What do you do with a Certified Letter? Here is one idea...

Certified Letter to Faith Church

The following letter was sent, Certified Mail, in response to the receipt of a Certified Letter from a Lutheran Congregation. While such letters are an official way for a congregation to terminate relationships with individuals and families they are releasing from membership, and an entirely appropriate form of rebuke when an estranged member cuts himself off from the congregation and refuses to respond to their overtures of evangelical concern, they are nothing but a callous expedient for the congregation which makes no attempt whatsoever to reach out to its members (who up to that point were supposedly considered their brothers/sisters in Christ) or to otherwise contact the intended recipient ahead of time to determine with certainty what their situation is; thus, such Certified Letters belie the congregation’s evangelical confession. That is what happened to the family, below. So perturbed were they with this callous expedient, that they returned the Certified Letter, unopened, along with a personally handwritten letter of their own that extended nine full pages of legal-sized paper. They had much to say, which they found important enough to deliver to their former congregation via Certified Mail. It is worth reading. As many readers may find it difficult to read human handwriting, rather than posting images of the handwritten letter, it has been transcribed, below (edited, of course, for public consumption).

---

Lxxxxx
1234 Anystreet Road
Nowhere, WI 54000

Faith Church
5678 Anyotherstreet Road
Next to Nowhere, WI 54000

To Whom It May Concern:

We received a piece of certified mail from you, postmarked March 11, 2015. We are returning it to you, unopened. We have very little interest in hearing what you may have to say in such a letter, that you could not preface with a demonstration of evangelical concern, or even basic courtesy, by making a simple phone call or sending an email. But, to be honest, it would have been difficult for us to imagine that you would have done otherwise.

At one point in time we were considered by the members of Faith Church to be Christian brothers. At least, we are pretty sure that we were. Feeling welcomed when we first joined, we were immediately drawn by them into the ministry of the congregation and put to work, and labouring closely with them, had established what we had considered to be close and meaningful relationships. This all came to an end after nearly seven years, when, in mid-2007, without explanation, we were shunned by the congregation. It was difficult to discern precisely, at first, as Mr. Lxxxxx was heavily involved with Church leadership, and was in constant communication with many of those who are now counted as our former friends. But by the end of 2007, his final year in any leadership capacity at Faith Church, it had become clear that the only communication being initiated by those “friends” was strictly related to church business. Beginning in 2008, the reality was unmistakable. Not just a few people, but everyone, including the Pastor, remained mysteriously aloof. He waited week after week for his friends to initiate with him some form of personal conversation. Weeks turned into months. Months turned into years. Nothing. All the while, the women of the congregation pretended to carry on as normal with Mrs. Lxxxxx, but she saw very clearly what was going on, and refusing to be socially separated by them from her husband, remained by his side. She was quickly disfavored, as well. By the time Pastor Sxxxxxxxx passed away in 2009, those former friendships were regarded by us as completely severed. As the years continued to pass, however, we once again began to enjoy some social involvement in the congregation, as other marginalized members of Faith Church recognized our situation and reached out to us in various ways. We also enjoyed conversation with new members, who had not yet been fully received into the labours of the congregation.

Accordingly, Mr. Lxxxxx’s last face-to-face meeting with the Rev. Wxxxx was unfortunate, but predictable. Having had to travel for work, he was unable to attend the October 2013 Voters’ Meeting, but discovered some weeks afterward – quite by accident – that there was some concern regarding the issue of Bible translations, and that the Board of Elders had been asked by the congregation to look into it. There was no hint that this was intended as any kind of formal investigation. Nevertheless, having himself been rather notoriously engaged in research and writing on the topic, he forwarded to the Rev. Wxxxx a number of articles and resources for the Board to consider. When, at the following Voters’ Meeting in January 2014, Mr. Lxxxxx was surprised to see that the issue of Bible translations was on the agenda, he enquired of the Rev. Wxxxx regarding the nature of the Elders’ report – as he was again unable to to attend due to business travel. He was stunned to learn that the Elders would not only be reporting their findings, but would move to officially adopt the NIV 2011. “Did the Board study any of the documents I forwarded to you, for them to consider?” he asked the Reverend.

“What documents?” was the reply.

Mr. Lxxxxx, realizing that he had been marginalized yet again, then clarified, “The documents and links I sent to you in an email not long ago.”

“Oh,” then after a long pause, “No. We only considered the documentation provided by Synod.”

“But that documentation was biased in favor of a single conclusion!”

“Yes, I know it was biased. It was biased on its face. But I don’t know why it was biased...”

Now incredulous, Mr. Lxxxxx proceeded to make clear, in sharp and conclusive terms, that he would allow neither himself nor his family to knowingly sit under teaching that proceeded from a document descending directly from post-Modern philosophies known to be perverting human language, and, along with it, human thought patterns; a document which is nothing more than the translators’ paraphrasing of the original languages (paraphrasing which is further edited downstream in the publication process by “readability committees”); a document which deliberately twists thousands of words of Scripture in ways that purposely accommodates liberal theology (feminism, in particular); and a document which, rather than clarifying the Scriptures for English readers, ultimately obscures their meaning by intentionally gutting the Bible of significant vocabulary and grammatical forms found in the original languages – that do have English parallels, if translators care to take into consideration not just the limits of “conversational English,” but the full capacity of the English language to carry objective meaning – making it ever more difficult for the English reader to find and rely on “direct positive statements of Scripture,” and thus also statements that are, by definition, clear. Such translation ideologies gravely endanger the Perspicuity of Scripture in the name of making it accessible for the marginally literate English reader, they threaten to drive the laity of the Church ever deeper into a general illiteracy and intellectual incapacity such as was common in medieval times, and they certainly ought not be vaunted in Christ’s Church as the standard English form of Holy Writ in all teaching and publications.

Nevertheless, Faith Church proceeded to officially adopt the NIV 2011 as the congregation’s translation.

This was not the reason we left Faith Church and the WELS, however; it was merely the straw that broke the camels back.

A few months prior, we were warned by the Rev. Wxxxx to “prepare” our sixth grade boy, who had just entered Catechism, for a discussion of the Sixth Commandment. Finding it a bit ridiculous to rush him through “sex-ed” just to prepare him for Catechism class, we refused to go to such lengths, insisting that such matters need to be handled delicately with children his age, that discussion of sexual activity in any direct terms would be entirely out of bounds, and that there is very little basis for understanding the Sixth Commandment anyway, without a thorough positive grounding in biblical courtship and marriage – deviation from which would itself serve as a glaring example of something that is sinful.

Then we read the catechism that would be used by the Reverend to instruct our young boy, which was written by one Rev. David Kuske. In comparison with the catechism resources we afterward recommended he use instead for the Sixth Commandment lesson (Gausewitz or Koehler), Kuske goes into excessively lurid detail of sexual intercourse, including what kind of sex to have, when to have it, and how enjoyable it should be. The Rev. Wxxxx forcefully rejected use of the alternative resources we suggested (which were, in our opinion, better by orders of magnitude, without all of the direct sex-talk and associated imagery), and when we opted to keep our son home rather than attend his lesson, were indirectly criticized by him for our parenting decisions. In retrospect, given all of the sexual scandals in WELS that have been made public over the past year, and the many more that are roiling just under the surface, we wonder now whether Kuske’s catechism might have something to do with it – whether, in our over-sexed day and age, introducing direct sex-talk with sixth-grade boys and girls is a bit premature for these youngsters, and puts images in their minds that they might otherwise be inclined to struggle against, had their pastor not been the one who put them there using Synod materials that carry the approval of the Church. Given this, it is no wonder the current generation of WELS theologians prefers the NIV 2011’s use of the phrases “make love” (Ge. 4:1,17,25; 29:21,23,30; 38:2; Ru. 4:13; 1 Sa. 1:19; 2 Sa. 11:11; 12:24; 1 Ch. 2:21; 7:23; Is. 8:3; etc.) and “have sex” (Ge. 19:5; Jud. 19:22; 1 Co. 6:9) – phrases and imagery thought in previous generations to be far too indelicate to implant in the minds of pious Christians, who were probably also averse to using such terms for fear that they would indirectly reinforce immoral standards cherished by the world and ignite fleshly desires, against which Christians already struggle.

About a month after Mr. Lxxxxx’s final face-to-face conversation with the Rev. Wxxxx, he was called by the Reverend on the telephone. Mr. Lxxxxx made clear that he meant what he had said in January, and that we were looking for another congregation. He told him that we were, at that time, investigating other WELS congregations, along with LCMS congregations. The Reverend assured him that we remained members in good standing, that if we found a suitable WELS congregation he would be glad to transfer us, and if not, then we would be simply released from membership. We never heard from him again. In all of this time, we were contacted by no one from the congregation out of evangelical concern, or even curiosity, over our extended absence, save one person. We received from the congregation what we had come to expect since 2008: near deafening silence.

We quickly found that there were no suitable WELS congregations within reasonable traveling distance. In the end, we found that among those WELS congregations which seemed intent upon demonstrating their Confession through a wholesome liturgical practice, seemed uncorrupted by ambitions of glory, seemed unwilling to give place to worldly entertainment standards in their worship chambers, seemed confident in the Holy Spirit’s work through the Means of Grace to Call, Gather and Enlighten His Elect, and seemed content to allow Him to work in His way, through His Means, in His time, unaugmented by their own innovations, Faith Church was to be most commended in regard to its NIV 2011 deliberations: where Faith Church actually had the courage to at least publicly identify “Bible translation” as an issue, and to go through the motions of publicly addressing that issue (although, with a predetermined outcome, given that a single source of admittedly biased materials was all that they consulted), all of the other WELS congregations we visited simply started using the NIV 2011 without discussion, without the people even knowing it – when we asked, we learned that the new Bibles just showed up in the pews one Sunday, and no one knew the difference. We could not abide such cowardice.

Of all the other options in our area, there was one ELS congregation and two LCMS congregations that were in many ways very suitable. But we ultimately decided that we were unwilling to dance around the issue of Universal Justification, merely for the convenience of attending those congregations.

“Universal Justification” is the teaching espoused by name in the WELS, and with one name or another by ELS and LCMS, as the centerpiece of Christian teaching – the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls. It asserts that all mankind, including every individual, is righteous before God, and forgiven of his sins, whether he has faith or not. The natural, and fully accepted and confessed, consequence of this teaching is that those who die without faith, though they are righteous and forgiven by God, nevertheless spend an eternity barking in hell – not as punishment for their sins (since no one bears sin before God under the teaching of Universal Justification), but merely for their lack of faith. Thus they are willing to accept the teaching that righteous and forgiven saints spend an eternity in hell. The doctrine of Universal Justification, however, is nowhere named, described, or articulated in the Scriptures. It is a purely derived doctrine, without a single word of direct positive attestation in the entirety of Holy Writ.

In all, however, according to the Rev. Dr. Siegbert Becker in his essay Universal Justification, there are a total of three distinct doctrines of Justification taught by WELS. The first is Universal Justification. The second distinct doctrine of Justification, which is merely a corollary of Universal Justification, is “Objective Justification.” It teaches that God, and not man, is entirely responsible for man’s Justification. Such a teaching is not peculiar to WELS, or to Lutherans for that matter; for even the Calvinists do not deny that Justification is objective in this sense. However, WELS, ELS and LCMS seem to assert that Objective Justification also defines “faith” as “man’s work”, and therefore insist that claiming Justification comes by faith is thus to assert a doctrine of synergism. Normally, Universal and Objective Justification are conflated by them, and referred to as “Universal Objective Justification,” but, Becker makes clear, they are, in fact, distinct doctrines, with Objective Justification merely a happy consequence of Universal Justification.

The third distinct doctrine of Justification espoused by the old Synodical Conference Lutherans is so-called “Subjective Justification” – the only doctrine of Justification spoken of and articulated in the Scriptures, and the doctrine identified in the Lutheran Confessions as the main doctrine of Christianity. Except, the Scriptures don’t name it “Subjective Justification”; the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions refer to this doctrine interchangeably as “Justification” and “Justification by Faith Alone.” According to WELS, “Subjective Justification” is entirely superfluous. All of mankind is already righteous and forgiven before God (they say); Justification does NOT come though faith, since that is man’s work, and to suggest that faith is in any way the cause of Justification (even an “instrumental cause”, as it was defined by Leyser and Gerhard) only robs God of the glory He is due for the work He has already accomplished. Subjective Justification (they say), isn’t “Justification” at all, properly speaking – it’s merely “the reception of faith,” and with it merely “receiving the benefit” of the righteous and forgiven standing they, and all men, have had in the eyes of God since the time of Christ’s death and resurrection. Prior to faith (they say), all of mankind is already Justified – fully righteous and forgiven before God – but individuals are denied “enjoyment” of this Justification until God gives them faith.

According to the Bible and the Confessions, however, “Justification by Faith Alone” is the only doctrine of Justification that is taught; mankind (including every individual) is NOT already Justified before God, he is already Condemned; the unbeliever is NOT already righteous and forgiven before God, but stands before God in the filth of his own sin, in need of righteousness and forgiveness; this Justification was earned by Christ in His Passion, and is now offered to mankind in the Message of the Gospel, via which the Holy Spirit works to produce faith; and a person is said to be Justified when the promise of Salvation has been appropriated to himself through the faith God gives him, and not before.

Frankly, it was a shock to us to learn that WELS, ELS and (it seems) LCMS all believe, teach and confess a doctrine of Universal Justification. This fact was withheld from us during Bible Information Class (adult catechism). The fact is:

• We reject the doctrine of Universal Justification as without a scintilla of Scriptural or Confessional support;
• We reject as Scripturally unfounded and as entirely fallacious reasoning the assertion that Justification must be Universal in order for it to be objective, or to be accomplished entirely outside of man;
• We, rather, fully embrace and confess the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone;
• We, further, confess and insist that the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone is the only doctrine of Justification taught by the Scriptures in direct positive terms, and that it is therefore the only Scripturally defensible doctrine of Justification that Christians may confess;
• We fully reject the assertion that faith is in any way man’s work (the Scriptures directly forbid this notion), and we therefore reject the assertion that Justification by Faith Alone is a doctrine of synergism;
• We reject the assertion that “Objective Justification” is a doctrine of Scripture which is taught in distinction from Justification by Faith Alone, and find it impermissible to define “Objective Justification” as any kind of justification at all;
• We, rather, confess that the objectivity of Justification is a defining attribute of the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, and insist that Justification by Faith Alone does, indeed, constitute a fully objective Justification – that is, our Justification is accomplished fully outside of us, without any merit or participation of our own in any sense;
• We confess with confidence and rejoicing that faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit;
• We reject as flippant hyperbole the assertion that saving faith, under the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, is reduced to merely “a profound hope that man conjures within himself”;
• We further confess in this regard, that it is fully biblical to speak of faith being active (i.e., receiving, appropriating, trusting, etc.), without it also being considered volitional and thus synergistic;
• We recognize that the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone is the only doctrine of Justification confessed in the Lutheran Confessions, and was the only doctrine of Justification directly named and taught by the orthodox Confessors and Concordists;
• We further recognize that a form of Universal Justification was asserted by a heterodox member of the Wittenberg Faculty, a teacher whose doctrine was roundly condemned by his orthodox peers, and who was dismissed in 1595 for clinging to his false doctrine – for denying that Justification is restricted to believers;
• We therefore reject as unfounded fiction and utterly preposterous all claims that Universal Justification is “implicitly taught in the Lutheran Confessions,” that it was understood, embraced and taught by the Confessors and Concordists without ever being named or articulated by them, and that it must therefore bind the consciences of any Christian today who would lay claim to an orthodox confession;
• We recognize the introduction of Universal Justification and its corollary teachings in American Lutheranism, as a biblically indefensible innovation of the old Synodical Conference.

Putting the best construction on our experiences, and despite any appearances that might cause some to conclude otherwise, we assume, Faith Church, that you are, in fact, possessed of great evangelical concern over our plight, and though, over the course of a full year, you exerted no effort to find out from us directly, we also assume that you are nevertheless deeply interested to know how we fare today.

We have found a Lutheran congregation. It is a congregation affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA). Of this congregation, we are happy to say:

• They are confessional – that is, they understand the dire need for a clear Christian confession in a sinful world where otherwise well-meaning believers, as victims of sin’s corruption, everywhere misunderstand and pervert the Scripture’s teaching;
• They fully subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions, as articulated in the Christian Book of Concord, not insofar as they are a correct presentation and exposition of the pure doctrine of the Word of God, but boldly confessing before the world and other Christians, that they are so;
  
  in particular:
  
  
  • They positively reject the doctrine of Universal Justification, and instead, believe, teach and confess the single Scriptural and Confessional doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone – the very doctrine for which Luther and his fellow confessors struggled so mightily, risking their lives that it would be preserved to the Church for the eternal benefit of mankind;
  • They do not confuse laity with clergy – that is, laymen are NOT considered Ministers of the Word, and are NOT tasked with carrying out the functions of the pastoral Office;
  • They fully trust the Holy Spirit to work through His appointed Means, and being confident in the efficacy of those Means and content with His timing, do not feel compelled to augment His work with their own innovations;
  • Not merely mouthing the words of their confession, they endeavor to make manifest this confession, maintaining in the Divine Service a wholesome liturgical practice that unmistakably demonstrates Lutheran catholicity, rather than supplanting it with the obnoxious sectarian practices of pop-church evangelicalism.
  
  
• They are conservative – that is, rather than dispose of their Lutheran birthright (which, in order to keep it, requires much honour, trust, patience and a keen awareness of the past) for an immediately satisfying bowl of sectarian and worldly porridge (which, if it satisfies at all, does so merely for the moment, soon afterward requiring the satiation of new and different cravings), they endeavor to carry into the future that great deposit of wisdom wrought of Christian experience over the millenia. Thus they endeavor to conserve the past, rather than discard it as quaint, passé and irrelevant in favor of the wisdom of the day;
  
  in particular:
  
  
  • They reject (as far as we can tell) the post-Modern philosophies of contemporary times, which represent a full frontal attack on the very morality of language itself, mightily threatening the Church, not by changing the words She confesses before the world, but by dramatically altering that Confession in place – altering the meaning of Her Confession by altering the structures of language employed to express it;
  • They have chosen to use and promote a wholesome translation of the Scriptures which not just theoretically, but manifestly honours the doctrine of inspiration, retaining in English as much as practicable, both the grammatical forms and the vocabulary found in the Greek and Hebrew originals, and which honours the tradition of English ecclesiastical thought and expression by maintaining continuity with the English translation Received by English speaking peoples over 400 years ago as the Bible in English, and that continues to this day as a dominant Bible translation preferred by English speakers;
  • They hold that it is wise practice for the Church to maintain a sharp distinction from the world in Her practice, including the use of terminology in their catechesis and during the Divine Service, which maintains a continuity with the past and which reinforces the “other worldly” reality of the believer’s citizenship in the Kingdom of Grace.

And to top it all off:

• They – like Lutherans across the globe (in our experience) – are just plain nice folks.

Unfortunately, this congregation, being a two-hour drive for us, is not very conveniently located. We are not able to attend weekly, as we would like, but endeavor to attend at least twice monthly. When we are unable to attend, however, we do take time to worship as a family in our home, following a modified form of “The Order of Morning Service” from The Lutheran Hymnal (pg. 5), and reading from Luther’s Postils for the Sermon. This works very nicely.

If the truth be told, however, we started this practice of home worship years before finally leaving the WELS. We began to notice that there was a consistent dearth of Law in the preaching and teaching, not only of Faith Church, but in every WELS church we visited. The emphasis on the Gospel was so smothering that the Law, if present at all, was virtually indiscernible. While both of us had grown up within pop-church Evanglicalism and among confessing Pietists, were fully acquainted with the Law, and personally found Law-less Gospel preaching a sufficient (and welcome) balance to the smotheringly Gospel-less Law preaching we had been reared with, the impact on our children, who, over a decade had only become familiar with the Gospel, was unmistakably negative. Having literally no acquaintance with the Law, they failed to place any real significance on the Gospel, taking for granted that they were already forgiven and righteous regardless of what they do, as if they were entitled to it. The result was behaviour issues of various kinds, a general disregard for God’s Word, and a failure to respond to correction which was drawn from it. We appealed at various times to our WELS pastors for more Law in their preaching, so that there would be a more discernible balance between Law and Gospel, but when our requests were dismissed – sometimes with ridicule for being “lovers of the Law” – we realized that there would be no changing their nearly Law-less Gospel preaching. Mrs. Lxxxxx had finally grown so fed up with the fact that our children had not imbibed the Law in any significant way from our association with WELS, that she began taking them through the Book of Proverbs every month, and visiting with them other sections of the Bible that emphasize Law – like the Book of James. This had quite an impact. As the the older children would read the Proverbs, they would stop, read it again, gulp, and say things like, “Oh, boy...” They had no idea. At one point, Mrs. Lxxxxx even suggested, somewhat facetiously, that we leave Lutheranism entirely, and go back to Pietism, just so that our children could be acquainted with the Law through the teaching of the Church, and finally come to appreciate the Gospel. Needless to say, that is not what we did. Instead, we started reading Luther’s sermons for semi-regular family worship, in place of attending Faith Church every Sunday. Luther is very direct in his preaching of the Law, and equally so in his preaching of the Gospel, nearly every sermon being very well balanced between the two. It is unlike any preaching we had heard over the past four decades, including the last fifteen years of association with WELS. Acquaintance with the Law has helped with discipline in the home, too, and improved our family’s appreciation for the Gospel.

Finally – you may be interested to know – there is informal, though very serious, discussion of opening a Lutheran mission congregation in our area (River Falls, Hudson, New Richmond, Baldwin, etc.), of confessional and conservative character similar to the congregation in which we currently enjoy membership. The intent would be to use our family, and perhaps other interested individuals, to seed this mission. Efforts are underway, now, to investigate possible meeting places.

Ta Ta for Now,

Lxxxxx

Divine Service Explanation #4 - Invocation

The Invocation & Sign of the Cross

The Invocation that begins our Divine Service is a simple act of devotion that confesses the name of the Triune God around whose Word and Sacraments we are gathered. The pastor says:

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

These words are drawn directly from Scripture (Mt. 28:19) as part of Christ’s command to His apostles to “make disciples…baptizing them….and teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you.”  Ever since the time of the apostles, the ministers of Christ have been baptizing people with water and these words.  The baptized, in turn, have been gathering every Lord’s Day (or more often) in order to “continue steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42).  The baptismal formula begins the Divine Service, just as Baptism begins the Christian life.

“Invocation” is the act of calling upon or appealing to someone.  There is a two-fold “calling upon” in the Invocation.

• First, by using the baptismal formula, the pastor calls upon the congregation of baptized believers to remember the seal God has placed on us in our Baptism where He first brought us into Christ, forgave us our sins, gave us new birth into His family, and placed His Holy Spirit upon us to renew us each day in the image of Christ. 
• Second, we baptized children of God call upon our Father in prayer, asking Him to accompany us in the Divine Service with all the blessings won for us by the Son and now about to be distributed to us by the Holy Spirit, through the minister, in Word and Sacrament. It is only by virtue of God’s baptismal promises that we poor sinners dare to come into God’s presence to seek mercy from Him in the Divine Service and to give Him thanks.

As the pastor speaks the words of the Invocation, he makes the sign (☩) of the cross, either over himself or over the congregation.  Every baptized believer is, at the same time, encouraged to make the sign of the cross over him or herself as a personal confession that, “I, too, am baptized into Christ, clothed in His righteousness, and I have come to this Divine Service to receive help and mercy from Him.”

_______________________________________________
Divine Service Explanation #1 - The Purpose of the Divine Service
Divine Service Explanation #2 - The Church Year and Lectionary
Divine Service Explanation #3 - Liturgical Vestments

Divine Service Explanation #3 - Liturgical Vestments

Liturgical Vestments

The chief purpose of the special vestments worn by the pastor is to exalt, not the man, but the office of the holy ministry given to the Church by Christ.  In fact, the vestments are intended to hide the man wearing them so that the focus is on his office, through which the Holy Spirit works to build up the people of Christ.  Vestments, in and of themselves, are adiaphora—things neither commanded nor forbidden by God.  As Lutherans, we use them gladly, both as a means to honor the God-given ministry of the Word, and as a confession of our place in the Church catholic.  As we confess in the Book of Concord:

 “It is helpful, so far as can be done, to honor the ministry of the Word with every kind of praise against fanatical people. These fanatics imagine that the Holy Spirit is given not through the Word, but through certain preparations of their own” (Ap. XIII:13).

“At the outset we must again make the preliminary statement that we do not abolish the Mass, but religiously maintain and defend it. For among us masses are celebrated every Lord’s Day and on the other festivals, in which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it, after they have been examined and absolved. And the usual public ceremonies are observed, the series of lessons, of prayers, vestments, and other like things” (AC:XXIV:1).

Here is a brief list of the most common vestments still used by Lutherans:

Basic pastoral vestments:

Cassock   A long, close-fitting black robe that used to be the everyday wear of the clergy. It has been largely replaced by the clergy shirt and collar, but may still be worn by clergy as they perform any ministerial duties.

Surplice   A white tunic worn over the cassock in the Divine Service or Daily Offices.  It is worn by a pastor who is not the celebrant at the Sacrament.  It may also be worn by choir members or altar servers.

Alb    A long, close-fitting white robe worn by ministers at the Divine Service.  It symbolizes the baptismal garment and the righteousness of Christ.

Stole    A long, narrow strip of cloth draped around the neck, symbolizing ordination.  It is worn only by clergy. Its color changes with the liturgical season.

Cincture    A rope that is tied around the waist, serving as a belt to hold the alb and stole in place underneath the chasuble.

Chasuble    A poncho-like garment worn over the alb and stole, worn only by clergy, used exclusively by the celebrant at the Eucharist. Its color changes with the liturgical season.

Additional vestments for a bishop:

Cope    A long, circular cape.

Mitre    A pointed, ceremonial hat used by bishops to signify their office.

Crozier  A long staff with a crook at the top, resembling a shepherd’s staff.  

_______________________________________________
Divine Service Explanation #1 - The Purpose of the Divine Service
Divine Service Explanation #2 - The Church Year and Lectionary

Divine Service Explanation #2 - The Church Year and Lectionary

The Church Year and Lectionary

For over a thousand years, the Christian Church has ordered her prayer life after the life of Christ by means of a yearly review of His life and teachings in her Divine Service.  Readings (“lections”) from the Holy Gospels and from the Epistles (the New Testament “letters” written by the Apostles) have been assigned to each Sunday and other festival days of the “church year.”  The year is divided in two (a “festival half” and a “non-festival half”), and further divided into “seasons,” each season having a certain number of Sundays, each with its own special emphasis.  Different colors help us to remember the emphasis of each season. The seasons are:

Advent:     We prepare for Christ’s coming (His first coming in the past and His second coming in the future) in repentance and quiet meditation. (The “festival half” of the Church Year begins.) (Color: Violet for repentance or Blue for hope) 

Christmas:  We celebrate the birth of Christ and the mystery of His incarnation. (Color: White for purity and divinity) 

Epiphany:   We marvel at how Christ was manifested as the Savior of all nations. (Color: Green for life or White for purity and divinity) 

Pre-Lent:   We begin slowing down in preparation for Lent, fortifying ourselves in the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, Word alone, and faith alone (“Gesima” season). (Color: Green for life or Violet for repentance) 

Lent:          We observe the 40-day fast (either bodily and spiritually, or a spiritual fast only) in repentance as we watch our Savior go to battle for us against sin, death and the devil. (Color: Violet for repentance) 

Holy Week: We meditate on the Passion (“suffering”) and death of our Lord as He earned for us the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation. (Color: Violet for repentance) 

Easter:     We rejoice in the resurrection of Christ and in its significance for us who believe in Him. (Color: White for purity and divinity) 

Pentecost:  We give thanks for the coming of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter. (The “festival half” of the Church Year ends.) (Color: Red for fire and blood) 

Trinity:     We grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord, who sustains His Church on earth through Word and Sacrament until He returns in glory to judge the living and the dead. (The entire Trinity season makes up the “non-festival half” of the Church Year.) (Color: Green for life)  

_______________________________________________
Divine Service Explanation #1 - The Purpose of the Divine Service

Divine Service Explanation #1 - The Purpose of the Divine Service

Part of the Catechism instruction in my parish includes a short explanation each week of the Divine Service. The same explanation is included in our service folder the following Sunday.  These are my own explanations and can certainly be improved upon. I have decided to begin posting them here, with a link to an MS Word file in case anyone wishes to use or adapt them.


Divine Service Explanation #1

The Purpose of the Divine Service

Lutherans often use the term “Divine Service” (i.e., “the service of God”) for our weekly gathering around Word and Sacrament, both because God serves us there through the office of the Holy Ministry, and because we serve God there by joining together with fellow believers to give thanks to God and to serve one another. The emphasis in the Lutheran Divine Service is always on God’s service to us.

Other historical terms for the Divine Service: “The Mass,” “The Eucharist”

The purpose of the Divine Service is for believers in Christ to gather, at Christ’s command, around the ministry of His Word and Sacrament, in order to:

1. Hear the preaching of the Word of Christ from the called and ordained servant of Christ (Luke 10:16; John 10:16; John 8:31-32; Acts 2:42; 2 Cor. 5:20).
2. Receive admonition, correction and instruction from God’s Word, through God’s minister (Luke 12:42-44; 2 Tim. 4:2).
3. Unite with fellow believers in the communion of the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16-17; 1 Cor. 11:24-25).
4. Seek and receive forgiveness from God through His servant (Jn. 20:23; Acts 2:38,42; Matt. 26:26-28; 1 Cor. 4:1).
5. Have our faith strengthened (Rom. 10:17).
6. Be built up and continually renewed in love as the Body of Christ (Eph. 4:12-32; 1 Cor. 14:3).
7. Pray to God for mercy, for ourselves and others (Acts 2:42; Matt. 6:5-13; Matt. 9:27; 1 Tim. 2:1-2).
8. Give thanks to God in the great assembly (Ps. 35:18; Col. 3:17).
9. Confess the Christian faith, for our own benefit and for the benefit of outsiders (Acts 2:46-47; Rom. 10:8-10; Rom. 15:7-13; 1 Cor. 11:26).
10. Encourage and admonish one another to remain faithful and to bear the cross patiently (Gal. 6:2; Col. 3:16; Heb. 10:24-25).

A Brief Explanation of Lutheran Hymnody: For the Lutheran who asks regarding the Beautiful Hymns of His church

Three weeks ago, we published a lengthy post entitled, An Explanation of Lutheran Worship: For the Lutheran who asks the Meaning of the Beautiful Liturgy of His church. The body of that post contained a full Explanation of the Common Service — the order of Divine Service beginning on “page 15” of The Lutheran Hymnal which was published by the Synodical Conference in 1941. An English-language harmony of sixteenth century Lutheran liturgies published in 1888 by the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, it still serves as a benchmark of liturgical excellence. Indeed, in our recent post, Lutheranism and the Fine Arts: Dr. P.E. Kretzmann and the Necessity of Continuing Catechesis, we quote Dr. Kretzmann referring to the Common Service as “unsurpassed in the entire history of the Christian Church.”

The Explanation we published two weeks ago was taken directly from catechetical materials developed by the General Council for the distinct purpose of educating Lutherans regarding the doctrinal integrity and catholicity of genuine Lutheran worship. Indeed, this Explanation of the Common Service, published in 1908, was dedicated to the “Young Lutheran who asks the meaning of the beautiful liturgy of the Lutheran Church.” In our introductory remarks preceding the explanation, we marveled at this. Lutherans these days don't educate their youth about Lutheran worship, and if they do, they don't do so in a way that extolls it's beauty as a work of Fine Art, nor do they do so in a way that reinforces its doctrinal integrity, nor do they do so in a way that embraces its catholicity. One of the bright shining exceptions to the lamentable reality that contemporary Lutherans no longer value their heritage of worship enough to bother passing it down to their youth, is the LCMS-affiliated organization, Higher Things. Outside of this organization, the best one can hope for is a one- or two-lesson explanation of Lutheran worship which neither extolls its beauty nor places value on its doctrinal integrity and catholicity, but uses the opportunity to deride our heritage by vaunting its status as “an adiophoron” and setting it on equal footing with just about any form of Sectarian Worship imaginable – as long as one wears the appropriate set of blinders as he goes about imagining. Yeah, sure, you can do it, but why would you want to? In answer to this one needs but a “reason,” and in the world of adiaphora that merely means “opinion.” Thus one “reason” is as good as another, and anything one can “justify” has open license attending it.

But we further asked the reader to notice the use of language this Explanation employed. It was not written for functionally illiterate Lutherans who find reading and understanding anything written above the sixth-grade reading level to be a hopeless struggle. On the contrary, being dedicated to the “Young Lutherans,” it was written to Lutheran Youth, and plainly assumed that they had command of their own language. If it was written above their level, then it served the noble purpose of lifting them out of their immature literacy and colorless task-oriented-use of language, through the rich vocabulary and precise grammar employed in the distinctive and enculturating language of the Church. Contemporary Lutherans, it seems, no longer value the uplifting qualities of higher literacy, either.

Regardless of what the so-called wise-men of contemporary times insist upon, I am not ready to succumb to such disrespect for others that my operative assumption is that they are all functionally illiterate. I don't think all, or most, or even a significant minority of educated Lutherans are just a bunch of dumb-dumbs who can't read. Some very-well may refuse to read anything more complex than a comic book, but that is a separate matter – a matter of sinful obstinacy, and perhaps even rebellion. It is not a matter of literacy. So today, we are going to continue our use of materials having high-literary quality to provide a brief explanation of Lutheran hymnody.

What is a Hymn? A Canticle? A Carol? An Anthem?
We begin with the source pictured at the top left: The Handbook to the Lutheran Hymnal, by W. G. Polack – who was the chairman of The Lutheran Hymnal committee. This work first appeared in 1942, essentially accompanying the publication of The Lutheran Hymnal, and went through several revisions thereafter. It is a book which catalogs all of the hymns used in The Lutheran Hymnal, identifying their authors and sources, providing a history of the circumstances under which the hymn was written (if notable), reproducing the hymn in its original language alongside the English version which appeared in the hymnal and identifying (sometimes justifying) alternate readings from the original composition. It is considered a classic in the field of hymnology.

An Explanation of Lutheran Worship: For the Lutheran who asks the Meaning of the Beautiful Liturgy of His church

Last week, we published an article entitled, Lutheranism and the Fine Arts: Dr. P.E. Kretzmann and the Necessity of Continuing Catechesis. It stood in stark contrast against the depraved junk being pushed by the Church Growth Movement (CGM), which, though vaulting the latest in “scientific methodology”, nurtures anti-intellectualism as much as it promotes mediocrity, turning its back on the preaching and teaching of sound doctrine and repudiating the hard work of rigorous catechesis in order to make Christianity more outwardly attractive to the unregenerate who despise Christ and the teaching of His Word. Another term for this among CGM advocates is, “Evangelism.”

But most importantly, that post emphasized the need not only for rigorous catechesis, but of a broad catechesis that includes more than just Bible study. In that post, Dr. Kretzmann and the Walther League strongly encouraged complementary catechesis in areas of Church History, of Christian Missions, of Distinctive Lutheran Doctrines, Customs and Usages of the Lutheran Church, of Church Art, of Science, and of Literature. And within the category of Church Art was included the very important topic of Liturgics.

In fact, the catechesis of the Lutheran Worshiper was the topic of another recent post on Intrepid Lutherans, The Catechesis of the Lutheran Worshiper: An antidote to the “itching ears” and “happy feat” of CGM enthusiasts?. In that post we drew the distinction between those who favor so-called “contemporary worship,” as those who Congregate before Entertainers, with those who retain a wholesome catholicty and still embrace the distinctive practices of historic Lutheran liturgy, as those who Congregate before the Means of Grace.

But what is such “wholesome catholicty”? What is the “distinctive practice of historic Lutheran liturgy”? Do American Lutherans of the 21^st Century even have such a thing? If so, is it at all in general use? Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but one thing is for sure: they certainly had such in the 19^th and 20^th Centuries, AND they had catechetical materials to go along with it for the purpose of teaching successive generations about Lutheran worship.

Lutherans of these bygone times highly valued the wholesome catholicty of their historic Lutheran worship practices, that served to starkly contrast them with the American sects which surrounded them — which had in many cases been given over to the evangelical revivalism of Charles Finney, and to practices emanating from the Holiness movements within American Methodism (as discussed in our recent post, The Church Growth Movement: A brief synopsis of its history and influences in American Christianity). Even in confessional Lutheran churches in America, the allure of the Anxious Bench became increasingly difficult to resist, and Methodist hymnals were, distressingly, in growing demand (as Dr. C.F.W. Walther laments, in our post, C.F.W. Walther: Filching from sectarian worship resources equals “soul murder”). It was within this environment that the confessional and liturgical movements of the 19^th Century grew, and worked toward the establishment of confessional unity among Lutherans in America, and to distinguish and insulate American Lutheranism from the poison of sectarian influences.

In 1908, the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America published an Explanation of the Common Service – a harmony of sixteenth century Lutheran liturgies published in 1888, in the English language. This is the same Common Service found in The Lutheran Hymnal, which was published by the Synodical Conference in 1941, and which is still used in many Lutheran congregations even today. It is my understanding that, in many circles, this liturgy of the Divine Service is still referred to as a benchmark of liturgical excellence. Indeed, in our recent post, Lutheranism and the Fine Arts..., Dr. Kretzmann refers to the Common Service as “unsurpassed in the entire history of the Christian Church.” Sadly, however, though many Lutherans still use it, most Lutherans, and nearly all young Lutherans, are completely ignorant of this fine and beautiful liturgy, having never had the privilege of being consistently guided through worship under the rubrics of this Common Service.

Interestingly, the Explanation published in 1908 by the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, was dedicated to this very group of people, to the “Young Lutherans who ask the meaning of the beautiful liturgy of the Lutheran Church.” As you read this Explanation, notice its use of language. Consider the fine education and catechesis “Young Lutherans” must have enjoyed a century ago, which was deliberately reinforced by the church in books such as this. Do Lutheran publishing houses have such respect and concern for the youth of today? Certainly, they target young people with a great deal of material, so concern unquestionably exists — but does the quality of these materials generally rise to this level? Does it specifically advocate and reinforce Confessional practice? Does it refer to the liturgy as something “beautiful” and as something to be valued? I don't believe I've seen this sort of thing coming from the main Lutheran publishers.

Therefore, in the interest of those who would otherwise never have the opportunity to know, the following Explanation of the Common Service is offered. It explains Lutheran worship according to what has been considered the definitive Lutheran liturgy yet produced – a liturgy which is nevertheless disappearing under the short-sighted tyranny of “contemporary relevance,” and an explanation whose need has long been disregarded as counterproductive to progress and to the future of Evangelical church practice.

Note: the reader may recognize this Explanation as having appeared on Intrepid Lutherans in the past. In fact, it was published as a series in the Summer of 2010, as follows: Intrepid Lutherans: Explanation of the Common Service — Part 1 Intrepid Lutherans: Explanation of the Common Service — Part 2 Intrepid Lutherans: Explanation of the Common Service — Part 3 Intrepid Lutherans: Explanation of the Common Service — Part 4 It is offered, below, in a single unbroken post. Note also that this explanation, though long out of print, is now available in book form from Emmanuel Press, one of the fine confessional Lutheran publishers listed in the right-hand column of this blog.

---

The Christian Church Year

In the Lutheran Confessions it is stated,

"Of Usages in the Church they teach that those ought to be observed which may be observed without sin, and which are profitable unto tranquility and good order in the Church, as particular holy days, festivals, and the like. Nevertheless, concerning such things men are admonished that consciences are not to be burdened, as though such observance was necessary to salvation." (Augsburg Confession, Article XV: Of Ecclesiastical Usages)

"Holy days, festivals, and the like" can be seen as representing what we know today as the ancient and historic Christian Church Year. Throughout the Confessions our Lutheran forefathers repeatedly make two excellent and necessary points with regard to things like the Church Year: 1.) That the Lutheran Church has been and shall always be known for its faithful practice of following various human church customs like this; indeed that to continue to observe such is very beneficial for believers and 2.) That such observances are NOT necessary for salvation. Note well: To be continued, not to merit righteousness, but still to be continued. This is one of things that makes us confessional Lutherans.

Below is an outline and explanation of the Christian Church Year. This was shared with my congregation some years ago in a series of bulletin inserts. I've revised and edited it a bit and post it here for your information and edification. This may be "old news" to many of our readers, but I hope it will encourage us all to continue to make use of this salutary tool for our worship and spiritual education. Since Sunday, December 2nd is the First Sunday in Advent and thus begins a new Christian Church Year I thought it good to share this with you, our readers, today. Enjoy!

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH YEAR

The Church Year developed slowly, and began and centered around what was regarded, and rightly so, as the highlight of the Christian faith – the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The Christian calendar can first be divided into two main sections. The first runs from Advent, the preparation for Christ's Nativity, through the Festival of Pentecost, that day being the completion of His promise to send the Paraclete to His Church. This part of the Church Year then deals with the Biblical facts surrounding the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior. Beginning with the Feast of the Holy Trinity and running through the rest of the Church Year, the focus falls on the teachings of Christ in the New Testament.

Advent
The The Church Year is then divided into six seasons, beginning with Advent. The first Sunday in Advent is always the Sunday closest to St. Andrew the Apostle's Day (November 30th). The early part of this season is devoted to Christ's Second Coming in the lessons and liturgy; while in the latter part, especially the 3rd and 4th Sundays, the Christmas theme is prominent.

In the early Church less stress was laid on the actual birth date of the Lord than on the fact that the Son of God became man (John 1:14). Accordingly there was a festival celebrating this fact as early as end of the First Century. Also by this time, the 6th of January was the accepted date for the Festival of Epiphany, or the Manifestation of the Lord, and commemorated not only the birth of Christ, but also His baptism and, in some places, His first miracle, thus expressing very well the general idea of the revelation and manifestation of the divinity of Christ in His humanity.

Just as Christ's Passion and Resurrection prompted a special season of preparation, so a similar period was set aside before Christmas. The length of the Advent season varied according to the ancient Christian communities where it was observed. For example, in Milan and parts of southern France there were five Sundays in Advent, while in Rome there were only four. Still other places counted as many as seven. Finally the custom of having four Sundays was generally accepted throughout the Western Church.

Christmas
The nativity of Jesus is observed on the Christmas Festival, December 25 in the western church, and is the first primary festival, with two or three days devoted to its observance. It is followed by the feasts of Saint Stephen (December 26), Saint John the Evangelist and Apostle (December 27), and the Holy Innocents of Bethlehem (December 28). Thus, it is said, the feast of the birth of the King of martyrs is followed by the “heavenly birthdays” of the first martyr in will and in deed, the apostolic martyr in will but not in deed, and the infant martyrs in deed but not in will.

It will be noted that December 25th falls nine months after March 25th, which is the Feast of the Annunciation. In the early Christian calendar March 25th was New Year's Day, as it was considered to be the beginning of the era of grace with the incarnation of the Son of God. It is still considered such in various parts of the church. However, the earliest references to this Feast come from the 5th Century, hundreds of years after the Nativity began to be celebrated in December.There are many other reasons why December 25th is the Feast of the Nativity of our Lord, but that is not the purpose of this article. Perhaps we will have a future piece dedicated to that topic.

Note: “Feast” and “festival” are synonymous in this context; both reflect the Latin term dies festus; feasts and festivals indicates only that both words are used in reference to certain special days other than fast days.

Epiphany
The eighth day of Christmas is the Festival of the Circumcision and the Name of Jesus; it concurs with the New Year's Day of the civil year. In the Western Church, the festival of Epiphany (which means "manifest"), January 6, recalls the episode of the Wise Men; but in the Eastern Church, this is counted as the Festival of Christ's Birth. In addition, as mentioned above, from very ancient times January 6th was celebrated as the date upon which Christ was baptized, and the date of His first miracle at Cana. These two events, along with the visit of the Magi to the Christ-child, were certainly occasions when He manifested His divinity. The number of Sundays in the post-Epiphany season varies with the date of the Festival of the Resurrection. (more on that later)

A season of pre-Lent contains the Sundays named "Septuagesima," "Sexagesima," and "Quinquagesima," the three Sundays before Ash Wednesday, which take their names from Latin words indicating that they fall approximately seventy, sixty, and fifty days before the Resurrection. These Sundays often take on some of the characteristics of Lent.

Date of Jewish Passover determines the dates of Ash Wednesday and the Feast of Christ's Resurrection
At first the Good Friday-Pascha event was thought of as being commemorated every Sunday. Indeed, the first festival commemorated annually was the Pascha. An early controversy about this date was settled A.D. 325 by the Council Nicaea which decreed that the anniversary of Christ's Resurrection be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the spring equinox, or one week later if the full moon falls on Sunday.

Note: Personally - and this is just my own opinion, I prefer to try to avoid the use of the pagan term "easter" to designate this event. The modern English term, Easter, developed from the Old English word "eastre" or "eostre." The name refers to Eostur, a month in the pre-Christian calendar, and named for the fertility goddess Eostre in the Anglo-Saxon pagan pantheon. This goddess of spring also corresponds to many other such fertility gods and goddesses around the western world, the two most well known being "Astarte" in the Balkan countries and "Ishtar" in Mesopotamia. The month named for this goddess was the equivalent to our month of April, and so, unfortunately, the name became attached sometime after the Tenth Century to the most prominent spring festival in Christianity.

Following the much more ancient Christian custom, I believe it best to refer to the Resurrection of Christ as the "Pascha," and the weeks surrounding it as the Paschal Season. The Greek word pascha is derived from Hebrew PeSaCH (פֶּסַח) meaning the festival of Passover, as it was during the celebration of the Jewish Passover that Christ the perfect Lamb of God was crucified, died, buried, and rose again. In addition, the Greek the word anastasis (upstanding, up-rising, resurrection) is often used as an alternative.

Ash Wednesday ends the period of Epiphany and begins the period of Lent
From early days Pascha was preceded by a period of preparation called Lent. The custom of fasting during this time was already widespread throughout the Church from a very early date, but the length of the fast varied. Finally the fast was extended to forty days (excluding Sundays), after the analogy of the period of the Lord's temptation (Matthew 4:2). Ash Wednesday (so called from the custom of daubing the foreheads of worshipers on that day with ashes of the previous year's palms, in token of penitence and human mortality) has been the first day of Lent since at least the Sixth Century. The season of preparation for Easter closed with Holy Week. Thursday of Holy Week commemorated the institution of the Lord's Supper. It is called Holy Thursday by some, and its present name, Maundy Thursday, is derived from the Latin translation of the beginning words of Jesus in John 13:34, mandatum novum do vobis, "a new commandment I give you, that you love one another." Good Friday was a day of deep mourning, with a complete fast till 6:00 PM.

Festival of the Ascension and the Feast of Pentecost
Forty days after the Resurrection (Acts 1:3) came the Festival of the Ascension, which was celebrated from the early Fourth Century. Pentecost, which comes from the Greek word "pentekostos," or “fiftieth”, is observed on the fiftieth day after the Pascha, and its celebration can be traced to the Second Century. It is also called Whitsunday, from white garments worn on that day.

The Feast of the Holy Trinity
The Feast of the Holy Trinity, the fourth and final great festival of the Church Year follows on the Sunday after Pentecost. In the second part of the Church Year, the post-Trinity season, there are no festivals of the first rank. The number of Sundays after Trinity varies depending on the date of the Pascha.

Other Festivals of the Church Year
After the Sixth Century, the number of festivals in the Church increased rapidly. In particular, with the increased, though misplaced, veneration of Mary her festivals became more numerous. The Feast of the Annunciation, celebrating the conception of our Lord, was fixed for March 25, and that of the Presentation of Our Lord and the Purification of Mary for February 2; the latter festival is known as Candlemas, from the custom of blessing candles, carrying them in procession, and holding them lighted during the reading of the Gospel. Mary's meeting with Elizabeth is commemorated on the Feast of the Visitation, July 2.

From early in the Church, the feasts of Apostles and Evangelists were soon celebrated, especially those of Peter and Paul. And with the coming of the Middle Ages came the many saints' and martyrs' days. All Saints' Day, November 1, commemorated all the saints together and All Souls' Day, November 2, commemorated all the faithful departed.

Many of the Sundays of the Church Year are known by special names, usually after the first words of their introits, so, for example, the names of the Sundays in Lent are: Invocavit; Reminiscere; Oculi; Laetare; and Judica. The name Palm Sunday, as mentioned, is derived from the traditional use of palms in ceremonies of the day. The first four Sundays after Easter are Quasimodogeniti; Misericordias Domini; Jubilate; Cantate; Rogate precedes the Rogation Days, from which it takes its name; and Exaudi.

Following the lead of Martin Luther, the historic Lutheran Church has retained the ancient festivals in honor of Christ and the Triune God as a matter of course, and also regards most of those surrounded Jesus' mother as being properly Christ-centered festivals.

Festival of the Reformation, and the Sundays of the End-Times, close the Church Year
However, relatively few commemorations of other Biblical saints have survived. The same is true of most saints, martyrs, and events from after Apostolic times. One fairly recent exception is The Festival of the Reformation, October 31, commemorating the posting of Dr. Luther's 95 Theses, which dates back to the end of the Sixteenth Century.

The Church Year ends with the so-called "End-Time Sundays." The first of these is All Saints, followed by a Sunday focusing on the "Last Judgment," the "Church Triumphant," and finally the last Sunday of the Church Year, which, since Vatican II commemorates "Christ the King." Here again, I prefer to make this a Sunday of "Humiliation & Prayer," a fitting end, in my opinion, to the Christian Church-Year.

It is truly a sad commentary on the state of the church today, even in an otherwise conservative church body such as the WELS, that so many congregations, especially newer ones which use so-called "contemporary" (i.e. sectarian) worship styles, make very little, if any, use of the Church Year of the historic Christian church. Following the Church Year brings worshipers into contact with all the great events of Christ's life and ministry, and thus all the necessary and important doctrines of Christian faith and life. This is actually a great time-saving device. There is no need to work to put together a whole long list of various sermon series to try and accomplish the same thing. We hear constantly that it is not good to "re-invent the wheel," and that is why some of our brothers borrow certain styles and content from the sectarian churches. But in trying to replace the historic Church Year with a series of topics of their own, they are truly trying to make a new and different "wheel!"

Deo Vindice!

Pastor Spencer

(I freely admit that very little of the information here is original with me. I made use of the following sources in putting together this material: "The Sermon and The Propers," Fred Lindemann, CPH; "The Early Days of Christianity," Frederic Farrar; "Church History," Professor Kurtz, Funk & Wagnalls; "A History of Christianity," Kenneth Latourette, Harper & Row; "The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church," J.D. Douglas, ed., Zondervan; and of course, Wikipedia and Theopedia.)

The Gospel motivates fidelity to doctrine in practice: Brief words on the use of distinguishing clerical attire

Way back in September of 2010, I published a brief essay entitled, "How, then, shall we be attired?" or "Why I Wear a Tie to Church". It began with a statement in the introductory paragraph suggesting that there is a foundation in what people are convinced as a matter of Christian Conscience is True for how they act; suggesting, that is, that Christian doctrine may actually be the foundation of Christian practice rather than being completely disassociated from it: "There's a reason why people have reserved some of their finest clothing for Sunday, referring to it as their 'Sunday Best,' and I think there are good reasons for Christians to continue doing so. What we do is a reflection of what we hold to be True."

From this point my brief essay proceeded by describing some of the important Truths of Christian doctrine which confessional Lutherans, who recognize the significance of historical belief and practice, consider the ongoing realities of incarnational and sacramental doctrine, and suggesting that these realities, if they are actually regarded as such rather than merely claimed as such, are sufficient to motivate practice that is consistent with them. Namely, we believe that Jesus Christ is actually present in the Divine Service, and is there actively serving us. If we not only claim that this is true, but actually believe it is true, then we are apt to engage in practice that is consistent with actually believing it, rather than merely saying it. This includes our choice of attire, as I continued in that little essay. At no point was Law used as a basis for suggesting that certain attire may be more appropriate than certain other attire; instead, it pointed to the significance of the Gospel as motivation for the desire to represent with fidelity what we confess to believe. Indeed, it concludes with the strong suggestion that such practice is not only consistent with important Christian realities, but is evangelical as well: "The reality is, in Western Society, the Christian's 'Sunday Best' is his 'religious garb' – it openly communicates his Christian religion and his observance of it to those who see him, and opens doors of communication where inconspicuous dress would fail to do so."

Appealing to the Gospel, Rev. Michael Berg (WELS) suggested much the same thing in his excellent paper, The Beauty of the Western Rite, which he delivered at the 2012 Conference of Intrepid Lutherans: Church and Continuity – see pages 11, 26, 36 and 54, for example, or hear his comments @~5'45" to ~7'35", @~10'45" to ~11'50", @~38'10" to ~42' or @~44'35" to ~54' in the video we posted of his presentation. Who is actually present in the Divine Service, and how does that motivate the order of our practice? Rev. Berg offers a very compelling case.

Likewise, Rev. Anthony Voltattorni (LCMS), in a November 6, 2012 interview on Issues, Etc., makes a compelling and motivating case for the use of traditional clerical garb instead of the non-distinguishing casual wear that continues to grow in popularity as pastors grow more and more disconnected from their office, and take on the role of representing contemporary culture before the congregation rather than Christ.

Why Does a Pastor Wear a Clerical Collar? – Rev. Anthony Voltattorni (LCMS), 11/6/12

 

In this 30 minute interview, Rev. Voltattorni centers his discussion on the evangelical significance of Office of the Holy Ministry. He makes the point that according to this Lutheran teaching, the pastor does not represent the culture before the congregation during the Sunday morning Divine Service or through the week as he carries out the functions of his Office. On the contrary, the pastor represents Christ. The evangelical significance of this teaching is compelling enough to motivate the conscientious Lutheran pastor in his public practice, such that he strives to carry it out in an unambiguous and consistently representative way. The purpose of casual garb, observes Rev. Voltattorni, is to fulfill the former (and wrong) understanding of his role – that of representing the culture before the congregation – by drawing attention to himself as a representative of mankind. In contrast, the purpose of clerical garb is to fulfill the latter – of unambiguously representing Christ by adopting the attire recognized worldwide as peculiar to his Office – by reminding not only the congregation of this fact, but himself as well, helping him submit to his Office and refrain from frivolity and offense. Rev. Voltattorni proceeds by pointing out that distinctive clerical garb does draw attention to it's wearer, in agreement with one of the primary criticisms of its use. Yet, he continues, casual wear attracts attention as well – it does not make the wearer inconspicuous, it only makes his Office inconspicuous. Distinctive clerical garb, on the other hand, draws attention to its wearer as one who occupies the Office to which Christ appointed him through His congregation, and as one who is always eager to represent Christ and share his Message everywhere he goes. Moreover, concludes Rev. Voltattorni, by publicly distinguishing himself in this way, instead of remaining inconspicuous when in public, the pastor is not only announcing his desire to share the Good News of Salvation through Faith in the promises of Christ, he is also boldly inviting persecution from those who hate Christ and His messengers.

It is an informative and compelling little interview, and, of course, Rev. Voltattorni expresses himself far better than I have summarized him here. We recommend that our readers listen to and consider what Rev. Voltattorni has to say.

Church and Continuity Conference Review: The Beauty of the Western Rite – by Rev. Michael Berg

The third presentation on Saturday was given by Rev. Michael Berg: “The Beauty of the Western Rite, Part 1.” More than a simple explanation of the parts of the historic Divine Service, the first section of Rev. Berg’s paper explores the sacramental nature of Lutheran worship and how various worship forms are a response to the fundamental question, “Who is present?” in worship. Like Rev. Boehringer, Rev. Berg also emphasizes the bound will of man, the theology of the cross and Christian vocation, and suggests that an evangelical and catholic Lutheranism that remains true to its theology holds out exactly what a postmodern world needs.

In "The Beauty of the Western Rite, Part 2," Rev. Berg tells a short story called, "Any Given Sunday," in which he illustrates in a very down-to-earth way how the Divine Service confronts real-life sinners in the midst of their troubles, struggles, joys and sorrows and brings the Word of God to them right where they need it.  This section also includes an explanation of the benefits of offering Holy Communion every Sunday.


Conference of Intrepid Lutherans: Church and Continuity ~ June 1-2, 2012
Bethlehem Lutheran Church ~ Oshkosh, WI
The Beauty of the Western Rite, Part 1
The Beauty of the Western Rite, Part 2
by Rev. Michael Berg.

Must-listen mini-gems from Marquart: What is the Liturgy?

All it takes is a couple of minutes to listen to this short clip from a longer lecture on Liturgy and Evangelism by the sainted Rev. Kurt Marquart. The full-length audio recording can be found here.

Here's Marquart correcting some common misconceptions of the Liturgy.

 

A few quotes from the above clip:

"The Liturgy is far more than ceremonies."

"'Liturgy' means a 'public service.' Therefore, says the Apology, the word 'Liturgy' - leitourgia - fits very well with our understanding of the Ministry, because a minister who preaches offers Christ to the people...just as he who consecrates offers the Lord's body and blood to the people."

"So what happens is, the public celebration of the mysteries of God, the giving out of the life of God that flows as at a living oasis. It's a connection to the Eucharist."

Music for the Twelve Days of Christmas, Part 3: Johann Sebastian Bach

Our Third and final installment¹ of Music for the Twelve Days of Christmas, features a famous Christmas piece by Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750). Before introducing that piece, however, it may be interesting to review a little about Bach and his artform. As we summarized last April in the post, Music for Holy Week, Part 1 – excerpts from Matthäus Passion,

Bach perhaps needs little introduction: he was and remains the master of counterpoint and represents the pinnacle of Baroque musical achievement. In addition to his many secular works, as Cantor of St. Thomas Church in Leipzig he composed a full series of Cantatas to accompany the Lutheran liturgy for each week of the Church Calendar, along with many other Sacred works as he was commissioned... It is worth noting, however, than in addition to his status as a composer, Johann Sebastian Bach was also fiercely orthodox in his Lutheranism. Being active as a composer during the rise of German Pietism² and attempting to ward it off through the Sacred works he was often commissioned to compose, his professional library was proliferate with personally annotated works of Lutheran theology – he had the library of a theologian, and he used it as reference material in the composition of his works.

Bach's genius as a composer was not entirely his own. He is known to have studied the Masters of the previous generation and incorporated their genius into his own art: men like Michael Praetorius, Samuel Scheidt, Johann Schein, and especially Heinrich Schütz – who was the subject of Part Two of this Music for the Twelve Days of Christmas series. Indeed, Bach's relationship to Schütz is almost serendipitous. Recall from Part Two the concern Schütz had in the second third of his life over the decline in compositional integrity he had been witnessing, for "

the advent of the chordal style dispensing with linear but rich polyphonic textures made it possible for technically less accomplished composers to shine with concertante figured-bass music. According to Schütz, there were hardly any younger composers in Germany willing to deal with the more profound aspects of composition. So their tonal idiom was bound to become increasingly shallow and banal.

As a result, he published his Geistliche Chormusik (Sacred Choral Music) in 1648, dedicating it to the choir of St. Thomas Church in Leipzig, to "encourage budding German composers, before they would try their hand at the concertante style ...to first demonstrate their skill in this area."

It seems to be unknown whether Bach took the recommendation of Schütz to heart, or whether those responsible for calling Bach to be Cantor at St. Thomas in Leipzig were seeking to diligently live up to the encouragement Schütz obviously meant for them, or whether his Geistliche Chormusik had any such impact by that time at all. But it is, at least, an interesting coincidence. Other interesting coincidences include Bach's place in time: Heinrich Schütz died as Pia Desideria (published 1675) was percolating in the mind of Philipp Jakob Spener (1635-1705); Bach was born as plans for the Pietist learning center, University of Halle were being drawn; while Bach served in Leipzig, the last of the Lutheran theologians from the Lutheran Age of Orthodoxy," and vigorous opponent of Pietism, Valentin Ernst Löscher (1673 - 1749), served as Superintendant and as pastor at the Kreuzkirche in Dresden (practically a stones-throw from the Royal Court, and a place known to benefit from regular collaboration with Schütz); and both Bach and Löscher, being in such proximity, battled with fierce dedication against Pietism in their respective vocations. Löscher and Bach died at the opening of the Enlightenment, in 1749 and 1750, respectively – with no one, really, to take their place.

Art following the Enlightenment ceases to speak of objective subjects
The opening of the Enlightenment, around 1750, marks the end of the Baroque Period, and the beginning of the Classical Period. This period lasts roughly until the period in which German Romantic philosophy began to have cultural significance, around the turn of the 19^th Century; this is about the time that Romanticism began to displace Classical expressions of the Enlightenment. But what is it about Baroque music that sets it apart? What really were the "the more profound aspects of composition" referred to by Heinrich Schütz (above)? Why does there appear to be a rigid structure and order in the Baroque period, to the point where J.G. Walther (a cousin of Bach) would define such music as "a heavenly philosophical and specifically mathematical science?"³ From the time of Plato and re-emphasized by Martin Luther, music was viewed as a direct reflection of and "evidence of divine order,"⁴ in the world and in the Universe. Johannes Kepler wrote "Now one will no longer be surprised that man has formed this most excellent order of notes or steps into the musical system or scale, since one can see that in this matter he acts as nothing but the Ape of God, the Creator, playing, as it were, a drama about the Order of celestial motions."⁵

As a result of such a lofty view of music and composition, Baroque composers infused their music with numerical code and allegory, attaching meaning to specific numbers and ratios, and in this way, the learned composer attempted "to replicate in earthly music the celestial harmony with which God had joined and imbued the Universe."⁶ Therefore, as Luther put it, music is the "faithful servant of theology" and ought to deliver "sermons in sound."⁷

Contrary to those of later era's, like the Classical and Romantic, the Baroque composer saw

"himself as an artisan: not an artist 'expressing' a personal idea or feeling – a conception the Baroque composer would have found entirely strange – but as a professional with an assigned task and learnable, teachable methods of doing it. Combined with the Baroque infatuation with encoded allegory, this concept of music as an oratorial craft inspired a vast compositional vocabulary of passages, rhythms, key changes, and other devices that could telegraph in music the meaning of a text, the language of which came to be known as musical-rhetorical figures."⁸

Thus we see the force of Natural Law⁹, observations of Divine Order and understanding of their significance, informing the expression of Baroque "artisans."

"The rich acoustic medium of the medieval stone church had encouraged composers' experiments writing note against note (punctus contra punctum) and eventually of braiding related vocal lines through one another to form increasingly rich weaves of melody. The most rigorous of part-writing, such as cannon and fugue, came to be known collectively as learned counterpoint."¹⁰

"For Bach and his musical ancestors ...composing and performing music was ...a deeply spiritual enterprise whose sole purpose, as his works were inscribed, was for the glory of God. [And to His glory], Bach represented Church music and especially the learned counter-point of cannon and fugue"¹¹

Yet, as the Age of Lutheran Orthodoxy came to a close, as the strong Lutheran voice in culture began to wane, as fidelity to God's Word in thought, word and deed gave way to new ways of thinking, and as man in his natural state of rebellion thereby sought freedom from God and the Church, clinging to the only other tools available with which to make sense of the world, empiricism and reason, the necessity and reality of Divine grace also gave way to "confidence in human perfectibility."¹² Oddly, the result in artistic expression was that instead of outward or objective subjects, the work of the composer became significantly more subjective, especially by the time of the Romantic Era, standing as much as self-projection as anything else:

"the expression of feeling in music was all, and the affectation that mattered was not a text or other object for depiction but the feeling state of the performer and composer... the new 'enlightened' composer wrote for one reason and one only: to please the audience."¹³

In this way, the subject of musical compositions following the Enlightenment became the composer, became his thoughts and his feelings as he struggled to give voice to them through his art, while the performer strove to abscond with that subject by embodying and personifying the composition in his own performance of it, thus making himself the subject of the art.

By the time of Frederick the Great of Prussia, Enlightenment composers had thoroughly

"denigrated counterpoint as the vestige of an outworn aesthetic, extolling instead the 'natural and delightful' in music, by which they meant the easier pleasure of song, the harmonious ornamentation of a single line of melody... For Frederick, the goal of music was simply to be 'agreeable,' an entertainment and a diversion, easy work for the performer and audience alike. He despised music that, as he put it, 'smells of the Church,' and Bach's chorales specifically as 'dumb stuff.'"¹⁴

Bach's Evening in the "Palace of Reason"
Later in life, Bach was given the opportunity to respond to the Enlightenment, in one of his most outstanding works. As one who represented the modern philosophies of his day, Frederick the Great of Prussia grasped an opportunity to summon the elderly Johann Sebastian Bach to his palace in 1747, for the purpose of presenting "history's greatest master of counterpoint the most taxing possible challenge to his art,"¹⁵ for what seems to have been simply a joke out of contempt for the "old" style of music which Bach so ably represented – that of the "learned counterpoint" of cannon and fugue which had been used for centuries to mirror the celestial harmony of heaven and nature. Frederick proceeded to play for Bach a melody of twenty-one notes which had been "constructed to be as resistant to counterpoint as possible"¹⁶ and then challenged the elderly composer to improvise a three-part fugue using the theme he had played. Bach, who had mastered the art of his craft and who understood the mechanics as well as the power of music to communicate, was able then and there to improvise "a three-part fugue on Frederick's Royal Theme [which] had all the intellectual rigor of a finished work."¹⁷ Not impressed, Frederick demanded that Bach start over, this time composing a fugue in six parts – something which Bach had never done. Bach agreed, but added that he would need time to work out the composition. Two months later, Bach had finished his six-part fugue – but not only this, for Bach had something to say to the monarch who had not simply challenged him, but who had rejected God and the music of the Church. In that time he had composed two fugues, the first being the three-part fugue requested by Frederick, the second being the six part fugue he had also requested, along with ten cannons (each representing the Ten Commandments) and a sonata, bundling them in a single work he titled, Musikalisches Opfer (Musical Offering). The two fugues he named Ricercar, a term he had never used as a title for a fugue. The term is at once a Latin acronymn representing the words Regis Iussu Cantio Et Reliqua Cononica Arte Resoluta (At the king's command, the song and the remainder resolved with cannonic art), and is also a Latin word meaning, "to search out with diligence."¹⁸ Bach wove his message to Frederick throughout his composition, using musical-rhetorical tools such as rising and sinking keys. For example, inscriptions were written to the king in the cannons, telling him in one cannon to "Seek and ye shall find" (referring to God's mercy), and indicating the fate of Enlightenment thinking in another cannon which was inscribed to represent the king's glory: though the notes would rise, it never seemed to have left its original key or to go anywhere. One could say that this "Musical Offering to Frederick represents as stark a rebuke of his beliefs and worldview as an absolute monarch has ever received,"¹⁹ and at the same time "it is one of the great works of art in the history of music."²⁰ And this is but a small taste of what was going on in art of the Baroque Period. Not just vague sentiment the artist attempted to evoke in the heart of his viewer or hearer, but a specific message using a system long developed according to observation of God's General Revelation.

Bach: Weinachts Oratorium
For this final installment of Christmas Music, we present Bach's Weinachts Oratorium. It's six parts were intended for the context of worship on three generally observed Church holidays immediately following Christmas Day: Parts 1 and 2 for the Feast of Christ's Circumcision (celebrated on January 1), Parts 3 and 4 for the Sunday following the New Year, and Parts 5 and 6 for the Feast of Epiphany. There are multiple recurring themes in Bach's Christmas Oratorio – one of which is a Lutheran lenten theme the reader may recognize from Bach's use of it in his Matthäus Passion. What does he do with this theme throughout the Oratorio? As you listen, what else do you hear?


Johann Sebastion Bach: Weinachts Oratorium
The standard recording of this piece in our household, should the reader be interested,
has become that of the Dresdner Kreuzchor, under Martin Flämig

This full recording of Bach's Weinachts Oratorium is broken into two videos, which play consecutively. It is about 2.5hrs in length.



------------
Endnotes:

1. I had planned additional installments, but illness has prevented me from getting to them – so I publish this post, even though it is no longer Christmas, but the first day of Epiphany. In fact, credit for most of the content of this post belongs to my wife, who, as an accomplished vocalist and skilled artist, knows these details better than I do. Since her interest and growing area of expertise is cultural apologetics, I asked her to help me out, giving her a few guidelines from which she produced most of the above...
   
2. Radical German Pietism, its causes and impact on orthodox Lutheranism, was briefly described in the following post on Intrepid Lutherans: Law and Gospel: What do they teach? -- Part 3.2, What Happened to the Events of the Gospel? (The Church Responds to the Enlightenment: Pietism)
   
3. Gaines, James. (2005). Evening in the Palace of Reason: Bach meets Frederick the Great in the Age of Enlightenment. New York: Fourth Estate. pg. 116.
   
4. Ibid., pg. 49.
   
5. Ibid., pp. 49-50.
   
6. Ibid., pg. 47.
   
7. Ibid., pg. 81. Note also, that numbers not only had significance in music, they had significance in Lutheran theology at the time and even today, particularly in the interpretation of prophetic books of the Bible: the numbers 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 & 12 have long been recognized as significant – Dr. Siegbert Becker's (WELS) work on Revelation, Revelation: The Distant Triumph Song, and Rev. Wayne Mueller's (WELS) follow-up commentary on Revelation for the People's Bible Commentary series, are evidence of this significance. Rev. Jack Cascione (LCMS) published a work studying the use of number in prophetical books of the Bible, entitled In Search of the Biblical Order, and the publisher of this book, Biblion Publishing, used his research in their typesetting of of the Book of Revelation that appeared in the Lutheran translation of the New Testament, God's Word to the Nations (1988), to visually, and very effectively, impress upon the reader how number was being used in the text.
   
8. Ibid., pg. 81. See also this Wikipeadia article on "'musical-rhetorical' figures," a.k.a. Musica Poetica
   
9. Intrepid Lutherans featured a piece which included a brief explanation of General Revelation or Natural Law. For more information, read Law and Gospel: What do they teach? -- Part 2, The Teaching of the Law
   
10. Gaines, James. (2005). Evening in the Palace of Reason: Bach meets Frederick the Great in the Age of Enlightenment. New York: Fourth Estate. pg. 50.
    
11. Ibid., pp. 7-8.
    
12. Ibid., pg. 8.
    
13. Ibid., pp. 117,220.
    
14. Ibid., pp. 7,8.
    
15. Ibid., pg. 11.
    
16. Ibid., pg. 9.
    
17. Ibid., pg. 226.
    
18. Taken from the liner notes of the album, Bach: Die Kunst der Fugue & Musikalisches Opfer
    
19. Gaines, James. (2005). Evening in the Palace of Reason: Bach meets Frederick the Great in the Age of Enlightenment. New York: Fourth Estate. pg. 12.
    
20. Ibid.