Take, eat . . . but not till you're old enough!

I've spent a lot of time the last few days reading and studying.  Not all that uncommon, but with a more focused agenda than usual.  I'm looking at the history of admission to the Holy Sacrament of our Lord's Body and Blood, focusing specifically on how the Church has dealt with children in this regard.  My reason for doing this is because the elders and I are seriously contemplating changing our Communion practice to allow for younger children to receive the benefits of the Sacrament.  Our current practice is consistent with what one would find in the majority of LCMS congregations, namely to withhold the Sacrament from children until after they have completed Confirmation (usually in the 8th grade - around 14 yrs. old).  That has never made much sense to me.  And, studying the history of admitting children to the Sacrament, it is clear that it wouldn't have made much sense to the vast majority of our brothers and sisters in Christ throughout the history of the Church.  When children should be admitted has met with a variety of answers, ranging from allowing infants to commune to withholding the Sacrament until children are in their mid-teens, but for the vast majority of her history, children somewhere between infancy and less than 10 yrs. old have received the Sacrament.  In short, for the vast majority of her history, the Church has heeded our Lord's words to "let the little children come to Him" (Matt. 19:14).

In doing this study, I have to confess that I find the arguments in favor of communing infants compelling, especially in light of the fact that this was the norm in the church catholic for the majority of her history (evidence of the practice first shows up in the third century and continues as the norm in both the East and the West until shortly after the thirteenth century begins when the West stopped - the East continues to commune infants to this day).  Now, before anyone freaks out, please note that I said "compelling," not "convincing."  I am one with our Lutheran fathers, who refused to condemn the practice, but couldn't adopt it, either.

What I am convinced of is that we have been wrong to withhold the Sacrament from children until they are in their mid-teens.  In fact, I would go as far as to say that we have been abusive in this regard.  We keep our children from receiving the Sacrament until they're teenagers and then try to convince them that it is the medicine of immortality they need to receive often and regularly.  We dangle the Sacrament before them as if it is a prize to be won by jumping through the hoop of Confirmation Class.  No wonder most of them get out of dodge shorty after they've "graduated" and received their "prize."

If we believe the Sacrament is what we confess it to be, and that it gives what we confess that it gives, why would we keep it from our children?  The "that's the way we've always done things" argument is never a valid argument to employ, but it's especially invalid here, since, well, it's not the way we've always done things, as history reveals quite clearly.  Most Lutherans would be surprised to learn that it's not even the way we Lutherans have always done things, either.  Our Lutheran fathers didn't put an age requirement on admission to the Sacrament.  They didn't commune infants, since they believed children needed to be instructed, examined, and absolved before going to the Lord's Table, but neither did they wait until children were in their teens.  Check out this reference from F. Bente's "Historical Introduction to the Symbolic Books" ("Symbolic Books" refers to the Book of Concord):

The tender age at which the young were held to partake of the Lord's Supper appears from Bugenhagen's preface to the Danish Edition of the Enchiridion [Catechism] of 1538, where he says "that after this confession is made, also the little children of about eight years or less should be admitted to the table of Him who says: 'Suffer the little children to come unto Me.'" (Bente, p. 82) 

What is interesting about the history of this practice during the time of the Reformation is that our Lutheran fathers were communing younger children than the Roman Catholics, who, since Lateran IV in the thirteenth century, were withholding the Sacrament from children until they were 10-12 years old (14 years old in some places).  That is interesting and ironic, since, for the most part, the reverse is true today with First Communion taking place in Rome when children are about 7 years old, but not until they are in their mid-teens (for the most part) among Lutherans.

But, things are slowly changing for us.  And that is good.  With the introduction of Lutheran Service Book, we now have a "First Communion Prior to Confirmation" rite in our Agenda.  I saw (or heard - can't remember) a stat recently that 30-35% of LCMS congregations are now practicing Early Communion.  I don't know if that's accurate or not, but there does seem to be a renewed interest about this in our synod of late.

In any event, I am ready to introduce this where I serve, which will come as no surprise to the vast majority of our members, since I've been talking about it here and there for over four years.  In fact, after a Bible Study a little while back, in which I had talked about this a bit, I was approached by a couple who indicated that they would love to see their ten-year-old daughter receiving the Sacrament.  I owe that couple a debt of thanks, since it was the conversation I had with them that motivated me to get off my butt and begin talking with the elders about this.  We're still in the process of developing the practice and figuring out how best to introduce it to the congregation, but it won't be too much longer before we make the move.

The finished product will probably look a lot like the practice of our Lutheran fathers during the Reformation.  We'll admit a child to the altar when the pastor, parents, and elders all concur that the child is prepared to receive the Sacrament.  The child will be prepared when he/she can recite the Ten Commandments, Creed, and Lord's Prayer (per Dr. Luther's admonition in the Large Catechism), expresses the desire to receive the Sacrament for the forgiveness of sins, and has been examined and absolved by the pastor.  Instruction leading to such preparation will be done by pastor and parents in consultation with one another.

What will happen to Confirmation?  Well, we'll keep that as is - two years of catechesis normally completed in 8th grade.  And, of course, the inevitable follow-up question is, "Well, why would they go through Confirmation if they're already receiving the Sacrament?"  My response:  How sad is it that we even ask that question?  By asking it, we're confirming what most of our confirmands already think, that the Sacrament is the "prize" they earn after going through Confirmation.  I say we trust our Lord, bring the little children to Him, and have faith that He will do what He promises to do.  Maybe, just maybe, their faith will be strengthened by receiving their Lord's Body and Blood and they'll come even more willingly to Confirmation than they do now.  And if they don't, well then, we'll deal with that when the time comes.  Somehow I doubt, though, that the parents of children who participate in preparing them for First Communion would allow them to skip out on Confirmation Class.  Just sayin'.

Scott Diekmann . . .

hits the nail squarely on the head in his excellent review of President Kieschnick's book.  Check it out; it is well worth the read! 

The Lunacy of Decision Theology . . .

. . . is illustrated well in this "IE Blog of the Week" post from Pr. Eric Brown over at Confessional Gadfly:

Imagine you are a soldier, lying wounded on the verge of death in an enemy prison. And then, as you are about to breathe your last, a commando breaks in, slaying the enemy guards. You flatline, and he breaks out the paddles and revives you. He quickly moves to your side, stabilizes you, tends to you until you can move, gets you up and moves you out of the installation and back to the base. Your commanding officer sees you and exclaims, "Soldier - you were left for dead! How did you get here?"

You respond - "Because I decided to come with this commando."

This is the approach of decision theology.  

It's a great illustration.  It's akin to the Biblical illustration I've used for years:  Jesus' friend, Lazarus, is dead in a tomb (four days dead; already beginning to smell dead - in other words, dead dead).  He can do nothing to come forth from that tomb.  He's dead.  And yet, he does come forth out of that tomb alive.  How?  Did he make a decision to accept Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior?  Um, no.  The dude was dead!  He was brought back to life and came out of that tomb alive by the Word Incarnate:  "Lazarus, come forth."  It's the same with us.  We're spiritually dead in sin from conception.  We're not partially dead, but dead dead.  Like Lazarus, we can do nothing to change our condition.  The only way we can be brought from death to life is by the Word of Christ (Rom. 10:17).  To claim that we decided to accept Jesus and gain eternal life through Him turns faith into a work we accomplish and is as preposterous as Lazarus telling his buddies that he made the decision to come forth from that tomb (or the soldier telling his commanding officer that he decided to come with the commando).  Decision theology, popular as it may be in our day and age, is absurd, which is why we Lutherans confess:

I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith . . . (Small Catechism - Explanation to the Third Article of the Creed).     

The Baptism of Kylie Rose

This morning, during Divine Service, Kylie Rose Stahl received the new birth of water and of the Spirit in the Sacrament of Holy Baptism.  There is nothing better than beginning the Divine Service by welcoming a new child of God into His Divine family through Holy Baptism.  Below are selections from the rite and corresponding pictures:

Kylie Rose Stahl, receive the sign of the holy cross both upon your + forehead and upon your + heart to mark you as one redeemed by Christ the crucified.

(Okay, so you can't see me making the sign of the cross upon Kylie's forehead and heart, but, trust me, that's what I'm doing - have to remember to have the parents and sponsors switch sides next time:)

Let us pray:  Almighty and eternal God, according to Your strict judgment You condemned the unbelieving world through the flood, yet according to Your great mercy You preserved believing Noah and his family, eight souls in all.  You drowned hard-hearted Pharaoh and all his host in the Red Sea, yet led Your people Israel through the water on dry ground, foreshadowing this washing of Your Holy Baptism.  Through the Baptism in the Jordan of Your beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, You sanctified and instituted all waters to be a blessed flood and a lavish washing away of sin.  

We pray that You would behold Kylie according to Your boundless mercy and bless her with true faith by the Holy Spirit, that through this saving flood all sin in her, which has been inherited from Adam and which she herself has committed since, would be drowned and die.  Grant that she be kept safe in the holy ark of the Christian Church, being separated from the multitude of unbelievers and serving Your name at all times with a fervent spirit and a joyful hope, so that, with all believers in Your promise, she would be declared worthy of eternal life; through Jesus Christ, our Lord. 

Amen.
 

Megan and Chris, is it your intention to serve Kylie as sponsors in the Christian faith?

Yes, with the help of God.

God enable you both to will and to do this faithful and loving work and with His grace fulfill what we are unable to do.  

 

Our Father, who art in heaven . . . 

Kylie Rose Stahl, I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.  

Amen.

 

 

Receive this white garment to show that you have been clothed with the robe of Christ's righteousness that covers all your sin.  So shall you stand without fear before the judgment seat of Christ to receive the inheritance prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

 

Receive this burning light to show that you have received Christ who is the Light of the world.  Live always in the light of Christ, and be ever watchful for His coming, that you may meet Him with joy and enter with Him into the marriage feast of the Lamb in His kingdom, which shall have no end.  

 

Let us pray:  Almighty and most merciful God and Father, we thank and praise You that You graciously preserve and enlarge Your family and have granted Kylie the new birth in Holy Baptism and made her a member of Your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and an heir of Your heavenly kingdom.  We humbly implore You that, as she has now become Your child, You would keep her in her baptismal grace, that according to Your good pleasure she may faithfully grow to lead a godly life to the praise and honor of Your holy name and finally, with all Your saints, obtain the promised inheritance in heaven; through Jesus Christ, our Lord.

Amen.

  

The presentation of the gifts to the sponsors:

Additional pics taken after the Service:

 

  

  

  

  

  

 

"God of Wonders" - Yeah, but Which God?

Pr. Rossow posted today about a "theological disclaimer" included on the "performers" page of the LCMS National Youth Gathering website (wouldn't it be better to just steer clear of employing non-Lutheran "performers" and, thus, avoid having to include a disclaimer - just sayin').  In the midst of the comments within that thread, someone posted a link to this song which is on the list of songs to be sung during the Gathering. It is "God of Wonders," a popular CCM song performed by Chris Tomlin, a popular CCM artist. It's a perfect example of the sort of generic, Christ-less songs being sung by Lutherans during "worship" these days.   It's a nice, "goose-bumpy" song, I suppose.  Kinda makes you want to flick your bic and hold it high in the air, much as you would do during a ballad at a rock concert.  It has that emotional appeal so many love in their "worship songs."  But, is this what we should be subjecting our youth to in the LCMS?  What about this song makes it Christian?  Couldn't a Mormon, Jew, Muslim, etc. sing this song?  Where's Jesus?  It's yet another example of what life is like in today's "not your grandfather's" Missouri Synod (you can check out the other songs on the list to be sung at the Gathering here).  I think I'll stick with Higher Things (although we won't be able to attend this year).  The last LCMS NYG I attended in 2001 is the last one I will attend until they stop filling them with heterodox performers, songs, activities, and resources.  I simply wouldn't dream of having our youth attend as things stand today (which have only gotten worse since 2001).  Kinda sad, really.  Anyway, here's the song (see if you can find anything distinctively Christian in it):   

Skunked! Ugh!

We've lived in the country for almost five years now and have been fortunate not to have any skunks or raccoons inhabit our property.  That fortune has ended.  This past week, a skunk decided to move in.  He made his presence known by first spraying our oldest cat.  That wasn't so bad - Kiki, the cat, obviously avoided the worst of the spray and didn't smell up the house too bad.  Then, Tony, our dog, who is not the brightest bulb in the tanning bed, if you get my drift, went after the skunk full bore, as is his custom, the other night and got it bad - BAD!  Like, right smack dab in the face bad.  The smell is just starting to dissipate today, after God knows how many baths my wife gave the mutt and how many scrub downs she gave the house.  We haven't seen or smelled the skunk in the last couple of days, and the only signs my son, Aaron, and I could find when we went scouting our property earlier was some hair along with at least two-day-old droppings, so maybe Peppy has moved on.  But, I have my .22 at the ready, just in case, 'cause one thing I know for sure is that Tony lacks the will power to resist going after the skunk and will most definitely get it right in the face again if he gets the chance.  You would think that after all he's been through, he would avoid the skunk like the plague - but, as I said, he ain't the brightest bulb in the tanning bed. :)       

Far more Lutheran? Really?

I received an anonymous email a few days ago regarding my last post titled, "Envied Unity."  Here is the email in its entirety (I simply copied and pasted the exact contents of the email):

Dear Pastor Messer,
You are wrong about President Kieschnick.  He is FAR MORE LUTHERAN than you and all other nasty "confessionals" who think that everything has to be done in exactly your way.  True Lutheranism is all about the Gospel and the Gospel ALONE!  That's what President Kieschnick is about - THE GOSPEL!  You know, the GOOD NEWS ABOUT JESUS!!  What are YOU about?  Making sure everyone has the kind of liturgical worship YOU prefer?  That is NOT Lutheran!  Haven't you studied Lutheran history?  Martin Luther rebelled against the idea of liturgical uniformity.  He introduced new forms of worship that spoke to the culture of his day.  He used popular music that people enjoyed and understood.  He would be ashamed of those, like you, who want to make everyone worship in the same way, with the same old liturgical forms, as if those who actually FOLLOW IN HIS FOOTSTEPS and make worship contemporary and enjoyable are wrong.  YOU are wrong, not those who make worship contemporary and enjoyable.  YOU are not following in Luther's steps, THEY ARE!  President Kieschnick understands this because he is the TRUE Lutheran!  And I pray that he will be re-elected this summer so that our synod can continue to follow his LUTHERAN leadership.  You should be ashamed of yourself for your personal attacks against this GOOD MAN and TRUE LUTHERAN!  Don't you "confessionals" have better things to do with your time than to live on the internet and spew forth your hatred?  While you spend your time doing that, President Kieschnick and those TRUE LUTHERANS like him are out there sharing their faith with the lost, doing WHATEVER IT TAKES to win people for Jesus!  What are YOU doing?  Maybe you should think about that and pray for the Lord to forgive you for spreading lies about TRUE SERVANTS OF GOD like President Kieschnick!!!

That's it.  No signature.  No name.  No identifiable email address (three letters, four numbers @ yahoo.com).  I sent a response to whoever this person is, but have not heard back.  I guess he/she said his/her piece and that's that.  Fine.

But, since this person stumbled onto my blog and had this reaction, I feel compelled to respond to a few things, just in case there are others who feel similarly.

First of all, as someone who has studied Luther pretty extensively (I'm one of those geeks who has actually read nearly every word in the American Edition of Luther's Works), I am extremely confident that he would be none too happy about what's passing itself off as "Lutheran" in many places within our synod today.  The idea that the renovations to the liturgy made by Luther in the 16th century are equivalent to those pastors and congregations today who abolish the Mass (Divine Service) and replace it with a "contemporary praise service" (or, "worship experience"), replete with "praise songs" which promote doctrines contrary to our Lutheran doctrines, is, well, simply, and most assuredly, absurd.  This is a myth - a popular myth, to be sure, but a myth nonetheless.  Luther was quite liturgical and very serious about retaining a true theology of worship in the Mass.  And, as for music in the Church, Luther was extremely careful about defining what was, and was not, acceptable during Mass.  He would have never allowed the kind of "happy-clappy, get-down-with-Jesus" stuff being sung in Lutheran churches today.  No way!  Give this short CTQ article by Rev. Daniel Reuning a read.  It's an oldie, but goodie, and dispels the myth that Luther would be down with the popular music being used in many places today.   

Secondly, I agree with this person that President Kieschnick promotes the idea that it is perfectly Lutheran to do whatever it takes to make worship contemporary and enjoyable.  That's kinda my point.  That idea ain't Lutheran.  Never has been.  Never will be.  True Lutherans do not adopt the "whatever it takes" philosophy.  True Lutherans believe, teach, and confess that our Lord has revealed to us the exact means by which people are brought to, and sustained in, the faith, namely His Holy Word and Sacraments.  Thus, true Lutherans are not wont to search for "whatever" new fad or gimmick might work in reaching people for Christ.  True Lutherans are content with the means their Lord has instituted.

Thirdly, I do not get to define Lutheranism as I see fit.  Neither do you.  We have a book which defines Lutheranism for us.  It's called the Book of Concord and contains our Lutheran Confessions, to which true Lutherans subscribe unconditionally, because they believe that these Confessions are a true exposition of the doctrines taught in Holy Scripture.  Thus, there cannot be different "kinds" of Lutheranism.  This idea that we can have different "versions" of Lutheranism which are all legitimately Lutheran is a product of post-modernism, which posits that people can define truth as they see fit, and that even if their truth-claim directly contradicts another's truth-claim, both truth-claims can coexist as equally true.  This worldview is incompatible with Christianity, where truth is truth and falsehood is falsehood.  Further, you are not a true Lutheran simply because you say you are, even as you are not a true Christian simply because you say you are.  You are a true Lutheran if you believe, teach, and confess what is contained in the Lutheran Confessions, which define Lutheranism.  Believing, teaching, and confessing means more than simply saying, "I'm a Lutheran."  As our Lord says, "You will know them by their fruits."  True Lutherans are recognizable not only by what they claim to believe, teach, and confess, but also by how they put what they claim into practice.  It is quite impossible, no matter how popular the idea may be today, to be truly Lutheran while testifying publicly with your practice like a Methobapticostal.  You simply can't be Lutheran and worship (or evangelize, or develop programs, etc.) like a non-Lutheran.  And, again, just to be clear, you and I don't get to decide what is or is not Lutheran - that's already been decided for us.

Fourthly, by commenting upon President Kieschnick's book or his actions as president of our synod, I am not attacking the man personally.  My conclusions about his book and about his actions are objectively based on whether or not they jive with what Lutherans believe, teach, and confess, as defined, again, by our Lutheran Confessions.  It is not personal.  I don't hate President Kieschnick.  I don't wish him ill.  On the contrary, as a brother in Christ, I love him and wish him well.  I pray for him privately and corporately.  I believe he is a Christian.  I believe he has a passion to spread the Gospel and reach the lost.  I also think he is a talented speaker and that he honestly believes that he is leading our synod in a faithful direction.  I will even go so far as to say that I believe he is a conservative Christian, and I appreciate that much of what he believes is in concord with what I believe.  And, I commend him for many social statements he has produced from his official capacity as our synodical president.

With all that said, I do not believe that his public testimony is in line with what Lutherans believe, teach, and confess.  President Kieschnick believes that we can remain Lutheran while practicing like those whose doctrines contradict ours.  I don't believe that, because I don't believe that our Lutheran Confessions allow for such.  President Kieschnick has enthusiastically endorsed those "Lutherans" in our midst who believe it is necessary for us to adopt the principles of the "church growth movement," and has a long track record of putting these "Lutheran" pastors and congregations before us as "perfect examples" to follow.  Having studied the classic and modern texts of the "church growth movement," and having spent countless hours in consultation with an LCMS pastor who earned a degree in "church growth" from Fuller Theological Seminary, and having witnessed that same congregation undergo a stunning transformation following the new vision of this pastor, I am convinced, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the "church growth movement" principles are wholly incompatible with Lutheranism, and that adoption of them by Lutherans, no matter how hard they may try to "Lutheranize" them, inevitably results in an abandonment of true Lutheranism.  But, this is a moot point anyway, since President Kieschnick has consistently publicly promoted and endorsed pastors and congregations in our synod who do not even try to "Lutheranize" these non-Lutheran principles.  Insofar as he has done so, and continues to do so, he has shown himself to be no friend to true Lutheranism.

Fifthly, this idea promoted so often in the blogosphere that we "nasty confessionals" are demanding some sort of "liturgical uniformity" which requires everyone to do everything exactly the same way, with no variations whatsoever, is a big, fat, juicy red herring.  I don't know a single pastor who would be identified by others as a "nasty confessional" who promotes such nonsense.  There is quite a difference between demanding that Lutherans worship like Lutherans and demanding that Lutherans must dot every liturgical "i" and cross every liturgical "t" in the same exact manner.  True Lutherans recognize that there is great freedom in the way in which the liturgy is conducted, but that that freedom is not limitless, and that when that freedom goes beyond the pale of our theology of worship by employing practices which contradict our doctrines, it has ceased being Lutheran.  I've stressed this many times here and in other places, as have numerous others.  Those who continue to misrepresent our position either a) have not listened or b) do so purposely to avoid having to engage in a substantive discussion.    

Sixthly, yes, I do have better things to do with my time than to sit on the internet all day.  I have a flock to tend, sermons to write, bulletins to create (or proof), shut-in and hospitalized members to visit, Bible Studies to prepare, meetings to attend, a wife and four children to spend time with, sporting events and choir concerts to attend, newsletters to edit, phone calls to make and receive, follow-ups on visitors to make, Confirmation classes to teach, books to read, TV to watch (mostly sports, but I do so enjoy a good movie now and then and don't like to miss an episode of "The Office"), family to stay in contact with as time permits, and so much more.  All of which is why I am not able to post things here on my blog or on the blogs (or forums) of others very often.  Is it okay if I do post my thoughts from time to time, as I am able, though, without being falsely accused of "living" on the internet?  Good grief!

Seventhly, I admit that I am not doing "whatever it takes to win people for Jesus."  What I am doing is preaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments, baptizing and catechizing, hearing confessions and pronouncing absolution in Christ's stead and by His command.  Oh, and I do my best to confess my faith to others when given the chance, even as I teach the flock committed to my care to do the same.  All of this (along with the other things mentioned in the previous paragraph) keeps me pretty busy.  And, last I checked, these are the things I've been called and ordained to do.  

Lastly, if President Kieschnick is "far more Lutheran" than myself (or other "nasty confessionals," like me), how in the world could he possibly promote the congregation depicted in the videos below as a "perfect example" to follow?  I know it seems like I'm picking on "LakePointe," but this is a congregation which President Kieschnick promoted as a "perfect example" to follow in a letter he wrote to all LCMS pastors over a year ago, and this congregation has made synodical news on a few occasions since then.  I have yet to hear President Kieschnick retract his statements about this congregation, so I assume he still feels strongly that this congregation is not only acceptably Lutheran, but that it is a "perfect example."  Indeed, "LakePointe" fits well with the vision President Kieschnick has for the direction he believes our synod must go, embracing the "whatever it takes" philosophy to win people for Jesus.  As I said above, that ain't Lutheran.  You can judge for yourself - but, remember, your judgment must be based on our Lutheran Confessions, since you and I don't get to define Lutheranism as we see fit.  I am thoroughly convinced that if you put this congregation to the test against our Lutheran Confessions, you cannot possibly conclude that it is Lutheran.  But, President Kieschnick does, and so I rest my case (at least, for now).    

Envied Unity?

In his book, LCMS President Gerald Kieschnick repeatedly promotes the idea that a) the LCMS is united in doctrine and b) that the unity our synod enjoys is the envy of many other Christian church bodies.  Here are a few quotes I found just glancing back through the book for about five minutes:

"The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod enjoys a doctrinal unity that is the envy of many Christian churches in the world today" (p. 22).

"What the LCMS believes, teaches, and confesses is what makes this church body the giant that it is.  Giants are big and strong, able to conquer enemies that threaten their existence and way of life" (p. 28).

"We in the LCMS simply are not arguing or even debating the major doctrines of the Christian faith so much in contention in other parts of Christendom.  We are undeniably blessed with a God-given unity and harmony in confession that is unparalleled among the major denominational church bodies in the world today" (p. 31).

"We have so much more that unites us than divides us!" (p. 36).

"Out of a deep and abiding concern for the health and vitality of our Synod, I remind the reader that while we certainly have had and continue to have an abundance of difficulties and disagreements, we are undeniably blessed with God-given unity and harmony in many, many ways" (p. 88).

"In many ways, our system of higher education is second to none and is the envy of many Christian church bodies" (p. 101).

This is nothing new for Pres. Kieschnick.  It has been his standard operating procedure throughout his tenure as LCMS President to promote the idea that we are blissfully united in the fundamental (core, essential, important, or whatever other terms he uses) doctrines and the envy of others because of that unity.  It is very obvious that he belongs to the school of thought which believes that doctrinal unity can be maintained even when contradictory practices are employed by pastors and congregations.  But, this is quite impossible, since, well, practice is nothing more than doctrine in action.

If I tell my wife that I love her and that I'm devoted only to her, but then go out and sleep with other women, are we still blissfully united?  Do the vows we made to each other trump my infidelity and maintain the unity of our marriage?  When she finds out about my unfaithfulness, can I pull out the marriage certificate, point to it and say, "But, honey, look, we're united!"?  Or, maybe I could use the old standby:  "But, honey, those other women didn't mean anything.  You're the only one I love."  Would that work?  Would my wife say to me, "Oh, it's okay dear, I know I'm the one you truly love.  Our unity can't be damaged by your infidelity"?     

That may seem a silly analogy, but it's actually quite fitting.  By continuously promoting the idea that we are blissfully united, Pres. Kieschnick is really saying that it's okay for pastors and congregations in our synod to sleep around and cheat on us by borrowing, or outright adopting, the practices of those whose doctrines contradict ours.  After all, those "cheaters" made vows to remain faithful to us.  They even have ordination certificates and congregational constitutions which prove that they made those vows.  It doesn't matter that they cheated on us.  Those other "women" didn't really mean anything, after all.  They still love us.  Just ask them.  They'll tell you that they love Lutheranism.  And, that is enough for Pres. Kieschnick and company, who believe that our unity cannot be damaged by their infidelity.

As absurd as that sounds, it gets worse.  It's not just that Pres. Kieschnick and company believe that our unity cannot be damaged by the infidelity of those who vowed to be faithful to us, it is that they promote the idea that those of us who are upset by the fact that we have been cheated on pose the real threat to our blissful unity.  If we would but learn to accept these "cheaters" and love them for who they are, rather than pester them about their unfaithfulness, all would be well.  We're the problem, not them.  We're the ones who threaten to fracture our unity, not them.  We should learn to live and let live, agree to disagree.  We should worry about ourselves and not others.  It should be enough to hear from these "cheaters" that they love us.  We should believe them.  They have the dang papers to show us, after all.

Can you imagine telling a wife whose husband has cheated, and continues to cheat, on her to learn to live and let live and agree to disagree?  Can you imagine telling her to learn to accept her husband and love him for who he is, rather than pester him about his unfaithfulness.  Can you imagine telling her that she is the one who poses a threat to the unity of her marriage for getting riled up about her husband's infidelity?  The guy said his vows, after all.  He still says he loves her.  That should be enough.  Get over it, woman!

And, by the way, who in the world would envy such a marriage?  This idea that our synod is the envy of many other church bodies because of our doctrinal "unity" is more than a little presumptuous.  Even if it is true, and I'm not convinced that it is, how prudent is it to point it out time and time again?  Every time I hear our President state how envied we are by others, I just cringe.  If others envy us, so what?  Shut up about it, already.  Telling everyone how envied we are makes him sound like a vain, pompous ass, puffed up with pride.  I once had a family member who was going through problems in her marriage tell me that she envied my marriage.  I didn't go around telling everyone that my marriage was the envy of others.  How absurd!

Besides, the only way others could possibly envy our synod is if they were blissfully ignorant as to the struggles we endure and the divisions we have within.  They must be looking solely at what we claim to believe, teach, and confess on paper.  As far as that goes, I would understand them envying us, since I am convinced that what we believe, teach, and confess on paper is the truth.  But, if they truly knew what was happening among us, I doubt very seriously that they would envy us.  But, again, even if they did, why would we flaunt it?  To do so is, as I said, absurd.

And lest anyone think I'm all wet in saying all this, just listen to Pres. Kieschnick as he concludes his book.  You'll need to go here and read the poem by Robert Frost, titled "The Woodpile," first.  Go ahead.  I'll wait. 

Good, now that you've read that, here are Pres. Kieschnick's concluding words:

The woodpile, one might say, is The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod.  Compared with many church bodies, it is big and impressive.  It is more than 160 years old - seasoned and ready.  It is full of potential to bring the light and warmth of Jesus Christ to a cold, gloomy, sin-filled world.  And yet, too often, ignition that could lead to a roaring blaze is doused by our own hand.  We pour water on our own wood.  We pour water on one another's fires because we don't like the way our brother is going about building and burning his.  It's not exactly how we would do it, and so for some reason it isn't right.  We meddle in so many other fires that we fail to tend to our own.

And so our woodpile sits, in Frost's words,
To warm the frozen swamp as best it could
With the slow, smokeless burning of decay.

The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod is not about "the slow, smokeless burning of decay."  Our history, our present, and our future are too vital and too promising for that.  I am convinced, brothers and sisters in Christ, that we can keep our cord of wood - namely, our doctrine and practice - neatly stacked, perfectly tidy, carefully arranged, and ready to be used for the purpose for which a stack of wood is intended - not "to warm the frozen swamp . . . with the slow, smokeless burning of decay," but with the light and warmth and energy provided by a roaring fire.  I firmly believe we can do all that and yet be supportive of one another in the various and creative ways we seek, and sometimes need, to use our stack of wood to warm and light a cold, dark world.  And when honest disagreements arise, whether over doctrine or practice or style or methods, I am convinced that we can learn to deal with those disagreements in love and trust, rather than letting them fester into major squabbles that embarrass the church and stymie our proclamation of the Gospel.

When the day comes that we are able to do that, and I believe it is not only coming but has already begun, the sleeping giant will rise.  He will gather up logs in his powerful arms and feed them into many fires.  And we, the children of the Light, the people of the church who collectively are that giant, will carry our torches like lamps throughout the world.  For that is what the God of the universe has called us to be.  And that is what He has called us to do, by the power of His grace, in His most holy name.

In closing, I share with you these words of St. Paul that appear in a number of places in this book, but which cannot be overemphasized in our midst (Ephesians 3:14-19; 4:1-6 is quoted).  To this God alone be the glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord! (pp. 196-197)

Notice the prescription for waking "the sleeping giant" (i.e. the LCMS).  It is not to remain faithful to Holy Scripture and our Lutheran Confessions.  It is not to see to it that our doctrine and practice remain pure and undefiled (Sorry, St. Paul.  Your repeated advice to Sts. Timothy and Titus about maintaining sound doctrine in the pastoral letters just ain't relevant anymore.  The world has changed, after all.  We need to meet people where they are and if that means sacrificing a little purity of doctrine, so be it.)  It is, rather, to learn how to disagree agreeably.  It is to stop pouring water on the fires of others just because they do things differently.  It is to refrain from questioning, but learn to be supportive of, the various and creative ways others seek, and sometimes need, to use their stack of wood (i.e. doctrine and practice).  Live and let live.  Agree to disagree.  If we can learn to do that, the "sleeping giant" will rise and conquer the world for Christ!  The only thing that stands in our way is the pesky and embarrassing squabbling brought on by those concerned with "incessant, internal purification."  We simply don't have time for that nonsense.  Besides, it makes us look bad.  I mean, gee golly willickers, we all believe in the important stuff!  Other Christians envy our unity, for Pete's sake!  But, they laugh at us for arguing over the less important stuff, like how we worship, who is permitted to our altars, to what degree we allow women to serve, where we draw the line on participating with other Christians or religions, the proper relationship between the Office of the Holy Ministry and the priesthood of all believers, and so on.  Our agreement, our unity, on the really important stuff should trump our disunity on this stuff.  Besides, our "covenants of love" (synodical resolutions, CCM and CTCR statements, etc.) tell us how we must live together regarding this stuff, and we'll be coming out with more "covenants of love" soon that will further define how we live together regarding this lesser stuff.  We should love and trust one another, agreeing to abide by the decisions our brothers and sisters make about this less important stuff.  So what if the vote only gets 51%, we should abide by the decisions made and quit all this bickering, which makes us an embarrassment and hinders our mission.  When we're able to do that - when we're able to live and let live; when we're able to agree to disagree; when we're able to ignore the un-Lutheran practices of others in our fellowship and learn to simply trust that they still love Lutheranism and are just being creative in their practices; when we're able to focus solely on the unity we share on the essentials and stop focusing on the non-essentials - then we'll be the giant we're meant to be! 

The problem with all this, of course, is that we're not called to be the giant Pres. Kieschnick envisions.  We're called, instead, to be faithful.  We're called to be the remnant.  We're called to follow the narrow way, not the broad way that leads to destruction.  This way is not the easy path of compromise, but the difficult path of steadfastness.  This way does not promise earthly success.  It does not promise earthly popularity and prosperity.  This way leads to being hated by the world and by those who have been willing to compromise with the world.  This is the way of the cross.  It is not easy.  It is painful.  It cuts against the grain.  It promises no earthly reward, but stores up an eternal reward in heaven.  And, it is not an embarrassment to Christ's Church to insist upon following this way and to call those to repentance who have veered off the path.  It is not a detriment to the Gospel or a hindrance to the mission of Christ's Church to be about the business of maintaining sound doctrine and practice, even though doing so will bring persecution from those who see it as a waste of time.  It is what we are called to do.

Our Lutheran forefathers understood this.  Pres. Kieschnick doesn't.  He has proven that in many and various ways throughout his tenure as LCMS President, but no more so than with the publication of his book.  He has stated in public that he is no theologian, and he makes that vividly clear in his book.  He also makes clear that he is no true Lutheran.  I know that sounds uncharitable and unloving.  I'm sure some would say to me, "Methinks thou doth protest too much."  But, it's true.  True, confessional Lutheranism is simply lost on Pres. Kieschnick.  He just doesn't get it, and I'm sure this has much to do with him listening to non-Lutheran "church consultants" and other pretend Lutherans in our midst, like the self-proclaimed "Church Doctor" and foremost "church growth movement" advocate in our synod, Kent Hunter, among others.  He has bought into the lie that Lutheranism can compromise with the false doctrines of others, and still retain its truth; the lie that Lutheran substance is not sacrificed by adopting and employing "evangelical" style; the lie that Lutherans are nothing more than Fundamentalists who use wine in Communion; the lie that unity is established by agreeing to a minimalistic set of core beliefs; the lie that the so-called Great Commission is the article of Christian faith upon with the Christian Church stands or falls; the lie that it is sectarian to be about the business of maintaining sound doctrine and practice; the lie that "incessant, internal purification" shows a lack of love for the lost; the lie that theology is done by citing our "covenants of love" and then finding a Scripture passage in supposed support of them, rather than beginning with Holy Scripture as true Lutherans do; the lie that it is OUR job, OUR mission, OUR duty to save lost souls; the lie that the means of grace instituted by our Lord, His Holy Word and Sacraments, are simply not enough and need to be supplemented by OUR creativity, vision, and ingenuity; the lie that the world has changed so much that the Church is required to change with it or die; the lie that the surrounding culture should determine how the Church functions; the lie that the ends justify the means; the lie that the 8th Commandment forbids criticism of any kind; the lie that the Institution should be protected at all costs, even if by dishonest means; the lie of "LCMS Exceptionalism," spoken of by Pr. Todd Wilken a few weeks back; and so forth.

In fact, borrowing from Wyneken again, I would say about Pres. Kieschnick's book and about his tenure as LCMS President:  I don't know if it was from God or the devil, but it certainly wasn't Lutheran.   

I hate it when . . .

my stupid tonsils mess with my plans.  I had my whole day laid out today.  I was looking forward to Winkel at my friend and brother Pr. Larry Wright's place in the morning.  Plus, I really wanted to give Pr. Jon Bakker the opportunity to rub in his country's victory in hockey. :)  After Winkel, lunch.  Then, on the way home, I was going to stop and visit Connie in Mt. Pleasant, make my way back to Alma to visit a few of our other shut-ins, come home and get ready for tonight's Council meeting.  But, no.  I woke up with flared-up tonsils.  I have to find a doctor who is willing to yank these things out!  They're huge and they flare up far too often, especially, it seems, when the weather changes.  When they flare up, it's miserable - very sore and hard to swallow.  But, more than that, it's annoying.  I have begged three different doctors over the years to take them out, but they have been unwilling, since they don't like to do it for adults and they don't think my case is severe enough, since my flare-ups usually don't last very long.  Maybe they're right - I'm sure they are.  But, it's still annoying and I can't help but wonder what life would be like without these stupid things in my throat.  Anyway, enough whining.  Tomorrow's a new day and hopefully I'll be able to get some of the things I had planned for today done then, but it won't allow me to attend the Winkel I was looking forward to attending.  My throat already feels a million times better this afternoon than it did this morning.  That's how it usually goes - they flare up and settle back down within a day or two.  If it lasts longer than that, I know acute tonsilitis has set in and it's time for a round of amoxicillin.  It doesn't seem like that will be the case this time, since they've already started to settle back down, so I'm thankful about that.  I'm just bummed about missing Winkel AGAIN.  This is the third in a row I've missed (was in court in January, playing catch-up from just returning from our cruise in February, and then today).  Ugh!     

" . . . but it certainly wasn't Lutheran."

Here is a clip of Rev. Matthew Harrison sharing a funny Wyneken anecdote during a presentation he made this past weekend in Columbus, Indiana (HT:  Mollie Hemingway at BJS):



A group of us from our congregation had the privilege of listening to Rev. Harrison speak a few months back at a neighboring congregation, St. John-Amelith, during which he shared this same Wyneken anecdote.  Wyneken thought he was at a Prayer Service among German Lutherans, but after witnessing the moaning and groaning of the congregation, supposedly evidencing their "being slain in the Spirit," he knew he was not at home.  So, when asked for his thoughts after the Service, he concludes, "I don't know if it was from God or the devil, but it certainly wasn't Lutheran."

Sadly, I am quite certain that Wyneken, and the rest of our Lutheran forebears, would reach the same conclusion after visiting many congregations in the LCMS today.  During the Second Great Awakening, the "Holiness Bodies," which originated in Methodism, introduced "new measures" which were meant to work the crowd into a frenzy in order that some might "feel" the Spirit and make a decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior."  They held revivals and camp meetings and employed powerful speakers and emotional songs and prayers that resulted in many people behaving in rather strange ways - barking, groaning, moaning, running, climbing walls (or trees), screaming, falling down, singing, etc. - which were said to be evidences of these people being "slain in the Spirit."  They introduced the "anxious bench," which was a seat near the preacher (or, preachers - often, multiple preachers were employed at the same time) in which those who were troubled in conscience and sought salvation would sit and be further enticed to "experience" the salvation they sought (an early form of today's popular "altar call" in many places).  In short, the "new measures" introduced at that time sought to convince people that they could "experience" God's presence immediately and that the proof of such experiences was to be found in the "evidences" of their emotional reactions/behaviors.  They worked the crowd into a frenzy, getting them to respond emotionally, and then told them that their emotional responses were proof that they were experiencing the work of the Spirit.   

Many congregations in the LCMS have adopted the theology behind the "new measures" of old.  They may not have people barking or running around during their Services, and they may not have an "anxious bench" set up, but they employ the same false theology:  They attempt to create an atmosphere for worship in which people can "experience" God's work among them.  They turn the Divine Service into a "worship experience," during which they seek to entertain people and move them emotionally through CCM songs performed by the "praise band," motivational messages delivered by the pastor (er, worship leader), skits performed by the "drama team," videos played on the big screens, testimonies by people in the crowd, and so on, all with the goal of leading people to "experience" God in a relevant and relational way.

As someone who witnessed an LCMS congregation morph into full-blown Pentecostalism back in the late 80s-early 90s, I know for a fact that the goal was to produce a "worship experience" that would move people emotionally so that they could "feel" the presence of God at work among them.  "How can we get the people to feel the Spirit today?" was the question asked by members of the "worship team."  Others were, "What songs can we employ this week to move the people?" or "How can the drama team assist in helping people to truly experience the Spirit this week?" and so on.  One woman, who was appointed by the pastor to be the chief "Prayer Warrior" of the congregation, and who did the vast majority of his pastoral visits in his place (after all, he couldn't be bothered with that stuff - he was the Administrative Pastor and his job was to "equip the saints to do the ministry" in his place), was often heard saying, "Isn't it great that we no longer have to go to a Pentecostal worship service to feel the Spirit?!"  While there were a few of us that didn't think that was great at all, most agreed with her and fell completely in love with the "new measures" being employed in that congregation.  To this day, that congregation continues to employ their "new measures."  If Wyneken was alive today and visited that congregation, I'm sure he would say, "I don't know if it was from God or the devil, but it certainly wasn't Lutheran."

The amazing thing for these eyes to witness is to see how quickly and to what extent these "new measures" have spread within our synod.  Back when my former congregation was morphing into full-blown Pentecostalism, it really was seen as cutting edge.  There were not a whole lot of LCMS congregations that had jumped on the bandwagon of these "new measures" (which, really, are a strange combination of the "new measures" of old mixed with the principles of the "Church Growth Movement").  Indeed, as members of that congregation, we were told to keep things "hush-hush" (I think I've written about this before on this blog somewhere), since we were doing things not exactly in line with the doctrine and practice believed, taught, and confessed by our Synod.  But, look at things now, just twenty or so years later.  Wow!  The "new measures" are everywhere.  They are even endorsed and promoted by our synodical leaders.  Far from having to keep hush-hush about employing these "new measures," congregations and pastors who adopt them are put before us as "perfect examples" to follow.  In fact, in the eyes of our current synodical leadership, pastors and congregations who refuse to adopt these "new measures" are seen in a derogatory light, as dead and dying, "maintenance" congregations, the idea being that if we want to avoid closing our doors, we had better get on board and accept these "new measures."  They'll even give us Ablaze!(tm) money if we'll agree to adopt these "new measures" and morph into this "new and improved" Lutherpentecostalism, which is really nothing but full-blown Pentecostalism (or, at least, Methobapticostalism).  While congregations in our synod were just beginning to dabble with these "new measures" twenty or so years ago (granted, some began to dabble long before that), today these "new measures" have become a staple within our synod.  I don't know if it is from God or the devil, but it certainly isn't Lutheran.

The only way to right the ship of our synod, if that's even possible now, is to deliberately and decisively put these "new measures" to the test against Holy Scripture and our Lutheran Confessions.  Rather than organizing worship convocations which seek to work "toward a theology of worship," we need to analyze the "new measures" against the theology of worship we already claim to believe, teach, and confess.  And the only possibility of having such occur is to elect leaders in our synod who will do their best to see to it that we have the kind of deliberate and decisive discussions we need to have, recognizing the deep division among us, and analyzing the practices within our synod against Scripture and our Confessions.  The man in the video above has developed a plan to do just that.  "It's Time!"

And if the delegates to this year's National Convention decide to follow the advice of the new slogan adopted by "Jesus First" to "Keep the Mission Moving" in the same direction, under the same leadership, which embraces the "new measures" and unflinchingly uses terms like "worship experience," "blessed diversity," "leading congregations," "critical events," and "worship contacts," while developing "programs" (or, "movements") which are replete with un-Lutheran theology, such as "Ablaze!(tm)" and "Transforming Churches Network," and puts before us as "perfect examples" congregations such as the one depicted in the video below, well, then, maybe it'll be time to admit that the ship has been damaged beyond repair and the best thing to do is get off before it sinks completely.  'Cause if these "new measures" continue to flourish within our synod, what Wyneken said of the German Methodist Prayer Service he attended will be true of the LCMS:  "I don't know if it is from God or the devil, but it certainly isn't Lutheran."       

Congrats, Team Canada

 

I began playing hockey at the age of 4 and continued to play until I was almost 30.  I'd still play today if I wasn't so out of shape.  I love the game.  There is nothing like it.  But, one thing I learned very early on about hockey is that the team that plays the best on any given day doesn't always win.  I suppose that's true in most sports, but there seems to be an added element to it with hockey.  I've watched the Red Wings completely demolish their opponents only to lose on many occasions.  That's hockey.  And, I saw a little bit of that play out today in the gold medal game between the Americans and Canadians.

The Canadians came into this tournament with the best team on paper - by far.  But, they weren't the best team in the tournament.  The Americans were.  And, even today, as the two teams battled for the big prize, the Americans were better.  But, they lost.  That's hockey.

I don't say that as a bitter fan whose team lost the game.  And, I certainly don't want to belittle the Canadian squad.  They played well.  For spurts during the game, they were better.  They were opportunistic, capitalizing on a couple of American mishaps to get out to a 2-0 lead.  But, the Americans took it to them for the majority of the game, and I was very impressed with that.  They have no reason to hang their heads.  They outplayed a team much better on paper.  They looked a lot hungrier and seemed to want it much more.  But, they lost.  That's hockey.   

I was really quite stunned at how the Canadians played the third period.  After coming out flying for the first five minutes, hitting the post on a couple of occasions, they fell back and played "not to lose" for the remainder of the period.  While I was thrilled to see this as an American fan, I was disappointed to see it as a hockey fan in general.  When you have the most talented team in the world and you're playing for the gold medal in front of your home fans with a lead, you go for the kill.  I'm not saying that you completely open things up.  Play smart.  Be responsible.  But, don't resort to the boring, trap-style, defensive game of the old, boring Florida Panthers.  It's just depressing to see a bunch of all-stars playing like they're from Germany - dumping the puck, sending one man in, and falling back to wait at their blue line.  I would have thought they would have learned their lesson against the Slovakians, but they didn't.  They made the same mistake, only this time it cost them.  It should have cost them a lot earlier than it did.  They were fortunate that the Americans were not able to tie things up until 24 seconds left.  What was Babcock and company thinking, anyway?  Just stupid.

But, they survived and lived to play for overtime, where the Canadians were definitely the better team.  Of course, this had a lot to do with the ridiculously stupid format of playing 4-on-4 for 20 minutes.  When you have the more talented team, you're going to have a much bigger edge in this format than in 5-on-5.  And, that showed in this game.  The Americans hung for as long as they could.  But, they were outmatched in this format and unable to muster much pressure at all.  4-on-4 is fine for a 5-minute overtime, as in the NHL.  It's even okay, though not preferable, for 10-minute overtimes in the earlier rounds of International tournaments like this one.  But, when you're playing for the gold medal?  Stupid.  Let the dang teams play.  In the NHL, when you reach the playoffs, the 4-on-4 and shootout formats are dropped, which is as it should be.  If you're better than the other team, then prove it by beating them while both teams are at full strength.  Play until someone scores and wins.  I detest this 4-on-4 and shootout nonsense in International play.  I have ever since they adopted it.

None of this is to say that the Americans would have won had they played real hockey in overtime, just that the game would have been decided by playing REAL hockey, with both teams at full strength.  And, anyone who knows hockey knew that the Canadians would have the edge going into overtime with this stupid format.  Hey, why not just play 3-on-3?  I'm sure some knucklehead in a suit who had to have his dad tie his hockey skates until he was a Bantam has already thought of that.  I swear, as much as I love the game, I'll stop watching it if they ever do that.  In fact, if they ever start playing 4-on-4 in playoff overtimes in the NHL, that will be it for me, too.  The NHL Competition Committee was actually just one vote away from changing the overtime playoff rules just last year.  The new rule would have resulted in the teams playing a 20-minute, 5-on-5 period to begin overtime, but then going to 4-on-4 if additional periods were needed to decide the game.  I'm glad it got voted down, but it wouldn't surprise me to see it get passed sometime in the near future.  And, if and when it does, as I said, I'll be done as a fan of the NHL.  There is nothing in all of sports that compares with the excitement of overtime hockey - stop messing with it in a silly attempt to "improve the game."

But, enough of that.  I don't want to sound like a sore loser, after all - oops, probably too late for that, huh? :)  Seriously, I am happy for the Canadians.  I'm glad Crosby scored the winner.  He is one of the best players in the game today and a lot of fun to watch.  And, I've always been a fan of Iginla, who paid the price to make the play and give "Sid the Kid" the opportunity to beat Miller for the win.  It was great to see the joy on Stevie Y's face, and, indeed, on the faces of all the Canadian fans, who love the great game of hockey and live and die with their team.  I'm happy for them all.  Heck, with my great love of hockey, I've always thought of myself as a Canadian at heart. :)  Of course, I would have much preferred for the Americans to beat them, since the only thing better than seeing the Canadians win is to see them lose to us. :)  And the Americans played well enough to beat them today.  But, it wasn't meant to be.  Oh well.  That's hockey - although not exactly REAL hockey, but, again, I digress! :)  What can I say?  I'm a purist.  Changing the rules for overtime to "add excitement" to the game is a bit like removing the altar to make room for the "praise band."  Far from adding excitement, it takes away from the purity of the game - on both counts, if you get my drift. :)

Oh, by the way:  Congrats, Team Canada! :)        

U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! - One More, Fellas!

So, it has happened.  It has played out as I hoped.  The Americans and Canadians will meet in the Gold Medal game tomorrow afternoon, a re-match of their earlier meeting in the prelims.  I have been very impressed with the play of our boys.  They played a great, smart, and responsible game against the Swiss in the quarterfinals, carrying the play throughout the game and allowing very few chances against them.  Miller was stellar in net again, turning aside the few opportunities the Swiss mustered, and the team skated itself to an impressive 2-0 shutout victory.  Then they met the Finns in the semifinals yesterday.  I really thought this was going to be a big test for the Americans, but it turned out to be, much to the surprise of just about everyone who follows hockey, a big blowout.  The game was over less than ten minutes into the first period, which saw our boys put up a six-spot and secure their place in the final.  What impressed me the most about that game, even more than the shocking 6 goal outburst in the first, was how the boys played the rest of the game.  They didn't score again, but they didn't sit back and let the Finns come at them, either.  They played solidly, continuing to carry the game and make smart decisions with the puck.  Miller was great again, turning away every puck that came his way.  The one goal which was allowed by the Americans came against backup goalie, Tim Thomas, who entered the game midway through the third, which was a smart move made by the coaching staff, giving Miller some rest and getting Thomas some playing time.  The goal was hardly Thomas' fault, as the shot deflected off his own defenseman to find its way into the net.  I'm really hopeful that the Americans will continue to play their game tomorrow against the Canadians.  If they do, they have a good chance of bringing home the gold. 

As for the Canadians, their road to the finals was much easier than I thought it would be.  They made easy work of the Germans in the qualifying round, besting them 8-2 (which was really no surprise).  But, their 7-3 victory over the Russians in the quarters shocked the hockey world, I think.  Not that beating the Russians was necessarily shocking, but to beat them in such a decisive fashion, was unexpected even among Canadians, if they're being honest.  Much like the Americans' victory over the Finns in the semis, this game was pretty much over in the first period.  Last night's semifinal game against Slovakia seemed like an easy skate to the final for the Canadians as well, until about 5 minutes left in the game.  They went into the third period with a commanding 3-0 lead, but the Slovaks managed to get a couple by Luongo, which gave them a huge energy-boost and made for an exciting finish.  They really took it to the Canadians for the last five minutes and had several opportunities to tie the game and send it into overtime, the greatest of which came with about ten seconds left when Pavel Demitra missed a wide open net, ringing the puck off of the crossbar.  I think the Canadians were guilty of sitting back in the third, which allowed the Slovaks to make the surge they did.  It was one of the most exciting finishes to a hockey game I've seen in a while.  And I could hear the collective sigh of relief from the whole nation of Canada from here in Michigan.  They were very fortunate to escape with a regulation victory last night, and they know it. 

So, it is set.  Team USA vs. Team Canada for all the marbles.  I can't wait to watch and see what happens.  Either team is capable of blowing out the other, especially if either goalie lays an egg.  I really hope that doesn't happen (well, I wouldn't mind it so much if the Americans did the blowing out), and I doubt that it will.  I'm looking for a well played game that will come down to whichever team is able to avoid crucial mistakes and to capitalize on the opportunities they're given.  If Miller continues his stellar play, I really like the Americans' chances.  We need to play our game, using our speed and physical play to create chances and convert them into goals.  If we can whether the storm of the first ten minutes of the game (since I'm sure the Canadians will come out flying) and keep it close, we'll have a chance.  Of course, who knows, maybe we'll come out and put up six goals in the first period again.  What?  It could happen.  And that would be super sweet, not to mention good for my blood pressure. :)  Whatever the case, I'm just happy that the two best teams, at least in this tournament, are playing for the gold.  They both deserve to be there and, win or lose, both teams (and their fans) should be proud of their performance in these Olympics.  Can't wait for the game! 

Special Mission Offering

Throughout Lent, our congregation is taking up a collection for a special mission offering to be sent to The Siberian Lutheran Mission Society.  We ordered "special offering banks" to be distributed to everyone in the congregation, so that they could fill them throughout Lent and bring them back on Easter.  When these "banks" arrived, I was a little shocked by how small they were.  I guess I should have paid more attention to the dimensions given (2" x 3").  But, they claim that each "bank" can hold up to $25 in change (I'm guessing they mean if you fill it with only quarters).  Anyway, we'll see how it goes.  I've made it known that people are most definitely allowed to put "folding money" (or personal checks) in the cans, too. :)  I really hope we raise a decent amount to send to this very important mission society.  Our Lutheran brothers and sisters in Christ in Russia need not only our prayerful, but also our financial, support.  I am pleased that we will be contributing to the cause of spreading the pure Gospel through them and, as I said, I hope we are able to raise a decent amount.  We'll see. 

Here's a pic of the "offering banks" we're using:

Authentic Mexican Dinner & Movie Night

Last night, our SALT (Evangelism) Committee hosted an Authentic Mexican Dinner, which was followed by Peace Movie Night.  The dinner was out-of-this-world DELICIOUS!  Special thanks to Miguel for putting together the menu and doing most of the cooking, and to Carolyn, Darren, Andrea, and Larry for all their help, which ranged from purchasing some of the ingredients, setting everything up, assisting Miguel with the cooking, serving those who attended, and doing the most thankless job of all - cleaning up.  Thanks also to the members of our Youth Group who were there to assist with serving and clean-up, and to Vern and Mary for lending a very helpful hand in the clean-up activities as well.  The event was a huge success, and I say that without having the first clue whether or not we raised more money than we spent in holding the event.  I hope we did, since this was put together to be a fundraiser for SALT, but even if we didn't, it was a success in that it afforded many of our members, and a few guests, the opportunity to enjoy some wonderful fellowship around the delicious meal provided.  I'm quite certain that a good time was had by all who attended.  And, I was pleasantly surprised to see so many people there, given the weather which made for nasty road conditions and surely kept some people away.  Here are some pics of the event (taken by my iphone, so please bear with the poor quality of some):

   Miguel serving up his beans and rice (Andrea and Darren helping in the background)

 

Carolyn (SALT Chairperson and Mastermind of the event)

Lining up to get the goods!

"I told you we have a set menu, Pastor.  There are no steak fajitas!"

Dorothy is happily awaiting her Mexican meal

Topping the tacos and tostadas

My wife saying a silent prayer that there will be Mexican food in heaven (my son, Aaron, wondering what's wrong with his mother) - :)

Enjoying the Feast!

Preggers Meggers and Chris responding to the question, "How much do you love your pastor?"  'Nuff said! :)  

A happy pastor and wife!

After the dinner, 12 of us stayed for Peace Movie Night and watched the movie, "Surrogates," starring Bruce Willis.  One of the reasons I chose this movie was the review I read here at Christian Spotlight on Entertainment.  After watching the movie, which I thought was decent, I think that review stretches things a bit regarding the "Christian elements" in the film.  Toward the end of the review, we read:

Remarkably, the movie manages to incorporate all these disparate themes--sin, crucifixion, atonement, Satan, false prophets, death, resurrection—without beating the viewer over the head with the obvious Christian message underlying those elements. One has to pay careful attention to catch the symbolism of events and archetypal characters.

Maybe I didn't pay careful attention enough, but I didn't see an "obvious Christian message" portrayed in the film, and I think whoever wrote the review gives this film's makers far too much credit and is guilty of forcing the Christian elements he/she sees into the film.  I mean, I can understand the points being made; I just think they're stretched and forced.  But, it was a decent and entertaining flick.  And, I was actually quite pleased that the content was as mild as advertised.  You never know these days what you're going to get in a PG-13 rated film.  Most of them would have been rated R when I was growing up.  But, this one was actually rated well.  Very little in the way of sexual inuendo, no "F-bombs" were dropped, and the violence wasn't overly done.  With the exception of the one scene in which Bruce Willis' character makes a crass statement to a lawyer about male genitalia, which the movie could have definitely done without (why do they have to get that one scene in there, anyway?!), it was as mild as PG-13 movies come these days.

I do think there is some truth to this part of the review:

The movie seems to be saying that, in this day of computer networking (e.g. Facebook and Twitter), people are interfacing through virtual identities and not in person. In virtual reality, everyone is perfect; no one is old or fat or ugly or handicapped. The beauty of variation is sacrificed for the beauty of uniformity. This dependency has made people afraid of imperfection and real social interaction. All judgments are made on the superficial basis of appearance.

While "social networking" can be a blessing, it can also be a curse (much like anything else in this dead and dying world), and I believe it is having a profound effect on our youth, the results of which we may not fully realize for a while.  We have created a superficial world in which a great many (not just youth) spend the majority of their time, and this simply has to play a role in how they view, and live out their lives, in the real world.  Only time will tell how severely this impacts our society as a whole, but there are surely indicators that it has already had some pretty significant impact.

Anyway, I was glad for the time spent with my brothers and sisters in Christ last night, both during dinner and watching and discussing the movie.  It was a really good time.  And, I concur with those who suggested that Miguel cook for us every Friday night, even though, for some odd reason, he didn't think that was such a keen idea. :)

Here's a pic of "Surrogates" playing on our big screen (I am really digging our new set up - the big screen and excellent sound system really does provide for as close to a genuine movie theater experience as one could have - thanks again to Larry and to our gracious donors for making this a reality!):