Dog pastor?

From the Now-I've-Seen-Everything department comes this story published in the Herald-Enterprise out of Goldonda, Illinois, October 12, 2011. The first line of the story under the photo, in case you can't quite make it out, says, "Loveland Elise Wilkerson [that's the dog in the picture] is a Certified Therapy Dog and also assists as a youth pastor at the Golconda United Methodist Church. She also recently presented lap blankets and a walker bag to the Pope County Care Center . . ."

Hm, "she"?

HT: Rev. Michael Henson.

Luther and Chemnitz vs. Walther and Pieper: Sorry, but, no contest

In preparing to speak on "Consecrationism vs. Receptionism" at the recent Indiana District Church Workers' Conference (17-18 October), various points became increasingly obvious, some of them new and surprising to me, and others already familiar, confirming and clarifying what I already knew and understood from past reading.

It is certainly clear enough, and really beyond any reasonable doubt, that Luther and Chemnitz were "consecrationists." That is to say, they consistently taught and confessed that, by and with and at the speaking of the Verba, the bread becomes and is the Body of Christ, and the wine becomes and is the Blood of Christ. It is the Word and work of the Lord Jesus that does this and gives this. As Herman Sasse, Tom Hardt, Bjarne Teigen, Scott Murray, John Stephenson, et al. have pointed out, this "consecrationist" theology of Luther and Chemnitz flows from and with the doctrine of justification and the authority of the Word of God. It is not only what I was taught, or at least understood, from my seminary professors, but what I have always understood and believed from the Words of Christ Jesus, my Lord. And, as it is the clear teaching of Luther and Chemnitz, it is likewise clear that "consecrationism" is the teaching of the Formula of Concord, which was authored chiefly by Martin Chemnitz (echoing much of what he wrote in his Examination of the Council of Trent), and which explicitly cites Dr. Luther as the foremost interpreter of the Augsburg Confession.

It is also clear and straightforwardly obvious, that Walther and Pieper, following the 17th-century Lutheran scholastics, were "receptionists." That is to say, they taught that the Body and Blood of Christ were present only in and with the actual eating and drinking, and neither before nor after nor apart from that eating and drinking. This "receptionist" teaching follows from the emphases of Melanchthon, which stood in tension with Luther's emphases while both men were still alive, but which developed and sharpened in Melanchthon, in his students and beyond, in the years following Luther's death. Resulting controversies over a right understanding of the axiom, that "nothing has the character of a Sacrament outside of its intended use," were addressed by the Formula of Concord. However, in spite of the Formula's clarification, and in spite of Luther's and Chemnitz's understanding and explanation of the axiom in question, subsequent generations of Lutheran scholars adopted and taught a "receptionist" interpretation of the axiom, and, therefore, of the Sacrament. This view was fostered and solidified by a reliance on Aristotelian philosophy, or, rather, on a misunderstanding and misuse of Aristotle's "four causes." Walther and Pieper followed the Lutheran scholastics in this vein, and read back into Luther and Chemnitz and the Formula of Concord that "receptionist" view, which came to predominate.

It is a daunting thing to be in the position of saying that Walther and Pieper (and the 17th-century Lutheran scholastics) were wrong, but, on this point, they were. I'll stand with Luther and Chemnitz vis-a-vis Walther and Pieper, eight days a week. Even more important and to the point, I'll stand with the Words of our Lord Jesus Christ against anything and everything else in heaven and on earth. What He speaks, is so. It is, at once, the most profound Mystery and the simplest thing imaginable.

To answer the question that was put to me at the end of my presentation: No, I don't think that Walther and Pieper were Zwinglians, and I have no desire or intention of making any such claim. They certainly taught and confessed that the true Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ were received and eaten with the bodily mouths of the communicants, and in this faithful confession they were as far from Zwingli as the heavens from the earth. But in their "receptionist" position, they weakened and undermined the fundamental power and definitive authority of the Word of Christ, and allowed human philosophy and participation to intrude upon the Mysteries of God. It was one of Pieper's famous "felicitous inconsistencies" that preserved their faithful confession of the "Real Presence" alongside their "receptionism." Perhaps in largest part because their practice preserved a care and reverence for the consecrated elements that belied their theoretical teaching on the presence. Carefully consecrating only as many elements as would be needed for the Holy Communion, but also using a second consecration whenever additional elements were required to complete the distribution, and then consuming any and all remaining consecrated elements, rather than ever mixing consecrated with unconsecrated elements, made a strong ceremonial confession of the central and definitive significance of the Verba-consecration.

In subsequent generations, a breakdown in practice, supported and defended by an appeal to "receptionism," has eroded confidence in and reverence for the Verba and the Body and Blood of Christ. Thus, the historic Lutheran doctrine and practice spiral downward together.

In saying that Walther and Pieper were wrong on this point, in deference to Luther and Chemnitz and our Lutheran Confessions, and above all in deference to the clear Words of Christ, I do not dishonor those faithful men, who were far stronger and much better theologians than I am. But those who would appeal to Walther and Pieper (over against Luther and Chemnitz) in defense of a careless, sloppy, or otherwise irreverent practice, do those men a grave injustice. Worse is the dishonor that is perpetrated against the Word and Sacrament of Christ, our Lord.

Deeds lead to Thoughts -or- No, you really can't worship like a Baptist and expect to stay Lutheran

An Alert Reader has sent us a clipping from Concordia-Seward's student newspaper. This is my alma mater and my own dear wife used to edit this paper, The Sower. Alas, how things have changed. I will reproduce the entire article and comment on just the bit I will put in bold, which is the key to understanding more than just the "disco ball" (as our Alert Reader put it). I have deleted any student names because, hey, if somebody went looking in past issues of The Sower they'd probably find a lot of stupid things I said when I was 19 as well.

NEW EQUIPMENT COMPLEMENTS WORSHIP

Lighting and software makes a multi-sensory experience

by [Student A] Staff Writer

Praise on Wednesday evenings and chapel on weekday mornings offer opportunities for students to worship outside of the typical Sunday morning tradition. With the beginning of a new school year, the way Concordia is worshiping is changing with the introduction of new lighting.

"Lighting is a gift from God, and in this community, he's given us lighting to manipulate," said Assistant Professor of Music Peter Prochnow.

According to Prochnow, there are many components that make up the new system. These include the lighting, sound [Ach! where's the Oxford comma? Is there no decency, sanity, and clarity left in the world? - +HRC] and production software called ProPresenter. ProPresenter allows the images to move on screen behind the lyrics for songs.

In order to get the system started, Concordia partnered with Inspirmedia, located in Lincoln. The company has helped with the 2010 National Youth Gathering and with the Room 211 worship services offered at Christ Lutheran Church in Lincoln.

According to Junior [Student B], before the first night of Praise the student-led Praise team was worried the lighting would seem more like a performance of be a distraction.

He said the team was nervous that the new technology might not work the way they needed it to. According to [Student B], during sound check something was loud and seemed "off."

"God showed Himself on the first night," said [Student B]. "People are still focused on worship and who we're worshiping. In that respect, it's been a success."

One aspect of this success, according to [Student B], comes from the amount of energy he saw in the first two Praise services. he felt that there was more focus on worship and learning from the speakers. He also said there was more participation in worship, rather than just sitting back.

"People were more interested in being a part of worship rather than letting worship happen to them," said [Student B].

According to Prochnow, these types of changes are happening in LCMS churches across the country.

"I haven't run into a church that isn't doing or trying to do this," he said. [Sic! Some Assistant Professors just don't get out much! - +HRC]

Prochnow said the system creates more of a concert atmosphere in worship services, but instead of being excited about the performance, the excitement is about the message of what God is telling the student body.

Campus Pastor Ryan Matthias said [that when] he first began working at Concordia three years ago, Weller auditorium [NB: Seward has never had a dedicated chapel. - +HRC] was almost "devoid of sensory experience." [Almost - before, there was only hearing the Word, seeing the ordained servant of God carry out his duties, and smelling, touching, and tasting the Holy Communion. - +HRC]

"What we do with the lighting is to enhance the beauty of what God does with light," said Matthias.

Matthias compared the smoke machine used in Praise to God appearing to the Israelites as a cloud of smoke. He said the fog gives the light something to reflect off of.

"Our God is a creative God. He does things in an elaborate way," said Matthias. "The beauty in worship is a constant reminder that this is the God we worship."

[Picture of three students, one with a guitar, one at a trap set, and one holding a mic. Caption: As one of the Praise team leaders, junior [Student B] introduces and closes each Wednesday evening worship gathering.]

The most important bit in this article is the first line that I put in bold. "God showed Himself on the first night," says Student B. Where did he learn to talk like that? The same place where he learned to worship, to sing, and to think about how men interact with God (i.e., worship): not from Lutherans. Lutherans are rather sticklers for how we talk about theophany. This quotation is simply off the Lutheran farm. It's how Pentecostals and Evangelicals talk and think about God. How does God show Himself for these folks? In the "amount of energy" that one "feels" in the crowd.

And, as Dr. Nagel might say, who is running the verbs? This young man at Seward has learned - no doubt from his home parish - that we are not to "sit back" in worship and "let worship happen to us" but instead be full of "energy" and "participate." What does he mean by this? What is not participatory in DS III? What is more participatory about a "concert atmosphere"? What is worship for? Sitting back and receiving, or "feeling" "energy"? In what proportion to each other, etc?

The Campus Pastor seems no help as he feels that worship before the stage lighting and fog machine was "almost devoid of sensory experience." And the Assistant Professor of Music can't say that he knows even one parish that isn't striving for lights, camera, smoke machine, action. The mind boggles.

My kids are a long way off from college, but here's my thinking at this point. Small private liberal arts school are really expensive and based on my life experience since I graduated, I don't think they educate any better than cheaper schools. It might be worth shelling out the bucks for a truly rigorous Lutheran education - bu, well, you read the article. Is this the sort of education about worship you want for your kids? At 20 grand a year? But it might still be worth it - remember how I started this post, about meeting my own dear wife at Seward. Hard to put a price on that. But in these latter days of Higher Things campus ministries and online match making - perhaps there are more efficient ways for Lutherans to find each other.

I dearly love my alma mater and know that it prepared me very well indeed for seminary and a life of service to the Church. But it is also clear that today it is not the place I graduated from just over a decade ago. And then there is this argument: if students from strong, Confessional parishes and families stop going to the Concordias they will only get worse.

Well, as I said, I've got quite a while to think about it yet. But for those readers who currently in the college market, what have been your thoughts? Where are your kids going or looking to go to school? How did you go about evaluating each choice when it came to the spiritual prospects of each school?

+HRC

Regarding October 23...

When I put together Daily Divine Service Book my goal was to include a full, and truly Lutheran sanctoral calendar. The basis for this was Loehe's Martyrologium, but I also wanted to include the days and commemorations from LSB. An Alert Reader pointed out that I had yet to explain the exception to this rule: DDSB has no feast of "St. James, Brother of the Lord" on October 23rd where LSB does. So here's why not.

This feast came new to Lutheranism in Lutheran Book of Worship as "St. James, Martyr" but was rejected by Lutheran Worship. I think LBW got it from the American revision of the Book of Common Prayer. The feast is again left out of the ELCA's newest hymnal, Evangelical Lutheran Worship. If it has any history in modern German Lutheran hymnals, I am unaware of it but would happy to be corrected.

Lutheranism is, of course, part of the Western Church - indeed, in accordance with our own self-understanding, we should really say that Lutheranism is the continuance of the Western Church cleaned up from certain errors (the three P's: Purgatory, Prayer to saints, and the Pope's lavish claims), by the grace of God. In the West, the James who is denominated as "the brother of the Lord" has usually been considered as identical to "James the son of Alpheus." Read all about it. Consequently, in the West, "James, the brother of the Lord" is celebrated on May 1, the Feast of St. Philip and St. James (the Less, the Just, son of Alpheus). In the West, there is no feast of any St. James on October 23.

In the Eastern Church, however, the judgment has been different. They identify "James, the brother of the Lord" as someone other than one of the apostles. Namely, as one of four children of Joseph of Nazareth from his first marriage. The evidence for this comes from the Protoevangelium of James. Read all about it. His day in the East is, indeed, October 23.

Including this feast day in a Lutheran calendar is, therefore, a bit polemical. It makes a definite statement about which James is which, and it is a statement contrary to the West's tradition.

Secondly, to modern American ears the name of the feast is a bit polemical in another way. When the East calls James "the brother of the Lord" they mean one thing and modern Protestants, like the Anglo-American Common Prayer mean quite another.

[Here in passing we might note another title in LSB that was not adopted in DDSB: St. Mary, "Mother of our Lord." This was, in my opinion, a most unfortunate choice. In the Ecumenical Creeds and our Lutheran Confessions, and in all the old Lutheran calendars, she is "Mary the Bearer of God (Θεοτόκος, Gottesgebaererin)" or "the Virgin Mary" or "the Blessed Virgin Mary." To those with any church history, the title "Mother of Our Lord" is fraught with meaning as it was the title that Nestorius insisted upon using, and no other. If using the Confessions' title of "Bearer of God" was thought to be too difficult or confusing for today's laity, then why not just "The Virgin Mary" as she is called in the Creed? Or just "St. Mary"?]

Well. Isn't it all adiaphora? Who cares whether one thinks that the West or East is right about which James is which? Indeed, they might both be wrong and we could add a couple other James' Days to the calendar. But it's precisely the fact that this is a judgment call that made me most hesitant to add the feast. When in doubt: dance with who brung ya. We're a Western Church. Likewise with titles given to Mary - let's stick with our own tradition. Same thing when it comes to Mary and "the brothers of the Lord." If you really think the meaning of that term is adiaphora, then why would you go out of your way to proclaim an opinion contrary to the whole history of the Church? It it doesn't matter then honor your fathers in the faith by accepting their opinion.

So I suppose this is a matter of general outlook. And my outlook is this: let's not reinvent the wheel and let's be content with what our own fathers have handed us.

+HRC

November Feasts

By Larry Beane

It is nearly November, the time of year when folks in Chicago enjoy falling leaves and the folks in New Orleans enjoy the departure of hurricane season!  The Church begins November with All Saints Day and concludes the month with the Feast of St. Andrew the Apostle.  In November, we end the previous church year with the last weeks of the year reminding us of the End of the Age, and with the beginning of the church year again calling to mind the beginning of the Last Days through the mystery of our Lord's incarnation.  For Americans, November is also a time of thanksgiving - which in ecclesiastical terms, makes us think of the Eucharistic Feast.

November is indeed a special time of the Church's calendar.

A magnificent choir known as the Schola Cantorum of St. Peter the Apostle (formerly the Schola Cantorum of St. Peter's in the Loop) has given the Church a wonderful musical gift for this sacred time of transition in  the her calendar.

This album, Music for the November Feasts, is one of my favorite musical albums of all time - in any category.  This is definitely a "desert island" CD.  It is an ecumenical collection of sacred music covering centuries in a diverse mix of ecclesiastical musical styles: hymn and chant, English and Latin, old and new, a choir of men and women singing both a capella and with musical accompaniment.

I cannot recommend it enough!

Here is the Amazon link to download the album ($8.99) or any of its twenty-two tracks ($.99/each).  Lutherans will especially enjoy seeing many favorites from their hymnals: such as By All Your Saints in Warfare (LSB 517, 518), Jerusalem My Happy Home (LSB 673), In the Midst of Earthly Life (LSB 755), Come Ye Thankful People, Come (LSB 892), Hail to the Lord's Anointed (LSB 398), Crown Him With Many Crowns (LSB 525), and the sainted professor Rev. Dr. Martin Franzmann's masterpiece O Kingly Love, which was not included in Lutheran Service Book, but was in Lutheran Worship (LW 346).  Also, though not technically a Lutheran hymn, the great Anglican composer and chorister Dr. Healy Willan's majestic setting of the Te Deum Laudamus as sung in many Lutheran schools and churches - including the Kramer Chapel of Concordia Theological Seminary (Fort Wayne) - is part of this wonderful collection!

And if you appreciate Gregorian Chant and Latin, there are some haunting and inspiring tracks that proclaim the catholic timelessness and comforting transcendence of the Church of Jesus Christ and His Word.

And here is more from the Schola Cantorum of St. Peter's in the Loop (known today as the Schola Cantorum of St. Peter the Apostle).

As a postscript, I was honored to have the Schola's conductor, J. Michael Thompson, drop by and leave a kind comment on an old FH posting about Dr. Franzmann.  Mr. Thompson, blessings on your work in the Lord's kingdom!  You have a gift that is also a treasure!