Pastor John WolfFrom the Pastor
Note: Updated 10/24/07
Welcome to the Pastor’s Soapbox. My intention here is to provide a place for us as a parish to discuss some issues. This will be the stuff that doesn’t come up in sermons (for various reasons), but is too involved to make an announcement or even a temple talk. Most of this will be theologically based, but then, there are many things to discuss.
Many of the topics will be controversial. Some might even be painful for people to think about. I have no wish to offend, but I am called to “speak the truth in love,” which will be my mission statement for the soapbox column. Emphasis on the love. The truth I speak will necessarily be the as-I-see-it kind, so, what you get here is the Pastor’s opinion. It is the Pastor’s Soapbox, at least to start. Nevertheless (all the more!), your feedback will be welcomed. Email me or write me a note, and I will post what you say in the soapbox. I promise a minimum of editing, if any.
Now, how am I going to handle requests for anonymity? For some time, it has been an important rule to me that unsigned comments receive no attention whatever. It’s just too easy to do a lot of damage with unsigned letters, since there is no way to challenge or debate such comments. All the same, I do understand that some people need to remain anonymous as they say what is on their hearts. Therefore I would ask that responses to my postings not be unsigned unless it is really necessary. Try to keep the unsigned comments to a minimum. If a comment does come in unsigned, I am going to use my prayerful discretion in deciding whether or not to post it. I will not rule it out of court automatically.
I — Holy Land bones
Some bones were found in boxes in the Holy Land. On one, in very bad handwriting, someone made out the inscription “Jesus son of Joseph.” Was this Jesus our Savior?
No. There are so many reasons why this could not be our Jesus that even non-Christian scholars call it hype. Somebody’s trying to make a fast buck.
And by the way, the DaVinci code isn’t real either. That should be enough said about that.
Jennifer Lee responds -
There are numerous reasons why the bones don't belong to Jesus Christ. I'll mention the most obvious: Jesus didn't leave behind bones. He rose from the dead.
Yet, non-Christians might try to revel in this so-called "discovery." Brothers and sisters, let us hold fast in our faith and know -- beyond a shadow of a doubt -- that our Jesus rose and is alive in Heaven. We don't worship a dead guy. He is ALIVE.
As I write this, I'm reminded of Peter's words:
"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." 2 Peter 1:16
EYEWITNESSES. Glory to God.
I'll take Peter over James Cameron any day.
In Christ,
Jennifer Lee
Pastor’s note: read also 1 Corinthians 15.
II — Marriage and Weddings
Okay, on to an actual issue. As a pastor, I am frequently called upon to conduct weddings, naturally enough. I am also a student of history, so I know that the institution of marriage has changed over the years and centuries, and even within my lifetime. What our society considers normal has not always been so; and there are probably changes in our future.
A couple years ago, we local pastors decided to adopt a wedding policy, so we could all be on the same page and not undercut each other. No one wanted to have the reputation as the only strict pastor in town, nor did any of us want to be the permissive one with no standards. I myself, with a couple model documents in front of me, did most of the actual writing. I would be glad to show you a copy. The status of the agreement currently among the Lutherans is unratified, but I try to live by it all the same.
The agreement states that we will always have premarital counseling. That we will not conduct a wedding of non-members without notifying the pastor of a church where the bride or groom is a member, and a number of other things.
Now here’s the challenging part: it’s called cohabitation. What to do about couples who want to be married but are already living together?
“Everybody’s doing it.” Not true, but cohabitation is becoming quite common.
My information, based on some very good research, is that couples who live together before they are married are much more likely to experience difficulties, even leading to divorce, than couples not cohabiting before marriage. Whatever the reason is for that, the stats bear witness. The myth that couples should share housing before being married to see if they really are compatible turns out to be false.
It is not good for your marriage to live together first.
Recognizing this, some pastors (and not just in this area, but across America) when asked to do a wedding for a couple who is already living together, will require one or the other to move out first. I don’t think I’ll be doing that, for two reasons:
One, the research shows that if the cohabitation has been a short-term thing, say if the couple wanted to get the moving-furniture headaches out of the way first, before the wedding, there is no significant damage to the relationship. They are no more likely to divorce than couples who don’t share an address for even a single day before the wedding.
And two, I think it’s already too late for long-term cohabiting couples. If they have been living together with an idea of giving cohabitation a try before they marry, making them live separately for a few months won’t do much.
The trump card, of course, is “What does the Bible say?” If God tells us to do things a certain way, then that’s that. As we are called to live in the world but not be of the world, society’s dictates and conventional wisdom do not order our lives and decisions. God does.
The Bible holds marriage to be one of God’s greatest blessings to humankind. (That’s easy to believe when you have a marriage like mine. But I digress.) Marriage is the covenant of commitment between a man and a woman. The wedding is the ceremony where that commitment is made public; promises are made out in front of God and everybody who cares to listen.
The vows are central. In our Lutheran wedding service, the pastor says this after the vows and exchange of rings: “(bride) and (groom), by their promises before God and in the presence of this congregation, have bound themselves together as husband and wife.” No power vested in me ties their knot. They do it.
That kind of public commitment is supposed to be serious, but our society has forgotten what commitment is. It is true commitment that makes for an honest marriage. Vows are solemn vows, period.
This is what the Bible says in Genesis, back when marriage was invented: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one.” Other scriptures (from Ephesians, for example), back this up. True unity requires true commitment. A half-hearted ‘let’s give this a try and see what happens’ will not work. It’s not marriage.
Therefore:
1. Marriage is defined by the commitment; and not what modern society calls commitment either, but the real thing. A couple are really married if they seek, with God’s help, to do exactly what they say in their vows, no less.
2. A marriage becomes official when the vows are made. (Those who say the wedding is only a ceremony and it’s the commitment that matters are right, but just barely. Neither the living together nor the sexual activity constitutes commitment. And certainly, trial cohabitation is the opposite of commitment. If real commitment is present, the parties should have the courage to stand up and say so in public, in front of God, say, in a wedding service.)
3. It is an abuse of sexuality to have sex outside of marriage.
(I do not believe that procreation is the sole purpose for marriage. There were times, believe it or not, that the church would not approve or bless a marriage unless the woman was pregnant first! We do not require any such thing anymore. I myself have performed more than one wedding in which the bride and groom expressed no intention whatever to have children – most often because they were older. I was still happy to marry them.)
4. I will make every effort to let people know where I stand, and what I see to be the dangers of premarital cohabitation and extramarital sex.
5. In premarital counseling, extra care will be taken with couples who are living together, to assure that they know the risks.
6. In premarital counseling, extra care will be taken with all couples to make sure they understand the nature of marital commitment.
Keep in mind that any pastor who reads this column is laughing more than you are. If you think it’s more serious than funny, then you have a point. But if you don’t get at all what the fuss is about, then I’m not doing your wedding.
Question — about Baptism
A question posed - What is your policy or thoughts on baptism for a baby whose parents are not married but living together?
Baptism is a gift from God in which he adopts us as his children. As such, I do not withhold baptism from anyone who desires it for him/herself or children.
Contact with parents who wish to have their child baptized is an excellent opportunity to discuss marriage, if need be.
6/27/07 (Later - ) This issue has more depth than I originally realized. This is no surprise, since baptism itself is deep. It is a gift from God, and as such will continue to lay hold of us and call us to be true children of God.
So what about someone bringing their children to be baptized when they have not made the commitment of marriage to one another? Promises are made in baptism that have deep lifelong (and longer) importance. How can people make promises, particularly those baptismal promises, when they have not yet committed to each other?
For that matter, how do we trust anyone to make baptismal promises? Modern people are notorious for taking vows lightly - and that’s all of us, not just unmarrieds.
I think progress lies in an expanded direction. Let us call to mind all the promises being made in baptism:
1. God makes a promise, as I noted earlier. His is the most important and most sure. God’s gifts and promises alone are enough reason to baptize, even if no one else is faithful.
2. The parents and sponsors make promises, which we as the church, especially pastors, ought to make clear.
3. (Here’s where you come in)- The gathered people of God, that is the church, also make a promise. When we say “We welcome you into the Lord’s family,” we mean that we intend to act as family. Essentially, we are all making the same promise the sponsors make (One of our members was baptized with the whole congregation named as sponsors. Brilliant). If the parents fail in their duty to give this child a Christian upbringing, we as church must see to it. They’re family, after all.
I therefore, on your behalf, commit the whole parish to the promises made in baptism for everyone baptized in our midst. Thank me later.
III — Worship Issues: Communion, Lord's Prayer, Flags
Here are three worship issues, in brief:
1. I think we should have communion every Sunday. For most of the church’s history, it was understood that communion was a weekly celebration. It only became rarer with the circuit riders of the American frontier. The reason I have not simply established the practice of weekly communion is because that would give the altar guild a lot more work - and that isn’t fair without their input.
Kim and Tracy Gayer respond -
We very much (more than just much !) support communion each Sunday. We appreciate the opportunity commune regularly and receive that grace more often. The ISU campus ministry conducted communion weekly and we have missed it for the last 17 years since finishing school.
Lyle Hollander responds -
Pastor Wolf, I called you earlier this evening about the dictionary program that you have used in the Kiwanis Club at Inwood, and came across your site. I enjoyed reading your comments. I am a member of St. John's at Boyden. We have communion the 1st and 3rd Sunday of each month. The first is the traditional service in the green hymnal, 2nd setting, and on the 3rd we use the contemporary service booklet, (I can't remember the name at the moment, but beautiful liturgy and music - I really like "Now the Feast and Celebration.") Our congregation is quite musical and enjoys this service as well as the traditional. We use a piano at this service in place of the organ as it's easier to follow as we learn it.
A minority of our members do not like the 1st and 3rd Sundays, thinking it gets to be commonplace, and that members become blasé about it. However, most members like it, as it gets voted on occasionally at our annual meetings, and it passes quite easily. We seem to have struck a balance of opinions on the frequency, although a few members did not enjoy learning the new liturgy, but like all new things when first introduced, have become more comfortable with it.
2. I prefer the newer version of the Lord’s Prayer. Recent Bible study by experts (!) has shown that it is probably closer to the words that Jesus actually taught his disciples. Also, the word ‘trespasses’ has undergone a considerable change in meaning since first appearing in the King James. ‘Sins’ seems to tell it like it is. I have not changed this due to personal inertia, and the comfort the familiar version gives to many. Even if we switch to the new version in worship, I will continue to use the traditional one at the nursing home.
3. The American flag does not strictly speaking belong in the chancel. I love my country - it is (no doubt in my mind) the greatest country on earth, past and present. Possibly future. Plus I have a great respect for the veterans who offered that “last full measure of devotion” for the flag and all it represents. I like the flag, I just think it’s out of place in the sanctuary. Every symbol in the front of the church should proclaim Jesus. Even the pastor should do so, with his actions, what he wears and what he says. A national flag up front runs counter to that proclamation. It also runs counter to the assurance we receive in the gospel, that the good news of Jesus is for all nations. (A U.N. flag would still be out of place; not to mention weird.) I have not made an issue out of this because of my respect for the veterans. It was for them that flags were put into churches in the first place, and it should be their call if the flag is to be removed. (An interesting alternative can be found in Canton Lutheran Church, where an area has been set aside in the narthex for the flags of the congregation.)
Pastor additions -
Since posting this on the soapbox site, it has become apparent to me that people are reading what I have to write here. I guess I should have expected that; but I guess it points up my earlier timidity that I didn't just say them out loud knowing I'd be heard and considered.
As to #1, both congregations have found ways to increase communion celebration. Our Savior's now has it every Sunday, and Bethlehem is going to twice a month. God be praised for his gifts!
As to #2, after a sermon on the subject, we have gone to the newer translation of the Lord's Prayer. We will be getting used to it for a while, but it seems to have caused very little upheaval.
As to #3, someone moved the flags at Our Savior's to the back of the sanctuary, where they look pretty good. In the front, there are now two beautiful banners. I haven't heard from Bethlehem, so I guess those flags will stay where they are, at least for the present.
IV — WELCA small group “Circles”
In my opinion, it is perfectly all right for the WELCA to call their small groups "circles." Someone in an office in Chicago said we shouldn't use that word anymore, but I honestly don't get it. As much as I love my ELCA and the people in offices, I have to disagree with them on this one. Generally, people in Chicago offices, or Storm Lake offices, or wherever, are doing a wonderful necessary blessed ministry. I just disagree with them sometimes.
V — Intern Site Decision
We will soon be coming to that time of year when we must decide whether we will continue as an internship site, and in January apply for Intern #6. Last year the vote (to get #5) was as close as it has ever been. Is our parish beginning to feel called to other missions?
Another fly in the ointment is the cost. We have managed to pay for interns in the past, and whenever we do a free will offering for moving expenses or what have you, the response is generous (no surprise). Yet our Benevolence has become hard to reach, even after cutting our commitment. Also, I have received word that starting next year, congregations will be required to pay for the intern's health insurance. Count on a $3000 increase.
So, to be honest, there are a couple of negatives. Still, I believe we ought to continue as an internship site.
First, we can handle the cost. It will take a renewed commitment, and some soul searching (possibly some cushions-of-the-couch searching), but I believe that if we put our hearts to the task, we will have the money.
And second, I believe we are called to be an internship site. We are one of the best internship sites in the whole ELCA. I am not overstating that. The opportunities for learning here are exactly what an intern needs, and our attitude toward interns is just right. I know four former interns who would AMEN that claim without hesitation, and one current intern who is quickly coming to the same conclusion.
Viewed from the other side, it would be difficult to name another mission that would use our gifts as effectively as the intern program. We have the people, the equipment, the resources and the gifts to do this well.
Therefore, if we cease to be an internship site, we will be doing a disservice to our church, and possibly to ourselves as well. I therefore am ready to recommend that we continue as an internship site, for the foreseeable future.
VI — What About Heaven?
I hear a lot about what heaven is like from people who have never been there. I haven't either, but the Bible tells me quite a bit.
First, people don't become angels when they die. I don't know where this one comes from, but it's nowhere in the Bible. I even heard Billy Graham say it once, referring to children who die. Nope, people who die are just people.
I also have trouble believing that the dead are watching us. It's supposed to be heaven. Why would the saints triumphant want to watch the dumb stuff we do? Again this one is nowhere in the Bible.
Will we recognize each other in heaven? And if so, Will we be sad if someone we know doesn't make it?
I do not have specific verses to give you on this one, but consider this:
1. I love no person more than the three people with whom I share a house.
2. Even so, I love them imperfectly.
3. Heaven is perfection, perhaps most of all the perfection of love ("faith, hope and love abide, these three. And the greatest of these is love").
4. In heaven, therefore, I expect to love Erma, Anna and Rebecca perfectly. But then, if love is perfected, I must also love all others perfectly, even those I have never met (At this point, I usually refer to Harvey Zicafoose. Who is Harvey Zicafoose? I have no idea. But I expect to love him).
5. God's love is already perfected.
6. However much I might miss someone from heaven, God will miss them even more.
7. God will do everything to make sure they are there.
8. I should too.
Inwood Lutheran Parish
100+ Years of Worship
a member of…
Home
Prayers
Studies
Youth News
Calendar
Boards