St. Mark's Lutheran » church

Hymns We Sing – All Saints Edition

Parson Brown — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:21:16 +0000

Tuesday was All Saints proper. We will celebrate it this Sunday. All Saints is the Christian feast day that originally inspired Halloween or All Hallows Eve. There are all kind of explanation stories about where this feast day came from. You can read some of them at the wikipedia page or is you want something more sanctified the Catholic Encyclopedia has some history. The church lives with a distinction of the Church Militant (those alive here and now) and the Church Triumphant (those already in glory). The Roman Catholic church would add the Church Suffering (those in purgatory) and also All Souls Day which is the day after All Saints. To me what all of this tries to capture is one line in the Apostle’s Creed and a general sense of connectedness. Though dead saints may have passed, we remaining still feel connected to them and not just in an emotional way. In the third article of the creed we confess that we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Christian Church, the communion of saints. The entire church – militant and triumphant – is united in Christ. The church at all times and all places is united in Christ waiting for that final revelation and victory. That communion, because we know that nothing can separate us from the love of Christ, is what All Saint Celebrates. All Saints ends up being a celebration of the Church and a looking forward to our final unity.

One of the great Hymns that captures this sense is For All the Saints. The Text was written by William How and the tune by Ralph Vaughan Williams. IN the span of the church it is a relatively recent hymn written in the 19th century. But what I want to highlight about it is how it gets the end times sequence correct. Stanzas 5,6,7,8 capture the true confession about time.

5) And when the fight is fierce, the warfare long

Steals on the ear the distant triumph song

And hearts are brave again, and arms are strong

Alleluia

6) The Golden evening brightens in the west

Soon, soon to faithful warriors cometh rest

Sweet is the calm of paradise the blest

Alleluia

7) But, lo, there breaks a yet more glorious day

The saints triumphant rise in bright array

The King of Glory passes on His way

Alleluia

From earth’s wide bounds, from oceans farthest coast

Through gates of pearl streams in the countless host

Singing to Father, Son and Holy Ghost

Alleluis

In verse 5 the Church militant – us here and now – is still struggling, but already we hear the music. The victory has been won. It might be far off, but we hear it – in word and sacrament. In verse 6 is the acknowledgement that eventually all the saints move from militant to a better term might be rest. It is not really the church Triumphant yet. Sweet is the calm of paradise, but things are not as they will be. In verse 7 a yet more glorious day breaks. The Great and Glorious Day of the Lord – resurrection day. The saints, now triumphant, rise is bright array. You see, before the resurrection, is not the end. Read Rev 6:10. The saints in Abraham’s bosom or calm paradise or heaven ask the same question we ask – How long? The Triumph waits until the resurrection of all flesh and the King of Glory passes on his way. Verse 8 captures the final situation. After the resurrection and judgement, from earth’s wide bounds, from ocean’s farthest coast – from every race, tribe, nation and tongue – the saints take up residence in the new Jerusalem. Rev 21:2-4, 21

For All the Saints captures in Word and Song the Hope, Struggle, Rest and Triumph of the Church and all her saints. For that reason is gets pride of place as a theme song on All Saints Day. You’ll hear it this weekend. Come and sing with us.

Mormons, cults and other things…

Parson Brown — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:46:26 +0000

This question came up in Bible Study Sunday. Is mormonism a cult? It’s coming up because of Mitt Romney and Rick Perry’s pastor. (Knowing how programmed things are at that stage, let me just say that I’d be surprised if Rick Perry didn’t know what that guy was going to say. While I think religious beliefs do and should have a signaling and governing influence, I am not as comfortable with them being tools in a political campaign. Other than the simple statement, “I attend such and such a church” and leaving people to make up their own minds, calling a religion a cult as a scare tactic through an intermediary seems somewhat iffy at best.)

Back to the question. The first thing when the epithet cult gets used is that the functional definition of cult is usually how many people subscribe to the belief. Small number – cult. Larger number – not cult. Cult is a bad word to use in these situations. Why that is the case is because the underlying thought behind a cult is that they believe they are the only ones who have the full truth. That would apply to almost every church body. Rome certainly holds that the fullness of revelation resides on in Rome. The LCMS has only half jokingly been called a cult because of just that profession amongst many. Even the Anglican church would say the via media is the better way. In other words, cult is a word with little meaning beyond – “That guy’s religion is strange.” It says more about the person using it than about who it is applied to.

A better question is: to what extent can mormonism be called Christian? And from my experience (and not just mine as the links show) this is changing and highly subjective. Here is Dr. Mouw from the Fuller Seminary. Here is Scot McKnight. If I could find the link even Richard Neuhaus – Catholic Priest and former LCMS Pastor – addressed this in First Things a few years ago before he passed away.

Two bits of foundational theology. The church is an element of belief. We confess it in the creed. We believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. That church transcends time, language, race and nation. Until the final fulfillment we will never see it in its entirety. The definition that the Lutheran Confessions put on the church is that you see it – “where the gospel is preached and the sacraments are administered”. That can happen in a variety of settings. There are places it is more likely to happen, but you can’t rule it out. God could make stones to cry out. He just usually uses more normal means. Like the LCMS or Rome.

So in that mentality you can ask to what extent is Mormonism Christian? What I would say is this – the more you understand of Mormon doctrine the less Christian it is. If you understand what their extra scriptures really say about God & Jesus you would have to question any baptisms performed. We baptize into the Trinity – Father, Son and Spirit – but they do not share that. Given the average congregational member’s understanding of church doctrine, it is far from clear how many Mormons would have that more in depth understanding. I’m pretty sure that you might hear more about the cross and Jesus on a typical Sunday morning at a Mormon outpost that at Joel Osteen’s place or any of his imitators. C.F.W. Walther has a wonder phrase for this – “felicitous inconsistency”. The official doctrine might say one thing, but the individual just hears Jesus.

I’ve put in a venn diagram somewhere close. It is not to scale and there is a slight dig in it, but it probably captures my thoughts. Now if you find yourself in an “unorthodox body” and know that, you probably want to move to a more consistent place, but today, given the spread of teaching and the variability of doctrine from place to place there are more felicitous inconsistencies than ever. At least that is my prayer. We can officially say that official Mormon doctrine is not Christian. Not even close. But there are probably many Christians within that church. And like the biblical story of Joseph we were studying in Bible Study – God blessed Egypt for the sake of Israel (Potiphar for the sake of Joseph). That just might be the case for many in the LDS.

Where’s the leader?

Parson Brown — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:56:10 +0000

Full Text

It is not really fair to make fun of the disciples. We are at a great advantage. We know the full story and we have the Spirit. (Yes, Pentecost means something). And I’m sure I’m bulldozing over huge cultural difference, but I just kinda think that human nature never changes. (Without the intervention of the Spirit.) The disciples’ questions may seem thick, but they are usually very logical. When they ask, like today, who is the greatest – they are asking a real question. Maybe not the way we would put it, but even a question that has prophetic background. Elisha asked for a double portion of the Spirit of Elijah. A prophet who is going away leaves a successor. Jesus has predicted his death three times in rapid succession. The disciples are just asking who’s next in line. What is the succession plan? A natural question.

But hierarchies and succession plans and great leaders are not what the church is about. The gospel does not depend upon the leader. Because the gospel is Christ’s. And he is present wherever two or three call in his name. And what does that look like? Keep on eye on the least – the little child. Be watchful; remain faithful. Look for the lost. Seek reconciliation; not just forgiveness but living with your brother who has wronged you. All of these things are how the church lives grace and depend not a whit on who the local leader is. You can choose to live a life guided by grace. (Enabled by the Spirit). The church is the place where that happens. Where ever two people practice grace instead of power – there Christ is.

So easy, yet so hard to do.

Do you have a church?

Parson Brown — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 18:07:02 +0000

Full Text

A few remarks by people in bible class afterward were interesting feedback. This seem seemed to strike harder than I would have expected. Not that the notes that struck were not there, just that I would have expected a slightly different reaction.

Protestantism and Lutheranism in particular are very polar – either this or that. When you are talking about discipleship or responding to the call of Christ, that isn’t always helpful. Modern protestants have become very able to reduce the gospel to one dimension – believe the right thing. Faith Alone. The dramatic flattening of the gospel in many churches isn’t all Paul’s fault, because Paul is never that one dimensional, but Matthew and the gospels help. The call comes to different people in different ways. The gospel is that it is from God’s guidance and never more than we can handle. That simple faith in the right things – for me encapsulated in the creeds – is the general call given to all humanity. Repent, the Kingdom is here!

But the life of Faith may contain individual calls that go beyond that. They are part of the individuals call to follow. They are part of separating out the disciple of the Kingdom from the admirer.

That title questions – Do you have a church? – is from a story used in the sermon. It is important to ask. Do you have a community of people responding and guided by the call of Jesus, or a club of Jesus admirers?

[Another deeper point not touched on in the sermon directly, but broached in bible class and always floating in Matthew is: are the disciples the embryo church or are they the apostles? When you hear the call to be fisher's of people, is that given to the entire church, or to the ministers? Same in Matthew 28:18-20. Is the great commission to the church as a whole, or those who normally baptize and teach? It is not as clean as we'd like it. Although I'm sure that many would not like this, how you answer that question is probably a bigger difference today between Rome and Protestants than justification. And that also has an impact on Do you have a church? Rome traditionally said Protestants didn't. Now we are just imperfectly in communion. Is there a church structure - an ecclesiology - that acknowledges the ambiguity?]

A beautiful and moving meditation

Parson Brown — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 05:05:15 +0000

You need to read this

It doesn’t get more moving.

Evangelical: What is in a name?

Parson Brown — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 19:28:47 +0000

Being a Lutheran puts one outside of normative American religious landscape. Here is what I mean by that. An old joke used to run What is an Episcopalian? A: A Presbyterian with a trust fund. And it would then go on down the socio-economic ladder. Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist. Lutheran’s just don’t fit in that joke. Catholics didn’t either. My guess is that when that joke was actually funny most in those denominations would have said to Lutherans “you’re catholic”. Which would have caused great cognitive dissonance in most Lutherans, but just by being sacramental it has truth.

The ELCA, since the 1960′s has been fiercely trying to barge its way into that spectrum, and it has succeeded just as that entire thing is meaningless. The LCMS has been engaged in internal bouts of are you pure enough to be a genuine Lutheran untainted by American Evangelicals. We’ve been down the path that Scott McKnight is talking about with Evangelicalism. He’s even using the same language – legalism. And I love his definition. Legalism is anything added to acceptance of the Gospel. McKnight is calling the Calvinists legalists, and if the Calvinists knew the term they’d be calling McKnight a fuzzy headed pietist. And like Scott McKnight says, these are ways of saying acceptance and rejection or you’re in and you’re not.

To me there is something fundamentally wrong with that. That type of behavior is exactly what Jesus always got mad at the Pharisees over. Think Luke 18:9-17 and the Pharisee and the tax collector. If you look at the great commission Matt 28:19-20, the chief task given to the church is to make disciples. The supporting verbs are go, baptize and teach. The go is that general while you are living your life as disciples go make more. The order of making disciples is baptize and teach. Baptism is the entry, baptism now saves you (1 Pet 3:21), but one is not made a disciple overnight. It took Jesus 3 years with his twelve and then it took a few resurrection appearances.

Scott’s post is really worth thinking about primarily for this purpose – how do our local congregations or even our denominations avoid becoming clubs or sects instead of incarnations of the universal/catholic church? We really need the church to show up. In a society of niche marketing and demographic segmentation, the church claims to be universal or catholic. It claims authority and responsibility for all. How do we do that without resorting to least common denominator Christianity? Since the reformation that is the unanswered question. How can we acknowledge our Christian brother be they Reformed, Catholic or Lutheran while at the same time excluding ourselves from communion with them? That is an easy answer to live, most of us do it every day, but a hard one to think about.

Pastor’s hate weddings…

Parson Brown — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 20:33:10 +0000

I sat on this one for a few days because I know what I’m going to say will be snotty, snippy, catty or just bad.

Here is the link to the open letter/article by a Viv Groskop in the UK Guardian. Her former Vicar (Anglican Pastor) is leaving the Anglican Church for Rome, and she wishes him God-speed. (I’ve block-quoted the entire thing at the bottom because I don’t know how long the link will work.)

Here is her money quote…

I would not describe myself as a religious person but I do have some sort of faith. I grew up singing in the choir in the church where I got married (sorry, blessed). Over the years, though, any belief I once had has dwindled away to next to nothing because there is no way to express it casually or on a part-time basis. You’re not that welcome at church services unless you want to become a regular member of the congregation – and you’re not that welcome at your own wedding if the person you want to marry is divorced…I would like to see the Church of England be more inclusive not only towards women priests but towards people like me – people who rarely attend church, often question their faith, but who are, essentially, supportive of the church…That there is no room for fellow travellers, you either believe or you don’t, the church is your life or it is not. But this is completely unrealistic in modern society. In any case, the church I grew up in was about more than religion: it was about community, ritual and a sense of belonging. Where can you go for those now?

What Mrs. Groskop wants is a religious social club. I can recommend one, the masons. They are usually a fine and upstanding group that does good things. They have some rituals, especially at funerals. They like to get together and support each other business wise. The masons are everything that Ms. Groskop wants. What they are not is the church of Jesus Christ whose founder said things like: everyone who has, more will be given, but the one who has nothing, even that will be taken away (Luke 19:26), and whoever does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me (Matt 10:38), and destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up (John 2:19). Jesus was an all or nothing kinda guy who didn’t take to kindly to pious ritualistic religion.

Now, you can say that her Vicar seems to have been a little overbearing. Maybe a two word phrase rhyming with lompus lass might be in order. But he told the truth. Ultimately we are all asked to answer the question Jesus put to everyone – “who do you say that I am?” If you are going to say Lord, can you at the same time say, but I don’t want to see you except for that cute Christmas Eve fire service and for a blessing, excuse me a wedding or two or three…

On our wedding day we virtually ran back down the aisle the second the ceremony ended. “I thought you were going to trip up, you were in a such a hurry,” I remember one guest saying. Why the rush? Because it wasn’t really a wedding at all, but a blessing – and throughout the ceremony the vicar had not let us forget it.

My husband had been married before and, in the Church of England, remarriage is at the vicar’s discretion. Our vicar had decided against it. Throughout the ceremony he referred repeatedly and pointedly to “new beginnings” as opposed to just “beginnings”. He insisted that there be no exchange of rings, because we were, technically, already man and wife. (We went to a registry office five days earlier.) I spent most of the ceremony fiddling with my headdress because I had been told that I shouldn’t be wearing a veil (too bridal for a blessing). It was only at the last minute that the vicar relented and allowed my father to walk me down the aisle. And did I mention that it was not a beginning but a new beginning? I can still remember seeing, out of the corner of my eye, friends and family in the congregation cringing.

It did not come as a huge shock, then, to discover this week that the same vicar who married us is now seeking to defect wholesale – with his parish – to Rome. Father Stephen Bould of St Peter on the East Cliff in Folkestone may be the first to leave the Church of England following Pope Benedict XVI’s offer of “safe harbour” to disaffected Anglicans.

The irony wasn’t lost on me. In the 10 years since I married – in Bould’s previous parish in Somerset, where I grew up – I too have become disaffected by the church. But I’m not exactly rushing headlong to Rome. Instead, I’m more likely to consider signing up for a meditation course. Which is, I think, sad, but fairly typical of people like me.

I would not describe myself as a religious person but I do have some sort of faith. I grew up singing in the choir in the church where I got married (sorry, blessed). Over the years, though, any belief I once had has dwindled away to next to nothing because there is no way to express it casually or on a part-time basis. You’re not that welcome at church services unless you want to become a regular member of the congregation – and you’re not that welcome at your own wedding if the person you want to marry is divorced.

Around the time I got married I convinced myself that the Church of England’s stance on remarriage was impressive: I told myself that I approved of the fact that my husband’s first marriage wasn’t going to be swept under the carpet; that the church had more respect for marriage than to pretend it doesn’t matter how many times you do it. But over time I’ve changed my mind.

Ten years on I’m disillusioned for the opposite reasons to the angry Anglicans. I would like to see the Church of England be more inclusive not only towards women priests but towards people like me – people who rarely attend church, often question their faith, but who are, essentially, supportive of the church. It’s not as if you’d ever be turned away from a service, but there is a clear message on high days and holidays. Always the hopeful raised eyebrow: are you coming back on a regular basis or not? How serious are you? In today’s Christian Britain you are either atheist or God Squad. There’s no inbetween.

Those, like Bould, who look to Rome would say this is right. That if you want to marry in our church, you follow our rules. That there is no room for fellow travellers, you either believe or you don’t, the church is your life or it is not. But this is completely unrealistic in modern society. In any case, the church I grew up in was about more than religion: it was about community, ritual and a sense of belonging. Where can you go for those now?

Perhaps if more take the road to Rome it will help. Anyone who wants a doggedly principled stance towards the Christian faith knows where to go. But while parish priests bicker about who is more biblically correct, they should beware. A whole new generation is heading to the nearest yoga class.

Links – Transparency, Church Finance and being in the loop

Parson Brown — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:39:47 +0000

A few quick links.

Synagogues and churches are quite different, and not just in their view of the that guy from Nazareth. This talks about how they are financed.

And here is an article on probably the major line item in each of those church budgets, the rabbi/minister. I could have a few gripes, but transparency is a virtue.

Gordon Atkinson on the dangers of the sermon to your soul.

And a profound piece of wisdom that should probably be given to every graduate or heroically ambitious person in your life.

Blogs, Advertising & The Word

Parson Brown — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:48:35 +0000

This post by Fuller Seminary Professor Kirk brings up a topic dear to my heart – use of internet media in church environments.

I’ve gone back and forth on this, recently deciding that it is more important to be true to the media even if people might misunderstand. Here is what I mean by that. Blogging and the internet as a media are about experimentation, dialog and thinking process. It is not that you don’t state thoughts, but that you have to be able to say, oops or I was wrong there. The church supposedly is a place for repentance (and it is), but having a pastor potentially say oops in a public space and under a church banner is something that is still shocking. But as I said, I’ve landed on the side of being more open.

Here is why – I think it is more true to what both the church and the Word should be. The commands about the Word are to talk about it when you lie down and when you get up, when you walk along the road and when you rest at home. (Deut 6:7). That is what is noticeably missing from many American Christian’s lives. They firmly believe the authority of the scriptures which then go unread, unreflected and not talked about in their lives. The Word of God is a risky thing. It asks us to do stuff, stuff we probably would rather not. It is uncontrollable. But you know the Word when you hear it. It is self-authenticating. In the same manner the church is really called to be the community of people gathered by that Word who live by that Word. The church is an active servant here. It will get its rest later. When in action, you can’t help but err. The church is a place of repentance and absolution. This media is somewhat unique in exhibiting the best of Christian life: Reflective, word-y, active, messy, reaching, repenting, absolving. We may not “get it” right now, but it can be a real gift. It gives communities a chance to live in front of others they might not otherwise talk too.

But I do have to add something. Right now, it probably does mean professional suicide as Prof Kirk blogs. (That is probably not a good thing to admit at budget time. I can hear the congregation already – you mean we are stuck with him!) I’m sure there are things that I’ve posted that would easily exclude me from any call process, and the answer that oops, doesn’t go over well in those meetings. In a smart world a call committee would look at the larger picture, understand the media and realize they have a fuller picture. In the world we live in the more person with ‘less out there’ just has less reason to exclude them. Before really opening up online, any religious organization leader needs to decide on the depth of the call to a place.

Some Hard Earned Wisdom

Parson Brown — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:30:39 +0000

A pastor always hesitates before he adds something like this. But this post by Gordon Atkinson (aka Real Live Preacher) has a lot of wisdom in it.

Two virtues are at the root of it I think. A great humility and a sense of the corporate. American Christianity places a huge emphasis on the personal i.e. the Jesus in your heart, having a personal relationship. Not to knock those, but New Testament’s primary way of talking about the church is corporate: the body of Christ, living stones of the temple, vine and branches. In down seasons, what used to be called dark nights of the soul, you lean on the community and its practices. Let the community do the confessing for you until the sun comes back up. And ultimately let Christ do the confession. “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, (Gal 2:16 KJV)”