postings from prairie hill

H1N1 (Swine Flu) & Sunday Morning

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor David) — Sat, 02 May 2009 22:49:00 +0000

The following is the text of an email I sent out today:

Dear family of Saint John,

With the spread of the H1N1 virus (Swine Flu) last week, many are concerned about what impact the virus might have on church – a gathering where we are in close proximity to one another. Here are a few thoughts.

First, come to church. Fear should not keep us from worshiping our Lord. In fact, we are instructed that “perfect love casts out all fear.” Certainly, if you or someone in your family is sick, it is best to stay home – please do not put others at risk. But otherwise, there is no reason to stay away from worship. We worship every year through cold and flu season, without any great danger to any of our worshippers.

As we do throughout the season of Easter, we will be celebrating the sacrament of Holy Communion at both services tomorrow. It may ease your mind that I keep a bottle of hand sanitizer on my bench, which I use numerous times during the service – especially prior to the celebration of Holy Communion. Bishop Mike Rinehart included the following comment in a recent email to clergy: “Everything I have read points to common cup being the safest and most “clean” method of distribution. Why? Because our hands carry more germs than our mouths. In common cup, wine goes from bottle to cup to mouth. No hands. With little cups, hands put the cups in trays and in some congregations hand take them out. Everything I have read supports common cup.” My information is the same as Bishop Mike’s – I know it runs counter to what we would assume, but common cup is the safest method of receiving Holy Communion.

When it is time to share the peace with one another, it is not necessary to shake hands – especially not if that makes you uncomfortable because of what we have been watching on the news. Feel free to great one another with a smile and a nod. (I will say the same thing tomorrow). Of course, the issue is not hand-to-hand contact, it is what you do with your hands after – when you put them to your face, especially to your mouth, nose, and eyes. It will also not hurt my feelings if you don’t shake my hand before or after the service – although I will also have hand sanitizer in the narthex which I will be using.

Finally, remember to pray. For those who are sick now. For those who have dealt with the sickness of a family member. For those who are paralyzed by fears. This may quickly blow over, and nothing may come of it – or it may escalate into a crisis. Either way, we are people who pray. And just as we are taking precautions to not spread the flu, take precautions to not spread fear. Watch for facts, and stay level-headed.

We are the church. We worship God, we share in God’s sacraments of grace, and we pray. Our trust and security is not in what we hear on the evening news, but in the one who promises to be our Good Shepherd. Indeed, it is fitting that tomorrow morning we will hear about the Good Shepherd and read together the 23rd Psalm: “I will fear no evil.”

God’s blessings, and I will see you tomorrow.

Pastor David

(Please feel free to forward this message)

H1N1 (Swine Flu) & Churches

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor David) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:54:00 +0000

The H1N1 Virus (known as the Swine Flu) has landed solidly in Texas, with 26 cases currently. An outbreak like this raises peculiar questions for churches. I am reminded of a visit with my daughter's pediatrician when we were fighting an infection. She said: Avoiding an infection for your child is easy - just avoid public places like ... church.

The ELCA has posted some information about dealing with the flu. There are certainly steps we can make to help keep the disease from spreading at worship. But the real question, for me and I suspect for others, is when do you make that call? What point is serious enough to start making first minor, and then major, changes to our worship practices?

Of course, the question of ministry in and to communities affected by the flu is a non-starter for me. As followers of Jesus, our ministry is especially to communities in such need. But the question is all about timing in terms of our life together.

Vacation

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor David) — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:13:00 +0000

It is vacation week for the Pastor!

Holy Week & Easter were amazing at Prairie Hill. During Holy Week we experienced the mystery of our salvation through liturgy, music, and proclamation. It is part of the power of Holy Week that we do not just hear the story, we truly re-live it. The highlight for me, personally, is Good Friday worship. The contemplation of the cross, the solemn reproaches, and the beauty of the music helps me to experience the true gift that was given to us on the cross.

Easter also was astounding. We had close to 400 people in worship on Easter Sunday, and the Youth hosted us for a great breakfast. We added two new services this year: an evening service on both Good Friday and Easter Sunday. Both services were smaller, and had a very nice intimate feel to them.

Now this week is a chance for my family to rest. Very often, we overlook the importance of Sabbath rest. Yet all of us, no matter our vocation, need time to re-charge and just rest.

Hope you all have a great week - and thanks for a great Easter!

Alleluia! Christ is Risen!

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor David) — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 08:21:00 +0000

A blessed Easter morning to you all. As you head out to celebrate the power of the resurrection, let me share with you two older posts from Easter. The greatest Easter sermon ever preached, the Paschal Homily of Saint John Chrysostom, and NFS Grundvig's Easter hymn (Peace to Soothe our Bitter Woes).

Enjoy.

"Christian Seder"

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor David) — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:51:00 +0000

At one time (prior to my arrival), this congregation hosted a "Christian Seder" as a part of Holy Week. People have asked me since my arrival if that is something we might do again, to which my usual reply is probably not. Don't get me wrong, the Seder is a moving and powerful ritual - but it is not our ritual. One of my friends recently wrote a very clear and articulate article about why he feels the same way that I do.

Some of the most important reasons why not to host a church Seder, for me:

First, Jesus did not have a Seder meal, at least not as modern Jews understand it. The Haggadah, from which Jews tell the story of the Passover at the Seder, was not written until the second century after Christ. In fact, the Seder meal as a discrete ritual evolved in part to address the splintering Jewish community following the destruction of the Temple in 70 ad. Part of that splintering community? Jewish Christians. The Seder was - at least in part - a response to the developing Christian rituals. Jesus undoubtedly celebrated the Passover with a meal, but it is a historical anachronism to call it a Seder.

Second, Jesus did not have a Seder meal, at least not as modern Christians understand it. It was in that Passover meal that Jesus gave the bread and wine to his disciples, saying "This is my body ... this is my blood." What Jesus did, from our perspective, was the Eucharist - the sacrament of Holy Communion. If you want to better understand Jesus' last night with his disciples, don't have a Seder - instead, gather around the table and share in the sacrament.

Actually, we say that the best way to understand the mysteries of those last days, above all else, is to participate in the liturgy of the Triduum - the Great Three Days of Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and the Easter Vigil. It is there, in the experience of the powerful liturgy of those three days, that we encounter the meaning, depth, and power of our salvation.

Here are two articles by Rabbis commenting on the problems with "Christian Seders". Here is a word of warning from the ELCA about the practice.

Good Friday

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor David) — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:28:00 +0000

Sing, My Tongue the Glorious Battle (Pange Lingua Gloriosi Proelium Certaminis) remains, after nearly 1500 years, one of the most beautiful and moving tellings of the Good Friday message. Penned by Venantius Honorius Fortunatus in honor of a piece of the true cross being brought to his monastary, and translated by the gifted John Mason Neale. (The text is public domain, I believe).

Sing my tongue, the glorious battle;
tell the triumph far and wide,
tell aloud the wondrous story
of the cross, the Crucified;
tell how Christ, the world's redeemer,
vanquished death the day he died.

God in mercy saw us fallen,
sunk in shame and misery,
felled to death in Eden's garden,
where in pride we claimed the tree;
then another tree was chosen,
which the world from death would free.

Tell how, when at length the fullness
of the appointed time was come,
Christ, the Word, was born of woman,
left for us his heav'nly home,
blazed the path of true obedience,
shone as light amidst the gloom.

Thirty years among us dwelling,
Jesus went from Nazareth,
destined, dedicated, willing,
did his work and met his death;
like a lamb he humbly yielded
on the cross his dying breath.

(People complain about "long hymns" in the church today - the Latin original included ten stanzas).

A treat for you

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor David) — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:10:00 +0000

In preparation for Holy Week (And April Fool's Day):

Lutheran Study Bible: Apocrypha?

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor David) — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:01:00 +0000

In reading the introductory essays in the new Lutheran Study Bible from Augsburg Fortress, there is a fair amount of ink spent on the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books. Questions like how we came to have differing Old Testament canons within Christianity, how the different canons are read and viewed by various traditions, etc - including the place that Luther retained for the Apocrypha in his translation (placed between the OT and NT).

And then you go to look, and ... no Apocrypha is included in this Bible. The obvious question: Why not? So I set off to find out, and received a prompt and thorough reply from Scott Tunseth, the editor in charge of this project at Augsburg (say what you want about Augsburg, they are very accessible to their constituency - a big plus in my book).

I know that for many people the inclusion of the Apocrypha is a non-issue. For me, not having it makes the LSB slightly less useful for my personal use (but I don't know how many of my congregants would miss it). I'll have more comments about the book in general in a forthcoming post. For now, here is Scott's reply to my question:

Pastor Hansen:
We’ve had this question more than once, and it’s a good one. Here are couple of reasons why it was not included:

1. In our market research, we asked about the inclusion of Apocrypha. Because it had not been included in the student version we have been carrying, it did not rise high on the wish list for responders.
2. We determined that we wanted to provide an open “feel” to the Bible by using one column for the Bible text with notes along the side. This layout option is invited and easy to read and follow. But it also added a few hundred extra pages. Adding the apocrypha with notes would have made the book at least another 400 pages long. It’s already pretty thick. And we wanted the price to be very competitive (as it is), so churches and individuals in churches could afford it.
3. Since the Apocrypha is not used in the church’s lectionary (with the exception of a few alternate readings), we felt we could leave it out for now. This does not mean that we couldn’t consider adding it in the future. With any new venture like this, we can evaluate and modify as we hear from customers.
4. I also think adding the writing of the notes for the Apocrypha presents a unique challenge. We have good Bible scholars who know about these books, but few actually teach them on a regular basis. I think we would have had to lengthen our development time to produce these notes for inclusion. Some of the people who wrote notes for the study Bible may have been the best candidates to tackle the notes for Apocrypha as well, and we couldn’t really double up their assignments based on the schedule we were working under.

We appreciate this question, and we know we will hear it again. We did include the Apocrypha in our recent publication called The Peoples’ Bible. The introductions and articles that accompany this project were written by scholars from several cultural perspectives—African American, Hispanic, Native American, East Asian, and more. This project did not contain as many sidebar notes and was set in two columns, so we were able to fit the Apocrypha in more comfortably. This Bible is being used in more academic settings, while we really designed LSB for use in the church.

Grace and peace,
Scott

Lutheran Study Bible: First Impressions

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor David) — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 02:49:00 +0000

I am always looking for new resources, for myself & for members of my congregation. In terms of Bible translations, I tend to rely on the NRSV, mainly because it is the translation used in worship in most ELCA churches and it is academically pretty solid - although it is also quite dry. In college, I used the Oxford Annotated Study Bible, NRSV, and have gotten quite a few miles out of it. A couple of years ago, I picked up the New Interpreter's Study Bible (NRSV), found it pretty darn helpful, but the material is too heavy for me to feel good about recommending it to most people.

On March 1, Augsburg Fortress released its new Lutheran Study Bible. The LSB uses the NRSV text, and is integrated in the ELCA's on-going Book of Faith initiative. I received my copy yesterday, ordered along with some adult Sunday School materials for this Sunday. I have not yet had a chance to really wade through all that is in this new study Bible, but I am already forming some impressions.

First, it's big. I ordered a hardcover ($35.00), because I just find paperback Bibles hard to handle (LSB is available in paperback for $25 - both editions have quantity discounts). Perhaps the paperback feels smaller, but I doubt it is much smaller. There is just a lot of material here. The inter-textual notes are not as extensive as the Oxford Annotated or the New Interpreters', but there are essays, introductions, and articles galore. To the positive, there is lots of good, easily accesible info. To the negative, the LSB is too bulky to be considered portable, and if you are on the road it will take up lots of suitcase space.

Second, it's easy to navigate. With all of the material in LSB, it would be easy to get bogged down, but it is all laid out very well. The print is large and readable (which also adds to the bulk). There is a logic to the layout and articles that is easy to follow.

Third, the graphics are great. There are some great maps, images, and graphics throughout the LSB. In addition, the inter-textual note have a sort of graphic key or guide, to distinguish types of notes.

In all, I am pleased so far. There are so many Bibles out there, but the vast majority have theological biases that do not mesh with the Lutheran tradition. Many of our members are unaware of the theological tilt of various study Bibles. But here we have a study Bible explicitly out of the Lutheran tradition, and usable not only for academic study but also for devotional reading.

I will write more on this when I have unpacked more of the resources, and spent some time with the LSB. So far, so good.

A Journey of Faith

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor David) — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:18:00 +0000

Prairie Hill News

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor David) — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:35:00 +0000

The staff of St John - Prairie Hill are now sending out updates via our new email list. To subscribe to the list, and receive updates, devotions, and news from Prairie Hill, simply fill out this form.

Oberammergau 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor David) — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:49:00 +0000

In 1633, the Black Death was spreading throughout Europe. The people of the small Bavarian village of Oberammergau made a vow that if God would spare them from the plague, they would honor him every ten years with a Passion Play. The town was indeed spared, and for the last 377 years, the people of Oberammergau have been fulfilling their vow.

Next summer, Pastor David will lead a group from Prairie Hill to witness this once-a-decade event. We will start in Berlin, and travel the length of Germany. Along the way, we will visit the most important sites in the life of Martin Luther and of the history of the Protestant Reformation.

Details

Dates: July 21-August 1, 2010, departing from Houston
Cost: $4,499 per person
Registration info: Registration starts NOW
$500 due with your registration, additional $1,000 due no later than July 1, 2009. Balance due 150 days prior to departure (February 21, 2010 by my count).
Cost includes:

Round-trip airfare
Double occupancy accommodations throughout
Admission to the Passion Play
Breakfast & Dinner daily
Selected local entertainment
Private coach (tour bus) for the trip
Sightseeing and professional tour director
Taxes & service charges

Itinerary

Day 1 - Depart

(overnight to Europe)

Day 2 - Berlin

(settle in, time on our own)

Day 3 - Berlin

(guided sightseeing around the historic and beautiful city)

Day 4 - Wittenberg / Leipzig

(The heart of the Reformation - the respective homes of Luther and Bach)

Day 5 - Eisleben / Erfurt / Eisenach

(Where Luther was born, and went to school. Eisenach at varies times was home ot both Luther and Bach)

Day 6 - Wartburg Castle

(Overlooking the town of Eisenach, Luther took refuge in the Wartburg)

Day 7 - Nuremburg

(Home to the artist Albrecht Durer)

Day 8 - Oberammergau

Day 9 - Oberammergau

Day 10 & 11 - Munich

The economics of church

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor David) — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:56:00 +0000

Conventional wisdom is that when the economy turns south, churches are among the first to feel the impact. To some extent, this is true. Less "disposable income" does equate to less giving as a part of one's stewardship. However ...

Christianity Today has an interesting article in this month's issue about the realities of Christian giving (not yet online). They point to the fact that, yes, the coffers are getting bare, but no, it doesn't have anything to do with the current recession. Instead, it reflects poor attitudes and understandings of stewardship. The vast majority of church budgets are carried by a very small percentage of the membership - and often not the one's you would expect. It is often those with the least income who give the most. Those in the comfortable middle to upper middle class do no give near as much as those with low income. And the "rich," they do a little better. In all, if active just Christians (those who regularly attend church, etc) gave a tithe (10%), the giving would amount to somewhere in the neighborhood of an additional $85 billion (I don't have the article in front of me with the exact numbers, but yes, that is a B). That is more than the gross national product of most countries around the world.

So where does the fault lie? What has happened to Christian stewardship?

I think the biggest problem is that church leaders are not teaching stewardship. One of my colleagues pointed out that in the 80's (when things were great), many started talking about stewardship as "charitable giving." Indeed, this language still dominates how church giving is talked about outside of the church. The problem? "Charitable giving" is what you do with your leftover funds to feel better about yourself or make your company look better. Stewardship is a lifestyle that we are called to in order to glorify God.

One of the key ways we teach this is by example, especially in mainline churches. Each of us has a line item in our budget entitled "Benevolence" or something similar. It is the money that we give to the synod every year to support our shared mission and ministry as a denomination. I have been watching the annual budgets that occasionally come across my desk: one cut their benevolence by 75% for 2009, one by 50% - and neither congregation was giving a huge percentage to begin with. The lesson taught in those budgets? Money is tight, let's cut our "charitable giving." And yes, that lesson is learned by the congregants, and passed on to their congregational giving.

Here at St John, facing the economic realities of 2009, we increased our benevolence, from 7.5% of our income to 8%. We felt that it was important to continue - even to strive to improve - our stewardship, in times of possible economic hardship. Not because we have excess cash we want to get rid of, not because the synod or the ELCA budgets need it, and not because we like this program or that service offered by the synod, but because that is who God call us to be as people of faith.

From our life together as denominations and synods, to our life as congregations and as individuals, it is time to re-assert the importance of stewardship in the life of discipleship. We can no longer frame it as a question of economics - it is a question of discipleship.

Advent litany

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor David) — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:38:00 +0000

If you ahven't figured out, I am not one for liturgical innovation. I tend to be of the mind that if it worked for centuries of faithful Christians, it will probably work for us too. That said, from time to time I like to do something a little different - not to rework the entire liturgy, but to deepen the already present gifts of the liturgy and underline the season of the year. For this Advent, I put together a very simple Advent Litany, which we are using at St John.

The sections for the presider are spoken, sections 1-3 from the rear of the church, section 4 fromt he chancel. The response are sung, the first response by an acappella soloist, the rest by the congregation.

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Amen.

Since the time of the fall of our first parents in the garden, humanity has wandered through deep darkness. And in this deep darkness, we have held out hope for a sign of light, hope for deliverance from the shadows that cover us. In the darkness we cry out,

(Soloist): O come, O come, Emmanuel, and ransom captive Israel,
that mourns in lonely exile here until the Son of God appear.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel shall come to you, O Israel.

Since the time of King David, we have been lost and leaderless. We look for the coming of one who will call us to himself, the one who will leads us in the ways of the One, Holy, Lord God. We look for a King unlike any other, a Good Shepherd sent to us from on high. In the wilderness we cry out,

O come, O Key of David, come,
and open wide our heav'nly home;
make safe the way that leads on high,
and close the path to misery.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel shall come to you, O Israel.

Since the time of Christ’s incarnation, we have been the people who wait. We have heard and we believe in his promise to return in power and glory, and so we wait. And yet, all around us we see suffering and pain, tragedy and despair. Death, sin, greed, and selfishness seem to have won the day; but we know the Truth and so we wait. In our pain and suffering we cry out,

O come, O Wisdom from on high,
embracing all things far and nigh:
in strength and beauty come and stay;
teach us your will and guide our way.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel shall come to you, O Israel.

Now is the time we have waited for. Now is the time for light in the midst of darkness. Now is the time for our King and Lord. Now is the time for the end of suffering and despair, the end of death and grief. Now is the time of promise. Now is the coming of our Lord Emmanuel—the God who is with us. Now is the time of our salvation. In faith, hope, and love we rejoice,

O come, O King of nations, come,
O Cornerstone that binds in one:
refresh the hearts that long for you;
restore the broken, make us new.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel shall come to you, O Israel.

Bishop Hanson: Christmas Message

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor David) — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:33:00 +0000

Here is Bishop Mark Hanson's 2008 Christmas message:

When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let us go now to Bethlehem and see this thing that has taken place, which the Lord has made known to us.” ~ Luke 2:15

Let’s go! Now! When angels came to some shepherds with a brilliant message one night long ago, the shepherds had a brilliant idea. Let’s go! Let’s see what God is doing!

The unknown dangers of the night did not hold them back. Perhaps they knew that some of God’s best work is done under the cover of darkness — the creation of all things, wrestling with Jacob, Israel’s escape from slavery.

Or maybe they didn’t. Maybe all they needed was the announcement of what God was up to this time. This time God would be conducting a rescue like none before — saving the whole world, bringing peace and goodwill. Once again it’s an undercover operation — God hidden deep in the flesh and working “under the sign of opposites” (as Martin Luther called it). Arriving as a baby in diapers, God’s Son recruited tax collectors and fishermen, social misfits and despised sinners in a rescue mission that culminated in the hidden power of the cross.

What if the shepherds had yawned, “That’s interesting, some other time,” and remained sitting in the night, in the dirt, in the comfort of predictable hardships and familiar enemies? Would promised joy have found them anyway?

Let’s not test that speculation with our lives. Let’s go! Let’s see what God is doing!

The Rev. Mark S. Hanson
Presiding Bishop
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

Paths to Ordination & Lay Presidency

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor David) — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:11:00 +0000

Recent discussions about the recent seminary news and the latest ELCA Council meeting have brought up some very interesting topics: (a) the path that one takes to ordination, and (b) the option of having laity preside at the table.

As a historical note, the current process (or path) for ordination is relatively recent. In the various churches that came together to for the ELCA, the processes for acknowledging an individual's interal call and issuing an external call have taken a variety of forms. In addition, there are parts of the ELCA where the tradition of lay preachers has a rich and long history(preachers more often than presiders at the sacrament).

First, in terms of process. I have tended to not really support "alternative" paths to ordination, for a couple of reasons (Such as the Theological Education for Emerging Ministries program).
(A) In terms education, we as a church have decided that these are the things that are a common foundation for ministry: an MDiv, an internship, CPE. If we believe they are the foundation, why would we ordain those who are without them? It is a question of preparation and integrity: as a church we have said that if we send you a pastor, he or she will have these basic skills and base of knowledge.
(B) My other complaint is much more practical. If we require candidate X to put life on hold for 4 years, move his or her family around, and take out $30,000 plus dollars in debt; how then can we turn around and say to candidate Y, "Attend seminary for 1 year, and test out of the rest." It just doesn't add up.

Full disclosure, part of the second complaint is rooted in my own personal experience. Having a strong cultural Lutheran background, having received a preliminary theological education at a Lutheran institution, I attended a non-Lutheran seminary. I knew this would add a year to my studies. But come time for my endorsement panel, my faculty members (both Lutheran clergy teaching at this non-Lutheran school) argued that I should not have to do a Lutheran year - an argument that fell on deaf ears, at the same Candidacy Committee meeting that approved a TEEM minister through a theological exam. So I've got a chip on my shoulder ... but I know it's there.

Second, lay presidency. While respecting the long traditions of lay preachers, I have felt that the good order of the church (and AC XIV) call for us to only have ordained individuals as the one to administer the sacraments and preach. It is not a question of who has the "magic hands", it is a question of who has been called by the church to perform these tasks. The earlier traditions of lay preachers did not bring up these concerns in quite the same way because (1) there was less frequent administration of holy communion, and (2) there was a "lower" eucharistic piety - influenced by scandanavian pietism on the one hand and reformed neighbors on the other.

All that said, LP has a nice, thoughtful post on this subject. He talks about the possiblity of, through 2 tracks, ordaining SAMs/TEEM ministers for the "local church," i.e., for service only in the synod in which they are ordained, and ordaining MDivs for the church at large. Not a bad idea. I would rather see a process that "calls a thing what it is." In our theology, a person who is "asked" (called) by the church to administer the sacrament and preach the word is, in fact, set apart for a ministry of word and sacrament. Let's call it what it is. And LPs suggestion provides a way to do that with some integrity. I could certainly lean in that direction.

Of course, part of what this all points to is the muddy theology of ordained ministry in the American Lutheran tradition. The topic was put on the back burner in 1988, and it has not gotten any clearer in the last 20 years. Perhaps it is time to face it head on.

I'll have a blue, blue advent (or was it purple?)

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor David) — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:14:00 +0000

From the archives, my 2006 reflections on the advent color wars.

Any Advice

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor David) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:25:00 +0000

Our sound system at Prairie Hill is aging, as these things will do. We recently got some good vocal mikes (Sure Beta 58's) because we often have a soloist, or one or two people helping to lead congregational song. They have been a great improvement. Now, however, we are looking for a mike for choirs and vocal groups.

Our needs: it has to be mobile (they don't always sing in the same location, so hanging is out), and it has to work best for a choir, etc. The best that I have found is Peavey's AKG C451B condensor mike. It is a nice condensor mike with a flat-frequency rate. Problem: $580. There is an AKG C1000S available as a pair for only $400, but are they as good?

Any help here? I have done lots of sound tech work, but for speakers and bands - not for choirs? Anyone out there know anything good?

News from the ELCA

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor David) — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:09:00 +0000

I occasionally head over and browse the news releases out of the Chicago office of the ELCA. I am not enough of a junky to get them in my email everyday, but every few weeks I sit down and do some reading. Here are some things that caught my eye:

The ELCA Church Council met last week, and I find these releases particularly interesting because there is all sorts of information to be found down in the details. For example, the Council amended the policies for maintaining the roster of clergy, allowing first call pastors to serve in the role of mission developers (previously, 3 years in a traditional call were required first). (Not sure if that is for the good or bad - I can see good arguments on both sides). The same rules were also amended to encourage the authorization of lay persons to serve in a ministry of Word and Sacrament were there is a shortage of clergy, and to go through the candidacy process if that vacancy becomes long-term. (I would assume through the TEEM process, mentioned in the post below. About this one I definitely have some opinions, but I'll save them for later.) There is much more in the release, worth a read.

A new multi-cultural task force/workgroup has been formed in the ELCA. Hold on to your hats for this one: the ELCA European American Lutheran Association. That's right - apparently "European-American" (i.e., white) Lutherans need their own association within the ELCA. Of course, it will include around 92% of the ELCA. I could comment on this, but what else is there to say?

The Lutheran World Federation, in the persons of LWF President Bishop Mark Hanson and Secretary-General Ishmael Noko, offered their congratulations to the new President-elect of the US. The well-worded letter may be found here.

I'm sure I have missed at least a few things, but there is a little news roundup.

Continuing Seminary News

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor David) — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 22:30:00 +0000

Here is the official news release from the ELCA, covering the recent decisions at Wartburg Seminary discussed on this blog earlier this week.

The ELCA, as an institution, has not been unaware of the growing financial burden born by seminarians. One response has been the establishment of the Fund for Leaders, a denominational scholarship program. It is a good start, but only a start. I recall when I was first looking at seminary, I think they awarded like 8 or 10 full-tuition scholarships - which left all the other seminarians paying the exact same cost for their education. In 2008 they awarded 33 "full or partial scholarships" -- reading further down in the release finds 17 full-tuition, meaning that the rest were partial. This year, according to the release, the fund will provide just over $750,000 in seminarian support. Like I said, it is a good start.

But it also raises the question, are those funds best used to provide a lot of help to a small number of students (full tuition scholarships for 17 out of somewhere around 250 of first year seminarians, or 6.8%); or would the support be better used by providing support across the entire seminary system, and lowering the overall cost?

Another response has been to pursue and emphasize paths to ministry that do not require a full theological education. In the ELCA, this is known as the "Theological Education for Emerging Ministries" program. Those eligible for TEEM ministry are persons over the age of 40, "who are perceived by the ELCA to possess those leadership abilities that are needed in specific communities such as African American, Black, Asian and Pacific Islander, Hispanic, American Indian and Alaska Native, Arab Middle Eastern, deaf, remote rural and inner city communities." There are some theological education requirements: a year in residence at an ELCA seminary, a CPE, and an internship - but the guidelines specifically allow that any of these may be waived. Is this the way out of the dilemma? Take care of the overwhelming cost of theological education by requiring less? This does seem to be at least part of the message coming from Chicago.

I have my own thoughts, but what say you? Is this the way forward?

High Praise

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor David) — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:38:00 +0000

My beautiful wife brought home some of the best praise a pastor can receive. A conversation between an aunt and child in our congregation was shared with Julia:
"I used to be afraid of thunder, but I'm not anymore."
"Why not?"
"Because in his sermon, Pastor said Jesus will watch over us, so we don't have to be afraid."

(In a children's sermon a few weeks ago, I had used thunderstorms as an example of things that scare us, and talked about Jesus as our comforter and protector).

That's enough to fill the tank.

Anticipation

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor David) — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:36:00 +0000

A thoughtful member of St John, aware of the amount of money that clergy spend on vestments and things of the like, gave me a birthday gift of some funds to help toward something new. With a little bit of other birthday money, I ordered the stole at the left for myself.

It is, technically, a Christmas stole. However, given the use of royal blue in addition to white, I thought I might use it for Advent as well. It comes from Slabbinck, one of my favorite suppliers of vestments.

I just checked today, and it should arrive here sometime around December 4.

A look at priorities?

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor David) — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:37:00 +0000

The discussion about the current financial crisis in our seminaries raised some very good points. Some suggested that part of the issue is the inflated cost of seminary, others pointed to the (compared to equally schooled careers) low income of clergy, and others pointed out the reluctance for many local congregations to give to the wider church. All very good points, and certainly part of how we landed where we are. James J wondered if perhaps we simply have too many struggling (financially and missionally) congregations spreading our limited resources too thin.

In the midst of our discussion, I came across this Daily Telegraph article about a Roman Catholic bishop's statement on the inherent problems with having a well educated laity (i.e., mass education has produced an abundance of skepticism, challenge to authority, etc, etc). It irked me just enough to start to peruse the bishop's actual words - what I found certainly had some value. The bishop is setting forward a process to evaluate the parishes of the diocese, seeking to determine which are sacramentally, missionally, and financially sustainable enough to be served by the diocese's increasingly diminishing supply of clergy. (The entire report, pdf, is here. Thanks to Fran for the story).

I wonder if this is, among many options, one way forward for us. Is it time to consolidate our resources, focusing on congregations that are (or feasably could become) strong centers of mission and vibrant growth in discipleship?

The Cross and Worship

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor David) — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:00:00 +0000

Recently, I was asked to serve on a synod committee focused on enhancing the quality of worship in our congregations. We have met once, just enough time to get the conversation started (the Hurricanes really threw everyone's schedules for a loop this fall). The meeting got me thinking about some of my earlier ponderings about Lutheran worship, and I thought I might post some of my "heavy lifting" on Lutheran worship here and see if we can get a dialogue started.

The first of these is a paper that I wrote in 2005, entitled The Cross & Worship.

I. Introduction
The last forty years have seen an increase of Lutheran scholarship on two important topics: the liturgy and Luther’s “theology of the cross.” This paper is an attempt to find where those two loci find their meeting place. That is, I have attempted to provide an answer to the question of how a theologian of the cross can best speak about our worship of the crucified God. Ultimately, I believe that a theology of the cross can and must speak about worship, and when it does so it speaks eucharistically and doxologically.
Douglas John Hall, one of the foremost non-Lutheran proponents of the theology of the cross, has observed that any such theology is always contextual. My own context is that of a white, middle-class North American graduate student. I also write as a Lutheran Christian; i.e., a child of that tradition which followed Luther’s interpretation of Scripture, the Creeds, and the broader Christian tradition. I invite the reader to enter into the following project with this context in mind, and to think creatively about how theologia crucis and leitourgia intersect in his or her life.
There are many topics related to the focus of this paper which – although they are of great interest and import – lay beyond the scope of the subject at hand. Thus, the reader will not find here a historical analysis of the development of either Lutheran worship or Luther’s theology of the cross. Further, this paper deals with worship in the broadest sense, and does not delve deeply into the theology of either the eucharist or baptism. Certainly all of these topics and many others will be hinted at and touched upon, but only insofar as they bring us toward the meeting place of the theology of the cross and worship.

II. What is a theologian of the cross?
The idea of a theology of the cross and Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation received very little attention in the English-speaking world for many years.[1] Then, in 1976, Augsburg Publishing House released a translation of Walther von Loewenich’s 1954 work, Luther’s Theology of the Cross. In 1985, Alister McGrath wrote his in-depth study, Luther’s Theology of the Cross. Since then, “Theology of the Cross” has become part of the idiom of not only Lutheran, but also ecumenical theology. In recent years, Confessional Lutherans, liberation theologians, feminist theologians, and a host of others have all espoused “Theologies of the Cross.”[2] But what exactly is a theology of the cross?
In 1518, Martin Luther was invited to a debate to discuss his increasingly controversial ideas in front of the Augustinian General Chapter meeting. One year prior, the young monk from the little-known Wittenberg University had caught the attention of theologians and churchmen with the posting of his 95 Theses. Here was the opportunity for Luther to present to members of his own order what was at stake in the developing conflict. Thus, in May of 1518 Luther presented the 28 theological theses and the 12 philosophical theses that have become known as the Heidelberg Disputation.[3] It is in these theological theses that Luther explicitly names and defines the theologia crucis, the theology of the cross.
As already stated, it is not my intention to draw out all of the theological implications of the Heidelberg Disputation – I have no desire to attempt to improve on the work of those more capable than I who have already undertaken this task. However, to gain some insight into the implications of the theology of the cross for liturgy and worship, it is necessary to revisit the basic principles of the Heidelberg Disputation.
The first twelve theses deal with the utter powerlessness of human works and the law to help humanity move toward salvation. Relying heavily on Saint Paul and Augustine, Luther shows in Thesis 1 how the law actually keeps a person from attaining righteousness. It thus becomes clear that if the law – which is given by God – cannot help a person become righteous, then human works are even less useful (Thesis 2). In addition, there is an even more dangerous trap: when we trust in human works (those that appear good and righteous), they fill us with sinful spiritual pride. Thus, the more “attractive” our works appear (i.e., good and righteous), the more likely they are to be occasion for the increase of sinfulness (Theses 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10).
The corollary to this treatment of human works is Luther’s understanding of God’s work – more specifically, of God’s “alien” work. God’s alien work is how God uses the law (Luther will turn to God’s proper work later in the disputation). “[God’s alien work] is understood to mean that the Lord humbles and frightens us by means of the law and the sight of our sin” (Thesis 4). In contrast to our “attractive” works of righteousness, God uses the law in this “unattractive” way to convince us of our sinfulness and defeat all spiritual pride (Theses 4, 6). Once that pride is broken and we are aware of our sinfulness, we begin to fear condemnation for those works in which we used to take pride (Theses 9, 11, 12).
Luther’s treatment of God’s alien work is continued in Theses 13-18 as he deals with why human works are so ineffectual in attaining righteousness. This reason is laid out quite clearly in Thesis 13: “Free will, after the fall, exists in name only … for the will is captive and subject to sin.” Thus, if a person were to trust in his or her natural abilities and “do that which is in him,” he or she would be relying on a will bound to sin.[4] The purpose of this is to make humanity despair of our own abilities and powers to save ourselves, and seek only the power and grace of Christ (Theses 17-18).
Having described how humans are unable to save themselves through their will, their works, or the law, Luther turns to the real topic at hand. In Theses 19-23, Luther contrasts the way of glory (theologia gloriae) with the way of the cross (theologia crucis). The difference between the two lies in the starting place of their theology: the theologian of glory begins with human reason and contemplates God as God exists in eternity; the theologian of the cross begins with God’s self-revelation, and contemplates the God who is most fully known in the cross (Theses 19-20).
These ways of approaching theology have direct effect on how we think about righteousness. The theologian of glory will speak of work, strength, and earning – in short, he or she will call on Christians to rely on their own abilities to gain righteousness. The theologian of the cross will speak of weakness, service, and the cross – in short, he or she will call on Christians to rely only on Christ and the cross to gain righteousness (Theses 21-23).
It is only then – when we have come to see only the God revealed in the cross, when we have despaired in our ability to earn righteousness, and when we have learned to rely wholly on Christ – that a new life can begin. This new life is Luther’s topic for Theses 24-28. It is then that we can realize that all has already been done for us by Christ (Thesis 26). It is then that we can see that our deeds do not produce righteousness, but rather the righteousness that we have been given produces good deeds in us (Thesis 25). Most importantly, we can then see that we do not have to be “good” in order for God to love us, but that God’s love creates in us goodness, righteousness, and holiness where there was none before. This is what it means to be a theologian of the cross, to follow the way of the cross.

III. What is Lutheran Worship?
Having defined – at least in a preliminary way – the theology of the cross, the next task is to give some shape to what is meant by “Lutheran worship.” As with the theology of the cross, there are many resources available that are more in-depth than this overview. My intent is not to provide a comprehensive study of the development of Lutheran liturgy or of current Lutheran worship. Rather, I seek to provide a common basic understanding of Lutheran worship.
Lutherans have long understood worship to be a beneficium rather than an officium.[5] That is to say, in worship Christians receive a benefit from God; they do not do a work. This follows directly from Luther’s understanding of justification. In justification, humanity does not offer its works (which are all sinful and imperfect) to God, instead God offers to humanity the benefits and grace of Christ. This principle was then applied to our worship; e.g., humanity does not offer any work to God in worship, instead the worshippers receive from God the benefits and grace of Christ.
This can be seen most clearly in the liturgies that Luther developed. In 1523, Luther developed an “evangelical form of saying the mass and administering communion,” known as the Formula Missae.[6] Luther’s goal was to develop an order of service that was in no way “polluted” with the language of being a work. Luther kept large portions of the medieval Mass, but removed the canon of the mass, the offertory, and anything that spoke of the sacrifice or work of the people or priest. Thus, Luther’s Formula Missae is best known not for anything new he developed in it, but for what he removed.
A similar emphasis – on the beneficium rather than the officium – can be seen in modern Lutheran worship. The centerpiece of North American Lutheran worship has become the weekly celebration of Holy Communion.[7] When most Lutherans attend worship, they do so knowing that they will receive communion. It is in that central sacrament that Lutheran worshippers receive the body and blood, receive the grace of Christ, and receive the gifts of God.[8]
Yet, Lutheran worship is more than the sacrament alone. If the sacrament is the centerpiece of worship, it is never present without the ministry of the Word. Indeed, “the two principal parts of the liturgy of Holy Communion, the proclamation of the Word of God and the celebration of the sacramental meal, are so intimately connected as to form one act of worship.”[9] In a sense, all worshippers share a responsibility for the work of proclaiming the Word.[10] However, most worshippers primarily experience the ministry of the Word in passively listening to the sermon and readings, hearing the absolution, and experiencing any special music or art.
Thus, Lutheran worship can be characterized as the reception of God’s grace and benefits through Word and Sacrament. Certainly there is more to Lutheran worship than this, but this sketch provides us with the primary focus and emphasis of Lutheran liturgical life. With this understanding of Lutheran worship and the above definition of the theology of the cross, the tools are now in hand to look at where the two intersect.

IV. What is the liturgy of the theologia crucis?
a) Worship, the Cross, and God Pro Nobis
Lutheran Worship, as described above, centers on the God who is pro nobis, for us. It is God who is for us in the giving of the Son, it is the Son who is for us in the meal, and it is the Spirit who is for us in bringing us the benefits of the Word and Sacraments. The God who is pro nobis is precisely the God proclaimed in the Heidelberg Disputation. God is for us most fully in the cross of Christ.
Theses 1-18 of the Heidelberg Disputation lay out humanity’s inability to earn anything in regard to righteousness. Therefore, we need a God who is for us, because we cannot do anything pro nobis. What we cannot do, God did for us on the cross and continues to do for us in worship.
Furthermore, if we cannot do anything for ourselves, how can we possibly do anything for God? Thus Luther argues that the Mass “does not take benefit from us, but gives benefit to us … Just as in baptism, in which there is also a divine testament and sacrament, no one Gives God anything or does him a service, but instead takes something, so it is in all other sacraments and in the sermon as well.”[11] Insofar as our wills are held in bondage by sin, the sacraments in particular and worship in general (1) cannot earn us righteousness, and (2) cannot offer any benefit to God.
This was the principle that Luther was following in excising any language about our work from the Formula Missae. Luther’s words about the rejection of indulgences could just as easily be applied to his rejection of our work in worship: “it establishes and bases satisfaction for sins upon the works of men and the merits of saints, whereas only Christ can make and has made satisfaction for us.”[12]
Hence, Lutheran worship expresses the same understanding of human abilities and power expressed by the theology of the cross: “Much less can human works which are done over and over again with the aid of natural precepts, so to speak, lea to [righteousness” (Thesis 2). If in our worship we must rely on ourselves, we are lost – we need the God who is pro nobis. Further, of our own powers we have nothing to offer God, but we humbly receive God’s gifts.
However, that is not all there is in the theology of the cross. Luther also sets forth his thoughts about what we become after we have been given the grace and love of God. There is in fact more to the Christian life than despairing of our own abilities and turning to God. This second half of the Christian life is what Luther treats in Theses 24-28. Unless this part of the Heidelberg Disputation also influences our worship, we only have a half-formed theology of the cross.

b) Worshipping as a New Creation
The Christian life does not consist of, but rather begins with, our justification. We are not meant to live forever in the despair caused by our inability to earn our own righteousness. Instead, we are to accept Christ’s righteousness through faith, and live out that righteousness. If Theses 1-23 deal with our inability to earn righteousness, then Theses 24-28 deal with our new righteousness in Christ.
This is a topic Luther wrote about at some length the year following the Heidelberg Disputation. On Palm Sunday in 1519, Luther preached a sermon entitled Two Kinds of Righteousness. The first half deals with the righteousness that is instilled in us from without. This is the righteousness of the first half of the Heidelberg Disputation, the righteousness which we cannot earn or achieve in any way. Because we cannot earn this righteousness, it is “through faith in Christ, therefore, [that] Christ’s righteousness becomes our righteousness and all that he has becomes ours; rather, he himself becomes ours.”[13] This righteousness cannot be earned, but can only be given as grace.
There is a second righteousness, which comes from the first kind. This righteousness, our “proper righteousness” comes after our justification. The second righteousness is this: “We work with that first and alien righteousness” by loving our neighbor, fearing God, and learning to suppress our sinful selves.[14] The righteousness of Christ – a righteousness which is completely extra nos and sine nos – gives birth to the new righteousness of the Christian. But what does this second righteousness have to do with the theology of the cross? In short, everything.
Thesis 28 of the Heidelberg Disputation reads: “The love of God does not find, but creates, that which is pleasing to it.” We do not need to try harder, to earn more, to obey more, generally to be better. Instead, we need to be re-created. Thus Saint Paul says: “If anyone is in Christ, that one is a new creation” (2 Cor 5:17). The love of God and the righteousness of Christ, given to us in the power of the Spirit, make us a re-created people with a re-created righteousness. We possess the righteousness given to us by Christ, and we also possess a righteousness of our re-created selves, which cooperates with Christ.
This second righteousness, the righteousness of the new creation, does not in any way effect salvation. Instead, the opposite is true: our salvation and re-creation cause a new righteousness to be born in us. That a person receives Christ’s righteousness does not mean “that the righteous person does nothing, but that his works do not make him righteous, rather his righteousness creates works” (Thesis 25). Let me repeat: this righteousness is not salvation, which can only come through faith and the passive reception of Christ’s righteousness. It is, instead, how a Christian lives after receiving the justifying grace of God.
As long as Lutheran liturgy focuses only on the beneficium of worship, it negates this second, integral part of the Christian life. The question then becomes can Lutheran worship express the officium of our proper righteousness while still emphasizing the beneficium of Christ’s saving righteousness? Can a people in bondage to sin worship the God who is pro nobis, while also worshipping God as God’s own new creation? Can any of this happen within the context of the theologia crucis?

c) Eucharist, Doxology, and the Cross
Thesis 28: “The love of God does not find, but create, that which is pleasing to it.”
What does it mean, in terms of our worship life, to say that we have been re-created as that which is pleasing to God? How do we worship as God’s new creation, created to fulfill God’s pleasure and enabled to so by the Spirit?
As prolegomena, it must be said that this form of worship – worship as the new creation – is secondary to our redemption by the grace of Christ. Insofar as we remain estranged from Christ’s righteousness and attempt to earn God’s love, this kind of worship is not possible. Any sort of worship as the new creation can and must only happen after we have come to trust and rely only on God for our salvation.
Lutherans have traditionally defined sin as giving others credit for what God has done (idolatry) and the failure to trust God (unbelief).[15] If this is true, then it would seem that our new creation would be the inverse; i.e., we would be re-created to recognize God for all God has done, and we would be properly able to trust and believe in God. How would this change the language and action of our worship?
First, we would speak eucharistically; i.e., we would be re-created as a people who give thanks to God. This is our gift to God once we recognize what God has done for us. There are those who might argue that this upsets the balance between beneficium and officium in our worship. My response would be that even when we offer something to God (officium), it must be properly understood as God’s gift to us (beneficium).
The love of God does not find, but creates that which is pleasing to it. If we are able to speak eucharistically, it is only because God has created that ability in us. God is ultimately the giver and the recipient of the gift of eucharist – we are only the means by which God gives and receives the gift. If we speak of our giving eucharist to God, it is in a secondary way – dependent on this understanding of God as both benefactor and beneficiary.
Thus, the theology of the cross teaches us to despair of our own abilities and see that it is God on whom we must wholly rely. When we have done this, we cannot help but be overwhelmed by the magnitude of all that God has done and be filled with thanksgiving for it. Yet, that we are even able to give thanks is a result of God’s re-creating of us. To be God’s new creation means, first and foremost, to be made into a eucharistic people.
There is a second facet to God’s new creation that also addresses our primary sin of idolatry. As has been noted above, when we no longer claim for ourselves the work of God as our own achievement we are given a certain clarity about the magnitude of God’s work for us. “A theologian of the cross calls the thing what it actually is” (Thesis 21). The work is, above all else, the work of the cross. It is through the cross that God has done what our noblest abilities could not, which is to save us from our sins. It is in the weakness of that execution that God shows the divine strength. It is in the folly of the cross that God shows the divine wisdom. Moreover, it is in the shame and suffering of the cross that God shows the true divine glory.
What is our response to this love that dies on the cross and re-creates us to be pleasing to God? How ought we worship such a love? “Doxology, which is the living language of faith in which praise is offered in gratitude for the abundance of God’s generous love, is the proper response to the revelation of God’s ineffable existence as self-imparting love and communion.”[16] Doxology is the partner of eucharist in the language of the church’s worship. Just as God’s love creates us to be eucharistic – giving thanks for all God has done – it also creates us to be doxological – giving praise for the glory of God’s mighty works.
One might think that this language, the language of doxology, is antithetical to a true theology of the cross. After all, if we speak of God’s glory, is that not a theology of glory? However, I would argue that we can speak a true doxology only while standing in the shadow of the cross. That is, Christian theology and worship can only truly be about the glory of God if it is about the glory of the crucified God. Modern attempts to construct a theologia crucis have focused on the suffering and weakness of the cross. Yet what are that weakness and suffering but expressions of God’s true glory and strength. The cross is the telos of doxology: that one event enacted what all doxologies have said imperfectly. Thus, through the love of the cross, we are re-created to give God the doxology of the cross.

V. Conclusion
The issue in finding the liturgy of the theology of the cross is whether we worship as unredeemed fallen humanity or as God’s redeemed new creation. Or, to put it another way, is the moment of worship before or after the moment of justification?
Perhaps the best answer can be found in Luther’s doctrine of simul iustus et peccator. Here Luther taught that we are “simultaneously justified and sinners;” we are at once God’s saints and the world’s sinners. Every moment in the life of a Christian is both the moment before and the moment after justification. As Luther said, “For [the righteousness of justification] is not instilled all at once, but it begins, makes progress, and is finally perfected at the end through death.”[17]
Thus, our worship must also be simul iustus et peccator. We worship the God who will be pro nobis as people who can do nothing for themselves and can offer nothing to God, and we respond to the God who has already given us the righteousness of the Son. The liturgy of the theology of the cross requires both. Thesis 1 of the Heidelberg Disputation is incomplete without its complement in Thesis 28.
Lutherans understand how to worship as sinful humanity, unable to offer anything to God. This is worship that focuses on the beneficium offered by God to the assembly. This type of worship will avoid language about what we can for God, and instead focuses on what God has done and is doing for us. This is the worship of our confession, and the worship that recognizes the great gifts of the sacraments.
Lutherans are have been less exposed to worship as God’s redeemed new creation. This is our worship of officium in which we give to God that which God has created in us: i.e., our eucharist and doxology. This is a gift unlike any other; in this gift God is the source, content, and recipient of the gift. Here we offer our thanksgiving and praise to God – to the God who saves through the cross – with our words and actions.
This is the crossroad of liturgy and the theology of the cross. When the assembly of those who are both sinners and saints gathers, the God of the cross is truly present. In this worship the gifts of the God who will always be for us are received, and words of doxology and eucharist are spoken in the shadow of Christ’s cross. This is the worship of a people who have nothing to offer God, but in whom God’s love has created gifts that yearn to be returned to God.

VI. Bibliography

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The Use of the Means of Grace: A Statement on the Practice of Word and Sacrament. 1997.
Luther, Martin. Heidelberg Disputation in Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, Timothy Lull, ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.
-----------. An Order of Mass and Communion (Formula Missae) in Luther’s Works, vol. 53, Jaroslav Pelikan et. al. eds. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965.
-----------. Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper in Luther’s Works, vol. 37, Jaroslav Pelikan et. al. eds. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965.
-----------. Treatise on the New Testament, that is the Mass in Luther’s Works, vol. 35, Jaroslav Pelikan et. al. eds. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965.
Lacugna, Catherine Mowry. God For Us: The Trinity & the Christian Life. San Francisco, HarperCollins, 1991.
McGrath, Alister E. Luther’s Theology of the Cross: Martin Luther’s Theological Breakthrough. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1990.
Thompson, Deanna. Crossing the Divide: Luther, Feminism, and the Cross. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004.

_____________
Notes

[1] As an example, the American Edition of Luther’s works (1957) gives 5 pages of introduction to the 95 Theses, and only 1 to the Heidelberg Disputation. Or, to cite another example, Kurt Aland’s History of Christianity (1985) lists 45 of Luther’s works in the index, but not HD.
[2] A Google search on “Theology of the Cross” brings up more than 43,000 sites.
[3] The most in depth treatment of the historical and theological development of the Heidelberg Disputation is found in Alister McGrath, Luther’s Theology of the Cross (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1995).
[4] Quod in se est was the medieval way of speaking of humanities participation in God’s grace. The understanding was that a person did “that which is within him” in order to prepare for God’s grace.
[5] This is the foundation of Luther’s rejection of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice (see below on the Formula Missae). Luther’s rejection of this late medieval understanding of the Mass was a rejection of any sort of atoning work in worship.
[6] Luther, An Order of Mass and Communion (LW 53).
[7] C.f., The Use of the Means of Grace (UMG), Principle 35.
[8] UMG, Principle 31.
[9] UMG, Principle 34.
[10] UMG, Principle 8.
[11] Luther, Treatise on the New Testament, (LW vol. 35) 19.
[12] Luther, Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, (LW vol. 37), p. 368.
[13] Luther, Two Kinds of Righteousness, (LW vol. 31) p. 298.
[14] Luther, Two Kinds of Righteousness, p.299.
[15] C.f., CA 2, Large Catechism on First Commandment, Heidelberg Disputation Theses 8 & 16.
[16] Catherine Mowry Lacugna, God For Us, p. 324.
[17] Luther, Two Kinds of Righteousness, p. 299.

Seminary Emergency

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor David) — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:03:00 +0000

For quite some time, many have been saying that the nine seminaries of the ELCA are underfunded. For the last twenty years, the percentage of seminary expenses that have been covered by benevolence funds has been steadily on the decline. I just received word this morning that the current financial crisis is starting to push our educational institutions over the edge.

The Wartburg Seminary has declared exigency (thus revoking tenure) and are letting go of 3 faculty and 5 staff. Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago is up against a $1 million shortfall. In addition, the Lutheran Seminary Program of the Southwest, which is a joint extension of both schools, will be discontinuing the MDiv program there and focusing on the "Theological Education for Emerging Ministries" program.

I have a feeling that we will be hearing similar stories from the other seminaries of the ELCA in the weeks to come, this news just happened to reach me first. And I wonder, how did we get into this situation? And now that we are here, how do we get out?

There was a time - not that long ago - that seminary education was 100% funded at denominational institutions. The belief was that the persons being trained at the schools were trained for the sake of the church - and thus, the church carried the cost. Today, the average seminarian comes out of school with at least $30,000 in debt (higher if you are a first career pastor, straight out of college). The question becomes, who can afford to be a pastor? If you already have college debt, no significant savings (because you have not yet had a career), and you are looking down the barrel of another at least $30,000 in debt, how can seminary be an option?

The problem is compounded by the impending clergy shortage. Last year at the ~~draft~~ assignment process, the synods of the ELCA request 500 first call pastors for immediate placement - but there were only 265 graduates from ELCA seminaries. Our bishops are projecting that somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 pastors will retire every year for the next ten years.

So where do we go from here?

Some further thoughts and conversation posted here.