Obama Supporters Become Romney Supporters -or- Youth Turn Against Obama...

This has been my experience with recent high-school/college graduates, as well (that's right, there is no distinction in my mind anymore). This is the result of what American society has spent twelve to sixteen, even twenty years, preparing for the leadership of the next generation. When I am 70+ years old, and have largely turned over the course of politics and religion to the next generation, I am confident that this is all that I will have to depend upon. That being the case, I expect that I will labour for my own survival until the day I die. The prospect of suffering under the failures of my own wit and health is far less frightening than suffering under the wisdom of today's youth.

As for Romney, yeah, he'll get the youth vote. He's better looking than his opponent.

 

The Communist Revolution in America: Thoughts & Warnings on the Eve of July 4, 2012

Given the state of affairs in the United States, while others are celebrating liberty, I thought it more appropriate to lament the withering assault liberty has suffered in the United States in the past 150 years, beginning with a short video recently released by Lt. Gen. Ret. W.G. Jerry Boykin, an original member of the U.S. Army’s Delta Force, ultimately commanding the elite team in combat operations, who later led the Army’s Green Berets as well as the Special Warfare Center and School, and in the final four years of his 36 year career in the Army, served as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence:

Lieutenant General (Ret.) W. G. Jerry Boykin,
decorated former Delta Force commander and U.S. deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence,
discusses the infiltration of Marxism in American politics and culture.

I was an undergraduate when the Iron Curtain fell. The year was 1989. I was too immature at the time to appreciate the gravity of the event, other than having a naïve feeling of relief that America and the West would soon be rid of the threat of thermonuclear war. The immediate impact was the rush of Eastern Europeans to the West, many of them excited to discover what they had only heard stories of: freedom and opportunity. Many Westerners were glad to receive them socially, and to create opportunities for them economically. For example, at that time, a close family member of mine, with contacts in State government, had swiftly developed business contacts in Russia, and as a result sponsored two families for an extended visit in America, so that they could learn our language, customs and business practices, and carrying this knowledge back to Russia with them, use it to broker relationships between local small businesses in America and Russia.

I was fortunate to spend a lot of time with the leaders of these families. Though these men had never seen a microwave oven before, they were nevertheless well-educated, refined and articulate. Both of them denied membership in the Communist Party, both served in the Soviet War in Afghanistan as non-commissioned officers (sergeants), both served in Soviet special forces. They were both excited to be in America, and both appreciated the opportunity to learn about us and share their experiences and perspectives. As they grew more familiar with America, however, their excitement waned, turning to caution and concern. They recognized the language of Communism in regular use in our society, and saw the prominent role of the Federal Government in the regulation of local matters as a hallmark of “bloodless revolution.”

This type of experience replayed itself over and over, as opportunities in the West resulted in a flood of Eastern European university students. After becoming politically aware, I began to seek these people out, to learn from them. As a result, I befriended a young man from the Czech Republic (who later naturalized and is still living in America) who came from a family of vintners. I apparently roused him out of a mild depression with some intelligent political discourse – I happened to know the name of his President and could pronounce his name properly. It was a little thing that made him very happy. Over several years in college, we had many good conversations. One I recall was his love for America and his desire to be a citizen – which he accomplished without having to get married to an American (he said, “I’m not about to trade one form of freedom for another...”). Another conversation I will never forget, was one in which he expressed vile hatred for Communism and the Soviets:

“I hate the Communists. They killed millions of my people. Over decades, the people just disappeared. The Communist authorities would come through every now and then to intimidate the people. They would randomly collect some of them. Sometimes we found the graves, usually we wouldn't, but no one would ever see these missing people again. If you were a teacher or an artist or a leader of some sort – if you were smart – it seemed like you were more likely to disappear. The masses were to be laborers, nothing more.”

In another conversation, he confessed:

“I love America, but for the first two years I lived here, I thought everyone wanted to be a Socialist! They keep using socialist words, like ‘the masses,’ or ‘the government,’ as if government is going to make them prosperous. I couldn’t believe it! I would tell them, ‘That is Socialism! Why do you want Socialism?’ It didn't take too long before I realized, Americans don’t really want Socialism, they’re just stupid and don’t realize that’s what is coming right around the corner.”

This was the time of the unelected co-president Hillary Clinton’s village-building-through-socialized-medicine escapade, which positioned a monolithic “national” government directly in relation to the “mass of individuals.” Rather than respecting the limited role of the Federal government, which positions it in relation to the governments of the States of our union, and in relation to the governments of foreign nations, “socialized medicine” placed the Federal government in direct relation to the individual, disrupting and interfering with the governing authority of the State, County and local governments whose functions include individual concerns (unlike that of the Federal Government).

I could go on... There were the Hungarian and Polish students, who seemed to get along with each other fairly well, but who were so full of national pride that it was nearly impossible to have a productive discussion with them... Then there was the Russian physics student – an admitted Party member – who was a lot of fun to argue the merits of Capitalism with. There were the Slovakians, the Estonians, Latvians and even a few Bulgarians. All expressed similar sentiments regarding their former years under Communism (“I remember those days in black and white, there are no color images in my memory... everything was so uncertain, there was no hope,” one acquaintance reminisced) and their concern for the future of America as they recognized the encroachment of the same political ideas they thought they had left behind in Eastern Europe.

The Communist Manifesto and the Ten Planks of Communism
Their outlook on America and the dangers of Communism left an impression on me. I read the Communist Manifesto and other historical sources, and came to understand

1. that the common sentiment, “From each according his ability, to each according to his need,” is the mantra of Communist collectivism;
2. that the worker solidarity movements of the late 19^th Century were organized by Marxist agitators seeking a foothold in America;
3. that 19^th Century Industrialists, in response to the rise of Communism in Europe and its presence among the labor unions in America, sought to exploit labour solidarity for the purposes of their bourgeois Utopian ideals by financing John Dewey’s Education Revolution in America, proliferating his pragmatic ideologies of education (i.e. “Progressivism”), to create, not educated people (artes liberalis), but trained people (artes servilis), and even sponsoring Dewey’s residency in Russia shortly after the Bolshevic Revolution, to consult with the Soviets as they developed their system of education;
4. that Marxism, while being both a political and an economic theory, is also a social theory which relies upon the assumption that the world’s economy is a “closed system,” and that social groups must therefore compete for economic resources which are, in principle, limited
   
   • that the reason why the solidarity movements in America went no further politically than the creation of labour unions was that immigrants were predisposed to giving up their identity as unique social groups, rather than clinging to them, and that they endeavored instead to assimilate with the culture of their new home (the “melting pot”),
   • and, thus, that the following eighty year period was devoted to the legislative creation of such groups, in order to pit them against one another in American society and force them to clamor before the Federal government for limited economic resources (the “salad bowl”), and in this way create the condition of social conflict that Marxist social theory was invented to solve – such groups include
     - various “protected class citizens,” which pit employees against employers and employees against one another, and subordinates them to a government before which they must compete for increasing “protection” and “accommodation,”
     - various “classes of social need,” advocacy for and alleviation of which require a multitude of government agencies, all of which compete for limited economic resources,
     - various classes of “economic privilege,” created through complex tax policies granting increasing “tax advantages” as a function of a citizen’s productivity, breeding jealousy and discontent among the less productive who consequently appeal to government for greater economic benefits.
5. that all of these developments, and more, were quite consistent with the Ten Planks of Communism clearly laid out by Marx and Engels toward the end of Chapter II of the Communist Manifesto, which reads:
   
   
   “The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs. But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms
   
   “The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.
   
   “But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.
   
   “We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
   
   “The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
   
   “Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
   
   “These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
   
   
   1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
   2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
   3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
   4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
   5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
   6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
   7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
   8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
   9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
   10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
   
   “When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”

The Communist Rules for Revolution
It is interesting, and rather alarming, to compare the comments of Lt. General Boykin from the video, above, and the Ten Planks of Communism found in the Communist Manifesto, with a Communist document that is said to have been captured in Dusseldorf, DE, in 1919, by Allied Forces: the Communist Rules for Revolution. Though there is some question as to the authenticity of the claim that it originated in Germany, or that it was even written anytime before the 1930’s, it is said to have been published in a local Oklahoma newspaper in 1919 (the “Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise”), it is known to have been published in a magazine in 1946 (“Moral Re-Armament”), and was endorsed as authentic by Florida state attorney George Brautigam in 1954. Since then, it has been entered into the Congressional Record no less than three times.

COMMUNIST RULES FOR REVOLUTION
In May 1919 at Dusseldorf, Germany, the allied forces discovered a copy of these 'Rules.' They were first printed in the United States in the 'Bartlesville (Oklahoma) Examiner-Enterprise' the same year, 1919.

Almost 20 years later, in 1946, a state attorney of Florida (George A. Brautigam) obtained them from a known member of the Communist Party, who acknowledged that the 'Rules' were then still a part of the Communist program for the United States.


1. Corrupt the young, get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial, destroy their ruggedness.
2. Get control of all means of publicity and thereby:
   1. Get people's minds off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books and plays and other trivialities.
   2. Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance.
   3. Destroy the people's faith in their natural leaders by holding the latter up to contempt, ridicule and obloquy.
   4. Always preach true democracy but seize power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible.
   5. By encouraging government extravagance, destroy its credit, produce fear of inflation with rising prices and general discontent.
   6. Foment unnecessary strikes in vital industries, encourage civil disorders, and foster a lenient and soft attitude on the part of government toward such disorders.
   7. By specious argument cause the breakdown of the old moral virtues: Honesty, Sobriety, Continence, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness.
3. Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with a view to confiscating them and leaving the population helpless.

Congressman Larry McDonald and the Four Boxes of Liberty
One of those entering the Communist Rules for Revolution into the Congressional Record was none other than Congressman Larry McDonald. A cousin of General George S. Patton, he was a conservative Democrat during the 1970’s, an ardent foe of Communism, and president of the John Birch Society. He was aboard Korean Air Lines Flight 007 when it was shot down by the Soviets in 1983. He was known to be considering a run for the Office of United States President at the time.

Congressman Larry McDonald defended the authenticity of the Communist Rules for Revolution, which were suspected of spurious origin at the time he submitted them to the Record for publication, in a 1975 editorial he published in the Rome News-Tribune, as follows:

“The U.S. Army officer present when the document was first noted by Allied authorities was Captain Thomas H. Barber, Aide to the officer in charge of Civil Affairs in the American-occupied zone headquarters, Coblenz, Germany. The communist organization raided was the German Spartacist League.

“A controversy has raged as to whether or not ‘The Rules’ are authentic. In 1969 FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was unable to give substantiation and the Library of Congress was of no help either.

“The problem was increased when the New York Times writer wrote in July 10, 1970, that ‘The Rules’ were a hoax, but of course he offered no proof – merely the failure to substantiate as ‘his proof.’

“Fortunately the organization Moral Re-Armament in 1970 resolved the confusion when a search in their files produced a copy hand written by Captain Barber. Furthermore, a letter dated January, 1962, revealed that the Library of Congress had indeed been sent this information and its source.

Given such evidences, the questions for us center on how we ought to respond. In a Free Society, where each citizen is sovereign (defined by his right to ownership of property), not the government, and where the government is servant to its sovereigns, not the citizen servant to his government, how does a conscientious citizen deal with growing threats against his liberty? How does he deal with encroaching tyranny? If a Free Society is also a Civilized Society, we citizen-sovereigns are obligated

1. first to discuss such issues amongst ourselves, to utilize our freedom of speech to persuasively urge our neighbors and countrymen to abandon trust in the despotic machinations of freedom’s enemies and in those who work their engines;
2. to then exercise our right as citizen-sovereigns to remove those from political office who misunderstand their limited roles, who disrespect the autonomy of citizen-sovereigns, and who work either deliberately or from profound ignorance and carelessness to deprive those whom they represent of their liberty, and to replace them with representatives who will not;
3. to then exercise our obligation as citizen-sovereigns to challenge unjust laws in the courts, even if we must first suffer the indignity and expense of suffering unjustly for disobeying such laws in order that material cause and legal standing can be established before the court;
4. to then exercise our right as citizen-sovereigns, in our capacity as jurors who determine fact from evidence presented in the courts, and in agreement with fellow jurors, to nullify unjust laws when fellow citizen-sovereigns stand to suffer as victims of those laws (this is called jury-nullification);
5. and finally, when all else fails, we are obligated, as our Declaration of Independence clearly and directly states, to dismantle a government which cannot or will not be reformed, by force if necessary, and build a new one in its place, as is the right of all sovereigns who stand to be deprived of their sovereignty by others. From the Declaration:
   
   
   “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
   
   “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
   
   It is in the defense of the individual citizen-sovereign’s liberty, as a sovereign, that alteration or abolishment of a government which is “destructive of the unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” is justified.

Congressman Larry McDonald is the one who is most often credited with a meme which capsulizes these four steps to preserving liberty. It is called the Four Boxes of Liberty, and it is a fitting place to end this post:

THE FOUR BOXES OF LIBERTY


1. The Soap Box
2. The Ballot Box
3. The Jury Box
4. The Ammo Box

Wishing what few and infrequent readers I have an introspective Fourth of July, 2012.

Freddy Finkelstein



P.S.: For a thorough, and thoroughly Biblical, historical and Christian refutation of the claims of Communism and Socialism, see this series of Lectures published on The Finkelsteinery in 2009, by 19^th Century Lutheran theologian Dr. C.F.W. Walther:

"America's Martin Luther" Lectures on Communism and Socialism - INTRODUCTION
C.F.W. Walther: Lectures on Communism and Socialism (Contents and Prefaces)
C.F.W. Walther: Lectures on Communism and Socialism (LECTURE ONE)
C.F.W. Walther: Lectures on Communism and Socialism (LECTURE TWO)
C.F.W. Walther: Lectures on Communism and Socialism (LECTURE THREE)
C.F.W. Walther: Lectures on Communism and Socialism (LECTURE FOUR)

Also, to see how, in 2009, the creation of a worldwide Socialist government was very narrowly averted at Copenhagen, thanks in part to Wikileaks, see the following series of articles also published on The Finkelsteinery:

Natural Law, Moral Imperative, and Public Policy: Copenhagen Looms Near
An “Inconvenient Truth:” Climate Change and Scientific Fraud
EU President: 2009 to be First Year of Global Governance
Nopenhagen: Fata Morgana fades in Truth's Brilliant Light

 

Heralding the Gospel: The Evangelical Function of the Church Steeple

The Golden Steeple of St. John Lutheran Church (LCMS), Hermansfort, WI. Drawing all eyes to the Cross of Christ.

 

The Steeple and the Cross
The church steeple is that part of the Romanesque and Gothic church architectures which include the tower – often housing bells for announcing Liturgical Hours, the Divine Service, and various other aspects of church life to the countryside – atop of which was often mounted the spire. In congregations not suffering from the poison of iconoclasm, the spire would support a large Cross, visible from the ground and all over the countryside. Here is a technical description from one of my favorite authors, Dr. P.E. Kretzmann:

Église Saint-Paul de Strasbourg Originally, a Prussian military church, built during their last occupation of France in 1897.

A tower should never be omitted in building a Lutheran church. And if this is crowned with a spire, the symbolism of which has always been recognized, the effect will be all the greater. There is a certain factor of incompleteness about a mere tower, even if surmounted by slender turrets, which somehow renders it incongruous. The battlemented towers of many churches with Norman characteristics remind one more strongly of a castle or of a fortress than of a church. A graceful spire rising from a strongly-built tower is always a pleasing, and often an inspiring sight. The tower will, of course, be an integral part of the church, although it will not be built flush with the facade, but stand out one-fourth to one-half its width. "The tower, as a sign and summons, stands properly over the chief entrance, at the west..." (Mothes, quoted in Horn, 112). ...In larger churches, two towers of equal height and identical construction are erected at the two western corners. If the work is properly done, the effect is most imposing. The cost, however, is an item which is apt to discourage many congregations, for towers and spires are very expensive. The entire tower must be buttressed very firmly, since in most cases it is intended to include the belfry and must bear the weight of the bells as well as that of the spire. The careful anchoring of the spire in the walls of the tower is an essential point, since the stress to which it is exposed, even in a mild wind, is one whose force is generally underestimated. The belfry of the tower, if it is to serve the purpose well, should be situated above the roof, in order that the sound of the pealing bell or bells may travel without hindrance in every direction. It is hardly necessary to add that the architecture of the tower must harmonize perfectly with that of the rest of the building. It will usually be a strong test of the architect's ability to plan the tower in such a way as to give it the appearance of an integral part of the church and also preserve its solidity and beauty.

The Cross of Christ and the Harvest of Souls
Who is it that Christ has sent us to harvest? Answer: those whom the Holy Spirit has prepared for harvest.

Behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest. And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together. And herein is that saying true,

One soweth, and another reapeth
.
I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour; other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours (Jn. 4:35b-38).

Those who have laboured before us, making public use of God’s Word to communicate the Gospel’s message to “gather fruit unto life eternal,” have employed the Means through which the Holy Spirit has also begun the work of drawing the unregenerate unto Himself and into fellowship with other Christians in the Body of Christ – that is, in the Church. “He that reapeth” is merely “entering into the labours” of many Christians who have gone before, some whose use of Law & Gospel has served to plant, others whose use of Scripture has served to tend budding faith, until the soul has been fully prepared by the Holy Spirit for harvest. This does not mean that some go planting, some go tending, and some go harvesting. All go harvesting, but such use of the Means of Grace serves to plant and tend as well.

St. John Lutheran Church (WELS) Popple Creek, WI Still heralding the Cross of Christ.

The Cross is the single perfect heraldic icon for the purpose of evangelism, for in the Cross is simultaneously the message of the Law – symbolizing the punishment of death and separation from God that we deserve on account of our sin – and the message of the Gospel – symbolizing Christ’s innocent suffering and death on our behalf and on behalf of all sinners. Mounted high atop the steeple spire for every eye to see, and for every soul to consider, such a location is the perfect place from which to herald the cross of Christ. Mounted upon the highest point in the local landscape, the Cross is seen to cover all. Just as the life and work of Jesus Christ was done on behalf of all, the Cross and its full meaning is for all. The repentant sinner, including the soul ready for harvest, is drawn to the Cross, and entrance to the Church of Christ. Those who come to the cross, have been compelled to do so, drawn to it by the work of the Holy Spirit who has worked in them by Means of the Message of Good News. They are His work, through the simple message of Law & Gospel. Over the years, the steeple and Cross has fallen out of favour, ridiculed for being passe, and it seems to me that the decline of Christianity in America has accompanied these opinions. Perhaps truly evangelical churches should once again consider returning the Cross of Christ to a place of prominence in America’s landscape? Using the building as a herald of the Gospel is good evangelical stewardship.



“Programs” in Place of the Cross: Harvesting Green Tomatoes?
Yet, these days, many people fret that the simple heraldic preaching of the Cross fails to produce a harvest of souls, fails to adequately “build the Church,” in their opinion. Assuming faithful and rightly divided preaching of the pure Word, why would this be the case? The answer has already been provided above, but is worth repeating: the souls to whom the message is preached in these cases are simply not ready for harvest. We are equipped with tools of harvest, to reap that which has been prepared by the working of the Holy Spirit. But, if such preaching fails to reap, then, is this preaching in vain? Hardly! Similar to Christ, in the words of John 3, above, Paul explains in his first letter to the Corinthians:

Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon (1 Co. 3:5-10).

Paul is here speaking to the congregation of building the Church. Planting in this reference can be considered roughly equivalent to both sowing and reaping in the analogy used by Jesus in John 3, above. Watering, in Paul’s use refers to keeping the fruit after the harvest Christ spoke of in His analogy. One man plants, another waters, and God uses this labour to grant the increase. Jesus indicates likewise: one man sows, another reaps. The one who realizes numeric increase has no basis for pointing to something he has done – he has entered into the labour of many labourers who have preceded him, and together they rejoice in God’s work of increasing his Church, Who uses such labour merely as an instrument of the Means of Grace, through which God works to give, and keep, increase. The tools for planting and watering in the example of Paul are the same as they are for sowing and reaping in the analogy used by Jesus: faithful and rightly divided preaching of the pure Word.

The dual spires of the Cathedral in Cologne rise to 515 feet.

In the reference just cited, however, it is interesting to note that Paul transitions from the picture of the evangelist as gardener, to the evangelist as builder. Emphasizing in the first picture that those who come to faith and stay in faith are God’s work not man’s, he shifts in the second picture to give dire warning: how the evangelist and preacher participates in the work of God is no trivial matter. Paul continues:

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid in Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. (1 Co. 3:11-13)

When Christians get impatient with the Holy Spirit, lose trust in the Means of Grace, and begin to doubt the efficacy of the Word, they resort to laying a foundation other than that which is laid in the simple preaching of the Cross, other than the foundation laid in Jesus Christ. In their impatience for the Lord to prepare His harvest, and “grant them their wages,” they exclaim:

– Merely preaching the pure Word does not work!
– Merely telling the message of Law & Gospel to our neighbors does not work!
– Articulating and holding dogmatically to true Scripture teaching does not work!
– Maintaining an orderly, reverent, christocentric liturgy which shows forth the Marks of the Church and elevates the Means of Grace, doesn’t work!
– We must do something different!
– We must do something more!
– We must do something more exciting!
– We must do something more meaningful!
– We must do something more real, more relevant, and more relational!

And so these impetuous Christians busy themselves with laying a foundation other than Jesus Christ, as He is found in the faithful preaching of the pure Word in Law and Gospel. They really have no choice: those not prepared by the Holy Spirit for harvest will not be harvested by these reaper’s tools. To harvest souls not yet prepared for harvest, the reaper must use tools not given him by God for this purpose. He must use his own tools. He must lay a foundation other than Jesus Christ, alone. In doing so, he picks fruit otherwise not intended for harvest. He’s intent upon plucking Green Tomatoes. These unripened fruit don’t care about the preaching of the Cross or pure doctrine, nor would they respond to it; they respond to programs for the family and children. They are not drawn as a matter of conscience, by the Holy Spirit’s working, to the Church of Christ; they are drawn by titullating Sunday morning entertainment. The foundation laid by such approaches makes use of man’s tools: popular and common devices used by commercial enterprise to stimulate consumer patronage. But the structure built on this foundation does not look like the Church.


The Place of the Cross in Western Society
In a recent lecture I attended, the Rev. Dr. Frederic Baue (LCMS) commented rather poignantly (and I summarize from memory):

The monuments erected by man are an indication of his culture’s priorities.

Lecturing from aspects of his book¹, The Spiritual Society: What Lurks Beyond Postmodernism?, he was drawing from the recently “rediscovered” writings of Russian-American sociologist Pitirim Sorokin and highlighting the nature of cultural transition as cultures oscillate from Ideational to Sensate to Ideational modalities. According to Sorokin, transitional periods between these modalities are marked by cultural upheaval of various sorts. For example, the First Advent of Christ occurred deep in the sensate Roman Era. As happens in Sensate cultures, over time, they become more sensate as they progress toward their demise, making way for Ideational change. With the fall of Rome, the Roman Era gave way to the Mediaeval Era – the most previous era of Ideational modality, an era dominated by Christian thought. Following this, the Renaissance – a “rebirth” of ancient cultural priorities – was a transitional period back to an era of Sensate modality, an era known as the Modern Era. ²

The Rise and Fall of Modernism
Christian influence from the previous era dominating this transition and leaving the distinct mark of Christian thought upon the foundations of Modernism, the Visible church largely oversaw and was an influential participant and contributor to this cultural change; and in nearly every quarter her theology followed suit – with one peculiar exception: the Lutheran Reformation in Germany. While the Roman Church was the primary sponsor of the Renaissance transition, and the forward looking Swiss Reformation under Zwingli, Calvin, Beza and others was responsible for developing distinctly Modern theological systems, the Lutheran Church looked back. The Lutheran Church preserved the teaching of the apostles, which teaching preceded and prepared for the rise of the Mediaeval Era. Resting in conscience, standing on Confession, embracing the mysteries of the Sacraments, the hypostatic union of natures in Christ, and the Holy Spirit’s work through the Means of Grace, the Lutheran Church, in her theology, remained distinctly Mediaeval, distinctly “Ideational,” and preserved this character over following generations, though in ever diminishing influence as the withering onslaught of heterodoxy and pragmatic political machinations worked against her. By the time of the Prussian Union and Evangelical mergers of the early 19^th Century, true Confessional Lutheranism, and the mediaeval theological perspectives she preserved, had nearly been extinguished.

The Strasbourg Cathedral was the tallest structure in the world, from 1647-1874, during which time Strasbourg was also at the center of European commerce. Lutheran during the Reformation, it see-sawed over the centuries, between Roman and Lutheran control, as the Alsace was exchanged by successive military conquest between France and Germany.

The late 19^th Century, however marked the beginning of a transition to a New Ideational Era – and the beginning of the end of Modernism. We see this in the dramatic changes that occurred in the arts, and in political ideology beginning at about this time. We see this in the political and social upheaval that resulted and intensified into the 20^th Century, and in the increasing diffusion of academic focus through this time. The Holocost, while horrifying solely for the sake of the peoples involved, was particularly galvanizing for a larger reason, also: it permanently extinguished any optimism for Modernism, and marked the end of the Modern Era.

We see the result of this upheaval in greater Christianity today. As Christian perspectives based on Modernistic, “sensate-oriented” cultural modalities slink into irrelevancy, we witness among them the marks of flailing confusion. Modern Evangelicalism is one example. The pragmatic clarion call of the pop-church Evangelical, “We must be Real, Relevant, and Relational,” is incoherent nonsense when placed next to the clear teachings of Scripture, and is itself a recipe for failure. And fail it has. Barna Research – a Christian research firm formerly dedicated to the theories of the Church Growth Movement (CGM), whose mission it was to provide Evangelicals with marketing data and analysis to assist congregations in their implementation of CGM – declared in 2005, after a string of very shrill warnings regarding the demise of the American Church over previous years, that the theories of the Church Growth Movement are a statistical failure. Having invested over $500 billion dollars implementing the methods of CGM over the course of 30 years, no evidence of growth was discernible in American Christianity. None. Denominational shift is all that can be observed or attributed to these methods. In an effort to understand and pragmatically react to cultural change, Modern Christians, still stuck in the previous cultural era, reveal that they are oblivious to the real and monumental changes that have occurred in the past century, and are continuing to occur right now.


Confessional Lutheranism, Liturgical Expression, and the Rise of the New Cultural Era
We see the beginning of the end of Modernism in the late 19^th Century in two other respects. One is the collection and emergence of organized efforts among Christian remnants of the previous Ideational Era – that is, the return of a forceful and learned articulation of Confessional Lutheranism. The Confessional and Liturgical movements we observe today, which, more and more, we Christians are attaching ourselves to, didn’t just begin a few years ago. They are an extension of what was begun by the Henkel’s (Tennessee Synod), Walther’s (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod), Preuses (Norwegian Synod), Krauth’s (General Council), Bading’s and Hoenecke’s (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) and the Pieper’s (WELS & LCMS) of the 19^th and early 20^th Centuries. In point of fact, “relevant” Christianity in our new Ideational cultural era will be informed by and take its direction from the perspectives of the previous such era, of Mediaeval Christianity, while Modernist systems, outside of the most resilient and tenacious of the Reformed confessions, will mostly just go away. Adopting and incorporating their increasingly irrelevant perspectives into Lutheran teaching and practice is, more than it ever was before, theological suicide.

Cultural Change marked in the Monuments of Man
A second respect in which we can see the beginning of the end of Modernism, is revealed in the increasingly “sensate” nature of the most prominent monuments of Modernism. From the late Mediaeval Era forward until the beginning of the close of the Modern Era, the largest, tallest and most impressive structures built by man were monuments to God: Christian Churches, with steeples reaching as high as 525 ft, atop of which were mounted the Cross of Christ, as a herald of Law & Gospel to the entire countryside, and an announcement that the Word of Peace and Reconciliation with God could be received, along with all of its eternal benefits, in His Church.

But what happened in the late 19^th Century? The most impressive of man’s monuments, far from being reserved for the special honor of God, were instead directed to man himself, boasting of his achievements, and proclaiming that his priorities were no longer his faith in God and his acknowledgment of gratitude toward God, but of accumulating wealth and honor for himself. From 1311 to 1884 AD, the tallest, most adorned, and most impressive structures in the Western world were churches. In 1884, the Washington Monument became the tallest structure, and then in 1889 the Eiffel Tower was built to kick-off the World’s Fair in Paris, completely dwarfing all other structures in the Western world. From 1930 onward, the worlds tallest and most impressive structures have been office buildings – monuments of man to the priority of commercial enterprise and the accumulation of wealth and power³. Accompanying the dramatic decline of Modernism in the 20^th Century, we see that man’s priorities became dramatically more “sensate.”

Today, throwback modernistic Christians consider the church steeple to be passe, impractical, and more expense than it is worth -- and then boast of their stewardship. Yet these same Christians will line up to throw away $500 billion dollars over thirty years on worthless entertainments and other human inventions, to build anthropocentric organizations on the foundation of hedonism. They call it “church” but what is it really? Emptied of Scripture teaching, shunting aside the Marks of the Church, rejecting the straightforward preaching of Law & Gospel and reliance on the Means of Grace, removing Christ from His central position and replacing him with the priorities of man, these organizations look and sound nothing like “the Church.” Their work is being tried, and revealed for what sort it is: after a generation of trying to pluck Green Tomatoes using tools contrived by man, and succeeding mostly in just robbing "harvest fruit" from other church bodies, while little by little depriving it of preservative preaching of Law & Gospel, Christians find they have indigestion. Thus, these church-like organizations are now in dramatic decline -- precipitous decline -- as spoiled fruit oozes out from the organizational structures they have built.

And yet the old stone church buildings remain. Even though some are emptied of people, and others are emptied of sound teaching, these monuments to God continue to herald the Cross of Christ, to focus the eyes of all on Him and His Gospel message, and to draw people to Christ and His Church. The people may be mute, but the stones still conspicuously cry out, publicly assigning worth to God.

A 19th Century church of Gothic Revival4 architecture, St. Nikolai Kirche in Hamburg, Germany was destroyed in the bombings of WWII. Yet, the steeple remains, elevating the Cross of Christ 483 feet above the landscape.

Built on the Rock the Church doth stand,
Even when steeples are falling.
Crumbled have spires in every land,
Bells still are chiming and calling
Calling the old and young to rest,
But above all the soul distressed
Longing for rest everlasting.

Grant then, O God, wher’er men roam,
That, when the church bells are ringing
Many in Jesus’ faith may come
Where He His message is bringing
“I know mine own, mine own know me,
Ye, not the world, my face shall see:
My peace I leave with you, Amen”

Built on the Rock, v1&7
TLH 467, ELH 211, CW 529




------------
Endnotes:

1. This book is necessary reading for any Christian who would be a student of culture.
   
2. This is, of course, Sociological theory, which, in the end, probably holds about as much water as Psychological theories. There are so many different theories because of the difficulty in testing hypothesis, each theory one is found wanting by observation. Nevertheless, the recent “rediscovery of Sorokin’s writings has generated much interest in his ideas, and given a boost to Social Dynamic theories, which for the most part have been based on demographic rather than cultural/ideological criteria. He is considered a “giant” of 20^th Century sociological research.
   
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_tallest_structures#History_of_record_holders_in_each_CTBUH_category
   
4. All of the structures featured on this page were constructed either in the late Mediaeval Era, or are structures built in the late 19^th Century during the later Gothic Revival, coinciding with “Ideational” influences as they are thought to have been showing their influence.
   

 

Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied, den er tut Wunder

As many of you may be aware, my family enjoys and seeks out the uplifting influence of the Fine Arts for its highly cultivated ability to carry and effectively communicate weighty themes. Musically, this means that we favor what is referred to as “Classical Music.”

For those who may not know, "Classical Music" (along with other Fine Arts of the Western Tradition) is generally divided into distinct periods:

-- the Renaissance, which, corresponding in time to the revival of Art, Music, Architecture and Education in Western Civilization that goes by the same name (which not coincidentally corresponds with the period of the Reformation, as well), often strikes me as "optimistically medieval" – grandiose and confident in a way that shows that the Church was the dominant influence in Western culture at that time;

-- the Baroque, in which matured artistic expression, following their development in the previous Renaissance period, excelled at expressing elements of the whole of life (intellectual, emotional, and spiritual) and were generally guided by the revolutionary themes of humanism and the Reformation;

-- the Classical, which roughly corresponds with the period of the Enlightenment, and like the Enlightenment is a reaction against religious and emotional themes, and tends to be expressive of an intellectually inspired utopianism, particularly of human dominance over nature;

-- the Romantic, which is a reaction against the spartan intellectualism of the Classical period in favor of human emotional life and the dominance of nature over man, and which seems to welcome a form of religious sentimentality at times; and finally,

-- the 20th Century, which is typified by a convulsive struggle between intellect and emotion, frequently in the same dissonant work of art, and which seems to search for, or, more often the case these days, find its foundation in some nebulous and elusive form of spirituality.

These are my general definitions/descriptions of these periods, which professional Classicists may find wanting, but which jibe with my experience, study and interpretation. In addition, it should be noted that within these periods are various genres, like sacred, secular, choral, orchestral, etc.

My family's favorite pieces invariably come from the Sacred Choral works of the late Renaissance and Baroque periods, especially those of the German composers (who in this genre wrote Liturgical music and hymnody almost exclusively for the Lutheran church). After many years of researching and collecting, we have also settled upon our favorite choir: the Dresdner Kreuzchor – particularly under the direction of Rudolph Mauersberger and Martin Flämig. This was the combination that produced the legendary German tenor, Peter Schreier, who joined the Kreuzchor as a boy in 1945. He is also our favorite tenor of all time...

The Dresdner Kreuzchor is the boy's choir of the Church of the Holy Cross in Dresden, Germany (which is right across the Elbe River from the famed Frauenkirche). It is one of the oldest boys choirs in the world, having a continuous 700 year history. For many years, under the leadership of Maestro Mauersberger (1930-1971), this choir, unlike all other famous boy's choirs, focused almost exclusively on the repertoire of Lutheran worship -- and it shows. Their recordings possess the quality of worship, having come from those who regularly produce music in and for the context of divine worship, and who seem to understand and personally connect with what they are singing. This is in contrast with recordings of worship music produced by professional performers, who regularly produce music purely for the delight of audiences, who may or may not understand or appreciate the texts they sing. As a result, while not technically perfect in all areas of execution, our family has nevertheless come to love the recordings of this choir.

Anyway, desiring to share with everyone the treasures of Lutheran liturgical music and hymnody, I highly recommend the collection pictured at the head of this blog entry: Dresdner Keuzchor: Legendary recordings. A full ten-disk collection for a mere €35.10, it's a steal.

The first two disks are collections from Heinrich Schütz (Psalmen Davids and Kleine geistliche Konzerte), the third is Johann Schein's Israelsbrünnlein, the fourth is Samuel Scheidt's Concertus Sacri, and the fifth and sixth CD's contain four Lutheran Masses by J.S. Bach. The first six CD's of this collection all contain music composed for use in the context of Lutheran worship. The seventh CD is a collection of motets by Sweelinck, Kuhnau, Gabrieli, and Schein, while the eighth disk is a collection of Chorals of the Lutheran Age, all by Martin Luther and Johann Walter. The ninth disk is a collection of German folk music, under the direction of Rudolf Mauersberger, and the tenth is a collection of choral music from the Romantic era.

For what it is worth, I highly recommend this collection.

 

The Course of Error in the Church

Several months ago, over on Bailing Water, the characterization of Confessional Crisis was made in reference to the challenges facing the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), and Confessional Lutheranism in general, as a result of decades of pressure from the Church Growth Movement (CGM). Prior to this, in August 2008, Rev. Peter Berg (LCMS, formerly WELS) commented in a post on Bailing Water, stating, "Missouri, for all its problems, at least has a sizeable Confessional movement. While Wisconsin has plenty of conservative pastors I could probably count the confessional pastors on two hands. Most of these men have been marginalized or are lying low." At the time, I thought that the two were essentially synonymous. They are not. What Rev. Berg succeeded in doing was to show that there is a growing divergence of conservative from confessional influences in Confessional Lutheranism.

Thinking about this distinction, and investigating its consequences, it became clear that a separation of conservatism from confessionalism is destructive of Lutheranism and of the Reformation. Indeed, without the Confessional Principle, conservatism lacks reference and falls into uncertainty. C.P. Krauth says of true conservatism:

That some form of Christianity is to be the religion of the world, is not only an assured fact to the believer in Revelation, but must be regarded as probable, even in the judgment which is formed on purely natural evidence. Next in transcendent importance to that fact, and beyond it in present interest, as a question relatively undecided, is the question, What form of Christianity is to conquer the world? Shall it be the form in which Christianity now exists, the form of intermingling and of division, of internal separation and warfare? Is the territory of Christendom forever to be divided between antagonistic communions, or occupied by them conjointly? Shall there be to the end of time the Greek, the Roman, the Protestant churches, the sects, and the heretical bodies? Or shall one or other of these specific forms lift itself above the tangled mass, and impose order on chaos? Or shall a form yet unrevealed prove the church of the future?

...The history of Christianity, in common with all genuine history, moves under the influence of two generic ideas: the conservative, which desires to secure the present by fidelity to the results of the past: the progressive, which looks out, in hope, to a better future. Reformation is the great harmonizer of the two principles. Corresponding with Conservatism, Reformation, and Progress are three generic types of Christianity; and under these genera the species are but shades, modifications, or combinations, as all hues arise from three primary colors. Conservatism without Progress produces the Romish and Greek type of the Church. Progress with out Conservatism runs into Revolution, Radicalism, and Sectarianism. Reformation is antithetical both to passive persistence in wrong or passive endurance of it, and to Revolution as a mode of relieving wrong. Conservatism is opposed to Radicalism both in the estimate of wrong and the mode of getting rid of it. Radicalism errs in two respects: in its precipitance it often mistakes wheat for tares, and its eradication is so hasty and violent that often when it plucks up tares it brings the wheat with them. Sober judgment and sober means characterize Conservatism. Reformation and Conservatism really involve each other. That which claims to be Reformatory, yet is not Conservative, is Sectarian; that which claims to be Conservative, and is not Reformatory, is Stagnation and Corruption. True Catholicity is Conservatism, but Protestantism is Reformatory; and these two are complementary, not antagonistic. The Church problem is to attain a Protestant Catholicity or Catholic Protestantism. This is the end and aim of Conservative Reformation.

Reformation is the means by which Conservatism of the good that is, and progress to the good yet to be won, is secured. Over against the stagnation of an isolated Conservatism, the Church is to hold Reformation as the instrument of progress. Over against the abuses of a separatistic and one-sided progressiveness, she is to see to it that her Reformation maintains that due reverence for history, that sobriety of tone, that patience of spirit, and that moderation of manner, which are involved in Conservatism. The good that has been is necessary to the safety of the good that is to be. There are to be no absolutely fresh starts. If the foundation were removed, the true course would not be to make a new one, but to find the old one, and lay it again.

Krauth, C.P. (1871). The Conservative Reformation and its Theology. Philadelphia: Lippincott. (from the Preface, pp. vii-viii).

Krauth goes on in Chapter IV of his work, The Conservative Reformation, to develop the point -- and to climax with it in Chapter V -- that the Confessional Principle is that of the Conservative Reformation and of true Lutheranism. Confessionalism and Conservatism must remain inseparable. Separated, they lead to the imbalance of Progressivism -- which is Revolution, Radicalism, and Sectarianism.

So, how is it that error is introduced, and Progressive imbalance manifest? A few months after Rev. Berg's comments on Bailing Water, I posted the following, from near the end of Chapter V of C.P Krauth's Conservative Reformation (and I quote from BW with some minor revision):

Years ago, I read an essay by Dr. P.E. Kretzmann: Fundamental and Non-fundamental Doctrines — and Church Fellowship. In this article, Dr. Kretzmann quotes from Dr. C.P. Krauth regarding the "Course of Error in the Church." It was this quote that inspired me to find a copy of Krauth's Conservative Reformation and it's Theology, and to read it (this was before CPH started reprinting it). This is the quote:


When error is admitted into the Church, it will be found that the stages in its progress are always three. It begins by asking toleration. Its friends say to the majority: 'You need not be afraid of us; we are few and weak; let us alone, we shall not disturb the faith of others. The Church has her standards of doctrine; of course we shall never interfere with them; we only ask for ourselves to be spared interference with our private opinions.' Indulged in for this time, error goes on to assert equal rights. Truth and error are balancing forces. The Church shall do nothing which looks like deciding between them; that would be partiality. It is bigotry to assert any superior right for the truth. We are to agree to differ, and any favoring of the truth, because it is truth, is partisanship. What the friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental. Anything on which they differ is ipso facto non-essential. Anybody who makes account of such a thing is a disturber of the peace of the Church. Truth and error are two coordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them. From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy. Truth started with tolerating; it comes to be merely tolerated, and that only for a time. Error claims a preference for its judgments on all disputed points. It puts men into positions, not as at first in spite of their departure from the Church’s faith, but in consequence of it. Their repudiation is that they repudiate that faith, and position is given them to teach others to repudiate it, and to make them skillful in combating it.

Krauth, C.P. (1871). The Conservative Reformation and its Theology. Philadelphia: Lippincott. (pp. 195-196).


This is keen insight from a man who witnessed the decline of Lutheranism first hand, who had the courage to publicly fight against the error which was causing it, and to work toward unity. His effort not only made him a celebrated figure of his time, but a largely credible one as well.

Making application to our own time, advocates of the Church Growth Movement (CGM) were asking for toleration two decades ago, and, apparently through political maneuvering, exploitation of "Brotherly indulgence," and other tactics, they were granted it. Some in our midst are still asking for toleration. Strident agents of "change," it seems, are long past asking for toleration, however. They are demanding equivalency. It seems obvious that they intend to run a parallel church before moving to Krauth's final step of asserting supremacy. This is, after all, the definition, of "change."

But, while Krauth was addressing doctrine, are we not, in our case, often looking at Lutheran practice? Yes and No. We are rightly concerned with practice as it is a reflection of what we Confess, and we see evidence of doctrinal error in the practice of the CGM crowd. When those who confess doctrinal unity with us engage in practice that is confusing or offensive, we have every right to demand of them an explanation, and they have every obligation to render one. Drawing the CGM crowd into explanation of their practice, more and more, it seems, exposes their divergence from us and their disregard for anything more than a fundamentally rhetorical unity. So, while we take our queue from confusing and offensive practices endorsed by CGM advocates, our concern is Confessional integrity.

As I continue to read and study, I am growing convinced that earlier discussions on this point are correct: WELS is facing a Confessional crisis. While advocates of the Church Growth Movement (CGM) would have us bypass the Confessions entirely, or merely give them short-shrift, this crisis will be resolved, and unity confirmed, only by an appeal to our common Lutheran Confession.

So, for those of my fellow laymen who are heading off the the WELS 2009 Convention the week of July 27, remember Krauth's admonishment regarding the Course of Error in the Church, above. Remember the Confessional Principle and the Confessions of the Lutheran Church. Remember the need to maintain Unity under these Confessions; and in this regard, remember the connection of Doctrine to Practice. Understand that Lutheranism has been tortured long enough by the Church Growth Movement, and by those who desire to enculturate the Church according to the criteria of secular pop-culture, and understand that Brotherly forbearance must have some point of termination..

What is Going on in WELS? (Unionism/Church Fellowship) -->

<-- Previous Quotes from Krauth, Schmauk and Benze

 

Culture and Lutheran Worship

Brett Meyer's quote from Luther in yesterday's post gave me an idea regarding quotes from obscure (though important) documents to post over the next couple of days. I will revisit the issue of language usage next week, but for now I will post a rather lengthy series of quotes from a single, rather recent, document: Dr. Gene E. Veith's article "Religion, Culture, and our Worship" from the January 1998 (Vol. 62, No. 1) edition of the Concordia Theological Quarterly. Though I am tempted to think that Dr. Veith needs no introduction in Confessional Lutheran circles, I'll provide one anyway: Dr. Veith, current Provost and Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, is also co-director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist (and former Culture Editor) for World Magazine and author of over 18 books on different facets of Christianity and Culture. The article from which I quote is available online, so I do so liberally, as follows, encouraging the reader to consult the full article at its source: (in all cases, emphasis is mine)

Church Growth worship reformers should ...realize that if liturgical worship is culturally out of step, the same could be said of the elements of traditional worship they themselves usually retain - congregational singing (even of "praise songs"), preaching (even of practical tips for successful living), and congregating in large communal groups (even in megachurches). About the only place Americans sing, listen to long, oral exhortations, and gather together every week is in church. If such rituals are still comprehensible to a godless culture, perhaps the other elements of historic Christian worship might likewise continue to be relevant after all.

As today's Church struggles with controversies over worship, the efforts to untangle the various theological and cultural issues involved are hampered-on both sides of the controversy - by two kinds of misunderstandings. First, there is widespread confusion about what culture actually involves. Second, there is widespread begging-of-the-question about what the relationship between Church and culture is supposed to be. This paper will examine the various dimensions and levels of culture as they relate to worship. It will then explore how the Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms establishes a distinct relationship between Church and culture, which ensures that worship is both culturally relevant and supernaturally transcendent.

The Complexities of Culture
Culture is more complex than is often assumed. ...There are many different kinds and levels of culture. Discussions about the relationship between worship and culture need first to be clear about their terms.

Today's use of the term "culture," in the sense of an all encompassing social world view characteristic of a particular group, is extraordinarily recent. It is nowhere to be found in the Oxford English Dictionary (1933), which lists raising a crop (as in agriculture) and, by extension, the cultivation of the mind. The Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1976) finally gives as one of the new meanings of the word, "the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group." What we today refer to as cultures were in the past termed "civilizations," with the different regions of the world developing their characteristic governments, customs, and art forms. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, scholars in the newly developed social sciences, influenced as they were by the primitivism and organicism of the romantic movement, began to minimize "civilization” (referring to a society's tangible accomplishments), in favor of "culture"(referring to the organic, unconscious identity of a people).

If theology was the queen of the sciences in the premodern era and the physical sciences wielded the scepter in the modern era, the social sciences rule all other fields in these postmodern times. Consequently, the concept of culture has been extended to include every facet of human knowledge and behavior. ...Religion is understood solely as a cultural phenomenon and is defined by many contemporary cultural anthropologists as nothing more than a means of exerting social control by giving cultural norms a sacred status.

Thus, for much of contemporary thought, culture is all inclusive, all-determining, and inescapable. A corollary, of course, is cultural relativism, the idea that since every culture has its own construction of reality, one is just as valid as another. Not just customs and governments, but morality and truth become relative.

If these postmodernists are correct, if culture does embrace everything, then any kind of orthodox Christianity, strictly speaking, is ruled out of consideration. A discussion of the relationship between religion and culture is out of the question; there is only culture. On the other hand, though popular postmodernists might urge us to change the way we worship and the way we believe to correspond with our culture, the more thoughtful postmodernists know this too is impossible. If we are culturally determined, our worship and beliefs are already culturally determined. Culture is not a malleable force that can be accommodated or changed. We do not manipulate culture; culture manipulates us.

My contention is that this postmodernist apotheosis of culture is grossly exaggerated. God transcends culture, and so do morality, science, and art. Culture is not all there is. The diverse cultures of the world do not in fact teach different moralities; rather, all are descended from Adam, giving us all a common humanity, a common sin, and a common Savior. We are not slaves to our culture; human beings shape their cultures through their own deliberations and creativity.

...Rituals are not to be taken lightly, as sociologists will testify. A culturally-defining ritual is a product of a community, a history, and an ideology, and is not something that can be made-up and revised at will. If Church Growth advocates sometimes put too great an emphasis on culture (that is, in adjusting to the culture of the unchurched), they also sometimes take culture much too lightly (that is, the culture of the Church). The notion that a group should change its culture in an attempt to make it appeal more to those outside of the group, is sociologically naive. Destroying a group's identity does not make it more attractive; it makes it cease to exist...

The Levels of Culture
Another aspect of culture that needs to be understood more clearly in today's controversies is that culture exists on several levels. The more or less unconscious, traditional, and historical traits and norms of a group constitute its folk culture. ...Another level of culture refers to the achievements of people in that culture, the contributions of artists, inventors, and constitution writers. This is the high culture, what older writers meant by "civilization."

...Most societies have both a folk and a high culture, but today's technologies of mass production, mass communication, and mass consumption make possible a third level of culture: the mass culture, also known as popular or pop culture.

...Pop culture, by its very nature, must appeal to the lowest common denominator, otherwise it cannot attain its mass audience; therefore it values simplicity, shallowness, and accessibility. The high culture is intellectual and demands effort on the part of its audience. The pop culture, on the other hand, must be instantaneously accessible and is thus received passively, requiring neither the communal context of the folk culture, nor the creative perception of the high culture. The only real ideology of pop culture is commercialism - the need to sell products by indulging consumers - and thus, while market driven, it cares little for ideas or morality. While the folk culture tends to be conservative and the high culture is intergenerational, the pop culture is governed by the dynamics of fashion, and so must be in a state of constant change.

...The Church Growth Movement is all about pop Christianity. Every one of the marks of pop culture are evident in the theory and practice of the Church Growth Movement: consumerism, instant gratification, large scale mass appeals, anti-intellectualism, permissiveness, entertainment focused, technology dependence, fashion consciousness, novelty seeking, purposeful superficiality, and the like. Church Growth advocates favor pop music and pop psychology over folk culture hymns and high culture theology.

...The cultural genius of liturgical worship - again, to set aside for a moment its theological significance - is that it satisfies and brings together both the folk culture and the high culture. The liturgy establishes continuity between generations and between eras, with its roots deep into the history of Christian Church. To say that the Divine Service comes out of German culture is absurd. Its roots go back to Rome and Greece, North Africa and the Middle East, but its very text is drawn from the Word of God. The liturgy, in its history and use, is of no culture and of every culture - to use a technical term, it is "metacultural"; that is, it offers a framework that both transcends and accords with all cultures. Liturgical worship carries a profound psychological and cultural resonance, comprised of memories, time tested truths, feelings of continuity, and a sense of belonging - hallmarks of the folk culture.

But liturgical worship also satisfies the demands of the high culture in its substantive content, its challenging theological nuances, the beauty of its language, its settings in fine music, and its aesthetic richness and use of the other arts. Liturgies, while keeping their roots in church history, are certainly subject to translation, updatings, and theological revisions. Designing a liturgy, however, is no light or easy undertaking. It demands the best and most careful work of high culture scholars, theologians, and musicians...

The Two Kingdoms
Thus far we have been examining culture. Even if we come to a perfect understanding of cultural dynamics, we will not thereby solve the dilemma of how the Church in a particular culture is to worship. Those who attempt to sort out the issues of culture and worship must also factor in a major theological point, dealing with what the relationship between the Church and the culture - whether folk, high, or pop - is supposed to be.

...One option is to put culture above Christ. In this view, Christianity serves culture, or, in the words of the National Council of Churches slogan, the world sets the agenda for the Church. When the culture changes, Christianity must also change. This is the path of liberal theology. ...What makes a person a liberal is not any one set of beliefs or unbeliefs; rather, a liberal in theology is defined by his willingness to make culture authoritative over the Word of God. The church growth movement is thus, in the most technical sense, a manifestation of liberal theology.

...The doctrine of the two kingdoms is usually discussed in the context of the role of government or the Christian's political duties, but it applies directly to issues of culture. God is sovereign over culture. This means, among other things, that the folk culture, the high culture, and the pop culture are subject to God's moral law. This also means that a Christian may participate in the various levels of culture, in all of their secularity. Christians have the freedom to love their country, become highly educated in technical fields, and watch TV. They will do such things under God's Law, and thus can be expected to get involved in politics, criticize secularist ideologies, and demand that Hollywood clean up its act. They will be full and active members of their culture. The other part of the doctrine of the two kingdoms is that the Church must be set apart from the culture. The Church, Luther said, is governed solely by God's Word, and its prerogatives are not to be surrendered to the world. ...Today the Church must resist the dictates of the pop culture.

The doctrine of the two kingdoms, when applied to worship and culture, might mean that a Christian might enjoy popular music - but not want it in the Divine Service. A Christian might be a good businessman - but not want to turn the Church into a business. A Christian might love TV, movies, and computer games - but not look to the Church to be entertained. A worship style would be valued because it is not part of the dominant culture of the moment. Ways would be sought to keep the Church different from the world. The Church would seek to counter the ways of the world, not imitate them. The lost would see in the Church an alternative to the vanity, deceit, and futility of the world.

Our family has the custom of inviting people who have no relatives in the area to our house for Thanksgiving dinner. We do not change our time honored, invariable menu according to what our guests are accustomed. Not only would our children never allow it, but the sense of family established by our eating rituals is exactly what our homesick guests crave. Besides, it would be inhospitable to offer those who eat fast food every day a McDonald's hamburger instead of a Thanksgiving dinner. Our family's task is to invite the lonely and those with no place to go, bring them in, and make them welcome at our feast. This is also the task of the Church.

Veith, G.E. (1998). Religion, Culture, and our Worship. Concordia Theological Quarterly, 62(1), 25-38.

The reader may be interested to know, that Dr. Veith is a Confessional Lutheran of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS) and, as I understand it, attends church here. Professional classicist and undisputed expert on culture and vocation that he is, it causes one to wonder how it is that so many Lutheran pastors and theologians, enamored with the Church Growth Movement, fail to take advantage of the rather straightforward distinctions in culture that he makes rather clear -- almost as if it is common knowledge among those in his circles. Why do Lutheran parish consultants, students of culture that they are, seem to gravitate so heavily toward pop-culture in their recommendations? Are they truly competent students of culture, or do they have an agenda? Then again, perhaps they dispute Dr. Veith on academic grounds? If so, what are their credentials, and what objective analysis do they offer in correction of Dr. Veith? That would be an interesting debate to sit in on...