Messages

I think it would be better not to have a national flag in the sanctuary simply as a witness to the catholicity of the church.  A national flag bespeaks a sectarian note.

I do not think the mere presence of the flag is idolatrous. Though given the manner in which it is regarded by many as sacred, certainly raises the issue of idolatry. 

I cannot fathom the use of the Pledge of Allegiance in a Christian worship service.  Listen to the words:  I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America...  Pledge allegiance to a human object?  During Christian worship?  I find it problematic even outside of worship but how does that not pass the smell test under the first commandment?  Pledging allegiance to the republic, I think is defensible, but not to the flag.

In that context the flag is clearly an idol in a plain sense of the word, not very different from the statue of Ceasar that ancient Christians refused to offer incense to.  Yes, Ceasar was regarded as a god, but he (and his statue) was also a understood as embodiment of the "state."   

BTW, I'm not anti-patriotic or anti-flag; the flag proudly flies from the front of the parsonage. 

then again, it may just be where Lutherans historically left the missal:

http://www.gloriachristi.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/2hamburg_lutheran_divine_service.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-diqFXY5RDDo/UUm9oxoMWjI/AAAAAAAAA9M/v0yf35saNpA/s1600/First+Lutheran+service+in+Brandenburg+1539.jpg

Books were much larger then weren't they.  And what with retables etc. mensas were often smaller.
Sometimes practices of one era were born of practicalities that have no reason or purpose in our own.
Yet they linger.

It appears that the earliest form of the Mass did not necessarily contain more than one reading. Indeed, there does not appear to be an inherited apostolic threefold (or synagog based twofold?) pericope system that was set as a universal standard. For example, Justin Martyr  (150 A.D.) states:

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things...

In another section, Justin defines the "memoirs of the apostles" in a limited sense:

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them;... (Chapter 66)

My guess is that the earliest forms of the liturgical Mass lasted for less than an hour. An early church liturgical purist could make a strong case that we have had 1900 years of adiaphora run amok by having our services last over an hour.  Cut two readings off the pericope system, eliminate a lot of singing, skip the Creeds, keep the homily short and the Mass will be more like what took place in the 2nd century.  They may not have had an "eat it and beat it" Eucharistic theology, but I suspect that the Mass in the early church was faster than Lenscrafters with their one hour service.

And all of those speculative observations leave one question which can be equally addressed to the ancients and the moderns:

And what better use of your time do you have?

Is the extra 15-30 minutes (or even another hour) that must be saved at mass keeping you from curing cancer, feeding a multitude or some other essential activity for the good of human kind or your own spiritual edifcation? 

A worthy contribution to the conversation, I think.

   
• 
        
  • April 15, 2014
    Why Christians Should Have a Passover Seder: A Rabbi RespondsPost by EVAN MOFFIC
  
     
  http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/guest_bloggers/7794/why_christians_should_have_a_passover_seder__a_rabbi_responds/

And yet at the Supper we read about Artos, not Azymes...

It is curious that in Matthew 26:26 we are told that Jesus took bread (artos), though it is already established at Matthew 26:17 that it was on the first day of unleavened bread (azumon), that Jesus instructed the disciples to make ready the Passover meal that they are presumably sharing at vs. 26. 
Perhaps given the established context, artos would be understood as a generic word for bread, without reference to its leavened or unleavened composition.

[Isaiah 25:6-9 (NRSV)]

The Seder ritual is not meant to be read or studied, but experienced...

But, the meal and its ritual, does offer some deep and valuable insights into the Exodus story and even beyond to an eschatological hope...

... our elder cousins in faith...

Perhaps that manifests the problem. Hope in what? What hope is there in another god? How can followers of two different religions, worshipping two different gods be "cousins in faith"?

Cousins share a common pair of ancestors, that is my reference.  It may be that several generations down the line thier paths and family circles are quite divergent and there is little or no sense of family between them; that does not render irrelevant the common ancestor or the bond that exists, though faint.   

As for the hope, I think it fair to say we share the same hope in the God of promise and salvation.  The telos is the same, the means is in dispute between us.   For Christians the means to the telos is him in whom we believe, known as Jesus of Nazareth.  Though not recognizing Jesus, I think it is still fair to say that the Jewish faith shares the same eschatological hope.  We pray with Simeon that they will come to see the Lord's salvation, as he has promised.


Don't know about you but I make reference to that very common hope often at funerals: 

Isaiah 25:6-9 (NRSV)   
On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wines, of rich food filled with marrow, of well-aged wines strained clear. {7} And he will destroy on this mountain the shroud that is cast over all peoples, the sheet that is spread over all nations; he will swallow up death forever. {8} Then the Lord GOD will wipe away the tears from all faces, and the disgrace of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken. {9} It will be said on that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, so that he might save us. This is the LORD for whom we have waited; let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation.

I didn't like it when the leftover challa bread from a Lutheran seder was consecrated and used for Easter Sunday Communion...

Not only that but a challa bread has no place on a Seder table.  It is leavened bread, used on Sabbath throughout the year, but never during Passover.

I think this is a delicate question.  I have done Seders on a couple of occasions.

First, if doing so, as a matter of respect, we should do it as completely and properly as we are able.  Use foods that are appropriate and appropriately prepared.  It is important that the entire ritual be observed, not just those parts that seem most like what we might imagine from the Gospels.  We should let the ritual speak for itself and not impose or draw out Christian themes.  It is not an occasion for show and tell, but rather a ritual of remembrance--let it be what it is. 
There are some issues of language in most rituals that may seem strained.  Speaking for example of the impact of the Egyptian enslavement in the first person, for example.  This question should be handled with care, either by alteration, or by careful explanation. 

While the overlapping calendars may suggest its placement in Holy Week (and I would argue that it is important to stay within the bound of the Jewish calendar), it should not be used as a substitute for or in conjunction with the services of Maundy Thursday in any way.

I respect those who have concerns with this being observed by Christians, not least because observed as an isolated piece of Judaica its context within the lives of Jews is somewhat skewed, and thus what we might take away from the experience.  I've never heard of Christians gathering for Succoth or Purim, let that be a caution.  It is true that we might simply read or review the materials, but that is really only the half of it (if that).  The Seder ritual is not meant to be read or studied, but experienced.

I am less concerned about those who object because it is not "ours" to celebrate.  In many places, esp. greater New York, supermarkets distribute ritual booklets without regard to one's faith affiliation; matzos are given away free with a certain threshhold of purchases at the grocery.  If there is objection by the Jewish community to gentile celebrations of the Passover meal, they should pressure those who distribute such materials and foods to stop doing so.  The meal is funamentally a house ritual.  No ordinations or licensures are required.  Not even a necessary creedal confession, though without some faith connection to the story imparted, it would seem a wholly hollow rite.

The parallel concern between Gentiles observing Passover and Jews celebrating the Eucharist is possible, but not particularly apt.  First, if Jews were to do so, there is little we might do to stop them, and little to be gained by trying to or complaining.  Given the nature and Christian teaching about the Supper, one would wonder what would motivate such a celebration.  What would Jews or any non-Christ confessing group expect to gain from the celebration of the Eucharist as an experiential educational enterprise?  Difficult to imagine.  Can the same be said of the Passover meal?  I think there is much to for Gentiles to learn from the Passover ritual.  It is true we Christians can read the story of the Exodus and Passover in our own homes and congregations without this meal.  But, the meal and its ritual, does offer some deep and valuable insights into the Exodus story and even beyond to an eschatological hope.  What we might learn from the Seder ritual is somewhat different than how we might usually interpret the story, and certainly when guided by the New Testament, a different set of themes are emphasized, but, in my experience, I have found nothing in the Seder as harmful to Christian faith or teaching and much that is enlightening and enhancing for our reflection on the Exodus/Passover passages of Scripture. 

I'm not sure non-Christians, especially those committed to another creed would be able to say the same by conducting a eucharist for themselves; they are most welcome to come and observe the ones we celebrate.  There is also a difference worth mentioning, it is certain that we could probably gain much more from attending a Seder conducted by Jewish leaders in a Jewish context.  But in general the Seder is not a public liturgy.  Where we are welcome, we might well go and participate fully (to my knowledge there is no part of the meal from which we would be excluded).  Where there is no invitation (for whatever reason) it does not seem out of the ordinary or keeping its own custom, for a family (even if one of faith not blood) to conduct the meal among themselves.

I think it can be a particularly useful educational experience for Christians.   If it could be shared with a local Jewish community or families, even better.  But I have found much positive in my experience of the Seder in itself.

One final note:  to have a Seder in a Christian congregation once or perhaps every few years as an occasion of learning is one thing; to adopt a practice of regularizing it and making it a part of our annual observances is to cross a line, from seeking to learn from our elder cousins in faith in a "hands on" way, to adopting or institutionalizing it as wholly our own, which should not be our intention or our goal, and would give, I think, greater weight to accusations of misappropriation.

Following the language of "The Use of the Means of Grace" the term used at my congregation is "eucharistic hospitality" meaning those who commune in their home congregations are welcome to commune with us.  It is usually accompanined by a statement that our welcome to the Supper is at the invitation of Christ to those who are baptized or through baptism.



Open communion used to mean those of other denominations-which our agreements have now formalized, though in practice it extends even beyond those (most ELCA pastors would not refuse communion to a RC though we have no understanding with that communion); now it seems, for quite a number of folks, it is taken to mean anyone and everyone, quite contrary to "The Use of the Means of Grace." 

Yes, the invitation to "baptized Christians" begs the question is there another kind of Christian than baptized?  I would think that for clarity's sake we continue to address the inviation to the baptized and drop Christian as assumed within the term baptized.

As is the whole "birther" dispute.  Personally, from what I have seen, the suggestion the Pres. Obama was not American born is a little more reasonable than the suggestion that the whole Apollo program, including the moon landings was a government hoax, but not by much.

Dan

There is a great deal of evidence that Barack Obama (or Barry Soetoro, as he presented himself at the time) applied for and received tuition aid and grants based on the fact that he presented himself as a "foreign student". There are more than a few articles that present him as a foreign-born, naturalized citizen, articles which he never corrected. Most of his academic records and other historical records were sealed (at considerable financial cost!), so finding any documentation about his time spent in college is almost impossible. The document that is purported to be his Hawaiian birth certificate has many, many artifacts consistent with a less-than-perfect exercise in Photoshop. On the other hand, the document purported to be his Kenyan birth certificate is either authentic, or was faked by someone much better than the craftsman who faked his Hawaiian birth certificate.


Does this prove that he is Kenyan-born, and not American born? Since no court of law has weighed the evidence, nothing is "proven". Evidence only proves something if a court reviews it and renders a verdict.


However, given the many, many instances of Obama (or Soetoro) presenting himself as a foreign student, one thing is clear. Since he cannot be both foreign born or American born, he must be one or the other. Whichever one he is, the fact that he also claimed to be the other proves beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt that he is a liar. The only question is when he was lying and when he was telling the truth.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp

Snopes.com is nothing more than two liberals who search the internet for "proof" to debunk things on the internet. They are no more or less reliable that anything else on the internet. Besides, if you'd read my entire post for content, you'd note that it doesn't matter which statement that Obama made is true, the others he made that contradict the true one are lies. When someone says two totally opposite things, one is a lie. I don't give a damn what Snopes says about either one, he either lied about where he was born when he said it was Hawaii, or he lied when he said it was Kenya. Either way, he's a liar.


Besides, his records are sealed, so anyone claiming to have access to them has some 'splaining to do regarding how they got those records.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/

Follow the link upstream Craig. Pay attention.

Uhh, are you really calling Snopes the final arbiter of truth?  You are more gullible than I ever suspected...

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/was-obama-born-in-the-usa/

As is the whole "birther" dispute.  Personally, from what I have seen, the suggestion the Pres. Obama was not American born is a little more reasonable than the suggestion that the whole Apollo program, including the moon landings was a government hoax, but not by much.

Dan

There is a great deal of evidence that Barack Obama (or Barry Soetoro, as he presented himself at the time) applied for and received tuition aid and grants based on the fact that he presented himself as a "foreign student". There are more than a few articles that present him as a foreign-born, naturalized citizen, articles which he never corrected. Most of his academic records and other historical records were sealed (at considerable financial cost!), so finding any documentation about his time spent in college is almost impossible. The document that is purported to be his Hawaiian birth certificate has many, many artifacts consistent with a less-than-perfect exercise in Photoshop. On the other hand, the document purported to be his Kenyan birth certificate is either authentic, or was faked by someone much better than the craftsman who faked his Hawaiian birth certificate.


Does this prove that he is Kenyan-born, and not American born? Since no court of law has weighed the evidence, nothing is "proven". Evidence only proves something if a court reviews it and renders a verdict.


However, given the many, many instances of Obama (or Soetoro) presenting himself as a foreign student, one thing is clear. Since he cannot be both foreign born or American born, he must be one or the other. Whichever one he is, the fact that he also claimed to be the other proves beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt that he is a liar. The only question is when he was lying and when he was telling the truth.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp

And what does the catechism teach us about spreading around third-hand reports that disparage the reputations of our neighbors?

It says we should not do it.

But I don't think Pr. Culler is "spreading around third-hand reports." He is stating that he read a third-hand report and he was shocked by it "if this is true." He clearly indicated that he did not know if this really happened or not. He also labeled the thread "Can this be true?" Given the thread title and his caveat "if this is true", I saw his statement as a request for verification of this statement. If I am right in this interpretation, the thread would be better titled "Is this true?".

He would be clearly wrong if he did not have the words "if this is true" included in his statement and did not have the title that he does.

Still strikes me as a "House of Cards" indirect take down of someone else, "I understand that some have said that, but I couldn't possibly comment."   

[doing]

The answer to such questions with yes or no is not helpful to proclamation or understanding.  Having seen this posting, in case I'm asked the same question "whether or not non-believers spend eternity in hell" I'll try to remember this (still probably all to brief answer):  Q:  Will non-believers spend eternity in hell?  A:  God is trying his best to keep that from happening.

"God is trying His best?" Hmmm. That statement would seem to invite a whole fresh set of questions.

Ah, Peter, you help me make my point about trying to answer questions too quickly and without sufficient reflection, hoisting me up with my own words.  To be sure:   "God is doing his best to keep that from happening," would indeed be better.

Tim notes: One caveat: God does not "send" people to hell. People get involved in an eternity that was not intended for them in the first place (cf. Matthew 25:41b).

Tim-  One to put it.  Or another way- that God esteems our individuality so highly that he allows us to turn our backs on him.  As one pastor once told me, God sends no one.  We pack our own bags.

I've heard variants on "God esteems our individuality so highly that he allows us to turn our backs on him" many times.  I've always thought it is not reflective of what we believe about original sin, the depth of the corruption wrought in us by original sin, as if we can choose the good, or God.  From a Lutheran perspective, such a statement embraces "free will" in a way that the idea of the bondage of the will rejects.  That is to say such a statement does not seem to take Romans 7 seriously, esp. "I can will what is right, but I cannot do it....Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me."