Cyberbrethren: A Lutheran Blog

Simpsonize Me

Apparently, if I was a Simpsons character, I would look like this. Might be an improvement on the real me. I think he has more hair on the forehead. You too can be "Simpsonized."

What We Don't Want to Admit To Ourselves

New church plants! Contemporary worship! One requires the other, right? Ah, well...perhaps not. A "contemporary/relevant worship" guru has second thoughts.

For all the money, time, and effort
we’ve spent on cultural relevance—
and that includes culturally relevant
worship—it seems we came through
the last 15 years with a significant
net loss in churchgoers, proliferation
of megachurches and all.

You need to read this article.

More Thoughts on Sermon Length

We are having a good discussion about my recent post about sermon length. One younger brother in office told me that he felt I was saying that pastors who preach ten minute sermons are being unfaithful. I can understand why he might feel that was my intention. He also indicated he preaches 10-12 minute sermons, etc. Jim, my friend, I was not saying you are being unfaithful because you don't preach twenty minute sermons. And that goes for the rest of you.

I certainly do not believe that short sermons are necessarily bad, but I can't help but wonder how or why we have moved from regarding the sermon and its length differently than all our fathers in the faith, from the Early Church period to the Reformation period, down to our own times. This is what I mean by a "starvation diet." If I do say so myself, I can't help but wonder if I might have a point. Bear with me, if you will.

One comment in particular in the previous post's discussion, I thought, nailed the point I'm trying to make. Dr. Aaron Wolf is commenting on something my good friend Pr. David Petersen said about this subject. I'll just put Aaron's comment here for your consideration.

Pastor Petersen writes that "I think [the Rev. McCain] wants expository, didactic sermons."  He also notes that "This, despite what he wrote in Law and Gospel, was Walther's view. It was also Luther's view despite what he occasionally said. So also: Chyrsostom, Leo the Great, Gregory, Augustine, etc."

Doesn't that jibe with the quotation from the Apology below?

"On the contrary, in our churches all the sermons are occupied with such topics as these: of repentance; of the fear of God; of faith in Christ, of the righteousness of faith, of the consolation of consciences by faith, of the exercises of faith; of prayer, what its nature should be, and that we should be fully confident that it is efficacious, that it is heard; of the cross; of the authority of magistrates and all civil ordinances [likewise, how each one in his station should live in a Christian manner, and, out of obedience to the command of the Lord God, should conduct himself in reference to every worldly ordinance and law]; of the distinction between the kingdom of Christ, or the spiritual kingdom, and political affairs; of marriage; of the education and instruction of children; of chastity; of all the offices of love."Click through to the rest of the post as I put forward some more thoughts.

Contrast this with what another friend posted about the goal of sermons. I think we have here a helpful "case study" in precisely what is going on today with sermons.

My thoughts on sermon length and the content are simple: it should be as long as it takes to tell your flock that they are sinners who deserve nothing more than eternal damnation from a holy and just God; God, the One Holy Trinity, has looked upon His people in mercy and has sent His only begotten Son, true God and true man, to earth to live the holy life we are unable to live, to die as a holy, perfect and complete offering for our sins, and to be raised to new life for our complete justification. This Jesus Christ is our sufficiency, our completeness and in Him we live new lives. In Him we are everything God wants us to be.

My reaction to this comment would be simply to say, respectfully, "Really? Is this really the only point of our sermons?" If so, frankly, you could simply stand in the pulpit and say these very words, in all of two minutes, if that.

Here is another post from a younger brother in the ministry that well summarizes what we have all been taught at the seminary for the past several decades.

Is a preacher first and foremost a herald of the Gospel, or is he first and foremost a teacher. Is my goal on Sunday morning to proclaim Law & Gospel, or is it to teach the hearers something new? I believe in the former--but many of the sermons found on Sunday mornings seem more geared toward the latter. Do we "intentionally" preach sanctification in our sermons (in other words, do our sermons end with "Go and do likewise"), or do we simply preach the sternness of the Law and trust that the Holy Spirit will work all three uses of the Law in the lives of the hearers? I haven't made up my mind on this one. My basic point is that our church could do a better job distinguishing a "theology of preaching."

This is a very interesting comment and points to precisely where I believe we need to do some serious, very serious, rethinking. Is the pastor a preacher or a teacher? I would say he must be both. We are commanded to keeruxon ton logon, to "preach the Word" and the same Apostle who penned those words under the Spirit's inspiration listed this as an absolutely essential attribute of one who aspires to the churchly office he must be apt to teach. I believe we have probably gone wrong by making this distinction in such a manner as to suggest that the sermon is preaching and teaching is teaching. We never want to teach anything "new" but we do want to declare the whole counsel of God.

Let's keep mulling this over brothers. The Church deserves our best thinking on this and I for one have over the past fifteen years or so gone through a serious reconsideration of all these things, particularly as I have spent more time reading sermons from our fathers in the faith.

The Unsung Joys of the Ministry

Read this post. Such things do not get a lot of "press" these days in church publications. Rather, we are regaled with tales of the newest, latest, greatest programs, movements, techniques, plans, visions, mission statements. We read about honorary degrees, and grand expenditures and national gatherings, conventions, gatherings and the like. How refreshing it is then to read a post like this one from, as the sainted Dr. Barry would describe him, a "GI Joe Pastor." And we all know who always fights the real battles, who stand at the front lines, who lead the charges and who ultimately are used to win the war: the GI Joes! Thanks Brother Engebretson for the wonderful post reminding us all that the ministry of the Church is not measured by vast numbers, by grand plans, by dramatic stories, by emotional events, but by faithfulness, by proclamation of the Gospel, by care for the least of our brethren. What joy to know that this is what is going on, day-in and day-out, across the Missouri Synod. Thanks be to God.

New Roundtable Discussion at Book of Concord blog

We are on to a new roundtable conversation at the Book of Concord blog site. Check it out at:

Baptism by Fire Hose

Yes, apparently, there is such a thing as baptism by fire hose, begun in the 1920s. You may read about it here.

Are sermons too short in our congregations?

More and more Lutheran pastors are putting their sermons up on their blog sites. Some posting the audio, others the text. I have noticed with increasing frequency sermons that are only 10-12 minutes long, 15 minutes is often a "long" sermon. I've even noticed sermons that are only 8:30 minutes long. I do not think it is wrong to say  that if we are delivering sermons that are only 10-12 minutes long we should not be surprised that after putting our folks on this kind of sermonic starvation diet they really have little grasp of the Christian faith. I'm concerned. Your thoughts?

"A Remarkable Predilection for Small Numbers"

I was looking through some of my papers and came across this copy of a
letter that Hermann Sasse sent privately to a group of LCMS leaders in
1964. Prophetic, timely, timeless, wisdom.

Private letter by Hermann Sasse
June 24, 1964

"If I say something foolish, please bear with me. But speak I must as
a representative of a generation which is now slowly dying out. It is
the generation of Lutheran pastors who after the First World War when
the churches in Germany were reorganized tried, under the leadership
of the great churchmen like Wilhelm Zoellner, to restore the Lutheran
Church in Prussia; who later started, over against the claims of
secular political powers on the Church that movement which has become
known as the "Confessing Church" in Germany. It is the generation of
those who in the Lutheran World Convention under the leadership of men
such as Moorehead, Ihmels, Ralph Long, Michael Reu, tried to gather
the Lutherans of the world against the rising world unionism, and who
did what they could, in the old World Conference on Faith and Order at
Lausanne, 1928, and later to build up the coming "Oikumen" as a
federation of the great confessional churches. We failed because the
doctrinal substance of the Protestant churches, including those who
claimed the Augsburg Confessions had vanished to such a degree that
they could not resist the raging currents of a world syncretism in
which the substance of the Christian faith will vanish and in which
the Church of the Gospel will perhaps exist "as a cottage in a
vineyard . . . as a besieged city" (Is. 1:8), as small minority groups
comparable to the remnants of the old Christian churches in the
post-Christian, Mohammedan era of the Orient, or as the oppressed
churches in the Communist world today. For this will be the true
destiny of the true Church of Christ even if the phantastic [sic?]
plans of the "One World Church" under the leadership of Rome should be
realized. It is from personal experiences in Germany and other
European countries, from studies in the U.S.A. and from many years of
ecumenical studies that I look upon your situation and ask for your
forbearance in putting before you some thoughts.

"Our Lord has always shown a remarkable predilection for small numbers
and little flocks. Instead of organizing vast evangelistic campaigns
He has, in the terms of modern missiology, wasted His time by seeking
the individual, leaving the ninety-nine in the desert for the one lost
sheep. We modern Christians seem sometimes to think and act as if He
said: 'Where two or three millions are gathered in my name . . . "
Besides, the small Free Churches represent in all weakness the faith
for which the Fathers of Missouri left their old country. We should be
very carful not to condemn our own fathers and so to destroy the very
foundations of our church. Moreover, what Missouri's commission may
teach on such questions as Revelation and Inspiration does not only
concern its sister churches but all Christendom. For up to this day
Christians of all denominations have looked at Missouri as the
stronghold of Orthodox Lutheranism. The repercussions of a false
decision may have a detrimental effect on the churches that claim to
be still churches of the Reformation, as, on the other hand, a sound,
Biblical decision may be a blessing for many churches, even outside
the Lutheran orbit. It belongs to the very nature of any true
confession that it is made "in the presence of God and of all
Christendom before both our contemporaries and our posterity" (FC,
Conclusion).

Reclaiming Walther

A post from a week or so ago about church polity elicited two interesting reactions: One, I heard from those who regard the historic episcopate to be the "magic bullet" fix to all woes and ills facing the Lutheran Church here in America. They are wrong, of course. Second, I heard from a person who claimed I had, with my post, fallen from the one, true faith because I denied that "Supreme Voters' Assemblies" were divinely mandated. And he was wrong, of course.

It is always a dangerous thing to read Walther selectively. In his first presidential address CFW Walther makes the point that there is no one divinely instituted way for a congregation, or church, to choose to govern itself. In such things, there is freedom. He make it clear that there are times and circumstances in which a church, or congregation, may choose, in Christian freedom, to hand governance of the church over to representatives. Read it for yourself and than ask yourself how it is that anyone who has spent time reading Walther could ever conclude that Walther regarded so-called "Supreme Voters' Assemblies" to be the one and only and truly divine mandated form of church governance. I have no problem with voters' assemblies. They are fine. They have worked well and can work well. They are however no more "divinely mandated" than any other form of congregational organization and governance. There were no "voters' assembly" as we have them today during the Reformation era. Luther's congregation in Wittenberg had no "voters' assembly." It was governed by a small council of educated townsmen with the clergy.

Walther's whole point is that there is FREEDOM in such issues and no congregation can claim, over against another,

'We know how you need to organize yourselves and unless you do it this way, you are not Lutheran."

The key is the Word. Only faithfulness to the Word, not even Supreme Voters' Assembly, can assure the orthodoxy of a church body or congregation.  It is tragic to notice the extent to which misinformed individuals are now even making an argument that it is the voters' assembly that establishes the Real Presence in the Sacrament.  We must reclaim Walther from those who misrepresent him. Walther said:

"Undoubtedly our congregations were free to follow this example and to invest the synod   meeting in their name with a power beside the power of the Word; but it is a different question whether it would have been wise if they had done so. I say no, because under the prevailing circumstances we can confidently hope for auspicious success of our work, or rather of God's work which we are promoting, if we use only the power of God. This is the   second reason why we should and can carry on our work with joy, although we have no power but the power of the Word.

"Perhaps there are times and conditions when it is profitable for the church to place   the supreme deciding and regulating power into the hands of representatives. Who, for   instance, would deny that at one time the consistories in our German fatherland were an   inestimable blessing, especially when the prophecy of Isaiah was being fulfilled in the   German Lutheran Church: "And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy   nursing mothers" (ch. 49, v.23)? Which person acquainted a bit with history would   deny that the Swedish church grew splendidly under its episcopal constitution, especially   so long as men like Laurentius Petri, the famous Swedish translator of the Bible and   student of Luther, bore the episcopal dignity, and so long as men like the two Gustavuses   wore the royal crown of Sweden? If, however, we glance at the conditions in which the   church finds itself here, we can hardly consider any other constitution as the most   salutary except one under which the congregations are free to govern themselves but enter   into a Synodical organization such as the one existing among us with the help of God, for   enjoying fraternal consultation, supervision, and aid to spread the kingdom of God jointly   and to make possible and accomplish the aims of the church in general.

It is true, if our congregations had granted us full power to decide and decree in   their name, it apparently would have been easy for us to give all of the congregations of   our territory the form of truly Lutheran congregations, whereas with our present   constitution our hands appear to be tied. But this only seems to be the case. Even though   some congregations may use the liberty they possess of rejecting our recommendations even   if they are salutary; thereby they indeed deprive themselves of a blessing. But what would   be the result if such congregations by their entrance into our organization had obligated   themselves to submit to all of our orders? The exercise of our power would have laid the   foundation for constant dissatisfaction, for constantly reviving fear of hierarchical   efforts, and thus for endless friction. In a republic, as the United States of America is,   where the feeling of being free and independent of man is nourished so strongly from   childhood, the inevitable result would be that any restriction beyond the limits drawn by   God Himself would be empty shells, and our apparent growth would often be nothing but a   process of becoming stiff and dying in a great mass of lifeless forms. Our chief battle   would soon center about the execution of manufactured, external human ordinances and   institutions and would swallow up the true blessed battle for the real treasure of the   church, for the purity and unity of doctrine. In a word, we would lose sight of our   beautiful aim of building the true church, which is not an external scaffold, but the   kingdom of God in the heart of men and at best ourselves bring about our early   dissolution. To be sure, there are religious organizations in this republic which in spite   of their strictly representative form of government are being built without antagonism and   are prospering in their manner, but why? Because the congregations are not permitted to   come to a knowledge of their liberty and their consciences are bound in favor of their   form of government by false doctrine. In our Evangelical Lutheran Church, however, we must   preach to our congregations that the choice of the form of government for a church is an   inalienable part of their Christian liberty and that Christians as members of the church   are subject to no power in the world except the clear Word of the living God. There the   above mentioned disastrous results are certainly to be feared from any restriction of the   liberty of the congregations, especially in a republic such as ours is."

Source:
http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/articles/cfw00001.htm

   

Google Earth....Amazing

The latest version of Google Earth allows you to explore the night sky. Truly a "wow" moment. Don't believe me? See for yourself. If you are not amazed, I'll...well, I'll do something. Probably think negatively about you for a moment or two.

The Name of God: Does It Matter What We Call Him?

First Things knocks one out of the park....

By Robert T. Miller

Monday, August 20, 2007,  7:07 AM

Tiny Muskens, the Roman Catholic bishop of Breda in the Netherlands, says that Dutch Catholics ought to pray using the word Allah rather than God or its synonyms in Dutch. Muskens argues that it makes no inherent theological difference in which language one prays, and he notes that in countries where the word Allah is in common usage as a name for God, Christians already often use the word in their prayers. Adopting the word Allah, Muskens thinks, will eliminate “discussions and bickerings” between Muslims and Christians and so improve relations between the religions.

Muskens is right that, from a Catholic point of view, there is nothing inherently wrong in saying “Allah” for “God,” just as there would be nothing inherently wrong in saying “Miny Tuskens” or “Tuny Miskens” for “Tiny Muskens.” The problem, of course, is Tiny Muskens’ name is Tiny Muskens, and anyone who called Tiny Tuny or Muskens Miskens would be making fun of him. So, too, in theology; despite the conventionality by which strings of phonemes get their meaning, once names have been established, people who change them are doing so for a reason, and the nature of that reason counts in determining whether the change is reasonable or unreasonable, advisable or inadvisable.

In this case, even from a Catholic point of view, the name of God is not a pure triviality. When at the burning bush Moses asked God for his name, the Lord gave a very particular answer. “God said to Moses, I am who am. This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations” (Exod. 3:14–15). Many devout Jews treat this name, especially in Hebrew, with such reverence that they will not speak it aloud. And when Christ appropriated this name to himself (John 8:58), everyone understood that he was proclaiming his own divinity.

On the other hand, some Muslims believe that the phonetic string “Allah” is an especially appropriate name for God, in part because, in their understanding, “Allah” has no feminine or plural forms. Thus, even many non–Arabic-speaking Muslims refer to God as “Allah” and do so for reasons of theological importance in Islam. Hence, it’s unclear what might be at stake theologically in the unlikely event that anyone were to take Muskens’ proposal seriously.

But debating the merits of Muskens’ suggestion misses the larger point here. Muskens makes it sound as if the problems in Muslim–Catholic relations were merely silly arguments about semantics that distract from the truly important things on which we all agree. In fact, there is a serious, substantive problem dominating Christian–Muslim relations at the moment, the same problem that dominates Muslim–Jewish, Muslim–Buddhist, Muslim–Hindu, and Muslim–Orthodox relations, and that problem is that Muslim fanatics keep murdering innocents of all faiths, including their own, in terror attacks.

In Muskens’ own Holland, for example, a Muslim fanatic killed filmmaker Theo van Gogh on November 2, 2004—though killed does not quite convey the full meaning here, for the perpetrator shot van Gogh eight times, cut his throat almost to the point of decapitation, stabbed him in the chest, and left two knives plunged in his torso, one attaching a five-page note (text available here) threatening the life of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and railing against Western governments and, of course, the Jews. And then there were the train and bus bombings in London on July 7, 2005 (52 dead); the school massacre in Beslan in North Ossetia-Alania on September 1–3, 2004 (334 dead, including 186 children); the train bombings in Madrid on March 11, 2004 (191 dead); and of course the spectacular atrocities in the United States on September 11, 2001 (2,974 dead). For that matter, just last week Islamic terrorists in Iraq detonated four truck bombs, flattening whole villages and murdering at least 250 Yizadis (the Yizadi religion combines elements of Islam and pre-Islamic Persian religions).

I realize that the many responsibilities of a bishop can make it difficult to keep up with current events, but I think Muskens must have heard about these things. It is puzzling, therefore, that he doesn’t see them as having the importance for Muslim–Christian relations that most other people do. To be sure, there are other problems between Muslims and Christians, but anyone with a normal sense of morality recognizes immediately that such other issues pale in comparison with the wholesale slaughter of innocents. Muskens’ suggestion is thus strangely, even perversely, disconnected from real-world problems.

Worse, in saying that the things that divide Muslims and Christians are products of human invention, Muskens seems to imply that, on fundamentals, there is no difference between Muslims and Christians. The prevalence of Islamic terrorism refutes this simpleminded notion, but there is an even larger point here. Chesterton explained it well long ago:

There is a phrase of facile liberality uttered again and again at ethical societies and parliaments of religion: “the religions of the earth differ in rites and forms, but they are the same in what they teach.” It is false; it is the opposite of the fact. The religions of the earth do not greatly differ in rites and forms; they do greatly differ in what they teach. It is as if a man were to say, “Do not be misled by the fact that the Church Times and the Freethinker look utterly different, that one is painted on vellum and the other carved on marble, that one is triangular and the other hectagonal; read them and you will see that they say the same thing.” The truth is, of course, that they are alike in everything except in the fact that they don’t say the same thing. An atheist stockbroker in Surbiton looks exactly like a Swedenborgian stockbroker in Wimbledon. You may walk round and round them and subject them to the most personal and offensive study without seeing anything Swedenborgian in the hat or anything particularly godless in the umbrella. It is exactly in their souls that they are divided. So the truth is that the difficulty of all the creeds of the earth is not as alleged in this cheap maxim: that they agree in meaning, but differ in machinery. It is exactly the opposite. They agree in machinery; almost every great religion on earth works with the same external methods, with priests, scriptures, altars, sworn brotherhoods, special feasts. They agree in the mode of teaching; what they differ about is the thing to be taught. Pagan optimists and Eastern pessimists would both have temples, just as Liberals and Tories would both have newspapers. Creeds that exist to destroy each other both have scriptures, just as armies that exist to destroy each other both have guns.

That freethinking secularists can fail to see that there are critically important differences between religions is unsurprising; such people are notorious for their inability to understand any point of view other than their own. That a bishop of the Catholic Church, however, might make the same mistake is much more disturbing. Bishops are still expected to know something about theology.

Our blessed Lord told his disciples that he was sending them “out as sheep in the midst of wolves” and so they “should be as wise as serpents but as innocent as doves” (Matt. 10: 16). I am happy to acknowledge the innocence of Tiny Muskens, but he is exactly the kind of sheep who, if he ever met a wolf, would likely get eaten by it.

Robert T. Miller is assistant professor at the Villanova University School of Law.

Brave New World

One of the most disturbing reports I've read in a long time: artificial life.

Google Cyberbrethren

A number of you have asked me for a way to search my blog. Honestly, I've wanted a way to search my blog, for I'll often be asked about something I've blogged about months, or years, ago and I have only the foggiest of an idea where to find it. So, I poked around Typepad and found that they offer a Google search function, duh. How long has that option been there? I have no idea. But now it is here, for your searching pleasure. If someone has a better idea how I can make a search function available here, please let me know, but for now Cyberbrethren is formally Googleized.

Making the Case for an Earlier First Communion Age

Update: I learned in the conversation that has taken place in the comment section under this post that in fact Dr. Stuckwisch is not requiring children who are presented to him for first communion to have committed to memory the basic/primary texts of the Small Catechism, which are: Ten Commandments, Creed, Lord's Prayer, Confession, Lord's Supper. I would therefore moderate my support for his comments and indicate that I believe, as Dr. Sonntag makes clear in one of his posts below, that clearly our Confessions indicate that such familiarity with these texts is what our Confessions do expect and require. Therefore, I would respectfully differ with Pastor Stuckwisch on this point. I would therefore not be communing the six year old child that Dr. Stuckwisch is communing. But, otherwise, I heartily agree with his pastoral concerns regarding the age of first communion. I believe Pastor Stuckwisch has done a fine job of making the case for earlier age of first communion, but I believe we are bound together to follow the practice indicated in our Lutheran Confessions of requiring memorization of the primary texts of the Catechism [not the explanations necessarily]. I continue to believe however, in spite of this difference with Dr. Stuckwisch, that the practice of denying the Sacrament to children until after they have completed a two or three year course of instruction is not founded on Biblical or Confessional principles. In the comments that follow this post, you will read how one pastor, William Weedon, is going about these things in his parish and I would agree with his practice]

One of the blessings of the new hymnal Lutheran Service Book is that it puts squarely in front of Lutheran pastors and congregations using it, the opportunity to think more carefully about an earlier age of first communion. Like many of you reading this, I did not receive the Lord's Supper until I was in the seventh grade, after eight years of Lutheran day school education which included extensive instruction in the faith and complete memorization of Luther's Small Catechism. But as I had children and observed them as they were taught the basics of the Christian faith: the Commandments, Creed, the Our Father and as they were taught about Holy Baptism and Holy Communion I came to realize that withholding the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar from them until they had gone through "confirmation" simply had no Biblical or Confessional justification.

I've been thinking for many years now that we really do need to end the practice of using the Lord's Supper as a "carrot" we hold before the "horse" through the confirmation process. Further, I found myself growing increasingly concerned by the overall message we are sending when we withhold the Lord's Supper from children and make it a sort of "graduation" gift, in fact, when confirmation is treated as a kind of "rite of passage" that Lutherans must go through on their way to adulthood.

Then, as I studied Scripture, the Lutheran Confession, Luther and other Lutheran fathers more I realized that our entire system of confirmation really is not rooted in the age of the Reformation and Lutheran Orthodoxy as much as it is rooted in practices that sprang up during the age of Pietism, when it was felt that we need to "do something" to make all these precious realities "more special" and to make sure that people are "really serious" about these things, hence, the process of confirmation became regarded as, in some ways, even more important than Baptism.

I've come to realize that we have this quite wrong. And just about the time I came to these conclusions, I was very sad to realize that a, thankfully small, group of Lutheran pastors had, based on similar concerns, gone too far over toward a solution that called on the Church to give the Sacrament to infants in arms and toddlers. Force-feeding the Sacrament to children who have no awareness of what this Sacrament is and why they come to receive it is a grave error and those who advocate infant communion are doing so in contradiction of Sacred Scripture and the Lutheran Confession. Sadly, the fact that there are some who go to this extreme has a tendency to "spook" others from even wanting to talk about an earlier age of first communion.

I awoke this morning to find this wonderful blog post by the Rev. Dr. Richard Stuckwisch. Pastor Stuckwisch is a thoughtful, deeply pastoral and theological man who brings significant experience as a parish pastor and a parent to bear on this issue (he has nine children!).

I commend his comments to you and invite you to consider them prayerfully. I believe he makes the points that must be considered and I can find nothing in these words that contradict what the assumption is in our Confessions about those who wish to receive the Lord's Supper. This is the most well stated defense of an early age for first communion I've read. What are your thoughts about it? Pastor Rick Stuckwisch offers these comments. Click on the "continuing reading" link.

Melanchthon Always In the Light of Luther, Not the Other Way Around

In recent years there have been some who have attempted to suggest that Chemnitz was not really so much on the side of Luther, or Melanchthon, but walked a middle road of his own. This is simply not true. And here is just a bit of proof. Oh, yes, in addition, this material nicely demonstrates that the second edition of the Apology, the Octavo, had been rejected for use in corpus doctrinae already in Melanchthon's lifetime by Chemnitz and other Lutheran theologians. The "new thing" apparently in some circles is to extol Melanchthon's talk about two kinds of righteousness. It has even been asserted, in a rather hamfisted manner, that this is a "better" way of explaining things than the distinction between Law and Gospel. Chemnitz and his fellow confessional theologians would have been appalled at such an assertion, for they knew who was the "chief teacher of the churches of the Augsburg Confession" and that was not Master Philipp!

One of the predecessor documents that led to the Book of Concord were the various "body of doctrine" or Corpus Doctrinae that were prepared and adopted by various German territories. They were prepared, in several cases, in response to Philip Melanchthon's own personal collection of confessions, which came to be known as the Corpus Doctrinae Philippicum. The Philippicum was received quite negatively, and this started the ball rolling toward formulating alternative collections. One of those documents was prepared by Moerlin and Chemnitz, in 1563. Writing later about the development of the Braunschweig Corpus Doctrinae, Chemnitz notes, "In 1561, because of the need and opportunity of their churches, the honorable cities of Saxony sent their political delegates and their leading theologians to Lueneburg where they prepared a number of Articles. And in order to preserve Christian tranquility and abiding unity in their churches, the honorable council of the noble city of Braunschweig gave orders to print its Church Order in a Corpus including the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, which was first sent to Charles V in 1530, and again in 1531 after its first printing." So, already in 1561 the second edition of the Apology had been set aside for use in Corpus Doctrinae being prepared. And why is this? The Braunschweig City Council notes in its preface, which was written for the council by Chemnitz, "In recent years the proper and true sense of the Augsburg Confession was occasionally subjected to unusual and unforeseen disagreements. . . . The copies of that Confession (CA) and its subsequent Apology did not always remain precise in every detail, but were altered somewhat as new editions were published." Chemnitz is highly critical of Melanchthon's practice of treating church confession as his own private documents and wrote, "Such a Corpus Doctrinae dare not consist of private documents." He stresses the fact that, ". . . the first CA edition of 1530 must be considered the most reliable and authentic version." Chemnitz, who was a student of Melanchthon and respected the professional value of his writings, nonetheless regarded Luther as more important and established this principle: "Luther's works dare not be understood or interpreted in the light of Philipp's writings, but Philipp's writings must be understood and interpreted in the light of Luther's works."

Source:
Inge Mager, The Doctrinal Confession (Corpus Doctrinae) of the City of Braunschweig in Relationship to Other Collections of Lower Saxon Doctrinal Documents
in
The Reformation in the City of Braunschweig
450th Anniversary Document
1528-1978
Published by the Braunschweig City-Church Association
1978
Unpublished translation by Everette W. Meier
May 1989

"The mother of God is a virgin. God is born.”

"Nothing would please her better than to have you turn in fear from all lofty things on which men set their hearts, seeing that even in His mother God neither found nor desired anything of high degree." -- Martin Luther

"The two natures [in Christ] are so united in one Person that it is correct to say: “The mother of God is a virgin; God is born.” Since God and man are one Person, the properties characteristic of humanity alone are attributed to the deity; for the properties of the two natures are also united. Not to be born is also peculiar to the divine nature. In the Creed we pray and confess: “Who was conceived and who was born”—that is human; and “sits at the right hand”—that partakes of the divine, although it may also be human. Thus the Child who drinks His mother’s milk is eternal; He existed before the world’s beginning, and He created heaven and earth." -- Martin Luther

Today is the day in the Church Year set aside to remember and honor the Mother of our Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is properly called "Mother of God" because she was the chosen instrument through which the only-begotten Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, took on human flesh, in her womb. Other Christian traditions have marked this day to honor Mary's blessed death, her "dormition" as it is known in the Eastern churches. Rome, sadly, elevated pious speculations about Mary to the level of doctrine and declared this day to be the "Assumption of Mary" the belief that Mary did not die, but was instead translated to heaven without experiencing physical corruption. That there is precedent for this in the Scriptures is clear. We need think only of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, or His servant the prophet Elijah, and probably Enoch. But we have no Scriptural warrant to believe that this happened to Mary. The Early Church is silent on this question, until after around 400 a.d. Hermann Sasse years ago wrote a brilliant piece on the development of Marian doctrine, explaining how its origin have more to do with the remnants of the worship of the goddess Diana than anything else. But, sadly, the necessary polemic against the false doctrines concerning Mary have soured us Lutherans, and obviously all the Protestants, from a proper regard, respect and honoring of the Mother of God.

It is best therefore to use a day like this one to focus on the fact that our Lord humbled himself and took on human flesh in the womb of the maid Mary, the young woman whom was chosen for this role and humbly accepted God's will, saying, "Let it be as you have spoken." A model of Christian faith and humility for us all. Truly all generations have, and should, call her blessed.

Martin Luther, while clearly rejecting the excesses of Medieval Romanism when it came to Mary, elevating her to a position as an intermediary with Christ, retained a healthy devotion to our Blessed Lady, and we Lutherans need not let the dangers of Roman Mariology/Mariolatry dissuade us from appreciating the gift of Mary the Virgin and honoring the gifts given to her and through her, to us; namely, our Lord Jesus Christ. Read on for some comments by Martin Luther about the Virgin Mary.

Statement from Missouri Synod regarding ELCA Homosexuality Decision

TO:                 The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod 
FROM:           Dr. Gerald B. Kieschnick, President 
SUBJECT:      Statement regarding 2007 ELCA Churchwide Assembly Action
DATE:            August 13, 2007

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

Greetings in the Name of Jesus Christ, Savior of the world and Lord of the universe, through whom alone we receive forgiveness of sin, life, and salvation!

On the final day of its 2007 Churchwide Assembly in Chicago (Saturday, August 11), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) adopted a resolution which “prays, urges, and encourages [ELCA geographical] synods, synodical bishops, and the presiding bishop to refrain from or demonstrate restraint in disciplining those rostered leaders in a mutual, chaste, and faithful committed same-gender relationship who have been called and rostered in this church.” 

News of this action troubles me greatly and is causing serious concern and consternation among the members and leaders of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS). We in the LCMS hold firmly to the conviction that, according to the Holy Bible, homosexual behavior is “intrinsically sinful.” We are deeply disappointed that the ELCA, by its decision, has failed to act in keeping with the historic and universal understanding of the Christian church regarding what Holy Scripture teaches about homosexual behavior as contrary to God’s will and about the biblical qualifications for holding the pastoral office. 

The LCMS firmly believes that the sin of homosexual behavior, like every sin that fallen human beings commit, has been paid for in full by the life, suffering, death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The LCMS also believes that we must continue to reach out in love to all people on the basis of what God’s Word alone teaches about human sinfulness, God’s grace in Christ, and the new life empowered by God’s Holy Spirit. 

It should be noted that the ELCA voted not to amend at this time its governing documents regarding the expectations of its ordained workers in this area (this matter was referred to its task force on sexuality). However, its decision “to refrain from or demonstrate restraint in disciplining” ELCA workers in “a mutual, chaste, and faithful committed same-gender relationship” raises troubling questions about whether the expectations set forth in its governing documents will be taken seriously by the ELCA or by the task force. The potential implications of decisions such as this for future LCMS-ELCA relations have been discussed in previous meetings involving leaders of the LCMS and the ELCA. In addition, I stated in my official greetings to the 2007 ELCA Assembly on Friday, August 10, “For the sake of our mutual witness and service together, the implications of such action, should it be taken, would need to be addressed, fraternally and evangelically.” 

As the LCMS noted in a resolution adopted at its 2001 Convention (Resolution 3-21A), “we of the LCMS recognize that many of our brothers and sisters of the ELCA remain faithful to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and we resolve to reach out to them in love and support.” As President of the LCMS, it is my ongoing hope and fervent prayer—as stated in my remarks to the 2003 ELCA Assembly—that the ELCA’s continuing “study and deliberation of this matter will be made in the light of the biblical understanding of human sexuality and the qualifications for the pastoral office.” I also pray that God the Holy Spirit will lead and guide all Christians and Christian denominations everywhere to seek wisdom and truth from God’s inspired, inerrant, infallible Word on this and other critical issues in our contemporary church and culture.

Dr. Gerald B. Kieschnick, President
The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod

Sancta Missa: Latin Mass Tutorial-With Videos

Those whose knees go weak and hearts start to flutter and eyes grow weepy at the thought of a Latin Mass will love this site. I find it interesting for other reasons. The coolest thing I picked up by looking at some of this was how properly to use a rope cincture. There are videos of everything and you can watch the priest vest himself, while incanting the required Latin prayers for each piece of vestment. Watching him put on the cincture reminded me of how hard I found it trying to do the required knots for the knot tying merit badge in Boy Scouts. It was not a pleasant memory. Note to: FE, WW and BM: knock yourselves out guys! On a more serious note: the site provides the Latin of the Mass in one column and the English in another, offering one of the most instructive glimpses into why, precisely, Luther reformed the Mass. The Canon of the Mass is the heart of the Mass and the heart of the problem and why Lutherans confess that the Roman Mass is truly "the greatest and most horrible abomination" since it conflicts with the chief doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone.

ELCA Votes to Allow Gay Clergy to Be in "Committed Same-Sex Relationships"

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America at its Church wide Assembly voted that its bishops should refrain from disciplining  rostered workers who are in a "mutual, chaste and faithful same-sex relationship."

After several votes turning down efforts to change the ELCA's "Visition and Expectations" document that governs the standards required for rostered workers, in order to permit such relationships, this was a substitute motion to ask at least for there to be an end to any disciplinary efforts against such rostered workers, a "cease fire" or a "time out" as it was put on the floor during the debate.

My sense is that many of the voting members of the Assembly simply had been worn out emotionally by the plaintive speeches made by, and for, homosexuals in relationships and this was perhaps regarded as a gesture of conciliation. Upon further reflection perhaps a number who voted for this will realize that they have, effectively, just given a green light to what in Scripture is very much a large, flashing red light and "danger" sign.

The best speech on this matter, in my opinion, was given by a dairy farmer from Wisconsin who rose and said, simply and powerfully:

I've listened to the debates over homosexuality all week. This debate is literally breaking my heart. In this post-modern world which says everyone defines what is right or wrong for himself/herself, the idea of discipline for violating boundaries is viewed as injustice. We can not live our lives without boundaries. I'm a dairy farmer and I work daily around large animals and large pieces of equipment. We raised five children who always wanted to be with dad. Because I loved them I built a fence and they had to stay in the boundaries of the fence, even if they cried or begged. They could climb out. When they did they were disciplined. It did not matter how much they wanted to be with me, or I with them. Our Creator has given us boundaries, if we could live within those boundaries a need for discipline would not exist.

Is it just me? Thoughts on three lives of not-so-quiet desperation

I generally do not engage in non-theological rants, or postings, for that matter, but...I'm sitting here reading Newsweek magazine and I'm once again assaulted/insulted by the latest news on Lindsey Lohan, Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton. And don't tell me if I spelled their names correctly, or not. I don't care. And that's my point.
    Why does anyone care about these spoiled degenerate young women? I think we should care about what kind of parenting they did, or, obviously, did not have. These are women whose every move is documented and zipped across the Internet. Why is it that "news" about them makes the headline news at my Yahoo home page? Why this endless fascination in watching these poor young women literally self-destruct before our very eyes?
    I can think of few other depressing examples of the deep rot that has set into our culture than the fact that so much time is spent giving attention to these three. What we see here is the tragedy of women whose bank accounts are stuffed full, but whose souls are desperately empty. Perhaps that is the good purpose they serve. Where were their parents? How is that women barely "legal" can already have established criminal records and have spent time in and out of "rehab" for use of illegal drugs and overuse of alcohol. And anyone envies them? What helpless and pointless lives of not-so-quiet desperation they are leading. And this is news? This is worth our public attention? It's so sad and tragic that it literally makes me sick to my stomach.
    We must pray that somehow, in some way, the proclamation of Law and Gospel reaches these young women before it is too late. God have mercy on them, and on us, in a culture that "celebrates" this kind of spectacle. Your reaction? Is it just me?

Dedication of C.F.W. Walther's Mausoleum

Address at the Dedication of the Walther Mausoleum
By Francis Pieper
1892
Translated by Matthew Harrison

Yesterday at the Bates St. cemetery of the local Germany Trinity and Holy Cross congregations the sepulcher commemorating the departed Dr. C.F.W. Walther was dedicated. The mausoleum was devoted to the memory of the departed by the local Evangelical Lutheran congregations. The service began about 4:00 p.m. and in brief and impressive fashion lasted three quarters of an hour. Many many members of the local Evangelical Lutheran Congregations came by way of the Oak Hill Branch of the Missouri Pacific Railroad. Also present were many Germans who are not members of the congregations yet hold the memory of the departed in high esteem.

After Pastor Hermann Bartels spoke a few introductory words, the gathering sang the beautiful church hymn “Jesus, meine Zuversicht” [Christ My Sure Defense], after which the aforementioned pastor read the Bible text 1 Corinthians 15:12-23, 55, 57. Another hymn by the congregation, glorifying the eternal life won through Christ, led to the following festival address delivered by Professor F. Pieper.

Dear Brethren in the Faith!

It was on May 7 in the year 1887 that God called out of this life the blessed Dr. Walther, professor of theology at the local Concordia College and Pastor of the local Lutheran Gesammtgemeinde. Ten days later, on May 17, we buried his body here. After five years the same death has given us occasion to assemble at the same place and in like numbers. We have not forgotten the departed one, and we do not want to forget him. This finished sepulcher should also be an external support for our remembrance.

Some months ago, in another place, we also had opportunity to think about his great and faithful teacher. We have erected his statue, hewn of marble, in the aula of our theological institution. And justifiably so! Dr. Walther was a great theological instructor. Indeed, he was – and I well know what I am saying – the greatest theologian of this century. It’s not that there were not men in this century who have acquired a greater external knowledge in the disciplines which contribute to the study of theology. But there is no known theologian of our century who had exceeded Walther in that which forms the very essence of theology, namely the clear and certain knowledge of the doctrine revealed in the scriptures, and in the ability to present this doctrine convincingly. God also used Walther to exercise a wide ranging salutary influence upon the church at large. Even those who found themselves opposed to him acknowledge this.

Demotivators for the Emerging Church Movement

They say the reason we laugh is because we recognize the truth in humor.

Case in point: a new line of motivational posters for the "emerging church" movement. I've posted a couple examples below.

HT: Pastor Zip.

Calling a Thing What It Is

I received an electronic copy of the speech that Bishop Walter Obare gave to the LWF Council at a meeting some time ago. He courageously came to the aid of Swedish pastors who are resisting manfully the inroads of corrupt leftist theology in the Church of Sweden. This speech is a wake up call for all of us and is paricularly important for us to read and take to heart. There are some, even in conservative Lutheran churches, who want to turn a blind eye and deaf ear to these realities, and who can not seem to muster the necessary fortitude to call a thing what it is, like Bishop Obare does.

"Calling a thing what it is"

“A theology of glory calls evil good and good evil.  A theology of the cross calls the thing what it actually is.” (Martin Luther, Heidelberg Disputation, Thesis 21)

Rather than following the path of fidelity to Scripture and to the historic confession of the church, the Church of Sweden pursues the path of ecclesial tyranny and oppression through the enforcement of its humanly contrived rules and regulations.  Rather than exercising true Christian love and unity, it fosters schism and controversy.  Like true theologians of glory, the leadership of the Church of Sweden and other Northern, liberal churches insist on calling the bad good and the good bad.  The LWF is not innocent of this charge.  Let us examine some documents prepared by such theologians to see if this is the case.

a.   After receiving the request from the Mission Province to consecrate Bishop Olsson, Archbishop Hammar wrote a well-publicized letter to me that contained this excerpt: “Within the Church of Sweden there are many inner-church movements with different perspectives.  Today, they exist side-by-side united by a wish to stay together even though there are different opinions regarding many of these perspectives.  We seem to have reached the painful situation where the wish for some to stay together is no longer as strong as the need to stress one’s own perspective.”

 

Know Christ, know God. No Christ, no God.

Here is a wonderful quote from Martin Luther, from a sermon he preached around the same general time he was working on the Large Catechism, in which we find that phrase (LC II.66) that has been misunderstood to say that Martin Luther taught that Turks, Jews and unbelievers worship and believe in the One, True God. Here is yet another definitive refutation of that error, from Luther himself. Putting it plainly, it is the clear teaching of Holy Scripture: Know Chist, Know God. No Christ, No God.

"We should also note in this text how Christ refers to himself as being the one Man through whom the Father must be glorified. By this he also wants to prevent his people, the Jews—even though they had the Law and the glorious worship of God—from boasting of their holiness, because not one of them had the power to glorify the Father or to bring anyone to the knowledge of righteousness before God. For if the glory and knowledge of God could have been made manifest through the Law, then Christ would not have had to come, preach, suffer, and die to glorify the Father. This should also teach us how we must properly seek and apprehend or deal with God. For (as stated) “to glorify the Father” is nothing else than that we come to recognize and know who he is, what he has in mind, and what our relationship is to him. Only through Christ can man come to such knowledge. For in no other way did he want to reveal himself, for anyone to see his heart and will, than in and through Christ. We see now in Christ nothing but sincere, unfathomable love and grace [gnade]. On the other hand, outside of him there is nothing but wrath and displeasure [ungnade]. In short, whoever seeks or desires to serve God other than in Christ does not find nor does he serve the true God. For this reason I have often said and warned that anyone who wants to be safe ought to beware of all lofty thinking and speculating, where God in His majesty is explored without means and his work, will, and counsel are probed to obtain hidden and specific revelations, etc., since they not only fail and deceive but also lead and plunge men into the abyss. In this way, condemned also are all doctrines and beliefs on earth: of the Jews, Turks, monks, of false saints, or fanatics, and whoever they are who want to serve God, attain grace, and rid themselves of sin through means other than through Christ the Lord, such as through their works, godliness, great devotion, spiritual thoughts, etc. For it is resolved that he will not reveal himself nor let himself be found outside that one Mediator, so that where Christ is not, there likewise is no true God or worship. But more of that later."

"These words are most forcibly directed against the Arians and all heretics, Jews, and non-Christians, who say and boast that they believe in only one God, who made heaven and earth. And because of this article they condemn us Christians as though we were advancing another God. Thus the Turk says: 'We believe in God, who created heaven and earth--not the one who spoke in Horeb with Moses, but who spoke with Muhammad."

For He [Christ] wants to show that they do not know the true God, though they think and boast that they do. They do not discover who He is, nor do they know how He must be known: that He is the only true God, who sent Jesus Christ, and so on. This is as much to say: Whoever wants to find the only true God must seek him solely in Christ, for there is no other true God than the one who sent Christ. He no longer wants to be the one who spoke with Moses, but the one who sent Jesus Christ. Whoever does not possess Christ must also be lacking the true God, even if he already knows and believes that there is only one true God. For He does not believe in Him who sent Christ and through Him gives eternal life. For this reason the emphasis is on the word: "You" "That they may know You, who alone are the true God." Which "You?" You who have sent Jesus Christ. It is s though he were saying: "Jews and others also have only one God, as they think, bu they do not know You, You who are the only true God, because they do not know Jesus Christ, the one sent by you. And in the meantime they make a god who conforms to their thoughts, a god who truly is not God, but purely nothing. Thus you see that th word "only" is not used in the sense of setting Himself apart from the Father with respect to the divine essence (since the other words adequately prevent this) but simply because he weaves the two of them together--the Father and himself--yes, firmly links the Father to himself in contrast to all who fashion another God or seek Him elsewhere than in Christ."

 

Source:

Martin Luther
Das 16. und 17 Kapitel Joh. von dem Gebet Christi (1530)
St.L 8:744-843; WA 28:70-200
(Aland Hilfsbuch No. 333)

Translated by Erwin W. Koehlinger
Unpublished

Distinguishing Truth from Error, Pure Doctrine from Heresy

"Just as the confession distinguishes the church from strange religions, so also it distinguishes—this its task—truth from error, pure doctrine from heresy, the church from sect within Christianity. Thus rings the definition of confession in the introduction of the Formula of Concord: “Et quia statim post apostolorum tempora, imo etiam cum adhuc superstites essent, falsi doctores et haeretici exorti sunt, contra quos in primitiva ecclesia symbola sunt composita, id est, breves et categoricae confessiones, quae unanimem catholicae christiani fidei consensum et confessionem orthodoxorum et verae ecclesiae complectebantur.” (“And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i.e., brief, succinct confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church.”) This setting of the limit of truth and error belongs to the essence of confession. If the improbant [“they (our churches) reject”] and the damnant [“they condemn”] (by which is designated the impossibility of church fellowship), which sound so harsh to modern ears are silenced, the Augustana ceases to be confession.

If this drawing of boundaries is called “loveless” and “unchristian,” then the same reproach is also directed toward the Apostolicum, every sentence of which was formulated against some heresy, and, above all, this reproach is directed toward the Bible itself. Just as the false prophets stand over against the prophets of God (Jer 23:21 ff.; 29:8–9; Ezekiel 13), [and just as] the false apostles stand over against the apostles of Christ (2 Cor 11:13), so the sect and heresy stand over against the church. And just as the struggle between truth and error rings through all of Holy Scripture, so also it runs through the history of the church, and the church would cease to be the church of Christ, messenger of the redeeming truth of the revelation of God to people, if it would cease to fight this battle. Here lies the greatest and most difficult task of the formation of confession. Here is shown whether or not Christianity still knows what the confession of the church means. The manner in which an age approaches this task shows what of courage and strength of faith, and what of humility and love are alive in Christianity. Here is shown whether the church knows of the reality of the Holy Spirit.

If the people of the Christian West, deep into the rank and file of the church, have forgotten this last sense of the confession of the church, then the reason for the downfall must not be overlooked. It happened because this struggle for the truth of the Gospel—the most difficult struggle which the church in the world has had to carry out—was not always fought with pure hearts and unsullied hands. Nowhere has the church failed so seriously as there where it should have struggled for the pure teaching of the Gospel. In the fight against apostasy from the church, the church has itself only too often forsaken Christ. Thus the confessing church has ever and again become the denying church. The history of Simon Peter, who was the first to express the confession of the church and the first to deny the Lord, has been repeated in the history of the church. But something else is also repeated therein: the tears of repentance and the reinstatement into the office, and this is the office of confession, of bearing witness, of martyrdom."

Source:
Hermann Sasse
The Confession of the Church
The Lonely Way, p. 113.

Lutheranism's Understanding of the Constitution of the Church

In light of some recent musings out and about on Lutheran lists, blogs, and fora, about the "badness" or "goodness" of a Lutheran episcopate, it would be helpful to give attention to one of our greatest Lutheran teachers from the 20th century, Dr. Hermann Sasse, who offers up a very necessary, and healthy, reality-check.

Lutheranism is the only great Christian confession which knows of no particular external order as being of the essence of the church. All other confessions know of a definite constitution as being of the church’s essence because it has been commanded by God in the NT and must therefore be present where the true church of Christ is supposed to be. Thus for Roman Catholicism the Roman episcopal constitution, with the papacy at its summit, belongs to the essence of the church. Also the Orthodox churches of the East and the non-Roman Catholic churches of the West—to which, among others, we count the Anglican Church—know of a quite definite, divinely willed order of the church. To this belong the threefold office of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, together with the principle of apostolic succession.

Thoughts on Church Polity On the Occasion of A Newly Consecrated Bishop's Sermon

Bishop Vsevolod Lytkin of the Siberian Lutheran Church, preached an encouraging and inspiring sermon on the occasion of his consecration as bishop, on May 6, 2007.  Apparently some in the Lutheran corner of the Internet find it troubling that there even is such a thing as a Lutheran bishop. I read a particularly absurd comment claiming that one of Bishop Lytkin's highest priorities must be to establish "supreme voter's assemblies." Voter's assemblies are fine and good, if that is how a Lutheran congregation chooses to organize itself, but there is certainly nothing "divinely mandated" about a voter's assembly, anymore tha