Lingua Latina vivit! (Latin lives!)

Check out this great article in New Oxford Review, a journal for traditionalist Roman Catholics (thanks to Rev. Dr. John Stephenson for sending this to me).

The author makes a great point why Roman Catholic seminarians should learn Latin.

Many of the same arguments can be made for Lutheran seminarians - as well as all Lutherans who want to be educated - to learn Latin. There is a direct correlation over time connecting the removal of Latin from school curricula and the increasing illiteracy among young people - not to mention the lack of understanding of grammar, the inability to compose verse and prose, and the disadvantage Americans have in learning foreign languages.

The loss of Latin has cut off most Americans from the rich literary and historical heritage that formerly bound educated modern people to their past with its roots in Greco-Roman civilization - a past, from which Christianity was spawned and grew. Today's citizens (myself included) are woefully ignorant of pre-Christian mythology (which is needed in order to read works of literature that make references to these mythological characters), the great political ideals of a free Republic seeking to stave off despotic imperialism, as well as classical philosophy and early and medieval Christian theology.

Of course, one can always read these works in translation - assuming translations exist, and assuming that an educational paradigm that no longer has room for Latin still has a place for classical mythology, history, philosophy, and theology. Of course, something is always lost in translation, which is why (to the great credit of our Lutheran seminaries) pastors ought to be able to read Holy Scripture in the original Greek and Hebrew. To study only an English translation of Cicero or Augustine with no knowledge of the underlying Latin is to miss out on wordplay, nuances, and alternate readings and interpretations that may differ from the translator or editor of a particular English rendering.

Latin was the main lingua franca for the west from the days of the Roman Republic and Empire well into the middle ages. Large numbers of philosophical and theological works (including numerous volumes of Lutheran theology) exist only in Latin to this day, never having been translated. As of now, these works are lost to all but a few scholars who are able to read them. Who knows how many treasures are lying dormant, entombed in dusty tomes that sit idle century after century in storage rooms of libraries and museums?

But even if one's desire isn't to read Julius Caesar's account of the Gallic Wars or Plutarch's histories or Martin Luther's lectures on the Book of Genesis in the original tongue, there is still much to be gained by learning to read Latin. More than half of all words in the English language are Latin derivatives - and these English words tend to be longer, more difficult words than those descended from Anglo-Saxon. To learn Latin is to lay the groundwork for a vast and diverse English vocabulary. It is also the optimal way to learn how grammar and syntax work. In the age of text messaging and e-mail, much of our communications skills - especially of the written word - have become sloppy and imprecise. Latin is a sorely-needed corrective.

Children who study Latin typically score higher on SATs and have a much better command of the English language. They also have a leg up in learning foreign languages - especially (but not limited to) the lingustic descedants of Latin, e.g. French, Spanish, and Italian.

Students who pursue medicine, the sciences, law, theology, or classical history will especially appreciate learning Latin - as well as anyone who reads journals and textbooks that still make use of Latin abbreviations and words.

One of the more colorful professors at Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana, Rev. Dr. David Scaer, begins all of his classes by requiring the students to rise and recite (or read) the Nicene Creed in Latin. A lot of my fellow students rolled their eyes and griped about it, not seeing the value, taking the tack that Dr. Scaer was just being obnoxious. However, without even studying, we ended up having the Creed virtually memorized in Latin by the end of the class - which familiarized us with a great deal of theological terminology we would encounter in other classes and in theological texts both modern and ancient - all in a painless way. The less time spent running to a theological dictionary to look up a Latin phrase from a book translates to more time spent actually pondering the text and learning concepts instead of individual words. Learning at least basic Latin is simply a part of being a well-rounded educated person.

Fortunately, after being forsaken in the 20th century (especially in the freewheeling 1960s in which avant-garde "educators" radically altered school curricula) - Latin is coming back. It is once again being offered in high schools and universities in America. Some grade schools are even offering Latin - including Salem Lutheran School - where I teach very basic Christian Latin to junior high students. Many American private schools - including Lutheran schools - are reintroducing the classical curriculum - opting to rid themselves of the failed 1960s experiments that brought about the rumor of Latin's demise and the introduction of "Social Studies" and feminist propaganda instead of geography, history, and rhetoric. Latin is a big part of this renaissance of education and the restoration of real learning.

So don't believe it when someone tells you Latin is a dead language. It never died, but rather evolved into a slew of modern languages - even contributing greatly to the English language.

Long live Latin!

Sermon: Pentecost – 2011

12 June 2011 at Salem Lutheran Church, Gretna, LA

Text: John 14:23-31 (Gen 11:1-9, Acts 2:1-21)

In the name of + Jesus. Amen.

We in our sinful, fallen state are very good at one thing: taking that which is good and corrupting it into something which is bad. We do it all the time, and it explains much of the misery we see around us, the struggles we must endure, and even death itself. For death is the wages of sin, and sin is the corruption of that which God made perfect.

For example, language is a gift of God. We humans, created in God’s image, were equipped with ears and mouths so that we might communicate by words. And it is through the Word that God created all things: “Let there be… and there was….” But what do we do with this marvelous gift? Instead of hearing God’s Word, we open our ears to gossip, curse, and misuse God’s name. Instead of building up one another in Christ, we build monuments to ourselves like the Tower of Babel. Instead of obediently spreading around the earth, we concentrated in one place. Our use of language became so corrupted that God had to confuse our tongues in order to make us submit to His will.

Technology is also a gift from God. We have brains and the capacity to learn. We are created in the creative image of the Creator God. And yet, what do we use technology for? To build a tower of rebellion, to harness the power of the atom to slaughter innocent people by the millions, to put pornographic images in cyberspace, to tune in as comedians and respected media figures bring disgrace upon Christ and shame upon His Church, to create entertainments that take the place of preaching and God’s Word – all distractions from God’s grace.

When God confused our tongues to humble us, there was the added complication that it divided people into tribes unable to peacefully communicate with one another. Different languages means different cultures – and to sinful people, that means hatred, war, covetousness, ethnic strife, and the frustration of not being able to communicate. How many Americans become resentful when we are offered service in Spanish or when the voice at the other end of the phone bears an Indian accent? How many wars have been started because something was lost in translation? How many people never heard about the good news of Jesus Christ because of a language barrier?

And that, dear friends, is the good news of the miracle of Pentecost! The curse of Babel has given way to the blessing of the Holy Spirit’s descent upon the Church. The refusal of man to scatter to populate the world has given way to the obedience of the church to “go and make disciple of all nations.” The old tribal feuds and nationalistic pride have yielded to a trans-global and transcultural Church that is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, knowing no race or tribe or tongue, a unity under the headship of Christ.

"If anyone loves me,” says our Lord, “he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.” That Word is accessible to Jews and Greeks, to Romans and Barbarians, to “mad dogs” and Englishmen alike, saying “we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” Our Lord makes His home in palaces and mud huts, in tents and igloos, in mansions and shanties. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit dwell in the hearts of those who believe and who confess the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ – regardless of the language of that confession.

Our Lord also tells us in this troubled world yet plagued by wars and feuds: “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid.” For we are not to be divided by tribe and tongue, race and culture – but rather we are to offer thanks and praise to God among every tribe, tongue, race, and culture for what the Lord has done for us, the entire world: “Behold, the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.”

For that is the source of true and lasting peace, eternal peace, between between men and between God and mankind. It is the peace of forgiveness, the peace of the reconciliation of the cross, the peace of the blood of Christ crying out for the builders of Babel and the builders of bombs. It is the peace of God that passes all understanding, poured upon us in gracious baptismal water, pronounced upon us in life-giving words of absolution, fed to us in the mystery and miracle of the Lord’s forgiving presence in the Holy Eucharist.

And yet, dear friends, the world (for whom the Lamb was slain, for whom the Lamb was sacrificed) still hates Jesus, despises the Church, and wishes to destroy the truth. The world still clings to the corrupting notions of the Serpent in the garden and the vainglory of the architects of Babel. And like a foreigner in the midst of people of another tongue, the world does not understand.

Pentecost was the Holy Spirit’s antidote to this lack of understanding, this barrier of language between men, and between God and mankind. In burning flames of purification and divine love, the Holy Spirit came to bring us the peace proffered to us by the Prince of Peace, who promises: “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” For indeed, The Son has gone to the Father and He has sent His Spirit to convict the world concerning sin, concerning righteousness, and concerning judgment. And in that conviction stands the cross, calling to the world to repent, to seek the blood of Christ, to yield to the Spirit’s beckoning for life and salvation.

Dear friends, Pentecost is not just the fiftieth day after Easter. Pentecost is not only Acts 2. Nor is Pentecost something as shallow as the seeking out of spiritual gifts – real or imagined – to puff oneself up. Pentecost is the ongoing presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church’s proclamation of the Gospel, in her relentless missionary work, in her day to day administration of the sacraments, and in the eternal reality we Christians confess concerning the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life.

And although we are still adept at corrupting that which is good, the Lord Himself is far more abounding in mercy to redeem that which is corrupted. And although death is the wages of sin, life is the wages of divine mercy. And by the Holy Spirit, may the Church continue in this proclamation and confession until the Lord returns. Amen.

In the name of the Father and of the + Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

The Lutheran Study Bible

I've had my Lutheran Study Bible (TLSB) for a few days now. I have not read every study note and every article. But I have been jumping around various parts of the Bible and comparing it to the ESV Study Bible (ESVSB) in the course of my readings, sermon preparation, and Bible study. At this point, there are things I like very much about TLSB, and there are things I think are not so good. On the whole, I think it is above average, and so far, I give it a B.

"B" is not a bad grade by any means - although in our day and age of grade inflation, it might seem like a slight. It isn't. In fact, I give the most recent efforts by CPH very high marks. I have been using the Pastoral Care Companion (PCC) for a couple years now - and I give it an A+. It has been invaluable for giving pastoral care to the dying, for funerals, home and hospital calls, baptisms, house blessings, and (above all) private pastoral care in ordinary and extraordinary situations. The PCC is not just a home run, but a grand slam, hands-down.

Second, I am very pleased by the Lutheran Service Book (LSB). There are things I don't like, to be sure (some of the hymns selected are a big disappointment, and having five settings of the Mass is, I believe, a hindrance to unity, etc.). But on the whole, the book is remarkably well-done, laden with good features, laid-out in a logical and user-friendly way, and has proven itself to be a source of unity among liturgical congregations in our synod. It is an especially remarkable achievement given the political climate of the LCMS and the hoops those who worked on it had to jump through in order to bring us a synodical hymnal this good. After using it for a few years, I give LSB an A.

Third, the Treasury of Daily Prayer (TDP) is another home run. Again, I can pick nits about this and that, but over all, this is just what laypeople and pastors in our synod need - a common resource for liturgical and biblical prayer and devotional reading rooted in the offices of the historic church. I give the TDP an A (almost an A+, but not quite).

Again, these are just my opinions based on my own use of these resources. Obviously, many people will disagree considerably.

So, given CPH's report card (according to me) of 2 A's, a B, and an A+, that is a GPA of 3.83. And that is not bad at all. That is dean's list material, and as much as I gripe about some of the stuff CPH puts out, when it comes to the serious churchly resources, it would be hard to make better marks than this.

In my opinion, the weakest link is TLSB.

I don't think it has lived up to the promotional materials. And given CPH's latest outstanding efforts, I would be lying if I didn't say I was somewhat disappointed. I should have known something was up when I saw the marketing materials, such as way that two of the twelve "features" CPH made use of to sell TLSB are the facts that the chapter and verse numbers are indicated. Are they serious? Do any other Bibles (all of which have chapter and verse numbers) claim these as "features"? Such marketing is usually done to cover weaknesses.

And there are weaknesses. But in spite of the many features I don't like about TLSB, I still give it a B, based on the strength of the study notes and articles.


But having used the ESV Study Bible (ESVSB) for about a year, here is what I see about TLSB as inferior to ESVSB:

Paper Quality - I have had TLSB for less than a week, and already some of the pages are getting wrinkled. The pages are almost gossamer-thin, and this results in some ugly bleed-through - especially with the black-and-white charts in TLSB. Some of the pages are difficult to read as a result. By contrast, a thin but robust paper was used for the ESVSB. The bleed-through is minimal. The physical book itself is holding up extremely well as I have used it over the past year.

Ink Quality - The print is too light in TLSB. And especially the red ink for the words of Jesus (something about TLSB that I find annoying in and of itself that is not in the ESVSB) - which are so light as to be a nearly unreadable pink in some places. The ink quality (black and red) is really poor and inconsistent. Maybe this is an intermittent problem. But I bought two copies of TLSB and they are identical. I did hear the same complaint from another TLSB purchaser.

Typeset - The ESVSB is easy on the eye, and uses contrasting sans serif fonts for the study notes. Also, its use of bold in the notes makes it easy to navigate, while italics are used only for emphasis or for foreign words. The typeset is crisp and clean. Notes that are of a heading in nature are given a light greenish highlight color. TLSB's notes are in a serif font (which does not contrast with the biblical text), and italics are overused in a non-standard way.

Maps - I find maps to be extremely helpful in studying the Bible, and the ESVSB has over 200 sharp, color relief maps inset right into the texts. Nearly every book of the Bible has a map in the introductory materials. And, in the back, there is an additional section of 15 beautifully detailed full-page maps - including the large maps of Paul's missionary journeys in bold color. Take a look at them here. By contrast, TLSB has a paltry four color maps (not even one with St. Paul's journeys, nor of the tribal allotments of Israel). Only one of these is related to the New Testament. The rest of the maps are awful black and white drawings that are terribly behind the times as to what is possible and standard for today. This is a huge disappointment - especially in a day and age where we are used to pulling up images from the internet. Somehow, I doubt that the folks at CPH have monochrome computer screens sitting on their desks.

Charts - The ESVSB is chock full of color charts that make it easy to read them. They do not bleed over into the next page, and it makes comprehension of the material quick and easy. TLSB's charts are all black and white. There are also some charts in ESVSB that are really helpful for Bible study that have no corresponding charts in TLSB (such as the chart showing all the citations of the OT in the NT, and the side-by-side lists of all the kings of divided Israel and Judah).

Illustrations - The ESVSB also uses full-color in all of its 41 illustrations (such as the temple, tabernacle, ark of the covenant, etc.). The pictures are detailed and professional. The TLSB's pictures are black and white and simply look tired and dated. It is my personal opinion (I know others disagree vehemently) that the use of the throwback black and white line drawings from an 1860s era Bible was not such a great idea. Instead of sending a message of continuity with the past, they just look cartoonish to me in the context of a modern study Bible.

Timelines - The ESVSB's chronologies and timelines are more user friendly and easy to follow with the eyes - both in layout and in use of color and graphics.

Many Articles - Many (though not all) of the articles in ESVSB are scholarly and helpful, and there is no equivalent in TLSB for many of these. There are no longer or more detailed articles in TLSB as there are in ESVSB. Some of the articles are extremely well-done - but of course, it must be kept in mind that the articles are going to reflect a wide swath of Christian traditions beyond Lutheranism only.


Now, here is what I like about TLSB over and against ESVSB:

Lutheran Doctrine - When the study notes address doctrinal issues, it does so from an unabashedly Lutheran perspective. The ESVSB is a more ecumenical Bible that tries to represent historical Protestantism, including Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Reformed-ism (we really need a word here, don't we?), and neo-Evangelicalism. In some cases, it is helpful to know the various distinctions between the interpretations of these groups. But the ESVSB often drops the ball when trying to explain uniquely Lutheran theology - especially of a sacramental nature. If Lutherans are looking for an exclusively Lutheran interpretation (as opposed to a comparative study of biblical interpretation), they will certainly appreciate the notes in TLSB more than those of the ESVSB.

Patristics - Reflecting Lutheranism's continuity from the ancient church as well as Lutheranism's catholicity, TLSB cites the early Latin and Greek fathers much more frequently than the ESVSB does in the study notes and articles.

Lutheran Sources - TLSB makes use of the Reformation fathers, the Book of Concord, and hymns from LSB in its study notes. While the vast majority of the study notes do not contain these (or the patristic citations), it is helpful and commendable when they do.

Exegetical notes - I give a slight nod to TLSB in what I have studied so far. TLSB often points out wordplay, and carefully explains when it happens - a literary device that speaks volumes, but the meaning of which is lost in translation. The ESVSB often has the same notes when it comes to the Hebrew and Greek - and in some cases the ESVSB has more exegetical notes than TLSB in the same passages - but again, from what I have read so far, I give a slight advantage to TLSB for volume and consistency.

Dates at the Top of the Page - this simple chronological device is a great aid for study! It was a brilliant idea to revive this once-common practice among older Bibles in TLSB.


On the whole, I find a lot of similarity between the study notes of the two Bibles - except (as I said above) where the notes specifically address doctrine. Obviously, a Lutheran Study Bible is going to reflect a Lutheran perspective in matters of systematic theology. But there are times when it is helpful to know about other interpretations and the hermeneutics used by other church bodies. Whether or not one wants only the Lutheran view, or wishes to compare various views, will determine which study Bible one prefers.

I'm not impressed with the "Law and Gospel" notes in the study notes of TLSB. Maybe I will warm up to them later, but so far, I don't find them very helpful. I'm also not a fan of the methodology of the little icons in the study notes - but that is just a personal preference of my own. I also find the inclusion of the Small Catechism to be superfluous - as it is already in LSB and TDP.

I also prefer the ESVSB's lack of columns over TLSB's two-column setting. And again, it is just a personal bias, but I think it allows the poetic structure and paragraphing of the ESV to stand out better, and makes better use of white space. The center column cross-references are still there in the ESVSB - they are simply off to the side instead of in the middle.


The ESVSB also has a couple of helpful features that TLSB could perhaps adopt:

1) a web-based version that allows for a user password and the creation of personalized notes - included with the purchase of every ESVSB at no extra charge (which is a great feature for use in Bible class as we do have a flat-screen TV with internet hookup in our parish hall). The ESV Online Study Bible includes all of the study notes, articles, and maps of the print version - and all of the biblical references are hyperlinked together at the click of the mouse. It also has streaming in order to listen to whatever passage one chooses read by a narrator. Here is a video demonstration.

2) a Palm-device version - which serves as a commentary linked to my Olive Tree Bible software on my Palm TX. I would imagine iPhone users would also appreciate having an application so as to access TLSB and link it to their Bible apps.


In spite of its overall weaknesses, the strength of TLSB's study notes and the articles save TLSB from being a flop. And though I'm not as enthusiastic as others about TLSB, I am encouraging parishioners to buy it - especially if they are still using the cobbled-together Concordia NIV Study Bible. TLSB is far superior.

How I plan on using TLSB (and I do indeed plan on making extensive use of it) is not as a study Bible per se, but as a commentary. That is what I'm doing now, and that is working out well. I read the actual English text of the Bible in the ESVSB - with its maps, charts, illustrations, and with its admittedly ecumenical study notes - followed by looking up the explicitly Lutheran study notes and articles in TLSB. This provides me with the best of both worlds.

Maybe CPH could release a version of the TLSB without the Bible - just a set of study notes and articles. If they did that, I would use it as a supplement to the ESVSB (which is how I plan on using TLSB anyway).

You can buy your own copy of TLSB here at CPH.

Luther and the Pope on the Latin Mass

Sometimes the headlines get it exactly wrong. The title of the following article:

Pope set to bring back Latin Mass that divided the Church

is exactly the opposite of the reality.

The use of Latin in church services didn't divide the Western Church at all - in fact, it was a source of unity among Western Christians for many centuries prior to the Reformation, as well as a continued flag to rally round for Roman Catholics until the divisive 1960s. One could wander into a Catholic church anywhere in the world - Europe, Asia, North America, South America, Australia, or Africa, and follow the service even if one wasn't fluent in the local vernacular. There was a standard set of rubrics followed by all - without local displays of culture and individual flourishes. It was easy to fit in and to take part. The Latin Mass served to undo the curse of Babel and confessed a bond that held Christians together that transcended language, race, class, and culture. There is something to be said for this kind of universal standardization.

There is also the continuity from antiquity to consider. If something has been done a certain way for 1,500 years, it testifies to the timelessness of the practice and confesses a comforting sense of stability - unlike our modern culture in which one pop-idol is replaced by the next one in a matter of days, in which our state-of-the-art electronics become doorstops in a couple years.

So, the press gets it wrong to claim the Latin Mass "divided" the church.

Far from it. The division happened when Latin was abandoned by the Roman hierarchy in the 1960s. Of course, it wasn't merely abandoned, it was proscribed, outlawed, shunned like a leper, banned as though it were a sinister method of artificial birth control or the Arian heresy. That sudden and heavy-handed revocation of something dear to Christians was what in fact "divided the church" and led to Archbishop Lefebvre to form a schismatic organization of Catholics outside the jurisdiction of the pope.

But today, Pope Benedict is reportedly trying to heal the rift and the hurt caused by the ecclesiastical bullying of the 1960s, by allowing local congregations discretion to freely use either the newer Mass in the vernacular language or to celebrate the old Tridentine Mass. There is a refreshing liberty of the Gospel and pastoral sensitivity being displayed by this Bishop of Rome who is so often maligned as a kind of archlegalist fascist with hatred in his eyes and blood dripping from his mouth. (How often are we reminded of his membership in Hitler Youth and the fact that he was a WW2 era German soldier by the anti-Christian media, when we're not told the whole story that he was compelled in both cases, and that furthermore, he actually deserted the Nazi army?).

Pope Benedict's actions are a form of reconciliation between those who felt their church turned their backs on them for doing nothing other than what the church has always done, for standing up to the whims of the Godless culture of modernity. The pope is not commanding those accustomed to the New Mass to adopt Latin. Rather he is allowing a diversity of practice in the interest of pastoral care. He is striving to right a wrong by restoring that which was lost.

Interestingly, the first truly public confessional document for Lutherans, the Augsburg Confession of 1530, points out that the Lutherans (then reform-minded Roman Catholics) had introduced some elements of the Mass in the vernacular language (which was, of course, German) in addition to the Latin that was being used in the Mass at the time. Four years before this time, Martin Luther translated a German version of the Mass that replaced many of the Latin chants with more indiginous German hymns that better fit linguistically with the German language. Some people assume that the Lutherans instantly stopped using Latin and insisted that the chuch services all be in the vernacular language - but this simply wasn't the case. In fact, Latin Masses were said and sung in Lutheran churches as late as the 18th century.

In the American Edition of Luther's Works, volume 53 (Liturgy and Hymns), page 53 (the introduction to "The German Mass and Order of Service"), we find the story of Luther's famous 1526 translation of the Mass into the vernacular German. He actually dragged his feet quite a bit, and mainly offered this Deutsche Messe out of fear of the many German Masses appearing on the scene, and the lack of standardization ("confusion") they would create. In fact, Luther "objected to the legalism of those who meant to abolish the Latin mass completely and acted as though the reformation of the church depended on the exclusive use of the German language" (AE 53:53).

Look how similar this "abolish Latin" legalism by some reformers of Luther's day was repeated by Vatican II in the Roman Catholic Church four centuries later! The spirit of the post-conciliar liturgical reform was not to offer the opportunity to worship in the vernacular, rather it took the form of a legalistic prohibition to ban Latin. Both Luther and Pope Benedict take a more evangelical approach - let the Mass be said in the vernacular, but don't ban the traditional liturgy in Latin.

It was never Luther's intention that his German Mass would replace the Latin Mass. He says: "For in no wise would I want to discontinue the service in the Latin language, because the young are my chief concern. And if I could bring it to pass, and Greek and Hebrew were as familiar to us as as the Latin... we would hold mass, sing, and read on successive Sundays in all four languages, German, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. I do not at all agree with those who cling to one language and despise all others." He goes on to point out the necessity of linguistic training for evangelism (AE 53:63).

Though educators and theologians tried their best to render Latin a dead language in the 1960s, the fact is, that it lives on. In Roman Catholic circles, traditionalists have succeeded in bringing back Latin, both in elements of the New (novus ordo) Mass, as well as the restoration of the Tridentine Mass in many places. The current pope seems to be facilitating Latin along both of these lines. Latin lives on in the titles of the ordinaries of the Mass in Lutheran hymnals, such as the newly published Lutheran Service Book (LSB). In this 21st century English language missal, we find many ancient Latin liturgical terms such as: Benedicamus, Benedictus, Gloria in Excelsis, Gloria Patri, Magnificat, Nunc Dimittis, Pax Domini, Sanctus, Te Deum, and Venite. Even schools today are bring Latin roaring back into the classroom.

While Lutherans have no recent history of the celebration of the Latin Mass (they have not been celebrated in our churches since the 18th century), we do see a revival of Latin in the form of the interest in classical education in Lutheran schools. As Latif Gaba points out in a recent blog entry, Latin prayer services are offered in Lutheran schools that teach Latin (as an aside, you might also want to see this related offering from Latif as well). As a pastor and teacher at a Lutheran school that is not (at least for the time being) operating under the classical model, I lead all of my students in grades 6 through 8 in prayers in Latin to open class. My students pray the table prayer (Benedic Domine), the Lord's Prayer (Pater noster), and the Apostles Creed (Credo in Deum). I'm looking forward to teaching them a few Latin hymns as Christmas approaches.

The removal of Latin from school curricula in the late 20th century was a huge mistake. It severs young people culturally from what came before (leaving a vaccuum to be filled only by rap music and flash-in-the-pan celebrities), further setting them adrift from their own western history, and robbing them of the copious lingustic benefits of studying the root of all modern Romance languages and the source of more than half of the vocabulary in the English language (not to mention the benefits of logical thinking and grammatical precision that comes with the discipline of Latin study).

Like many other social experiments of the 1960s, this one was a failure. The pope knows it, just as another German priest knew that it would be - nearly five centuries ago. Much to the dismay of the social revolutionaries of forty years ago, not all "progress" is good. Some changes simply have to be rolled back for the good of society and for the individual.

I agree with Benedict and Luther that Latin is good not only for society and the individual, but also for the Church, and that stifling Latin is nothing more than legalism that at its foundation is antithetical to the Gospel.

Besides, as Ovid wrote two thousand years ago: "Rident stolidi verba Latina" ("Fools laugh at the Latin language"). Say what you want about Martin Luther and Benedict XVI, neither man is a fool.

Sermon: Maundy Thursday - 2018

29 March 2018

Text: John 13:1-15, 34-35 (Ex 12:1-14, 1 Cor 11:23-32)

In the name of + Jesus.  Amen.

“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another.” 

And when we love our fellow Christians the way our Lord loves us, the world will know that we are disciples of Jesus.

Of course, there are many different kinds of love: that between parents and children, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, love of friends, love of country, even the kind of love that Jesus commands us to have for our enemies.

But on this Maundy Thursday, Jesus mandates that we disciples of Jesus love one another, even as He has loved us.  This is part of our task to evangelize the world. In a sense, it is a mark of the Church that we love other Christians, that we see and treat one another as brothers and sisters.  We may not like each other sometimes, but Jesus doesn’t command us to like each other, but rather to love one another.

Jesus isn’t ordering us to conjure up a feeling or to display emotion.  That isn’t what love is.  Jesus isn’t commanding us to be nice, because that too is not the meaning of the word “love.”  In this specific Greek usage of the word translated “love,” Jesus is commanding us to put others ahead of ourselves, to, in a sense, become the slave of other members of the Church.  We are to serve.  And in case this is something that could get lost in translation, our Blessed Lord shows us what He means by love: He washes the feet of the disciples. 

This was shocking, even to the point of scandal.  Jesus is their Master.  And yet He is doing the work that the lowliest slave would have performed.  Our Lord’s actions were so radical and controversial, that Peter initially refused to obey the Lord’s instructions.  But He changed His mind when Jesus said to refuse the Lord’s washing is to refuse salvation.  The Lord cleanses His disciples with water, not only an act of humble service, but also as an allusion to the “washing of regeneration” that He will later command the disciples to carry out among all the nations as a way to make disciples. 

“Do you understand what I have done to you?” He asks.  “You call Me Teacher and Lord,” He says, “and you are right, for so I am.  If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.  For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you.”

This kind of love, dear friends, is not a thought in the mind or a feeling in the heart.  Rather it is commitment in action, in service, in humility.  It is not seeing any task as beneath our dignity, nor any of our brothers and sisters as unworthy of our service.  We are, as it were, to get our hands dirty.  This is hardly what the world has in mind when it views everything through the lens of sexuality, and trumpeting the slogan, “love wins.”

Love indeed wins, dear friends, but the kind of love that wins is the love that Jesus has for us, the love that we are commanded to imitate.  It is the love of God humbling Himself to be born of the virgin Mary, to breathe our “poisoned air” (in the words of the hymn), to become covered in dirt, and yes also with tears and sweat and blood – all out of love for each one of us for whom He died.  Love wins because Jesus, out of love, offers Himself as the sacrifice, and He even shares that sacrificial body and blood with us in another way: in the Holy and Mystical Meal that the Lord shared with His beloved disciples on that Maundy Thursday.

In fact, the Christians would from this point forward gather around the Lord’s body and blood each week, and they would also share another meal with each other, which was called the “love feast,” a kind of potluck in which all Christians: rich, poor, free, slave, young, old, Jew, and Gentile would sit together at table, as brothers and sisters, and would feast together, even as the Lord calls us to feast on His sacrificial flesh and blood in the greatest love feast known as the Holy Eucharist.

St. Paul delivers to us what He received from the Lord, that on the “night when He was betrayed,” He took bread; He took wine; He said, “Take, eat;” He said, “Take, drink.”  “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”

Another way that we share the love of Christ as His disciples is to keep the feast of Passover, that is, the Feast of His body and blood.  As a congregation, we ensure that the body and blood of Christ – as well as the proclamation of the Gospel in the very Word of God – are made available every Sunday and usually every Wednesday, as well as on other feast days.  For in this Holy Supper, the love of Jesus is made manifest for us poor miserable sinners, a salvific gift that we eat and drink, a participation, that is, a fellowship in the one all atoning sacrifice of the cross through a miracle that transcends space and time.  We love our neighbor by supporting this ministry and by upholding this holy place where Jesus continues to wash us and serve us; a place where disciples are made, where sins are forgiven, where the love of God is made manifest in word and in deed.

We also serve our neighbors by not handing out the Holy Supper to anyone and everyone.  For “anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.”  Just as a doctor loves and serves his patients by refraining from prescribing a drug that might cause an allergic reaction, we are careful and discerning about giving the body and blood of Christ to those whom we don’t know, for as St. Paul warns the Corinthian Christians, “That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.”

We love our neighbors in various ways according to our vocations.  Pastors love their neighbors by preaching and carefully administering the sacraments.  Hearers of the Word love their neighbors by their careful attention and by supporting each other by their presence.  We all love our brothers and sisters in Christ by our prayers, our visits, our help with things that need done, our offerings, our labor, and by carrying out the tasks that the Lord has called us to do.  In the words of a litany: “those who bring offerings, those who do good works in this congregation, those who toil, those who sing, and all the people here present who await from the Lord great and abundant mercy.” 

The Lord commands us to love one another.  We do this by serving each other, even as the Lord serves us.  We serve in many and various ways, but our service is to be offered willingly, humbly, and without expectation of repayment.  When we serve our brother, we serve our Lord.  And let us not forget that our Lord serves us, and in His service to us, we find our salvation, we are enabled to love because He has first loved us.  He loves us right here and right now, pouring out His mercy upon us in His Word and in the Holy Supper.  His mercies never depart from His beloved.  His service to us never lapses. 

On this day, we remember His love for us, His command to love one another, and most of all, we participate in this miraculous meal “in remembrance” of Him.

As our Lord promises: “This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations, as a statute forever, you shall keep it as a feast.”  Amen.

In the name of the Father and of the + Son and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.

Tolerance, Part Two

As a postscript to my previous post on tolerance, my interlocutor replied in an interesting way.  He revealed that he cannot possibly see any other point of view - not even theoretically - than that the hundreds of thousands of men who fought in the Confederate armed forces - and the millions of civilians who supported them - were "traitors," saying, "How else could they be described?"

He says, "They fought against the Governing Authorities, the United States Government, and they lost."

His reference to the "governing authorities" comes from the English Standard Version translation of Romans 13:1-6, in which St. Paul writes:

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed."

The implication is clear, our Confederate ancestors were sinning against God, because God had apparently determined that the Hamiltonian legal theory is correct and the Jeffersonian legal theory is not.  And also notice that he adds "and they lost."  According to this logic, the sinfulness or righteousness of a particular act depends upon the outcome.  So if your state secedes and you defend your state, there is no way to know whether this is sinful or not at the time.  If the mother country recognizes your independence, then it is not sinful.  If the mother country does not recognize your independence, and unleashes a military invasion - then it is still up in the air.  If there is a war of independence, and you win the war, your act of secession is, ex post facto, not sinful.  But if you lose your war of independence, your act of secession is, ex post facto, sinful.

This exposes a remarkable flaw in the ethics of my interlocutor's view.

It is akin to saying that if a guy shoplifts, it is only sinful if he gets caught.  It is also a variation of "might makes right," that an act is moral if one has the sheer force to get away with it.

The question of whether or not secession is legal or illegal, moral or immoral, cannot be grounded in the ultimate success of the action without adopting a kind of moral relativism.

Moreover, in appealing to a particular historiography of the United States Constitution combined with the "might makes right" premise, what does this say about slavery?  To use my interlocutor's reasoning, under the "governing authorities" of the day - both that of the private slaveholder and the United States government as authorized by the Constitution, slaves are obliged not to rebel, and anyone giving a runaway slave aid and comfort (such as the Underground Railroad) are condemned under the same moral principal laid down by my interlocutor.  Slavery was legal according to the United States Constitution.  And according to the Fugitive Slave Acts, anyone discovering runaways were obliged to turn them in and return them to their masters.  Hence Lincoln's misnamed Emancipation Proclamation not only protected slavery in the Northern states where it existed, but specifically exempted Confederate territory occupied by Union forces, such as my own Jefferson Parish, Louisiana (mentioned by name in the Proclamation).  In other words, the Union Army, under the auspices of the Constitution, made it their policy to return runaway slaves to their masters and bolstered the institution of slavery.  My interlocutor's belief that federal law trumps all is a pro-slavery assertion.

He also accuses Confederate officers who were "graduates of our service academies" of "betraying their Oaths as Officers of the United States Army or Navy" and compares them to "Tomoya Kawakita" and "Max Haupt."  He also works in the Rosenbergs.  He misunderstands the nature of oaths.  They are no longer in force when a person is no longer a citizen of that country or a member of its armed forces.  For example, if a person were to emigrate from Canada and become a United States citizen - his obligations to the Crown cease and his nationality becomes American.  If he were to join the US military, the president of the United States would be his commander in chief, and the American forces would be his chain of command.  And even if he had served in the Canadian military forces, he is no longer bound by that chain of command.  When I lived in Ohio, I became a notary, and was under oath to the Constitution of the State of Ohio.  When I was no longer a resident of Ohio, my oath was (and is) nullified.

The officers of the United States military forces resigned their commissions with the United States before accepting commissions in their state militias or the military forces of the Confederate States.

This is similar to the argument that I have heard by some Roman Catholics that Luther broke his monastic vows by leaving the authority of the pope and getting married.

Modern American history is taught in a terribly anachronistic way that conveniently serves a narrative.  There is the assumption that the American Nationalism we take for granted today was the same as it was in antebellum America.  It simply was not the case.  There are ulterior motives in vilifying half of the American population of 1861, just as there are reasons why half of the population that voted for Donald Trump are similarly denounced as traitors, Nazis, and racists.  In 1861, people owed their primary allegiance to their states.  That is a fact that is seldom taught in our schools.  One of the results of the Union victory was to establish the supremacy of DC over nearly every aspect of American life.  The federal government today even regulates how big one's toilet bowl may be.  This kind of micromanaging in the lives of our people and states would have been unthinkable in 1861.  Today, DC micromanages school curricula (which explains the self-serving way the War Between the States is taught).  The vast expansion of the powers of Washington that resulted from the Union victory is the subject of Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel (no friend of the South and no fan of the CSA).

1861 was very close in time and thought to 1776.  In fact, the last veteran of the Revolutionary War was still living and receiving a pension at the close of the War for Southern Independence.  Men who were brought up to lionize the Virginia General George Washington (whom my interlocutor would have called a traitor and accused of violating Romans 13 had a couple battles gone the other way) likewise lionized Washington's grandson in law, Robert E. Lee.  Many a Southerner went off to war carrying his grandfather's Revolutionary War musket.  Historian James McPherson (a strong partisan of the Union who makes no bones about his biases) conducted a study of letters from the soldiers North and South to determine their motivation for fighting.  His 1994 publication What They Fought For reveals that the Southern soldier saw himself as defending the ideals of 1776, similarly defending his home from invasion just as his secessionist grandfathers did.  The seal of the Confederate States of America features an image of George Washington on his horse.  In the same way that Lutherans see themselves in continuity with the ancient church and not in rebellion against it, Confederates saw themselves in continuity with America - and not in rebellion against it.  They saw their enemies as perverters of the Constitution.  I would bet that not one in a thousand Americans has a clue of any of this.

Moreover, the USMA at West Point taught constitutional law using an 1825 text written by Philadelphia lawyer William Rawle, (1759-1836) a friend of George Washington and an active abolitionist.  Rawle's View teaches the Jeffersonian compact theory of the Constitution.  It argues for the legality of secession and essentially gives a step-by-step guide to how it would be done.  The Jeffersonian view was mainstream in those days.  This is the view of the Constitution that was taught to the military and government leaders in antebellum America.  The Jeffersonian view was so established in antebellum America, that a secession convention was called in Hartford, Connecticut by New England states considering secession in the waning days of the War of 1812 (the war's end brought the secession movement to a close).  There were threats of secession made in Northern states over the annexation of Texas.  Abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison proposed secession of non-slave states from the Union.  There was no suggestion at that time that secession was treason, as the Jeffersonian view was the mainstream legal theory of the time.  Those court-historians who write the current American school curricula who deny this are either ignorant or engaged in gaslighting, if not outright propaganda.  I would bet that not one in ten thousand Americans knows this.

To have an actual understanding of the conflict instead of an oversimplified Schoolhouse Rock-style self-serving cartoonish court-historian view, it is necessary to examine the motivations of both sides - even if ultimately one disagrees with the Southern argument.  Simply dismissing us as traitors and racists is no different than the modern sepsis of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

My Siberian Adventure - Day 4 - June 30, 2011

Visit: Novosibirsk

I woke up early.  I'm tired, but at the same time refreshed.  I think my system is trying to reset.  The days are somewhere around 17 1/2 hours here, so sunrise is before 5:00 am and sunset after 10:00 pm.

I managed to find my way outside to see if my camera fell out of my pocket in the driveway.  No luck.  I'll find out from Dan a good time to call the bishop.  I really don't want the hassle of buying another camera - not to mention the cost.  I'm fairly confident that it will turn up.

It's 7:30 am right now, and I'm already dressed and ready to go.  Dan planned on waking me at 10:00 am, but the sunlight in my room woke me.  Also, the window is open, and the weather is cool.  According to the weather app on the Nook, it is now 64 degrees F in Novosibirsk.  The high today is projected to be 91, with the low of 63, partly cloudy.

I send a couple SnapYap messages, take a walk around the building (the Lutheran Center), and wait for Dan to get up.  When he arises, we chat and get breakfast.  There is a fridge in the adjoining office to the bishop's office.  It is stocked with meats, cheese, yogurt, milk, chocolate, boxes of different kinds of fruit juices, a couple small cans of Coke that look as alien inside the fridge as I do looking in, and other items.  There is also a pantry that includes breads, crackers, cereals, tea bags, sugar, and instant coffee.  The bishop's office has an electric kettle - which I soon learn are ubiquitous here.

The bishop's office is not a museum - but a real working pastor's study.  I'm gratified to see that he also has a "busy" desk - and, like me, somehow knows where to find things.  He has a large number of books open on the desk - in multiple languages, several hymnals, Bibles, prayer books, and dictionaries.  Like most clergy offices, his desk is surrounded by bookcases prodigally strewn with reading material of every kind.  Behind his desk is a beautiful crucifix, a portrait of Martin Luther, and several pictures taken at his episcopal consecration.  There are also teacups and music CDs.  The bishop has eclectic musical tastes.

Dan has taken up residence on the futon.  He has his computer plugged in and that end of the room has his bags and clothes arranged in a way that would make any bachelor feel at home.  I only met Dan last night, but we have spent a lot of time on the phone before our trip, as well as exchanging e-mails.  I am comfortable being around him from the start.  We hit it off very well, and I would come to really appreciate not only his friendship, but his pastoral wisdom and fraternal advice and counsel over the course of our three weeks together.  I'm honored to call him a brother in Christ and a brother in the office of the holy ministry.

Pastor Johnson - or Father Daniel as he is known here - is 51 years old, married, has two grown children, and has been the pastor of the same parish for 18 years.  He is a mechanic, and enjoys fixing old cars.  He has been coming to Russia nearly every year since 2000.  He serves as the president of the Siberian Lutheran Mission Society and edits the newsletter.  The mutual respect and affection between Father Daniel and our Russian brothers and sisters is palpable.


The bishop shows up with my camera - just in time for our big sightseeing day in Novosibirsk!

Bishop Vsevolod Lytkin is the young spiritual leader of the Siberian Evangelical Lutheran Church.  As dangerous as it might be, I will guess he is in his young forties - and lacks the gray hair that sprouted on my own head after the Big Four Oh - at least so far, anyway.  Bishop Vsevolod (pronounced roughly like VSYEH-vuh-lud - which to the English-speaking ear (if ears could speak...) is not too far removed from Save-a-lot) speaks very good English, is hard-working, compassionate, extremely pious, theologically-minded, politically astute, patient, and has a vibrant sense of humor.  I take a liking to him right away, and he is very hospitable and constantly looks after our comfort.  People are relaxed in his presence, and yet everyone understands that he is the bishop.  He is respected and loved by both the clergy and the laity.

You can read about the bishop's journey to Lutheran Christianity here.

Our tour guides today will be Olga and Natasha - two old friends of Dan.  Or should I say two young friends of Dan that go back a long ways.  They are both in their thirties.  Natasha is the organist at St. Andrews (the congregation in the Lutheran Center that serves as the bishop's cathedral) and is a graduate of the music conservatory in Novosibirsk.  She is an accomplished composer and is working on the SELC's hymnal project.  Olga is the half-sister of Father Daniel Burlakov, one of the pastors who serves SELC congregations in Tomsk and Yurga.  Both had accompanied Dan and the bishop a few years back on an auto trip through the United States that culminated in visiting the Grand Canyon and Las Vegas.

Natasha speaks little English, but seems to understand a fair amount.  Olga is fluent and serves as a translator.  In fact, Olga translated for Natasha in Fort Wayne as part of the Russian Project.  Both are high-spirited and energetic.  The lack of a language barrier makes Olga more openly gregarious with English speakers.  They were very good sports who spent the day taking us all around Novosibirsk and taking a lot of pictures for us.  Natasha was our driver (her journey to Christianity can be found here in the article "A Musician's Journey To the Church").  As Dan has made this trip many times, this tour is really for my benefit.

But before touring the city, we had business to attend to.  First, we had to go through the motions of renting a room at the local hotel in order to register our tourist visas.  The bishop drove Dan, Olga, and me to the hotel.    The registration of tourist visas is a leftover from Soviet times.  We actually had to rent a room and left our passports behind (good thing we made copies).  We never actually went to our room, and we told them just to keep the key.  Seeing us leave with two young ladies, one of the middle aged women at the counter gave Father Daniel a coy wink.

I guess they aren't accustomed to their paying guests (the bishop took care of our tab) never set foot in the room.

We met up with Natasha, got into her car, and went to lunch at a restaurant called Peoples Bar and Grill.  They serve traditional Russian fare Russian style.  Each course is ordered separately: soup, salad, meat dish, and dessert.

I had a traditional soup called solyanka.  It was a little spicy, with meat and some olives.  For a drink, I ordered a tea with mint.  Getting cold tea involves ordering a hot drink - at this place, served in a French press - along with a cup of ice.  For my main dish, I had a pork sausage - served with a side of vegetables (thinly sliced) and mashed potatoes.  It was all very good, high quality food.

You see very few fat Siberians - at least here in Novosibirsk.  They tend to walk much more than Americans and have smaller portion sizes.  The food is more wholesome and has far less preservatives and chemicals - though I understand that his is changing.  They drink a lot of bottled water as the tap water may not be potable.  The bottled water comes in both plain ("still water") and bubbly.  They also drink a lot of fruit juices, which are often sold in boxes to be refrigerated.

We opted out of dessert, as the meal was quite filling.  Our English was translated into Russian by Olga for Natasha's sake.  We took pictures and had very nice conversation.

We left the restaurant and headed out on foot.  Natasha led the way at a quick pace.  We made our way to the main square - Lenin Square - in front of the theater - which of course boasts a colossal Lenin monument.  There was also an arts and crafts show going on.  We visited the USSR Museum, a small historic house that doubles as a museum dedicated to birch art.  The lady at the museum didn't approve of my crucifix.  She was Russian Orthodox.  Apparently she thought I was a Roman Catholic.  When I explained to her that I was a Lutheran, she was apparently even less impressed.  Many Russian Orthodox think we are not real Christians. Apparently she was saying things along these lines.  Olga was not impressed, but not surprised.

We had a lot of fun in the museum, goofed around, took pictures, and looked at all sorts of memorabilia from Soviet times.  Much of the USSR memorabilia is housed in the basement - which was used to house political prisoners.  The museum guide was rather matter-of-fact about it.  There are a good many such places - especially considering how widespread the Gulag system was under Stalin.

We cut across the busy street by ducking into subway tunnels lined with shops.

There is an interesting phenomenon that I noticed in Novosibirsk and in other cities.  The women - especially the younger women - are very fashion-conscious.  And they love their high heels!  Stilettos are everywhere - and they take no prisoners (except perhaps their podiatrists) when it comes to the height of the heels.  There is a ubiquitous "tick tick tick" of heels clacking on the sidewalk.  I'm told that even in winter, Novosibirsk girls clack along the ice in their heels.  It is almost a cliche.  It may be one of the few things that stumps the Rev. Dr. Rick Stuckwisch - who blogged about his experiences in wintertime Siberia.  It is funny to watch the young couples: the guys are typically clad in jeans, tee-shirts, and tennis shoes - but their girlfriends/wives often look like they are headed to a wedding - dressed "to the nines" as we say in English.  Some of them - again most typically the younger women - are rather provocatively dressed.  It's so common as to go basically unnoticed.  Most are dressed tastefully but in a way that is clearly not the norm among Americans.

The Russian ladies' fashion sense is so different from the much-watched (and less than flattering) Wendy's commercial from the mid 1980s.  As perplexed as Dr. Stuckwisch was, I have to admit, I like the "pluck" of the stubborn girls in the stilettos.  Mrs. H. can click-clack with the best of them - though recovery from pregnancy sometimes renders favorite shoes no longer wearable.

As we continued our walk in the nice, hot sun, we were given free bottles of water, and also free bottles of a new Fanta drink - a grape soda - being marketed by a young guy on a skateboard.

We also visited the little Orthodox chapel of St. Nicolas - which marks the geographical center of the Russian Empire - especially poignant as this modern chapel openly sports an icon of Christ.  We visited a huge monument in the form of a humongous mural set in the midst of a park.

For dinner, we went to a nightclub that had live entertainment - a band singing jazz in English.  I don't know the name of the bar, as it is a pun based on abbreviations involving the Akademgorodok neighborhood's standing as a place of science and engineering.  I ordered what was meant to be Buffalo wings - but were not hot.  They were tasty though!  We stayed until about 11:15 pm.  Dan and Olga drank beer.  Natasha, our driver, did not drink.  I didn't feel like a beer, so I ended up with a tonic water (I had intended to get a ginger ale, but my order got lost in translation.  It was okay though.  We had a nice time.  Dan and I critiqued the singers - who tended to get better as the night wore on.  There was a father with young children with him dancing to the music - a sight that would typically be illegal in the States.  Smoking is also legal here.

As we left, it was still twilight out.  Olga and Natasha dropped us off at the seminary.  I was exhausted and crashed.

Here are all of my pictures from Day Four.

Traditionalism

[Note: I apologize in advance for the length of this piece. I know it could probably be more concise, but I believe there is simply a lot to say, so I'm just going to say it. Much of my thinking on this is still a work in progress. Thanks in advance for your patience! - Fr. H.]

I know you are, but what am I?

I'm not a big fan of labels. Too often they get in the way of real dialogue. Person A says: "I believe such and such." Person B says: "Oh, so you're a [fill in the blank]." Meaningful discussion ends, either in silence, or in a fight peppered with namecalling and ad hominem attacks.

American Lutheranism is awash with factions that rally around labels, complete with political lobbying organizations, websites, e-mail lists, newsletters, and lists of candidates to vote for in church conventions.

On the one hand, I'd like to trash all the labels. However, there can be a salutary use of labels - so long as they are truly used to describe beliefs and not simply as short-cuts around deep thought and engagement of ideas.

Many of us Lutherans who see ourselves as defined by our sixteenth century confessions, as in submission to the inerrant Holy Bible, as wedded to the traditional liturgy (conducted with reverence and dignity), as a catholic continuity from the ancient and medieval Church, focused on God's monergistic justifying grace that works through specific humble means (the Word of God and the holy sacraments) to deliver Jesus Christ crucified to us physically and bodily - are described by certain terminology.

We are labelled by our detractors with such epithets as: liturgical nazis, blackshirts, stuffed-shirt Lutherans, Romanizers, Orthophiles, dead-orthodox, speed bumps, etc. We are accused of being unloving, legalistic, not mission-minded, lacking a heart for Jesus and the lost, and being a cult of purity. On the other hand, the labels we typically use to describe ourselves and our understanding of the faith include "conservative" and "confessional."

Both of these are, in and of themselves, fine terms. I would (and sometimes do) label myself as both. I'm a theological conservative, as I don't believe in change for change' s sake. Change must be truly warranted, and then must move at a glacial pace, and always consider the catholicity of the Church. Theological conservatism stands up for a view of Scriptural inerrancy over and against liberal methods of reading the Bible (such as higher criticism). Conservatism is opposed to left-wing and anti-biblical trends such as feminism and the homosexual agenda. I'm all for this kind of conservatism.

I can identify with the "conservative" label, but I think it hardly tells the whole story. For there are very conservative churches (who don't ordain women and uphold biblical inerrancy) whose worship practices include walkabout wise-cracking pastors with metal studs and bawbles in their faces, big screens, guitars, drums, and people waving their arms about in a rock-concert frenzy. There are also liturgical conservatives who piously limit their communion services (never using the term "Mass" of course) to once or twice a month (I suppose whether they need it or not...). I don't identify with these kinds of conservatism.

Then there is the label "confessional." This one is more sticky. For technically speaking, all Lutherans are by definition confessional (binding themselves to the Lutheran confessions in the Book of Concord of 1580). Therefore, when a faction of Lutherans describes itself as being "confessional Lutheran," the other side takes umbrage, perceiving an insult (which in fact, it may be). Some district presidents have banned the term's use in their districts, threatening groups that identify themselves using the adjective "confessional" with expulsion from synod.

Confessional refers to restoring the Book of Concord to its normative position in our churches' doctrine and practice, blowing off the dust, and actually reading and studying the confessions. And I'm all for that. Hence I can identify with the label "confessional" as well. But once again, there are difficulties with this word too. Many "confessional" Lutherans (self-described) embrace practices I disagree with, like teaching receptionism (the belief that the communion elements only become the body and blood of Jesus when they hit the believers' tongues). Some confessional Lutherans also pitch the leftover blood of Jesus into the garbage (especially if they use the disposable jiggers). There are confessional churches who only define themselves over and against Roman Catholicism, who believe that ordination is only a quaint ritual that does nothing, who are content with Puritanical sanctuaries and Methodist vestments. I find myself alienated from many confessional Lutherans as well - whose interpretation of those confessions is done in a historical vacuum.

Some other term is needed.


Losing My Tradition

A few weeks ago, my wife and I spent some time in Columbia, SC visiting friends. We stayed with a continuing Anglican friend who is studying for holy orders, and met a couple of clergymen from his diocese - true gentlemen and churchmen in the finest sense of those words. We also had a nice visit with one of our friends who is a political science professor at the University of South Carolina. He and his family are delightful people who have turned their suburban yard into a functioning vegetable garden. They are proponents of the Catholic Land Movement (as espoused by Chesterton and Belloc), valuing independence, modest living, stay at home mothering, limiting consumption, etc. In visiting with my two sets of friends (who don't know one another), the same terms came up again and again in conversation: tradition, traditional, traditionalism, and traditionalist.

Yes, they would all consider themselves conservative (although that term has largely become synonymous with a narrow political agenda that not all true conservatives support in its entirety), as well as "confessional" in the sense of being guided by a specific confession, historic writings that serve as a basis of their beliefs. But such terminology doesn't go far enough to describe what they believe. I realized that while I could describe myself as a conservative, confessional, Lutheran, the term that more accurately describes the "movement" within Lutheranism that I find myself and my colleagues involved in is "Traditionalism."

"Tradition" is a Latin translation of the Greek term "paradidomi" - which means "handing over." St. Paul uses this word in two different ways in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 when he writes:

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered ["handed over"] to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed ["handed over"] took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

Thus Jesus was "handed over" ("traditioned") to his enemies, and the Words of Jesus were "handed over" ("traditioned") to the apostles, and through them, to the Church. These words were "traditioned" by word of mouth even before they had been "scriptured" (committed to writing).

Thus the Church lives and breathes through tradition, through the eucharistic Supper, through God's Word that has been "traditioned" to us from ancient times, through the proclamation of the Gospel that has been "traditioned" to us from a chain of pastors reaching back to the apostles.

Many Lutherans have a bad taste in their mouths regarding tradition, which dates back to the Reformation's insistence that God's Word in Scripture trumps doctrine that can only be found in oral narratives under the rubric "tradition." Fair enough. There were plenty of superstitions and fairy tales that masqueraded as tradition, and they needed to be excised (just as Jesus criticized false Scripture-usurping tradition in His preaching). And yet, is it necessary to throw the baby out with the bathwater as many of our Protestant (and conservative Lutheran) brethren contend?

Furthermore, culturally speaking, since the 1960s, the generation of Americans known as "baby-boomers" have sought to make tradition extinct. The past was seen as crippling, stifling, and worst of all "boring." Change became a mantra, ancient ways were discarded, and untried and experiental arrangements were being tried in every area of culture: music, literary symbolism, politics, family life, sexual mores, and of course, religious belief. This jettison of tradition promised great things: a new age of freedom, happiness, as well as personal fulfillment and empowerment (of course, instead it has left a swath of divorce, abortion, disease, dysfunction, and a sense of disconnect and ennui that has created unprecedented demands for psychotropic drugs in order to "cope" with the "fruits" of this new culture).

Different churches took different approaches to the Age of Aquarius onslaught. Some stanchly defended tradition and the "old ways," others quickly capitulated and embraced rapid change, still others simply made incremental changes over many years until now, some forty years later, they have largely implemented the 1960s purge of tradition without noticing it. The "conservative" and "confessional" Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod has taken the latter path.

Dragging its feet against these radical cultural trends, the LCMS has slowly and grudgingly traded its traditions for modernity. Bit by bit, she has capitulated to the Woodstock philosophy. She gradually extended the role of women to the point now where she, like most Protestant "denominations" and Vatican II Roman Catholics, endorse women's suffrage, representation in synods, chairing of boards, serving as "elders" and presidents of congregations, readers, acolytes, and communion assistants. Women serve in various roles as "commisioned ministers" and chaplains, and may now even teach seminary classes. After much wrangling, the LCMS has given the green light to participation in public services with Hindus, Muslims, Jews, and Sikhs (such "ecumenism" is not at all uncommon among American Roman Catholics). Much of the literature coming out of St. Louis pushes for further modernization and change in the LCMS culture so as to address changing demographics in the U.S. and abroad.

And yet, in the face of this constant push for change, the LCMS maintains an image of staunch conservatism!

Running many years behind the trendsetters, the LCMS has taken on the worst of both worlds, creating an ugly hybrid between a purely traditional and a purely modern approach, creating a Frankenstein monster hacked together with many different corpses - while trying to appeal to both traditionalists and those who reject tradition.

This is best illustrated by our worship practices.

How many of our churches offer "contemporary" worship, "traditional" worship, and "blended" worship"? Unlike Jesus who was observed to do all things well, we seem to do all things poorly. Our synod's "contemporary" worship tries to wed traditional substance and anti-traditional style - creating a trainwreck of hypocrisy and the attempt to send two antithetical messages at the same time. It has degenerated into a doctrinal muddle that emphasizes entertainment at the expense of the Gospel. Our "traditional" worship (which has largely been marginalized into the ghetto of the earliest possible hour for worship) is typically butchered and conducted so poorly that one wonders if the pastors have ever learned the rubrics for the conduct of the service, read any books at all about the theology and practice of worship, or if they have a clue what all of the symbolism in the liturgy means. And our "blended" services are, in my opinion, really nothing more than a "hegelian dialectic" designed to abolish the so-called traditional service all together - for if we blend "contemporary" and "traditional" enough, a new third option will eventually replace the other two entirely, and what little liturgical tradition we have will be lost.


And when the salt has lost its savor...

While many of the younger generation of pastors are better versed in the church's traditions and there is a budding trend among the laity for a return to reverence and a connection to the past, more than half of our congregations now have some kind of "contemporary" worship. Even among our liturgical congregations very little is left of tradition. How many LCMS congregations make use of full eucharistic vestments, incense, and bells at Divine Service? How many LCMS congregations have regular times for private confession, and how many of our members regularly take advantage of this sacrament? How many of our pastors and laity make use of traditional prayer offices during the week? How many of our bible classes bring the rich history of the church into discussion? How many of our churches are comfortable with traditional terminology such as "Mass" and "Catholic"? How many of our churches serve the blood of Christ in a respectful, traditional common chalice as opposed to Protestant, individualistic "shooters" (some of which are designed to go into the trash when done)? How many of our pastors are willing to genuflect at the high altar, or elevate the holy elements for adoration?

In fact, I know of pastors who are inhibited from even pronouncing absolution ("too Catholic" - read: "too traditional")! Many of our churches are scandalized when the pastor attempts to give the holy body and blood of the Lord every Sunday ("too Catholic") - as our confesions clearly state that we are bound to do. And you can just imagine the outcry if the typical LCMS pastor were to lobby to restore the traditional chalice and replace the shot-glasses, or to (re)introduce incense. Even the vast majority of the most staunch conservative, confessional churches would certainly form a lynch mob to remove the pastor for such actions.

In fairness, they would see these as "changes" instead of a healthy return to tradition, actually a rejection of modernist changes largely from the 20th century. Many are so severed from tradition themselves that they think of traditional Lutheran hymns as "new" while embracing the maudlin (and in some cases heretical) "old favorites" from the 19th century. Obviously, a wise pastor will procede slowly catechize his flock before restoring traditions, and will procede in love, charity, and a concern for fragile souls. A faithful traditionalist pastor may toil for decades and never live to see the Mass restored to every Sunday in his "conservative" and "confessional" parish.

But in the LCMS' untraditional congregational/democratic polity, the shepherd had better not try to lead his flock, lest the flock treat him as a hireling and dictate the "policy" to him, or even fire him. The conversion of the sheep into bishops and the bureaucratic definition of the pastor as a "professional church worker" is yet another downside of casting off tradition (democracy is part of the anti-traditional movement, it is not for nothing that the dollar bill contains the Roman numeral XDCCLXXVI and the Latin term: "novus ordo seclorum" - let the reader understand). This is less likely to occur in traditional churches that maintain traditional polity and use the traditional appellation "Father" to address the pastor.


The Baby Boomers' Worst Nightmare: Back to the Future

There is a phenomenon that is frighteneing to the aging wearers of tie-dye who now hold the reins of power in church and state. There is a move back toward tradition, a backlash against the libertine 1960s culture that left a generation of people bereft of the comforts of the past.

Look around! You see it in both church and secular society, across denominational and philosophical lines. Young Roman Catholic priests (as well as some Lutherans) have rejected the casual "golf shirt and khakis" look that sought to blend in, and are returning to the traditional black cassock. There are nuns who are restoring the traditional habit (over and against the aging hippy nuns who wear T-shirts and jeans). There are even some Baptist and non-denominational clergy who are wearing clerical collars, and in some cases, cassocks! And let's not fail to consider the Roman Church's recently-elected pontiff!

As Bob Dylan sang back in the early 60s, "the times they are a-changin'."

There is the home-school movement, the stay-at-home mothering (and antifeminist)movement, the Catholic Land Movement, and the growth in popularity of Higher Things magazine and its more traditional youth conferences (a truly Lutheran alternative to the disturbing LCMS youth gatherings). There is a traditionalist movement within American Lutheranism manifested by publications like Gottesdienst and Bride of Christ, as well as religious societies such as the Society of the Holy Trinity (which is very traditional with the tragic exception of its embrace of female "pastors") and its all-male counterpart, the Society of St. Polycarp.

Though still a tiny minority within the LCMS, one is more likely to find a "high church" congregation, to hear traditional terminology in the congregation, and to find pastors teaching the Lutheran confessions alongside the early church fathers now than at any time in recent history. It is not uncommon to hear the officially sanctioned prayers that are published by the LCMS Commission on Worship use the term "catholic." There are more Lutheran schools moving toward a classical model and incorporating traditional rhetoric and Latin back into their curricula.


Quo Vadis?

It will be interesting to see what happens as baby-boomers become less of a factor in the LCMS. The aging Charismatic group "RIM" has already had to disband, citing a lack of younger leadership. Both seminaries continue to turn out younger pastors who are not merely "conservative" or "confessional" - but also "traditional." It seems that more district presidents have been recently elected who are (hopefully) at least more tolerant of traditionalism than the "old guard."

On the other hand, the Viagra- and Botox-fueled baby-boomers as a rule have proven tenacious and most unwilling to yield power to their younger counterparts who, unlike them, do not see the 1960s as a "golden age," whose traditionalist ways are considered a scandalous "turning back of the clock." I don't believe we have seen the last of traditionalist pastors being shafted by the hierarchy, nor can we expect non-traditional congregations to welcome traditionalist pastors with open arms. There is still plenty of struggle ahead, and traditionalist pastors must be patient, pastoral, and loving with their congregants even as they must be firm with meddling bureaucrats, steadfast in the holy faith, and submissive to our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hopefully, we will not see a continued loss of traditionalist pastors to the Eastern Orthodox and/or Roman Catholic churches. It has been heartbreaking to see some of our brightest and best theologians, some of our most pastoral servants of the Church, flee to other communions. Make no mistake, they are being driven away by Ablaze!, Jesus First, synodical shenanigans, feminism, lay ministers, DELTO, irreverent worship, defining the ministry as a "profession," low-church "conservatism," and democratic polity - in short, by the LCMS's anti-traditionalism. Though I suspect most LCMS lay people are unaware, there has been a bloodletting of traditionalist pastors and laymen who have either been run off, or who have given up on the LCMS and left. It is my prayer that this hemorrhage is at an end, that the trend toward traditionalism (along with institutions like the Society of St. Polycarp, Gottesdienst, and various blogsites that promote and espouse traditionalism) will bolster weary pastors who are fed up with gimmicks and corporate cheerleading masqerading as church, who seek a church that looks and acts like a Church rather than a "branch office" of a "corporation."

Will the LCMS continue to be tossed about by the waves of fads, thrown hither and yon by the whims of modernism and postmodernism? Or will the boomer culture shrivel and die, and yield to a return to tradition and a rejection of the experimentation and hubris of the bell-bottomed generation? Will we find ourselves hopelessly lost, mired in postmodernism and liberalism like the Episcopalian Church, or will we, like the continuing Anglicans, heirs of the traditionalist Oxford Movement, rediscover the facets of our own catholicity and tradition that allow the Gospel's light to reflect from our Church, the dazzling light that finds its source in Jesus, the Light of the World, Himself?

Only time will tell. Meanwhile, traditionalist pastors and laymen (of both sexes), take heart! Be loving but bold. Be patient, but firm. Pray fervently for a restoration of traditional piety in our synod, and if it is not to be in our synod, in American Lutheranism whatever shape it may take in the future. Pray also for non-Lutherans who are likewise struggling to uphold traditional Christianity in the face of feminism, the homosexual agenda, indifference toward the sacraments, and a postmodern worldview that denies the divinity (or the humanity) of Jesus. Support traditional pastors and congregations, as well as journals like Gottesdienst and Bride of Christ.

Don't expect the solution to lie in politics, but rather in repentence, humility, prayer, the grace given to us at Baptism, and a faith found and nourished at the confessional and the communion rail. Remember, we dare not fall into the anti-traditionalist and modernist trap that this is all about us. It isn't. As G.K. Chesterton wrote: “Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.”

Amen!