St. Mark’s Lutheran

A couple of great short posts if you are interested in this stuff. Here is the interview from 2004. And here is Ross Douthat’s post.

The money quote from the interview is this,

FALSANI:
Who’s Jesus to you?

(He laughs nervously)

OBAMA:
Right.

Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher.

And he’s also a wonderful teacher. I think it’s important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.

The summary conclusion from Mr. Douthat is this:

Given the muddled way in which most Americans approach religion, and the pervasiveness of heterodoxy, I suppose I’m basically with Alan Jacobs: I think that figuring out exactly what sort of things Obama believes about God and Christ and everything else, and how those beliefs may affect his Presidency, is ultimately a more profitable pursuit than arguing about whether he should be allowed to call himself a Christian. Or put another way: I expect my Presidents to be heretics, but I think it matters a great deal what kind of heretics they are.

President Elect Obama’s response is incredibly - dare I say - nuanced. The first two sentences are almost stock evangelicalism. There is a Jesus, and he’s the one that bridges the chasm between us and God caused by sin. President Obama doesn’t say sin. He just says bridge and I’m sure this is part of where Mr. Douthat get his semi-arian line. Not being specific leaves open the “buddha” path who shows us the way to God - and President Obama’s next line (in the christian faith) can easily be read like that - in christianity Jesus was the “buddha” guy. It is a very tolerant and relative statement.

Essentially Obama’s statement from an orthodox perspecitve starts out great and goes downhill. The last line of his first paragraph (means of us reaching something higher) is really tough. Putting the best construction on it you might be able to say it is correct because Jesus is the means of our salvation, but the thought of us reaching higher implies that we have some role to play (instead of Jesus reaching down to us) and the something higher is just spiritual clap-trap. When he brings up the Jesus-the-great-teacher, it is true, but at the most banal level. That is the usual response of agnostics who just don’t want to think about theology.

Then President Obama leaves the quote with a great insight about in the flesh. He’s talking to the orthodox again. President Obama is talking incarnation. God had to be incarnated to pay for sin. All told He has addressed every possible constituent - excluding atheists. It is a great political answer.

That kinda puts in doubt Mr. Douthat’s conclusion in that I’m not sure President Obama’s answer gives us real insight into his beliefs. I can either believe that someone who can discuss Neibuhr with David Brooks can actually give this scrambled an answer, or I can believe President Obama knew exactly what he was saying and found a fantastic political answer. As a pastor, I guess I’d rather think the first. As an American, easily I want the second. That is where Mr. Douthat is on better ground. Being orthodox is not a job requirement of a politician. In fact, it might be a hinderance. I’m interested because when talking theology you are talking fundamental patterns of thought. If your theology says perfection is possible, that will have an impact on your governing. [The left used to have a phrase "immanantize the eschaton" which meant exactly that - make a perfect world (the one from the end of time, the eschaton) real right now (immananitze). Arguably that theology was behind all kinds of bad public policy. Mankind is not perfectable here and now.]

What it really comes down to is don’t look for you theology from a politician. That is mixing up the two kingdoms which is close to Ghostbusters crossing the streams. Only bad things happen.

Tags: Culture by Parson Brown
No Comments »

Two possibly competing Study Bibles have been published recently (i.e. within the last couple of months). One is the New Living Translation Study Bible from Tyndale. And the other is the English Standard Version Study Bible from Crossway. The English Standard Version (ESV) is marketed in two ways: 1) apparant from its name it wants to be the English Standard like the King James was for generations so it is marketed as an authority 2) and because it makes claims to authority it situates itself as the natural update/extension of the KJV, RSV and NRSV. The New Living Translation (NLT) markets itself by the tagline - The Truth Made Clear. What that means is it appeals to: 1) a desire to be understood and 2) a sense of dissatisfaction with older phaseology - i.e. what the ESV trumpets. beyond the translation the study materials in the “study bible” are written from a broadly american evangelical background. What that means is typically a strong respect for the Bible as we have it as the Word of God. What it also means is typically a slight arminian reformed theology - the sacraments are lightly considered and a strong emphasis on a holy life and the Bible as the guide book.

[Disclosure - the LCMS in which I serve has bought completely into the ESV and we use it for our lectionary readings. I have personally been using the NLT Study Bible recently since the CPH NIV Study bible which has been my main version for about 10 years is being phased out.]

What all of that did was make me interested in a few of questions: 1) Who actually buys study bibles, 2) does the translation chosen signal something about the person and 3) how could I get some of that data? As luck would have it, Amazon is an incredibly source for data. In attempting to increase sales, Amazon posts books that others who bought the book you are looking at also bought. The methodology was to start with the NLT Study Bible and take the first six “also bought” books. I would then look at each of those six books and look at the “also bought” list for each. I repeated with the ESV study bible. What emerges are clouds of books. The picture above is my interpretaion of that cloud.

Some interesting observations from this in trying to qualitatively answer those first two questions. First and probably most importantly it seems like Christians are the people buying both bibles. Only one of the books in the cloud (in red - Story of Edgar Sawtelle) could be considered something that gets a wide read. In one way that would seem to work for the ESV marketing strategy. If the only buyers are those already familiar then the one marketing as a continuation has a good strategy. But that would also further seal the community off.

I’ve grouped the cloud into four smaller clouds and highlighted the entry point books. I’ve labled those groups as doctrine, interpersonal, Apologetics/evangelism and ideas. Not having read all the books, this is highly dependent upon the reviews, but roughly what I mean is as follows:
1) The Doctrine books are interested primarily in saying this is what the church says the bible says in propositional form. The orange book in here is the most questionable. It is not really connected to the rest, but the idea of recapturing the Christian Faith presumes there is something that defines that faith.
2) The interpersonal are all grouped around a work of fiction. What I saw in these was more of a focus on people vs. information. The focus would be on emotions and individual reactions (like not wanting to go to church) than ideas or causes.
3) The apologetics/evangelism section contains books that are all about defending and spreading the gospel to others.
4) The ideas for lack of a better term are by “big name thinkers” or have novel and or large ideas.

What was very interesting is that buyers of the NLT study bible also bought two other bibles - both the ESV and the apologetics bible. The NLT readers are also connectors to others. They have the most connections in the Apologetics grouping, but they connect directly to all four clouds. The ESV buyers on the contrary have no direct connections to the ideas group and do not buy any other bibles. They also have 4 of 6 direct connections to the doctrine cloud.

Ultimately looking at these clouds I would make two statements. 1) The bibles are not really competitors. Buyers of the ESV would not buy the NLT. Buyers of the NLT might also buy the ESV. 2) Buyers of the ESV are heavily turned in on their own world while buyers of the NLT are actively looking for the means of communicating outside of the echo chamber. Especially disturbing is the ESV connections lack of reach into the ideas section. Wright (and this cloud) is an important source for the others. The other clouds pay attention to him. The fact that the ESV readers look to doctrine but not to ideas says something.

I’ll think more about this. I’d love any comments people might have on this (i.e. Parson you’re full of it, you are in the tank for that version you’ve been reading, your groupings are way off, or great insights.)

Tags: Church Direction, Culture, Witness by Parson Brown
No Comments »

This is a link to a Wall Street Journal Article about one “type” of church consultant - emailed link works for 7 days, permalink but requires subscription.

The article is interesting because it really highlights what one school says is “table stakes” for being an attractive church - and they aren’t what you would think. We would like to think people choose a church based on theological or doctrinal reasons. This article repesents those people in a later paragraph decrying the highlighted “Church Consultant” - but that is not the main point of the article. The main point is driven by the final paragraph with a quote from a pastor.

Others say that church shopping has become necessary for churches seeking to compete in an increasingly mobile and consumer-oriented society. “My competition is Cracker Barrel restaurant down the street,” says Pete Wilson, pastor of CrossPoint Church in Nashville, Tenn., who regularly enlists a secret shopper to evaluate his 2,000-person congregation. “If they go in there and are treated more like family than when they come to CrossPoint Church, then it’s lights out for me.”

The table stakes in this game end up looking much more like McDonald’s franchisee rules - cleanliness, freindliness, promptness, consistency, understandable (even speaking different languages).

One of my favorite mental frameworks is to break down reasons into: Sociological, psychological, philosophical, and theological. The majority of this consultant’s table stakes are sociological with some reaching psychological. What that framework really says is that most decisions are based on place within the herd (the herd being the family or larger personal network). Some decisions become more personal and are made based on personal psychology. Fewer decisions are made based on fundamental philosophy - I believe this to be good, true and beautiful, hence I will act in this way regardless of family or personal reasons. And very rarely are decisions ever made based on theology - this is what God says, wants, desires, hence I will act in this way regardless of personal philosophy, family or psychology. In that framework, his table stakes make sense. But part of growing as a Christian is becoming aware of God in your life. Becoming more theological. That is the road to Emmaus experience (Luke 24:13-32).

Tags: Culture, Witness by Parson Brown
No Comments »

Education, in the classical sense, was not training for a particular job or skill set, but it was formation of patterns of thought. It was about how to think. Not what to think - people of good conscience can come to different answers - but how. To do that you have to have the confidence that there is a correct way to think, and that we can find it or have it revealed to us. Concordia Seminary is an interesting institution in that it still believes in formation. Pastoral education is still called formation. And they definitely believe that the scriptures contain the proper way to think.

This post on the Concordia Seminary recruitment blog is a reflection on the church and that formation by Dr. Burreson. He mentions two classes, Lutheran Mind and Systematics 4. I had him for both of these classes.

Toward the end he states.

we human beings that make up the body of Christ are one through Him alone who was crucified and raised and whose Father incorporates us into His Son’s body by the stuff of life: water, bread, wine and words.

That struck me a similiar to my introduction to last week’s sermon.

The Bible is actually full of monetary images. That shouldn’t surprise us because while inspired the Bible also had human authors. It is full of the things of everyday life. Bread and water and wine…The stuff of everyday life.

It might have been a window opened to Dr. Burresson recently (he just came off sabbatical, so things look new), but it would seem that the same thoughts and windows were in action well before that.

Tags: Culture by Parson Brown
No Comments »

This is a staggering suggestion/operation. The United Methodist Church, or at least some within it (I don’t know enough about it to really answer) is modeling the development of the new liturgies upon open source software development. Knowing a little about both worlds (open source and liturgical) that idea is exciting and shocking at the same time. The high liturgist will rattle on all the time about the liturgy being the words and the voice of the people, but at the same time the official liturgy is usually controlled by a select group of hermetically sealed liturgists. If an ‘open source’ liturgy could actually be developed it might actually represent the ownership and buy-in to litugical worship that is so often lacking. I’ve often commented that ‘contempory worship’ is really just an amorphous term for worship that connects with our life, or more often that connects with my wife, husband, son, daughter or relative’s life who has left the church. The real secret of open source is that only the most committed and able actually consistently devote the time. The imagined democracy disaster rarely if ever happens. The people are amused with other activities. Open source is a mission activity, a service to the community. What emerges is good software designed and enacted by experts who care with the buy-in of others who know or who at least admit they had the opportunity to change. The question is if those ivory tower liturgists will put their money where their mouth is, or if they will balk at this. I will be watching this with great interest.

Tags: Culture by Parson Brown
No Comments »

I’ve created a league and sent out initial invites. My email list is limited, so if you didn’t get one and want to be a part please email me.

The league website is football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/league/stmfootball

As I said in the invite, they only question left is: who gets beat by the parson?

Tags: Announcements, Culture by Parson Brown
No Comments »

In a Bible Class a couple of weeks ago I brought up the presidential interviews that Rick Warren just held at the Saddleback Civil forum. This is the CNN coverage. In class I was somewhat agahst that Warren would mix his pastoral role so directly with the political. The idea of a pastor being the moderator (i.e. being the judge) just gave terrible images of a church more interested in this worldly power than in the gospel. At a certain level, that still holds, but after watching this Warren pulled off the role much better than I would have hoped. He also asked questions that I have always wanted to see asked, and the candidates seemed to think they had to give a real answer. In otherwords it was totally unlike the journalist lead kabuki theater debates we normally have where both side know the questions and the answers already and it is more about posturing and gotcha. If Warren is going to be involved, this seems to be a decent way. It is not sharing his pulpit. It was not Sunday morning. It was clearly labled the ‘Saddleback Civil Forum’. Both candidates answered the same questions without benefit of the other’s answers. It is well worth watching, but that was not the main point of the post.

This link is to an interview with Warren, probably the most visible minister/clergyman in america today. The money quote is this:

I believe in the separation of church and state, but I do not believe in the separation of politics from religion. Faith is simply a worldview. A person who says he puts his faith on the shelf when he’s making decisions is either an idiot or a liar. It’s entirely appropriate for me to ask what is their frame of reference.

As a whole, the church is a separate realm from the state. The Lutheran tradition calls this the two kingdoms or the two realms. They each have something to say to each other, but mixing the realms always leads to bad news. Think the papacy (and the bishops) immediately prior to the reformation who were much more princes than ministers of the Gospel. The NT warning might be gaining the world but losing your soul. I’m sure that the systematics professors at Concordia would cringe at Warren’s statement, but the place where those two realms do meet properly is in the individual. The church should and does instruct and form her members. Through its teaching and work it has an impact on society, but the actual decisions are the States. We do hope that the gospel as an inpact on the way people live and think.

Warren is walking a very fine line especially as a minister, but if a minister is getting involved at that level, this is about as clear as he could make the distinction.

Tags: Culture by Parson Brown
No Comments »

Every 4 years I am just riveted to olympic coverage. Anything. And truthfully the less glamour sports. In those you see people not used to the spotlight. Even the swimmers are refreshing. They only get coverage once every four years and so come accross as human instead of having to do sit down interviews with Bob Costas to appear human like some of the Basketball team.

I saw something last night that I’m not sure I will ever see again in my lifetime. It was the prelims of the 100m dash with a guy by the name of Usain Bolt. After 40m, this guy was already 10m ahead of the competition. You could see him look left, look right and go into coast mode. Coasting for 50m, half the race, he still finished in 9.92 secs. For comparison the winner of the NY High School 100m dash finished in 11.02 secs. Bolt looked like he was out for a morning walk - a 9.92 sec morning walk.

St. Paul always refers to faith as running the race. He makes analogies to the athlete in training to win a prize that decays. I think St. Paul would have been riveted, but the ease the Mr. Bolt ran with might cause him to re-think some images. For Spiritual metaphors look at the marathon or the mile.

Tags: Culture by Parson Brown
No Comments »

This link takes you to a Wall Street Journal article. The article brushes the surface of the intersection of Christianity and a market economy in China. The Chinese, a Communist Party (!) official Mr. Zhao, have taken a liking to Christian ethics. Maybe for the wrong reasons, along the lines of the prosperity Gospel, become a Christian and get rich, but also maybe for some right reasons, the idea of vocation - what we do in this life is not about us but what God has called us to be.

Advertisement warning - The Bible Study starting this Sunday after worship for 4 weeks will be looking at stuff like this - God & Mammon - The intersection of the Word, money and the front page of the WSJ. The text we will start with is Luke 16:1-15 with Matt 6:19-24 in support. Please join us after worship.

The article ends with the staggering numbers. Christian missions in China have a long history. There are ancient stele (big stone tablets) recording Christians reaching the Middle Kingdom. The modern story begins about the time of the reformation and moves through fits and starts. There were an estimated 3 million Christians in China in the 1970’s. The estimates for today run as high as some government figures of 130 million (about 10% of the nation).

Tags: Culture by Parson Brown
No Comments »

Mark D. Roberts is a very smart and faithful Presbyterian minister. By the accident of where I went to undergrad (Grove City College) and a family member who is Presbyterian minister, I check up now and then on what is happening within the Presbyterian Church. Mark Roberts has been commenting upon the PC-USA’s struggles with sexuality, especially with homosexuality. This is the complete series. This is the final post. Within the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod we really don’t have serious debate over homosexuality, and even the topic of his last post, the similarities of ordination of women with that of homosexuals is not greatly in question - the Synod views these subjects as closed even if some members don’t. The other Lutheran Synod has significant problems with both issues as well as the Episcopal church. If Dr. Roberts is right, then within a short time the Presbyterian Chruch - USA will probably split much like the Episcopal Church appears to be doing.

Schism is never a happy thing. If the church has 1000 members before it doesn’t split 500 and 500. It becomes two smaller 300 and 300 bodies with 400 being repulsed at the spectacle. That said, his series takes a fair look at both sides. The last post especially is worthwhile as an example of good theological and biblical reasoning.

One fundamental issue underlying these schisms and discussions is what it means to be church. On this issue the LC-MS has a long history as it was founded on a crisis of - ‘are we church?’ CFW Walther addressed this is both Church and Ministry and the Altenberg debates. The LC-MS is engaged currently in its own discussion over church and reorganization. Roberts, although not is so many words, endorses the priciple that doctrinal agreement is a precursor to unity and that separation is better than a union of form only. That has been the LC-MS point since the founding. We have been willing to talk and discuss, but federated unions (like the ELCA) or other union churches based on sorting out doctrine later only cause confusion and weaken the witness of the Gospel.

This post is getting long, so I’ll end it here with a question: if we are not in unity, why should we care about or check in on what goes on in other bodies? I’ll try and answer that in a later post.

Tags: Culture by Parson Brown
No Comments »