Messages

Sing it. Since it's in Latin, most won't understand it anyway.

I think God listens in Latin, though.

Of course, but does Mary know Latin?  It is addressed to her.

I've usually gone with a solo  instrumental/keyboard version if it needs to be within the service, during communion distribution sometimes.

Another choice, I've used at weddings is to have is as part of the pre-services music (typically the song for the mother's entrance).  That way it honors the faith of the mother or some of the guests, but isn't part of the service as such.

Also, I think in the Schubert version the text is more than one verse. If the last were omitted it might remove the part not deemed appropriate by Lutherans.

In general I appreciate the installation services moreso than the ordination services.

Again blessings on your ministry.  After all the "fetes and fireworks" are over, perhaps you'd elaborate on the sentence I lifted from your original post, I be interest to know what you mean.

I can think of any number of questions I would find irrelevant, inappropriate, even impertinent.  Still, I don't think they should be forbidden.  That they are asked at all, would tell me a great deal about what will life in that congregation might be like.  I would say that if something were close to the line, or felt like it was part of the personal agenda of one of the questioners, I mght use my opporunity to as questions to put that question to the members of the committee or inquire about how the congregation feels about the question, and how is that feeling known, a study around the issue, conversation over coffee hour, a policy, etc.

I recall being asked as one of the very first questions, what I thought about raffles.  I had no idea where they were coming from. But I weathered it and served there for 9 years.

Interestingly this was a congregation which was independent for nearly 75 years of its history, but linked for most of that with LCMS.  Their constitution said that "all matters were not to be put to a vote, but decided by the scriptures under the guidance of the pastor."  Curiously though, apart from ELCA model, it also provided that the congregation could dismiss the pastor if it (not the synod) found him guilty of false teaching.  I found these two priniciple somewhat contradictory. 

My point to the thread is that we should be clear in our understanding as a church (congregations and national body) that call committee does not exist to sit in judgment of the theological fitness of candidates.  That is for candidacy committees for those seeking ordination, discipline hearing committeess for those already rostered.

I've often thought our call process, for all the forms and interviews, both pastors and congregations are still buying the proverbial "pig in a poke."  I guess we have to figure that sometimes the interview process will seem like someone just kicked the poke to see if what's inside squeals like a pig, yelps like a dog, or roars like a lion.

"The Orders of Creation" as a locus of theology is, as I remember it, linked to Swiss Reformed theologian Emil Brunner 1889-1966.  The phrase most likely occurs before him, but I believe he was the first to develop the expression into a full "doctrine."

Brunner's work is in sharp contrast to Barth's reliance on the revelation of the Word and the skittish reliance on even rejection of natural law you mentioned.  Many 20th century Lutherans tended to side with Barth.

You might consider having the installation at another service, such as when you first preside at the eucharist as pastor.  Since you expressed an appreciation of the installation rite this might be a way to enable it to be have its own integrity.  Can you get your dean, synod staff or another pastor the bishop could designate to attend your first service following your ordination to do it then?

In the ordination service the ordinand does not assume the presidency at the table, but at an installation he/she does.  The rubric for ordination says "it is not appropriate for the newly ordained to assmue the role of presiding minister" and it holds.  In the installation. the assumption of the role of presiding minister is the point --which is lost if done in the same service.

Occasional Services p. 199 notes it an "exceptional circumstance" to have both in the same liturgy  In his Commentary on the Occasional Services Pfatteicher writes:  "...such a combination should be the very rare exception.  When it is dones, the decision to do so should be logistical and practical, never theological, lest our ecumenical commitments be betrayed."

I asked a friend about this and he said that in our ecumenical commitments we represent that we ordain to the church not the congregation, as opposed to denominations where ordination is a local matter.  The concern is that the combination of rites may tend to blur this distinction.

Having gone to many installations and installed 3 times myself, the appeal of the presentation of symbols, font, pulpit and altar has lost it charm.  It's a nice concept, I just usually falls flat and brings the progress of the liturgy to a grinding halt.  If you're really wedded to that part of the order, why not simply have the congregation speak them as acclamations following the announcement that the office is committed to you. without the processsions etc..

Blessings on your ministry.

Jim Krauser

Actually it sounds like someone reporting what they heard from an eye-witness (no names given but the person's relationship could be verified) not hearsay or gossip. 

Pr. Ken what you wrote is the definition of hearsay, not reporting what you know to be true but what others have told you.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary:

hearsay n:  something heard from another:  Rumor
hearsay evidence n:  evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on matters told him by another.

Yes indeed one may have learned something from an eyewitness or participant; when one relates that information to third party as something they "know" to be true, it is hearsay.

Jim Krauser

Thanks for posting this article.  A poster of this altarpiece bought at the church in Weimar hangs in my living room at the parsonage.

Jim Krauser

The question raised here has legitmacy, though I don't think there is or should be any hard rule.  It is primarily a matter of discretion and personality.

I can well understand Fmr. Bp. Chilstrom's desire to address these issues as the language of Vision & Expectations and Guidelines for Discipline were developed and promulgated on his watch.  I think it is fair to say that they did not embody any new position but they did express the church's position in more explict and absolute terms than any document I have seen from earlier church bodies.  His position now is that the adoption of this absolute language was a mistake (if not at the time, it is in the present).  It is not unreasonable that he would therefore want to address this question.  I think it proper for him to address the issue because he supported them at the time of their adoption and he has since changed his mind.  If he had opposed them then and now freed from his office chooses to try and succeed where he failed in the past, that would seem like sour grapes.  Bp. Childstrom is frank in stating he has changed his mind.

The role of the retired bishops and pastors in the ELCA is a difficult one and one that is not approached in a uniform way.  The model constitution for synods makes no provision for retired pastors (or pastors on leave from call for that matter) to have voice and vote at the synod assembly. Many synod observe this practice.  Our synod, MNYS, from the beginning introduced and adopted an amendment giving full voice and vote to all pastors on the roster of the synod.  Indeed we even often have offered financial assistance to locally retired pastors who wish to attend, though few have availed themselves of it.  This decision was made because we did not wish to cut ourselves off from the experience and insight they have, nor did we want to say we will listen patiently to what you have to say, but don't think we'll let you actually affect the outcome by letting you vote.

Frankly, I am frequently frustrated that those who hold office of bishop keep their own counsel on so many of the issues before the church unless they are completely non-controversial.  They were elected to their office because the church trusts their insight and their leadership.  I don't have to agree with them, but I do think I should weigh what they think in my own deliberations.  If they're uncertain they can say that too.

Regarding the former bishops, I find it odd to hear it commented that because many in the church trust their insight and leadership that it is somehow improper for them to speak.  Or am I misunderstanding the point made?

Do only the retired (and deceased) bishops of antiquity get to weigh in?  They can and should be heard, but it is difficult to dialog with them if we think there is something important they did not take into consideration.  The retired (living) bishops at least can be challenged to explain themselves if we disagree with them.

(For the record, Fmr. Bp. David Preus was invited to address the 1993 CWA for the discussion of the Study of Ministry and did.  Fmr. Bp. Crumley may have as well.  I'm not sure.)


Jim Krauser