Memorial Moments

While not exactly a blog, one of the most well-disciplined and well-written daily entries I've found is Memorial Moments by the Rev. Dr. Scott Murray, pastor of Memorial Lutheran Church in Houston, TX.

If you're interested in a daily devotion which contains salient Luther quotes, you may wish to subscribe to the free e-mails. Otherwise, you can visit the site's archives and read as you will.

Here is a sampling of his work:

Natan Sharansky argued that Western democracies could not compromise on their defining values in an article printed in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. The democracies must never give up their national identities in favor of the generic approach popular in the postmodern world. In that generic approach to national identity, the democracies of the European Union are now turning a blind eye to the application of Islamic cultural norms in favor of "underage marriage, genital mutilation, and honor killings." The vapidity of European culture is inviting these Islamic incursions. Mr. Sharansky suggested that Western democracies will begin to take their national and democratic identities much more seriously as they see their unique and genuinely free ways of life threatened by their own weakness ("Democracies Can't Compromise on Core Values," WSJ [16 June 2008]: A15).

Perhaps the Christian churches should also pay attention to Mr. Sharansky's warning. Many churches have been giving up the church's core values in favor of the values of the world that surround them. It was certainly thought that the church could invite many more people into its community if it showed some openness to the world's views. Most American denominations are headed down a path that has shown more of that "openness." On one extreme, churches have attempted to placate the world's fleshly ways by encouraging and blessing immoral sexual relations; as though the freedom given in Christ is really about sexual liberation. Other churches, while attempting to hold the line on moral issues, have soft-pedaled doctrinal distinctives such as the doctrine of the holy Trinity, original sin, repentance, the divinity of Christ, real presence in the holy communion, or the doctrine of justification by faith. As much as we might deplore the openness to immorality in the sexually promiscuous churches, a far worse problem is the rejection of basic Christian theology. Such "openness" to the world implies being closed to God (Jam 4:4). The churches cannot make a stand in the world and in the truth at the same time.

The core of Mr. Sharansky's advice is that we should be who we are. Go figure! While he elegantly makes the case for this in the political realm, the churches have much greater reason to pay attention to this truism. Often churches are madly running after the latest mass marketing fad, seeking to increase market share, and trying to "reach people where they are." The bottom line of this pandering is that the churches are giving up the very teachings that make them the church of Christ. The modern churches are not seeking to raise people to a relationship with God through Christ the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, but are falling into the very mire from which the Lord Jesus wants the church to rescue the fallen and depraved. The churches are seeking to avoid offending the bent moral, political, and theological sensibilities of the world. Every compromise with the world is enmity with God. The churches can't compromise on core values, or the churches will cease to be the church.

An Arbitrary Picture of Pharisaism

Pharisaism and Christianity by Hugo Odeberg, translated from the Swedish "Fariseism och kristendom" by John M. Moe, published by Concordia Publishing House in 1964. This excerpt comes from pages 14-15.

Another way of approaching the difference between Christianity and Pharisaism is the following. It is admitted that this antithesis does in fact exist. The fundamental Christian principles are emphasized and an attempt is made to define them precisely. Thereupon an ethical and a religious view is constructed which forms the direct opposite of the Christian view which has just been defined and the conclusion is drawn that this is precisely what the Pharisaic view must have been, since Pharisaism was the antithesis of Christianity. However, the Pharisaism thus constructed is shown, upon closer examination, to be the very opposite of Pharisaism. Here we really deal with a case entirely analogous to the one described earlier. What is depicted as Christianity is not Christianity but Pharisaism.

How are we to account for this? Clearly by the fact that the Pharisaical ways of thinking have become natural for us without our being aware that they are Pharisaical. And what appears to us natural and reasonable is assumed — if one highly esteems the name of Christianity — as something self-evident in Christianity. We cannot and will not suppose — if we regard Christianity as the supreme religion — that the ideals set up by Christianity can be different from those we set up as the reasonable and the best. The only error is that these ideals have not derived from Christianity but from Christianity’s antithesis: from Pharisaism. The result is that we confuse Christianity with Pharisaism and, while professing to be Christians, actually espouse Pharisaism.

The only proper method of establishing the true difference between Christianity and Pharisaism is obviously that we seek to obtain as accurate a knowledge of both as we possibly can, and it is especially important that we gain a correct knowledge of the doctrines and fundamental principles of Pharisaism. A true knowledge of Pharisaism is of fundamental importance for the protection of the unique character of Christianity.

Uprooted from Prussia

The history of Lutheranism in America would be quite different if not for the Prussian Union initiated in the early 19th Century. The effects of civil religion took their toll not only on the churches, but also on the schools of the area.

What follows is a historical survey of what led up to the migration of thousands to western New York as found in Eugene W. Camann’s Uprooted from Prussia — Transplanted in America, commemorating the 150th anniversary of the 1843 Prussian Lutheran migration to the town of Wheatfield, New York. The 140-page book can be ordered by writing Mr. Camann at 6697 Luther St., Niagara Falls, NY, 14304 or calling him at 716-731-4553.

In connection with the social and economic reform measures that the Prussian King was putting into effect, he was also preparing to announce a kingdom-wide church reorganization. It was intended to help unify and strengthen Prussia after her collapse in 1806, which had been followed by a period of foreign domination and the resulting wars of liberation.

Lutheranism had existed as the official Protestant denomination in Brandenburg since 1539, but from the time that the Calvinistic Reformed faith was introduced there in 1613, both religions had existed side by side. However, the Age of Enlightenment and its attendant Rationalism, which had held sway in Prussia for the past century, did not recognize denominational differences. Neither was the prevalent Pietism limited to any specific church organization. These attitudes had also infected many members in the Lutheran and Reformed churches, so there appeared to be very little difference between the two denominations.

Therefore, in 1817 on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the Reformation, Kaiser Friedrich Wilhelm III considered it appropriate to declare a merger of the two church bodies. They were combined into one official Prussian State Church which was to be known as The Evangelical Union Church. The King had professed the Reformed faith but his late Queen had been Lutheran, as were most of his subjects. But he seemed genuinely convinced that combining the two churches should be truly beneficial for all concerned. He expected the merger to strengthen and revitalize Protestant religious life in Prussia as well as helping to unify his kingdom. This is apparently why he became so adamant in striving to make his Prussian Church Union succeed. (See Map A, which indicates how vast was the Prussian Kingdom territory which was subject to this merger decree.)

Most Protestant churches throughout Prussia initially responded to the King’s merger proclamation. In 1817 they held a joint celebration of the Lord’s Supper as officially directed. But they did so only that one time, after which each church again reverted to its own traditional practice. When the King was informed of this, he was very displeased. He personally prepared a joint church Agenda which he issued in 1822. This uniform worship manual was officially called “Liturgy for the Evangelical Church in the Royal Prussian States”. However, neither the Lutherans nor the Reformed groups were willing to adopt it. The King, becoming frustrated, made some minor modifications in it and then demanded that his revised Agenda be adopted in all churches. Until that time, compliance with the merger decree had been considered optional. But now, the pastors who refused to adopt the Agenda were threatened with stiff fines as punishment for their non-compliance.

The Lutherans who adhered to the Unaltered Augsburg Confession and continued worshipping according to their traditional order of service, now faced a period of unrelenting persecution. In 1830, Pastor Scheibel of Breslau, Silesia was suspended from the ministry for refusing to adopt the new Agenda, and for continuing to conduct worship services in the Lutheran manner. Hundreds of fellow-Lutherans rallied to his cause and formed the Lutheran Free Church. They were commonly known as “Old Lutherans” because they held to the traditional Lutheran doctrines and practices.

When this group appealed to the King for permission to continue worshiping as Lutherans, he accused them of being objecting “Separatists.” From then on the persecution became very real. In 1831 the King decreed that pastors who still refused to use the new Liturgy would be guilty of “flagrant disobedience to the crown.” They would be treated as common criminals and would be subject to harsh punishment. The imperial police were now directed to search out and arrest those who refused to comply. In time, more than forty pastors in the Province of Silesia alone were imprisoned for their non-compliance.

Up to the time of these punitive measures, local congregation members had heard very little about the Prussian Church Union, especially those in country villages. Only in the towns where the provincial and regional church offices were located had its introduction become well known. But now a specially appointed Royal Commission brusquely closed one Lutheran church after the other and converted them to Union Church use.

By 1834 only one Lutheran Church still remained in Silesia that had not been forced to adopt the Union Agenda. That church in Hoenigern near Breslau had received a directive from the Royal Commission for its Elders and Church Fathers to meet at the church on September 11, 1834. The Commission expected perhaps 10 or 12 representatives for this meeting. However, when they arrived they were confronted with about 2000 people at the church. The whole congregation had turned out all because of an error in the wording of the directive. The Commission, however, mistook this large turnout for a hostile uprising against them. They felt even more certain of this when the members refused to surrender the church key, and the women crowded in front of the door so the Commissioners couldn’t get at it. Seeing their purpose temporarily foiled, the Commissioners reluctantly left, but threatened to return with military support.

Five days later, on September 16, Pastor Kellner of that church was arrested and imprisoned for seven years, longer than anyone else similarly charged. Then two days before Christmas four hundred military infantrymen and three hundred cavalrymen plus two cannons were brought in. Two hundred Lutherans attempted to guard their church against sudden seizure during the night. At 5 o’clock the next morning, December 24, the soldiers circled the church. Three times the command was given for the defenders to clear the entrance way and surrender the key. When they didn’t comply, the guns were loaded. Then the two hundred Lutherans were struck with the butt end of the guns and hit with the flat of the sword blades, and the church door was forced open. The soldiers stayed in the village for six more days during which the church Elders and many others of the two hundred defenders were arrested.

Guilt Works

Charles Merrill Smith has written a number of tongue-in-cheek books having to do with parish life. One of my favorites is How to Become a Bishop Without Being Religious (New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1965). The following is from pages 53-56. Try your best to keep in mind that this is satire!



Strange as it seems, the greatest thing that ever came down the pike so far as the hard-pressed parish pastor is concerned, is the psychology of Sigmund Freud. Freud taught us about guilt and put his message across in a way that preachers had never been able to manage. He made guilt fashionable. Guilt is “in.”

Freud was an agnostic, of course, but then God works in mysterious ways His wonders to perform, and for purposes of money raising (and let us put it in capital letters so that it will be emblazoned on your memory) NOTHING IS HALF SO EFFECTIVE AS THE EXPLOITATION OF YOUR PARISHIONERS GUILT FEELINGS!!! Perhaps it never occurred to you that the clean, sweet-smelling, well-behaved members of your congregation are really sinners. But depend on the absolute accuracy of the Doctrine of Original Sin. They are.

The Pallid Sins of Nice People
It is true that not many of them are spectacular sinners. Their transgressions tend to be petty, unimaginative, and thoroughly middle-class. But they are sinners all the same, and while they pretend that they are not, they know it.

Very few of your good people pursue sin in the form of wine, women and song. This is because such pursuit is inconvenient, time-consuming and expensive. Most of all, it reduces one’s effectiveness as a money maker. And the average middle-class white Protestant much prefers building his bank account and collecting status symbols to indulging himself in the so-called pleasures of the flesh. (Do not neglect to imply, though, that you know this kind of hanky panky goes on. Even in the most proper congregation you will snag an errant soul now and then who wonders ruefully how you got onto him.)

Now this is a fact which you need to keep in mind at all times, and especially when planning the annual budget drive or building-fund campaign or any other type of financial appeal. Scorching your people for the rough, rowdy, boisterous, bold, bawdy sins will bring very little cash into the till. This kind of talk just makes them feel smug and superior. Hardly anyone you will minister to ever even thought of sinning with abandon. Nice people don’t do these things, and happily for us, the church has progressed to the place where it serves nice people almost exclusively.

We have come a long way from the early days of the church when Christianity did not appeal very much to the nice people of the time and members had to be recruited from the rough, unlettered. and profane classes. How much easier it would have been for our dear Lord had he been able to deal with the merchant and banking levels of society instead of with fishermen and petty tax collectors and the like. But, as noted, above, denouncing the sins which nice people do not commit only makes them feel spiritually superior. And the man who is encouraged to feel spiritually superior generally ends up by revising downward the amount he had planned to give to the church.

However, nice people are quite vulnerable at the point of their prosperity. The average man really has a rather low opinion of himself, even when he covers it with bluster and bragging. He is astounded to find himself living in a forty-thousand-dollar home, driving two automobiles and belonging to the country club. He wants you to believe that all this is tangible evidence of his wit, energy and general superiority. But in his heart he knows, though he may never acknowledge it even to himself, that it is mostly luck. Also, he lives uneasily with the information that he has managed to squeeze out of society far more than his contribution to society is worth. And since his security, the structure of his personality, and everything he holds precious in life is squarely dependent on these lovely results of what he pretends is his personal superiority but what he believes to be his good fortune, he is haunted by one horrible, nightmarish fear — that somehow these things will disappear as easily as they came.

This is why so many of your people support Robert Welch or Billy James Hargis. They are wildly enthusiastic about anyone who promises to ward off those who want to take it away. In short, your average man is prosperous and he feels guilty about it. The astute pastor, then, will learn how to remind his people (there are a thousand ways of how greatly the Lord has blessed them and that these blessings are far beyond anything they deserve.

This has the advantage of being good, sound, demonstrable biblical teaching plus being a solid, practical approach to prying out of them the money you need to carry on the Lord’s work. Couple this with the subtle but frequent suggestion that “the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away” and that he might do just that, and you have created the ideal atmosphere for maximum results from a church finance campaign. There is, however, one exception to this rule this appeal won’t work with people of inherited wealth. They are accustomed to having money and assume it is the will of God that they should have it. However, be comforted by two thoughts: (1) You won’t have many such people in your flock and (2) nothing else works with them either.

Aesthetic Contradictions

Excerpted from State of the Arts: From Bezalel to Mapplethorpe by Gene Edward Veith, Jr., (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1991), 220-221.

I am of the opinion that theological traditions should not change their worship practices simply to accommodate cultural or aesthetic trends. I have seen Baptists try to be liturgical and I have seen Lutherans try to be informal. Believe me, in either case, it was not a pretty sight. Neither side can quite pull it off. The free-wheeling spontaneity of a revival service fits perfectly a spirituality built around religious experience and “decisions for Christ.” The intense concentration, timelessness, and sense of the holy in a traditional Lutheran service corresponds to their emphasis on the objectivity of grace and to the spiritual efficacy of the Word of God. Both styles of worship have an integrity of their own. The style fits the theology, a congruity of form and content which, whether or not visual images are employed, is essentially “artistic.”

A Baptist preacher dressing up in vestments and swinging an incense burner is ludicrous, as is a Catholic priest conducting mass in jeans and a T-shirt while playing a guitar. The sense of absurdity comes from an aesthetic contradiction — the form and content do not go with each other. The problem is not with the clothes or the artistic accessories. The preacher could get away with the guitar and maybe even a T-shirt. The priest could handle the vestments and incense. An individual might come to believe that a particular theological position is correct and, on that basis, change to another mode of worship. Changing the styles without changing the theology, however, is more than discordant. The form communicates the content, so that changing the style changes the message, whether it is intended to do so or not.

Changing churches out of theological conviction is certainly legitimate. One should never switch churches, however, purely on the basis of aesthetic preference. To choose or reject a church on the basis of how good a choir it has, the attractiveness of the sanctuary, or the aesthetic impact of its liturgy is to trivialize that church and to misapply its art. Churches are not to be concert halls, museums, theaters, or entertainment centeres. The focus should be on the content of what the church teaches — its understanding of the Word of God and its faithfulness to the gospel. Art can express that understanding and that faithfulness to varying degrees, but art should not be confused with or take the place of theology.