Christian Unity in the Local Congregation

I take it for granted that there are bad reasons for a local church to have more than one service -- reasons which any ordinary Christian, considering them objectively, would admit are wrong and should not be allowed to break the church into separate congregations. For example, some members can't stand organ music, while others cannot bear to have worship without it; so the church decides to offer one service accompanied by organ and another with piano. I think any ordinary Christian looking at that situation from a distance would admit it is not good. It is a failure to walk together in a manner worthy of the calling to which Christians have been called. It is a failure to bear with one another in love. It is a failure to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Given the nature of the disagreement, I think we can all see that.

Another example of a bad reason for breaking up the local congregation -- one that applies specifically to our Lutheran experience -- would be a situation where one part of the congregation loves the third setting of the Divine Service and another part prefers the first setting. It would be a poor example of sincere brotherly love from a pure heart if that church decided to break into separate congregations so each part could worship in the manner they like best, and I think most Christians -- indeed most people -- would easily recognize that.

What if one part of the congregation wanted to worship at 9 a.m. and the other part is not willing to worship any earlier in the morning than 10:30 a.m.? Is it okay to offer services at both times simply to avoid a split? Are you kidding? The solution only sanctions the problem!

On the other hand, although my personal bias leans against it, I take it for granted that there may be good reasons for a church to have more than one service. Perhaps a large portion of the community surrounding the church does not speak the language of the congregation. In an effort to provide a Christian witness to those speaking the other language, the local church decides to provide a worship service in that language. That could be a good reason for more than one service. Or, perhaps, the congregation has more members than the fire marshall will allow in the sanctuary at any one time, and the church does not have the resources to build a new sanctuary. Such a church might need to have more than one service -- at least for a period of time, until a more permanent solution can be found.

Is the number of services in a local church adiaphora? Strictly speaking, perhaps so. There is no divine command that we divide a congregation in this way, and there is no divine prohibition against it. But if we are going to take that point of view it needs to come with at least two words of caution.

First, adiaphora is, and ought to be, more narrowly applied than we might like. Take for example the issue of infant baptism. Can you find in Scripture any divine command that infants be baptized? No. Is there any divine prohibition against it? No. Does that make infant baptism adiaphora? From a Lutheran perspective, it most certainly does not; and yet it meets the same standard by which we are so quick to assert our freedom in the matter of multiple services.

Second, any decision regarding multiple services needs to be deliberated with the clear understanding that Christian congregations worship together; and those that do not worship together -- for whatever reason(s) -- have effectively formed a second (or third, or fourth) congregation, even if they share the same pastor or government or facility.

I know of a pastor in Minnesota who serves two congregations in two different towns. No one says that they are one church with two services simply because they share a pastor. There is a Baptist church around the corner from my house with signs indicating that it is also the meeting place for St. Thomas Evangelical Church (apparently an Indian congregation otherwise unrelated to the congregation that owns the building). No one would say that they are one church with two services simply because they happen to meet in the same location. Why do churches all around this city and in every part of the country think they can offer one service on Saturday night and three more on Sunday morning, while acting like all the people in these different services form a single congregation? What makes them one? If you say it is the ministry of Word and Sacrament, how does the first service have more communion with the second service than it has with a church in the same denomination on the far side of town?

The notion that a local church can be one congregation with multiple services is not even contemplated in the Scripture, nor does it stand up to the scrutiny of God's Word, the Lutheran Confessions, or plain old common sense. So, if we are going to have multiple services let's do it with our eyes open to the fact that we are dividing ourselves into multiple congregations. Then, and only then, will we be able to discuss and deliberate as we should the reasons compelling us to the seperation.

Expecting an Economic Recovery? ...Maybe Not!

It is strange and unfortunate that the House Republicans were able to vote with complete unity against the stimulus bill back in February, but on the climate change bill yesterday eight Republican Representatives made passage of the bill possible in a 219-212 vote. The stimulus was a bill that would do no good. It has not and will not aid in economic recovery. The climate change bill will actually damage -- it will cause harm to -- the American economy, and now Democrats can claim that it was a "bipartisan" effort.

A pollster called me a couple of days ago and asked me whether I was generally optimistic or pessimistic about economic recovery. I said, generally optimistic. That is usually the case. I tend to believe the American economy can survive and thrive despite most of the stupid stuff Congress does. If that pollster would, please call me back. I would like to change my answer! Although its effects may be a bit more gradual, this bill will ultimately be more disasterous to the American economy than Jefferson's trade embargo.

The Senate is working on its own version of this legislation. You can read an analysis of one proposal here. At first glance it might look like a tiresome read, but given the complexity of the 1,200-page bill it is a very concise and readable piece of work.

Congratulations "Junior"!

There are very few teams in all of professional sports I like less than the LA Lakers. That may have to change after they drafted Chinemelu Elonu last night. A physical, hard working power forward, he was perhaps my favorite player on the only college basketball team that matters -- Texas A&M. I wish he had gone back to Aggieland for his senior year. Normally when someone skips out like that you figure he can't make the grades academically. Not so in this case. He picked up his bachelor's degree in May. Way to go, Elonu!

By the way, this makes Texas A&M the only team in the Big 12 to have a player drafted into the NBA in each of the last three years.

Nourishing Hope

As Christians we have the hope of salvation, but hope has to be nourished. As Lutherans we have long emphasized the fact that the Gospel not only makes us Christians, but it also sustains us in the faith. So we need the Gospel more than once. We need it regularly or our faith and hope will starve to death.

This morning I read a column in the Wall Street Journal from Peggy Noonan, and I commend it to you; because, although she is criticizing President Obama, the criticism is driven by the hope that he will become a great president. She is presenting her case with more than mere civility or respect. While pointing out present flaws in the Administration's approach to our various crises, she is nurturing the hope that President Obama will meet the challenges of our moment and achieve greatness -- something we should all want for him. To some extent every American feels that way on Innauguration Day, but for those of us on the opposite side of the partisan divide that feeling quickly fades and eventually dies as we are disappointed time and time again by the things the president does. Hope has to be nourished, and I think Peggy Noonan has done us all a favor in that regard.

Christian Unity in the Local Congregation

I've addressed this subject on the blog before, but I recently offered my opinion to our congregation's Board of Elders. I do not believe our church should have two worship services for our English-speaking members. We have more than enough space to accomodate all our English-speakers in one service. When local churches refuse to worship together on the basis of preferences for different liturgical styles, or different worship times, etc. the local church is essentially refusing to walk in Christian unity one with another. Or, at the very least, they have developed a form of unity based on something other than the preaching of the pure Gospel and an administration of the sacraments according to the Gospel. It may be shared facilities, or government, or community outreach programs, or whatever else -- all potentially good things in themselves. But those things are not the Gospel, they are not the calling with which we were all alike called into the Christian faith. And so they should not be the things that make us one body.

This (above) is what I, personally, believe and wrestle with.

Here is the entire text of my email. I presented my opinion in the context of a discussion among the Elders (I am a member of that Board) regarding the possibility of changing our worship schedule. The email message:

I really cannot contribute much to a discussion of service times, because I don’t believe we should have as many services as we do.

Unless and until we run out of space in our sanctuary (at which time we ought to plant another church), we should have ONE SERVICE for our English-speaking members. Whatever trials we might face in the process of reconciliation, they should be much preferred to maintaining the status quo. I believe our present division is incompatible with the concept of “true unity” presented in Article VII of the Augsburg Confession, and a restoration of Christian unity should be negotiated graciously and soon.

In response, a very dear friend and brother mentioned (among many other good and gracious things) that "some of the most ardent Confessional Lutherans... have multiple worship services in their own congregations." He went on to mention by name several pastors and congregations in Texas. Although I appreciate much of his response, I was surprised and dismayed by this blatent appeal to partisanship. It would seem as though he is hoping to persuade me to change my mind by saying essentially, "Look, various highly-esteemed leaders of your own party obviously disagree with you on this." I am happy to call myself a "Confessional Lutheran," but my opinion on this matter is not at all the result of any partisan affinity or affiliation. I know that a great many "Confessional" pastors and congregations have multiple worship services, and I would gladly present the same argument to each and every one of them.

Perhaps it is only an unattainable ideal, but LOCAL CHURCHES OUGHT TO WORSHIP TOGETHER -- AS ONE BODY.

I share this without any malice for any of the people involved. It is simply an illustration at the local level of what our Synod President is apparently describing as a "spirit of distrust," which he, counterintuitively, claims is present despite an "exceptional" unity in doctrine. (HT: Scott Diekmann)

Go read this...

In honor of this, the 479th anniversary of the presentation of the Augsburg Confession, Pastor Paul T. McCain has posted an excellent (and lengthy) article on the significance and present relevance of this most blessed occasion. Specifically, he addresses the question, "Does being Lutheran still matter?"

Check it out.

Government and the Sanctity of Marriage

I had an interesting exchange yesterday with another reader at DallasNews.com about the government's role in protecting the sanctity of marriage. It is a subject worth considering, and that reader made a couple of points I would like to address further.

He/she said that it was not the responsibility of any government to protect the sanctity of marriage. This person seems to be advocating a strict libertarian view on the subject -- government should not be involved at all.

If government is not involved in marriage, what institution is going to issue marriage licenses? Marriage licenses perform a crucial role in society, one that rarely comes to mind. They establish a record of people who are married. Without licenses a person might claim to be married to another, and that other person might try to deny it. The license, and the register created from it, definitively settle that dispute. No other institution can provide this necessary function as efficiently as the government.

If the government is not involved in marriage, what institution is going to issue divorce? Marriage is more than merely a formal recognition of an ooey gooey feeling two people have for each other. It is a covenant and a contract. As such marriage needs an arbiter, and one with the power and authority to enforce its decisions. The government has that power and authority -- the power of the sword.

Since the government will be involved in marriage, there must be laws governing that involvement. Should those laws be built on the principle that marriage can be abrogated without cause, or should they be built on the principle that marriage needs to be somewhat more permanent than a Netflix membership. As one moves in the direction of permanence on that question, he moves in the direction of protecting the sanctity of marriage.

The other reader also said that people who are married should protect the sanctity of marriage, and "the scope of their protection should go no further than their own marriage."

Although I appreciate this person's desire to "mind his own business" and keep government out of our personal lives as much as possible, I cannot take this view on marriage. It is precisely because I want to protect the sanctity of my marriage, that I want to protect the sanctity of marriage generally. We live together in this society, and our decisions affect one another. More specifically, if my neighbor is striving to preserve a marriage -- maybe a marriage that has encountered difficult circumstances, and I throw my own marriage away on a whim; I am saying to him and to everyone else that marriage isn't worth the paper (or hard disk space) it's recorded on. The decision to end a marriage is not merely a reflection on the spouses involved. It says something about the transience of the institution in general -- particularly if the persons involved have not fought with all their might to preserve the marriage, but even (to a lesser extent) if they have.

Whether we like it not -- whether we understand it or not -- marriage is not only a personal relationship, it is also a societal institution. As we interact with our spouse and other members of our own family, we are also engaged in a relationship with the broader community. How we conduct ourselves in that one relationship affects far more people than we know.

Christian Politics?

In his book, The Case for Civility, Os Guinness sharply criticizes the Religious Right for playing the victim card. “Do they not know that those who portray themselves as victims come to perceive themselves as victims and then to paralyze themselves as victims?”

How do Christian Conservatives take upon themselves the role of victim?

Yesterday I was cleaning out my attic and I came across a book title by Gary DeMar purporting to tell “the untold story of America’s Christian history.” Countless men and “ministries” attempt to do the same, and it is a form of victim-playing. David Barton and his Wall Builders, Doug Phillips and his Vision Forum, Peter Marshall and David Manuel in their book The Light and the Glory, and late preachers Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy all present a distorted view of history in which the goal of our nation’s founders was essentially to create a Christian nation. They are saying, in effect, “This is the glorious Christian heritage you have, but our political enemies -- the liberal elites in academia, in the media, in the bureaucracy, and elsewhere -- are deliberately hiding it from you and from your children, so that they can advance their godless socialism instead!” What does this mean? It means YOU, dear Christian, have been robbed. You are a victim! ...or, so they would say.

“What’s so bad about that?” you might ask. Well, it’s not so much that they are factually wrong -- although they are. The problem is that they are promoting their politics through an appeal to raw resentment. As Os Guinness points out in his book, playing the victim is sub-Christian. It is a violation of Christian integrity.

How so? Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, came to us in the form of the Suffering Servant. He came for no other purpose than to suffer and die at the hands of sinful men, so that He could redeem those very men and the whole world from sin, death, and the devil. Jesus is THE VICTIM, and He set the ideal example by suffering in silence. The appeal to resentment is an appeal for the restoration of what has allegedly been lost. It is an assertion of our rights. Men like David Barton, Doug Phillips, Gary DeMar, et al. are saying that Christianity deserves a privileged place in the public square because that was the original intent of our founding fathers. Even if their history were factually true (and it is not), as Christians it is more than merely unseemly for us to lay claim to this position of privilege. Since we have now become servants of all, it is (or should be) contrary to our new nature as Christians. It should strike our souls as fingnails on a chalkboard strike our ears.

The book by Os Guinness is very good. For more information on the book and its author, listen to the interview below from the May 4, 2009 edition of Issues, Etc.

Idolatry Makes Slaves

I grew up in a church that made an idol out evangelism, and this, in turn, made everyone there a slave. You might say it was its own unique form of "Babylonian Captivity." So I recommend for your consideration Frank Gillespie's recent thoughts on the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod's Ablaze! movement/program.

Unbelievable

Doug Phillips continues to make a very bad impression on me. It was good that he waited almost two days before saying anything on the murder of George Tiller, but when he did it came in the form of: I said it before, and I'll say it again... Then he followed that self-serving article with a synopsis of what people said in response to his own sagacity. Wow! Is there anything that happens in this world that isn't all about Doug Phillips?

http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2009/06/5273.aspx

http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/life/george_tiller_is_dead_for_whom.xml

http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2009/06/5276.aspx

In the News

This was posted just about an hour ago on DallasNews.com.

Abortionist George Tiller was apparently shot and killed this morning at Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas.

Update:

In reading the various comments made on the Internet about this event I am most impressed with Frank Gillespie who wrote, "Like so many unborn babies he killed in their mothers' wombs, Dr. George Tiller was himself killed in a place where he should not have feared for his life, the lobby of his church. In the place where poor miserable sinners should only hear the peace that passes all understanding, the Gospel of Jesus and His cross, they heard gunfire." He went on to describe how "dangerously harmful" the actions of Tiller's murderer will likely be to those who profess to be Christian. He points out that it is already "in vogue" to hold Christians in contempt for their beliefs on homosexuality and abortion. This event will only make such hatred all the more fashionable. Brace yourselves.

I also appreciate Scott's comment, where he wrote, "I don't see any equivalence between this murder and any attempted assassinations of Adolf Hitler during World War II. While Tiller bragged that he performed up to 100 abortions a week, he was not the government, as Hitler was." For some people the murder of George Tiller is simply not all that bad because he was such a wicked man, "...as evil as Hitler," they would say. In effect they are admitting that the murder of Hitler would not have been a bad thing, and this is because he was such an evil man. And some who refuse to condone yesterday's killer are saying, in effect, "No matter how bad George Tiller was, he was no Adolf Hitler." I think this comparison is unkind to Hitler. Hitler might have murdered (I think it was) his niece, with whom he was involved in a lurid relationship. Beyond that he is not (to my knowledge) suspected of killing any human being with his own hands. George Tiller by some estimations killed more than 60,000 people with his own hands. The vast majority of Hitler's victims (and he is responsible for the heinous crimes committed in his name) were fully capable adults, who in some sense had the ability to speak and fight in their own defense. None of George Tillers victims had this ability. I say this not to exonerate Hitler or Tiller's murderer by any means! But on the whole we seem to have the presence of mind to treat Dr. Tiller's death as a tragedy, and we should; but we find no similar sympathy for Hitler whose crimes by some measures were not as grievous as Dr. Tiller's. Whether it is Hitler or Tiller there should not be any member of the human race whose death we feel fully justified in celebrating. So, I appreciate the fact that Scott justifies the attempted assassinations of Hitler, not by appealing to the gravity of Hitler's sins, but by pointing out that those living under his "government" had no other lawful or civil course of action available to them.

Grace in Tulsa

A video from Grace Lutheran Church in Tulsa, Oklahoma has been going around the Lutheran blogosphere. It is very good, and seems to be the composite culmination of three (or more?) smaller videos. I like this one.

Around the 40th second you get my favorite part. The different members of Grace have been talking about the culture shock they experienced when they first came to the church. Pastor Mason Beecroft says, "Well [the historic liturgy] is a foreign language, and the church has its own language. And so, rather than change that language to something that might be easier to understand, I would rather wrestle with that language so that we can learn it, and that we could be formed by that language."

Wow! What a refreshing repudiation of the "different-strokes-for-different-folks" philosophy that seems to dominate so many churches. Watch all four videos and read their website page on "Dancing at Grace." I'm with Pastor Weedon. I'm ready to move to Tulsa.

BTW... the former pastor of Grace is presently serving my parents' congregation in central Texas, and has been a tremendous blessing to them.

The Indispensible Key to a Right Understanding and Reception of the Sacraments

For in consecrating and administering (the Sacrament of the Altar), the priests are our servants. Through them we are not offering a good work or communicating something in an active sense. Rather, we are receiving through them the promises and the sign; we are being communicated unto in the passive sense.

- Martin Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church