The Lutheran Zephyr

I Cried Like A Baby

Today I was Approved for Ordination in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.  Upon hearing those words, I cried tears of joy and relief and thanksgiving.

More thoughts and reflections later.  After a nice dinner with my dad and step-mother, and a stop at FedEx-Kinkos to download the Diane Rehm Show on my iPod, it's time to make the 3-hour drive home.

I'm going to be a pastor in Christ's church.  I still can't quite believe it.

Lord, have mercy upon me.
Christ, have mercy upon me.
Lord, have mercy upon me.

"No We Can't" - A Pentecost Sermon

I've posted my sermon for the Festival of Pentecost, entitled No We Can't.  It's linked, along with all my extant sermons, at my sermons page.

I also finally got around to posting my Palm/Passion Sunday sermon, entitled In Between.

A blessed week to you all!

Why I Don't Like The National Day of Prayer

My blogging friend Eric, who blogs over at The Heart of a Pastor, disagreed with - took offense at? - my characterization of the National Day of Prayer as "an ill-advised blend of patriotism and religion" and an event "merging patriotism with the practice of faith" in last Thursday's post, National Day of Prayer, or Ascension Day?   He writes, "having a day when people across denominational lines can gather together to pray is a good thing . . . The NDOP is a time to pray...plain and simple."

I do not disagree that having a day when people across denominational lines can gather together to pray is a good thing.  Yet one of the reasons I do not like the National Day of Prayer is the political dynamic that takes place, particularly at celebrations of the National Day of Prayer in state capitals and in Washington.  It often becomes a pious photo-op for politicians, a chance for political and religious leaders alike to claim some faith-based agenda for our nation, and to speak of the "Judeo-Christian heritage" of our nation. 

[Question: how often do Jewish leaders speak of the "Judeo-Christian heritage"?  "Judeo-Christian heritage" seems like a phrase that Christians use to sound inclusive while really attempting to claim a religious, moral, and historical priority in the retelling of the American Story.  But I digress . . .]

As I mentioned in a past post (see #5), I support setting aside special times to pray for our nation.  Prayer is good.  Pious political posturing?  Not so good.  (Don't ask me - ask Jesus).  Perhaps my friend Eric and others who participated in National Day of Prayer events did so with faith, integrity, and humility.  Perhaps such events took place without the political posturing of elected officials.  I certainly hope so.  But plenty of such events are tainted by politics and blurred by a civic piety that unites God and country in an unholy alliance.

Beyond the political posturing that takes place, the whole ethos surrounding the National Day of Prayer is troublesome to me.  Check out their website.  It has a banner that changes graphics, one of which reads:

Prayer!  America's strength and shield.  The Lord is my strength and shield; my heart trusts in Him, and I am helped.  Psalm 28:7"

I disagree with the fundamental premise of this statement.  Prayer is the strength and shield of people of faith.  The strength of our nation lies in its Constitution, its laws, and its (socially, culturally, politically, and religiously diverse) people.  We are not a country based on a prayer or a shared religion, ethnicity, culture, or common heritage (in contrast to many "old world" countries which are/were much more monolithic).  We are a country where freedom and laws, not bloodlines and heritage, define our common purpose and identity.  When we try to inject explicitly Christian lingo into our national identity, we misrepresent what this country is about (and we risk diluting our Christian faith, as well).

This National Day of Prayer (1952), along with the National Prayer Breakfast (1953) and the insertion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (1954), are all products of a political era in which America was locked in a Cold War with the "godless" communism of the Soviet Union.  As we defined ourselves over and against the Soviets, we wrapped ourselves in a civic-minded piety in which God was on "our side" against a "godless" enemy.  I described the problem with this kind of piety in a previous post, Christian Prayers in Government Chambers: Music to the Devil's Ears:

And so from the lips of government power brokers this God of Country is proclaimed, a God that loves freedom and democracy - and market economies? - and which loyally stands at the side of our government. It is a God that nary challenges the Powers-That-Be, much unlike the God active in the tradition of the Hebrew prophets, Jesus, the martyrs, or advocates of social change over the centuries.  No, this is the God of Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib, and if belief in this God of Country gains currency in our society it poses a significant threat to the teachings of our churches and the consciouses of our citizens.

More to write, perhaps, but it's getting late and my mind is going to mush.  G'night.

On Selecting "Alternate" Readings for Pentecost

Here's the lectionary lineup for Pentecost Sunday (May 11):

First Reading:
Acts 2:1–21
Numbers 11:24–30 (Alternate)

Psalm:
Psalm 104:24–34, 35b
R/ Send forth your Spirit and renew the face of the earth. (Ps. 104:30)

Second Reading:
1 Corinthians 12:3b–13
Acts 2:1–21 (Alternate)

Gospel:
John 20:19–23
John 7:37–39 (Alternate)

Note the alternate readings.  How do you go about deciding whether to use an alternate reading in place of the primary reading?  Both the primary and alternate are offered in the lectionary, though for each reading a priority is clearly given to certain readings (Acts, 1 Corinthians, and John 20 passages, respectively).  What criteria should govern my decision to choose the alternate reading?

(Perhaps some of you have few qualms about replacing the appointed lectionary readings for a given Sunday.  I err on the side of sticking with the lectionary, assuming it has an internal integrity and wisdom that I - working as a lone ranger - lack.)

For Pentecost Sunday, I'm inclined to choose the alternate texts for the First and Gospel readings.  Here's my reasoning.

I prefer the John 7 (alternate) Gospel text because the passage from John 20 (the primary text for the day) was included in the Gospel reading for the Second Sunday of Easter - the doubting Thomas story.  To repeat the text so soon just seems repetitive.  Plus, the John 7 text sets up a discussion of the gifts of the spirit and our grateful response - "out of the believer's heart shall flow rivers of living water" - to God's graciousness.  That "grateful response" is something that we Lutherans have a difficult time addressing . . . good ol' Third Use of the Law (of which I'm a fan, though I know many Lutherans do not believe in the Third Use).

We may also choose to read the alternate First Reading from Numbers.  We may tell the Acts 2 story - the giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost - through a youth skit to be shared as the opening rite to our Pentecost service.  Plus, I really like the Numbers reading - it gives some deeper context - a prequel, if you will - to the familiar story of Acts 2.

So, what do you think?

Praying for our Children

In preparation for my internship congregation's annual Children's Sunday, I looked for a collect to use as a Prayer of the Day.  I admit to being a bit bothered by the prayers for "young persons" found in Evangelical Lutheran Worship:

Young persons
God of all good gifts, your Son gathered children into his arms and blessed them. Help us to understand our youth as they grow in years and in knowledge of your world. Give us compassion when they face temptations and experience failures. Teach us to encourage their search for truth and value in their lives. Help us to appreciate their ideals and sympathize with their frustrations; that with them we may look for a better world than either we or they have known; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Young persons
Lord God of our ancestors, we thank you for what you have done and will continue to do with our daughters and sons. Walk with them in life, and keep the evil one from obstructing their path. You see all; you know where the water is deep. Keep them from danger. Order their steps and guide their feet while they run the race of faith. May the good work that you have begun in them be brought to completion at the day of Jesus Christ, in whose name we pray. Amen.

Evangelical Lutheran Worship, pew edition, page 83

These prayers are so negative!  It's as if childhood is nothing but a path littered with snares and entrapments, "temptations" and "failures," "frustrations" and "danger," that require the condescending prayers and guidance of adults.  Don't get me wrong - these are good and fine things for which to pray - for all of life, not just childhood, has its perils - but the tone of these prayers is overly negative.

What about the blessing that children are?  What about what the (adult, "grown-up") church needs to learn from young people?  What about the vocation children have to grow into, learn about, and share the gifts God has given them?  What about children as the image of a God who came to us as a child?

Using some of the language of the second prayer listed above, I reworked the prayer to lift up a more positive image of childhood:

Lord God of our ancestors, we thank you for what you have done and will continue to do with our daughters and sons. Walk with them in life, and keep the evil one from obstructing their path. Grant parents and adults wisdom in caring for children, and respect for the gifts you give to the young. As Jesus welcomed children in his midst, may your holy church also welcome, bless, nurture and honor children. In the name of him who came to us as a child, Jesus Christ our Lord, we pray.  Amen.

I think we need to be careful not to be overly negative or condescending in how we pray for young people. 

What do you think?

 

A Definition of Lutheranism

A Facebook friend wrote this on my wall, after I asked him what he means by "Lutheran."  I just thought I'd share.

by Lutheran, I mean.....free to love, respect for / critique of tradition, sacramental, gospel-centered......and not decisionists, Hitleresque militants, "whatever you want to do in worship" pietists.

I think he's probably got something there . . .

Peace.

Theology Quiz - did I fail?

If I'm preparing for ordained ministry in the Lutheran Church, is it bad that an online quiz says that I'm squarely in the Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan tradition?  I always knew I had a holiness streak in me, but something tells me this ain't a perfect quiz . . .

Hat tip to John over at Progressive Involvement - with whom I agree on many things except for baseball team and Democratic candidate of choice - for the link to the quiz.

           

What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists.           Neo orthodox           79% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan           79% Roman Catholic           75% Emergent/Postmodern           64% Reformed Evangelical           50% Charismatic/Pentecostal           43% Classical Liberal           39% Modern Liberal           25% Fundamentalist           11%

Beyond Capernaum

My old seminary classmate Matt Staniz has a new blog.  I figure it's worth reading for three reasons:

• he serves a church in my fare hometown of Havertown, PA
• his new blog has an awesome name: Beyond Capernaum.  Capernaum - Jesus' home base for his ministry - was my favorite place on a Holy Land tour I took ten years ago (yeah, it beat out Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth, and all the other mega-popular touristy holy places in my estimation).
• he's a smart, witty, and faithful guy. 

So, go check out his blog, add it to your blogroll, bookmarks, and/or feedreader, and enjoy.

"Tradition" is not the Millennials' problem

I recently attended a discussion for church leaders on ministry with Millennials (the so-called Generation Y, or those who were born from the late 1970's through to the turn of the century).  Within the discussion it was assumed that members of this generation do not like "traditional" worship, "traditional" Sunday School, "traditional" Bible studies, the "traditional" way of doing church.

But there's a difference between "tradition" and the way we customarily do things in the church.  Is it "tradition" they don't like, or is it the (often poorly executed) way we do things in the church they don't like?

• That is, do Millennials not like 17th century hymns because they're old and supposedly irrelevant to today, or do they not like such hymns when they're played and sung as funeral dirges and inappropriately revered as the highest pinnacle of religious and musical achievement?
• Do they not like traditional liturgy because it is (supposedly) rigid, or do they not like traditional liturgy because we do a poor job at planning and executing the liturgy faithfully?
• Do they not like preaching because they are suspicious of authority figures and/or are attuned to a world of constantly-changing multimedia presentations, or do they not like preaching because most preachers are not very good at it?
• Do they not like traditional Bible studies or Sunday School because such Bible studies are rigid and dogmatic, or because they're usually poorly planned and unwelcoming?
• Do they prefer to sleep in on Sunday mornings because that's their nature, or because we haven't given them something worth waking up for?

I'm convinced that our churches need to worry less about post-modern ministry techniques than we do about simply doing our "traditional" (modern, ancient, whatever) ministry techniques a whole lot better.  It has been my experience - as a church leader, a church member in non-leadership roles, and an observer of "effective" and "healthy" churches - that churches which engage in intensive planning and preparation, churches that show up on Sunday morning and midweek Bible study ready to proclaim the Gospel, are often doing just fine. 

It's when we're planning Sunday School lessons in the car on the way to church that we get in trouble.  It's when we're writing sermons exhausted late on Saturday evening - when the time for reflection, review and editing is rapidly waning - that we get in trouble.  It's when we throw untrained people into leadership roles that we get in trouble.  It's when we have no cohesive vision to pull this whole church enterprise together that we get in trouble.

Everyday Millennials go to rather traditional schools or universities or workplaces, and they thrive within these "traditional" institutions.  They know how to do the "modern" thing.  That is, they don't live in an exclusively "post modern" world (oh my, just imagine what that would be like!). 

I don't deny that the church can learn a few things from the postmodern project.  I'm just not convinced that we need some turn-the-church-on-its-steeple radical reformation.  Perhaps we just need to build a better steeple.  Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Sermon: Lord, if you had been here . . .

My sermon for the Fifth Sunday in Lent - Lord, if you had been here . . . - is now posted over at my sermons page.