The Our Father as Canon

Take a careful look at St. Luke chapter 11, and you'll find some pretty convincing reasons for believing that the Our Father was meant from the start to be the very prayer by which the elements on the altar are consecrated.

First, it is the only prayer Jesus specifically tells His disciples to say (hence, it is called the Lord's Prayer). Then, immediately following this prayer there comes the curious story Jesus tells of the friend at midnight:

"And he said unto them, Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight, and say unto him, Friend, lend me three loaves; for a friend of mine in his journey is come to me, and I have nothing to set before him? And he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not: the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee. I say unto you, Though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many as he needeth."

Here we have three friends. The journeying friend, the friend to whom he comes, and the friend who is at home with his children at midnight. Why, we must ask, all this detail? Surely, if there were to be nothing more than a simple point of comparison (If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?), then it could have been a much simpler story. Why three friends? Why midnight? Why three loaves? And--most significantly--why does this come immediately after the Lord's Prayer?

There is something latent here which is meant to be uncovered: it's all about Christ. It's all about the Holy Supper.

Midnight, because the midnight hour is when the voice is heard, "The Bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him." Midnight is when "I will rise to give thanks," as the Psalmist says. Midnight is when Christ comes.

Three loaves, because Jesus is the Triune God. He is Himself our daily bread. He is the Bread of Life.

Three friends: one is the journeying church, on the journey of life; she comes to the second, i.e., the pastor, who has nothing of his own to give; so he turns to the third, i.e., the Father, and says, "Our Father who art in heaven . . . give us daily bread, that is, lend me three loaves!"

And the Father gives as much as we need, as Jesus promises here: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." This is about asking that Christ will be given to us; i.e., that the Holy Spirit will do His primary work of bringing Christ to us in the Supper; which is why Jesus says here, "how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?"

In short, this entire section is about the Mass. If you don't see that, have another look.

St. Valentine, martyr

We recall today the fidelity of St. Valentine, martyr from the third century, who refused to succumb to his enemies' temptations to renounce Christ; and who remained steadfast also when they beat him; and right up until they beheaded him.

And so there arose in England, from about the time of Chaucer, the custom of announcing betrothals on St. Valentine's Day, and of calling one's betrothed "Valentine," in token of the faithfulness unto death shown by this patron of all who plight to one another their troth.

The Heavens Opened and the Angels Rejoiced

The heavens opened and the angels sang with us Sunday morning. Why this jubilation, at the onset of Lent? What caused celestial joy such as earth has scarcely known? What was the grand occasion?

The Baptism of Sarah Ann Eckardt, grandchild of your humble scribe, and now, disciple of Jesus and member of His holy flock.

In glad obedience to Jesus' command, Suffer the little ones to come unto me and forbid them not, the child was brought, and Jesus received her into his kingdom by water and the word, to a life of faith and of following Him who is our Delight and Salvation.

And so these jubilant angels of Christ shall surely follow her all the days of her life.

And so shall we rejoice and be glad, and give thanks for His unspeakable goodness.

"You have to worship right"?

So I'm over at the nursing home this morning, for a service with some people there to give them the Sacrament, and I notice a little group through the window of the room, across the hall. From past experience I know they are two Jehovah's Witnesses and one resident. They often have this little study at the same time.

When we were finished, and I was putting things away, a couple of times I met their eyes, and I got to thinking: I bet they're thinking I'm leading people astray with my ritual and my traditional Christianity; and here I am, thinking that they're leading this poor guy astray with their Jehovah's Witness junk. And I mused, that's pretty much what most religions think about most other religions: they're messed up, and we have it right.

As I was leaving, I overheard one of them say to the captive audience (of one resident), "To get to eternal paradise, you have to worship right." And I thought, as I walked out to my car, H'mmm. Who worships right?

The real answer is: nobody except for Jesus, since only He who is one with the Father was perfectly submissive to His Father's will. The rest of us are sinners. And since this is so; since nobody worships right except for Jesus Himself, therefore there is only one way of salvation: He is Himself the way, as He said.

Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved. Whoever, that is, believes in Him and is baptized into Him who alone is the way, who alone worships rightly, shall be saved.

It is sad that people think there is another way.

In Defense of Mother Teresa

I admit to not knowing much about the life of Mother Teresa; at least, not more than people generally know. But I think that people who assail her faith because of the confessions in her diary are doing her a disservice.

It's easy to do that, you know. There she says life was like a living hell, and that her smile was a mask, that she was lost: "In my own soul, I feel the terrible pain of this loss. I feel that God does not want me, that God is not God and that he does not really exist."

But let's remember where she wrote this: in her diary. It was a private communication, not meant for public consumption. Good heavens, I wonder what people would think of me if all my private communications were made public.

Her struggle reminds me, actually, of Luther's. Even quite post-Reformation he is known to have had bouts of severe depression, anguish, anfechtungen. So was he a lost soul too, then?

Or are all such struggles indications of a truly lively faith which wrestles with the devil from time to time?

I think that we will do well to look at her public words (and deeds), her confession of faith in Jesus. While I seriously doubt I'd believe everything she wrote (as I said, I'm no Mother Teresa expert), I think we can safely say call her an ardent believer in Christ.

Or do we want to second-guess her in ways none of us would want others to second-guess us?

Lent Cometh

The Gospel for Quinquagesima finds a blind man begging, crying out against the multitude that wants him silenced, Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me! This follows the account of Jesus telling his disciples he must go to Jerusalem and be crucified, and the third day rise again. But they understood none of the things which he said to them. How blind are they, and how much the blind man truly sees!

And this their blindness comes after Sexagesima Sunday, on which Jesus had said in the Gospel, "to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven."

Thus let all become circumspect, and warned: we who know the mysteries still so easily become blinded, even as the disciples did!

See how much we need Lent, then; though the flesh does not wish for Lent, the spirit welcomes its approach, for in it we are given a greater opportunity, denying ourselves, to meditate on him who is our salvation, and so, again, to receive our sight; even as the blind man received his sight and followed Jesus.

That Would Be Grandpa Eckardt, as of Today . . .

. . . January 24th, 2008, at 7:47 am, weighing in at 7 lbs 9 oz and 22 inches long,

Sarah Ann Eckardt

was born to our son Andy and his wife Kristy. This is our first grandchild, with a full head of hair and a healthy cry for feeding time. Mother and baby are healthy and happy, though sleepy. All grandparents are smiles all around.

Rev. Aaron Moldenhouer Receives Sabre of Boldness for 2008

The Sabre of Boldness was awarded to Rev. Fr. Aaron Moldenhauer, pastor of Zion Lutheran Church in Beecher, Illinois, on Thursday night, January 17th, in Fort Wayne, Indiana, in the thirteenth annual Sabre ceremony, sponsored by the editors of Gottesdienst. Fr. Moldenhauer is a recent graduate of Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, who for reasons of conscience was compelled to leave the Wisconsin Synod during his vicarage year and colloquize into the Missouri Synod. For this he has endured considerable scorn by many who were close to him. Fr. Moldenhauer was unable to attend the ceremony, but his wife Tabitha was present to receive the award for him.

At the ceremony, Chaplain Jonathan Shaw made preliminary remarks to a banquet room-full of expectant guests, explaining the spirit of the Sabre award, and the courage and integrity it bespeaks. Chaplain Shaw, a Lieutenant Colonel at the Pentagon, is the Sabre of Boldness column editor for Gottesdienst. He introduced Fr. Burnell Eckardt, editor-in-chief, who also made some remarks (printed below) before introducing the eight nominees. He then announced Fr. Moldenhauer as the winner.

[the full list of the eight nominees may be found in the previous post at this blog]

The text of Fr. Eckardt’s speech follows:

Welcome, everyone, to the Sabre of Boldness Ceremony for 2008, the Academy Awards of Confessional Lutheranism. It’s rather daring, I suppose, to say such a thing. Or foolhardy, maybe, since we are not in Hollywood here, nor do we really want to be. You can wear a tux to this event if you want to, or a classy formal dress, but it really isn’t expected. Yet we do admit to having taken some small delight in arranging an annual list of nominees, and then, while everyone waits with bated breath, finally announcing the winner. It may interest you to know that many years ago, the Synodical president was once a nominee, and I dutifully sent off the correspondence apprising him of it, explaining how we choose one from among the nominees. I remember that his personal assistant asked me privately if he could get some advance indication of whether or not his boss was actually going to end up the winner; after all, this is the president of the Synod, and we would have to plan accordingly, and blah blah blah. “I’m very sorry,” I answered cheerily, “but the envelope must remain sealed until award night.” For one brief moment I felt I had power over the President of the Missouri Synod.

At any rate, any comparison to the Academy Awards really ends there, because in virtually every other way this is unlike that event. I would guess, for starters, that the Academy is a tad better known than this is, notwithstanding any illusions Colonel Shaw is probably harboring in his heart. We do occasionally rub shoulders with a guy named Cary Grant, but if his parents really meant to name him after the movie star, they may have been disappointed when he became a Lutheran minister.

That’s how it goes: There really isn’t any glamour involved in being a confessional Lutheran, after all. You don’t get a mansion on Sunset Boulevard, and you’ll never drive a Ferrari, since, as we all know, you’d need the salary of a movie star, or a Synodical President, to get that kind of perk.

Moreover, the award you get here is not an Oscar; it’s just a little lapel pin, and your name on the Sabre which is permanently mounted at Peace Lutheran Church in Sussex, Wisconsin.

But actually, as you know, your true trophy isn’t made of gold; it’s made of scars. It’s made of men reviling you and persecuting, and saying all manner of evil against you falsely for Christ’s sake.

And since this is so, there is really no way we can recognize who all of you are. In fact the ones we recognize here tonight, and the one we select, is asked to bear the Sabre for all of you. You unsung warriors, who quietly suffer rejection and pain and sorrow, and the only reason we didn’t nominate you is that we didn’t know about you, and we realize that we have no choice but to be content with a little list that is really a thousand times smaller than it needs to be.

And we also know that if we’re really interested in honoring those who suffer bravely for the name of Jesus, we ought not forget the Christians who suffer real martyrdom and physical persecution all over the world; those who stand up as Christians in Kenya and their homes are burned; they confess the faith in Sudan and get raped; they ally themselves with the Church in North Korea and they get thrown in a vermin-infested prison. They risk everything and often shed their blood in places all around the world, for the sake of Him who was crucified for the world. And all the world owes them immeasurably, for the unspeakable testimony to the world that their martyrdom is.

But for now, we wish to do our small part and recognize those among us who suffer bravely. None of our nominees has faced martyrdom, but the faces of the devil can be just as terrifying when they appear in the form of loss of reputation, or livelihood. Blessed Martin Luther once quipped that the three worst losses a man could endure are his faith, his eye, and his reputation.

And inasmuch as it is our duty to give encouragement and aid where we can to those who suffer such losses, we are pleased and honored to have the opportunity to do so now. The world may despise you, but we salute you. And if even within the churches you find scorn, we should not be surprised; if, say, even your own familiar friend, in whom you trusted, which did eat of your bread, hath lifted up his heel against you. But dare we be ashamed of you? Dare we look askance, as others may do, and wonder what terrible thing you did to gain such grief? May it never be! If we would not think to chide our dear Christ Himself, whom dogs compassed about, how could we do so for those who have had the simple courage to confess Him before men, and so have taken up their crosses?

This, then, is for us a glimmering moment, even if it is too brief. It’s not about the award ceremony, really. It’s about the fact that here we get to see things set right, if only in just this little way, just for a moment, as the battered get some honor, the slandered get some approval, and the maligned get some acclaim. It isn’t much, we know; but we are comforted to know that it is a very small foretaste of the full vindication the little flock of Christ will experience at His Day of Reckoning. I could well imagine singing, on that day, that old hymn once known only to Norwegians:

Despised and scorned they sojourned here; but now how glorious they appear!
Those martyrs stand a priestly band, God’s throne forever near.

Sabre Ceremony on Thursday: The Elite Eight

The ceremony is now in its thirteenth year, and has returned to the Marriott Hotel because of its superior accommodations in close proximity to the seminary. The event is set for Thursday, January 17th, at 8:30 p.m.

The editors of Gottesdienst invite all seminary guests to come on over to the Marriott, right after the Symposium banquet, for this gala event.

To date we have eight nominees for this year:

1. Lowell T. Phllips, layman, from Abilene, Texas.
2. Rev. Klemet Preus, Glory of Christ, Plymouth, MN
3. Rev. Tim Vaughan, Lutheran Island Camp, MN
4. Rev. Fr. Michael D. Henson, Trinity, Herrin, IL
5. Rev. Fr. Aaron Moldenhauer, Zion, Beecher, IL
6. Rev. Frederick Davison, St. Luke, Richmond Center, WI
7. Rev. Eric Stefanski, Harrison, Arkansas
8. Rev. Fritz Baue

A Weekend Retreat in Kewanee: Music and Meditation

6-7 January 2008

Annual Epiphany Choral Vespers
and
A Day of Theological Reflection

at St. Paul’s Evangelical-Lutheran Church

Our annual Epiphany Choral Vespers will be held this Sunday evening, 6 January 2008, at 7 p.m., featuring our Mixed Choir and an array of traditional Christmas Carols and Epiphany Hymns. Every year, St. Paul’s Evangelical- Lutheran Church of Kewanee puts on an event you might not expect to hear in a town our size, especially when you consider the small size of our choir.

The Epiphany Choral Vespers, besides being a prayer service as vespers always is, is an event of high cultural significance. This is the eleventh year the parish has held this event for the Kewanee community. Our Mixed Choir has only sixteen voices, but with the splendid acoustical setting under the Gothic arches at St. Paul’s, people have often commented that the choir sounds two or three times larger. These are quality singers as well, having sung together for many years, and hence they are able to provide those in attendance with a real musical treat. The choir is under the direction of the church’s pastor, the Reverend Dr. Burnell Eckardt, who has over twenty years of experience as a choirmaster and composer. St. Paul’s looks forward to this event every year, as a last opportunity in the year to present some lovely traditional Christmas and Epiphany carols in a setting for which those carols were written.

The evening’s music is always augmented by the parish’s wine and cheese reception in the school cafeteria, another annual tradition. There is no admission fee; a freewill offering will be taken.

On Monday the 7th, from 8:30 – 3:30, a Day of Theological Reflection is also scheduled, the ninth in the series, whose theme is

“Lo, It Was Very Good: The Christology of the Creation.”

We’ll examine the first three chapters of Genesis with an eye to finding Christ there, so that we may declare, as the disciples did, “We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

Following registration, the Monday seminar opens with Holy Mass at 9:00 a.m. A continental breakfast will be offered afterwards, as the seminar begins. Lunch is on your own. Admission is free.

To register, send me an email.

Eleventh Hour for Sabre Nominees

Any more Sabre of Boldness nominees? If you have one, send me an email right away.

State the name, address, and telephone number of the nominee and the reasons why he or she is a fitting choice for Sabre Bearer. The words engraved on the plaque upon which the Sabre is mounted give the selection criteria: “For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity on behalf of the Holy Church of Christ while engaged in the confession of His pure Gospel in the face of hostile forces and at the greatest personal risk.” The degree of the adversity, a demonstration of steadfast resistance to pressures to compromise the truth, heedlessness of threatened personal consequences, and a clear confession of the truth at stake are considered. The slate of nominees will close on Wednesday, January 16th, 2008. Then the editors of Gottesdienst will meet privately to make their selection.

The ceremony is now in its thirteenth year, and has returned to the Marriott Hotel because of its superior accommodations in close proximity to the seminary. The event is set for Thursday, January 17th, at 8:30 p.m.

The editors of Gottesdienst invite all seminary guests to come on over to the Marriott, right after the Symposium banquet, for this gala event.

Sabre of Boldness Recipients:

2007 The Reverend Dr. Ronald Feuerhahn
2006 Bishop Walter Obare
2005 The Reverend Edward Balfour
2004 The Reverend Charles M. Henrickson
2003 The Reverend Dr. Wallace Schulz
2002 The Reverend Erich Fickel
2001 The Reverend Dr. John C. Wohlrabe
2000 The Reverend Peter M. Berg
1999 The Reverend Gary V. Gehlbach
1998 The Reverend Dr. Edwin S. Suelflow
1997 The Reverend Jonathan G. Lange
1996 The Reverend Peter C. Bender

The Grammarian, XIV

Here's another grammatical point for all of you who like to sing Christmas carols (and who wouldn't?). In particular, this carol:

"God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen"

Now, class, who can tell me why it says gentlemen here? Is this sexist? Is it discriminating against women?

The answer, of course, is no. The gentlemen, boys and girls, are the shepherds. This carol is based on the angel's announcement to them in Bethlehem when Christ was born. It has the angel calling them gentlemen.

Here, then, is the grammatical point to be made: they are not being addressed as "merry gentlemen" here, but merely as "gentlemen." The word "merry" goes with "God rest ye," an old English way of saying, fear not! That's what "God rest ye merry" means.

The "ye" is not King James English, but old English; otherwise it would be poor grammar, since "ye" in KJV English is nominative plural, but in old English is used in the accusative case.

Hence, there should be a comma in the opening line, thus:

"God rest ye merry, gentlemen; let nothing you dismay . . ."

The Grammarian, XIII

Since the time approaches when many preachers will be turning their attention to the Lucan account of the angel message to the shepherds, it seems an appropriate time to consider it carefully from a grammatical point of view. There are two possible renderings, according to the data given by the ancient manuscripts.

The earlier manuscripts, of which there are fewer (on which, e.g., the RSV is based), which would render the English thus:

Peace on earth among men with whom He is pleased.

But the received text, and the great majority of mss (the basis for the KJV) gives the following:

Peace on earth, good will toward men.

The difference has to do with the word given by the earlier texts as "eudokias" (goodwill or well-pleasing-ness) but which the received text renders without the sigma (Greek s): "eudokia." The former reading has it modifying "men" while the latter has it in the nominative, as the subject: Good will toward . . ."

The trouble with the former reading is that there are quite a few folks who misunderstand it to be a qualifier, saying in effect that there are only some among all men--very few, actually--with whom God is pleased. Some translations have even gone so far as to render it "Peace on earth among those who have His favor" or "Peace on earth among men of goodwill."

Incorrect, boys and girls.

The proper way to interpret the "eudokias" readings is essentially the same as one would interpret the "eudokia" readings, thus:

Peace on earth among men, with whom (i.e., all of whom) now have His good pleasure.

Or, to go back to the RSV rendering, to make careful emphases in reading, thus:

Peace on earth among men! with whom He is pleased.

Take a look at the context: it says peace on earth, i.e., there is now peace on earth, because the Savior of the earth has arrived. What would be the point of saying this first, only to qualify it by saying, "oh, by the way, that peace is only intended for those who please God"?

Secondly, the Greek construction puts the word order this way:

Glory in the highest to God, and upon earth peace among men pleasing.

That makes the "and" epexegetical, i.e., to be interpreted as "namely," or "that is to say." Glory to God is found not in the nature of men, but in the Savior of men, i.e., of all the human race.

Third, the Greek adjective eudokias, while modifying "men" is nevertheless meant imply the pronoun "His" making the subject of goodwill God, and not men, which is in fact that way the RSV translaters rightly put it: "with whom He is pleased." "Men of goodwill" is right out.

Finally, the fact that the word comes last in this proclamation tends to puts the greatest emphasis on it, as the capstone of the entire proclamation, viz.,

"The greatest glory given to God is accomplished in His incarnation, which brings peace to earth, dear shepherds, because the warfare between heaven and earth is now ended, the case of God against the human race is set aside, and the heavenly demeanor of God toward the human race is now revealed! Behold, He loves the world! And let the hearts of all men, who so furiously rage against the Lord and against His anointed, instead take note of this astounding truth: their sins are put away, atoned, and covered. Their flesh has been joined to God; heaven and earth are slammed together; humanity is taken up into divinity; He is well pleased."

In short, if you're going to go with the RSV, be sure you don't misunderstand it. Or, to make things simple, just go with the KJV, which, while containing the translation of a slightly different word, actually comes out with the right interpretetion no matter which word you use:

Peace on earth, good will toward men.

On Naming Your Baby

OK, so the legal system of Italy is clearly a bit unfamiliar to us Americans. A case in point is the most recent court order not only denying a family the right to name their child "Friday" but requiring that he be renamed "Gregory" (to read the article, click here).

But I was struck by the Reuters piece which explained, that "many priests insist that first names be of Christian origin."

As I said, such a court ruling would be unthinkable in America--at least as we know it now; but who knows how far political correctness will go? I could well imagine American courts a hundred years from now disallowing the names of saints, because, say, the court might think government would thereby be giving credence to the Christian religion, blah blah blah, and therefore "we insist that your child be renamed Mahmoud."

But I digress.

Part of me is actually a bit pleased with those Italian priests. And I think American clergymen would serve our people well by at least suggesting proper Christian names for their children.

The rage these days is to name your child something that sounds good; that has become the chief, and in some cases, only, criterion. So we have names like "Atari," "Kreeshawn," "Charrday," and other ghetto names, as some are wont to call them. Actually we shouldn't really be calling them ghetto names, because the truth is that if you'd like to do a search for a name like this for your little darling, you could just check out the roster of your favorite National Football League team. Those kids certainly don't live in the ghetto.

Whatever happened to names like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Sarah, Rebecca, Hannah, Samuel, Paul, David, or Lois? Or even some post-biblical saint, like Gregory? The Italian court's choice wasn't bad, even if we'd say they went too far in requiring it. Or what about Leo, Anne, Lucy, Nicholas, or Martin? There's a reason, I say, that these kinds of names bespeak strength. They are the names of men and women of faith and character, something we will all do well to emulate.

And here's another old suggestion nobody thinks about any more: consider the date of your child's birth for a good suggestion as to his name. Expecting a child on December 26th? How about Stephen, or Stephanie? July 22nd? Mary, Magdalena, or Mario. April 21? Anselm.

Well, OK, that last one might also be considered taking things a bit far, but you get the idea.

St. Lucia

On December the 13th we remember the early fourth-century saint who in her persecution was raped, lost her eyes, and was put to death with the sword, all for her steadfast faith. According to the legend, she requested that her eyes be put out, to take from her assailants the benefit of lusting after her poor body. She is remembered as a virgin martyr, even doubly a virgin, since the violation of her body was due to the constancy of her faith.

Her day is associated with the Festival of Lights, and is celebrated in the darkness of winter, so near to the shortest day, because the light of Christ by which she lived was an inner light, not seen with the eyes.

Her faith was akin to that of the Blessed Mother of God, who upon hearing the annunciation, not only believed that she, a virgin, would conceive and bear a Child, but that this Child would be called the Son of God. In the tiny space of the Virgin's womb was contained the Maker of heaven and earth.

Eye cannot see what faith believes, and what faith believes is the truth. The blessedness of St. Lucia is that of every Christian heart.

St. Nicholas, December 6

Devotion to St. Nicholas, Bishop of Myra, arose so quickly and universally in Christendom, that we are bound to see it as testimony to the man's indomitable courage and faith. Even in the fourth century itself, after his death in a.d. 343, veneration of this saint became common in the East and the West.

The fact that everyone in the world knows about St. Nick, at least in the legendary form in which his memory comes to most people, is testimony to the great character of this saint.

There are many more legends and stories surrounding him than simply the most common, that he gave gifts (dowries, actually) to children (three maidens who might otherwise have been forced into prostitution). To mention only some, legend has it that as an infant he fasted from his mother's milk on Wednesdays and Fridays. He is reputed even to have miraculously reconstituted and brought back to life three young men who had been butchered and thrown in a brine vat. Another story has him appearing posthumously to a kidnapped boy and returning him to his parents.

One thing that can be said about all these stories, whether or not they are true, is that they testify to the universal acclaim accorded this saint. He is said to have used his inheritance to feed the sick, the poor, and the needy. And above all, he is known to have been a man of great faith.

He was imprisoned during the reign of Diocletian, in a prison where, we are told, there were so many bishops, priests, and deacons, that there was no room for the real criminals.

He is known to have been present at the first ecumenical council, of Nicaea, in a.d. 325, where he contended mightily against Arius for the full divinity of Jesus Christ. The Creed we say today is to some degree the result of the labors of St. Nicholas.

It is wonderful, I think, that St. Nicholas is revered by all, even if most today have no understanding of who this man really was, or whether, for that matter, they know that he really existed.

I'm still moved by the famous 1897 New York Sun editorial reply to that little girl who wanted to know the truth about Santa Claus, but I might have been inclined to add this: "And Virginia, here's another thing: there was also a St. Nicholas, a very real and mighty fourth century Christian Holy Man whose faith and life you will do well to imitate and remember, especially on the sixth of December!"

Santa Claus Discrimination

You may have heard the recent attacks on Santa Claus. Some in Europe have been ragging on him because they think he needs to lose some weight, since, the reasoning goes, he could be an enabler to those among them who have tendencies toward becoming obese. They say his own weight problem is setting a bad example. Meanwhile Australia has gone and banned the trademark “Ho Ho Ho,” saying this could be offensive to women. Since some people hear the word “ho” and hear that as ghetto slang for “whore,” therefore they are proposing that Santa start saying “Ha Ha Ha” instead.

All because they want Santa to be helpful and not offend.

Well hold on just a minute. I mean, I think we need to get a little political correctness involved here! This whole thing is being raised in the name of being politically correct, after all, so my question is, what about those who are overweight? I think this is clearly discriminating against them! What, now none of them can apply to be Santa in a shopping mall, because of being a little chubby? “Sorry, fella, you can’t be a Santa in our store. You’re too fat!” Wow, if ever there was a case against discrimination! Why does everyone have to look like a Ken doll, hmmm? We’re told that 66% of all Americans are overweight. Well, then, this is discrimination against most Americans!

And as for this Ha Ha Ha thing, that’s offensive too! Like, just who are you laughing at, Santa? The last thing I want to hear when I go Christmas shopping is some emaciated Santa Claus laughing at me! Why is he laughing? Does he think I’m too fat, like he himself used to be? (The hypocrite!) Or maybe he’s laughing at my kids because they’re too fat! How dare he! I smell a lawsuit, I can tell you.

To all those 66% of Americans and all those who love them (which pretty much ought to make up the whole country) I say, Rise up! Defend your Santa Claus! He has every right not to be jeered just because he’s fat! Ha ha ha indeed! I’ll give them ha ha ha . . .

The Grammarian, XII

By the way, the priesthood of all believers is not in the Bible.

The passage everyone loves to quote is this, from I Peter 2.9:

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light."

Now it's evident that the "ye" here refers to the faithful of God, and that therefore they are "a royal priesthood." But the term "priesthood" here is collective, and it goes together with "royal" and also with "holy nation."

What you Synodical types have gone and done is to try to tap into this in such a way as to give a divine imprimatur to everything a congregational voters' assembly does. I think you need a lesson in grammar, to say nothing of your theology.

The Apostle is clearly exalting the status of the Church, as opposed to "them which stumble at the word, being disobedient," listed just prior to this verse. Contextually, he pours on these descriptions of the Church, to indicate thereby just what a great gift the grace of God has made her: a chosen generation, that is elect in Christ; royalty, that is, bound to the King of Kings; and a priesthood, that is, bound to Him who is our High Priest before God. This is why the Church is also an holy nation: holy in Christ; a peculiar people, separate from all people on earth, again, in Christ.

The entire context here is that of magnifying the grace of God which makes the Church the royal, priestly Queen of all Creation. And each descriptor is collective, that is, in the singular.

So, boys and girls, don't go blathering on about the priesthood of all believers as a license to make divine decrees by reason of your voters' assemblies, as though the majority in them somehow constituted the living voice of God. (In case you're wondering, the living voice of God is what comes out of Jesus' mouth, and out of the mouths of "holy men of God moved by the Holy Ghost," etc.)

The phrase you love to use, "all believers," is not there. The term "believers" would be plural, and would divide and individualize the Church; but it isn't there. Although the plural pronoun "ye" is used, it is at once related to a long string of collective terms. It is abundantly evident that this is a reference to a unified whole, the body of Christ; and Christ is also one.

There's no counting going on here, no rule by majority. The Church is one, because Christ is one. He rules His Church, by His grace.

So don't go misusing the Bible, and remember your grammar.

No Fan of Improv

Why is it, I wonder, that we have so many well meaning people who think that prayer is about having a casual conversation with God? As though He were your Big Buddy in the sky. I used to pray this way when I was a child, and I didn't know any better. I distinctly remember the kind of opening line I used to have in my bedtime prayer. It would go something like this: "Well, God, here I am again . . ."

When I was a child, I thought as a child . . .

But we have grownups praying this way. I can understand it if some layman has never been instructed, but a pastor? Yet we find clergy types all over the globe who pray in just this way: "Dear God, we just want to thank you for the beautiful day you have given us, and for our time together, and, just, really, for being there for us. Bless our time together . . ."

I'm not saying there's anything specifically false or heretical about such a prayer, mind you. Yet there is a problem here.

Too many people think prayer is mainly about feeling comfortable talking with the invisible God. It is not. If it were, then why would the disciples have asked Jesus to teach them to pray? Did He tell them that they should just converse with God on an impromptu level? He did not. Did He encourage them to learn some improv with God? No.

To be sure, He bid them to call God "Father," but that was not as an invitation to think of Him as a heavenly pal. (Actually, it was an implicit invitation to regard themselves as having access through Jesus the Only Son, but that's another matter.)

I submit that it is not helpful to think that you have a healthy spirituality (whatever that is) if you have learned to think of God in such informal and ordinary terms.

Listen: God is Father indeed, and Almighty; He is also Son, and Incarnate; and He is Spirit, who has breathed into our nostrils the breath of eternal life through the Word of the Gospel.

Should we not, therefore, learn to speak to Him by the breath and words He has given us?

Something, I say, is very wrong with the loose informality that has come to be the norm for prayer. We are beggars before Royalty, paupers before a Judge. To be sure, He is a gracious one, but that is all the more reason for us to address Him with the gravity and respect that acknowledges who He is.

Behave yourself when you talk to Him. And learn some better prayers, you who mutter bland banalities before the Lord of Hosts.

Consider the Psalms: they are never informal and chummy improvisations! The Psalmist would not dream of making prayer a matter of simply remembering that, after all, God is always in the room. Rather, he said this: "Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight, o Lord."

Messy?

Here's the latest nonsense from the LCMS. First VP Bill Diekelman sent us all an email describing the progress of the Ablaze! initiative. Much has been written about the theological weaknesses of the program. But here's something which caught my eye in the latest missive. He says this:

"Ablaze! was endorsed by the 2004 Synod convention in two parts. One part, the witnessing part, is a movement. It is messy, it is un-programmed, it is Spirit driven. The other part is programmatic. While we pray it may also be Spirit led and blessed, it is much more structured."

And I said to my self, "Messy?" Something driven by the Spirit is messy? I don't know what spirit this man is talking about, but there's one thing I know the Holy Spirit is not, and that's messy. Has he not read that our God is a God of order?

We've always known that the Synodical leadership has charismatic tendencies. Well, here's what we might call the root problem. The Spirit preaches Christ, as Christ Himself said, "He shall testify of me." And the Spirit is not messy about it. In fact His way of doing it is in the context of the structured liturgy of the church.

You might call this a slip of pen, but I think it's a little insight into the fallacies at the heart of the whole movement.

You show me a movement that is messy and I'll show you a place where the Holy Spirit is not.