Territorial Bloggings

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

I really need to start posting more about theology, if for no other reason than to focus on something that can help me keep an even keel amongst all the mental/emotional funks that I get into from time to time (and which I’m deep into right now).

FatherDMJ passes along some very good stuff from Rev. Fr. Peter Berg, in his recent entry Everything is About Jesus — a sample:

“Some (many?) of our people think that church is all about them. Therefore they need to be recatechized in the truth that nothing will be about them until everything is about Jesus. And it’s not only about Jesus but about all the things that are about Jesus. You see, if it’s all about Jesus, then it will be about his sacraments, and if it’s about the sacraments, then it’s about the liturgy (for you can’t have sacraments without liturgy), and if it’s about liturgy, then it’s about music (for you can’t have a decent liturgy without music), and if it’s about music, then you need to learn Gregorian chant, and if ti’s about your chanting, then it’s about the Office of the Holy Ministry, which, of course, is all about Jesus (that’s why you’ve got to get a chasuble).”

Yup, that’s the good stuff…

-ghp

Why is it that whenever something goes wrong in a person’s life or the life of a family, the first instinct even of Christians is to say, “You need to get some counseling” meaning, “You need to get therapy.”

The devil is outraged by absolution and the Lord’s Supper, basically, by the grace of God. He cannot stand to see Christians rejoicing in God’s grace or receiving absolution or forgiveness in the Lord’s Supper.

These quotes come from two recent posts by Rev. Beisel over at One Lutheran… Ablog!. These posts are quite good, and amazingly well-related (I’m not sure if Pr. Beisel intended the linkage, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he did, ’cause he’s good…).

I think that the second quote is a source reason for the first. More simply put, Satan attempts to drive us from the foot of the cross by convincing us that our problems are not a matter of our sinfulness, and, thus, confession & absolution aren’t needed; rather, we need to turn the focus inward onto what we can do to heal ourselves.

That’s not to say that many problems (say, mental illness) aren’t physical/medical, mind you — to do that would be foolishly ignorant. It’s more accurate to state, however, that we are constantly tempted to deflect the source of the problem away from ourselves at the same time that we try to usurp the authority to fix the problem.

C&A works. It’s God’s gift to us, because He loves us. Satan cannot abide that, and must try to subvert it by keeping us from it. Unfortunately, he’s been all too successful, as proven by the dearth of individual C&A in our congregations, and the number of worship services that have jettisoned even the corporate C&A.

-ghp

I almost posted something when I first read about this: Astronaut Calls Pastor To Say He’s Ok On Space Station. I found it bothersome, primarily because of the mention of pre-consecrated Communion elements being freighted up to the LCMS astronaut (and secondarily because I find this type of self-congratulatory publicity to be distasteful). It struck (and strikes) me as bad theology, but I just didn’t feel like taking the time to fully develop & write out my thoughts & contentions.

Thankfully, the fine fellows over at Beggars All have bailed me out, with their fine posting Space Communion. There’s a wonderful posting on the subject, along with a lively discussion thread in the comments.

Highly recommended.

-ghp

The debate continues in the comments over at Cranach’s Found on Lost. As Dr. Veith noted in this post, Cranach is somewhat atypical in the blogosphere in that discussions tend to be civil, very literate, and ongoing — it’s not all that common for comment threads to go on for more than a few days, and that’s what happens over at Cranach. It’s very cool…

Of particular interest to me in the discussion/comments thread was the final paragraph of a comment by Rev. Bill Cwirla (proprietor of the outstanding Rev. Cwirla’s Blogosphere):

I’ll even dare to speak personally. (Yes, Lutherans have personal testimonials too!). I was baptized when I was five weeks old, was nurtured in the Liturgy, catechized by my parents and pastor, etc. As a result, I do not have a single conscious moment in my life when I did not know and trust Jesus Christ as my Savior. That’s why I can’t relate to “Amazing Grace” when it sings “I once was lost but now I’m found.” I have to believe from the Scriptures that I once was lost, but I have no such memory or experience. I’ve always been found in Jesus.

Folks, let me tell you something — I wish I had written this paragraph, because it states quite wonderfully how I have always felt when confronted with the Methobapticostal view of “accepting” Jesus. Sure, it infuriates me theologically, but perhaps a more important/insightful is the realization that I just don’t get it because I have no frame of reference for it. And thus, I have no need to try and impose some sort of intellectually rational framework upon it (e.g., “making a decision for Christ”). Now if I could just not have to endure hearing Amazing Grace & Blessed Assurance at church any more…

-ghp

There’s an interesting posting & discussion going on over at the Cranach blog. Granted, this is not an uncommon occurrence, but in this case it happens to be centered on one of my favorite TV shows (non-realitytv division), ABC’s Lost.

More specifically, it’s dealing with the fairly reasonable treatment that Christianity is getting with the recent (2nd season) addition of the ‘Mr. Eko’ character, who is, for all intents and purposes (i.e., setting the quibbling over specifics that we’ve learned form his backstory aside for the moment) a Roman Catholic priest. For the most part, the Christian faith is getting a reasonably decent shake from the writers, although I would certainly like to take them to task for some of the baptismal theology that they put forth in last week’s episode. In all, though, I was very happy that in the end Baptism was given such a respectful & generally accurate treatment — i.e., the theology put forth was one of Baptismal Regeneration.

A development that I’m not quite as comfortable with is (and this will only matter to those of you who actually watch the show…) how they are changing the tenor of Locke’s “faith” as a result of Eko’s emergence. Over at Cranach, some commenters are chalking that up to Locke being emblematic of a more postmodern Oprah-like “faith-in-faith”, something with which I think I can agree. But, as Locke has always been the voice of “faith” vs. Jack’s voice of “reason”, I’ve found the recent, shall we say, refinement in his character to be more than a little jarring — especially in the dismissive attitude he had towards evil & Baptism in the last episode.

The show is good, and the discussion over at Cranach is good — check ‘em both out.

-ghp

A very nice posting by Pr. Cholak, over at +the Crowned Ones+, wherein he writes on the subject of children (and other non-communicants, I would infer) at the Communion rail.

Intellectually, I understand (I think) the arguments about why folks want to have everyone come on up to the rail; however, I disagree. I don’t think that it’s, ultimately, a more beneficial/salutary practice. In fact, as Pr. Cholak writes, I think that it is actually harmful because it introduces some level of uncertainty into/onto/unto that which should have none. Currently, an emotion-driven desire for “inclusivity” and outward shows of “unity” seem to have carried the day. It sounds heartless to state that the Communion rail is not the place for blessings — but it’s true. This practice is an innovation of recent vintage, and it is one that has served to lessen, rather than strengthen, certainty.

-ghp

I am a “momma’s boy.”

Those who know me and my mom have no doubt as to the truth of that description of me. Piper men tend to be like that — my dad was with my grandmother, and my son is most definitely the “momma’s boy” apple of his mother’s eye!

Vicar Chaz Lehmann, however, has waxed eloquent on another, far more significant, way in which being a “momma’s boy” is a very good thing. For a Christian, there is no higher (or truer) complement than to be called a “momma’s boy”! Thanks to Jesus’s atoning work on the cross, we have been made a part of the family. Baptism joins us to Jesus. Where Jesus was begotten of the Father, we then become Begotten by the Father. And where the Father chose Mary to bear the God-Man Jesus, He so chose His Church to bear us through the waters of Baptism.

Yup, being a momma’s boy rocks!

-ghp

I routinely have very little problem with what I read over at the Rev. Dr. Al Mohler’s commentary blog. Heck, I’m a fan, even, and I’ve even been known to think that this Southern Baptist is more Lutheran than a great many “Conservative Lutherans” in the LCMS. That, however, shouldn’t, and doesn’t, mean that once in a while he goes a little too far off-the-beam for me!

His July 12 commentary is a case in point. In A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity, Dr. Mohler makes some good points. These good points, however, are kernels of wheat buried within a mountain of chaff. In the commentary, Dr. Mohler outlines a tiered approach to doctrine that I just don’t think holds water — at best, it’s merely mistaken. At worst, it trades the birthright of solid, Truth-based, doctrinal unity for the pottage of false, feel-good, “unity.”

More specifically, I find his second- & third- orders to be a bit too facile and, thus, quite problematic. In no way do I doubt that it could be argued that certain doctrines are more, shall we say, foundational than others — after all, the sainted Dr. Luther himself said that Justification is “the doctrine by which the church stands or falls.” The problem I have found is that when folks try to rank doctrines in order of “importance”, such a ranking belies a desire to minimize certain among doctrines. It also seems to betray a misunderstanding of the fact that many (if not all) of the “lesser/2nd&3rd-order” doctrines are very much intimately tied to the understanding of the “major/1st-order” doctrines.

For example, Dr. Mohler exposes his Reformed roots when he relegates Baptism to a tier-2 doctrine (i.e., one upon which Christians can disagree, but still remain in fellowship of some significant level…). [NOTE: Over at Ask The Pastor, Pr. Snyder gives a wonderful outline & explanation of just why Baptism is, in the context of this posting, a 1st-order doctrine, intimately bound together with Justification.] Dr. Mohler also makes the ordination of women into a 2nd-order doctrine, which is astounding given the importance he places on Christology as a 1st-order doctrine.

It’s not a bad, necessarily, posting by Dr. Mohler — just a disappointing one, in that he seems to be espousing what is really more of a “feel-good” unity that is based on a less than honest definition of what true doctrinal unity is (or, at least, should be). Such “unity” yields debacles like the JDDJ between Rome & the LWF, or the hideous communion between the ELCA & the mainline Reformed denominations. It’s sad, and it’s wrong.

-ghp

Check out this article in yesterday’s New York Times, which is entitled, Bishop Acts To Keep Flu From The Flock.

This is just so wrong, it makes my head hurt.

While it’s not necessarily my fight, I would hope that the Pope weighs in on the wrongness of this renegade move, no matter how logical, prudent, and “loving” it might seem to sinful human intellect.

Fear of illness is not a valid reason for avoiding the Sacrament. To so state is to thus state that God’s gifts could harm us. And that is most certainly not true.

We must always take care to ensure that we are not “loving” folks straight to Hell…

-ghp