Lutheran Air
I almost never forward humorous e-mails, or even refer to them, but this one got through my filter:
If you are traveling soon, consider Lutheran Air, the no-frills airline --- you're all in the same boat on Lutheran Air. Where flying is an uplifting experience. There is no First Class on any Lutheran Air flight.
Meals are potluck. Rows 1-6 bring rolls, 7-15 bring a salad, 16-21 a main dish and 22-30 a dessert.
Basses and tenors please sit in the rear of the aircraft.
Everyone is responsible for his or her own luggage. All fares are by freewill offering and the plane will not land until the budget is met.
And pay attention to your flight attendant who will acquaint you with the safety system aboard this Lutheran Air 599....
"Okay then. Listen up; I'm only gonna say this once. In the event of a sudden loss of cabin pressure, I am frankly going to be real suprised and so will Captian Olson because we fly right at around 2000 feet, so loss of cabin pressure would probably indicate the Second Coming or something of that nature, and I wouldn't bother with these little masks on the rubber tubes, you're gonna have bigger things to worry about than that. Just stuff those back up in their little holes. Probably the masks fell out because of turbulence which, to be honest with you, we're going to have quite a bit of it at 2000 feet, sort of like driving across a plowed field, but after a while, you get used to it.
"In the event of a water landing, I'd say forget it. Start praying The Lords' Prayer and just hope to gosh you get to the part about forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us, which some people say "trespass" against us, which isn't right, but what can you do?
"The use of cell phones on the plane is strictly forbidden, not because they may interfere with the plane's navigational system - which is seat of the pants all the way - no, it's because cell phones are a pain in the wazoo and if God meant you to use a cell phone, He would've put your mouth on the side of your head.
"We're going to start lunch right about noon and it's buffet style and the coffee pot is up front and then we'll have the hymn sing --- hymnals are in the seat pocket in front of you, and don't take yours when you go or I am going to be real upset and I am not kidding, and right now I'll say Grace: God is great, God is good, and we thank Him for the food, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, May we land in Dallas or at least pretty close. Amen."
Saturday, January 31, 2004
Friday, January 30, 2004
Article XXV. Concerning Confession
Concerning Confession, Article XXV. of the AC
1] Confession in the churches is not abolished among us; for it is not usual to give the body of the Lord, except to them that have been previously examined and absolved. And 2] the people are most carefully taught concerning faith in the absolution, about which formerly there 3] was profound silence. Our people are taught that they should highly prize the absolution, as being the voice of God, 4] and pronounced by God's command. The power of the Keys is set forth in its beauty and they are reminded what great consolation it brings to anxious consciences, also, that God requires faith to believe such absolution as a voice sounding from heaven, and that such faith in Christ truly obtains and receives the forgiveness of sins. Aforetime satisfactions were immoderately extolled; 5] of faith and the merit of Christ and the righteousness of faith no mention was made; wherefore, on this point, our churches are by no means to be blamed. For this even our adversaries must needs concede 6] to us that the doctrine concerning repentance has been most diligently treated and laid open by our teachers.
7] But of Confession they teach that an enumeration of sins is not necessary, and that consciences be not burdened with anxiety to enumerate all sins, for it is impossible to recount all sins, as the Psalm 19, 13 testifies: Who can understand his errors? Also Jeremiah, 17, 9: 8] The heart is deceitful; who can know it? But if no sins were forgiven, except those that are recounted, 9] consciences could never find peace; for very many sins they neither see 10] nor can remember. The ancient writers also testify that an enumeration is not necessary. For in the Decrees, Chrysostom is quoted, 11] who says thus: I say not to you that you should disclose yourself in public, nor that you accuse yourself before others, but I would have you obey the prophet who says: "Disclose thy way before God." Therefore confess your sins before God, the true Judge, with prayer. Tell your errors, not with the tongue, but with the memory of your conscience, etc. 12] And the Gloss (Of Repentance, Distinct. V, Cap. Consideret) admits that Confession is of human right only [not commanded by Scripture, but ordained by the Church]. 13] Nevertheless, on account of the great benefit of absolution, and because it is otherwise useful to the conscience, Confession is retained among us.
The question of right reception of the sacrament doesn't come up super often in my context, but it does come up. Especially when we get to passages from 1 Corinthians in the lectionary. Mostly, the reception of the sacrament is done because all are doing it, and the only ones who exclude themselves are Catholics pious enough to know better. The concept of confession prior to reception is lost. It is not even on the horizon as an historical artifact.
I find myself of two minds on this shift in our linking of confession and the Supper. On the one hand, to limit the reception of the Supper simply to the culmination of a penitential rite seems misguided. The Supper is always much more than that. We say, according to the creed, that in the Supper we receive the forgiveness of sins. But we also say that in the forgiveness of sins there is life and salvation. So these two sides of the same coin should play out liturgically. It is both a penitential rite and a celebratory rite.
But to lose completely the penitential, so that it becomes simply a somber thing one does with wafers and chalices is also misguided. We have, it seems, maintained the semi-somber nature of the meal without going to the depths of the consolation present in the meal itself. This itself would be argument enough for re-instituting individual confession prior to reception. To celebrate this sacrament in its fullness would be to re-institute the confession, but also to celebrate the meal totally- in the meal there is life and salvation, consolation in the forgiveness of sins, alleluia!
This article concludes with an interesting example of the confessors' concern to be in continuity with Scripture AND the tradition of the church. In fact, it cites positively Gratian's note, that "confession is not commanded in Scripture but was instituted by the church." And then continues, "The preachers on our side diligently teach that confession is to be retained because of the absolution." Thus a tradition instituted by the church (not Scripture) is retained for the sake of the absolution. This is a key example of how the confessional documents are themselves a part of the development of doctrine in the church, not simply a blind repetition of Scripture. Allegiance to Scripture without sensitivity (or even admission) to the role of tradition and the church in its interpretation is not confessional, it's a later product of fundamentalism that any good confessional Lutheran, and anyone in the catholic tradition, would disavow.
1] Confession in the churches is not abolished among us; for it is not usual to give the body of the Lord, except to them that have been previously examined and absolved. And 2] the people are most carefully taught concerning faith in the absolution, about which formerly there 3] was profound silence. Our people are taught that they should highly prize the absolution, as being the voice of God, 4] and pronounced by God's command. The power of the Keys is set forth in its beauty and they are reminded what great consolation it brings to anxious consciences, also, that God requires faith to believe such absolution as a voice sounding from heaven, and that such faith in Christ truly obtains and receives the forgiveness of sins. Aforetime satisfactions were immoderately extolled; 5] of faith and the merit of Christ and the righteousness of faith no mention was made; wherefore, on this point, our churches are by no means to be blamed. For this even our adversaries must needs concede 6] to us that the doctrine concerning repentance has been most diligently treated and laid open by our teachers.
7] But of Confession they teach that an enumeration of sins is not necessary, and that consciences be not burdened with anxiety to enumerate all sins, for it is impossible to recount all sins, as the Psalm 19, 13 testifies: Who can understand his errors? Also Jeremiah, 17, 9: 8] The heart is deceitful; who can know it? But if no sins were forgiven, except those that are recounted, 9] consciences could never find peace; for very many sins they neither see 10] nor can remember. The ancient writers also testify that an enumeration is not necessary. For in the Decrees, Chrysostom is quoted, 11] who says thus: I say not to you that you should disclose yourself in public, nor that you accuse yourself before others, but I would have you obey the prophet who says: "Disclose thy way before God." Therefore confess your sins before God, the true Judge, with prayer. Tell your errors, not with the tongue, but with the memory of your conscience, etc. 12] And the Gloss (Of Repentance, Distinct. V, Cap. Consideret) admits that Confession is of human right only [not commanded by Scripture, but ordained by the Church]. 13] Nevertheless, on account of the great benefit of absolution, and because it is otherwise useful to the conscience, Confession is retained among us.
The question of right reception of the sacrament doesn't come up super often in my context, but it does come up. Especially when we get to passages from 1 Corinthians in the lectionary. Mostly, the reception of the sacrament is done because all are doing it, and the only ones who exclude themselves are Catholics pious enough to know better. The concept of confession prior to reception is lost. It is not even on the horizon as an historical artifact.
I find myself of two minds on this shift in our linking of confession and the Supper. On the one hand, to limit the reception of the Supper simply to the culmination of a penitential rite seems misguided. The Supper is always much more than that. We say, according to the creed, that in the Supper we receive the forgiveness of sins. But we also say that in the forgiveness of sins there is life and salvation. So these two sides of the same coin should play out liturgically. It is both a penitential rite and a celebratory rite.
But to lose completely the penitential, so that it becomes simply a somber thing one does with wafers and chalices is also misguided. We have, it seems, maintained the semi-somber nature of the meal without going to the depths of the consolation present in the meal itself. This itself would be argument enough for re-instituting individual confession prior to reception. To celebrate this sacrament in its fullness would be to re-institute the confession, but also to celebrate the meal totally- in the meal there is life and salvation, consolation in the forgiveness of sins, alleluia!
This article concludes with an interesting example of the confessors' concern to be in continuity with Scripture AND the tradition of the church. In fact, it cites positively Gratian's note, that "confession is not commanded in Scripture but was instituted by the church." And then continues, "The preachers on our side diligently teach that confession is to be retained because of the absolution." Thus a tradition instituted by the church (not Scripture) is retained for the sake of the absolution. This is a key example of how the confessional documents are themselves a part of the development of doctrine in the church, not simply a blind repetition of Scripture. Allegiance to Scripture without sensitivity (or even admission) to the role of tradition and the church in its interpretation is not confessional, it's a later product of fundamentalism that any good confessional Lutheran, and anyone in the catholic tradition, would disavow.
Thursday, January 29, 2004
Marks make the church or church makes the marks?
Contrariness or radical confessionalism?
One of my good friends mentioned to me once that the Gospel rightly preached and the Sacraments rightly administered would empty our church buildings since the Gospel runs so contrary to culture and human nature.
But my question would then be does the Church make the marks or do the marks make the Church? Three people are in a house, someone reads the Words of institution over bread and wine... isn't THAT church?
One of my good friends mentioned to me once that the Gospel rightly preached and the Sacraments rightly administered would empty our church buildings since the Gospel runs so contrary to culture and human nature.
But my question would then be does the Church make the marks or do the marks make the Church? Three people are in a house, someone reads the Words of institution over bread and wine... isn't THAT church?
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
Aidan Nichols, in his Holy Order, quotes a French New Testament scholar concerning what we might consider an intersection between the visible and the invisible action of Christ in his Church.
"To define apostolicity, we must not separate the proclamation of the Gospel from the foundation of a solidly structured Church. The foundation of local communities that are themselves the Church of God in a given place is just as much an apostolic task as is the preaching of the Gospel, and it gives an institutional face to the expansion of the faith."
Article VIII of the Confessions states:
"Both the Sacraments and Word are effectual by reason of the institution and commandment of Christ..."
This institution and commandment is deployed in unseen and seen, commingled ways. These activities - preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments - are carried out in a visible context, the Church. Moreover, the mandate by which a minister of the Gospel does these things also effects the very context in which he does them, so much so that they are inseparable.
As far as modern concerns of "institutional growth" go, I've got scant love for the McChurch mentality. But seeing Christ's mandate as the context for an "institutional face" combats such "corporate" mentality far more effectively than reductionism and plain old contrariness.
"To define apostolicity, we must not separate the proclamation of the Gospel from the foundation of a solidly structured Church. The foundation of local communities that are themselves the Church of God in a given place is just as much an apostolic task as is the preaching of the Gospel, and it gives an institutional face to the expansion of the faith."
Article VIII of the Confessions states:
"Both the Sacraments and Word are effectual by reason of the institution and commandment of Christ..."
This institution and commandment is deployed in unseen and seen, commingled ways. These activities - preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments - are carried out in a visible context, the Church. Moreover, the mandate by which a minister of the Gospel does these things also effects the very context in which he does them, so much so that they are inseparable.
As far as modern concerns of "institutional growth" go, I've got scant love for the McChurch mentality. But seeing Christ's mandate as the context for an "institutional face" combats such "corporate" mentality far more effectively than reductionism and plain old contrariness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)