Lutherans and the (new) Pope

So...Lutherans have historically had a tenuous-at-best relationship with the head of the Roman Catholic Church.  Say what you will about Martin Luther (and we Lutherans ought not pretend that he was blameless), Leo X was hardly a model of Christian virtue, grace, or pastoral care.  It was the headbutting between Luther and Leo that ultimately led to the split of the Church.

Luther believed that Pope Leo (and, when you get right down to it, the whole office of the papacy) was the Anti-christ, because he/it obscured the gospel of God's grace, and laid too many legalistic burdens at the feet of the faithful.

This might well have been true, particularly of Leo X and a few other spectacular papal failures - in fact, a dear and very Catholic friend of mine has argued that what Martin Luther needed was not a kick in the pants or threats of excommunication, but rather, "a good pope."  Hmm...

So here we are, nearly 500 years later, and much has changed among Catholics and Lutherans alike.  There has been a growing consensus, in the intervening 500 years, that we are more alike than might be initially thought - if for no other reason than the sacramental understanding we have of the way in which God works.  Of course, there are other similarities - the Real Presence we believe comes in those sacraments (at least 2 of them!),the common language of Scripture, the liturgical form of worship we share, and above all, a reliance on, and a focus on, Jesus Christ as the only hope for a hurting and broken world.

And so, 3 days ago, the College of Cardinals elected a new pope - the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Bergoglio, who has taken the name Francis, in honor of St. Francis of Assisi.  By all accounts, Pope Francis is a humble, caring, pastoral man.  It is said than in Buenos Aires, he lived in a small apartment rather than the fancy bishop's residence, cooking his own meals, answering his own door, and taking the bus to work each day.  He apparently has visited hospitals full of AIDS victims and other seriously ill children.  He has criticized Marxism, but is also suspicious of capitalism.  From the first hours of his papacy, it became clear that he would eschew many of the traditional trappings of the office, from bejeweled clothing and accessories to servants and drivers to physical separation from and elevation above his fellow cardinals.  These signs and symbols of power Pope Francis seems not only uninterested in, but confused by. (Why wouldn't he go pay his own hotel bill the morning after his election?  Aren't we supposed to set a good example?)

Pope Francis is also deeply orthodox, which in modern parlance is code for "pro-life, pro-marriage, anti-women priests, and anti-contraception." (How come nobody ever complains that the pope is orthodox in his approach to use of the Trinitarian formula in baptism?)  His take on these issues is formed, one hopes, less by an attraction to rules for rules' sake, but by a coherent theological understanding of proper stewardship of God's gifts to humanity.  (Whether one agrees with that theology is another thing entirely, but it is hardly an arbitrary imposition of "hateful rules".)

So, back to the Lutherans.  What do we think?  Well, judging by vox populi, the initial judgement of "the average ELCA pastor" is "it's nice that he likes poor people, but he still hates women and gays, so I don't want anything to do with him".  Hmm...

Over in the Missouri Synod and "even more isolationist" corner the reigning viewpoint seems to be, "I'm certainly glad he's sexually orthodox, it's just too bad he's the anti-Christ.  Wolf in sheep's clothing, dontcha know?"

To all of which I say in response, um, really?  Ladies and gentlemen, I give you your woman-hating pope:

Thoughts on Prayer

So, I was visiting a parishioner in the hospital the other day, and I dropped by the hospital chapel, just too scope it out.  I picked up a brochure detailing the services offered, and was interested to find that it contained some general "Prayers for Healing."  Here, I will give you two of them - see if you can identify the differences:

Prayer One:
"In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Lord Jesus Christ, my Redeemer, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, cure me of my weakness, heal me of the sickness, and forgive my sins.  Expel all afflictions of my mind and body.  Mercifully restore me to full health.  You are my Lord for ever.  Amen."

Prayer Two:
"O God, the Source of all health and healing, so fill my heart with faith that with calm expectancy I may receive Your power to help me in this time of my need.  By Your grace and mercy through Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, forgive my sin, heal my spirit, mind and body, and be present with me.  Guide my doctors, nurses, and other staff by Your counsel so they will have skill, wisdom and ability to help me.  Amen."

Okay, ready? 

Things I Think I Think II

• I normally want nothing to do with Al Mohler, but I think he is exactly right when he notes that "divorce is now the scandal of the evangelical conscience".  It's hard to excerpt, because it's so good, but here are some key quotes:

As Smith argues, the Bible is emphatic in condemning divorce. For this reason, you would expect to find evangelical Christians demanding the inclusion of divorce on a list of central concerns and aims. But this seldom happened. Evangelical Christians rightly demanded laws that would defend the sanctity of human life. Not so for marriage. Smith explains that the inclusion of divorce on the agenda of the Christian right would have risked a massive alienation of members. In summary, evangelicals allowed culture to trump Scripture.

           See also:

But divorce harms many more lives than will be touched by homosexual marriage. Children are left without fathers, wives without husbands, and homes are forever broken. Fathers are separated from their children, and marriage is irreparably undermined as divorce becomes routine and accepted. Divorce is not the unpardonable sin, but it is sin, and it is a sin that is condemned in no uncertain terms.

• Catholic or no, I think Elizabeth Scalia makes a fabulous point in this article. 

Intellectual rigor and loyalty are not mutually exclusive, as some progressives are prone to insist. What Newman models is, perhaps, a willingness to apply one’s own intellect to any question with enough openness as to leave room to be surprised at one’s own conclusions.

Also:

Sometimes, the commingling of faith and reason is a neat and natty thing. More often it is a bit messy, but once our intellects have thrashed a matter to its frayed ends, we realize that we have stumbled into mystery and then, if we are open, we (very reasonably) throw our hands up to heaven and submit to it, because we know mystery for a good adventure, and we are loyal to it.

I'm always intrigued by people who say things like, "I could never be Catholic because I don't want anyone to make me believe all those things."  It's always said with kind of a sneer, as though it's obvious that there is no one who does in fact believe all those things, and that all those unthinking Catholics have clearly signed the Catechism at gunpoint (or something) and are to be viewed with disdain.  As though thinking about what you believe, reasoning it out, talking about it, all within a general framework of loyalty is impossible, or totally not allowed in the Catholic Church.  It also makes me ask the question: do other churches - Lutherans, Anglicans, and other less uh... historically tethered protestants - not have lists of "things you have to believe"?  Like, you know, the Creeds or something? 

• I think I am frustrated here by the general sense I get that not being married or having children completely disqualifies me from having anything to say about marriage or children/children's ministry.  Parents who disagree with me don't say, "Hmm...well, I see your point, but I still think..."  No, they say, "Well, as a parent, I can tell you that..."  At the wedding I was at last week, that I didn't even officiate at, the father of the groom looked quite obviously at my left hand, and then proceeded to say in all seriousness, "Well, you're not married, so of course, you don't know anything about any of this."  Thanks.  Because I don't already feel like a failure at life for being 29 and unmarried, I need you all to point it out and start removing my pastoral authority, all at the same time.  Awesome.  

• I think that being asked to preside at funerals, particularly the graveside portion of the service, is perhaps the greatest honor I have ever had.  I complain a lot about all of the funerals there have been, and I think that they can really take a toll on a solo pastor.  And while I'm really enjoying my time here, I'm not sure that I'm sold on "I really really wanna be a pastor here for the rest of my life."  But I will miss the funerals.  There's a very real, almost tangible, intersection of life, death, God, humans, love, loss, natural, and supernatural all at once.  I want to say that it's "cool", but that does no justice it to whatsoever.  There just is not the right word. 

• I think that there are a lot of grocery items where one can get by with using the inexpensive Wal-Mart brand.  Like canned vegetables, or shredded parmesan cheese, or hot cocoa mix.  Ranch dressing is not in this category. 

• I think that it is way too late in the year for the high temperatures to be in the 70s.  I know that it needs to snow on or before my birthday. 

• I think that I would move back to Europe, especially Germany, in a heartbeat.  With a good job offer, and hopefully a couple pre-fab friends in the area (connected to a job, or school, or just an expat community), I'd pack my bags and go right now. 

Sound of Silence, Part Deux - My Experiences

I say all this because a few weeks ago during CPE, I went with a Roman Catholic friend to what is called Eucharistic Adoration. (Note to the Protestants reading this: take a deep breath.) I wanted to see what it was all about, and so I asked if I could tag along. As we walked to the chapel, my friend explained that the "host" would be in a "monstrance" on the altar, and that this was really just an opportunity to be in the presence of Christ and to pray. I know I kept asking him, "That's it?", and I'm sure I was looking at him like he was crazy. That is because what I was really thinking was, "So you sit in a room and pray. In front of a communion wafer. In a gold box/holder thingy on the altar. What is the point of this?" (As I said here, my Protestant heart still beats within.) But I went, and I'm really glad I did. We were there about 15 minutes or so, and the time just flew by. Afterwards, my friend asked if I felt like it was "idol worship", and I immediately responded that no, I didn't. (Probably with kind of an attitude, like, why would I think that?)

As I pondered it more over the next few days, I realized that the reason he had asked me that, and why I might potentially feel that way, is because I was supposed to recognize that the "communion wafer in a gold box" was the body of Christ (transsubstantiation and all that). Hmm...As I said, my Protestant heart....but it goes beyond that. I realized that, had I thought about it from that perspective and allowed myself to just focus solely on that aspect of the experience, I might very well have felt like I was engaging in idol worship. But I never got that far. Because inside the chapel was complete and total silence. I had been told that I was just supposed to pray, and so pray I did. Believe me, I had plenty to pray about that day. And the longer I sat and kneeled there, the more I found to pray about. And nothing, nobody, interrupted me.

It's been so long since I've done the silence thing that I forgot how important it was, and I've been "pondering this in my heart" ever since.