GOD TALK

Some time ago I was at a meeting of religious leaders where the program was a group of high school students of Muslim, Jewish and Christian background. It was a great program. Given the way the young people talked, I have much more confidence for the future. All were able to talk about their own beliefs without tearing down others. That’s exactly what we could use in the world.

My only disappointment was when one of the religious leaders remarked that all the students had talked about God as a ”man.”  What he meant was that they all used male pronouns to refer to God. This was not just an observation on his part, but a criticism. Male pronouns in reference to God are among his pet peeves. He–like a good many others–insist this is an important religious issue. Phooey, I say. And again, phooey!

When I preach, I don’t refer to God as “he” because it is problematic to some people, and I want to respect those who are might be unable to hear the Good News of Jesus because of a few pronouns. I think I am rather skilled at doing this without using obnoxious expressions like “God’s self.” Or God sent God’s Son (or it’s probably supposed to be “child,” but I won’t say that.) I do insist, however, that in worship we use the formula Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It’s what is in the Bible and the Creeds so t isn’t up to us to change it.

What bugs me, however, is that most of the fussing about male pronouns for God are a result of English having lost most of its grammatical gender. Unlike French, pens are not feminine in English. Unlike German, day is not masculine in English. Until recently ships in English were still feminine, but that seems to have been suppressed. The gender police also hunt out the word “man” when it is used for “person.” We aren’t supposed to say “chairman” any more, but “chairperson.” Actually, chairman refers to a man or a women. Read Roberts' Rules of Order where the form of address is either Mr. Chairman or Madame Chairman. The problem is that some dummy introduced the word “chairwoman” which goofed up the whole thing by assigning gender to the word chairman, hence the neologism “chairperson.” The silliest form that I have seen is “ombudsperson” for ombudsman. For goodness sakes, the word ombudsman isn’t even English. It’s taken directly from Danish. Anyway, I try to go with the flow so as not to ruffle too many feathers.

However, my feathers got ruffled when the young people were criticized for using male pronouns for God. The Muslim students referred to God as Allah. Now that’s an Arabic word masculine in gender. It would be entirely improper to refer to Allah except as “he.” The Hebrew word for God is usually Elohim which is also masculine. Even in English, the word god retains the masculine gender because we have a feminine form goddess.

The students tried to make it clear that they didn’t think of God as a male person. They were just speaking English in the natural way that English speakers do. It was bad manners to criticize them. It was intolerant, too. It is a curious thing that I note: some of the people who talk the loudest about the need to be tolerant of others are themselves intolerant of others who do not share their views. It all seems to depend on whose ox is being gored.

May the Lord bless you on your journey and greet you on your arrival.

Wayne







17004

BEARING FALSE WITNESS

I recently came across the following in a blog by Martin Marty, the leading light among American Lutheran church historians.

During our nation’s momentary fit of proposing that we exercise more civility in public life and before we turn back to our uncivil ways, we have time to reflect on the question: are there overlooked sources to which the public, or at least huge chunks of it, can respond and should put to work? The one I will offer will sound extremely particular, parochial, and sectarian. It asks: what if God, as revealed to the vast majority in this Judeo-and Christian culture, were called upon and listened to?

I will draw on the tradition in which I was brought up and still cherish, as I paddle in ecumenical waters and interfaith seas. That source is Martin Luther’s The Small Catechism, which we kids memorized, or his The Large Catechism, which remains an adult guide.

His explanation to the Eighth/Ninth Commandment . . .
Here it is, in modern translation: You are not to bear false witness against your neighbor, which means, We are to fear and love God, so that we do not tell lies about our neighbors, betray or slander them, or destroy their reputations. Instead we are to come to their defense, speak well of them, and interpret everything they do in the best possible light. Ow!, and again I say unto you, Ow!

Martin Marty

It’s a clever piece of writing. I wish all the people who claim the name of Christian would follow Luther on this point. In the heated atmosphere of our current controversial age, people seem prone to do anything but interpret everything in the best possible light. If party A proposes something, party B must oppose it because nothing party A does can possibly arise from good motives. This holds true even if ten years ago party B proposed the exact same thing. Each side condemns the other as being out to destroy the country.

I’ve seen churches torn apart by the same problem. People disagree on something. Each side becomes unable to credit the other side with any good intentions. Everything is twisted and distorted to make it look as bad as possible. And sometimes the issue is something as minor as whether the service should be at 10:00 or 10:30.

Then there is the part about slandering others or destroying their reputation. I once served on the board of a Christian School. A decision of the board met with opposition by some of the parents. One of the parents spread vile rumors about me in order to undermine the board’s decision. Fortunately, there were many parents who knew me personally and who did exactly what Luther instructs us–spoke well of me and came to my defense. The slander was silenced in a few days.

I don’t suppose telling all the Christians who have the public ear that telling lies about another person violates God’s commandment will have much affect on them. People seem to have become very selective about what constitutes sin. So twisted things have become that telling lies is justified by claiming it is the truth. Fiddlesticks! If we aren’t putting the best construction on others, we are breaking the commandment.

Ah well, time to get off the soap box. I’m going to take Candide’s advice: “we must cultivate our garden.” I have some lettuce and basil plants that need tending. They don’t stand up too well to all the heat we have had this spring. Come to think of it, people don’t stand up too well to the heat either.

May the Lord bless you on your journey and greet you on your arrival.

Wayne





16907

KOFINK GENEALOGY UPDATE

This is going to be of interest to relatives of Carl Kofink of Chicago.  I have previously made some family pictures available here

http://a-pilgrims-place.blogspot.com/2008/08/kofink-family.html
 

and here

http://a-pilgrims-place.blogspot.com/search?q=Kofink

Today I am posting some documents and a bit of genealogy that I have uncovered.

Common knowledge in the family was that my great-grandfather Carl Kofink was born in Heidelberg, Germany October 8, 1858. Carl’s birth certificate has been passed down in the family to me. Here’s a copy of it.

It shows that he was born Karl Kallenberger son of Gottliebin Kallenberger. This is an indication of a birth out of wedlock.

On August 7. 1865 Karl was acknowledged as the natural son of Friedrich Kofink and was allowed to us the surname “Kofink.”  Here’s the document.

Notice that the document misstates the date of Karl’s birth as October 7, 1858. A note on the side in pencil shows the name Gottliebin Steiss. I’ll come back to that in a bit.

I have finally discovered a bit more about Gottlieben Kallenberger.  Her full name was Gottliebin Magdalena Kallenberger. She was born June 4, 1827. Her father was Johann Martin Kallenberger (known as Martin) and her mother was Maria Catharina Kraemer (know as Maria). Her parents were married August 17, 1823 in a protestant church in Klein Ingersheim, Neckarkreis, Wuerttemberg, Germany.

At some time she married Johann Theodor Steiss (known as Theodor). They had two children: Pauline Friederike Wilhelmine Steiss, born February 27, 1871, in Stuttgart, Wuertemberg, Germany and Christian Friedrich Ernst Steiss (known as Ernst) born March 23 1873 in Stuttgart, Wuertemberg, Germany. I have further information on descendants of Pauline Steiss.

Gottleibin Kallenberger Steiss died in Berg, on May 5. 1898. She was widowed at the time. Among the family papers are an accounting of her estate which was divided between Karl Kofink and Ernst Steiss. Here’s the document.

A comment on names that I may have made before. My grandfather, the son of Carl Kofink was named Johann Theodor after Carl’s step-father. I now see that several other family members take their names from this side of the family. Carl’s eldest son Paul Ernst Kofink combines the names of Carl’s step-sister and step-brother. Another son Ernst Wilhelm also takes a name from Carl’s step-brother. The name Ernst was passed on to John Kofink’s son Herbert John Ernst Kofink. I also see where the name Martin came into the family (in another of Carl’s sons Walter Jacob Martin) since that was Carl’s grandfather’s name.

Well, that’s what I have for now.

May the Lord bless you on your journey and greet you on your arrival. 

Wayne

18867

VISITATION

Last week had two festivals in it–The Visitation on May 31 and The Ascension of Our Lord on June 2. Neither day was observed by any of the local Lutheran churches including my own. I grew up at a church that celebrated Ascension Day; of course the name of the church was Ascension Lutheran Church. I think I have tried once or twice to have Ascension Day services, but they were poorly attended. Nowadays even Good Friday is poorly attended so I don’t have much hope for observing the Ascension. Even most diocese of the Roman Catholic church transfer Ascension day to the following Sunday which doesn’t make much sense since the Ascension happened 40 days after Easter not 43. At my church no one asked about Ascension Day, though one person was upset that the church wouldn’t be open on Memorial Day. I have a hard time getting people to understand that the church observes the days of the liturgical calendar and not those of the civil calendar. Sometimes when Christmas Day falls on a Sunday some people want to know if services will be cancelled because it’s a holiday. Some churches actually did cancel services last time Christmas Day fell on Sunday, and I’ve seen some churches that call the Last Sunday in Advent Christmas Sunday. I suppose that’s the way things go.

As far as the Visitation (or the Visit of Mary to Elizabeth as Evangelical Lutheran Worship now calls it in its usual verbose manner), I don’t think I’ve ever had public worship on that day unless it might have happened to fall on a Sunday in a year when May 31 was after the Festival of the Holy Trinity. Fortunately the Gospel for the Visitation in also used on the last Sunday in Advent in year C of the three-year lectionary, so I get to preach on the topic at least once every three years.

The heart of the Visitation Gospel is the Magnificat, the song Mary sang. It’s something quite familiar to me since it is part of the order for Vespers, a service that was frequently used for evening services at the Lutheran Church where I was raised. I still remember it in the King James Version that we used.

My soul doth magnify the Lord,
And my spirit hath rejoiced in
God my Saviour.
For he hath regarded
the low estate of his handmaiden:
for, behold, from henceforth
all generations shall call me blessed.
For he that is mighty hath done to me great things;
and holy is his name.
And his mercy is on them that fear him
from generation to generation.
He hath shewed strength with his arm;
he hath scattered the proud
in the imagination of their hearts.
He hath put down the mighty from their seats,
and exalted them of low degree.
He hath filled the hungry with good things;
the rich he hath sent empty away.
He hath holpen his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy;
As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham,
and to his seed for ever.

Alright, I confess I liked the archaic word “holpen” in this version. I also liked that the Gloria Patri used to be attached to the canticle.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

In the Service Book and Hymnal as well as the Common Service Book before it, the Gloria Patri was sung at least three times in Vespers–once with the opening versicles, once at the conclusion of each psalm, and once at the conclusion of the canticle. The first half of it also appeared in the responsory after the lesson, but that was never used where I attended. There was something comforting about the repetition, like returning home after a journey.  With the Lutheran Book of Worship the Gloria Patri was dropped after the Psalm. With Evangelical Lutheran Worship it was dropped after the canticle and is sung only if Psalm 141 is sung. I believe the Gloria Patri was introduced into Christian worship as a response to the Arian heresy which denied that the Son Is truly God in the same was as the Father is God. Is it just a coincidence that the Gloria Patri is disappearing at the same time that there is a movement among some Lutherans to suppress the name of the Holy Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

In any case, this Magnificat is dear to Lutherans as it is to many Christians. Martin Luther wrote in his commentary on the Magnificat:

“The tender Mother of Christ . . . teaches us, with her words and by the example of her experience, how to know, love and praise God. For since she boasts, with heart leaping for joy and praising God, that He regarded her despite her low estate and nothingness.”

What a beautiful way to express this teaching.


May the Lord bless you on your journey and greet you on your arrival.

Wayne




Ascension Window from the building of Ascension Lutheran Church, Chicago.

The Visitation by Fra Angelico


16836

MISSIONAL EVERYTHING

This past week the Plain Writing Act went into effect. It requires the Federal government to write in  simple, easy-to-understand language. Hurrah! Too bad that separation of church and state prevents the Federal Government from making church hierarchy write in plain language.

Yes, I am still carry on about “missional” this and that. I despise that word. It seems to be an adjective derived from the word “mission,” but it doesn’t function that way. Take the expression “missional church.” That should mean a church with a mission. Problem is that every church has a mission. I am aware that The-Sources-Of-All-Wisdom think that only some churches have a mission. Not true. Every church has a purpose, something it is trying to accomplish. The church might not be able to say what the mission is, or it might say it is one thing but act as if it were something else, or the members might disagree on the mission, but they certainly have a mission or perhaps several.  

It is obvious, then, that the word “missional” has some other meaning than simply “having a mission.” My experience, however, is that many who use the term are quite vague about what it means. I’m not the only person who thinks so.  Alan Hirsch writes the following in his article in Christianity Today “Defining Missional.”

"It has become increasingly difficult to open a ministry book or attend a church conference and not be accosted by the word missional. A quick search on Google uncovers the presence of 'missional communities,' 'missional leaders,' 'missional worship,' even 'missional seating,' and "missional coffee." Today, everyone wants to be missional."

Missional seating? That's a new one on me. Must be what you do when you’re around a missional table drinking missional coffee. Fortunately Hirsch is able to give an elaboration of the context of missional. 

“A proper understanding of missional begins with recovering a missionary understanding of God. By his very nature God is a ‘sent on’ who takes the initiative to redeem his creation. . . . Because we are the ‘sent’ people of God, the church is the instrument of God's mission in the world. As things stand, many people see it the other way around. They believe mission is an instrument of the church; a means by which the church is grown. Although we frequently say ‘the church has a mission,’ according to missional theology a more correct statement would be ‘the mission has a church.’”

That is something I agree with. If the mission of a church is only to preserve the institution of the church, then it is a failure.

I also agree with an implication of this idea for the individual. “A missional theology is not content with mission being a church-based work. Rather, it applies to the whole life of every believer. Every disciple is to be an agent of the kingdom of God, and every disciple is to carry the mission of God into every sphere of life. We are all missionaries sent into a non-Christian culture.”

I'm beginning to comprehend. I found the brief powerpoint display prepared by the ELCA based on the book: Treasurers in Clay Jars edited by Lois Barrett a help. However, I'll need a lot more information  to grasp the details.

So why am I still suspicious of the term missional? First, because it is so seldom defined in any compre- hensible manner. It’s just dropped in places with the expectation that everyone know what it means. I am not at all convinced of that. I’m not stupid, but I have difficulty in understanding it.

Second, I have my deep-seated mistrust of Higher-Ups.  An old friend–let me change that–a friend of long acquaintance opined, “Missional is the jargon for ‘get out there and get more members so you can send more money to us.’” I’m sure Those-In-Authority would deny that, but what would happen if a congregation, as a result of becoming missional, decided to redirected its benevolence from the Synod to distribution of food to the poor? What if they sold the church building to give the money away to the homeless? What if the process of becoming missional meant that 75% of the members quit? I’d venture to say the Missional-Authorities would be down on that church like a ton of missional bricks.

This leads to a third point; every religion must become institutionalized if it is to survive past the days of its founder. This is always true. It was true in earliest Christianity in the formation of churches. But there is a danger in this process that preservation of the institution becomes more important that the purpose of the institution. This is the danger missional people rightfully point to. But how does the missional approach form and sustain the institution needed to support mission?  Perhaps when I read some more I’ll understand how the missional approach intends to create or preserve the necessary institution, but I am skeptical. 

Fourth, I suspect the whole missional movement is grounded in Post-modernism. I think Christians need to be as cautious about Post-modernism as any other “ism.” I fear that the missional movement will become caught in the relativist Post-modern view of the world and thus undermine the mission to make disciples for Jesus Christ.

Fifth, I need to learn how the missional movement understands the fullness of Baptism. Baptism is an incorporation into the death of Christ, it makes one part of Christ’s body, but it also brings one into a local community of believers who gather around word and sacrament. If that’s not essential to the missional movement, it is not centered in the Christ who commands us to baptize and “do this in remembrance of me.” In exploring the web I notice that I am not alone in wondering how missional and worship fit together.

The last thing, I am pretty sure all this missional talk is the just the latest form of church-babble. I’ve seen it all come and go before. When I started in the ministry 'goal-setting' was an absolute necessity for the church. Then we had to have a Mission Statement. Then that was considered passe as we really needed a Vision Statement.

Fifteen years from now I suspect almost no one will be talking missional anything because we will have moved on to some new concept with its own bizarre language. Maybe Multi-Emergent Transinclusivity will be the new thing. (I just made that up. If it happens, you read it here first.)  I hope whatever is good in this missional talk will survive, but I just know that someday a new crowd of Powers-That-Be will be shaking their heads sadly at the backward clergy and churches that are still talking missional anything.

I am still critical of the sloppy way “missional” is thrown around without ever making its meaning clear. I am, however, open to the positive contribution it may make to the life of Christ’s followers.

The Lord bless you on your journey and greet you on your arrival.

Wayne


NOTE ADDED 5/29 Just discovered that both Multi-emergent and Trans Inclusivity are terms already in use in English (I use the word 'English' loosely). Only a matter of time before the churches pick them up. It's a sign of doom when I can put together the silliest terms I can think of and then find that some yo-yos  use them. To use a good Hebrew term taken over into Yiddish, OY!



16790

MISSIONAL TABLES

So I’m reading through the materials for our assembly when I note that a new staff member will be responsible for “missional table conversations.” Now I am rather fond of mission-style furniture, so I imagined a group of well-fed folk sitting around a substantial mission-style table chatting and drinking the port provided by the new staff member. (Port is bound to stimulate conversation.) As inviting as that sounded, I knew it couldn’t be right. So what exactly is a missional table?

I poked around online and came across this gem: “Members of these missional tables will stir up, guide and stimulate imagination, vision, and activity in and through all kinds of congregations, ministries and settings.”  Huh? That still sounds like a bunch of people sitting around a table yammering on about something, although since the term “missional table” seems to exclusively ELCA Lutheran, they’d be drinking beer instead of port. 

I poked about a little more, but I knew I was in over my head when I found that one goal of a Stewardship and Mission Support Table is “Creating quadrant-based stewardship and mission support tables.” Well of course. That explains everything. “‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’” Yes, quite. Well, reading church-speak often makes me feel like I’ve fallen down the rabbit hole into Wonderland.

I put out an appeal for help and one of my wiser colleagues gave me her interpretation. “My imagination tells me it's the way the synods are now trying to listen to congregations and work with a bottom up approach. We tell them what we want to do and hopefully work together (with cong. and synod) to get it done, pooling monies/resources to do ministries, out of these committees.” 

Now that is helpful. I am a great believer in listening and pooling resources and bottom up planning. After almost 33 years in the business, though, I am skeptical of how much “bottom up” will be allowed. My impression is that bottom up is permitted as long as those on the bottom come up with the same answers that those on the top want them to have. More than a dozen years ago I was involved in a Mission Strategy Team (which now seems to be subsumed under one of the missional tables. It’s probably under the table because of all the beer that they were drinking. No, that’s not right. Cross that remark off.)  Anyway, we spent months developing a local strategy only to be told we had broken the rules. We were not allowed to determine locally who among us should develop this strategy. We were supposed to wait until Higher Authority determined who should do the planning. Those 400 miles away knew much better than those of us on the scene what was needed. So we were summarily dismissed.

Even putting that aside, my real complaint is the endless gobledy-gook from the Higher Ups that passes for communication. I found this not-so-bad explanation of a “new and renewed congregations table.” It’s a group that identifies mission opportunities and assists in the development and redevelopment of congregations.” It’s what a century ago was called “Home Missions.”  We could never use that term because it is only two words long whereas “new and renewed congregations table” is five words long and must therefor be 250% better. Sheesh! I going to send these people a copy of Elements of Style so they can learn to write plain English.

Another intelligent friend of mine asked: “Why is it the ELCA website and communications, including mission table, sound so corporate instead well, corporal?” Ah, there’s the problem. In the 1950s clergy became professionals. They in turn professionalized the denomination so that by the 1970s everything was modeled on the corporate world. You can’t tell ELCA from IBM, GM or any other of those other acronymed corporations. I read through descriptions of missional tables which never mention God or Jesus.

Sigh! I just don’t get it. As my friend satirically put it: “you did not push your flywheel hard enough, get off the bus to find where they moved your cheese to and maximize your earnings quotient while driving shareholder value.” It doesn’t make any sense in the corporate world. It doesn’t make any sense in the church, either. Run that up your flagpole and see who prays to it.

May the Lord bless you on your journey and greet you on your arrival.

Wayne

16720

A USELESS WASTE

A carpenter and his apprentice were walking together through a large forest. And when they came across a tall, huge, gnarled, old, beautiful tree, the carpenter asked his apprentice: "Do you know why this tree is so tall, so huge, so gnarled, so old and beautiful?" The apprentice looked at his master and said: "No ... why?"

"Well," the carpenter said, "because it is useless. If it had been useful it would have been cut long ago and made into tables and chairs, but because it is useless it could grow so tall and so beautiful that you can sit in its shade and relax."
—adapted from Chuang Tzu, The Inner Chapters. From Spiritual Formation by Henry Nouwen.

How our culture hates what is useless. I heard one of the radio blabber-mouths ranting on and on about the Army Corps of Engineers bringing a halt to paving a road because it would destroy three areas of wet lands. Can’t let that useless swamp stand in the way of progress. And National Parks? Why they are only useful as a source of timber and ore and oil. Rip it apart, tear it up, dig it out. The world is full of things to be used.

What is sadder is that so much of our culture sees people as things to be used as well. I have heard the tales of bosses who tell their underlings that they are nothing but costs, that monkeys could do their job, that the boss cares nothing about employee loyalty and in fact would rather get rid of the long-term employees.

I come to wonder sometimes if religion itself is only valued as a thing to be used. When I was studying personality theory for my doctoral dissertation I looked at the difference between who were intrinsically religious and those who were extrinsically religious, that is, those who were religious for its own sake and those who were religious because it was a means to some other end. The Agony Column Writers used to suggest that people join religious groups if they were seeking a spouse. Or insurance salesmen were encouraged to join churches because that was a good way to find clients.

And then comes the problem of prayer. I was taught in Sunday School about prayer–at least taught that I should pray. As I put it together prayer was about thanking and praising God, telling God you were sorry for doing bad things, and asking for a few things, mostly things for other people, but it would be all right to ask for yourself if it were something like doing well on a test. No praying for an ice cream cone or stuff like that.

This was typical Protestant prayer–talking to God. The notion that one listened to God in prayer was never hinted at. You listened to God in the Bible or in a sermon or perhaps in one’s conscience. Listening to God in prayer was not something we considered.

I have gotten beyond that limitation by learning other forms of prayer, particularly centering prayer. But that raises a whole new set of problems. I don’t mean the ones some fundamentalist Christians raise that if you do any form of contemplative or meditative prayer, you are opening yourself up to evil spirits. What nonsense. That attitude shows a real lack of trust in God as if the Holy Spirit could be overpowered by just any old evil spirit that comes floating around. The problem is that prayer still becomes a means to something else. There is a danger that I pray not just to pray but so that something else happens.

Here’s Henri Nouwen writing about this problem.

The world says, "If you are not making good use of your time, you are useless." Jesus says: "Come spend some useless time with me." If we think about prayer in terms of its usefulness to us—what prayer will do for us, what spiritual benefits we will gain, what insights we will gain, what divine presence we may feel from the idea of the usefulness of prayer and the results of prayer, we become free to "waste" a precious hour with God in prayer. Gradually, we may find, our "useless" time will transform us, and everything around us will be different.

There is the real purpose of prayer–wasting time with God. Being there with God. For a lot of people that is a silly thing. Religion ought to be accomplishing things–feeding the poor, saving the environment. Yes, these are good things we should work for, but they can’t be the sole purpose of religion, at least not of Christianity. There are a whole lot of organizations that do these sorts of things, but what other organization presses for a relationship with the living God? We need to waste time with God.

As you go on your journey may you pause from time to time to waste time with God and so blessed may you continue on until the Lord greets you on your arrival.

Wayne





15281