The People's Prime Minister

I am not at all familiar with the way British politics works, so I suppose it's quite possible that I may someday find that I am here paying tribute to the wrong man politically. But in any case, on the gut level I have found much in the leadership of the Right Honorable Tony Blair that is honorable and right. Gordon Brown will have a tough act to follow this June.

I watched The Queen last night, a film by Stephen Frears released earlier this year, which, by the way, is well worth your time. Helen Mirren's portrayal of Elizabeth II and her struggle with Mr. Blair over the aftermath of the death of Princess Diana is magnificent. (To whet your appetite, click here to view the trailer.) What I also took from the film was a reminder of just how much I have grown to admire Mr. Blair over the years. It was he who first coined the phrase "the People's Princess" with respect to Diana, and it was also he who best interpreted the pulse of the British people in that tragic hour.

To be sure, much about the life of Diana was less than pure, and there was, I recall, a certain warped irony about the way the world doted on her while largely ignoring Mother Teresa who also died that summer of 1997. Nevertheless Diana was larger than life. She was an icon. She was the lovely princess of everyone's childhood fairy tale, and she was a real live person. The paparazzi not only played a central role in causing her death; they also sought to ruin that image England and the world saw in the Princess. It did not matter that she and the Prince were divorced; in fact, since it was in the public view the Prince's fault, she became all the more loved for it. Mr. Blair likely understood all this, so in the hour of her death it was he who was able first to say the right thing at the right time.

And we Americans dare never forget how he stood shoulder to shoulder with us after September 11, 2001, and has not flinched in his loyalty since. Everyone in the world seemed to call himself an American for the next few weeks, but he sank his teeth into that alliance. He dedicated his government's troops to stand beside ours in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and he never wavered in the face of sometimes fierce opposition. You think President Bush has received bad press for Iraq? Mr. Blair's enemies are ten times as vitriolic. But he has always worn his determination on his sleeve, and in being a friend to our President he has been a friend to all Americans, pro- and anti- war alike. I remember reading in National Review shortly after 9-11 an editorial which brought a lump to my throat. It was a grateful American's response to Mr. Blair's staunch support: "We will not forget this, sir." Count me as one who has not forgotten.

So he was a socialist at heart; so he was labor; so he was progressive, whatever all that means. This man has acted with a well-informed conscience in his public life. History should and probably will look on his legacy more kindly than current public opinion does. For the measure of a true leader must be understood in the end to be a measure of leadership, rather than of following public opinion. That is what the people will ultimatly respect and admire. It's why Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan were the 20th century giants they were. Would that all public officials would learn to be so governed by a sense of what is the right thing to do, ever regardless of public opinion.

The Grammarian, II.

Recently I read a review by Gilbert Meilander of a new translation of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Discipleship, i.e., his classic more commonly known under the title of its older translation, The Cost of Discipleship. Meilander's beef against the obsession of the new translator with being gender-neutral toward God is right on the mark. Not only does it raise serious questions about how one views God; it also ruins the language. So in this case, the ruin of the language is all in service to a rejection of the Biblical depiction of God as Father and Son, and even of the Holy Spirit as He. When God visited Abraham and Sarah, it was in the form of three men.. Most significantly of all, Jesus is quite undeniably Man. But to return to the Grammarian's point in this, it's also degrading of the English language; and anything which degrades the language is just another, if subtle, attack on the Word of God; for if the language we speak suffers, especially when referring to God, then the Word of God comes under assault. Churches worried about offending feminists have bought into this nonsense and, as Meilander documents well with regard to the Bonhoeffer translation, are attacking beauty in language. I've heard some of this jarring omission of pronouns in their references to God, and it's worse than fingernails on a blackboard. It's just goofy to think you can get away with not ever using a pronoun when referring to the Creater. The reasoning, I suppose, is that any prounoun is at least as phonetically long as the vocable god, so why not just always use the latter? But what you get is a clumsy repetition, as, for instance, in this: God is in God's holy temple; God is on God's heavenly throne." The feminists are ruining the English language, to say nothing of virtually everything else they get their hands on. As the title of Meilander's piece puts it, "Enough of God."

The Ascended Christ and the Preacher

The Gospel accounts of the Ascension contain an unmistakeable link between Christ's ascension and the going forth of His apostles to preach the Gospel to all the world. We are told that He sits at the right hand of God, and we are told that they went forth everywhere preaching.

Two things may be taken from this. First, that every time a preacher proclaims the Gospel, the ascended Christ becomes manifest. Like Stephen, the hearer beholds Christ at the right hand of God. The authority of the preachers is in the Gospel they preach, and that authority is absolute, for Christ said, "All authority is given to me in heaven and on earth." Not only, therefore, shall every knee bow at the name of Jesus, but every heart should also give place to this proclamation. To put the matter simply, there is no excuse for sleeping in or playing golf when you belong in the place where the King in His glory becomes manifest.

Secondly, the phenomenon we call "preaching" is something germane to the New Testament. Although prophets spoke in the name of the Lord, and even King Solomon is called "the Preacher," in Ecclesiastes, these must all be seen as tokens or foreshawings of that which is accomplished in the coming of Christ. In Him is all the fulness of the godhead, bodily. Therefore in the preaching of Him is manifested all the fulness of God, whereas formerly this was only foreshadowed. This, in short, is what the New Testament is all about. It is about fulfillment, accomplishment, and the finishing of the grand story of the redemption of the world. This story is what preaching is. Any "preacher" who does not make this story the sum and substance of his own words is not really preaching at all. From such imposters we Christians must flee, for they preach only themselves, and their god is their belly.

The royal, divine majesty of the Man Jesus Christ on His eternal throne requires the attendance of every man, woman, and child at the hearing of His Holy Gospel, proclaimed from the lips of His called and ordained preachers.

The Grammarian, I.

In the interest of bucking up the English language, I herewith launch a new occasional blog label, "The Grammarian." But fear not, ye grammatically challenged! I shall begin with a mea culpa: My own grammar in the previous post was fundamentally flawed. Can you see where? Behold the title, "A Prayer for Mother's Day." Now this is a bit tricky, because one could conceivably mean to call the second Sunday in May the day set aside for "mother," in which case the placing of the apostrophe would be proper, that is, as "mother's," that which pertains to mother. On reflection, however, it would appear that the day is meant to honor mothers, plural, and is therefore more properly called "Mothers' Day."

Thus I begin this blogging branch on my own error, and seek to build up rather than to tear down. Good grammar begets good manners. It also does wonders for sermons.

So, for starters, let us all agree to the following points:

One does not lay down to rest, unless he indicates what he is to lay down. Otherwise he lies down to rest.

One does not say, "I could have came," unless he is perhaps pondering how nice it would be to have a stained glass window in his foyer, with its grooved bars of came, the lead used to hold the pieces of glass in place.

Heighth is not a word.

One ought never pour over a document, because then it would get all wet. But some documents are well worthy of poring over.

One does not refer to himself as "myself" unless he is the subject of the sentence. To illustrate, it would be incorrect for me to say, "This grammarian blog is good for myself as well as for others." No, "it would be good for me." But then, it would be correct to use the reflexive pronoun thus: "I have written this blog for myself as well as for others."

One does not say "literally" unless he really means it.

OK, that's enough for starters. Be advised: The Grammarian is on the prowl.

A prayer for Mother's Day

Like many a confessional Lutheran, I do not follow the modern rule of abandoning the historic liturgy in favor of some mother's day theme every time the second Sunday in May rolls around. It's Eastertide, after all, and there are more important things to preach than matters which make Hallmarks happy.

Having said that, however, I am by no means averse to the honoring of our mothers on Mother's Day. On the contrary, I believe that he who dishonors his mother dishonors God who gave us all our mothers.

Therefore I have consistently followed the practice of including a special Mother's Day prayer in the General Prayer (i.e., the Prayer of the Church). Anyone who needs a prayer for Mother's Day, feel free to use it if you like. Only don't make it a collect for the day; just include it among the petitions:

O Almighty God, who didst send forth Thy Son to be born of a woman, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and who by His holy incarnation didst in truth cause her to be the very Mother of God, thereby crowning and honoring all motherhood, grant Thy perpetual favor and blessing upon all of our mothers, that they in turn may be a blessing to all their children. Bless the memory of those of our mothers who have passed on from this vale of tears, and leave us not comfortless. Grant also to the Holy Christian Church, which is the Mother of us all, prosperity in faithfulness, that we through her pure milk of the Word may gain everlasting joy, through the Son of Mary, Thine only Son Jesus Christ, our Lord.

A very wise man . . .

It is unquestionably the case (he said with a wry grin) that Father Hollywood is a very wise man. The reason? Well, of course, because he thinks that I am a very wise man. He's given a great plug on his blog for my Every Day Will I Bless Thee which you can see here. And if you want a copy of my book, which was published several years ago by Concordia Catechetical Academy, you can either go there to purchase it for $21 plus 10% s&h, or by sending me an email: eckardt@kewanee.com. Thanks, Fr. Beane!

Pachelbel Rant

Thanks to Fr. Wade Seaver for sending me this video called Pachelbel Rant. If you're like me and can't stand the Pachelbel canon, you really should see this video. So true, and worth some laughs.

Amazing Pro Life Article

Every once in a while you get a good word from an unexpected place. Not that the Wall Street Journal is an unexpected place for a good pro-life article, but I found this article in it by a longtime feminist and worker in the Clinton White House. It's by one Kirsten Powers, who worked in the Clinton administration from 1993-1998, which means most of the time he was in office.

She speaks as a feminist, but from the perspective that feminism used to represent, which, as we all know, was nothing like what it is today: "Many early feminists -- the Suffragettes -- opposed abortion. They viewed it as an affront to human rights. There is little doubt that they would have recognized elective, late-term abortion for what it is, a gruesome, uncivilized and inhuman procedure."

So she can't understand why, when between 60 and 70% of Americans oppose late-term abortions, nevertheless "late-term abortions now enjoy the imprimatur of every one of the presidential candidates of one of the two main political parties."

Today's women, she laments, "have been elevated to a special status where they have the 'right' to determine whether a five-month or older 'live fetus', as the court called it, should be partially delivered outside of their body and killed in the most gruesome manner imaginable, even if carrying that fetus poses no threat to their life."

But here's her best line of all: "It needs to be said that there is no constitutional right to crush a living human's skull and suction out its brains, no matter where that life may reside -- inside the womb, or partially outside the womb, as is done in the so-called partial birth abortion. It's immoral and contrary to the values of the Democratic Party, which prides itself on standing up for the weak and voiceless."

Wow. Too bad they won't listen to one of their own. Here's more: "Rather than defending the indefensible . . . the Democratic Party should be taking the lead in eliminating a still legal form of elective late-term abortion where, as the court described it, 'The fetus is usually ripped apart as it is removed, and the doctor may take 10 to 15 passes to remove it.'

And this: "Sen. Barack Obama pointed out that late- term abortions account for less than 1% of all abortions. Sounds sort of benign, until you consider that in the last 10 years more than 10 million babies have been aborted in the United States." That would add up to 100,000 of these late-term procedures in ten years. People love to use that line, that there are so few of these gruesome abortions. I call one of them too many, and there are actually over 10,000 per year. How dreadful. Kyrie eleison!

Easter and Pentecost

There are some profound differences in the ways people understand the significance of Easter, a fact which also applies to Pentecost. Our Lutheran and historical forefathers rightly saw Easter as the celebration of Christ's fleshly resurrection. We do not merely rejoice in an empty tomb. An empty tomb could mean anything; in fact, the first to discover that the tomb was empty were horrified because they thought someone had stolen Jesus' body. It wasn't until they saw Him and became convinced that it was truly He, in the flesh, resurrected, that they were comforted and began to rejoice. Therefore you won't hear the words 'rejoicing at the empty tomb' rolling off your pastor's tongue. Rather, we rejoice with Thomas and all the Apostles who were convinced that Jesus stood bodily before them and said, "Peace be unto you."

So also at Pentecost, we do not merely rejoice in the coming of the Holy Ghost weakly defined in a nebulous or ethereal way at best, or at worst as a reason to go off speaking in tongues and claiming divine intervention. Rather, we see this too in fleshly terms. The Holy Ghost came to the eleven apostles, and immediately they began to preach Christ in several languages. Thus the coming of the Holy Ghost is the coming of the Apostolic Ministry. The Holy Ghost came to Ephesus, to Corinth, to Rome, or to Spain precisely when and in that the Holy Apostles arrived there.

In all this we see the inseparable link between Jesus and the Holy Ghost. In the Western Christian Church we confess that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, even as we note that the breath of Christ proceeded out of His mouth when He ordained His apostles. St. John's account of their ordination reports that "He breathed on them and said unto them, 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost.'" In English, ghost (or spirit), and breath are separate words, but not in Greek. The word pneuma means both. Pneumonia is a disease of the breath, and pneumatology is the study of the Holy Spirit. Bearing this in mind while considering the passage from the Gospel, we may learn that Jesus' breath and Jesus' Spirit are in fact the same thing. The air that proceeded forth from His very human lungs is, in this case, at the same time very divine; it is Jesus' breath, His Spirit. It was by this breath that He made His disciples into apostles, literally "sent ones." This is all a mystery which therefore we cannot fully explain nor understand, but at least we can say that there is an essential linkage seen here between the Son of God and the Spirit of God.

So also therefore, there is an essential linkage between Easter and Pentecost. Easter is the celebration of the Son in His fleshly resurrected exaltation; Pentecost is the celebration of the Son's sending of the Spirit, in His fleshly ambassadors, His apostles.

Thus in the Christian Church we rejoice during Eastertide particularly over the renewal of Jesus' flesh, His body, upon which we feast; and at Pentecost we rejoice particularly over Jesus' sending of His preachers whose task it is to proclaim Him and His mercy.

A Touch of Frolic

There's a brilliant article by Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon in the most recent (April) issue of Touchstone magazine, which was so good that it inspired me to write this letter to the editors, and which I call reason enough to subscribe:

Patrick Henry Reardon’s “The Son Risen with Healing” was worth the price of the entire subscription. I only wish he had spent more ink lingering on “The Forty Days of Lingering,” his last section. As far as I’m concerned, the expressions of playful cheerfulness that Fr. Reardon calls “jocose” in Jesus’ appearances to his disciples could be the theme of an entire article. “Is there not something exceeding playful, for instance, in our Lord’s incognito appearance to Mary Magdalene . . .?” Yes, most certainly, and in the Emmaus road exchange, and in the appearance to Thomas: “a delicate touch of frolic in all this, a quiet celebration among these intimates of the Victor over sin and death.” Yes, a thousand times. And we could go on with the examples. A favorite of mine is the Lord’s appearance on the shore, in which He not only plays with them as children, but even calls them children, and lightheartedly asks if they have any meat. When He fills their net with fish, the beloved disciple gleefully informs Peter that it is He, and Peter like a cavorting child jumps into the lake to swim to Him. The other disciples are left comically dragging this enormous catch behind their boat, only to find on arrival that Jesus already has a breakfast of fish prepared for them. There is here a sense of hilarious glee in this report of overwhelmingly happy news, a perspective surely meant for all Christendom to gain and to carry into the midst of all of life’s trials and challenges.

Rev. Fr. Burnell F. Eckardt Jr.

Pastor of St. Paul’s Ev. Lutheran Church, Kewanee, Illinois and

Editor of Gottesdienst, a Journal of the Evangelical-Lutheran Liturgy

Geraldo's Gaffe at Virginia Tech

Somebody should tell Geraldo Rivera that he doesn't fit in at Fox News. He's still acting like the opportunist we always knew he was. Here he is at Virginia Tech where horror has just struck, interviewing the school's president, grilling him on why more wasn't done to prevent the massacre. What could the poor guy say? They did what they could. Then he asks the typical default, inane question about how he felt and what emotions he had when he heard the news. But the worst was when at the end of the interview tape, Jeraldo says "it's safe to say" that this is an "embattled president." Embattled? Why? And why is this a safe thing to say? And why is Geraldo evidently s already trying to create a controversy at this place where people are dumbstruck from the tragedy? The man should be canned immediately. Let Imus or somebody do his job.

The Imus Thing

Since this Imus controversy won't go away, I finally got around to reviewing his original comment about the "nappy headed hos" that got him axed.

I wonder how many people actually did that, went back and played the original video.

I don't know about you, but my first reaction was that there really isn't much there. He and a sports guy are commenting on the video of the Tennesee team beating the Rutgers team in a championship game, and it's actually the other guy who first drops the h-bomb.

Imus is a bit crass, I'll give you that; but the whole thing seems pretty goofy to me. Here's what happened.

Imus and--I think it was sports guy Sid Rosenberg--are doing voice-over while the video is on the teams playing. Imus says, "So I watched the basketball game last night between a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the women's final . . ."

Rosenberg: "Yeah, Tennessee won last night, seventh championship for Pat Summit, man, they beat Rutgers by thirteen points."

Imus, reacting, says, "Some rough girls from Rutgers, man, they got tattoos and . . ."

Rosenberg: ". . . some hard core hos."

Imus: "[chuckling] . . . some nappy headed hos there, man, I'll tell you right now . . . man, that's some . . . ooh [chuckling] . . . and um, the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know."

So that's it. I don't have the time to do deep research on the use of "ho" in popular jargon, but it's my guess that Imus had no intention of actually calling these girls whores. He was just commenting on the way the looked to him, with their tattoos and locks and such, in contrast to the girls from Tennessee. It was the tattoos that got his attention, not the color of their skin.

And another thing: If Imus is in so much trouble, how come the other guy isn't? He must have gone and hid under a rock somewhere, relieved to have the axe falling on the other guy's head.

This is all the product of a society looking for things to be offended about. New definitions of sin abound. This is political correctness run amok, and when it comes to racist sounding remarks, then eveyone jumps in because it's easier to make the outrage stick.

I call it hypocrisy.

It is more evidence that our society is getting more accustomed to being intolerant. This keeps up for awhile, and pretty soon it will get quite uncomfortable for anyone with a different point of view. These may well be the building blocks for a civilization which one day might begin condoning some real persecution.

Kudos for Gottesdienst Keep Coming

I recall a certain critic saying recently that he could not "in good conscience" recommmend Gottesdienst to anyone, putting it in the same category as Christian News and Jesus First, publications widely regarded as rags from the right and the left. The conversation was rich, because as it happened this critic had himself been the object of some pointed Gottes-criticism in a prior issue, which just might serve to mitigate the notion that his conscience was "good."

At any rate, another reason I found the criticism so amusing was that I routinely--yes, routinely--get mail from serious readers saying just the opposite. Here following is a sampling lifted from the correspondence we have received in the past two weeks alone, whose volume of kudos was by no means unusual.

"Your publication is wonderful! I am increasingly becoming disappointed in The Lutheran Witness, and this quarterly journal more than makes up for it. I especially enjoyed J. E. Shaw's piece, 'Strategy for Victory.' I was most pleased to see Dr. Feuerhahn had received the Sabre of Boldness award. . . ."

"This is an excellent publication."

"I appreciate and enjoy Gottesdienst . . . the Journal you publish and to which I subscribe. . . ."

"I think the latest copy of Gottesdienst is very special. Please send me 10 copies . . ."

"We are very interested in seeing that the historic liturgy is alive and well for the next generation of Lutherans, and so we ask that [this enclosed donation] be used to the glory of God as best seen fit by your organization's needs. . . . May the Lord of the Church continue to rasi up faithful pastors, congregations and organizations among us who unashamedly subscribe to Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions."

The Third Day

The Johannine resurrection account contains the visit to the tomb by the Magdalene (St. John 20), in which she supposed that Jesus was the gardener. Behold, He is the Gardener, and the Seed, in the renewed garden.

For the first garden was ruined when another woman ate of forbidden fruit; not only did she and her husband bring ruin to the whole human race; they brought ruin upon the earth itself. For the ground was cursed because of their sin, and so it has borne thorns and thistles ever since. And pain, and sorrow, and evil, and trial, and terrors, and death.

Now the earth had come out of the seas as dry ground on the third day of creation, a harbinger of a greater third day to come. For a greater third day was needed, since the earth was cursed, and all its inhabitants have ever suffered for its curse.

See, the demise of the earth is the fault of man; but not because he has been burning too many fossil fuels, or driving SUVs, or failing to be environmentally conscious. It is because of the inbred sin in every man that the earth is so twisted and ruined. And this is a fault so deep that no Kyoto Protocol or other political charlatans can correct it. Man is ruined, and cannot save himself.

But now behold the mercy of God: the Creator has come to his earth as Man, in order that He might Himself repair the ruin and renew the earth; in order that He might swallow the sin and its curse in Himself, and emerge from the grave, on the third day. Behold the fulfillment of the third day on this glad Easter! And behold the renewal of creation in the Resurrected Lord! The Seed has emerged from the earth; the Gardener has tilled His soil; the earth is restored; the curse is removed; Eden is refashioned; and by the blessed laver and water of Baptism, new shoots arise and grow in this Garden.

So the children of their Creater are glad to cry again Hallelujah! (which means "Praise God!"). So now they praise Him as they were created to do; now they sing to Him as they were redeemed to do; now they exult in Him as they have been sanctified to do. Thus now in their renewed Garden with Him, they cry aloud to Him, saying, Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

Training for the Great Vigil

There seems to be a need for some training of the mind in preparation for our Easter celebrations, especially when it comes to the Great Vigil. The Great Vigil is the solemn service of Saturday night before Easter morning, in which we welcome the end of Lent and the coming of Easter.

One of the elements of the liturgical reform which has taken hold in many segments of Christendom is the recovery of the Great Vigil. For a very long time there was little or no concept of what the Great Vigil was, or what it was for. Indeed The Lutheran Hymnal itself has no propers listed for the Great Vigil. There’s only a little reference to “Holy Saturday, Easter Eve,” having only a collect and two readings, the Gospel being a reference to the burial of Jesus (St. Matthew 27). So even there, although the collect for Easter Eve contains the traditional reference to “the glory of the Lord’s resurrection” on “this most holy night,” nothing else does. There was no Great Vigil among Lutherans in the early 20^th century.

The recovery of this ancient and venerable tradition has been a key ingredient in the rediscovery of liturgical beauty and importance for Lutherans.

But still there is resistance, particularly among people who hadn’t grown up with the tradition, and for whom therefore it represented something new. Actually it’s something very old, which, like many venerable traditions, fell into disuse between the 17^th and 19^th centuries when Rationalism was on the rise. The recovery of Confessional Lutheranism has brought with it an awakening of liturgical piety, and a renewed appreciation for the Great Vigil.

The Vigil is a bit lengthier than a regular Sunday mass, but for those who are aware and appreciative of what’s going on, time does not seem to be a factor. It requires a little disciplining, a little training of the mind to grasp and appreciate the majesty of this holy night, but when that discipline is achieved, the Great Vigil begins to stand apart as an awe-inspiring ceremony.

It’s actually an accumulation of four services set end-to-end, each building on the former, until finally Easter formally arrives.

Beginning at dusk, the congregation gathers around an open fire for the Service of Light. The paschal candle is lit and a procession forms to enter the church. When the long procession finally wends its way into the church, and hand-candles are lit, the solemn Exsultet is chanted, a beautiful and melodious proclamation of Easter’s arrival. There is high ceremony here, done with purpose: we are witnessing and partaking in the celebration of the renewal of all creation in the resurrection of our Lord.

The Service of Readings follows, in which several Old Testament readings foretelling this grand event are read. The service concludes with the great canticle called the Benedicite Omnia Opera in which now the rejoicing of all creation is openly expressed. Also known as the Song of the Three Children (the three men in the fiery furnace), it speaks of the rejoicing of all creation: angels, heavens, waters, sun, moon, stars, showers, dew, winds, fire, winter, summer, dews, frost, cold, ice, snow, nights, days, light, darkness, lightning, clouds, mountains, hills, green things, wells, seas. floods, whales, all that move in the waters, fowls, beasts. cattle, and children of men. Here, as before, we observe that all creation bends toward its Creator who has renewed all things by rising from the dead.

Then follows the Service of Baptism, in which any confirmations are also held, as well as a calling to mind of Baptism for all in attendance. This follows fittingly, since it is through Baptism that we have become participants in the renewal of creation.

Finally, the Service of the Sacrament marks the point of entry into Easter. The lights come up, the celebrant is vested, the lilies seem to trumpet, and we sing the Gloria in Excelsis with gusto; the organ keeps its silence no more, and even the bells are rung. This is the Church’s finest hour: Christ is risen! And so we feast, coming to the altar to receive His Body and Blood in the Sacrament.

This crescendo of rejoicing continues at sunrise, when in the bright array of the morning sun we recall the moment in which the women at the tomb, and Jesus’ disciples, first learned of His resurrection. Easter Sunrise is more festive still than the last part of the Great Vigil. Now we are in full-throated song and music, our choir is at its very best, and our hearts sing in glad harmony with our voices.

The best way to gain the full effect of this great liturgical Feast is to witness it from Maundy Thursday and Good Friday, when the Church is at its darkest and most somber. From the deepest depths to the highest heights we go in just three days, as the liturgy of the Church mimics Christ Himself, who went through death to resurrection. So we sing a mournful tune during the Holy Three Days, but it gives way to a heady rejoicing when we celebrate that Easter has come, and with it, our victory over the grave. Christ is risen! He is risen indeed! Alleluia!

Palm Sunday Vindication

The grand procession of our Lord into the city of Jerusalem on Palm Sunday is best seen according to the backdrop of the events in the life of David and Solomon. Remember those? King David was old and rather out of the loop, on his deathbed (I love how the KJV puts it, “he gat him no heat”). They gave him Abishag to keep him warm, although “he did not know her,” i.e., there was nothing untoward about this arrangement. During these last days of the king, the treacherous Adonijah decided it was time to usurp the throne, and he set the wheels in motion to make himself king, thinking he could get away with this because David would never know. Solomon was just a clueless boy, and his mother Bathsheba was powerless to stop it. So she spoke to Nathan, and the two of them decided to try to tell David, in last-ditch hopes of putting a stop to the travesty. David had promised the throne to Solomon, and that according to the word of God. So she went into his chamber and told him, and Nathan came in after, to back up her testimony. Was it too late? David, in his last great kingly act, mustered his waning strength to decree that Solomon must be crowned king at once, and all the customary preliminary steps (at which Adonijah was even now busily working) were, by this decree to be bypassed. Solomon was placed on David’s mule and sent into Jerusalem, amid cries of God save King Solomon! “And the people piped with pipes, and rejoiced with great joy, so that the earth rent with the sound of them.” The Psalm appropriate to the occasion would have been the 118^th, including this: Save now . . . Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord!” And this great noise of rejoicing was the sound of vindication, an occasion at which Adonijah, when he saw it, knew the jig was up.

The entry of our Lord Jesus Christ is a resounding acclamation that He is the Greater Solomon, and the vindication of His truth against the scribes and Pharisees. Indeed the Lucan account of it has these words: “Peace in heaven, and glory in the highest,” not only reminiscent of the angelic announcement at His birth, but more importantly declaring Him the true Prince of Peace, Shalom, Solomon. And the Pharisees and their allies are as struck as had Adonijah had been. No wonder they would complain to Pilate about what he affixed to the cross, “The King of the Jews.” Those placards were supposed to tell the offense of the criminal, as a deterrent to others. Thus, to Christ’s enemies, the offense was that He said He was the king of the Jews. To say that He was the King of the Jews was to turn it all on its head, and make Him the Greater Solomon.

This was Pilate’s richest mockery: Ecce homo! You want your own king? Here he is, folks, a pitiful worm.

And yet in fact, this is faith’s greatest hour and vindication, for faith believes where it cannot see. The glory of Christ is His cross. His crown is of thorns. His death is His victory. And He is our King (is He not risen from the dead?). And so we cry hosanna (God save the King!) evermore.

Sandy Berger's Lies

The Fox News expose on the Sandy Berger coverup ought to be about as earth-shaking as the Washington Post expose on the Nixon Administration's coverup. But it won't be. Times have changed, and now that those who would be most hurt by a national scandal are in charge at the capitol building, there won't be any "outrage" commensurate with the crime, or certainly not in proportion to the "outrage" expressed by those who ranted and raved about the Scooter Libby affair. Libby is now convicted of a felony for his poor memory, over an issue that turned out to be a non-issue (he wasn't the one, it turns out, who "outed" Valerie Plame, remember?), but Berger walks, having copped a plea bargain for what he calls "mistakes." Listen, lies are not mistakes; and to call them mistakes is simply to lie some more. We are to believe that he "mistakenly" shoved top-secret documents in his pants, documents the 9-11 commission needed in order to carry on its investigation, and "mistakenly" hid them away. He "mistakenly" made repeated runs to the men's room for this purpose, and "mistakenly" carried documents outside the building and "mistakenly" hid them under a bush or trash bin or something while "mistakenly" going back to get some more. Then he "mistakenly" cut them to shreds so that no one could ever find them. And then he "mistakenly" explained to us all that this was all a mistake. And no one will ever know what was in those files. He had a motive, and he has mounds of evidence against him. That is and ought to be a felony.

What I can't figure out is why in the world the Bush Department of Justice wouldn't want to prosecute this further. They did get a promise from him that he'd take a lie detector test, even with the plea bargain, but he has yet to do it. Why don't they push? Why don't they ever push? The best way for evil men to succeed is for good men to do nothing. Didn't somebody famous once say that? Churchill or somebody?

Kudos to Fox. But the Berger King was Clinton, so Sandy has nothing to fear.

What To Do with the Annunciation This Year

Now this is an interesting thing. I put up a little post on Passiontide (below) and, next thing I know there's a huge discussion about it going on over at Fr, Petersen's blog. It seems he's pointed out that my source on the transferral of the Annunciation is Anglican and doesn't agree with the Roman system. Lots of folks have chimed: Pastor McCain has gone on his usual adiaphora rant, while Fr. Curtis has done an admirable job defending the traditional rules, their being adiaphora notwithstanding.

Anyhow, here's my own further musing on the matter, which I also posted over there:

OK, Petersen, I admit to being Anglican on this, and I'll even tell you why (though I gather you already know): it's because when I used the Anglican resource it impressed me so much that I didn't bother to check the Romanist resource. I still haven't. I'm just taking your word for it, because I'm still too lazy to look it up right now.

Actually right now I'm pretty much in agreement with Curtis's posts on this matter, but I have a bit to add.

Although this is adiaphora, it would be best if we saw this as something (among many somethings) on which we ought all come to agreement, and then all do it the same way. There is mass confusion (pun intended) when everyone just does whatever he pleases and cries adiaphora.

Now as to the matter itself: look, if you're going to be liturgical at all, then it's kind of pointless to throw liturgical directions to the wind without even giving them so much as a passing consideration, which is evidently what McCain has consented to, with his 1200 adoring adulators (I could launch into a diatribe on I Corinthians 1 here, how God has chose the things that are not, etc., but I'll resist).

For those who want to try to come to a unified approach on this, here are my reasons for opining that the Anglican system is a bit better; but I admit it isn't set in stone for me.

First, in agreement also with Rome, the integrity of the Sundays in Lent and their interrelation is a matter which ought never to be taken lightly, and goes together with the whole notion of a church year. That's why they're all First Class Sundays, and it makes perfect sense. But since the Annunciation is also First Class, it is not ignored, but transferred, so it also gets its due, all for the edification of God's people. See, you get both this way, which is in agreement with all the venerable traditions.

Second, regarding whether to transfer one day or over two weeks (this is what started this whole debate), I admit to being a bit troubled about celebrating a First Class Feast when everything's veiled, and we're supposed to be excluding all Glorias. That seems to lessen the First Class nature of it. OK, for the Glorias you can make an exception in this case, but remember that you're also making an exception in the case of the Gloria in Excelsis on Maundy Thursday, and soon, with all your exceptions, you can hardly tell the difference, especially for people who don't come every day. So the Anglican reasoning is still the most sensible to me, whatever the source.

Third, I do happen to agree that we are beset with a problem when we transfer something to a date on which few will attend. I think the LSB suggestion for "a weekday" rather than a requirement of Monday following Quasimodogeniti is helpful, but the jury's still out. We'll be observing it on Wednesday after Quasimodogeniti here, only because a healthy number of people come on Wednesdays. Maybe that's a copout, but for now it works, and it serves the purpose of setting the Annunciation before people.

Having said all that, maybe I'd be for getting together, say, for a sort of Lutheran Lambeth Conference of sorts, and deciding how we're all going to do it.

Passiontide

OK, so now your crosses and images are veiled, right? And you've left off singing all Gloria Patris, and have entered the depths of Passiontide. The Propers in The Lutheran Hymnal are wrong at this point; Lutheran Worship partly corrected the error, leaving off the Glorias for Palm Sunday, but condensing Passiontide to one week only, the same as Holy Week. I don't know offhand what Lutheran Service Book did, because they erred in omitting the Propers from the hymnal altogether.

Anyhow, here's where these customs arise, in case you were wondering.

The "hiding" of Jesus, by veiling statuary, crosses, and images, is because of the last part of the Judica Gospel (St. John 8) in which we are told that when the Jews took up stones to cast at Him, "he hid himself," and passed by. So the hiding of Jesus' image is a vivid reminder of what happens when He is not taken seriously: He withdraws. An added reason for penitence thus arises here.

The "hiding" of images of saints is due to the thought that it would be unseemly for a saint not to be hidden if the Master Himself is hidden.

The omission of the Glorias is a further indication of a liturgical descent at this time.

In addition, it is actually not traditional to observe any occasional feasts of any kind during Passiontide. Therefore the new calendars are also wrong, which transfer Annunciation to the day after the 25th. No, it goes the day after the Easter Octave, which this year is Monday, April 16th.

Gottesdienst Day!

I'm beginning to think that maybe Fr. William Weedon is a very wise man. Why, you may ask? Well naturally, because it is evident that he thinks I am a very wise man. Thanks for the kudos, Fr. Weedon! Here's what he wrote, over at Weedon's Blog . . .

Each time I think the periodical Gottesdienst couldn't get any better, Fr. Fritz pulls a fast one. There's much to be commended in the latest edition, but the top reading, in my opinion, is from Fr. Fritz himself. He has written a little opinion piece called "Lutheran Identity Crisis?" VERY worth the read. What does it say? Well, subscribe and find out! [to do so, click here!]

Oh, all right. All right. Just one teasing bit:

"This leaves the restless among us to consider flight to one of the historic episcopates. Some have been known to get a bit misty-eyed about the historic episcopates, an understandable weakness for the liturgically aware.... The temptation is palpable. A bishop comes along who actually looks and acts like a bishop, and whose churches actually look and act like churches, and it's no wonder we fumbling Lutherans look up from our sandboxes and wonder if maybe there's something we're missing over here. Well, of course there is! Our churches don't look or act like churches. That's what is missing."

Oh, so much more. And very tasty. Enjoy!