Oratio + Meditatio + Tentatio

Okay, we all know there is only one Divine Service. And, no, it’s not page 15. The one and only Divine Service is when Jesus gathers us to Himself to preach and teach on the kingdom of heaven, feeding us the Bread of Life and sustaining us in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life and salvation.
When we gather, then, on the Lord’s Day, we receive from Him; He is serving us because He is the greatest among us. The form of the Divine Service, the incarnation of it is the reading of the Scriptures, preaching, and giving thanks to God by caring for the poor (the tithes and offerings) and by receiving His body and blood as His promise to His people of eternal life.
The Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, et. al., comes from history and tradition. We all know this. But coming from history and tradition does not make it useless or irrelevant. There are reasons these things became the incarnation of the Divine Service. The confess the life of Jesus as the Anointed One of God who saves His people from their sins. So we enter His presence with psalms, we praise Him by seeking good from Him alone (Kyrie), and we sing with angels and archangels the song of heaven (Gloria and Sanctus). Therefore these things should not easily or without great concern be gotten rid of. They’re not adiaphora in the sense that they are indifferent. They are not indifferent. They confess the faith and have done so for a couple of thousand generations.
So when we speak of different Divine Services, we are really speaking of different incarnations of THE Divine Service. This is not wholly bad. Christ was born a baby then “changed” into a boy then “changed” into a man, but it was still the same Christ. So also, the multiplicities of forms of the Divine Service are not in themselves bad. But that doesn’t mean we should just switch willy nilly.
We must take into account history and tradition. To refuse to take these into account is to dismiss thousands of years of the Church’s expression of the faith, or at least our congregation’s historic expression of the faith passed down from generation to generation.
Of course, the form does change. Not just the propers, but the ordinaries as well. The three-fold Kyrie may become the nine-fold at Christmas and Easter, etc.
It seems to me the danger in “switching services” is the idea that each service somehow stands alone. They don’t. Pastors should not just switch from Divine Service One (LSB), say, to DS3 (LSB). Maybe the Offertory can change (which has historic testimony), or maybe the Kyrie can change. But the Kyrie is still there. The Offertory is still there. Maybe even the Nunc Dimittis can change since it too was not always an ordinary but a proper, and that for the choir!
My point is, a congregation should have one expression or form that she uses, that the people become familiar with and take to heart, that can be (at least mostly) done from memory, that we can pass on to our children. But that should not keep us from using the great treasury of the Church in matching the form of the Divine Service to the substance, which is Christ.

In Acts 8, we read of Philip the deacon (whom Chrysostom says is not the Philip of Acts 9) preaching in Samaria. When the apostles heard that the Word of God was received in Samaria, they sent Peter and John, “who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (8:15-16).

St. Paul writes that no one calls Jesus “Lord” except by the Spirit, and that no one says, “Jesus be accursed” except that they do not have the Spirit. Surely those who received Baptism in Samaria were calling Jesus Lord. Surely they hear the Word of the Lord from Philip the deacon, believed and were baptized. What is going on here, then, they the Spirit had not yet fallen on any of them?

I submit that this falling of the Spirit is not faith but the same falling as on the Day of Pentecost. Peter and John came and laid their hands on the Samaritans so that Spirit would continue the ministry among them.

Having studied and prepared for this last Sunday’s homily, it struck me what St. Peter says in his Pentecost sermon. Quoting the prophet Joel, the apostle preaches the word of the Lord: “‘In the last days I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,’ declares the Lord.” All flesh.
We often say that the pouring out is through Baptism, and I don’t disagree, but perhaps there is more(?).
How does the Father pour out the Spirit? Through the Son. When? On the cross (breathed out His Spirit); at Pentecost; in Jn. 20:21 (among others?). But we choose sides: is it an outpouring for salvation? For ministry? For judgment? Yes.
The Spirit of the Lord has been poured out on all flesh, just as the Christ died not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world. Pentecost was the sign for this. Perhaps when evangelizing (when “gospeling” the unbeliever), instead of trying to simply and only convince him that Jesus died for his sins and was raised for his justification, as it is often the case that sinners don’t think they either sin or need to be justified, perhaps we ought say to the sinner, “Of course you need to gather to Christ (which is better than saying, “Go to church”) Your Lord and your God has poured out His Spirit on you. Therefore repent and be baptized and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This promise is for you and your children.”
Our Lord Jesus is their Lord and their God. Their unbelief does not make Him any less so, even as it condemns them. Moreover, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Now, no one says, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Spirit.

Something to ponder.

I submitted this as the “Pastor’s Thoughts” in our local newspaper (Hoisington Dispatch). Hopefully it will spark some conversations.

My God is Bigger than Yours
By the Rev. Mark Lovett
Come, you who say you have no God, you who say there is no God. Come, you who say that God is fashioned in the image of man, a gene, a crutch, or an illusion. Come, you who call your God “Money” or “Possessions” or “Social Status”. Come, you who call your God “Tradition” or “Personal Taste” or “Politically Correct”. Come, you who call your God “Allah” or “Karma” or “Mother Earth”. Come, you who call your God “Live and Let Live” or “Peace” or “Humanity”. Come, you who call your God “Equal Rights” or “Free Choice” or “Relativism”. Come, you who call your God by whatever name seems appropriate to you in the moment, whether that name is “Love” or “Mercy” or “Going Green,” or whether you call your God “Do Not Judge Me” or “Free Will”. Come, you who think your God is powerful and mighty, able to cure the ills of society, the pains of injustice, and the evils of oppression. Come, you that believe in your God called “Reason” or “Reasonableness” or “Common Sense”. Come, you who trust in your God called “Spirituality” or “Religion” or “Religious Enough”. Come, you who worship your God called “Evolution” or “Science” or “Enlightenment”. Come, you who sacrifice on the altars of the God you call “Middle Class” or “The Bible” or “Prosperity”. Come, you who worship the God called “Church” or “Morally Upright” or “My Faith is Between Me and God”. Come you who sacrifice to the God you call “No One Knows the Real God” or “All Religions Are the Same” or whose God has a name that ends with an “-ism”. Come, you who worship the God called “Faith”. Come, and I will show you the one true God.
The one true God is not like your god. His ways are not your ways. He is not God because He is fair, treating everyone the same. He is not God because He frees from addiction, poverty, or injustice. He is not God because He is fashionable or popular or politically correct. He is not God because He makes us feel good or loved or because He overcomes social and racial barriers. He is not God because He puts money in the bank or cars in the drive or food in the belly. All of these things He does, but if you only know Him by these things, then you see only His backside and not His face. If all you know of God are these things, then you only know His shadow and not His substance so that you do not worship God but an image of God, which is idolatry. Money will disappear and the poor we will always have with us; friends will forsake, family will move, spirituality will wane, reasonableness will change, taboos will rise and fall, morality will waste away, political freedom is an illusion, control ends with death, and relativism is the slave of the strong. But the one true God is bigger than these gods.
The one true God is not subject to the whims of men or the fashions of nations. He is not swayed by reason, wealth, or whine. No other god is as strong as my God. For neither Allah nor Krishna, neither wealth nor want, neither freedom nor slavery, neither Americans nor Pakistanis, neither science nor mysticism, neither morality nor relativism, neither equality nor oppression, neither philosophy or common sense, neither tradition nor personal taste, none of these false gods have done what my God has done; none of these are as strong or as powerful as my God, for my God has destroyed what no other god can even fight. My God has beaten death itself. What has your god done?
My God’s name? Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, the Son of Mary; the Lord of all.

In a resent survey I distributed (see the post below), there were some who said that they do not wish to bring younger children to the Sacrament. I assume, given the survey and those to whom it was sent (mainly LCMS pastors), that “younger children” are children who are not yet of confirmation age (13 to 14 years old). My question is, why? Why not desire to bring younger children to the Sacrament?

Didn’t our Lord say to His disciples, “Let the little children come unto me”? I know, this is associated with Baptism, but our Lord doesn’t make this distinction, we do. Why do His words apply to Baptism and not to the Holy Supper? Shouldn’t His words, “Baptize all nations” refer to children (as indeed they do), and His words, “Come unto me …” refer to those who believe, which includes baptized children? It seems to me we’ve spilled too much ink on why children can’t come to Jesus in the Sacrament rather than spilling ink on why they should, as Luther pens in the Large Catechism. He writes, “Since children are baptized and received into the Chrisitan Church, they too should enjoy this communion of the Sacrament” (LC, V, 87). Oh, no! Sounds like Infant Communion! What are you afraid of? I’m not advocating communing infants, I’m saying that children can confess the faith and therefore should be allowed to receive what they are confessing. Or are we God, able to know what is in their hearts? Are we not commanded to love them, to beleive all things? If they lie, what is that to us, we are not the judge. Our theology is too general, too blanketing (nice adjective, eh?).

We try too hard to make general rules and assumptions, forgetting that we are dealing with specific people in specific times in specific ways. I wonder, are our Lord’s words, “For you” generic? If so, then you have no reason to think He means you.

The survey: Communion Practice (click on the link to view the survey and results (PDF)).

This post is for mainly for those who completed the survey “Communion Practice” though anyone may certianly read it. The attatched link is a PDF of the survey and the responses.

First of all, thank you for your responses to the survey. I sent it via email and facebook, so I double invited some, but it was limited to only one response per computer, so even if you got a double invite, you could have only filled the survey out once. Of course, it was a very limited survey (I would have to have paid quite a bit of money to expand it), so I realize that some of the questions and/or responses were somewhat limiting. However, the survey served its purpose.

Of the 60 or so I sent, I - to date - have received back 31 (I’m closing it today). And I found that the responses were favorable to bringing young children to the Sacrament (68% said they’d like to have young children receive the Sacrament - question 7); 55% understand St. Paul’s use of the word “body” in 1 Cor. 11:29 to refer to both the host and the Church (question 9); and 55% understand St. Paul’s caution to “examine one’s self” to mean that one must discern what he is eating (the body and blood of Christ) as well as with whom he is eating and drinking (the church, the Body of Christ). (For some reason question 10’s responses didn’t print, and I can’t get them to. Sorry.) The survey was sent to a great variety of people, some with whom I strongly disagree. In particular, 22% understand that St. Paul’s words “examine one’s self” means to examine his or her cleanliness or uncleanliness. I don’t think this answer can be exegetically supported.

Therefore, the biggest thing the survey may have done, though, is to show us that our church is not in agreement in this matter. We shouldn’t point fingers and accuse, but should engage in dialog, exegetical dialog. Our practice is a reflection, a living out of our doctrine. We need to study the Scritpures to remain true to Christ and His Church in practice. I submit that perhaps our practice has become the doctrine so that we defend our practice, ignoring what is actually written. Just a thought.

What is a private sin? Well, let’s first consider what the word “private” means. It means, “not pubic.” Private property is not public property. A private beach is not a public beach. A private ceremony is not a public ceremony. But private is not secret. A couple may very well have a private moment in public, but it is nigh impossible to have a secret moment in public. Again, a private beach is not a secret beach; people do know about it. A private ceremony is announced: “This is a private ceremony.” A secret ceremony would not be announced.
So what is a private sin? It is not a public one. But this doesn’t really answer what a private sin is, it only clarifies what it is not. So to be clear: a private sin is a sin committed against an individual. If I steal my neighbor’s mail, I have commited a private sin even though it will be made public at my arraignment. If I shoot the bird to someone in the mall, it is a private sin - a sin committed agaisnt the person I shot the bird at - even though it is done in public. So a private sin can be done in public. And a public sin can be done in private.
A public sin is a sin committed againt the public. To draw an analogy, if the United States is attacked by an enemy, foreign or domestic, this is a public sin (the sin being used as an act agaisnt someone). It is a sin against the entire United States, and so the United States goes to war. But if a foreigner slaps me upside the head it is not a sin against the United States but against me. Now even if the attack is done in private (such as poisioning the water supply of major cities) it is still a public sin. But if I am slapped on national television, it is still a private sin.
Where am I going with all this? Here: Matthew 18 is dealing with public sins, not private ones. Jesus is here concerened with sins committed against the Body of Christ, public sins, not sins committed against a person, private sins.
In fact, when someone sins against us - a private sin - we are supposed to forgive immediately without them even asking for it. Thus St. Peter writes, “Love covers a multitude of sins.” If we exegete Matthew 18 to mean that when someone sins against us personally we are to go and show them their fault, what possible purpose would this serve? Rather, when we are maligned, mistreated, sinned against, we are to remain silent (1 Peter 5). We are to be as sheep to the slaughter. We are to love our enemy and so count no record of wrong against him. If we count no record of wrong, then why do we go and show him his fault?
Now someone will say, “Yes but Jesus is here speaking of our brother, not our enemy.” So much the worse! If we are to cover our enemy’s sin with our love for him, how much more are we to do this for our brother? This is what St. Paul writes to the Corinthians.
In Matthew 18, Jesus is saying to His disciples, if someone sins against you, go and show him his fault. That is, if someone sins against the Body of Christ, the disciples, namely, the ministers of reconciliation are to go and show him his fault. If the sinner repents, they have reconciled him to the Body of Christ and gained their brother. If he does not listen to them, they bring 2 or 3 witness to establish that he has sinned against the Body of Christ (not them personally). Once again, if the sinner repents, having been rebuked by many, then they have gained their brother, but if he refuses to listen again then it is told to the church. Now why in God’s name (pun intented) would Jesus say for us to tell the whole church when someone has sinned against us personally? Rather, is He not saying that in sinning agaisnt the Body and refusing to be reconciled then the Body must reject him? Again, this is what St. Paul writes to the church in Corinth about the immoral man.
So to use Matthew 18 in matters of personal sin is to misuse Matthew 18. If someone sins against you, be wronged. Better to suffer for doing good if that is God’s will (1 Peter). After all, what are you that you can be sinned against? But if someone sins against the Body, show him his fault that he may be reconciled to the Body of Christ and be saved.

We are all familiar with the apostle Paul’s admonition concerning receiving the Lord’s Supper that a person ought to examine himself before he eats and drinks so that he doesn’t eat and drink to his judgment. But what does the apostle mean, examine yourself? What exactly are we to examine about ourselves? Well, to begin, here are St. Paul’s words:
“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.” (1 Corinthians 11:27-29, ESV)

When St. Paul wrote to the church in Corinth concerning the Holy Supper of our Lord, he was concerned because they were so divided among themselves. There were such sharp factions and divisions that even at the Lord’s Supper there was fighting, betrayal, and neglect. The rich came early and ate their fill, even getting drunk, while their poorer brothers, who had nothing, received nothing (11:21). Because of this wicked division, the apostle goes so far as to say that those who caused this division were despisers of the Church of God. And because they despised the Church of God, it was not the Lord’s Supper they ate and drank.
To correct the abuses and mend the brokenness of the Corinthian’s gathering, St. Paul repeats again from them what he had received and passed on. That our Lord Jesus Christ, on the night when He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body which is for you …” In the same way, He took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” By giving the Lord’s words again to the church in Corinth, Paul is doing two things: 1) He is reminding the Corinthians whose supper it is as well as what it is (the body and blood of Jesus), and, 2) he is reminding them that our Lord has given His Supper it to His Body, the Church, without distinction to class, race, or sex. After all, the words, “For you,” require all hearts to believe. But despising the Church by their divisions, the Corinthians were not celebrating the Lord’s Supper. They were sinning against the body and blood of Christ and against the Church of God, itself!
The amount of bread and wine does not matter (that is, the amount you receive, cf. 11:22). The place and time does not matter. The paraments and vestments don’t matter. Only two things matter: that you gather in Jesus’ name and that Jesus’ words are spoken. So, for example, if you sat down at table and ate bread and drank wine with a group of atheists, even if the words of Jesus were spoken over the bread and wine, it would not be the Lord’s Supper because atheists don’t gather in the name of Jesus. Gathering with atheists, you would not have gathered with the Body of Christ. How do you know you are gathering with the Body of Christ? Because where two or three gather in His name, He is there. Atheists don’t gather in the name of Jesus! And whoever does not gather to Him scatters and does not have the Lord’s Supper, even if they were to repeat Jesus’ words ad infinitum. To illustrate further, let’s say Hollywood puts out another movie about Jesus. When the actors gather together to enact the scene of the Lord’s Supper, they say the words, they eat and drink, but they do not actually celebrate the Lord’s Supper. It’s not because they’re not in a church building that they do not have the Lord’s Supper, but because they are not gathered in Jesus’ name. They are gathered in the name of the maker of the movie. Since they have not gathered in Jesus’ name, Jesus is not there to give them His Supper.
It matters that you understand with whom you gather to eat and drink — the Church, who gathers to her Lord to receive from His hand. Therefore, St. Paul says to the Corinthians, since you despise the Church of God by shunning and shaming your brothers, since you do not gather in Jesus’ name but your own, you do not eat the Lord’s Supper. Instead, you profane the body and blood of Christ, which is not given to just some Christians, but to the entire Church. Since the local congregation is the Church gathered in the name of Jesus, she doesn’t have the right to discriminate, receiving some and shunning other who rightly belong to her (no matter their wealth, class, race, age, or sex).
But that is exactly what the Corinthian congregation did; they discriminated against their brothers and sisters. So the apostle continues, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy matter will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Therefore, let a person examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup, for anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself” (vv. 27-29). Take note: no less than four times the apostle writes “body and blood” or “eats and drinks,” never separating the two until he writes that “anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body (singularly) eats and drinks judgment on himself.” No mention of discerning the blood even though the apostle nowhere else separates the two elements or actions. Why does St. Paul do this? What does it mean?
It means that the apostle’s admonition to “discern the body” is not merely an admonition to believe that the bread is the body of Christ. He has already cleared this matter up in chapter 10, when he writes, “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (10:16). So the bread is the body of Jesus and the cup is His blood. But then Paul writes that because we eat of the one bread, we are one body. Our unity is in our eating the Lord’s body together. So unless we discern the body (11:29), that is, unless we discern what we are eating and with whom we are eating, we eat and drink judgment on ourselves.
Therefore, examine yourself. Not to make sure you’re aware of all your sins or to make sure you’re not angry with anyone or that no one is angry with you (the Bible itself says you are unable to do this!), but rather examine yourself so that you confess what you are eating and with whom you are eating it. This is why during the distribution of the Sacrament, many pastors simply say, “Body of Christ.” This reinforces that you are eating the body of Christ, that you are the Body of Christ, and that you eat with the Body of Christ, thus fulfilling the apostle’s admonition to examine oneself and so discern the body.
Now understand, it is not by knowledge or wisdom or understanding that one discerns the body. It is by and through faith. Thus the Small Catechism, “That person is truly worthy [to receive the Sacrament] who has faith in these words, ‘Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sin.’” Luther, like St. Paul, says one must discern the body, for in the words “Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins,” we have the words and will of Christ. What is given and shed? Jesus’ body and blood. To whom is it given? To those who gather in His name, hearing His words, “For you.” Why is it given? To grant pardon and peace (forgiveness) to the one who eats and drinks. Thus, the words of Jesus along with the bodily eating and drinking are the main thing in the Sacrament. To discern the body is to have faith in Jesus’ words.
By the by, Luther ends the Large Catechism with these words: “Since the children are baptized and received into the Christian Church (the Body of Christ), they should also enjoy this communion of the Sacrament, in order that they may serve us and be useful to us. They must all certainly help us to believe, love, pray, and fight against the devil.” Even a child know what the Church is.

St. Paul writes in Colossians 3, “You have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.” This, of course, is baptismal language. He writes in chatper 2, “[You have] been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” So the life of the baptized is hidden with Christ in God.

Christ is hidden. We can’t see, touch, smell, or taste Him. That is, except by faith. This is not a blind faith. We have the promise of Jesus whom God raised from the dead, “Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved,” “This is my body…this is my blood,” “Whosoever receives you, receives me,” and so on. So by faith we see, touch, smell, hear, and taste Christ. It is, therefore, not a blind faith that holds an incorporeal Christ, but a living faith that clings to the promise of Jesus - and so to Jesus Himself - that He is with us and we with Him and He will return to take us to where He is. He does this now - lives with and among us - through the mysteries of God. We are hidden with Him.

The world, and not even our brothers and sisters in Christ, nor even ourselves, see who we really are. For “when Christ, who is your life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory” (Col. 3:4). We will appear with Him. Now we see one another dimly as through a mirror, but then we shall see face to face (1 Cor. 13). Because we are hidden, we are treated and we treat others by what our eyes behold, for man judges according to the flesh but God judges according to the heart, the hidden life with Christ. So we hate and are hated. We lie and are lied to. We covet and are the envy of others. All of this because we are hidden and our brothers and sisters are hidden from us, blinded by our sinful selves. For when the old Adam is done away with, when sin is finally put to death in our bodies, then we will not lie, steal, cheat, curse, covet, murder, et. al. It is not I who do these things, for I am hidden in Christ, but sin living in me does these things. Therefore the good I would do, I do not do. And the evil I abhore, that I do! And so I repent.

I repent of sinfulness and of sin. I repent because I am hidden in Christ who is my life. The evil I do, then, is not part of my life, but part of death, and so must be put to death by the death of Christ. We are brought back to Baptism. Therefore, the life of a Christian is a life of repentance because we are hidden with Christ in God.

Check out the new look for Concordia at www.concordia-hoisington.org.

It’s still under construction (what isn’t?), but I think it’s a good start.
What do you think?