any attempt to portray Jesus as a political figure or hippy libertine. The perspective of the screenwriters is that the Bible is true, that Jesus is both God and Man, and that the Gospels relate actual historical events that were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The main writer is Dallas Jenkins, a believing neo-Evangelical Christian. Jesus is portrayed by Jonathan Roumie, a believing Roman Catholic.

Some of our confessional brethren may grouse that the project wasn’t done by Lutherans, and I would encourage them to get going and start a film company. Unlike Jesus Christ Superstar, this production is done by people who actually believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

The pattern of the episodes is pretty standard. They begin with a flashback - whether to earlier in the character’s life, or to an episode in the Old Testament. Then the story begins in earnest. There are fictionalized backstories that are used to lead up to the biblical material. Obviously, these are not biblical narratives, but are actually quite believable as mini-narratives to fill in the gaps left by Scripture. There is a danger of people thinking that the fictional parts are biblical, which is why at the beginning of the series, the pilot episode explains this, and encourages people to read the Gospel accounts for themselves.

This approach to historical biblical fiction is taken by LCMS scholar and writer the Rev. Dr. Paul Meier - whose methodology is to write fiction that is plausible, and must not be contradictory of any biblical account. This fictionalized dialogue and made-up characters is a filmmaking device that was used in the great 1950s Cecil B. Demille biblical epics. These too were a double-edged sword, blending the Bible with speculation, but on the plus side, the great biblical narratives were in the public mind using the best movie-making technology of the time. I would argue that given the state of biblical illiteracy, we need to have biblical film - and there is no way to have a movie that doesn’t take some artistic liberties. Even Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ made ample use of fictionalized characters and plot to hold the biblical element together.

The Chosen is an introduction to Jesus for a generation that has not grown up attending Sunday School and VBS. It is a way to show people who Jesus is and what He did in His earthly sojourn - a visually pleasing artistic rendering that will hopefully interest people in learning more about the faith.

What I think is especially well done is showing Jesus as a disruptor.

”Disruption” is kind of a buzzword in the world of business and project management today. As technology rapidly changes, the way we work is constantly being disrupted - by things like the Internet, smartphones, and even the Covid pandemic. Rapidly shifting paradigms are foisted upon us quickly and in ways that are sometimes unpredictable. And in the world of business, it is sink or swim, change or be left behind.

The incarnation of our Lord was just such a disruption.

Jesus was not just one more apocalyptic preacher among many. Anyone and anyone who came into contact with Him had (and has) their lives turned upside down. This is, of course, revealed in the Gospels. But the true impact of this disruption is hard to visualize from reading the Gospel texts. We are constantly told that people are “amazed” and “marvel” at Him - but the impact of this amazement is hard to convey in simple Koine Greek words. The preaching, teaching, miracles, and ministry of Jesus were like bombs going off, sending shrapnel everywhere, completely turning everything upside down and inside out. And this impact was universally felt among His disciples, His detractors, the Pharisees, members of the Council, the Romans, the Jews, the Samaritans, the lepers, the multitudes gathered to hear Him speak, the angels, the demons, the sick and afflicted, the prideful, the prostitutes, the tax collectors, the mothers and fathers, the children, the family members of everyone who witnessed our Lord’s signs and wonders, in the synagogue, in the temple, in the marketplace, at the dinner table - everyone and everywhere our Lord touched became indelibly changed.

The Chosen does a magnificent job of this, humanizing the reactions of people who are seeing the miracle of the Incarnation in real time. The emotional responses of the people who are forgiven, healed, and brought into the kingdom are extremely believable and powerful.

The portrayal of our Lord is also well-done. He doesn’t come across as a 1970s stoner as in The Greatest Story Ever Told. He isn’t a confused and tragic figure like in Jesus Christ, Superstar. He isn’t wooden or aloof. But nor is he a buffoon or clown. He is deadly serious when teaching about the kingdom, but He also has a playful side, at ease with all kinds of people, and displaying a dry sense of humor. His compassion is not sappy or effeminate, but manly and entirely believable.

The disciples’ characters are delightfully complex - just as real people are. There is a backstory of Peter and Andrew resorting to desperate measures to raise money to pay the crippling Roman taxes - which leads to the Lord’s miracle of the massive catch of fish when Peter was about to lose everything. As part of this narrative, Matthew, the despised tax collector, who is portrayed as a bit autistic, with a bit of OCD - witnesses things that his logical mind cannot conceive, and he abruptly leaves his cushy job with the Romans - which also made Him hated by the Jews. Matthew is later seen with his old ledger, writing things down as He follows Jesus.

I do think the Mary Magdalene character is overplayed, as she is portrayed a little too closely to being one of the twelve, in my opinion. But season one has just ended, and at this point in the narrative, our Lord hasn’t even called all of His inner circle of disciples who will become apostles. We will have to see how her character is played out. In The Gospel of John, an otherwise well-done movie that uses the conversational NLT translation as the script itself, includes our Lord laying hands on Mary with the disciples after His resurrection.

One of the best characters is Nicodemus. His nighttime meeting with Jesus is beautifully portrayed, showing the complexity of Nicodemus’s position as “the teacher of Israel” who is so close to the kingdom. The John 3 dialogue is faithful to the text, while conveying the human element of the interplay between our Lord and the conflicted Nicodemus - whose life has been forever disrupted by Jesus.

This episode begins with a flashback to Moses and the bronze serpent, as our Lord refers back to this incident in His John 3 meeting with Nicodemus.

The incident of our Lord and the Samaritan woman at the well is also well-done. That episode begins with a fictionalized backstory of her life, and why she was alone at the well in the heat of the day and not in the morning with a group of other women to draw water. Again, it is a reasonable reconstruction of possible events.

As Christianity becomes further and further in the rear-view mirror in our culture and society, as the church is pressed to the margins and expelled from impolite society, as cancel culture spreads and the institutions of society become increasingly hostile to the Gospel, we do well to go on the counterattack, to place modern-day icons in the view of those who need to hear the Good News, indeed, those who need to come to know Jesus. The Chosen is one arrow in the quiver of the Church’s arsenal.

The first episode of season two was released on Easter Sunday. It begins with a flash-forward to John writing his Gospel and interviewing various disciples, as well as his adopted mother, Mary, as research for his Gospel. In this episode, we see a fictionalized account of John reflecting on the creation narrative and coming up with the prologue to his Gospel.

You can watch The Chosen free of charge by downloading the app. The project is being crowdsourced, and season two is underway. If you have the app and a streaming device, such as Roku, you can watch it on your TV. It is fitting that disruptive technology should play a part in the disruption of having our Lord Jesus Christ invade the living rooms and smart phones of those who don’t know Him.

And when you remember that you are not looking at a photograph, but rather an icon - you will avoid the temptation to become fixated on anachronisms while overlooking the core narrative.

Let us pray that this series will lead people to the Word and to gathering with the Church, to Holy Baptism and the Holy Eucharist, to hearing the Gospel proclaimed in the Church! May this “moving icon” likewise show forth His two natures, His disruption of Satan and his doomed dominion over this fallen world, and may it show forth our Lord’s ministry of forgiveness, life, and salvation!

Here is a link to Season One’s trailer - with instructions for streaming to your television. And here is a link to Season Two’s trailer.

TGC 107 – Preaching Renewal How To

Preaching is central to the pastoral task. Both the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions bear witness to this. Even the vows for ordination make this plain. But do we as pastors give it the pride of place that we ought? In this episode, Dave Petersen (pastor of Redeemer Lutheran Church, Fort Wayne, IN, and Departmental Editor of Gottesdienst: The Journal of Lutheran Liturgy) takes a look at how pastors should make preaching great again. The first step is to admit that we could do better, that we have become lax in our preparation as well as our execution of this central duty. He uncovers the presuppositional and tangible obstacles pastors face in preaching and then gives some practical steps to take to overcome them. 

Here are names of the books mentioned in this episode:

• T. David Gordon, Why Johnny Can’t Preach

• Deborah Tannen, That’s Not What I Meant

• Paul Scott Willson, God Sense

• Andrew Louth, Discerning the Mystery

• Gene Veith, Reading Between the Lines

• Thomas Habinek, Ancient Rhetoric

• George Kenedy, New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism

• Matthew Dicks, Storyworthy

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] On the Name "Lutheran" – Larry Beane

On the Name "Lutheran."

By Larry Beane

“I ask that my name be left silent and people not call themselves Lutheran, but rather Christians. Who is Luther? The doctrine is not mine. I have been crucified for no one. St. Paul in 1 Cor. 3:4-5 would not suffer that the Christians should call themselves of Paul or of Peter, but Christian. How should I, a poor stinking bag of worms, become so that the children of Christ are named with my unholy name? It should not be dear friends. Let us extinguish all factious names and be called Christians whose doctrine we have. The pope’s men rightly have a factious name because they are not satisfied with the doctrine and name of Christ and want to be with the pope, who is their master. I have not been and will not be a master. Along with the church I have the one general teaching of Christ who alone is our master. Matt. 23:8.”

— MARTIN LUTHER, 1522, *ADMONITION AGAINST INSURRECTION*

The name “Lutheran” was coined as a pejorative by the papal theologian Johann Eck some time between 1520 and 1522. It was also used by Pope Hadrian VI, the successor to Leo X. The intent was to give the impression that “Lutheranism” was a heresy named after Luther - the way “Arianism” was named after Arius, and “Montanism” was named after Montanus, etc.

The above quote, in response to this use of the term “Lutheran,” registers Dr. Luther’s vehement objection.

The word “Lutheran” never appears in our Book of Concord. The word “Evangelical”, used as an adjective to describe either our churches or our faith, appears eight times. The word “catholic” appears thirteen times (not counting its use in the ecumenical creeds). In fact, the Lutheran Church is referred to as “the true and genuine catholic Church” in the signature block of the Treatise.

And yet, with all of the above duly noted, Charles Porterfield Krauth points out, citing Gerhard, that “in the ancient Church the Arians styled those who held the true faith as Athanasians.” Of course, the popular name of the Quicunque Vult - the Athanasian Creed - uses this term “Athanasian” in this way, as Athanasius did not write it and was long dead by the time it was written. The Third Ecumenical Creed reflects the “Athanasian” faith - that is, the Orthodox, Catholic, Nicene faith - over and against the Arian faith.

As Krauth cites Gerhard:

We do not call ourselves Lutherans, but are so styled by our enemies, and we permit it as a token of our consent with the pure teaching of the word which Luther set forth. We suffer ourselves to bear his name, not as of one who has invented a new faith, but of one who has restored the old, and purified the Church [emphasis original].

Moreover, not all Lutheran churches in the world are called “Lutheran.” Krauth points out that:

In Poland and Hungary, the official title of our communion is ‘CHURCH OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION,’ and this is the name which, on the title-page of the Form [sic] of Concord, and repeatedly within it, is given to our churches.

This way of describing themselves remains true among Lutheran bodies in modern Poland and Slovakia - though neither of these church bodies is in fellowship with the LCMS.

So should we continue to use the name today?

Our confession has been known around the world as “Lutheran” for nearly five centuries. It is a kind of shorthand that identifies us as churches of the Augsburg Confession, and serves to separate us from the Reformed and Anabaptist wings of the Reformation. The name has stuck to us the way that taunts from the enemy often do in wartime, as with the British taunt of “Yankee Doodle” to mock the “Yankee” army, and with the Yankee taunt of “Rebel” to mock the Confederate “Rebels” less than a century later. Though these names were put upon them by their opponents, sometimes the name sticks - and what was intended as a banner of shame becomes a banner of solidarity.

There is a contemporary trend to eschew the name “Lutheran” in LCMS churches - although I have never seen an example of such a congregation replacing “Lutheran” with “Church of the Augsburg Confession.” In every case that I have seen, removing “Lutheran” is a distancing of the congregation from the confessional label out of fear of alienating potential new members. Perhaps it is seen as stodgy and incongruous with a more modern “spiritual but not religious” culture. Rather than adopting a historical description of our confession as an alternative to “Lutheran,”, such as “Evangelical” or “Catholic,” the move seems to be one of disassociating of oneself from the idea of being a “Lutheran” church.

I have never seen a liturgical, traditional, and confessional congregation drop the name Lutheran.

I have seen this phenomenon among “big box,” non-liturgical, and non-traditional churches. In this context, it is as though a child changes his last name because he is ashamed of his family, or especially doesn’t want to be associated with his father, or with other relatives who bear the same name. It certainly gives the impression that the name is sullied, and implies a sense of the desire to separate oneself from those who continue to be thus identified.

I know of one congregation that was recently renamed nearly a hundred years into its history, in which not only “Lutheran” was removed, but even the name of God was taken out of the non-committal, generic new name - which reflects merely the neighborhood where the church is located. Needless to say, this is not a congregation where Gottesdienst would be available to pick up in the narthex on the way out, though it was a formerly traditional congregation.

Another example is an LCMS congregation whose impressive website never mentions the word “Lutheran.” The “Who We Are” tab says that the congregation “is a place to belong as you change, and change as you follow Jesus. We want to help people realize all God has for them in a life-changing relationship with Jesus, give people a safe place to belong, and teach people what it means to follow Jesus.” Their values are: "Prayer, Applications of Scripture, Spiritual Growth, Integrity, Outreach, Families, Small Groups.” The list of values does not include the Cross, the Gospel, Holy Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, or the Resurrection. Their mission statement is equally bland and bereft of the cross, mentioning “change” and “relationship.” There are “Weekend Worship Experiences” and “Wednesday Experiences.”

Yet another example is a very old congregation that used to bear the name of one of the apostles followed by the name “Lutheran Church.” A few years ago, they made a big deal of their new generic name that has excised both the apostle’s name and the name “Lutheran.” Their website shows a huge stage as well as scenes of multitudes of laughing boomers drinking coffee in Starbuck’s style plastic cups. Their “About Us” includes their “Approach” which is fourfold: “Unconditional Acceptance, True to Life Approach, Inspiring Connections, and God Directed Journey. “ Neither Jesus nor the cross are mentioned, though they do mention “messages, music, and traditional practices like baptism and communion,” the latter of which is a twice a month affair. Under “What we believe,” there is a begrudging nod to both Lutheranism and the LCMS, as the congregation was “born out of the Lutheran (LCMS) tradition.” That kind of sounds like it is a spinoff of Lutheranism rather than an actual Lutheran church. They also acknowledge their history, beginning with the quote: “The only constant is change” and an invitation to learn more about the congregation’s history at “Legacy Hall.” Holy Communion is offered to “all who share in our profession of the Christian faith are encouraged to partake in Holy Communion, provided they

• Have received Christian Baptism (Acts 2:36-38),

• Recognize and confess their sinfulness (Proverbs 28:13; 1 John 1:8-9),

• Forgive others (Matthew 5:21-24; Matthew 6:12)

• Believe the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are truly present, offered under forms of bread and wine (1 Corinthians 10:16; 1 Corinthians 11:27-29)

They also note that “Non-alcoholic wine is offered in the blue section of the communion trays and gluten-free wafers are also available at all communion stations for those with special needs.”

I recently ran across another LCMS parish that did not change its name, but its online presence omits the word “Lutheran” in its title and logos. This congregation’s self-description lists six “core values,” and not one of them nor their explanations mentions anything about Jesus. These “Core Values” are: “Acceptance… Compassionate Community… Spirit-Led Bible-Based Lutheran Church [that one is a surprise]… Worship… Transformation… Passing on the Passion.” At least they used the name “Lutheran” buried here in the fine print, but as for me, I think that I will indeed “pass on the passion.” They aren’t referring to the suffering and death of our Lord. The world has a very different connotation about “passion,” and it is usually a cheesy marketing word. Not only is Jesus missing from these “Core Values,” so is the Gospel.

This same congregation also lists six “Worship Values,” and they are: “Non-Judgemental [sic], Biblical Preaching, Good Music, Casual Dress, Fellowship, Fun.” I’m not sure how Law and Gospel (Biblical) preaching can happen without the judgment of the law being part of the equation, nor can I wrap my head around the “Worship Value” that worship is supposed to be “fun.” And how did something so pedestrian and banal as “Casual Dress” become one of the Six Chief Parts of Worship?

Most of the congregations that have dropped the name “Lutheran” have dropped the Lutheran liturgy, replacing it with some form of pop-culture entertainment worship, complete with a stage, drum kit, mixing boards, guitars, and emoting vocalist - calling to mind the popular non-denominational or charismatic worship that is big on ginning up emotion but light on the incarnational presence of Christ in Word and Sacrament. Many such churches that have excised the name “Lutheran” make it a point to celebrate the Sacrament of the Altar (such as it is) infrequently - not unlike those confessions that see it only as symbolic. It gives the impression that they are not only ashamed of their confessional subscription, but even of the Eucharist itself. At very least, it didn’t make the cut in the above Core Values or Worship Values.

One thing that I have noticed that binds all of these rejecters of the name Lutheran is that their worship does not call to mind our shared confession of Apology 24:1:

In our churches Mass is celebrated every Sunday and on other festivals when the sacrament is offered to those who wish for it after they have been examined and absolved. We keep traditional liturgical forms, such as the order of the lessons, prayers, vestments, etc. (Tappert translation)

Nor do they embody the spirit of the Augustana 24:1

Falsely are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is retained among us, and celebrated with the highest reverence. (McCain translation)

So insofar as those who distance themselves from the name “Lutheran” - and thus distance themselves from the rest of the family who retain our old and venerable name - maybe it is a blessing that they are not readily identified as Lutheran. In removing the name Lutheran, they are mercifully relieving the rest of us of being lumped in with them, at least at first glance. Yes, indeed, there is always something to be thankful for.

At some point, perhaps they will, as St. Paul put it in Galatians 5:12, go all the way and cut themselves off in more than name only.

TGC 106 – Passiontide

In this Gottescast, The Gottesdienst Crowd discusses the rites and ceremonies of Passiontide. David Petersen (pastor of Redeemer Lutheran Church, Fort Wayne, IN, and author of the recurring column "Commentary on the War" in the Gottesdienst Journal) joins us for the discussion.

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.