Territorial Bloggings

The abrupt cancellation of the LCMS radio station KFUO’s flagship program, as well as the firing of its host & producer, last Tuesday was bizarre, inexplicable, troubling, and hurtful. But the lack of explanation re: the reasons & rationale, indeed the appearance of corporate stonewalling & information embargo along with an almost Stalin-esqe purge (even now, the once-again-available archives are looking to be bandwidth-throttled), is what is perhaps the most troubling & difficult to fathom. It’s really hard to put a proper 8th Commandment best construction on such acts.

Chris Rosebrough, a fairly regular guest on Issues, Etc., and a dedicated & effective apologist for orthodox Christianity (and thus, Lutheranism) re: American Evangelicalism & the Emergent Church Movement, has put forth what looks to be a very reasonable & well thought out explanation about what might be (and probably is) behind this whole Issues, Etc. debacle.

Is the LCMS Being “Transitioned” into a Seeker-Sensitive Denomination?

At first glance, this might look to be alarmist — a conspiracy theory even — to the point of not being charitable. However, I would offer this analysis: Such an explanation is not necessarily pejorative, in that this type of “transitional” strategy has been viewed by many as good, right, and proper. I, and many others, would disagree vehemently with that assessment; however, disagreeing with a strategy & set of tactics is not unkind or sinful in and of itself.

It is recognizing something for what it is.

Such recognition is good.

And it certainly helps bring some of the strangeness of the past week (and beyond) in to a little more understandable focus.

-ghp

Recently, I’ve read two very good postings by Pr. Beisel (post 1 & post 2) over at One Lutheran…Ablogâ„¢. Both of these postings engage a larger battle currently raging in the LCMS under the general umbrella of the official synodical Ablaze! program/initiative, particularly as it pertains to missions. I recommend that you read both posts & the resulting comment threads, as they are interesting, informative, & nicely illustrative of the false dichotomy that some (not Pr. Beisel!) have created between doctrine & mission.

After reading these posts, a though occurred to me regarding what seems to be a foundational tenet of the missional movement: Relevance.

More specifically, my thought was about the juxtaposition of relevance with reverence.

Reverence, as an operational underpinning of the Divine Service, has been primary modus operandi of the Apostolic/post-Apostolic Church for the first 2000 years of its existence. I.e., reverence in worship is key. Reverence for God and the gifts He bestows upon us in the Divine Service.

Relevance, on the other hand, is a more recent innovation, at least as the main/primary focus of worship. The thinking seems to go along the lines of “If we make things familiar, approachable, and “relevant” to the unchurched, then we can/will have greater success in reaching them…”

Thus, reverence is pitted against relevance.

A recent article in Newsday illustrates this ginned-up conflict through the prism of the whole LCMS Ablaze! project/movement. Even keeping in mind the fact that press write-ups are simplistic & lean towards attention-grabbing quotes, it’s still disheartening to read references made about being “…more in tune with what people are hearing today…” & churches being “populated by people who are not just old white guys.” Please note that preaching Christ crucified to all people is meet, right, & proper — I’m more concerned about the dismissive attitude towards the souls you’ve already “got”. “Get ‘em & forget ‘em” (at the risk of hyperbole) is not a Lutheran approach to shepherding the faithful.

Music & the (lack of) liturgy are on the very front-lines of the battle raging between relevance & reverence, as is the question of whether or not the Divine/Worship Service is an outreach/mission tool. One side hurls the epithets of “boring” & “dead orthodoxy”, while the other responds with “tradition” & “confessional/doctrinal integrity”. They very often talk past each other, even as they use the same words, albeit with different definitions.

I decry the sacrifice of reverence on the altar of relevance. What could be more “relevant” than a joyous reverence as shown in the ancient liturgies of the Church handed down from the saints who preceded us in the Faith? “Relevant” needs to be properly understood as that which God reveals to us for our own good, rather than that which seems/feels good or right to us.

Why are “entertaining,” “moving,” and “new & different” automatically viewed as “better” and/or more “effective”? Why are numbers & measurables held in such high esteem? Why is aping the prevalent culture viewed as the best course of action? How is all of that somehow more “relevant” than hewing to what the Church has held near & dear?

The Church is, and always has been, different than the culture that surrounded it (Romans 12:1-2). That’s a good thing. To try and preach the Gospel by making that Gospel conform to what is worldly appealing is not Scriptural. The Gospel does its work by transforming us – we merely preach it & get out of the way. We don’t do the work by transforming & repackaging the Gospel to make it more “acceptable” and thus “effective”.

Our goal in worship ought to be a joyous reverence or to be reverently joyful, in response to the gifts bestowed on us by our loving & gracious God – He is the focus. If we seek to be relevant, even if it be joyous, entertaining, & “successful” (by worldly measures), we seek the wrong thing.

May our gracious Lord & Savior protect us, keep us, and watch over us, so that we may be ever vigilant and faithful as we live out our God-given vocations!

-ghp

All too rare is the blog posting that generates a comment thread that outshines the original post. Father Hollywood has done just that with his post Emerging Luther? !

Not only is the main post a great analysis of the increasingly interesting “Emergent Church” phenomena, particularly as it is impacting the LCMS, but the comments that follow the main post are worthy of separate consideration in their own right. This is particularly true for the comments by Fr. Hollywood, wherein he does a great job of simply & concisely explaining Lutheranism’s relationship to both Rome & Constantinople, as well as to all of the myriad splinters that emerged (no pun intended) from Geneva.

While I had known that Wittenberg has greater kinship with Rome & Constantinople, and much less than with Geneva (and its offspring), I had never connected the dots with quite the clarity that Fr. H does. Rather than rehash his statements, doing them dishonor in the process, I’ll just recommend that you head over to read them at his place.

-ghp

Release the hounds!

Take some more pastors out of the pulpit & make them administrative investigators! (and then don’t forget to talk up the resulting “shortage”…)

Find the culprit!

A list of the Top 10 Church website designs, and nary a reference to Ablaze!?

Inconceivable!

Seriously, though, the designs of the websites might be good, but I bet the theology isn’t. I’m particularly taken aback by the 4th one down, where they profess that church should be “religion free”. What, now?

I wish this was an entry over at Horn+swoggled, rather than something I saw at Digg…

-ghp

Another HT needs to be sent CAT41‘s way, as there was another message sent out on Tuesday that shows the level of theological sophistication that can be found amongst the CAT41 confessional cognoscenti.

The subject of the message was the LCMS Ablaze! boondoggle. Specifically, it was in response to a question asking something along the lines of, “Isn’t Ablaze! pretty much in line with what we’re called to do in the Great Commission (Mt 28:18-20)?”

The proprietor of Die Schreiben von Schreiber responded with a fabulous point-by-point explanation of just where, how, & why Ablaze! falls woefully short of being theologically sound in either concept or execution. The full posting (Ablaze comments) can be found here.

I’m fully on board with what Herr Schreiber has written — I only wish I had written it first!

Highly recommended!

-ghp

[Up-Front HT to CAT41's Table Talk list!]

It’s fascinating that a Methodist congregation would tout the programming of the LCMS’s KFUO radio station more than most every LCMS congregation, but it seems to be true. It’s also the case that this UMC congregation is prominently featured on the KFUO homepage. Fascinating, but troubling.

As was asked on CAT41′s Table Talk — “Are we more Methodist or are they more Lutheran?”

I’d like to think that it’s more that quality content is carrying the day, and that folks are responding to that. For, that is a far more palatable consideration than is the idea that they are responding positively because they are hearing what their itching ears want to hear.

There is, however, one piece of information that sorta tips the scales for me: They don’t include Issues, Etc. on their list of ‘touted’ programs. This, to me, seems quite indicative. :dizzy:

Issues, Etc. is a fabulous chunk of talk radio goodness. Rev. Todd Wilken does a tremendous job of (I just love this tagline of Issues, Etc.! ) “Defending the faith … teaching the truth!” In my opinion, Issues, Etc. is the crown jewel of the LCMS’s broadcasting services (and, yes, I’m including the Lutheran Hour in that assessment! ).

Now, I’d hate to think that I’m giving in to any sectarian/separatist inclinations that are lurking within, but I do find this mutual admiration society a bit troubling. When it comes right down to it, there are some deal-breaking differences between what we believe, teach, & confess, and what they believe, teach, & confess. I have no doubt whatsoever that there are some good Lutherans in the Methodist church (because, as I know you remember, Lutheran = Christian & Christian = Lutheran — it’s what our Confessions state & what we believe…), even if they don’t know it (and even if they’d be horrified by the label… ) yet.

In the end, it’s sad that I don’t have the full confidence in all of the programming that KFUO puts out, that I have in Issues, Etc. But don’t. I’ve heard some of it, and it strikes me as way too Methobapticostal in its theological stance. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case with much of what’s coming out of the Purple Palace these days — why, you could say that it’s Ablaze! with such shoddy theology. :dizzy:

Work calls (that pesky vocation!), so I’m not going to flesh this out any more before I post it. If there are any questions, just let me know & we’ll discuss it in the comments thread.

-ghp

Nothing like a little synodical politics to make one feel all warm & snarky…

So I finally read the February Pastoral Letter from the President of the LCMS, (NOTE: I’m not a pastor, but I do subscribe to the email distribution of this letter, as it is made available at the synod’s website and I like to know what’s being said for official/public consumption…) and I must say that I was struck by the sectional titles:

• “President’s Leadership News”
• “What do your people know of Ablaze!?
• “For what it’s worth…”
• “Our public face”
• “St. Valentine”
• “A parting word of encouragement”

Now, this might seem rather innocuous, and it might very well be just that; however, I just found it interesting that the lead section was a reminder of the fact that there wasn’t a January Pastoral Letter, but that there had been a printed copy of a new “President’s Leadership News” distributed instead. Personally, the change in tone from “Pastoral Letter” to “Leadership News” is more than a little off-putting to me — I don’t like the coporatization of the church, not one little bit. The pastor is the pastor, not the CEO who dazzles us with his visionary leadership!

The second section, about Ablaze!, is just too funny because it reads to me like a bit of a scolding for everyone who isn’t touting the party line. I’d love it if he asked me what I know about Ablaze! — 1) It was originally developed for the Methodists, who ended up not wanting it, 2) It focuses on numbers & measuring what we do, 3) It’s got a hokey counter on a cheesy webpage, and 4) For all the previous reasons (and so many more) it’s neither Lutheran, nor theologically sound.

The third section, “For what it’s worth…” isn’t worth all that much, as it is based on some Barna Research Group “research.” I put research in quotes because George Barna tends to make some rather dubious claims based on his polling data (i.e., theologically suspect & decidedly non-Lutheran claims…). This section is lobbing some grenades to no real stated purpose, and I’m not sure that’s anywhere close to being a good thing.

The fourth section, “Our public face”, is probably ok. But there’s definitely a danger in worrying too much about external appearances, and too little about internal theological integrity & consistancy. [much sarcastic text removed by ghp's New Adam...]

Anyway, at the end of a long week, there was something about this “pastoral” letter that just set me off a little. There’s so much that’s disingenuous about the political hierarchy within the LCMS these days that it’s unfortunately hard for me take things at face value (I mean, when “disingenuous” is truly believed to be the best construction…)

-ghp

An always interesting topic is that of when the LCMS will degenerate to the point that women will be officially allowed to call themselves “pastors” (note: I did not say “become”, because even if/when the LCMS blesses such sinful usurpation, said women will most certainly NOT actually be pastors…).

Tim, over at Balaam’s Ass, and Christopher, over at Outer Rim Territories, have made some nice comments & observations on this topic (Tim having started it all, while Christopher used Tim’s posting as a nice reason for commenting…). The comments are really nothing new — rather, they shouldn’t be seen as anything new — but given the dearth of orthodox (i.e., Lutheran) catechesis & discipline in today’s Ablaze!-ing _{(pat. pending, all rights reserved, the Purple Palace)} LCMS, it wouldn’t surprise me that a great many folks would be aghast — aghast, I tell you! — that there are actually curmudgeonly troglodytes who would twist — twist, I tell you! — the Bible to subjugate — subjugate, I tell you! — women.

I kid because I love. I tell the truth — women cannot be pastors, and even if they call themselves such, it don’t make it so! — also because I love. And we must exert proper discipline because we — as the Bible calls us to do — love. Even when, as Kansas so aptly put it, Love Hurts. (But remember — Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that, as J. Geils so pithily proclaimed, Love Stinks! )

In the end, I agree with the good seminarians from CSSL (Tim) and CTSFW (Christopher), that it is pretty much a sure thing that women will be ordained at some point in the LCMS. And I don’t think that it’s going to take all that terribly long to happen. Eventually, those who will demand it will no longer be kept quiet/held in check by those who want to wield the “power” of a non-sundered organization. And when that happens (and it will), all bets will be off, and a whole lot of folks who didn’t want to prepare to make an informed decisions will be unjustifiably shocked — shocked, I tell you! — that such problems could sneak up on them with no warning.

-ghp

You know, I really don’t derive any pleasure from criticizing the leadership of the LCMS (or at least, I try not to… ), but they keep doing things that drive me to comment.

The latest instance was brought to my attention by Worldmagblog.com ortho-babe Bunnie Diehl’s blog entry titled What’s Lutheran Here?, and further blogged on by Bob Waters at watersblogged! (the newest entry on my blogroll…). Bunnie & Bob report & comment on the latest form of inanity to come out of St. Louis touting (pimping? nah, that’s too coarse…) & promoting the Ablaze! boondoggle. (check out my earlier comments on this initiative)

Now, Bob made some really insightful observations, following up on Bunnie’s orginal commentary. The best of which was Hasn’t it occurred to anybody in St. Louis that if we wanted to be Methobapticostals, we would join Methobapticostal congregations? My sentiments exactly.

That got me thinking, though. I wonder if mayhaps the denizens of the Purple Palace in St. Louis aren’t self-hating Lutherans at heart. That would explain quite a bit about why they seem to be in such a headlong rush to give away the birthright of orthodox Lutheran theology for the pottage of worldly popularity and man-recognized “success.”

And they might not even be too bent out of shape at being criticized in such a pop-psychology-driven way…

-ghp

A very good personal opinion piece by Rob can be found at Beggars All. Thanks to Bunnie over at Worldmagblog.com for brining this to my attention…

In this piece, Rob clearly lays out the danger that undergirds the folly that has been foisted upon us by Lutheran Church Missouri Synod President Kieschnick, in the form of his latest evangelism/outreach program, Ablaze!. Ablaze! is a $100,000,000 boondoggle of a program that, from what I have been able to find out, was developed for another, mainline protestant, church body, but which was ultimately never purchased & used by that church body. And, as the LCMS seemingly always seems to be about a generation behind in wanting to adopt contemporary American religious fads (just about as they are sputtering towards a discredited conclusion), Ablaze! has now been adopted in all of its church-growthy, numbers-centric & seeker-”relevant” glory.

The Law based & driven approach of contemporary American evangelicalism (in either Calvinistic or Arminian flavor) is a path fraught with danger, for it focuses on what man can/should/must do to help save himself (as if to call Christ on the cross a lier for proclaiming “It is finished!”…), along with setting human developed & measurable goals for determining “success”.

Despite our innate desire to feel important, relevant, and part of a/the/any process, there is nothing, I repeat NOTHING, that we can do to help save ourselves. We are no more able to help than a physically dead man can “help” himself start breathing again, or than a baby can “help” himself be born.

Programs like Ablaze! are theologically suspect, and border on spiritual malpractice, because their very methods encourage, if not outright demand, that folks take the focus off of faithful execution of the Christ-mandated & Spirit-driven proclaiming, teaching, & baptizing, and put the focus on achieving arbitrary numeric goals. We can never meet the challenge, and fulfill the requirements of the Law, much less determine a numeric measure that would prove that we did so.

Ablaze! takes a good Lutheran concept like evangelism, strips away the nurturing core of doctrinal Truth & integrity, buries the remaining shell in natural bovine fertilizer, and calls it “good,” because it’s based on the discarded recipe that was picked up on the sidewalk in front of the oh-so-trendy wack-jobs down the street.

<*sigh*>

-ghp