Miracle in Kewanee

As I wrote last month, the story of Carole Sanders is nothing short of miraculous. On death's door twice, given no chance to recover from pulmonary fibrosis, within hours of breathing her last. But not only did she rally, what happened since summer time is something I haven't seen in all my years. This woman is improving steadily, has come home from the nursing home, has cut her oxygen intake in half, is now enjoying life with her husband, and at long last has seen her dream come true: she wanted to be in church again, and walk the steps to the altar on her own.

This she did yesterday.

And after mass, she took a few moments to thank the congregation for their support and prayers. Then she and her husband and I walked to the back where she greeted the people as they came out.

There was hardly a dry eye among the people.

What has happened to this woman, and therefore to this parish, has been stunning and beautiful to behold.

She might even be able to come to Oktoberfest Sunday night. Our guests will get the chance to see a woman who has been on the receiving end of a miracle.

We ought never underestimate the strength of the prayers of God's people.

The Lyrics Game Goes to Washington

"You can't always get what you want; but . . . you get what you need."

On the floor of the House this morning some congressman was making his speech by quoting Mick Jagger of the Stones.

Ah, the memories!

Maybe the US House of Representatives somehow caught wind of what went on at the LCMS Synodical Convention in Houston in the summer of '07. A few of us decided the speeches were too dry and predictable, so we secretly injected a little game into the mix. We made it our goal to slip some familiar old rock lyrics into our speeches, and if we did, we'd get a point. I think in all there were close to ten such speeches, like this one:

"Sometimes you have to parse the words carefully when you hear what people say. I mean, I could say to you that all you need is love, but I wouldn't really mean that was all you needed, literally . . ."

Or this one:

"We all want freedom from bureaucratic baggage, but really, freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose. So let's be careful about this . . ."

Or this:

"Listen, we debate these important things intensely, but let's not get the wrong impression about each other. It's not that I don't love you; I do, and that's forever. Yes, and for always. I am yours, you are mine, you are what you are. And you make it hard for me to say this, but . . ."

You get the idea. We took the business of our convention seriously, but we made it a little fun while doing so. (I remember even injecting this little poem into the mix, just for fun.) We'd like to think it kept people from taking themselves too seriously.

Maybe the congressman wants to do the same thing. When I saw it, I thought, Sweet!

Want of Humility

Whoever chooses to write on the importance of humility does so as a person in which there is by nature a want of humility. To say we are sinful by nature is to say that we are proud by nature. Everyone loves it when his ego is stroked; we generally feel uncomfortable about it when it is done publicly, because when in public most of us are aware of what people will think of us when we come off as too high and mighty. So we instinctively seek to be self-deprecating.

(For that matter, incidentally, we should. Imagine someone reacting to kudos with agreement: Yes, I am great, I agree with you.)

Yet the virtue of humility is not about being self-deprecating for appearances. Anybody can do that. True humility comes from an awareness of the reality of who we really are. Humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, exhort the Apostles Peter and James. They don't mean that we should speak softly, be shy, or say demeaning things about ourselves. They mean that we should remember that we are unworthy, utterly unworthy, of any accolades of any kind; we are not God. How simple that sounds, yet how elusive it is: we are not God.

I think it's curious that it was Moses who wrote that Moses was the most humble man on earth. What on earth was he saying? That he was perfectly humble, good for him? Was this the first manifestation of what would one day be crooned in a country song, "It's hard to be humble when you're perfect in every way"?

I think not. I think he was acutely aware of the truth about himself. I think it was his way of saying what St. Paul said, "I am chief of sinners." It was as if to say, "I know what my adversaries are saying about me, that I am not worthy to be in my exalted position; what they don't know is how well aware I am of this myself: they can't beat up on me nearly as much as I can beat up on myself. I didn't want this position, but God insisted."

True humility is to be sought after, especially by leaders. It is to be willing to beat up on yourself, to be unafraid of going to confession, to exult in the forgiveness of sins in awareness of how desperately you need it.

Want of Integrity

There were halcyon days in my formative years when I used to think that people in positions of leadership could be expected to understand the importance of integrity. And I am sure that there are young people today whose own outlooks are still unencumbered by the harsh reality that there are so many wrong people in positions which require of them what they don't have.

What they too often don't have, and what their positions require, is a spine.

So they search for the easiest short-term solution to a crisis or a threat, without giving a thought to the assault this does to the truth, or to their integrity.

They are the bureaucrats who can't bear to live without the promise of funding by their most important benefactors, so they sacrifice their principles, if only just a little, in order to keep them happy. And then a little more, and more again after that.

They live, essentially, by fear. They are beholden not so much to their sponsors themselves as to the images of their sponsors, images which are really likely more caricatures than realities.

These bureaucrats certainly exist in the halls of government, but they also haunt the Church. In both places they wreak havoc, in proportion to the amount of authority they hold.

These people are worse plagues upon the well being of society or of the Church than the outright scoundrels, being themselves less identifiable.

And yet, we will never be free of them. They have been doing their damage since the beginning, since Adam lost the fortitude to tell off the serpent who was tempting his wife, who was standing, no doubt, right next to him all the while. Who knows, perhaps when the serpent beguiled, Adam simply wanted to avoid confrontation, or loss of favor somehow, so thought he needed to compromise, to come out of this matter looking at least like half the man he didn't have the guts to be.

That, at least, is what seems to drive the gutless these days. There's always a threat, an alarm, a foreboding of dire consequences.

Men must learn not to live by fear, ever. Though we may have our fears, we must not let them guide us. Sometimes we must damn the torpedoes.

And men who don't know how to do this will never be what God intended them to be. And men, or aspiring men, who do understand, even from the start of their formation, can perhaps one day become, deo volente, replacements for the spineless here and there.

Dressing Down

So here's a picture of a small group of members of a Lutheran congregation with their pastor. Which one's the pastor? Not sure? Not surprising.

I've noticed that in recent times it's pretty common to see feature stories about pastors with their people, or pastors involved with various church projects, whether in Lutheran publications, or in the newspaper, and the accompanying picture shows the pastor in a simple open collared shirt, or a knit shirt, or something very casual.

To be sure, I might occasionally attend a council meeting dressed like this, and on a Friday I can routinely be seen in such clothes, but what I'm wondering about is whether pastors who are to be photographed as representatives of their churches ought to be so dressed.

Is the dressing down of clergyman a growing phenomenon?

First, they eschewed the clerical garb in favor of neckties and sports jackets; now they're removing those as well. Something tells me this is another little gnawing anticlericalism on the part of the clerics themselves, that is, that they want to affirm their membership in the priesthood of all believers and put off all sense of the office they hold.

While the office they hold is not one in which wielding authority over the people is becoming, that is a far cry from denying that they have authority. One would think that Christian people expect their pastors to be comfortable with this authority; after all, they come hear them on Sundays; they come to be trained, edified, comforted, encouraged, fathered. How can a pastor with no authority do those things? And how can a man who's uncomfortable in the garb which bespeaks the pastor's position be such a pastor?

Blinking Contest

If you saw the Charlie Gibson interview of Sarah Palin, you need to see this great little montage Jay Leno put together as an "interview" with Sarah Palin. The blinking contest is the last part.

Gottesdienst 2008 Appeal for Help

A letter from Gottesdienst to all our supporters:

September 2008

Dear friend of the Lutheran Liturgy,

Gottesdienst keeps moving forward, but we always seem to be doing it on a shoestring. And we couldn’t do it at all without the continued generosity of people like you. As you have depended on us for sixteen years to provide you with the very best in material promoting dignified, evangelical liturgy and worship, we must also depend on you to help us, as you are able, to keep the mission moving.

As you know, it is within the rich context and setting of dignified liturgical worship that the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is proclaimed with power. That power is in the Gospel itself, of course, but it behooves us to provide for it the best environment we can for its proclamation. For the liturgy itself is really nothing less than the Word of God on our lips.

And yet in our day the liturgy routinely comes under assault, as churches discard it for entertainment and for settings that might as well pass for a pop music concert complete with a star vocalist on stage, with makeup, lighting, and a backup band. People sway to the music and sing along with their favorite lyrics; how well they are entertained! And with it, enough mention of praise for the name of Jesus that they are even (mis)led to think that this is worship and entertainment all in one.

Meanwhile the Gospel in all its fullness, the rich mercy of God in Christ, is shoved aside, and the people no longer even bother to cry out, “Lord have mercy,” as the people in the Gospels did, nor sing “O Christ Thou Lamb of God that takest away the sin of the world,” nor plead, “Create in me a clean heart, O God . . .” nor “give thanks unto the Lord for He is good, for His mercy endureth forever.” They no longer Simeon’s confident song of willingness to die in peace, “for mine eyes have seen Thy salvation . . .”

We must not abandon, but continue, and redouble our efforts to reach the churches with reasons to rediscover and rejoice in the rich and abiding Holy Liturgy. Your generous support for Gottesdienst will make you our co-workers in this effort. Please help. We need you. The church needs Gottesdienst.

Sincerely,

+ Burnell F. Eckardt, Jr., Editor-in-chief

To donate online, please click here (if you don't have PayPal, there's a place to click to donate with a major credit card), or check out our newly designed website and donate from there.

To send your donation in the mail, please mail your check to

Gottesdienst
c/o St. Paul's Ev. Lutheran Church
109 South Elm Street
Kewanee, IL 61443

Thank you for your consideration!

New Gottesdienst Website Design

Having updated the design of Gottesblog, it's only fitting that the Gottesdienst website should be updated too, after sitting virtually idle for two or three years. Yes, we finally did it. Have a look.

And while you're at it, subscribe. Gottesdienst is the insightful, witty, evangelical, liturgical journal of record (if we do say so ourselves).

Gottesdienst is for you if

· You want to know more about the liturgy

· Or if you want some great seasonal sermons and Biblical insights

· Or if you want liturgical observations that are truthful, insightful, and unafraid

· Or if you want encouragement to stand firm in the faith

· Or if you’re a pastor who hasn’t yet taken the step of ordering a bulk subscription for your congregation. You know, if they read something you’re already trying to tell them, they might be easier to convince.

To subscribe, click here.

And, incidentally, we're about to embark on our annual fund drive for Gottesdienst, whose funds tend to get rather low about this time of year, so anyone who has the wherewithal to help us out, be sure to check out the Make a Donation! tab; we could sure use some help!

Three, Yes Three Cheers for Sarah

Which is to say, here's the third of three blog posts in praise of Sarah Palin, almost in a row.

Why? You ask? Why am I so pumped?

Because I remember Ronald Reagan--Ronald the Great--so well, and here he is all over again, as his own son Michael Reagan so glowingly exulted the other day.

Because the conservative movement is suddenly reborn and we have reason to hope that America might not, after all, continue to be dismantled and demoralized by the relentlessly atheistic Left. Not just yet, anyhow.

Because the groundswell was instant. The sleeping majority has awakened, and it is huge. I know I am not the only one who is pumped.

Hey, all you Ron Paul folks, get off it, will you? Listen, John McCain will probably not be that great a President (though I have to admit he could surprise me and yet turn out to be, so I'll reserve my own judgment right now, only because he so surprised me with his VP pick).

But Sarah Palin has drastically changed the scenery, and the Alaskan panorama is breathtaking in more ways than one. I'm not merely thinking of a McCain presidency here, but of a Palin one to come. Deborah the Prophetess lives.

So I'm going to make a bold prediction, just for fun. I predict this election will go to McCain, and that it won't even be close. He will win in a landslide, I think. Here's why I think this.

First, he's already ahead in the polls. The Palin bombshell has shaken American politics to the roots, and it's already showing.

Secondly, Obama lost the blue collar states to Hillary already. They don't really like him that much to begin with, and he still has to sell himself even among Democrats.

Third, the presidential debates will quite possibly be a rout. I saw the Saddleback interviews, and although I've never been a real big McCain supporter, what I saw in those interviews is a stark difference in how he comes off, as opposed to Obama. That tells me that he will impress and surprise people when he matches up against Obama's stuttering aimlessness on national TV. People like it when a man gives a straight answer. They don't like "uh, uh, that's above my pay grade . . ." When Obama was asked what to do about evil, he said, something like, "We need to confront it." When McCain was asked, he said, without batting an eye, "Defeat it." And McCain does this sort of thin all the time, even if you disagree with him (which I sometimes do). So that will serve him well in the debates, I think. His confidence is born of an utter grasp of who he is and what he wants to do.

Fourth, the media will continue to hammer away at Palin, and the more they do, the more the backlash will help the ticket. The media folks probably know this, but they can't help themselves. They probably know already that Obama's best hope of winning will be the uncovering of some Palin scandal. I heard they're looking into whether she cheated in the Miss Wasilla contest. Now that is rich. The media barrage has become the gift that keeps on giving.

Fifth, there will be an unprecedented number of people watching the vice-presidential debate this time, and, well, need I say more?

I believe the Left knows this as well as I do, and that they're probably in a state of panic already. I hope Mrs. Palin's security is on high alert. Seriously.

Still Ecstatic

I told you so . . .

Count me as one not surprised by the home run I saw last night in Gov. Palin's speech, though it has the even likes of conservative columnists Charles Krauthammer and Peggy Noonan likely rethinking their initial dislike of Sen. McCain's VP choice. I'm telling you, this is the start of something really big . . .

Liturgy Seminar October 14: tentative topic

The Second Annual Liturgical Seminar at
St. Paul’s Evangelical-Lutheran Church
Kewanee, Illinois
Tuesday, October 14, 2008

On the day following our annual Oktoberfest on Sunday and Monday, October 12-13, 2008, we are holding our second annual liturgy seminar, with an aim toward finding some uniformity among Lutheran liturgical practices. Last year we discussed a liturgical calendar. This year’s topic deals with Canon Law, or the question of the use and proper extent of regulations governing liturgical practice.

A roundtable discussion is scheduled for today, in search of uniformity. Informed Lutheran clergy are particularly invited to provide input and exchange of ideas, although all are invited to stay for the day. Here following is a schedule with tentative proposals for discussion.


Schedule
9:00 a.m. Low (spoken) Mass

9:45 – noon: Seminar, first topic.

On Canon Law.

The existence of specific canon law dates to the seven ecumenical councils of the early church. Indeed the bulk of activity in which the assembled bishops engaged was the preparation of these canons, i.e., regulations pertaining to what is proper for the churches. In twenty-first century Lutheranism, by contrast, any talk of regulations is likely to elicit a response of legalism, and untold mischief has resulted, all under the banner of adiaphora.

Among the questions worthy of discussion among us are these:

What is canon law for Lutherans? How far should it go? How far can it go? What are the true adiaphora? What are not adiaphora? How might a Lutheran jurisdiction be set in place whose aim is to produce evangelical canons to which we voluntarily assent?

12 noon – lunch

1 pm -- 3:15 pm: Seminar, second topic:

Toward a Canon of the Mass.

Recently a recommended Eucharistic Prayer was posted at the new blog Four and Twenty Blackbirds, which among other things raises the question of whether the Words of Institution ought be embedded in such a prayer. A strong Lutheran tradition, led by Luther Reed (The Lutheran Liturgy) would forbid it, but a long and catholic tradition does not. Meanwhile a centuries-long debate has continued between Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy over the question of the epiclesis, a specific prayer calling upon the Holy Ghost to make the elements into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Among the questions worthy of discussion among us are these:

How might confessional Lutherans arrive at an acceptable canon? Is it even desirable to seek to do so? What is the significance of praying or not praying the Verba? Is the Lord’s Prayer consecratory?

3:15 Office of None. Itinerarium

For details of Oktoberfest or to register, please visit www.liturgyseminar.blogspot.com.

The entire schedule is tentative and itself open to discussion.

Ecstatic over Palin

Suddenly I'm excited about politics again. Although there will likely be some things about Sarah Palin that I'll discover I disagree with here and there, John McCain made some giant strides today toward gaining my confidence that he'll make a good President.

I'm one of those conservatives, even "social conservatives," he knows he has to win over, and he hasn't done too much to win me over, seemingly taking every opportunity to distance himself from our kind, leaving us scratching our heads, wondering, what in the world is he doing? Somebody remind me why I am supposed to vote for him. And then remembering it was because the alternative would be far worse in a gazillion ways.

All that changed today.

I read about Sarah Palin several months ago, and thought, wow, she'd be a great president. I remember having the same thoughts about a certain Governor Ronald Reagan back in the mid 1970s. Governor Palin is strongly pro-life and anti-bureaucracy. She is a woman of high integrity, as far as I can tell. She was appointed to some oil commission, and when she found corruption there, she sought to root it out, and in so doing made many enemies among powerful people. At length she succeeded, and has gained the support of 80% of the people in her state. 80%! That's unheard of.

She's pro-family, pro-second amendment, and one classy lady. I still can't believe she got the nod. I'm thrilled to the bone, and suddenly find myself actually rooting for somebody instead of just against somebody else. Something good has just happened to American politics. Kudos to Senator McCain.

The Preacher, IV: Nothing Personal. Please.

Today I was led to Fr. Greg Alms' marvelous little post on preaching, whose title says it all: "A Continuing Guide to the Self Delusion of Preachers."

I'd like to highlight these two points he makes:

3.A.
Preachers know that 90 percent of personal stories in sermons overpower and obscure the theological point being made.

3.B.
90 percent of preachers believe their personal stories are effective homiletical tools.

My guess, preacher, is that if you're one who likes to tell personal anecdotes as a staple of your sermons, you will likely never admit, even to yourelf, that your personal stories obscure the Gospel. And that, dear preacher, is because of your sin.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as much of a sinner as you are, but by the grace of God I am what I am: a preacher of the Gospel. Have you not read St. Paul? We preach not ourselves, he says most clearly. So why do you think it's ok to go preach yourself? We don't want to hear about you. And frankly, we don't want to hear your little make-believe anecdotes about somebody else, either. Is it too much to ask you you preach Christ?

Sometimes I have heard preachers do nothing but string stories end to end and call it a sermon, and I'm not exaggerating.

Preacher, consider the sermons in the book of Acts. You don't see St. Peter telling personal stories.

For that matter, consider Jesus' own preaching. Now his device is the parable, which, to be sure, is a kind of story. But these stories arise out of the rabbinic mold, and as such are themselves rich in content; and they're certainly not personal ones.

The typical American sermon has become the heart of all banality. I'm amazed that people can sit through such insults to their intelligence, and then tell the preacher what a great sermon he had today, when all they heard was trite little ditties like Little Johnny was lost in the wood for hours one night; his father went out searching for hours; and when he finally found his son sleeping under a thin blanket of snow, he awoke, stretched, and exclaimed, "Oh Daddy, I found you at last!" Who found whom?

Oh, gag me! Preacher, stop reading Herman Gockel, will you? Or whatever books you're looking at to get your little extended metaphors.

When you tell them, you'll surely impress some of your hearers, but alas, you've just wasted valuable preaching time in which you could have been delving into the mysteries of the Sacred Page.

So some will tell you how wonderful your stories are. Preacher, listen, they're probably just being nice. Either that, or they really need some serious catechesis in the Gospel, which is infinately richer than tripe about little Johnny!

You want to use some stories to illustrate your point? Fine. How about using a great book I've found that's chock full of them. It's called the Old Testament. You want to illustrate divine grace? How about using Gideon's army, or David the shepherd-boy. The point there is that the victories were not gained by the strength of man. See? There are the stories you may use to your heart's content. And you'll be teaching them Bible stories to boot!

Stop preaching yourself, or your own little time-wasting anecdotes. Preach Christ instead.

The Carole Sanders Story

The following story is my leading article in our church's monthly newsletter for September. It has generated lots of interest, so I thought it worth reprinting also at this blog. The entire newsletter is always accessible online (to do so, click here).


No one expected her to live this long, let alone improve. But Carole Sanders continues to defy the predictions and prognostications of everyone, whether family or medical personnel.

Several years ago she was diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis, a rare lung disease that gradually (so we are told) renders the lungs nonfunctional, bit by bit, as scars continue to replace healthy tissue. We watched her go downhill, just as they said she would. They gave her two years to live at the most.

And so we began to pray for her, as Christians do, both privately and at Mass, for we knew that her dear Lord would deal with her as He saw fit, according to His own unsearchable wisdom and infinite power. With God all things are possible.

Soon she became confined to her home, and unable, except on a rare occasion, to go out. She loved her church, but was now a shut-in. Once in a great while we’d see her in church, if only on a Saturday night when less people are present. Yet her determination to keep up the fight was always evident, as we saw her, oxygen tank and all, approach the altar for the Blessed Sacrament. I could have brought it to her in the first pew, as I customarily do for some who have difficulty walking, but she preferred if at all possible to approach, climb the three steps, and make it to the altar.

Usually she had to receive her communion at home, where her husband Duane waited on her daily, an unflinching if weary angel always at her side. Duane was better for her than any nurse could have been, around the clock, constantly there for her, to be her stay. Months passed. Soon she entered Hospice care. She was losing her breath, she was going downhill. She was dying.

And so our prayers for her continued, even as we continued to expect the inevitable.

But she did not die. Six months passed, and so did the Hospice nurse. They don’t keep people on longer than six months; they’re expected to be dead by that time. And Duane and Carole decided it was easier and cheaper to manage things without Hospice, staying in close touch with medical personnel. I remember opining that none of us has any business predicting when she will die. Only God knows, in spite of what any professionals might think.

So she kept on at home, yet still going downhill. She routinely fell, even though she had a walker, and even though she never had far to walk. She just didn’t have the strength, because she didn’t have the breath. Her lungs were giving out. She fell, and bruised, and once or twice even cracked a bone. Her pain was mitigated some by pain medications, which made her groggy. I remember thinking that I had never seen someone dying so slowly.

Then one day last winter I got a call late in the evening from Duane. He couldn’t wake her. It seemed as though the end was finally at hand. I raced over to the house. Poor Duane was beside himself. We prayed. I brought to bear some of the most comforting passages of Scripture, of psalms, and of hymns. The nurse arrived, as did a family friend or two. After two or three hours, she did not stir, and her breathing was shallow. I had been at deathbeds before. Some days prior, she had already received her last communion, her viaticum, and now we were bidding her farewell. We were bracing ourselves for her last breath. Finally, when several people were keeping vigil, I decided I could leave for awhile, fully expecting to be called back shortly when death was more clearly at hand.

The call never came.

Next morning I puzzled over this, and went back to the house. There she was, to my great surprise, sitting up and smiling at me. Her hour had not yet come. Somehow, miraculously, she had revived during the night. Now doubly I know that nobody knows the hour of death. She had defied all predictions distant and recent. It was already well over the two years they had given her; I think it was almost twice that long. And still she drew her breath, and continued doggedly on.

Winter turned to spring, and spring to summer. My visits settled roughly into a weekly pattern. But my prayers, and the church’s prayers, continued at a daily pace, as ever.

Then came July. Another frantic call brought me out quickly to the house. This time she was losing her mind, quite literally. She was delirious, and completely unlike the Carole I knew. Suddenly she trusted no one but me, yet even I could not reason well with her. It was evident to me that her brain needed more oxygen, as I explained to her distraught husband. She was not herself.

Duane came to realize that she had to be moved, as she would not even let him care for her. This was the last thing this dedicated husband wanted to do; he had promised himself he would not let her live out her days in a nursing home somewhere, yet now he had no choice. It was a heartbreaking and agonizing decision. The years of care, and his labor of love, had taken their toll on him already. He had lost altogether too much weight, and was reduced to a mere shadow of himself. Now, in spite of his valiant determination month after month to continue the marathon, he was faced with defeat. Poor Duane! Poor Carole!

Yet we continued to pray, daily.

Then, in the past several weeks, something astounding began to happen. We had thought the move to Toulon Health Care would be the last straw. Perhaps it was for this reason, because every earthly prop had given way, that all at once things changed. She began the transformation from someone who was dying to someone who was living. Every time I saw her, which at first was daily, she was better than the time before. Not only was she no longer dying, she began improving, to the amazement of everyone. This was not supposed to happen. So extraordinary is her progress that even Duane, who visits her daily, is again gaining weight and strength.

Today Carole Sanders is again in her right mind, having not only accepted her lot in life, but rejoicing continually in the mercy of her Savior. Jesus has been with her, not only to comfort, but to strengthen both in body and soul. In therapy she walks farther than they tell her to walk. She is no longer waiting to die. She is living and breathing, and improving daily. She even hopes to return home some day, and to start coming to church again. Her remarkable convalescence to date really gives her no reason to expect otherwise. I can scarcely believe my eyes.

To be sure, it doesn’t generally happen like this. Faithful Christians die daily; they fall asleep in Jesus, and we mourn their loss, with the assurance that, as St. Paul has said, if in this life only we have hope in Christ we are of all men most miserable. So we don’t despair when earthly things are passed; we know of a life of the world to come; we know Jesus the Crucified, who was raised from the dead, and lives and reigns to all eternity. And we know we shall reign with Him. So we learn not to sorrow as others who have no hope, no matter whether we live or die. And we learn that this life is a vale of tears. Disease strikes and mortality makes itself known to us all.

Yet once in a while our Lord deigns to remind us, in sometimes remarkable ways, that He is in command of all things, and that He does indeed hear our prayers. In Him we live and move and have our being. And so it is that He has determined in His wisdom and mercy that it is not time for Carole Sanders to die. Not yet. In fact, she’s even showing signs of beginning to thrive.

If you wish to pay her a call, feel free. She’ll gladly visit with you and well you all these things herself. She is a living miracle, and reminder to us all that our God is always able to do abundantly more than we either ask or think.

Out of the Barn

Horses are now running wild and free.
Mavericks they are, one and all, shall they be.
And now there's another, for now yet again
Gottesdienst flies, she is out of the barn.

IN THIS ISSUE subscribers may look forward to two marvelous guest essays. The first, by Fr Richard Stuckwisch on "Singing the Church year with Paul Gerhardt," is a continuation of his brilliant study of this Lutheran giant's rich contributions to our hymnody.

The second, by frequent contributor Fr Larry Beane, asks, "Is the Papacy Still Antichrist?", a long overdue question, with incisive reasoning and plenty of confessional approbation to back up his answer. Hint: the answer isn't "Yes."

This is also our first issue with two new editors, Frs (and brothers) John and Peter Berg. We finally assimilated them (yes, rather like the Borg: "Strength is irrelevant, resistance is futile. We wish to improve ourselves. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service ours."). Their short-lived The Motley Magpie has been resurrected, and is now a regular column in our journal.

Then there's an entry by your humble columnist called "Cheap Plastic." Guess what that one's about.

The lineup is rounded out by two fine sermons, from Fr William Weedon and Fr Aaron Koch, Fr David Petersen's article "Contemplating Missouri's Losses," Fr Karl Fabrizius's "Musing on the Mysteries," and my own "Pondering the Holy Liturgy."

One more thing. We don't have quite as many copies left over this time as usual, so if you want to subscribe before they run out, better hurry. First come, first served. Log on at www.gottesdienst.org to get the current issue.

Fair Olympics?

Maybe it's just me--well actually, it isn't, because the NBC commentators seemed to be noticing the same thing--but there seem to be some sort of shenanigans going on among the gymnastics judges at Beijing.

I guess it's being overshadowed by the bigger contoversy swirling around the ages of the Chinese atheletes, and I must say that I don't really get that one. I guess if they're really young, they get some sort of advantage over the taller girls. Judging from appearances, it must have been only a few months ago that these kids learned to walk, let alone win Olympics medals.

I'm more concerned right now about the rather glaring score boosts these children, er, women, are getting from the panel of judges. First there was an obvious scoring "mistake" over the weekend which robbed, was it Shawn Johnson?, of a medal; then there was the tiebreaker win by China's He Kexin over all-around champion Nastia Liukin. Everyone thought that one was a matter of pre-set rules, but I question how He got that high of a score to begin with.

But ok, those are judgment calls, so who knows?

But now, as of yesterday, I'm really scratching my head. I refer to the event in which Shawn Johnson finally won her gold, and teammate Nastia Liukin took the silver. Good work. At last.

But how in the world did He Kexin take the bronze? She fell off the beam, for crying out loud. Off. You know, as in, Oops, that does it. How do you win a medal when you fall off? Nobody's paying much attention to this, but I'm wondering if some of the other athletes are, you know the ones who didn't fall off the beam.

Somewhere in my memory is the recollection of a judge who was found out in a recent Olympics. Something about having been paid off; it was either a Summer Olympics, or maybe figure skating. I distinctly remember some definite cheating going on in that case.

So I can't help wondering. She fell off the beam! Come on, how does that merit a medal of any kind?

The Preacher, III

I don't write sermons, I preach them.

This is related to my previous Preacher post, a corollary, really. For, as I believe to be well established, the Gospel is primarily meant to be proclaimed aloud before it is understood as something written down. This I have claimed and demonstrated in the previous post (Faith cometh by hearing, etc.), and Blessed Martin Luther has also shown. In his postil for the First Sunday in Advent, he explains that the meaning of Bethphage is "mouth-house," and goes on to explain that the Church is the mouth-house of God. The Gospel is meant to be proclaimed aloud.

So, although the Gospel certainly can be written down, and is written down, yet this is not the mode that is to be preferred for it.

Agreed, everyone?

If so, then perhaps we could also begin to suggest--in spite my awareness of the opposition of a long list of preachers whom I admire and respect--that the preferred mode for the entire process of the making and delivery of a sermon might also be oral and not written.

I do not preach from a manuscript, as many who know me are aware. And I rarely carry any notes into the pulpit.

I admit that I did so for a dozen years or so before I began preaching, as it were, without a net. But since then I have adopted the method of preparation that I understand to have been the method of St. Augustine. He did not write his sermons either. He mused, he meditated, perhaps several times, on the pericope appointed, and then he preached it.

There's a story of how once Augustine was supposed to preach on a certain psalm, but by some mistake the psalm read prior to his preaching turned out to be a different one than he expected. But after making a brief reference to this error, he simply went on to preach the psalm for which he was unprepared.

There's a saying that you can't understand what someone is saying until you know what he's talking about. This is most especially true of the Sacred Scriptures. And conversely, if you know what the Scriptures are talking about, you will have an easier time knowing what they are saying, and you will be the more capable of owning it, and preaching it.

I have heard the arguments in favor of a written sermon manuscript, and I often have found myself halfheartedly agreeing that there are many benefits. Indeed a preacher who is unprepared, or who, shall we say, has "an impediment in his speech" (St. Mark 7), might well be advised not to do what I am proposing here. After all, this is why Luther wrote his postils: not for himself (for he also preached without a manuscript), but for others to preach, who did not have the requisite capability.

But Preacher, I bid you to strive for excellence.

A friend of mine once commented that in order to preach without a manuscript, one must get into a zone. This is true. You must become united with the words on which you are preaching. If you don't understand them all (which is sometimes to be expected), don't preach on the parts you don't understand. On the rest, get into your zone.

Learn to own the Gospel on which you preach. Make it your own. Let it edify you in mind and soul as you meditate on it. Find yourself encouraged by it. Then find a way to put this into words. And then, learn to master the words you speak. Learn the art not of producing a sermon manuscript, but of preaching. Invest your energy in the latter rather than the former.

To be sure, sometimes my sermons are less than I'd like them to be. But the same can be said of manuscripts, as far as that goes. And, on the other hand, if I am not bound to a manuscript, I sometimes pick up things I had missed in my preparation, right during Mass, and have the freedom to incorporate them into the sermon. As I read the Gospel aloud for the people, I might notice something else, especially now that it is found in the midst of the live setting of its hearers, and within the context of the liturgy.

All of this takes work, of course. It is a developed skill, and it presupposes many learned techniques about public speaking.

Preacher, strive for excellence. Make it your aim to learn how to preach.

The Preacher, II

Don't say "our text."

As in, "Our text for today . . ." Or in, "this is what our text is saying . . ."

In the first place, it is a bad idea to refer to the Gospel as a "text." A text is something written down, but, as Blessed Martin Luther said, the Gospel is primarily an oral thing, something proclaimed and not written. Jesus never wrote anything down. So therefore, although there are written Gospels, and certainly the Gospel in written form is valid and powerful, yet this is not the primary form in which it is to be used. Faith comes by hearing, says the Apostle. Therefore especially when preaching, we are in the business of proclaiming out loud the good news of salvation. This is not the time to be calling attention to a text.

Although we are certainly bound to the truth of the Biblical text as we proclaim the Gospel--it is our norm--still the power of the Gospel we preach is not dependent upon our making known that we have derived the message therefrom. The power is in the message itself, as it springs out of the mouth of the preacher and into the hearing of the people. This power is no text, and we belie this truth when we refer to the Gospel as a text.

Secondly, when the preacher says "our text," he is really meaning by the word "our" to be saying that it is under "our" consideration. Yet it is really the preacher alone who is considering this Gospel, and explicating it for the people. When he says "our" he really means "my." But that would sound too jarring, somehow too pompous. "Our" softens the blow. Yet the fact is that the preacher is here still meaning to say, "the text on which I am preaching." If he wishes to avoid inserting himself here, it would be better to say, simply, "This Gospel," as Luther does, or something similar.

"Our text" is a cliche. It's just another throwaway line. It's pedantic and dull. And so it turns off the ears. And "text" sends altogether the wrong message. Don't say it, preacher.

The Dormition of the B.V.M.

Meditation on the Magnificat, which is the Gospel appointed for the Dormition of the B.V.M., may always be expected to be fruitful.

The Blessed Virgin Mary declares that all nations shall call her blessed. What gives her the audacity to make this claim?

She was told: first by the Angel Gabriel: "Blessed art thou among women," and second, echoed by Elizabeth her cousin, who said, "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb."

So now, as a third declaration, she says it herself, thus making threefold the testimony to the origin of her blessedness in the Triune God, whom she carries within her womb.

The Triune God is within her? Most assuredly, for in that she carries the Incarnate One, she carries the Eternal Son. Yet God is not divided, and though she does not carry the Father or the Spirit, still she carries God, she becomes the Theotokos, the God-bearer, the Mother of God.

Behold, the life she feels within her womb is her own son, her own flesh and blood; yet she knows within herself (for she has never known a man) that the angel's declaration is true: she carries the Almighty. She knows she will bear her Creator.

So within the tiny space of her womb is the meeting-place of heaven and earth, and in that she has given of her own flesh to this her Offspring, He has become forever her Son as well as the Son of the Father.

He will be now and for all eternity the Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

And so even after her sojourn on earth she remains His mother, and for all eternity she will remain the mother of God.

And He will be forever our Brother.

Deo gracias!

The Preacher, I

Here begins what I expect to be a series of snippets and notes regarding preaching. Not snippets of sermons, so much as of technique and sermon construction and delivery.

There is no particular rhyme or reason to the order of the snippets, much as is the case with life itself, I guess.

The first such snippet is simply this:

Never say "you see." This applies not only to preaching, but to writing and instruction in general, I'd say.

"You see" is condescending, if only as an implication. It says, sit here and pay heed to me you impoverished little underlings. You uneducated infants, you poor souls who require my personal wisdom if you are to get anywhere.

For instance, never do this:

"Martha was troubled about many things, unlike her sister Mary. You see, there's a kind of anxiety that sets in when we get too . . ."

I'd suggest that "you see" is really not meant to be "you see" when it's used like this. It's a throw-away, almost rather like "you know." But while "you know" is only annoying as a repetitive substitution for "um," "you see" is more than that, I think. It's the verbal equivalent of stroking the beard, or making a tent with the fingers. It's condescending. Don't say it, preacher. Just preach.