Portals of Prayer for the New Year

from the January 2009 “Herald”

What a great way to start the new year! Forget your typical resolutions, and just pick up this little Portals of Prayer booklet once a day. A copy is being sent to every household in the congregation for 2009.

The beauty of this devotional is that you can use it a little or a lot, because the name Portals of Prayer is very accurate: It is a daily “portal,” or gateway. It’s easy to do the minimum, which is to read each day’s Bible verse (printed at the top of the page), followed by the brief devotion and short prayer. But if you want to step through the portal, you can do more: There is a suggested reading that you can look up in your Bible, perhaps a few paragraphs long. There are additional prayers given for each day of the week and for special needs and observances. There’s even a brief order of service that could be used for a family or small-group devotion.

Don’t feel that you have to use every resource every day, but these resources are there when you need them. If you keep the booklet within easy reach in a common area of your home, then you can easily keep up with the rest of the members of our congregation, who will be going through this booklet together in 2009. (It is a quarterly publication, so you’ll receive a new issue every three months.) Expect to hear references to the devotions in sermons and Bible studies to reinforce the themes and to underscore that we are doing this together; it will be a common, shared experience.

Expect also to have a renewed and increased appreciation for the Word of God, especially if this is your first foray into daily devotions. A common saying for church signs goes, “Seven days without prayer makes one weak.” Overly punny, perhaps, but it’s a good thought. Instead of going Sunday to Sunday, enter the portals of prayer and the Word of God on a daily basis, and have a great 2009!

---

On the Web. These two web sites will give the current day's devotion only; there is no way to browse past or future devotions.

• Portals of Prayer (text)
• Portals of Prayer (audio)

Merry Christmas!

I recently sent the following message to my young adult and high school friends on facebook and thought it was worth posting to the blog:

I hope you're able to enjoy this festive season!

What's your favorite thing about Christmas? (Music? Traditions?)

What do you *dislike* most about Christmas? (Consumerism? Superficiality?) What is something specific you would do to help fix it, if you could?

How does knowing that God became a human being (and started out in a feeding trough!) make a difference?

Come by OSLC on Christmas Eve if you can! Traditional candlelight services at 8 & 11 p.m. — crazy family service at 5 p.m.

For me, music ranks very high on the list of favorites. I recently put a bunch of Christmas music on my MP3 player. (I also discovered that if you choose to Play All just before stepping into the shower without also selecting Shuffle, alphabetical order will dictate that you hear five different versions of “Angels We Have Heard on High” in a row!)

At first, I would probably say that traditions are not as important to me, but as I think about it, I am very big into taking pictures and video of the kids as we cut our Christmas tree out at the tree farm or open presents on Christmas morning.

When it comes to what I dislike, it’s very easy to say consumerism and materialism, but I also dislike what I would call a certain superficiality. What I mean is, why do people say, “Let’s help the needy because it’s the holidays”? Shouldn’t we be doing that year-round? If you’re only kind or generous or cheerful for one month out of the year, it strikes me as rather insincere. Still, I suppose it’s better than nothing!

But I guess that's why the birth of God in human form makes all the difference. Apart from Christ, all of the “holiday cheer” seems very empty to me — like a street of nothing but building facades constructed for a movie set. It is Jesus Christ who puts something of substance behind that facade so that we can enter into those buildings and inhabit them. Then God’s love is a way of life instead of seasonal show.

What about you? What are your thoughts?

Nothing Merry about “Chris-mess”?

from the December 2008 “Herald”

Chris is having a bad year:

“It’s bad enough that gas prices were so high, and it was harder than ever to cover all my expenses and pay the bills, but on top of that, my boss has been hassling me about something that wasn’t even my fault. Now there’s also family trouble, and I’m caught in the middle once again. It seems there’s no end. With the holidays coming up, that’s just one more source of stress. There’s nothing merry about Christmas, because my life is just one big ‘Chris-mess’!”

Whether you picture Chris as a man or woman might depend on how much you identify this individual with yourself or someone close to you. In fact, there is no single person named Chris whose life is described above, but his or her experiences are representative of all of us. Maybe you don’t relate to everything Chris said, or maybe you have different troubles like health concerns or marital struggles, but each of us has our own “mess” that we won’t be able to avoid, even as we try to celebrate the holidays.

It is because of this mess, however, that Jesus came to earth in the first place. Into a world of pain and suffering, of sin and injustice, Christ came to bear our transgressions and give us the hope of eternal life. Even if your name isn’t Christopher or Christine, your name is “Christian,” and Jesus came for you, to take your “Chris-mess” and turn it around.

On December 25, you might see some visible “mess” that is a result of Christmas, such as piles of wrapping paper torn from presents or stacks of dirty dishes from a big holiday meal. “Such a mess!” you might say. But remember that Jesus is not responsible for the mess; instead, He is the one who can take all the“Chris-messes” of your life and clean them up, just as you are washed clean in Baptism. The festival of Jesus’ birth reminds us that He came on a rescue mission that would not end before He had died on the cross and risen to life, so that we could live life in Him! So have a Merry Christmas, Christian!

You Call That Support?

Can you "support" something without making a commitment? This thought occurred when I saw a Facebook newsfeed item that a friend of mine had joined a certain "cause." This cause has 2,306,274 members as of this morning and has raised a total of $28,825.

Now I don't want to disparage other, non-financial ways of supporting a cause, which could include raising awareness by word of mouth, volunteer efforts, and even prayer. But for more than 2 million people to have raised less than 30 thousand dollars means that each supporter contributed an average of 1.25 cents. Or the same amount would have been raised if 99% of the members of the cause contributed nothing, and the remaining 1% contributed a whopping $1.25.

I also understand that a lot of people on Facebook are in high school or college and maybe don't have a lot of extra money, but if you really care about something, couldn't you go without a soda for one day and contribute $1.50? Or skip going to the movie theater and donate the $8.50 to this cause? If each member contributed only ten dollars, there would be a total of $23 million raised. If each member contributed only one dollar, it would still be almost one hundred times what it is now.

Thanksgiving is this week, and I know something about giving to charitable causes. In order to meet the annual budget of our congregation, we need offerings of nearly $7,000 per week, which comes to about $30 for every man, woman, and child in attendance. Most people don't give nearly that much — which I can understand, because everybody's situation is unique — but that means that a small percentage of church members are contributing much more than their "fair share," and for that, I am thankful.

You don't have to put $30 in the offering plate when you're at church on Sunday, but I hope that when you consider all that the Lord has given to you, you'll give more than 1.25 cents.

What Is God's Name?

This is a great question that was raised after my sermon on the Second Commandment, which forbids misusing God's name. But what is God's name?

We can call God "God," which is using a common noun as a proper name, just as you can call your parents "Father" and "Mother" — though most people probably say "Dad" and "Mom." Similarly, I am often called "Pastor" because I'm a pastor, and doctors are often called "Doctor." Such a "name" is sufficient when we know who we're talking about.

In Hebrew, the language of the Old Testament, the word el means "god" generally, and the plural form is elohim, "gods." Either word can be used of the one true God, the God of Israel; the singular is used most often in compound words (like Bethel or Joel), while the plural is used with same effect as our use of a capital letter.

However, there is also a proper name for the one true God in Hebrew, just as your father and your mother have proper names, as do pastors and doctors. In most English Bibles it is translated as "Lord" (usually "LORD", in all caps or small caps), but the American Standard Bible chose to translate it as "Jehovah," which Jehovah Witnesses insist is God's only true name. Modern scholars will render it as "Yahweh," for which a little explanation is in order.

The name is four Hebrew letters, all consonants. First is yodh, which sounds like an English Y but was often represented in Roman letters as J (which also sounds like English Y when used in Latin or German). Next comes he, which is a straightforward H. Third is waw, sometimes called vav; this letter makes either a W sound or a V sound, depending on who you talk to. The last letter is another he. So you could write the four letters JHVH or YHWH (or JHWH or YHVH, but no one ever does these last two combinations).

When Jewish scholars decided to start putting little dots above and below the consonants of Hebrew to represent the vowels (about one thousand years ago), they did something a little tricky. By this time, pious Jews no longer pronounced YHWH, probably out of reverence and out of fear of misusing the divine name; instead, they said Adonai, which means "Lord." So the scholars put the vowel dots for Adonai on the consonants for YHWH as a sign to the reader to say "Adonai" instead of pronouncing YHWH.

In Hebrew, this combination of consonants and vowels is meaningless, but when you use JHVH along with these vowels (the first "a" can also be represented "e", and the "i" is actually a consonant) it comes out as Jehovah. However, our best guess at reconstructing the original vowels to use with YHWH gives us Yahweh. (A shortened form of this name is found in many Hebrew names as well as in "Hallelujah," where the J is pronounced like Y, and which means "Praise the LORD!")

Some people think that even Yahweh is not God's real name. In Exodus 3:14, God tells Moses, "I am who I am." And He tells Moses to tell the Israelites, "'I am' has sent me to you." The name Yahweh is closely related to the Hebrew word that means, "He is." In other words, God says, "I am," and we say, "He is," but His real name remains unknown.

But God does reveal His name, and it is for our salvation. As Joel 2:32 says, "Everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved." This is God's revealed name. Most importantly, God has spoken to us through His Son, Jesus Christ, whose name means "the LORD saves" and is the name which is above every name. Not only can we say that "Jesus is Lord" but also Jesus is the LORD, God in human flesh; He is Immanuel, "God with us." We should not misuse God's name, but He has given us His name to use for His divine purposes.

Advanced Note: Jesus is the Greek form of the Aramaic Yeshua, which in turn comes from Hebrew Joshua, which in full form is written Yehoshua. The Yeho- part is the YH of YHWH, and the -shua part means salvation.

A Pile of Rubble and the Smell of Soot...

...was all that was left of the River Church's sanctuary as I drove past earlier this week. I had decided to take the "back way" to the hospital to avoid Route 9 (those of you who live here know what I mean!), and I knew that I'd be passing by the site of last week's fire, but I wasn't prepared to be able to smell it, even with my car windows closed. I also didn't know that the building had come down; I had expected to see the charred shell of the building that I would pass whenever I took the back way to the hospital, but it was just gone!

I circled the block to find a place to park so that I could snap some pictures with my cell phone. There were some walls still standing -- looks like walls shared in common with the adjacent buildings. It's hard to tell in this photo, but you can make out the remains of one stained glass window, and for the time of day I was there, the sunlight was streaming through. Rays of hope amid so much destruction and loss?

But the real hope is the statement that you can read on their web site, betheriver.com: "Our church is not a building, it is a group of people joined together by a common love and a common purpose." That is a good thing for us all to remember. We often think of church as a building, but it is really the Body of Christ, of which we are members. Our Lutheran Confessions describe the Church as the congregation of believers gathered around God's Word and Christ's sacraments.

The members of the River Church are meeting at an alternate location, and the church goes on. They say on their web site that they have insurance, so I suppose they will build another structure. But most of all, they have their treasure in heaven, which neither moth nor rust, nor thieves, nor fire, can destroy. Thanks be to God for a faith like this. We hold them in our prayers.

Which Bible Translation Is Best?

I believe that the best answer to this question is not to limit yourself to one translation.

Whenever you go from one language to another, you can either try to go word-for-word (this is called "formal equivalence," or a "literal translation") or thought-for-thought (so-called "dynamic equivalence," possibly more of a "paraphrase"). A quick and easy example of this is Spanish buenos dias. If you translate the words, you get "good days." But the thought expressed is "hello."

As an aside, to clear up one common misconception, new Bible translations are always made from the original Hebrew and Greek versions of the Bible. Some people think that the Bible has been retranslated over-and-over, such as from Hebrew to Greek, from Greek to Latin, from Latin to German, from German to Old English, from Old English to Modern English. If that were the case, then there would be some truth to this notion about losing something in the translation each time and possibly ending up not knowing what it's supposed to say at all. But the reality is that translators — and many pastors — work with the texts in their original languages.

But it is true that something gets lost in translation. For example, the English expression, "Put up or shut up," isn't going to have the same oomph in another language when the rhyme and rhythm aren't there. Nuances and word plays are difficult to bring from one language to another.

On the one hand, a word-for-word translation tries to be "faithful" to the original text by being able to claim, "This is what it says." In extreme (but not uncommon) cases, effort is made to use the same part of speech (verb, noun, adjective), such as translating John 19:28 as "I thirst" (using a verb, as in Greek) instead of "I'm thirsty" (using an adjective, as we would normally do in English).

On the other hand, a thought-for-thought translation tries to be "faithful" to the original text by saying, "This is what it means." Thus the NIV translates the "work of faith and labor of love" of 1 Thessalonians 1:3 as "work produced by faith [and] labor prompted by love."

Either way, you're going to lose a little something. A good solution is to use both. There are parallel Bibles which have different translations in parallel columns on the same page, and web sites like www.biblegateway.com allow you to quickly and easily compare multiple versions.

Here are my favorites:

• King James Version (KJV). A classic, unbeatable for beauty and endurance, plus an excellent literal (word-for-word) translation, going so far as to italicize words that had to be inserted in English to make it flow when there is not a corresponding word in the Greek original. But it is hard to read, especially if you're not used to it. Memorize special passages (like the 23rd Psalm) in King James, but look them up in other versions to make sure you know what they're saying! The KJV is sometimes referred to as the Authorized Version (AV).
  
• New International Version (NIV). This is what I grew up with, so this is what usually "sounds right" to me. It's a good translation, maybe halfway between word-for-word and thought-for-thought, so that sometimes it feels like it fails at both. You should also try its successor:
• Today's New International Version (TNIV). More than a simple updating, the TNIV moves the NIV toward the thought-for-thought philosophy of translation. It handles gender-inclusive language accurately, using inclusive terms like "people" when both men and women (and children!) are meant by the original (such as 1 Timothy 2:4) but never trying to neutralize gender language for God, who is consistently "he," unlike some other modern translations. The main drawback is that it accomplishes gender-inclusive language at the expense of the original wording, using plurals for singular, for example, which could lead to misunderstandings.
• English Standard Version (ESV). Some of you will be familiar with the Revised Standard Version (RSV) which came out in the 1950's to succeed the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901. In 1989, a revision of the revision was made, called the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). To avoid calling this one "Yet Another New and Improved Revised Standard Version" (YANIRSV), the 2001 version is called simply English Standard Version. I like it because it is very literal, in the tradition of the KJV, but much easier to read than King James. It also reverts some unnecessary (and biased) changes, such as restoring "virgin" to Isaiah 7:14, where RSV and NRSV have "young woman."
• Other translations. I'm not a huge fan of "The Message" because I think its author (Eugene Peterson) got much too interpretative in many places, but it's interesting to read and get its unique perspective, as long as you have a more literal translation nearby to make sure that the Bible really says what Eugene Peterson says that it says.
• Original languages. For the really serious student of the Bible! Even learning a little Hebrew and Greek opens up worlds of possibilities in reading commentaries and other resources like lexicons for word studies.
  

Is There Proof that Jesus Really Lived?

This was a great question that came up last Sunday in confirmation class. What was even better was that some of the other kids helped to answer the question, with things like, "There's more proof that Jesus lived than Julius Caesar." (This was a reference, I believe, to the sheer quantity of ancient manuscripts of the New Testament and their close age to Christ, which does make the number and age of Caesar manuscripts pale in comparison.)

Some people might not accept the New Testament as a source, however, believing it to be biased. In that case, there are the writings of two "hostile witnesses," the Jewish historian Josephus (from about A.D. 70) and the Roman historian Tacitus (just a bit later), both of whom describe Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure.

What we don't have is a lot of archaeological evidence. In fact, there was no archaeological evidence of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, causing some scholars to doubt his existence until a stone inscription was found in 1961, corroborating the Biblical account -- once again. Archaeology often confirms what we find in the Bible, but we can't rely on it alone -- not everything has been preserved, so the saying goes, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

So our "evidence" is mainly historical and Biblical. Luke himself proves to be quite the historian when he reports the care with which he checked out the stories he included in his Gospel. Peter also says that he gives eyewitness testimony. They (and others) tell us that we shouldn't expect a lot of remains -- there is no tomb, no ossuary (bone box), no body, for Christ is risen and ascended on high!

Quoting Scripture on ER

Did anyone see ER last night? Does anyone watch that show anymore? We used to watch it all the time but haven't in years, but we left the TV on last night and heard Abby Lockhart reading from the Bible in a voice-over, a sorrowful lament:

Why is light given to him who is in misery, and life to the bitter in soul?

This continued in snippets throughout the episode, all from the same book of the Bible. Do you know which one? Here's another passage that was read, part of God's reply:

Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?

I don't think it ever showed her reading, but it did show her holding a Bible at one point. Very interesting to hear Scripture quoted at such length on a prime-time network television show. It was a rather contemplative episode, in which Abby leaves the hospital and moves to Boston. Hopefully she (and others) also know this verse from the same book of the Bible:

I know that my Redeemer lives.

Do you know which book of the Bible it is? If not, check these links: [1] [2] [3]

Communing with the Enemy

Should you receive Communion if you have unresolved conflict with someone? The question may be even more pointed if that person is at the same Communion rail with you! One passage that's often quoted to say that you shouldn't is Matthew 5:23-24. Now I don't think that this applies directly to Communion, but in fact it applies to a much broader aspect of our life that also includes Communion.

The passage is from the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus says:

²³So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, ²⁴leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. (ESV)

Maybe especially because Lutherans sometimes refer to the Lord's Supper as "The Sacrament of the Altar," we have applied this passage to Communion. But it says, "If you are offering your gift." In Communion we don't offer a gift; we receive the gift of Christ's body and blood. When do we offer gifts at the altar? That is an act of worship. Not just on Sunday mornings in church, either: Paul writes that our entire lives are to be an act of worship (see Romans 12:1).

So we can't live our lives in service to God if we have unresolved conflict with someone, especially a Christian brother or sister. That conflict will get in the way of everything, including Communion. The conflict must be dealt with. But how?

Jesus gives us some specific guidelines in Matthew 18:15-18, which can be summarized like this: Try to work it out just between the two of you (that is, keep it private if possible), but if that doesn't work, then involve a couple of other people to serve as mediators. If that doesn't work, then the sin is to be made public, and the individual is given one last chance before excommunication.

If that sounds extreme, it is. Before it gets to that final step, you would have to ask yourself, "Can I make a case that the person who has offended me is an unrepentant sinner, or is this just a disagreement in which I hold one opinion and they hold another, and despite how firmly we hold our opinions, neither can be definitively proven from Scripture, so we just have to agree to disagree?"

I suspect that most people never make it that far. If they say something to the person who has offended them and they don't get an apology, they feel justified in holding a grudge. They don't involve another person (whether the pastor, an elder, or a trusted friend), when that might be just the thing to emphasize to the offender how seriously they have been hurt and then elicit the apology.

Follow the steps that Jesus Himself has laid out, and God willing, you won't be communing with the enemy — you'll be sharing Communion with your sister or brother in Christ.

Is the Bible Literally True?

Should the Bible be interpreted literally? The best answer to this question is not "yes" or "no," but "it depends." The Bible should be interpreted literally when it is speaking literally, and it should be interpreted figuratively when it is speaking figuratively.

It is clear that the Bible uses figurative language. Jesus often spoke using parables. Last week's readings (Isaiah 5:1-7 and Matthew 21:33-46) were passages describing a vineyard that really had nothing to do with a literal vineyard, but were all about the kingdom of God; the "good grapes" of Isaiah 5 that the Lord wanted were not literal grapes, but the "fruit" (figuratively speaking) of good works.

Thus there are two errors you could make in this regard. One would be to take a figurative passage and interpret it literally; this often happens with the book of Revelation. The other would be to take a literal passage and interpret it figuratively; this is often the case with the books of Genesis and Jonah.

But how can you tell? Usually it is quite clear, but people have preconceived notions that color their interpretation. The book of Revelation, for example, is full of figurative language, such as Jesus being described as a lamb with seven eyes. It is completely inappropriate to suddenly interpret certain passages literally, even when numbers are involved. Just as "seven" is symbolic of completeness (thus seven eyes symbolize the omniscience of Christ, seeing everything), so the span of 1,000 years is symbolic of "a long time" and refers to the age in which we now live, not some future Messianic kingdom lasting exactly 1,000 years.

On the other hand, some will try to maintain that the Creation account in Genesis 1-2 is not incompatible with evolution, if you interpret the six "days" of creation as six "epochs"; likewise, the long ages of the antediluvian patriarchs are held by some to be symbolic of something rather than literal years. But the book of Genesis continues without interruption through Noah and the Flood right on to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and his 12 sons, who are clearly presented as historical. There is no shift in language or theme anywhere in Genesis, as though the author thought that Creation was a myth but Abraham was real.

I haven't yet answered the question of whether the Creation account of Genesis actually happened. (I believe that it did, but that will have to be the subject of a future blog post.) My point here is that you cannot say, "I believe the Bible is true, but Genesis is a figurative account of how God created life through evolution." If you want to believe in evolution, you have to concede that the Bible got it wrong. (Maybe you're OK with that; personally, I'm not.)

What about Cremation?

I sometimes still get questions about cremation. Some people may remember that, years ago, cremation was verboten (forbidden) in the Lutheran church. Has anything changed?

As best as I can tell, many people in the past were trying to make some kind of statement by having their remains cremated. They might have been atheists who denied that there was any kind of existence after death. Apparently, some meant to mock God by having their ashes scattered and not being around for Judgment Day, as if to say, "Try and get me!"

That is foolishness, of course. The Bible itself says, "For dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return" (Genesis 3:19, or see NIV). The same God who created human beings from dust can certainly reassemble scattered ashes in order to fashion a resurrection body for us. Otherwise, what would happen to those who die in fires, or those who perished on 9/11 and whose remains were never recovered?

You might have a number of valid reasons for wanting to be cremated, not the least of which include rising costs for funerals and cemetery plots. Just be sure that you're not denying your hope of resurrection. Death is not the end, but we look forward to the day when Christ will "transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like His glorious body" (Philippians 3:21).

Countdown to 2017

from the October 2008 “Herald”

The end of this October marks the 491^st anniversary of Martin Luther’s famous nailing of the 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, sparking a Reformation that had not only theological impact but also far-reaching political, historical, and cultural impact as well. That means that there are “only” nine years to go until the 500th anniversary of this significant event.

There are two important ways that Lutherans can and should prepare for such an important milestone. One is to look “inward,” and the other is to look “outward.”

We can look inward and examine our own history as Lutherans. Gain a deeper understanding of the things that we might take for granted. Can you imagine life today not knowing that your sins were forgiven by Christ’s merit alone? What if we were still under the burden of never knowing whether we had done enough good works for God to accept us? What if Lutheranism had remained a tiny sect in Germany instead of spreading throughout northern Europe and then traveling across the Atlantic?

We should also look outward and see how we can continue to spread the message of Martin Luther, which is the message of Jesus Christ and the hope He brings by His cross and resurrection. In the LCMS, many Lutheran congregations have joined the Ablaze! movement, which seeks to reach 100 million previously unreached people with the Gospel of Christ by that 2017 anniversary date. At OSLC, we have participated largely through the efforts of the Sunday School in mission projects. There is much more we could do.

Like our recent congregational anniversary, a milestone reminds us to give thanks for God’s blessings of the past and to prepare to work in His vineyard in the future!

Saying the Same Thing

from the September 2008 “Herald”

There are many good reasons for saying the same thing in church, such as the Creed, week after week. Foremost is memorization, which is especially important at certain times in life; young children are able to participate in the liturgy even before they can read if they know, for example, the Lord’s Prayer (this is one reason the liturgy arose as it did, before literacy was widespread), and the elderly have the comfort of God’s promises deeply committed to memory if their eyesight is failing. People of all ages have the benefit of knowing God’s truth throughout the week if they follow the example of Psalm 119:11, “I have laid up thy word in my heart, that I might not sin against thee” (RSV).

Another important reason is unity within the church. All Lutherans agree that they believe what is in the Small Catechism, and Christians the world over have the Nicene Creed in common. In the worship service, we are able to declare this unity as each of us says together, “I believe.” Regardless of the differences we might have within the congregation or between denominations, let us always remember that we share a heavenly Father who created us, a Savior who redeemed us, and a Spirit who sanctifies us.

But there are also good reasons not to say the same thing week after week. Foremost among these, perhaps, is the danger that reciting the Creed, the Confession, or the Lord’s Prayer would degenerate into mere thoughtless repetition, without any awareness of what is being said. Then we are no better than the pagans Jesus condemns in Matthew 6:7. Somehow we need to focus on the truth of what we’re saying; one suggestion that is sometimes made is to be sure to look at the words on the page as you say them.

Another way of avoiding thoughtless repetition is to use a different version of the text — for example, another translation of the Creed. Then you are forced to pay attention, precisely because you don’t know the words! Ideally, this also increases understanding, for it either reinforces what you already know, or it calls into question what you thought it meant. I always use the example from my childhood of not knowing what “the quick and the dead” meant. With our current hymnal, people might wonder why the Nicene Creed begins with “We believe” instead of “I believe.” (The answer is that the original text from the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 was “We believe,” expressing the unity of the bishops gathered there; in liturgical use, the tradition arose of substituting “I believe” to convey the personal nature of faith.)

In the coming weeks, we will attempt to accomplish all of these goals. Our national church body, the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS), has a standard form of both the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed which is different from the ones we have been using. (The ones printed in our bulletins each week are taken from our hymnal, which was produced by the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, or WELS.) By using an alternate version of the Creed, we can show unity with our brothers and sisters in the LCMS, and we can make sure we know what we’re saying by carefully following along; it might even bring up some questions in your mind about why something is worded the way it is, so please ask!

At the same time, we don’t want to lose the benefits of memorization, so we will not be featuring a different version every single week. Many of us have already learned the current versions by heart, so we will not abandon them. We will simply be adding to our repertoire an additional version, one that will seem closer the Creed that most of us knew growing up. My goal as your pastor is that on your deathbed, whether you can see or not, you would have the comfort of words that you know and understand that convey the hope of everlasting life in Jesus’ name.

So we will continue to “say the same thing” week after week. That, in fact, is the root of the word confess. When we “confess” our faith, we are saying (“-fess”) the same (“con-”) that God has said to us: He has revealed His truth to us in sacred Scripture, and we repeat it back to Him as an act of faith. If we vary the words a bit, it will be to increase our focus and our understanding. As we all say it together, it shows our unity as members of the “holy Christian Church, the communion of saints.”