Territorial Bloggings

There is so much that is both right and wrong, good and bad about this video clip, words almost fail me. I must confess that it enchants me. Not for the theology, but for the simple fact that it’s a catchy little new wave/pop ditty that is so rich with cheeze that it’s almost sinfully good. I think back to the early 80′s, and that song makes perfect sense, both musically and visually. And God help me, I love it. For some reason, whenever I see the background singers doing their little wiggly-dance-thingy, I think of the Joan Cusack character in Sixteen Candles (the girl who wore the back brace), when she was at the school dance, doing her little wiggly-move-back-and-forth dance. And I giggle.

Zap!

HT: BJS – and go there for a good outline & discussion of why this video is an object lesson against falling prey to “contemporary” worship fads.

-ghp

From the Oct 25, 2008 Belief Watch column in Newsweek:

“With a scrap of bagel and a sip of Crystal Light, Beth McDonald gave communion to her husband. Then, after a blessing, he gave communion to her. Music played as the celebrant intoned the ancient words, “Do this in remembrance of me.” The experience was among the most spiritually powerful of her life. “I had my eyes closed,” McDonald told me. “We were praying … I got really choked up.”

McDonald was not in church; she was in her living room in Minnesota. The celebrant was not at church; he was at home, in Santa Fe, N.M. Other participants logged on from Sri Lanka, Australia and the Netherlands. Through streaming video and the Internet, all were joined in holy communion.

As technology reshapes our world, as our “friends” become the people we know on Facebook as well as the ones we invite home for dinner, the definition of community is taking on radically new meanings. Nowhere is the concept of community more crucial than in religion. In the West, people traditionally worship together, in a group, in one room; that togetherness has theological import. In Christianity, the sacrament of communion underscores the unity of the faithful; consuming the consecrated bread and wine binds Christians with each other, with the saints in heaven and with the Lord. Now, at the farthest corners of the Christian world, a few people are applying new-tech concepts of community to this ancient rite. The example above is among the most avant-garde. The celebrant, Zeph Daniel, is a musician who preaches online to a group of Christians disconnected from the traditional church. One of his slogans is “Leave religion and find God.”"

This is neither Holy, nor Communion. Discuss…

-ghp

Something of note, from a bright, sunny Saturday in Valparaiso…

We got a visit from some wandering Watchtower folks this afternoon. A nice enough lady, and what looked to be her tween-age daughter. Now, I’m not a huge fan of these visits from the non-Christian sects, largely because I really don’t like the adrenaline jolt I get from the confrontation of beliefs. I’ve read the CPH How To Respond books, and read the reports from other Lutheran folks about how they’ve dealt with similar visits. But that pesky adrenaline jolt tends to cloud my mind & tie my tongue.

The Watchtower lady led off with a question about if I thought we might be in the end times, as described in the Bible. I responded by stating that we’ve been in the ‘end times’ ever since Jesus ascended into heaven after dying on the cross for our sins & rising from the dead. This didn’t seem to throw her, as she then moved into some of the Watchtower tract offerings.

I stopped her, having recalled a tactic that others have reported using, and said that I didn’t have time to continue the conversation, but that I’d be glad to schedule a time for another discussion, and that I’d like to have my Pastor there to participate in the discussion. This threw her a bit. She responded by saying that they’d love to come back, but that she didn’t see any reason why my Pastor needed to be there – that they’d prefer to discuss things solely with me, and not bother having someone like a Pastor there who would not be open to their message. And, oh by the way, just why did I think my Pastor needed to be there?

Well, I responded by stating that my Pastor has been charged with my spiritual well being. He is the undershepherd to whom I have been entrusted. Thus, I would not be comfortable engaging in this type of discussion without him there to help the discussion stay productive & beneficial.

At this point, she quickly began disengaging from the sales pitch, asking if I’d be interested in taking any of the Watchtower tracts for further reading. I declined.

What I found most interesting in this whole exchange was the bold, and bald-faced, way in which this friendly, but sadly & horrifically misguided, woman was attempting to steal me away for her non-Christian sect (dare I say, cult), and how she wanted no part of a more open discussion, when such a discussion involved a Christian Pastor. Nope, she wanted the beginnings of a brainwashing process, by which a sheep is taken away by a wolf. Shameless.

I thank God that He protected me, and gave me the words and awareness by which I could fend off Satan’s attack.

-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

This — Top 100 Fundamentalist Chat Room Quotes — falls into the category of “uncomfortably” funny. It’s funny in a sad way, even as it’s frustrating, infuriating, and just downright disheartening. The sheer ignorance on display is stunning, even as it’s bothersome to see a (very) few solid points lumped in with, and equated to, heterodoxy & outright heresy. By and large, though, there is so much sinful ignorance & hate running through the quotes that it boggles the mind.

It’s worth a brief look (warning for, shall we say, salty language…), if only to see just what Christians are up against as a result from “friendly” fire. With “friends” like those, who needs enemies!

-ghp

The focal point of this past weekend was not, like most of country, Thanksgiving – that was just the appetizer, as it were. Rather, the main focus for the Territorial Brood was the third wedding we’ve attended in the past 6 months.

All three have been “family”-related: the first, my wife’s blood relations, the second, my blood relations, and the third was my wife’s life-long best friend – the type of friend that might just as well be family, for the friendship bond is as tight (or tighter) than one shared by siblings.

The three weddings offered a contrasting look at three different points along the contemporary wedding “event” continuum. Not only that, but they also presented some interesting data points with regard to theology. Note: Much has been written elsewhere about the whole “white wedding” industry, so I won’t get in to all that much detail here; suffice it to say that the trend over the past 50-75 years has been to change the focus from celebrating the start of a life together (i.e., the marriage) to that of the spectacle & shindig (i.e., the wedding).

In the middle, both “event” wise as well as theologically, was the first wedding. My wife comes from a Roman Catholic background, thus it was no surprise that there was a full-on Roman Mass. As I wrote more in-depth on it earlier, I’ll not go into detail here; suffice it to say that while I certainly didn’t like or approve of much of the theology underpinning the Roman Mass, I found it refreshing that they took it seriously as a worship service and not just as a ceremony/event. As for the reception, the focus was on the party as a celebration in & of itself, rather than as a celebration of the marriage. Things weren’t way out of whack, mind you, but enough for it to be reasonably obvious to me. Way too loud and a little too big to keep the emphasis on the marriage over & above the wedding. For reference, the bride & groom were 25-26 years old.

At one extreme, then, was the second wedding, this time on my side. The wedding ceremony was held in a Lutheran church, but the service was more of a “performance” in that it didn’t follow a set liturgy, nor did it have a traditional feel to it. There was much contemporary music involved, and the order of service seemed like it had been left to be molded by the aesthetic requirements of the bridal party more than by any theological requirements. The reception was very much one of a party “event” rather than a celebration of the marriage. It was, I must admit, very much in line with the vibe of two recently graduated, early-twentysomethings getting married. Way, WAY loud music. Lots of drinking. A definite frat/sorority party vibe.

Let me say at this point that I’m not (really!) meaning to blithely pass judgment on the choices made by the folks involved; rather, I’m trying to make some observations about some of the larger theological & societal issues at play in & around the context of weddings…

Finally, at the other extreme was the wedding we just went to. Theologically, it was a very traditional Lutheran service. The Rev. Tim Halboth (of Grace Lutheran, Redford, MI, where they have carved busts of Martin Luther and C.F.W. Walther in the sanctuary!) conducted a very nice service. While it wasn’t liturgical in the sense of being an order of service right out of a hymnal, it very much was a Divine Service that was centered on Christ and Him crucified. It was conducted reverently yet joyously. The reception was the most sedate of the three, possibly because it was the smallest, but also reflecting the fact that the bride & groom were in their mid-thirties. It wasn’t horrifically loud, but the music encouraged much dancing, and the celebration was nicely lubricated thanks to the open bar, but there didn’t seem to be the vibe of drinking as an end in & of itself. The tone seemed to be forward looking, celebrating the marriage & future life together of the happy couple.

Heck, I even did something that I haven’t done since my own wedding reception nearly 18 years ago – dance with my wife. I might be biased, but I got to dance with the most beautiful woman in the room! Not only that, but she stole the show with her matron-of-honor toast, totally blowing away the efforts of the best man!! ;^)

About the only bad thing about it was the fact that the groom’s family has this unfortunate attachment to tOSU, which resulted in the playing of the Ohio State fight song. Luckily, it was immediately followed up by The Victors. Normally I’m a Michigan fan, though not of the die-hard type (not since I was a kid, anyway). Being around all those misguided Buckeye fans though, turned my blood maize & blue, and I was compelled to lead the charge in our lusty rendition of the greatest college fight song known to mankind.

It was a nice weekend, one for which I give much thanks, as many good times were had, and much God-given happiness was witnessed and experienced.

-ghp

Well, now, isn’t this — Letters Reveal Mother Teresa’s Secret — interesting?

A quote: “…it has emerged that Mother Teresa was so doubtful of her own faith that she feared being a hypocrite…”

It strikes me as fascinating both because it reveals the ways in which individual faith truly is a battleground for the forces of light and dark, and because it’s going to be used & misused by folks to make points, counter-points, and a whole lot of outrageous assertions.

I also find it interesting as (potentially) an illustration of Rome’s problem wrt Grace & the role that good works play. If Mother Teresa was a good Roman Catholic, then she most likely took quite seriously the teaching that her works, while not earning her salvation per se, were certainly necessary in order to augment the Grace that was infused at baptism.

That’s not a comforting teaching at heart, for it replaces the Gospel with the Law, and the Law breaks us down, stripping us of any/all hope.

Even in the depths of our despair — and we will be faced with despair & dark times, for this world and its prince will assault us in the effort to “win” us — if we stay focused on the cross & Christ crucified, God will comfort us & salve our wounds with that Balm of Gilead. And thus bound up & transformed, He will work through us to produce good works. Works that represent the fruits of being saved, not tokens that can be redeemed for getting saved.

It strikes some as a distinction without a difference, but it’s not. It can be the very difference between comfort and torment, between Heaven and Hell…

-ghp

[tags]

christianity, religion, faith

[/tags]

Fascinating statistics in this article/paper on the levels of “organic atheism” & the like.

Somehow I think Bp. Giertz would be aggrieved by Sweden’s #1 ranking, and Scandinavia taking 3 of the top 4 spots…

The top 10:
1. Sweden (up to 85% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)
2. Vietnam
3. Denmark
4. Norway
5. Japan
6. Czech Republic
7. Finland
8. France
9. South Korea
10. Estonia (up to 49% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)

-ghp
[tags]christianity[/tags]

Over at Lutherama, the good Dr. has a very good posting outlining precisely Why Evolution and God Driven Creation Cannot Co-Exist.

Round about 10 or so years ago, I had worked myself into a place where I thought that theistic evolution was OK. I wasn’t as well read as I am now (not that I’m all that deep now, it’s just that I try harder…), and I was smack in the middle of my 12 year southern exile, during which I was living down where there were “Babdists” & heathens, and where being Lutheran got you looks almost as dirty as if you said you were Catholic.

On an intellectual level, theistic evolution was a nice compromise. It wasn’t as “evil” as straight-up Darwinism, but it allowed for some rational compromise by what “observable scientific facts” had told us just had to be true. Besides, I thought, if God was omnipotent, then we certainly shouldn’t limit Him by saying that theistic evolution wasn’t possible.

I was wrong.

Certainly God could work through an evolutionary process. It’s just that He told us that He didn’t. The Bible is clear on that — God’s own Word uses clear & simple language to describe how He created the world (our “young earth”) in 6 24-hour days. We (i.e., our sinful human intellect) might not be willing or able to fathom it, but that doesn’t change the reality. God is not limited by our broken state & sin-based lack of understanding. He allows us to take comfort in His simple & clearly stated Word.

We don’t need to understand or know, we just need to trust and believe. That is how God comforts us & holds us close to Him.

Yay!

-ghp

So, I had occasion to attend a Roman Mass this past weekend, having traveled to a downriver Detroit suburb for a wedding on my wife’s side of the family. I took it as a chance to engage in a little theological anthropology, if you will. Fortunately, my wonderful wife is nicely reformed (pun partially intended) from her lapsed Roman upbringing, and is solidly in line with my misgivings about taking our kids to such a Mass, and supported me fully in my attempts to educated our kids on the fact that we were attending a service that was not to be equated with attending a service at our home church — IOW, we were observing not participating. I tried to make the best of it by making it a “teachable moment”…

Interestingly, the Priest was really pretty good. He actually takes being a Roman Catholic seriously. And while I undoubtedly have some severe disagreements with him in terms of Justification, Christology, Sacramentology, & Mariology, I’ve got to give him his props for hewing to the Papal party line. He clearly stated that Communion was not open to non-Roman Catholics or Roman Catholics who were “not in a state of grace”. (Closed Communion — what a concept!), and very clearly called for a return to chastity and an end to abortion. So I’ve got to give him props for that, too!

Oh yeah, and he wasn’t American (at least by birth). He’s only been a priest for 6 years, and he has only been here in the States for part of that time. If I had to guess, I’d say that he was of either Caribbean or African birth. It’s too bad for Rome that they aren’t producing more solid American priests like Fr. Aloysious. Why, I bet he’d make a heck of a Lutheran!

The usual, obvious, stuff that Rome has wrong showed itself during the Mass, e.g., marriage as a sacrament & making offerings of intercession & whatnot to Mary. The pernicious head of Vatican II also reared its ugly head, with laywomen reading the first two lessons, and (way odd to me) the mother of the groom assisting in the distribution of Communion. He took the sacrament seriously enough to close it, but not so seriously that he didn’t willingly let his priestly office be usurped. Odd…

The worst, though, came during the homily. It started strongly enough, likening the love in marriage to that of Christ. “Sacrificial” was ok, because husband & wife should lovingly sacrifice for each other, as Christ did for His bride. I’m now blanking on the second example (didn’t have my HipsterPDA with me!), but it was ok as well. The third example/analogy, however, was where the good father lost me — “Salvific”. The husband & wife were now responsible for ensuring the salvation of the other, as Christ did with the Church. Yikes! If’n I had known that I’d be on the hook for that, I might not have taken those vows 17.5 years ago! Seriously, though, that really showed to me in pretty clear relief the flawed theology that Rome has wrt Justification, Grace, & (to a lesser extent) the Sacraments.

At least it was a Christian service. There were some significant errors in theology, doctrine, & practice, to be sure, but at least it was still observably Christian.

But I’m glad that I’m Lutheran!

-ghp