WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2010
Coffee & Worship at Grace WELS
This past Lord's Day, after Mass at Saint Stephen's, I mounted my brother's Huffy, and headed north, across the 6th Street Viaduct, and into the Downtown. By the time I got to Juneau Town I was a bit huffy myself, so I decided to stop in at the coffeehouse at Grace, the Wisconsin Synod Lutheran church at the corner of Juneau & Broadway, right across from the old Blatz Brewery (which has been converted into luxury condos). Actually, when I got Downtown I realized that it was earlier in the day than I thought, since we didn't have Bible study this week. So I decided that not only was I going to get something to drink in the Lutheran coffeehouse, but that I would also sit in on their late Mass, which was scheduled to begin about a half hour later.
The coffeehouse.
First I must say that I have never gone into a "Christian" coffeehouse and come out feeling like I had a really satisfying, genuine coffeehouse experience. Perhaps you, dear reader, were not familiar with the phenomenon of the Christianized coffeehouse. Fort Wayne had a couple of them, at least when I lived there. Grace's coffeehouse, Grace Place, is a modern looking facility, with a couple of friendly ladies behind the counter. They made me an adequate cup of cafe mocha. I sat down, relaxed, and read from one of the bibles that were stacked on a shelf. And so there was nothing wrong with the experience, per se. Yet, I ended up concluding that in certain ways it was not unlike those Evangelical coffeehouses I knew in Fort Wayne. Something about them gives me the heebie-jeebies. All things considered, I would rather be a Christian in a real coffeehouse than take the concept of the coffeehouse and "Christianize" it. [GJ - It was the Soul Cafe before!]
Again, I will say that those who were there were competent, and friendly. And I do not impugn the motives of those who decided to start this thing, and those who run it, for I cannot claim to know those motives. I am merely sharing some general thoughts on the concept.
On the one hand, one could say this operation is providing business for Stone Creek's coffee. On the other hand, Grace Church is also, with this coffee shop, providing a nice little business for itself. This leads to a broader question. Ought the Church be about the business of being in business? The answer, to be clear, is no; the Church is healthiest when it focuses on simply being the Church. She serves her children and the world best when she makes sure that Christ her Lord is preached clearly and relentlessly, and when her sacramental life is strong and central. I am not opposed to social activities and groups and programs and clubs rising up within a parish. That is a natural outcome of a lively ecclesial community in the modern world. What I question is when these things become official "ministries" and get organized from the top. All of this is to say that we ought to seek first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness. Then, all these other things will be added unto us.
The church.
Speaking of those fundamental things, like the Gospel and the sacraments, after I sat down in the church and the service got started, I was disappointed when I realized that it was not, in fact, a Mass at all. It had many of the basic parts of one, but without the Eucharist. This is not hugely surprising, in retrospect, but I was for some silly reason assuming when I entered and sat down, that I would get to see the celebration of the Sacrament of the Altar. So as I say, that was a bit disappointing. Of course, many Missouri Synod churches are likewise negligent in celebrating the Eucharist on a weekly basis. I wonder what Grace's eucharistic schedule is, since I haven't really seen any indication in the printed schedules, or the web site, unless it's published on the web site where I haven't yet seen it.
But before I get ahead of myself, let me say that when I walked into the church, I was greatly impressed by the beauty and upkeep of what is a classic Milwaukee church. It is about the same age as my own church, Saint Stephen's. The present structure of Saint Stephen's, if I recall, was built in 1901. Grace, from what one woman told me, was built in 1900. They are both very good examples of the type of beautiful gothic churches built by Lutherans in Milwaukee at the turn of the twentieth century. Saint Stephen's presently suffers the effects of a deeply declined and depleted parish. Grace, on the other hand, is a very lively parish, which is obviously able and willing to take good care of its physical space. One of the features which I really like is the canopy above the altar, with detailed wood columns. Large stained glass windows in the north and south transepts depict scenes from the life of Christ. There are too many details to recount here, but suffice to say it is a spectacular interior, worthy of the worship of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Upon entering the church, I was immediately greeted by three men. I suppose they were the ushers or "greeters" or what have you. They showed me where to find a worship bulletin, which comprised twelve pages stapled together, with three additional inserts. I entered the nave, and took a moment to look around the church. Then, I took a seat in the back pew. After a few minutes I noticed that the last four or five pews are reserved for families with children, so I got up, and relocated to a spot a few pews up.
At the start time, the younger of the two pastors, Pastor Daron Lindemann, comes to the front of the chancel, attired, curiously, in an alb and a stole. On the one hand, if this were to be the Mass, it would have been appropriate for him to wear a chasuble over that alb (and now I wonder if they use chasubles when they do have the Mass). On the other hand, as I say, after a while I caught on to the fact that this was not to be the Mass; therefore he ought to have worn a surplice instead of the alb. I wonder if any such distinctions are observed at Grace. If not, Grace is not alone (gratia sola non?). Too many Missouri Synod pastors are likewise infected with liturgical ineptitude to the point of not even knowing what to wear. But I digress. Pastor Lindemann stands there in front of the congregation, in what I must say is a weird stance for the chancel of the church, with his arms down at his side, giving an impromptu greeting and summary of the theme of the service. Through the rest of the service he continued to use the same posture, whether walking from one point to another, or reading the lections, or whatever, with his hands down at his side. I suppose he was told somewhere along the line that this would be a natural, or winsome, way in which to conduct himself in the church. It's goofy, and should have been corrected in his first year of seminary.
The service then commences with a hymn, "With the Lord Begin Your Task," an eighteenth century hymn translated in the modern age by W. Gustave Polack. My reaction to this hymn is twofold. First, in general I think the Church could live without hymns that tell us what to do. Hymns, at their best, should combine confessing the faith with prayer to Almighty God, rather than merely ordering us around. After singing a hymn in which I tell myself to begin my task with the Lord, maybe I should go on to sing a hymn in which I tell myself to lift high the cross. Second, it is unnecessary and less than ideal for the Church to sing hymns in which God is addressed by the pronoun "You." Did the makers ofChristian Worship: A Lutheran Hymnal do this to all of its hymns? I could page through it to get that answer, but I'm not that interested.
After the hymn, Pastor Lindemann, who already greeted the people informally, now greets them liturgically. Both this greeting, and the response of the people, are right out of the modern Roman Rite's Novus Ordo:
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you.
R. And also with you.
At least the Novus Ordo directs the priest to say the Trinitarian Invocation before doing this greeting.
After an innovative confession of sins, there is the singing of a piece called "Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good," followed by the prayer of the day.
Before reading the Old Testament, Pastor Lindemann gives a little summary of what he will read. Not only is such a practice unnecessary, it is an unfitting, even distracting, intrusion into the liturgy of the Church. He does the same with the Epistle and the Gospel. Before the Epistle the congregation sings a Psalm of the Day, which is done in the modern, irritating style of singing a refrain after about every four or five verses. It was a setting composed by David Cherwien in 2005. It's style is reminiscent of the Hymnal Supplement 98, which I endured at Kramer Chapel. It is also reminiscent of many a modern Roman Catholic Mass I have witnessed, with the music leader trying to motion for everyone to join in the singing.
The sermon was preached by the older pastor, Pastor James Huebner. He preached on the Lord's Prayer. What I like about his preaching is that he has a rather lively manner. It actually seemed that he was preaching to me, and cared about his message. What I did not like was that it was mostly a sermon giving advice on how to pray better, but didn't really say anything about the death of Christ.
After the sermon the congregation stood and confessed the Apostles' Creed. I suppose one good thing about this not being the Mass was that I didn't have to suffer the Nicene Creed as it is printed in that hymnal, a version which constitutes, as far as I know, world Lutheranism's first feminist version of the Nicene Creed.
Then, after an offering was taken (while "What a Friend We Have in Jesus" was played on the piano), there was the Prayer of the Church, which was made up of the parts of the Our Father, interspersed with explanations of those parts. After this prayer, the congregation sang "What a Friend We Have in Jesus."
The service concluded with a concluding prayer, a final blessing, and a hymn, "Lord, Teach Us How to Pray Aright." And just when I thought I got away from "What a Friend We Have in Jesus," it was played as the postlude. Pastor Liundemann asked everyone to greet each other in the pew after the final hymn. I love meeting people, and so forth, but I wanted no part of fraternizing in the holy space of the church, so after the hymn, I slipped out of there. I retrieved my bike, and headed home.
It was an interesting experience, much that was good, and much which I hope that neither I nor anyone else will have to experience again. Over all, Grace does a magnificent job of marketing what they sell. (Already today, for example, I got a post card from them in the mail.) I'm simply less than content, as a traditionalist Lutheran, with what they are selling.
The coffeehouse.
First I must say that I have never gone into a "Christian" coffeehouse and come out feeling like I had a really satisfying, genuine coffeehouse experience. Perhaps you, dear reader, were not familiar with the phenomenon of the Christianized coffeehouse. Fort Wayne had a couple of them, at least when I lived there. Grace's coffeehouse, Grace Place, is a modern looking facility, with a couple of friendly ladies behind the counter. They made me an adequate cup of cafe mocha. I sat down, relaxed, and read from one of the bibles that were stacked on a shelf. And so there was nothing wrong with the experience, per se. Yet, I ended up concluding that in certain ways it was not unlike those Evangelical coffeehouses I knew in Fort Wayne. Something about them gives me the heebie-jeebies. All things considered, I would rather be a Christian in a real coffeehouse than take the concept of the coffeehouse and "Christianize" it. [GJ - It was the Soul Cafe before!]
Again, I will say that those who were there were competent, and friendly. And I do not impugn the motives of those who decided to start this thing, and those who run it, for I cannot claim to know those motives. I am merely sharing some general thoughts on the concept.
On the one hand, one could say this operation is providing business for Stone Creek's coffee. On the other hand, Grace Church is also, with this coffee shop, providing a nice little business for itself. This leads to a broader question. Ought the Church be about the business of being in business? The answer, to be clear, is no; the Church is healthiest when it focuses on simply being the Church. She serves her children and the world best when she makes sure that Christ her Lord is preached clearly and relentlessly, and when her sacramental life is strong and central. I am not opposed to social activities and groups and programs and clubs rising up within a parish. That is a natural outcome of a lively ecclesial community in the modern world. What I question is when these things become official "ministries" and get organized from the top. All of this is to say that we ought to seek first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness. Then, all these other things will be added unto us.
The church.
Speaking of those fundamental things, like the Gospel and the sacraments, after I sat down in the church and the service got started, I was disappointed when I realized that it was not, in fact, a Mass at all. It had many of the basic parts of one, but without the Eucharist. This is not hugely surprising, in retrospect, but I was for some silly reason assuming when I entered and sat down, that I would get to see the celebration of the Sacrament of the Altar. So as I say, that was a bit disappointing. Of course, many Missouri Synod churches are likewise negligent in celebrating the Eucharist on a weekly basis. I wonder what Grace's eucharistic schedule is, since I haven't really seen any indication in the printed schedules, or the web site, unless it's published on the web site where I haven't yet seen it.
But before I get ahead of myself, let me say that when I walked into the church, I was greatly impressed by the beauty and upkeep of what is a classic Milwaukee church. It is about the same age as my own church, Saint Stephen's. The present structure of Saint Stephen's, if I recall, was built in 1901. Grace, from what one woman told me, was built in 1900. They are both very good examples of the type of beautiful gothic churches built by Lutherans in Milwaukee at the turn of the twentieth century. Saint Stephen's presently suffers the effects of a deeply declined and depleted parish. Grace, on the other hand, is a very lively parish, which is obviously able and willing to take good care of its physical space. One of the features which I really like is the canopy above the altar, with detailed wood columns. Large stained glass windows in the north and south transepts depict scenes from the life of Christ. There are too many details to recount here, but suffice to say it is a spectacular interior, worthy of the worship of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Upon entering the church, I was immediately greeted by three men. I suppose they were the ushers or "greeters" or what have you. They showed me where to find a worship bulletin, which comprised twelve pages stapled together, with three additional inserts. I entered the nave, and took a moment to look around the church. Then, I took a seat in the back pew. After a few minutes I noticed that the last four or five pews are reserved for families with children, so I got up, and relocated to a spot a few pews up.
At the start time, the younger of the two pastors, Pastor Daron Lindemann, comes to the front of the chancel, attired, curiously, in an alb and a stole. On the one hand, if this were to be the Mass, it would have been appropriate for him to wear a chasuble over that alb (and now I wonder if they use chasubles when they do have the Mass). On the other hand, as I say, after a while I caught on to the fact that this was not to be the Mass; therefore he ought to have worn a surplice instead of the alb. I wonder if any such distinctions are observed at Grace. If not, Grace is not alone (gratia sola non?). Too many Missouri Synod pastors are likewise infected with liturgical ineptitude to the point of not even knowing what to wear. But I digress. Pastor Lindemann stands there in front of the congregation, in what I must say is a weird stance for the chancel of the church, with his arms down at his side, giving an impromptu greeting and summary of the theme of the service. Through the rest of the service he continued to use the same posture, whether walking from one point to another, or reading the lections, or whatever, with his hands down at his side. I suppose he was told somewhere along the line that this would be a natural, or winsome, way in which to conduct himself in the church. It's goofy, and should have been corrected in his first year of seminary.
The service then commences with a hymn, "With the Lord Begin Your Task," an eighteenth century hymn translated in the modern age by W. Gustave Polack. My reaction to this hymn is twofold. First, in general I think the Church could live without hymns that tell us what to do. Hymns, at their best, should combine confessing the faith with prayer to Almighty God, rather than merely ordering us around. After singing a hymn in which I tell myself to begin my task with the Lord, maybe I should go on to sing a hymn in which I tell myself to lift high the cross. Second, it is unnecessary and less than ideal for the Church to sing hymns in which God is addressed by the pronoun "You." Did the makers ofChristian Worship: A Lutheran Hymnal do this to all of its hymns? I could page through it to get that answer, but I'm not that interested.
After the hymn, Pastor Lindemann, who already greeted the people informally, now greets them liturgically. Both this greeting, and the response of the people, are right out of the modern Roman Rite's Novus Ordo:
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you.
R. And also with you.
At least the Novus Ordo directs the priest to say the Trinitarian Invocation before doing this greeting.
After an innovative confession of sins, there is the singing of a piece called "Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good," followed by the prayer of the day.
Before reading the Old Testament, Pastor Lindemann gives a little summary of what he will read. Not only is such a practice unnecessary, it is an unfitting, even distracting, intrusion into the liturgy of the Church. He does the same with the Epistle and the Gospel. Before the Epistle the congregation sings a Psalm of the Day, which is done in the modern, irritating style of singing a refrain after about every four or five verses. It was a setting composed by David Cherwien in 2005. It's style is reminiscent of the Hymnal Supplement 98, which I endured at Kramer Chapel. It is also reminiscent of many a modern Roman Catholic Mass I have witnessed, with the music leader trying to motion for everyone to join in the singing.
The sermon was preached by the older pastor, Pastor James Huebner. He preached on the Lord's Prayer. What I like about his preaching is that he has a rather lively manner. It actually seemed that he was preaching to me, and cared about his message. What I did not like was that it was mostly a sermon giving advice on how to pray better, but didn't really say anything about the death of Christ.
After the sermon the congregation stood and confessed the Apostles' Creed. I suppose one good thing about this not being the Mass was that I didn't have to suffer the Nicene Creed as it is printed in that hymnal, a version which constitutes, as far as I know, world Lutheranism's first feminist version of the Nicene Creed.
Then, after an offering was taken (while "What a Friend We Have in Jesus" was played on the piano), there was the Prayer of the Church, which was made up of the parts of the Our Father, interspersed with explanations of those parts. After this prayer, the congregation sang "What a Friend We Have in Jesus."
The service concluded with a concluding prayer, a final blessing, and a hymn, "Lord, Teach Us How to Pray Aright." And just when I thought I got away from "What a Friend We Have in Jesus," it was played as the postlude. Pastor Liundemann asked everyone to greet each other in the pew after the final hymn. I love meeting people, and so forth, but I wanted no part of fraternizing in the holy space of the church, so after the hymn, I slipped out of there. I retrieved my bike, and headed home.
It was an interesting experience, much that was good, and much which I hope that neither I nor anyone else will have to experience again. Over all, Grace does a magnificent job of marketing what they sell. (Already today, for example, I got a post card from them in the mail.) I'm simply less than content, as a traditionalist Lutheran, with what they are selling.
26 comments:
I've considered leaving WELS because of the feminist Nicene Creed in Christian Worship. That hymnal is awful!
Deacon Gaba makes a few good points, like criticizing Grace for being in the coffee business. He's 100% correct to suggest that Churches should not be doing anything besides offering the Word and Sacrament. However, as the article continues, Deacon Gaba paints a very good picture showing what happens when Liturgical Lutherans turn into legalists. "Pompous, obese and eats cactus" is the phrase I recalled. (Steve Martin...) He feigns the curiosity of an anthropologist, but you can tell he's smugly waiting for the brimstone from heaven.
He writes a mini treatise on clothing befitting a preacher in which he exhibits that phony mild curiosity/confusion at Pastor Lindemann's dress. The alb (blah blah blah) should be here etc. I'm officially Bored. I have little interest in those who've rewritten the Old Testament Ceremonial laws to match their own sense of 'properness'. They are holier-than-thou prigs. Matthew 23:5But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
What didn't bore me is this fellow's double standard. Directly after his comments on clothing, he criticized the opening hymn by saying: "First, in general I think the Church could live without hymns that tell us what to do." Sounds like he should take his own advice, don't it?
Gaba makes other obtuse comments about the liturgy and service. To be fair, he slipped in some random good points: the feminization of the Nicene Creed, for example. However, most everything was said in arrogance fueled by his Liturgical purity. Luke 18:11 "The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican." Gaba writes, "I love meeting people, and so forth, but I wanted no part of fraternizing in the holy space of the church, so after the hymn, I slipped out of there." He is boring. What would he say about Christians of other cultures or means that *gasp* do things differently? Mark 2:27 " ...Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath..."
All I'm saying is that ol' Deacon "Phylactery" Gaba offers for us Confessional Lutherans an example of what not to become. Gaba might be a great guy, but in this article, he displays an attitude that is not befitting Christians. I've been to Grace Lutheran, and I know he could've written an informative and useful article had he only been critical of doctrine. To my knowledge, (I haven't been there regularly) the form of Grace's worship falls within pretty conservative guidelines. (nonneoPentacostal hootinannies) I was hoping he was going to draw comparisons between Grace's nonChristian coffee-ministry and the teaching presented in the Divine Service. Instead, he got hisself lost by gettin worked up about nothing; legalistically demanding a formalism not required by the Word of God.
Which of course would be... You got it!! Just as bad as using Sponge Bob (or whatever that religious bunch of vegetables is called) to convert children.
Deacon Gaba's comments are perceptive both for what is said and what isn't admitted.
First, is his critique of liturgical vestments, posture and bearing. It reminds me about what a certain LC-MS blogger pastor commented after viewing archived filmed footage of the dedication of the St. Louis seminary. Said blogger was struck by how the celebrants were attired in business suits, i.e. Gaba's "liturgical ineptitude." He was thankful for how far the LC-MS had come since that time. I conclude he meant chasubles, collars, albs, stoles, capes, copes, hose and a hundred other types of ecclesiastical foppery. That being said, the WELS, even when it tries to be "liturgical"--for example, "Grace church" which prides itself in its liturgical expressiveness--comes across with all the aplomb of a hillbilly's mullet. On the other extreme, is the sector of the LC-MS with which Deacon Gaba is apparently so enamored. That can only be indentified in terms of Romanizing tendencies, chancel prancing, and ridiculously arcane codicils of rubric interpretation which direct the way the pastor is turn, genuflect, and land a triple axle. It's the sector from which Rev.Fr.Dr.Sir.Esq.Pr. Fenton, he of Gottesdienst fame, like others before jumped to swim the Bosphorus. However, there is something to be said the DG's observation about a church operating a coffee shop. I suppose it is, in principal, no different than the combination oil and lube/coffee shop which recently opened up down the street. Whatever it takes to get 'em in. And some believe people can't see that for what it is? Give me a break!
Please pardon my ignorance, but I cannot ascertain what has been “feminized” in the Christian Worship version of the Nicene Creed. Perhaps this is because I went through 14 years of WELS schooling, during the former part of which a lot of time was spent in the recitation and memorization of the Creed, along with other scriptures, hymns, and parts of the Small Catechism. Suffice it to say, I suppose I have been “indoctrinated” into CW, along with the NIV and other modern texts, so I cannot appreciate the alleged losses suffered in them.
At any rate, can someone explain the situation to me?
Daniel, (W)ELS changed the creed from "and was made man" to "became fully human".
"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation, he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and became fully human."
http://www.wels.net/what-we-believe/statements-beliefs/nicene-creed
Humorous that the lead in from the (W)ELS website states, "The Nicene Creed was written around A.D. 325 in defense of the true Christian faith." So much for the defense of the true Christian faith.
To diminish the fact that Christ was man and as such human the (W)ELS muted the creed unnecessarily and with the effect that Christ can now be considered female and the creed no longer stands as a testament against this.
The change is a disgusting heresy that has been embraced by an increasingly comatose laity and clergy.
Brett,
You overstated your point to absurdity.
While, you are probably correct that the change from "man" to "human" was done for all the wrong, insidious, feminist reasons, it cannot be inferred from the CW Creed that "Christ can now be considered female."
Did you miss "Son," "him," "he?"
Also, would love to hear your rebuke of the original creed writers for using "anthropos" instead of "aner."
Michael,
Did you mean this? Τὸν δι' ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους.
Actually I see no need to improve on the English version of the Nicene Creed. It cannot be avoided that Christianity due to its teachings would have its own terminologies. It cannot be avoided and they need to be learned.
I thought in the ancient world that when it speaks of man, it actually is used as a representative term to include women. For example to distinguish humans from beasts.
LPC
Actually speaking of the phrase in the Nicene Creed...
καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα,
Anthropus, in Greek, almost always means human. It is, again generally, a gender neutral term that means MANKIND.
Aner, in Greek, always means a human male.
While I agree that Christ our Lord was a human male, that isn't the term the original creed uses. If anything, it could be argued that the WELS translation is more literal.
Either way, it is impossible to infer from "and became fully human" that he may be female--only if one were to tear that phrase out of the rest of the translated creed.
"Son," "Him," "He"...all included in the CW, no ambiguity there.
The WELS feminist creeds (note plural) were kelmed from a liberal, ecumenical group of idiots. The new version has several problems. The synod recruited WELS heresiarch Ted Hartwig to promote the new creeds and all the ministers fell into line, 100%. They do not defend it, but in typical WELS fashion get sarcastic when anyone doubts its purity and value. WELS pastors do not debate. They repeat the party line, showing their disgust that they must bother themselves with the hoi polloi.
Greg,
In typical Greek usage, what does Anthropus mean? What does aner mean?
Your Greek could not possibly be more rusty than mine.
Wrongo, Michael. John 3:1 - Nicodemus. Is Nicodemus a man (anthropos) or a fully human? "There was a fully human from the Pharisees, Nicodemus by name, a ruler of the Jews." Ha! The translation shows the stupidity or guile of the translators. Fully human implies "only human." Nothing was wrong with the original. Prange admitted that a lot of time was spent making the hymnal feminist. CW was another Shrinker project, and it worked - WELS continued to shrink on schedule.
The fake blogger tries to say I am KJV-only. WELS excommunicated pastors for questioning the NIV, and all the WELS congregations (maybe a few exceptions) use the horrid NIV.
Greek is not learned from flash cards but from using it daily.
Rev. Jackson (no idea why I called you Greg in the last post, my apologies)
I asked generally, in Greek usage, what does anthropus mean, and what does aner mean.
John, a relatively uneducated man, wrote relatively uneducated Greek. I know this, because I can still read it off the page.
Again, you cannot disagree with the fact that the first definition for anthropus is always the general--human.
While, in both classical and koine Greek, aner means male.
Also, and again, it is ridiculous to argue that from the creed, one could infer that the Christ was female as Brett stated.
And again (since you edited while I was typing) I have not argued that the change was good or that it may have not been made for the wrong reasons.
I've argued that it is silly to think that the translation of the Nicene creed leaves the gender of the Christ to be ambiguous (it doesn't).
I've also argued that the word in Greek, (in both common usage and in lexicon/flashcards) often means human.
Really really hard to debate those two points (especially when I've already conceded the feminist point)
Aner is a red herring. That word is not in John 3 or the Creeds. I did not say "and became male." You are simply repeating what your poorly educated professors said. How did you learn to peer into the resume of John? Perhaps the Holy Spirit inspired him to use the most common language and style of the educated world. I disagree with your entire Hartwiggian argument, and any well read Brit or Aussie would too. "Error loves ambiguity."
To move from clear precise Creeds to fem-fad excretions is a real shame, a shame for WELS, a shame for all Lutherans and all Christians. It is typical WELS arrogance, masking a terrible sense of insecurity.
The education of Joel Fredrich (and your ad hominmem argument) aside, this whole Greek aside is the red herring and largely obscures the main point.
However, we must agree to disagree, both anthropus and (especially) its plural can and often mean "human." My point about aner is that the creed-writers could have used that word which has no ambiguity.
Again, I ask you (and Brett) at what point can one infer from the Creeds, which have only male pronouns and refer to Christ our Lord as "Son of God", that the Christ may be female?
The striving for gender inclusiveness may have been idiotic and misguided, but it did not--in any way--obscure the gender of our Lord.
Michael, read my posts. I do this for a living. The fem-creeds leave the Two Natures ambiguous. Fully human implies only human. Study the Two Natures of Christ by Chemnitz. This is not an article of faith to fuzz up. Secondly, as Brett was suggesting, using "fully human" was a deliberate attempt to avoid male terms. If you are unaware of this going on since about 1970 - I give up. The recent lavender ELCA service never used Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
If you want to channel Teddy Hartwig, go ahead, but don't parry your Mary Lou education.
I do not argue that saying "fully human" is an attempt to avoid male terms. But the CW creed does not say
"Child of God" nor does it avoid the use or male pronouns.
How, when reading the creed out of the CW (not just a phase ripped out of context) is the gender of Christ our Lord ambiguous?
It isn't, not a bit.
BTW, Rev, invoking Teddy doesn't work...he was before my time.
Joel F. is Reformed in all his Biblical stuff. He defended "make disciples" and had no trouble with the NIV masking communion with their anti-sacrament wording.
But non-WELSians beware. No one dare question any WELS faculty member. He or she is the ultimate authority on all topics.
I have to teach some students who pay attention, Michael, so I will have to log off. Be thankful you did not go to the Sausage Factory for even more Reformed propaganda.
Thanks for clarifying the issue. Personally, I have no problem with the newer edition, as I never saw question of Christ's masculinity (as Michael pointed out, male titles and pronouns are used a number of times). However, I do understand why there is some contention on this, as "and became a man" could have been used just as easily I suppose.
wow... some good ol' heated debate.
gunna have to side with Michael on this one. Michael offers less (none) ad hominem and therefore his arguments carry more weight. Brett Meyer's crazy notion that the WELS' translation of the creed 'makes' Christ a female is just plain silly. I get yer point Brett, but let's not get paranoid.
Rev. Jackson stated:
"Fully human implies "only human." "
That's not quite accurate. The word "fully" means completely, or totally. It might, in internet-English, even mean "100%". I'm against the feminization of the creeds as the next Confessional Lutheran, and I think the WELS is wrong for doing it, but strictly speaking, the WELS creed is not inaccurate. Jesus did become fully human. That's to say, he was born, was tempted, hungered/thirsted, felt love, hate (for evil), sorrow, joy, pain and experienced death. Furthermore, it's important to recognize that The Christ shared in every aspect of the human condition (except sin)... AND succeeded. He IS the perfect substitute!
But in the end, we know Christ became man... or "fully human". Let's attack the reason for the WELS' submission to pop-semantics--fight the disease, not the symptom.
Our Christian/Lutheran feminist prayers and liturgy reach back into the storehouse of tradition to bring forth names as Mother, Shaddai, Sophia, Womb, Midwife, Shekinah, She Who Is. They do so out of renewed insights into the nature of the Gospel empowered by the risen Christ-Sophia.
Let your relationship with the Divine be opened and expanded.
Our Mother who is within us
we celebrate your many names.
Your wisdom come.
Your will be done,
unfolding from the depths within us.
Each day you give us all that we need.
You remind us of our limits
and we let go.
You support us in our power
and we act with courage.
For you are the dwelling place within us
the empowerment around us
and the celebration among us
now and for ever. Amen
http://www.herchurch.org/
Including masculine and feminine references to God/dess in worship lays the foundation for including women and men as equal leaders in the church and in soiciety and embraces the priesthood of all believers initiated in our baptisms. God/dess is beyond gender and at the same time inclusive of both genders. Using exclusively masculine terms and systems of domination is contrary to the Gospel and the heart of the risen Christ and the mission of the church.
WELS works with this New Age satanic church through Thrivent and Lutheran World Relief.
DK stated . . .
"But in the end, we know Christ became man... or "fully human". Let's attack the reason for the WELS' submission to pop-semantics--fight the disease, not the symptom."
Agreed. All arguments like this do is alienate.
Dear "Bored" :
By the way, what is your name? You say you are officially bored. That might be believable if you hadn't written six paragraphs in response to what supposedly bores you.
In the Internet world it is tricky, and usually unwise, to try to figure out another writer's tone, perhaps even his motives, and things of that nature. What we ought to do, then, is adhere all the more to the Eighth Commandment, and simply address the words with which we are communicating.
I fail to see, eg, how you could conclude that I only feigned interest or curiosity. We're all busy men; who would go to another church merely to find things about which to condemn, and call down brimstone? Take a fresh look at my post, and you will see that such is not what I was doing. Hardly an apologist for all things Missouri, you will notice that at almost every turn, I was quick to point out how I have seen related problems elsewhere, including within the LC-MS. Nor was my post bereft of real praise.
By the way, a pastor who knows the difference between the purpose of one vestment over against that of another, and who dresses accordingly, is not holier than anyone else. It may be explained by any number of factors. 1. He may have paid attention better when the topic came up in liturgics in seminary. 2. He may have gone to a seminary where liturgics was covered. 3. He may have done some of his own reading on the subject. 4. He may be at a congregation that does not fight him on such nonessential issues. 5. He may even think he is holier than thou. But you have no way of knowing just by the fact that he is different.
By the way, I thank Pr. Jackson for the compliment of bringing this blog post over to his blog. I didn't realize it would get so much attention. It was hardly an indepth analysis of Grace Lutheran Downtown Milwaukee, but just a few brief observations from someone who is a traditionalist Lutheran, serving as Deacon in a parish with its own problems, and within a Synod that clearly has deep problems. Missouri is at a crossroads, and needs the prayers of all Christian brothers. Surely if I were to attend Grace again my analysis would be different yet again. But I do think I must stand behind the observations I did make. Thanks, gentlemen. I must visit this blog again. Please visit mine.
Post a Comment