2010-09-23T06:00:48-04:00

We conclude our series on The Narrative Commentary to the Divine Service by John Pless with what he says about the conclusion of the service:

POST-COMMUNION CANTICLE, PRAYER

Having received the Lord’s Body and Blood for our salvation, like Simeon who held in his arms the Savior of the world, we go in peace and joy singing Simeon’s Song from St. Luke, Chapter 2. Another song of thanksgiving based on 1 Chronicles 16:8-10 may be used instead. Before we leave the Lord’s Table, we give thanks, asking that the salutary gift of Jesus’ Body and Blood would have its way in our lives, strengthening us in faith toward God and fervent love toward one another. The Sacrament draws us outside of ourselves to live in Christ by faith and for the neighbor by love.

BENEDICTION

The Name of the Lord is the beginning and the end of the Divine Service. We are now marked with the Lord’s Name in the Benediction-that word of God’s Blessing from Numbers 6 in which He favors us with His grace and peace. With the Lord’s Name given us in Holy Baptism we were drawn together. Now with that same Name, He sends us back into the world, to the places of our various callings to live by the mercy we have received as living sacrifices to the praise of His glory and the good of our neighbor. To this benediction you add your Amen, declaring blessing received.

via Grace Lutheran Church – Pastor’s Letter – April 2010.

Notice how many allusions there are to the doctrine of vocation.  I have heard Prof. Pless explain elsewhere that the closing prayer about “faith in You and in fervent love towards one another,” which was Luther’s phrasing, is a direct reference to vocation.  At the close of the liturgy, in which we find forgiveness for our sins and grow in our faith, we are sent back out into our various callings to live out that faith “in love and service to our neighbors.”

2010-09-22T06:00:18-04:00

The media, the intellectual establishment of both the left and the right, and other members of our ruling class are just pouring contempt on figures like Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell.  They are portrayed as dangerous, extreme, and just plain weird.  The criticisms, though, don’t get much traction with the public  because these women are so much like the rest of the public.

A review of a new book about Sarah Palin concludes at just how normal she is:

Her beliefs make her what we once called normal, at least in flyover country. There are moms like her, and moms who strive to be like her without ever thinking of it that way and who might even scoff at the idea, on every street and in every neighborhood in America. They run our offices and schools, they run the local diners and band booster drives, and they get the family from Point A to Point B with military precision. Or they try their best to do all that, while trying to work out what they really believe about everything at the same time. Palin managed to do it, even to the point of running a state while going on oceanic fishing excursions with her husband while her political opponents buried her in expensive, frivolous accusations designed to drive her from office. She sent a son off to war. She’s dealt with a pregnant daughter, a worthless almost son-in-law, and a child with special needs. She’s us, pretty much, except that she also happens to have been nominated for the vice presidency and now commands a national following while also attracting a ferocious national opposition that includes most of the mainstream press.  Her faith and her values have carried her through all the very high highs and the very low lows that life has thrown at her. The rest of us could only hope that we would handle the extremes of being Sarah Palin with half her grace.

The Faith and Values of Sarah Palin: What She Believes and What It Means for America shows that Mrs. Palin is very much what-you-see-is-what-you-get: an authentically and uniquely American woman whose very ordinary beliefs have propelled her to do remarkable things.

via Pajamas Media » The Faith and Values of Sarah Palin: What She Believes and What It Means for America (Book Review).

As for Christine O’Donnell, she is being mocked for agreeing with the teachings about sex of her Roman Catholic Church, along with a big percentage of Americans and the world.  She is also unemployed, like 10% of Americans, and her house has been foreclosed.  It’s odd to hear Liberals mock her for those two things.

The Democratic party was strong when it was “the party of the people.”  The Left was strong when it  was a populist movement.  Think of the collectivism of the union movement, “Solidarity Forever,” “Power to the People.”  Today, leftists have become elitists and the Democrats are the party of the “professional class,” people who think they are experts.  They are so out of touch with ordinary Americans that they think they are scoring points when they make fun of much of the American populace whose votes they would like to have.

Now, astonishingly, the populists have become Republicans, much to the disdain of that party’s old guard, with its wealth and country club status.  This is why the Democrats are doomed.  The left will only revive if it can become a populist force like it used to be.

UPDATE: So far, just about everybody who has commented has missed the point of my post: That populists used to be Democrats, and that now they are Republicans. In the olden days, when I was young and a Democrat, the politicians of the party were full of rhetoric about democracy, equality, “the people,” the common man, etc. Republicans were more suspicious of the mob, wanting exceptional individuals rather than the common denominator. Now the rhetoric seems reversed.

I did not mean this to be an endorsement of Sarah Palin or Christine O’Donnell, or even Republicans. Rather, I am trying to give Democrats some advice that, if they want to win elections, they need to rediscover their populist roots, rather than following the strategy of making fun of ordinary Americans.

As for me, I tend to be like the old Republicans, looking for merit, and, again, vocation. I’m uneasy about some of the people I am seeing coming to the fore in the Republican party.

2010-09-14T06:00:16-04:00

Last Sunday our Pastor, Rev. James Douthwaite, did something he does once a year or so: He teaches us the significance and why-we-do-what-we-do in the liturgy. He uses an adaptation of The Narrative Commentary on the Divine Service by Prof. John Pless, who gave permission to post it on the church website and to thus make it available to others. (You can find the version we used here as a .pdf file. You can also find it online here.)

The way it worked was that an elder read the commentary before each part, and then we did it. One would expect this to be intrusive, but it really wasn’t. I learned a lot. I would recommend that Lutheran pastors make use of this resource so that their parishioners know what they are doing and develop an appreciation for the richness of liturgical worship. Non-Lutherans too would benefit from knowing this stuff. It would disabuse them of the notion that liturgical worship is “just Catholic” and would show them just how Biblical and evangelical the historic worship of the church really is.

For our edification and discussion, I’m going to post portions of it over the next few days. Here, for example, is the opening, setting forth succinctly the Lutheran theology of worship:

The high and holy worship of God is faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Such faith is created and sustained by God’s Service to us. In the Divine Service, the Lord comes to us in His Word and Sacrament to bless and enliven us with His gifts. This Service is not something we do for God, but His service to us to be received in faith. The “liturgy” is God’s work. He gives, we receive.

Here is the significance of the Invocation (“In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”):

From God’s Word, we know that wherever God puts His Name, there He is to bless. In the Old Testament, the Temple was the place where God graciously caused His Name to be present.

God has put His Name-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit on you in Holy Baptism. The Divine Service begins “In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Every Divine Service is for the hallowing of the Lord’s Name, which the Small Catechism reminds us is done “When the Word of God is taught in its truth and purity and we as the children of God, also lead a holy life according to it.”

2010-09-06T06:00:31-04:00

Did you get anything out of the vocation essay  (below) that you never thought of before?

2010-09-06T05:45:21-04:00

If the purpose of all vocations is to love and serve the particular neighbor that vocation brings into your life, what do you do when you don’t really love that neighbor?  (George Marquart raised this question in his comment on the article.)  I’ll take a stab at the question and then let you.  Faith in Christ, we are told in Scripture, bears fruit in love (though we often fall far short, which is why we need to continue to confess our sin).  As we love Christ more and more, this overflows into love of our neighbors.  What has helped for me is the realization that just as God is hidden in vocation, Christ is hidden in our neighbors.  (“Inasmuch as you have done it to the least of these my brethren”–or “did it not”–you have done it [or not done it] to me.”)  Thinking vocationally makes me realize that God is masked in those who do things for me; that same mindset–realizing that God hides Himself–has helped me to realize that Christ is hidden in my neighbors, which makes it easier for me to love them.

2010-09-06T05:30:52-04:00

The nature of the pastoral office and how that fits with the priesthood of all believers has vexed many Christians, especially Lutherans, for whom it has become a divisive issue.  What do you think about this line of thinking, drawing from my essay on vocation?

A priest is someone who performs a sacrifice.  Before God, we need no sacrifices, since Christ is our great high priest who sacrificed Himself once and for all for our sins.  But Scripture speaks of different kinds of sacrifices, presenting our body as a living sacrifice (mortification, FWS?), the sacrifice of thanksgiving, bearing the Cross, the sacrifice of dying to self for our neighbor.   All of these happen in vocation.

Protestants usually don’t call their pastors “priests.”  Catholics do, since they believe the priest offers up the sacrifice of Christ again in the mass.  (Anglicans do, but they consider the term to be related to “presbyter.”)  Instead, Protestants use “pastor,” “minister,” “preacher,” etc.

Could it be that a pastor is a priest in exactly the same way laypeople are?  When they present their bodies as a living sacrifice in serving their parishioners, when they bear the Cross in the frustrations of the ministry, etc.?  Nevertheless, being “called” into the ministry is a high office and vocation from God, so that the pastor is the means Christ uses to proclaim His Word, to baptize, and to convey His Body and Blood to His people.

The priesthood of all believers would thus NOT mean that “everyone is a minister,” or that pastors are not necessary, or that pastors do not occupy a divinely ordained office, or that there is no distinction between pastors and laity.  All believers, though, including pastors, are nevertheless priests, an office they exercise in whatever vocations they hold.

Follow Us!


TAKE THE
Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "Paraclete," as used for the Holy Spirit, mean?

Select your answer to see how you score.


Browse Our Archives