Cyberstones-A Lutheran Blog

Filling out the SET

• May 08, 2008 11:07:26 Re: Filling out the SET-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Rev. Larry Beane
  As an older, wiser priestman, with unpriestmanly bluntness and candor, whispered into the ear of a classmate of mine while shaking his hand: "Lie."
  
  Sancta Raab (Rahab) orat pro nobis. I believe Rahab may be the patron saint of SETs.
  
  I would caution, however, that this strategy can backfire. I know of one case where a true priestman was denied a call to a confessional parish because he was seen as waffling on the issue of altar girls on his SET form.
  
  As always, one size does not fit all.
  • May 08, 2008 14:57:07 Re: Filling out the SET-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Petersen
    I don't advocate lying. Besides being a sin, you have to live with what you write. If you wrote that you can tolerate altar girls you should expect that might have to tolerate them. For not only might it possible turn off a "confessional" parish by such a statement, but so also it could come back to haunt you.
    
    But my point though is that you should write to and for your audience. The questions on the SET cannot be taken at face value. You have to consider who is asking this and why and then shape your answer accordingly. And I am not against tweaking your SET when you know something is in the works.
    • May 08, 2008 19:44:49 Re: Filling out the SET-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Pr. H. R. Curtis
      Not to mention that it's not a bad thing for a good guy to go to a parish that has a ways to go.
      
      The SET is the worse thing that ever happened to our fellowship: it serves to create enclaves. So FL-GA District gets so bad that the whole district memorializes synod for open communion and other districts get so "good" that the confessionals have nothing better to do than eat their young.
      
      So I'd piggy back on the advice for SETs and PIFs. Imagine the worst practices you think you could live with while trying to teach toward the better, and don't write in such a way that you will never, ever survive on a call list to a place with those practices. If confessional guys write in such a way that they will only be on the lists for congregations that are already "there" - how will any more parishes get there?
      
      +HRC
• May 08, 2008 09:26:57 Re: Filling out the SET-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Eric
  As the chairman of a current Call Committee, I think you hit the nail right on the head. Personally, orthodoxy is very important to me. But to a certain extent - you are right - it is assumed. I think we would all like to see hints of it. But, for better or worse, we are probably looking for a "shepherd's heart" more than we are looking for orthodoxy.
  
  I would add, please be aware that your space is limited. We received several SETs with many incomplete answers. The respondent exceeded the space allotted, and his answers were simply cut off. I would like to know what was said in the regions we were unable to read. If you are not doing your own typing, please try to review the final draft and make revisions accordingly. (Thanks.) :)
• May 08, 2008 07:26:10 Re: Filling out the SET-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Dan at Necessary Roughness
  Are you sure you don't write Priestmanship? ;)
  
  I'd like to see some answers whenever possible formed from an aspect of opportunity. This blunts the accusation that one is being rigid.
  
  But Amen to your main point, know your audience. We instructors have that as the Eleventh Commandment.
  • May 08, 2008 09:44:32 Re: Filling out the SET-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - The Priestman
    Fr. Petersen is certainly a priestman, but not The Priestman. And this is good priestmanly advice he gives here, as far as it goes.
    
    But to really excel at avoiding Pigeon Hole Sheol, you can follow the example of Fr. Les Jonco who answered his entire PIF and SET forms in rhyming poetry a lá Seuss. The Poetry Ploy will ensure that you will be seen as playful and loving. Also, include a picture of yourself wearing that super-broad stole with all the multi-colored children of the world on it. The doors of all districts will open wide before you.
    
    The Priestman
    priestmanship.blogspot.com

Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies

• May 08, 2008 16:27:24 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Natalia Yagorova
  All Christians are royal priests by virtue of their baptisms--male and female.
  
  The pastoral ministry is the only office in the Church reserved for men (males), according to God's Word.
  
  Acolytes are not filling the office of the holy ministry, but are merely lighting candles (an adiaphoron itself).
  
  Therefore girl acolytes, as royal priests, do not violate the Scriptures or the Lutheran Confessions.
  
  It is faulty logic to say that there is a direct link between girl acolytes and female pastors. Maybe it is time we got over the old "kinder, kirche, kueche" attitude for women/girls, and accept the Biblical model instead.
  
  
  
  • May 08, 2008 16:38:53 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Petersen
    I don't think girl acolytes lead to women's ordination. But I think they are part of the feminization of the Church. So also I think acolytes might do far more than merely light candles. Thus I think we might build an acolyte corp that assists boys in becoming godly men rather than mandatory "service learning" for confirmation.
    
    As you say, this is adiaphora, but just because something is free does not mean all choices are legitimate, nor that all legitimate choices are equally good. Girl acolytes are no sin. But it'd be a shame that we have no more justification for our ceremonies and practice than that! It is no sin for me to preach wearing a Chewbacca costume. It is no sin for us to choose carpeting for the sanctuary in pschodelic colors and patterns. But you surely don't advocate those things even though they are adiaphora. Now maybe some will come down differently on the salutary use of children in the Divine service as assistants, outside of training boys to be godly men and encouraging them to consider the Office of the Holy Ministry, and maybe it will even be the soft of place in their reckoning that is a good fit for girls as girls. If that is the case, sobeit.
    
    The point of this post was supposed to to be that we ought to be deliberate in how we conduct service and pastors ought to be actively trying to improve their congregation's practice and they ought to be strategic about it, both in understanding their current practice and the practice they hope to adopt and also in how to gently get there so as to cause as little pain and confusion as possible. But being stagnant is not a pastoral option.
• May 08, 2008 13:56:08 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Ya'akov Meir
  These are all interesting opinions--and some really good points. When it comes to the chalice, I have always been surprised at the fervor with which many Confessional pastors will battle for its use. The Last Supper was a Passover meal. Unless I am badly misinformed, everyone at a Passover Seder would have had their own cup. I would recommend that you read a good Hagaddah. Maybe the symbolism of one cup is nice, but it is meaningless--a distinction without a difference.
  
  Incense only causes a problem in LCMS churches because it is seen as being "too catholic." That simple. Scripture is filled with references to incense and it was used daily in the Temple. It should be a non-issue.
  
  According to the ancient rabbis, if something was used to fulfill a divine mitzvah (command), it should be as beautiful as possible. This was a way of showing respect to the Almighty. There is a real hesitation amongst Lutherans to allow their services and buildings to be beautiful. The phrase I hear most of all is: "it's good enough." Maybe not the best attitude.
  
  It is purely subjective to say that it is harsh criticism of a pastor's preaching if people say that they "get more out of the children's sermons then from the adult sermon." Maybe the children's sermon is to the point, i.e. devoid of homiletical flourishes. By the way, it is not bad psychology or educational practice to have a sermon for the children. Mine always seem to enjoy them and benefit from them.
  
  • May 08, 2008 17:14:24 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Beisel
    You're right--ordinarily they would all drink from separate cups. But this night was different. If you look closely at the narratives, you can see that Jesus takes His cup and tells his disciples to drink from it. And notice, St. Paul does not say, "These cups of blessing which we bless..." he says, "This cup of blessing which we bless."
    • May 08, 2008 18:32:34 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Ya'akov Meir
      The Passover that Jesus celebrated that night was a standard Passover Seder for the time. That means that four cups of wine would have been consumed. Over the first cup, the Kiddush was recited; then the story of the Passover was retold. The Second Cup was consumed and then the "Little Hallel" was said ,aka Ps. 113. Then the meal of lamb and bitter herbs was eaten. After the meal the Third Cup, also known as the "Cup of Blessing" was consumed. Then the "Great Hallel" (Ps. 114-118) was recited. Lastly, the Fourth Cup, known as the Cup of Consummation was consumed. The fourth cup was often associated with the prophet Elijah (forerunner of the Messiah).
      
      The Cup that formed the basis for the Eucharistic celebration was the Third Cup (Cup of Blessing). Paul referred to this in 1 Cor. 10:16.
      
      That night was not out of the ordinary in terms of the Pesakh Seder that they were celebrating. And again, while it is probably a minor point, they would all have had their own cups. No, Paul does not say "these cups...etc." We do not say, for instance, "I'm taking the garbages out," either. Paul was using the term cup in a collective sense. There's nothing really wrong with having one chalice, but to make it a "hill to die on" (which many confessionals do) is unnecessary and, perhaps, not historically very accurate. It would profit Christians to study their "Jewish roots" a bit more!
      • May 08, 2008 20:01:00 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Pr. H. R. Curtis
        Ya'akov,
        
        It's notoriously sketchy to try to read the post-Jamnian (or even most Talmud!) Haggadoth back into Jesus' 1st century Judea. We simply can't say with any certainty that these Seder Haggadoth that we have from the 4th, 5th, or later centuries reflect accurately what Jesus would have been doing at the time.
        
        But we do have Messiah's word: "Drink of IT, ALL of you." And we have the history of the Church to bear witness to the antiquity of this interpretation. I'd say that's a better witness to the practice of Jesus than later (non-Messianic) Haggadoth.
        
        +HRC
        • May 08, 2008 20:52:44 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Y.M.
          Jews have long memories! We have preserved the knowledge of who are descended from the kohanim, for example--just in case the Temple is ever rebuilt ;-) There may be changes in the details of the Pesakh Seder, but I would suggest that the differences are very minor. The practice of using four cups of wine is well attested to historically. Yeshua makes reference to the fact that He will not drink of the "fruit of the vine" until He drinks it new in G-d's kingdom. That could be a reference to the ancient prayer used for Shabbat and for Pesakh--Baruch atah adonai eloheynu melekh ha-olam, boreh p'ri ha-gafen, ameyn. (Blessed art Thou o Lord our G-d, King of the Universe, maker of the fruit of the vine.) I bring this up to indicate the antiquity of Jewish practice.
          
          Very early on, Christianity passed out of Jewish hands. Much of the Semitic heritage of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures was lost or forgotten by the gentile converts to the Church. Sadly, most have never wanted to explore it. (For instance, at least Matthew's Gospel was written first in Aramaic, which is a cousin to Hebrew and Arabic, then translated into Greek! Aramaic was also the first language of the Messiah!) I suggest that with the long memory of G-d's ancient people, Yeshua would recognize and feel at home in the Sederim of today. He did say: "Drink from it all of you." This doesn't necessarily mean that they passed around one (and only) cup. To my way of thinking, the argument about one chalice versus the small individual cups is needless--a distinction without a difference.
          
          All the best! Study Hebrew!
          • May 09, 2008 07:10:28 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Beisel
            Whether or not they were celebrating in the later way of the Seder is of no consequence for determining what Jesus did when he celebrated it with His disciples. He instituted something quite different when he took his own cup and gave it to HIs disciples and told them to drink from it, as Fr. Curtis pointed out.
            
            Also, this Cup that Jesus gave to His disciples is closely related to a constellation of Cup imagery in both the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament you hear of the Lord's "Cup of Wrath" which he is forcing the nations to drink and become drunk. Then Jesus, in His last moments before being arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane prays, "Father take this Cup from me..." What cup is he speaking of but that Cup of Wrath which was meant for the nations, but which He now will drink to the dregs in HIs death. Through His drinking the Cup of Suffering, He now has transformed it into a Cup of blessing, a Cup which is filled not with the boiling anger of God, but which is filled with the wine of divine mercy. You cannot read the Messiah's words apart from the wider usage of the Cup metaphor in the Bible. This is why Jesus took a singular Cup and blessed it and gave it to His disciples, rather than having them drink from their own cups as they normally would have.
  • May 08, 2008 14:51:08 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Petersen
    Assuming you're using object lessons (which might be a huge assumption) it is not "bad" psychology. It is just that cognitive psychology says your children enjoy your children's sermons because they enjoy being with you and pleasing you. They don't actually learn anything. So also educational theory. You're entertaining them, not teaching them. If the people say that they get more out of the children's sermon than the sermon I am inclined to believe them and think the sermon needs to be fixed, as you say, it should be to the point and devoid of "homiletical flourishes."
    • May 08, 2008 15:18:10 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Y.M.
      King Solomon said: "Sweetness of speech increases persuasiveness" and "Pleasant words are a honeycomb, sweet to the soul and healing to the bones."
      
      It is alright to let the children (and maybe even the adults) laugh just a bit, while they are learning. Perhaps what is pleasant to us, we remember even better? The world is a cold, grey place. Shouldn't the church have just a taste of divine joy?
• May 08, 2008 13:14:41 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Pr. Matt Ruesch
  Pastor Petersen,
  
  I'm surprised you haven't mentioned closed communion thus far. That is a very difficult practice to implement, and yet one that many young pastors have to deal with. Any suggestions? This is fresh on my mind as just yesterday I had an ugly conversation with someone regarding this very issue.
  • May 08, 2008 14:47:52 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Petersen
    Dear Pastor Ruesch,
    
    I didn't list it because there is no room for compromise. Closed communion is not a ceremony but the mandatory practice given by Our Lord. There is no easy way to implement it, we just have to do it, even though none of us enjoy it.
    
    However, I will reproduce what I think are the best "arguments," even though when we are in this situation people aren't really interested in arguments.
    
    1. Everyone practices closed communion. In the ELCA they don't give communion to infants or to unbaptized people or to blatant sinners. So the real question is not whether or not the altar is closed. It obviously is. The question is where are the lines.
    
    That argument actually quells quite a few upset ELCA people. Because they haven't always thought about their own practice before and when they do our position, even if they think wrong, suddenly makes sense. "Oh, yeah," they think, "I guess the altar is closed. We don't communion everyone, no matter what."
    
    2. Are you afraid that if you don't have communion right here and now that you will go to Hell? No? You believe in Jesus? You love Him? You don't think communion right now, in this place and time, is necessary for salvation? OK. Then this isn't an emergency and you should avail yourself of the Holy Communion in your own church as soon as possible.
    
    3. If you receive communion with us you are publically renouncing your Church, you are joining yourself to us and thereby rejecting what your Church teaches about . . . (women's ordination, etc.) If you then go back and take communion at your church you make yourself a hypocrite. You have two contrary confessions and you thereby sin against the Body of Jesus. But if you believe what we believe, that is great, and you should act on it. But that means you need to leave your church. Are you ready for that? Ready to make that promise?
    
    • May 09, 2008 06:18:11 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Pr. Matt Ruesch
      Thanks Pr. Petersen for responding. Obviously implementing closed communion really needs to be a "just buck up and do it sort of thing." A couple of thoughts that I've had as I've gone through this change in my current parish are:
      
      1. Remember that the laity in our congregations (those with non-LCMS family and friends who want to commune) have been fed a false expectation. Many of them have been taught by their experience that it's acceptable to bring anyone and everyone to communion. Don't compromise...but love them and keep this in mind. For many of them, you can explain it until your blue in the face, but they won't get past the matter of, "When Pastor X was here, he let my family come to communion, but you won't."
      
      2. Also remember that when you make it a regular practice to commune those outside of our church fellowship, you compromise the practice of your brother pastor who seeks to do his job faithfully. You add fuel to the fire and deepen the misunderstanding that is rooted in the minds of our laity. Be strong...be confident in the doctrine you've pledged to defend in your ordination...and lean on the support of other pastors who know how hard it is to tell someone, "No."
      
      Pastor Petersen, I've enjoyed your "unsolicited advice" for new pastors and wish someone would have taken me aside three years ago and shared some of these insights with me!
• May 08, 2008 10:35:15 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Rev. Michael Erickson
  Dave, I understand your points on separating first communion and confrimation. But I believe there are many confessional brothers that would disagree - may be I am wrong. I am not yet convinced to go to this. I am all for lowering confirmation age. I catechize 4th and 5th graders and may go lower someday. One could argue that there is still intellectual achievement involved in early communion as well. I think there is still much to be gained in the study, questions, reading, and wrestling with the Scriptures and Small catechism with the pastor for couple of years before one communes. It is a part of examining oneself. All right, let me have it. Convince me otherwise.
• May 07, 2008 19:47:41 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Rev. Thos. Winter
  Could you unpack what you meant here?

  Quote:

  But some teaching here about the distinct role of the servant and the host (the host eats last) will go a long ways.

  • May 08, 2008 05:18:57 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Petersen
    This is ONLY a ceremony. The efficacy of the Body and Blood are not changed by order of reception. But the ceremony of the pastor receiving last is the ceremony of a host who politely makes sure there is enough for everyone else before he eats. That is not humility in this case because the pastor is not the host. He is a servant. So the stronger ceremony, the more humble position, is for the pastor to receive first, as a servant, because he needs the strength and cleansing to serve, and to show that he is not the host.
    
    I realize some people (pastors and lay people) aren't going to agree with me on what the stronger ceremonies are. I am not trying to tell any pastor or church what to do. I simply wanted to demonstrate that pastors should make changes to improve their congregations practice. That is part of shepherding them.
    • May 08, 2008 06:17:27 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Pr. H. R. Curtis
      A buddy of mine has a good line on this one. "Why doesn't somebody come up to distribute the Supper to me? The same reason somebody doesn't come up and preach a sermon to me when I'm done with the one I preached. . . "
      
      +HRC
• May 07, 2008 16:23:56 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Rick Serina
  As one who must practice chanting regularly and who still struggles at times to stay on key with certain notations, it strikes me as odd that most liturgical communities have their officiants/celebrants chant as a matter of course, regardless of their musical abilities. Some may use a cantor more prevalently, but they still chant.
  
  Why, then, do some insist that chanting must be done well or not done at all? It is not performance, after all, and we most certainly don't ask the people to stop singing the hymnody if they cannot sing well.
  
  More to the point, though, isn't there something to be said for the message communicated by the chanting itself, irrespective of its musical quality, something about the office of the ministry and the catholicity of the liturgy and the continuity of cultus within the church?
  
  That's not to say that I subject the people to a sung mass full of my squeaking and squawking. I indeed do limit chanting to a few choice parts (intoning the Gloria, Salutation and Oremus, Preface, Thanksgiving, Concluding Salutation, Benedicamus), which I thankfully am able to accomplish with some reasonable success, but it seems there is more lost than gained by capitulating purely to aural pleasure.
  
  Then again, what do I know? I am just a pastor who wishes he could chant better.
  
  Rick Serina
  Trinity Lutheran-Albany (TX)
  • May 08, 2008 05:29:50 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Petersen
    My guess is that if you are working at it you do fine.
    
    I repent. The real problem is not those who don't do it well it is those who are sloppy, who don't put forth the rehearsal time, etc. And I think you are very wise to pick your parts. This, btw, is another good strategy for introducing chanting. Don't try to do it all the first Sundays.
    
    The other thing behind my remarks was really that I was trying to classify (perhaps foolishly) what ceremonies can easily be changed and what are the most difficult. For some reason it is very difficult in most places to introduce chanting. The comment about doing it well was related to that, it was part of the compromises I was suggesting, and not really meant as an ideal.
    
    Like unto all things there are "tricks" that might help. You can have your organist experiment with how you get the pitch. Some people can hear and match the pitch better if it is an octave lower. I know that sounds weird but it is true. It is also sometimes easier to hear a reedy pitch. Or you could actually have your organist accompany you with a single note softly so that you can adjust as you're singing and don't feel like you're all alone out there.
    • May 08, 2008 06:24:34 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Rick Serina
      "For some reason it is very difficult in most places to introduce chanting. The comment about doing it well was related to that, it was part of the compromises I was suggesting, and not really meant as an ideal."
      
      That is precisely how I took your suggestion and I think you are correct. I was actually responding more so to the other comments, to be honest.
      
      RJS
  • May 07, 2008 21:24:35 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Anastasia Theodoridis
    Seems to me you have an excellent point. Make a joyful noise to the Lord, it says, not necessarily ear-candy. God is the one 'hearing' it, who doesn't have literal ears to be tickled, but knows the heart of the singer...
• May 07, 2008 16:14:59 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Larry Peters
  In every parish I have served, there have been lay readers. I have moved them into reading the OT and Epistle and I read the Gospel. It is not a deal breaker with me. It is far more important to me to weed out those who cannot and should not read and to teach those who can how to read Scripture in public.
  
  We use incense often but nearly every use is in Evening Prayer and not in the Divine Service. People have gotten used to it and outside of the smokers who insist that this smoke kills them, I seldom hear any comment anymore.
  
  Chanting is best done by those who do. I recall as a child listening to Pope Paul VI try to chant and winced even though I did not know exactly what it should have sounded like. But once Pastors learn, people generally on board. What I detest is the habit of having Pastors speak and people sing -- it should be consistent one way or the other.
  
  Choir anthems are not an issue if you plan early and have a cooperative musician who shares the vision of what the liturgy is to be. I find that the anthem is nearly always liturgical, a great fit with the lessons... though not always what the choir members enjoy singing.
  
  I have reintroduced the chalice in both parishes where I have served and as long as I did not discard the individual glasses I have been successful -- not more than 60% of the people actually have chosen the chalice. It helps to have both together all the time at the same time so that there is no fuss.
  • May 08, 2008 05:21:13 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Petersen
    I realize some people (pastors and lay people) aren't going to agree with me on what the stronger or most ideal ceremonies are. I am not trying to tell any pastor or church what to do and I wasn't trying to challenge the choices others have made. I simply wanted to demonstrate that pastors should make changes to improve their congregations practice. That is part of shepherding them.
• May 07, 2008 15:06:39 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Anastasia Theodoridis
  Why do people tend to be offended at incense???
  
  And what is their objection to chanting, providing it's done well, and on-key???
  
  Could you have lay readers do the Epistle each Sunday, and the priest do the Gospel?
  • May 08, 2008 06:51:40 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Jane
    I love incense, even if it does make me cough. :)
    
    The other objection to incense that I have heard is the same one that I've heard to chanting. It strikes some as "too Catholic."
  • May 07, 2008 15:11:58 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Petersen
    Incense bothers people's allergies and can make it difficult for some people to sing. Lutherans come to Church to sing.
    
    I don't know what the objection to chanting is.
    
    I wasn't stating personal objections, just observations.
    
    The problem with the readings is that the reading of the Scriptures in Worship is properly the duty and responsibility of the Office of the Holy Ministry. An ordained deacon could read the Epistle but he would be serving in the Office. If it is a local custom that simply can't be undone without creating huge problems, I certainly think it is preferable to have the lay readers read the OT and Epistle and have the pastor read the Gospel.
    • May 07, 2008 21:26:03 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Anastasia Theodoridis
      Yes, I was meaning to suggest this only as a compromise, not as the proper way of doing things.
• May 07, 2008 13:24:48 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Rev. David M. Juhl
  Concerning chanting, the best dictum could be:
  
  "Those who can, should. Those who can't, shouldn't."
  
  I'd rather hear Divine Service well spoken than well sung.
  
  Concerning incense, Pr. Scott Bruzek of St. John Church in Wheaton, IL has an excellent (and short) note placed in the bulletin weeks before incense is used. I wish I had it saved. It mentions that they will use incense in accordance with the Scriptural mandate, but announce its use so those who might be offended may attend another Divine Service. Incense is usually used in one of their Divine Services on high feast days.
  
  Further, a little incense goes a long, long way. The operative word is "little". Not all of our edifices are Winchester Cathedral.
• May 07, 2008 12:38:35 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Christine
  I'm interested in the theological reasons for doing away with children's sermons and choir anthems.
  • May 07, 2008 14:44:43 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Petersen
    Dear Christine,
    
    It is not a matter of right and wrong or can and can't but rather of stronger versus weaker. There isn't a single Bible passage that describes children's sermons nor are there any that forbid them. But that does not mean they are themselves indifferent. Not all things free are equal. You are free to pay $6 for 2 1/2 gallon containers of milk or $4 for a single gallon. You commit no sin if you choose the former but you haven't shown the greatest wisdom. That being said you could have a reason for paying more, maybe your refrigerator is only wide enough to hold half gallon containers. But nonetheless the decision about which to buy and what the pros and cons, costs and benefits, are is a necessary exercise.
    
    Choirs best serve when they are used to enhance and highlight congregational singing and to highlight or interpret particular texts. It is possible for what we generally call "anthems" to serve in this way, but that is not usually what we mean by "anthems." Nonetheless, the idea with strengthening congregational practice regarding the use of the choir is to make the choir an integral part of worship (that is, a liturgical choir) and not an interruption or break from the Service.
    
    Children's sermons, as they are usually known among us (object lessons) don't really fulfill their stated purpose. That is to say they don't actually preach to or educate the children since they rely upon a technique that is better suited for adolescents than children (children don't get "object lessons," they don't have the cognitive ability to apply concrete things to abstractions). Children's sermons typically serve instead to break the flow of the service and set up a parade. Everyone enjoys watching the children come down front and waiting for them to say something cute. The pastor enjoys a certain fantasy that he is like Jesus welcoming the children. Everyone is hoping for a laugh. Admittedly, many adults claim they "get more" out of the children's sermons than they do out of the regular sermon, but this is actually harsh criticism of the preacher. Children's sermons also give the impression that the rest of the service isn't for the children or can't be understood by them. That is also very unfortunate. Thus the stronger practice is to teach the children to participate in the liturgy and to bring them as soon as possible to the Lord's Body and Blood. That is how Jesus welcomes the little children! Not with games and candy, but with His grace.
    
    That all being said, theological rationale and even educational theory and psychology will make little impact on those who love these practices. For the most part, emotions overrule reason. So we have to move very gently and carefully. Otherwise people will react quite badly and a pastor's desire to bring the children into the whole liturgy (but to stop segregating them in the form of a children's sermon) will be interpreted as though he hates children (or to more deeply involve the choir in the Service as though he hates music). Such nonsense will probably be obviously false to everyone but the accuser, but it is still painful to endure, and so also we should try to help our members avoid such emotional outbursts which they might regret later. That is why I say these two things are among the most difficult to change.
    
    Even though I fear it won't be heard, just in case anyone is suspicious or afraid I am not really Lutheran, I will say it again: I am not saying and have never said that children's sermons or choir anthems are sinful. But nor will I say that I find them the best and most ideal practices.
    
    Yours in Christ,
    
    Pastor Petersen
• May 07, 2008 12:25:58 Re: Changing Congregational Practice: Some Strategies-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Please Be Quiet
  "People hate chanting almost more than anything else." "... and you'd better be able to do it well." Amen to that! More harm has been done to the practice of chanting by pastors who sing poorly (at best!) than by the hard-headedness of the pew sitters. I've sat through many a church service digging my fingernails into the pew to keep from grimacing at the off pitch, poor vocal tone singing. Ruins the whole tone of the service. Ugh.

Kieschnick Administration stops the Gospel in W. Africa

• May 07, 2008 07:20:22 Re: Kieschnick Administration stops the Gospel in W. Africa-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Leistico
  is there any chance an organization like LHF, or another ILC church body, or even some American congregation, could call Rev. May so he could remain/return to continue this work?
• May 06, 2008 23:28:25 Re: Kieschnick Administration stops the Gospel in W. Aftrica-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Rev. Jon C Olson
  
  
  Question:
  Does LCMS World Mission support 'church plants' and 'trained leaders'?
  

  Quote:

  The decision leaves three newly planted churches in Burkina Faso without a theologically trained leader and also the Lutheran Church of Togo without a missionary which they had been awaiting for six years.

• May 06, 2008 18:40:11 Re: Kieschnick Administration stops the Gospel in W. Aftrica-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Lauren
  I'm calling Bob Roegner in the morning to ask about this situation. It's unlikely that I'll a.) get to talk to him and b.) get any answers, but if I do, I'll let you know.

Annual Unsolicited Advice for New Pastors

• May 08, 2008 06:53:32 Brilliant text.-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - awanniliorgini
  favorited this one, dude
• May 07, 2008 09:43:23 Re: Annual Unsolicited Advice for New Pastors-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Matt L
  I wish I would act like a bull in a china shop:
  http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nk_zpMory-0
• May 07, 2008 01:09:55 Re: Annual Unsolicited Advice for New Pastors-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Rev. John Frahm
  Remember that "love your people" - so often stated - is not simply an emotion. But on the other hand it is law. That doesn't mean it is bad, just that it is law. Love is the fulfillment of the law and we fail at this - new pastors, longtime pastors, and laity fail at this daily and miserably. So, despair of yourself and trust in the Lord's absolution for you.
  
  Some law...
  1. keep studying Scripture, good Lutheran theology and patristics
  2. do have friends in the Lutheran ministerium to whom you can vent and also those who will call you on the carpet when you need it
  3. subscribe to good Lutheran journals like Gottesdienst and Logia and join the Augustana Ministerium
  4. realize that orthodoxy is a goal, not the starting point. Most likely many will be Lutheran pastors to nominally Lutheran parishes - sad but true. this is because of weak catechesis, generational blindspots in theology, and because of differences between the parish's history of various pastors. oikonomia...
  5. realize your strengths and weaknesses in brutal honesty
  6. realize synod is interested in synod as an institution no how matter how much they smile, berate, send letters, ask for money, cry about mission dollars, etc
  7. Expect to get beat up verbally, financially, physically, spiritually, because of your sins and weaknesses, because you are faithful, because you have more theology to learn, because you are impatient, because you waited too long, and for no reason at all.
  Know that God doesn't need you personally to be a pastor. He decided to do this, not you. You are not worth coming to Church for, and you are not worth leaving Church over. What a pastor is good for is the giving out of the means of grace in faithful stewardship. Forget leadership, success, effectiveness, charisma, expertise, and your personal piety as reasons why God would use you. That isn't it. His call and His putting you under orders to deliver the crucified and risen Lord - that's the reason. No merit or worthiness in you...
  
  
  On the gospel
  Know that the same divine forgiveness that come out of your mouth and from your hands is for you also. Know that your daily failures, missteps in the office are taken up in the wounds of Christ. Theology is the art of listening carefully to God's canonical Word to you and His Church and the world -- sinners. Know the promises that God gives to you first of all as a baptized believer in Christ, but then also know the promises of the office to bless, be effective, not by your efforts, charisma or personality, but that Christ would be glorified despite you being a cracked pot.
  
• May 06, 2008 20:41:18 Re: Annual Unsolicited Advice for New Pastors-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - The Rev. BT Ball
  Dave-
  the law always accuses. Now I have to get to confession because I believe I am a lackey. Thanks.
  Ball
• May 06, 2008 16:27:48 Re: Annual Unsolicited Advice for New Pastors-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - D Dahling
  Be faithful. Faithful the the Lord, faithful to the Word. Be humble, love your people, and remember you are not ordained to be God.
• May 06, 2008 10:10:53 Re: Annual Unsolicited Advice for New Pastors-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Rev. Michael Erickson
  Your first paragraph speaks volumns. It shows again how the Synod has simply gone the way of the world. Pastors and people as well. I must also confess my own faults and cavings at times to please people. The Saber of Boldness and the Augustana Ministerium do uphold those who fight the good fight. They should be commended. May we all have the widsom and strength to suffer for the sake of the Gospel and not worry who feeds us.
• May 06, 2008 09:08:06 Re: Annual Unsolicited Advice for New Pastors-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - John Wurst
  Thank you from a man waiting on a Call from the Lord.

Adultery and Fidelty Chrysostom via Esget

Comic Book Fidelity

• May 08, 2008 01:38:26 well done-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - MeendaPainue
  thank you, dude
• May 03, 2008 11:40:11 Re: Comic Book Fidelity-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Josh S
  The other problem is that comic book narratives have been hopelessly corrupted with clones, time travel, retconning, and minute cross-referencing. Gone are the stories that can be told in one or two issues, replaced with never-ending soap operas of mutation and dimension-shifting.
• May 01, 2008 12:13:00 Re: Comic Book Fidelity-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Jason Evans
  The only two comic book movies that have been truly come close to the books have been Sin City and 300 because the film makers tried to diverge as little from the original material as possible.
  
  The problem with comics is that they are a closed universe with many overlapping and continuing storylines that can't be easily entered by someone who hasn't been reading the stories for some time. Movies are designed to be accessible to the largest audience possible, and so they have to make many changes to a comic book story so it can appeal to a large audience who may not know any of the back story from the books.
  • May 01, 2008 20:33:11 Re: Comic Book Fidelity-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Pr. Lovett
    I've been a Spider-Man fan my whole life, and I have to say, I was pretty impressed with the first two Spider-Man films. (Though I've never read Sin City or 300 - I loved the movie, 300.) No, they weren't spot-on as far as the comic goes, but they did a great job of getting the right feeling of Spider-Man. (At least the "Spectacular Spider-Man" comics I read.) Which, in my opinion, is better than trying to match every detail of the comic story. The story would be nothing if it doesn't feel like the comic feels.
    
    Boy, lot of feelings running around.

CTS Ft. Wayne Recruitment Strategy

• May 01, 2008 13:45:23 Re: CTS Ft. Wayne Recruitment Strategy-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Peter
  Amen, Brother Stig. It's not a matter of vacancies, it's a about a harvest that needs to harvested, and about wandering sheep who need shepherds. And so we work while it is still day, before the night comes, and no man can work.
• May 01, 2008 12:35:31 Re: CTS Ft. Wayne Recruitment Strategy-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Stiegemeyer
  Hey thanks for highlighting my earlier comment. I wrote it because I occasionally have someone either tell me or ask me whether the projected shortage isn't a hoax encouraged by the seminaries because we're desperate for students.
  
  Why would anyone assume that CTS is desperate for students? There is only one LCMS seminary which has experienced a precipitous decline. And it's not CTS. So we're not milking the supposed crisis around here. In fact, I have never mentioned the need for pastors to fill vacancies to a prospective student. Not once. That's just number 19 out of the top 20 baseless myths I hear about our seminary from friends and foes alike.
  
  In fact, as far as I am concerned, if I heard today that there won't be any available calls in the LCMS ever again, I wouldn't change a single thing about what we do.
  
  I suppose it could be argued that if anyone is trying to exaggerate the supposed coming crisis, it's not the seminaries but other entities who want to expand lay ministries and so forth.
  
  We invite and encourage and counsel men to become pastors because that's what Jesus did, it's what he tells us to do, and it's what all faithful pastors do.
  • May 01, 2008 17:19:43 Re: CTS Ft. Wayne Recruitment Strategy-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Pr. Lehmann
    I don't think that before hearing you articulate this that I'd ever really thought about what your vocation as an admissions director is and how it really doesn't change.
    
    Thanks for your work.

To A Mother

• May 01, 2008 09:54:32 Re: To A Mother-(Click here to respond to this comment.) - Christopher Gillespie
  Thank you for this sound spiritual care.
  
  It recalls David Scaer suggesting that the pain of childbirth is not just labor and delivery but also the pain that the child is born in sin and will die, and worse yet, may reject the faith and die eternally. If so, the pains of motherhood are universal, calling every faithful mother to repentance, reception of His sacraments and absolution, and intercession that her children remain steadfast (or be called back to faith.)
  
  Motherhood is a great gift but suffers under the great burden of sin. It is a cross.

Weedon on Preaching

New Letter from Pr. Evanson

Reminder: Ascenison Service, Rubrics Class

4th Use of the Law Discovered