Y VU?
Well, once again Valparaiso University is in the news. And, once again, it’s not for anything that I would say is good.
VU to hire first female pastor
Within the past 6 months, VU has made waves in the Lutheran world, first for the hiring of a new President, and now for this hiring of a female pastor.
The hiring of the President was news because it was the first time since Lutheran folk bought VU in 1925 that the President was neither LCMS nor a pastor. New President Mark Heckler is an ELCA layman. While VU was/is not officially an LCMS entity, it has long been known to have strong LCMS ties, and was known/believed to be within LCMS circles to be the university where LCMS laity could go if they didn’t want to be a church worker (in which case they’d go to one of the Concordias). As a cradle LCMSer, and graduate of LCMS elementary & high schools, I can attest to this belief. In recent years, however, these ties have become increasingly loose, and the hiring of President Heckler only served to make that looseness almost impossible to ignore.
This latest announcement, though, takes things to a whole ‘nother level. While ELCA pastorettes (I’ll behave & not use my preferred term…) have preached in the Chapel of the Resurrection, the “official” pastors called to minister to VU have always been LCMS pastors - i.e., male. This has now, to state the obvious, changed. And it might actually start to get noticed by the rank and file pewsitters in the LCMS who have long believed that what was true in the increasingly distant past was still true today. It ain’t true, and it’ll be interesting to see how these folks react when they hear this latest news.
As usual, when issues like this come up, there’s some interesting discussion going on over at the ALPB Forum. And this issue is no exception…
While it’s possible that the whole Issues, Etc. wildfire will keep this latest VU thing from blowing up as big as it otherwise might have, I think it’ll be interesting nonetheless to see just how it plays out within the court of LCMS public opinion.
-ghp
Making sense of the nonsensical
The abrupt cancellation of the LCMS radio station KFUO’s flagship program, as well as the firing of its host & producer, last Tuesday was bizarre, inexplicable, troubling, and hurtful. But the lack of explanation re: the reasons & rationale, indeed the appearance of corporate stonewalling & information embargo along with an almost Stalin-esqe purge (even now, the once-again-available archives are looking to be bandwidth-throttled), is what is perhaps the most troubling & difficult to fathom. It’s really hard to put a proper 8th Commandment best construction on such acts.
Chris Rosebrough, a fairly regular guest on Issues, Etc., and a dedicated & effective apologist for orthodox Christianity (and thus, Lutheranism) re: American Evangelicalism & the Emergent Church Movement, has put forth what looks to be a very reasonable & well thought out explanation about what might be (and probably is) behind this whole Issues, Etc. debacle.
Is the LCMS Being “Transitioned” into a Seeker-Sensitive Denomination?
At first glance, this might look to be alarmist — a conspiracy theory even — to the point of not being charitable. However, I would offer this analysis: Such an explanation is not necessarily pejorative, in that this type of “transitional” strategy has been viewed by many as good, right, and proper. I, and many others, would disagree vehemently with that assessment; however, disagreeing with a strategy & set of tactics is not unkind or sinful in and of itself.
It is recognizing something for what it is.
Such recognition is good.
And it certainly helps bring some of the strangeness of the past week (and beyond) in to a little more understandable focus.
-ghp
Relevance vs. Reverence
Recently, I’ve read two very good postings by Pr. Beisel (post 1 & post 2) over at One Lutheran…Ablogâ„¢. Both of these postings engage a larger battle currently raging in the LCMS under the general umbrella of the official synodical Ablaze! program/initiative, particularly as it pertains to missions. I recommend that you read both posts & the resulting comment threads, as they are interesting, informative, & nicely illustrative of the false dichotomy that some (not Pr. Beisel!) have created between doctrine & mission.
After reading these posts, a though occurred to me regarding what seems to be a foundational tenet of the missional movement: Relevance.
More specifically, my thought was about the juxtaposition of relevance with reverence.
Reverence, as an operational underpinning of the Divine Service, has been primary modus operandi of the Apostolic/post-Apostolic Church for the first 2000 years of its existence. I.e., reverence in worship is key. Reverence for God and the gifts He bestows upon us in the Divine Service.
Relevance, on the other hand, is a more recent innovation, at least as the main/primary focus of worship. The thinking seems to go along the lines of “If we make things familiar, approachable, and “relevant” to the unchurched, then we can/will have greater success in reaching them…”
Thus, reverence is pitted against relevance.
A recent article in Newsday illustrates this ginned-up conflict through the prism of the whole LCMS Ablaze! project/movement. Even keeping in mind the fact that press write-ups are simplistic & lean towards attention-grabbing quotes, it’s still disheartening to read references made about being “…more in tune with what people are hearing today…” & churches being “populated by people who are not just old white guys.” Please note that preaching Christ crucified to all people is meet, right, & proper — I’m more concerned about the dismissive attitude towards the souls you’ve already “got”. “Get ‘em & forget ‘em” (at the risk of hyperbole) is not a Lutheran approach to shepherding the faithful.
Music & the (lack of) liturgy are on the very front-lines of the battle raging between relevance & reverence, as is the question of whether or not the Divine/Worship Service is an outreach/mission tool. One side hurls the epithets of “boring” & “dead orthodoxy”, while the other responds with “tradition” & “confessional/doctrinal integrity”. They very often talk past each other, even as they use the same words, albeit with different definitions.
I decry the sacrifice of reverence on the altar of relevance. What could be more “relevant” than a joyous reverence as shown in the ancient liturgies of the Church handed down from the saints who preceded us in the Faith? “Relevant” needs to be properly understood as that which God reveals to us for our own good, rather than that which seems/feels good or right to us.
Why are “entertaining,” “moving,” and “new & different” automatically viewed as “better” and/or more “effective”? Why are numbers & measurables held in such high esteem? Why is aping the prevalent culture viewed as the best course of action? How is all of that somehow more “relevant” than hewing to what the Church has held near & dear?
The Church is, and always has been, different than the culture that surrounded it (Romans 12:1-2). That’s a good thing. To try and preach the Gospel by making that Gospel conform to what is worldly appealing is not Scriptural. The Gospel does its work by transforming us - we merely preach it & get out of the way. We don’t do the work by transforming & repackaging the Gospel to make it more “acceptable” and thus “effective”.
Our goal in worship ought to be a joyous reverence or to be reverently joyful, in response to the gifts bestowed on us by our loving & gracious God - He is the focus. If we seek to be relevant, even if it be joyous, entertaining, & “successful” (by worldly measures), we seek the wrong thing.
May our gracious Lord & Savior protect us, keep us, and watch over us, so that we may be ever vigilant and faithful as we live out our God-given vocations!
-ghp
Father Hollywood emerges
All too rare is the blog posting that generates a comment thread that outshines the original post. Father Hollywood has done just that with his post Emerging Luther? !
Not only is the main post a great analysis of the increasingly interesting “Emergent Church” phenomena, particularly as it is impacting the LCMS, but the comments that follow the main post are worthy of separate consideration in their own right. This is particularly true for the comments by Fr. Hollywood, wherein he does a great job of simply & concisely explaining Lutheranism’s relationship to both Rome & Constantinople, as well as to all of the myriad splinters that emerged (no pun intended) from Geneva.
While I had known that Wittenberg has greater kinship with Rome & Constantinople, and much less than with Geneva (and its offspring), I had never connected the dots with quite the clarity that Fr. H does. Rather than rehash his statements, doing them dishonor in the process, I’ll just recommend that you head over to read them at his place.
-ghp
-
Analytics & Hosting
