The University of Michigan Library’s most famous papyrus, known to scholars as Papyrus 46 (or P46), is now widely available in the form of an app for iPhone and iPad. Users of “PictureIt: EP” can flip through high-resolution images of the 3rd century codex—the oldest known copy of the Letters of St. Paul—as though through pages of a book. Obviously you do not permit ancient mss scholars come up with names of Apps. You can download a copy of the App here.

“This gives an idea of what it was like to read an ancient book, with no capitals, no spaces between words, and no punctuation,” explains Arthur Verhoogt, Acting Archivist of the Library’s Papyrology Collection. The app reveals a translation from the Greek into English with a touch of a finger, either word-by-word or by the page. Readily accessible annotations explain where the papyrus differs from the Standard Version that people know from their New Testament. They also point out scribal errors, which were common in an era when books were copied entirely by hand.

The codex in its entirety was originally made up of 104 leaves (pages), of which 86 survive. The University of Michigan purchased thirty leaves in the 1930s from antiquities dealers in Egypt, and the remaining 56 leaves (which are not included in the app) reside in the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, Ireland.

Verhoogt believes an app featuring the Pauline Epistles will be a great service. “A general audience wants to touch this text. It’s important to them,” Verhoogt says. Images of the leaves can be viewed online, but the presentation of P46 as an electronic codex, accompanied by the translation and annotations, provides a richer experience of the material, particularly for the non-scholar.

The app was made possible with the support of the Gardner and Ann Parsons Papyrology fund, and was built by Eric Maslowski, Digital Media Commons 3D Lab Manager, along with Graphics Engine Programmer Sean Petty and 3D Artist Stephanie O’Malley. Edgar Ebojo of the University of Birmingham prepared the translation.

Here’s a video on the App. Big HT: History of the Ancient World Blog

Yet another reason why Lutheranism flummoxes the Reformed, on the one hand, and the Roman Catholics/Eastern Orthodox on the other, is because we absolutely insist that nowhere does Christ institute a certain form of church governance.

Sasse puts matters, as always, not only succinctly, but clearly and briefly! We Missouri Synod Lutherans must be very careful we never assume that the Voter’s Assembly method of organizing a congregation has any more legitimate “Biblical” command or order than any other method or system of organizing a congregation, or a larger church body. Every form is feasible, and no form can claim to be the “more Biblical” form. Christ gave no law concerning the Church’s constitution or how it is to to be organized and governed. None.

Let’s hear Sasse:

“One should stop and realize just what that means. Of every other church one may say with the familiar words of Calvin that it professes an ordo, quo Dominus ecclesiam gubernari voluit [“ an order by which the Lord wills His church to be governed”]. That is true of the Catholic Churches of the East and West, as well as of the Reformed denominations. Opinions differ only as to what this ordo may be: the universal monarchy of the popes or the episcopo-synodical administration of the Eastern and Anglican Churches; the governing of a church by a senate of presbyters, among whom there may be no difference of rank, or the autonomy of the individual Congregational or Baptist congregations (to name but a few of the church polities for which it is claimed that they are prescribed in the New Testament). The true greatness of Luther and the boldness of his basic theological principle of strict separation of Law and Gospel becomes clear when one observes how, apart from all these other possibilities, he travels his lonely way: Christ has given His church no law de constituenda ecclesia [concerning the constitution of the church]. Every form of church government is feasible which leaves room for a proper administration of the means of grace, which imposes no restrictions upon their administration.

“One thing, indeed, the Lord has given His church, something that does not pertain to its bene esse but to its esse [not to its well-being but to its very being]: “Ut hanc fidem consequamur, institutum est ministerium docendi evangelii et porrigendi sacramenta” [“ That this faith may be obtained, the ministry of teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted”], as the Augustana states, Article V. In order that we may attain this justifying faith of which the preceding article speaks, the Gospel must be preached and the Sacraments must be administered, and for this purpose God has established the ministry, the service [Dienst] by which this is done. But wherever the means of grace are properly administered, there, according to the divine promise that the Word shall not return to Him void, is also the ecclesia, the congregatio sanctorum, the congregation of saints, of sinners justified.

“The manner in which the congregation shall organize itself is prescribed just as little as the form which is taken on by the ministerium ecclesiasticum [the church's ministry]. The apostles came to realize that they would be better able to fulfill the duties of their spiritual office if they would be relieved of the obligation of ministering to the poor and administering financial affairs. That is how the supplementary office of deacons originated. But the church was church even without this office. That is how the church of all the ages may, because of the needs of the times, create certain auxiliary offices, e.g., the office of the episcopate, superintendency, or whatever else one may mention. But the existence of all these “offices” is justified only insofar as they serve the one great ministry of preaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments. A bishop may have the function of administering the affairs of a large diocese. The underlying purpose, however, can only be to create opportunity for the ministerium ecclesiasticum. His true office is that of a pastor, even though he be pastor pastorum. Iure humano [“ by human arrangement”] he may have the duties of a superintendency. Only the office of the preaching of reconciliation [das Amt, das die Versöhnung predigt] is iure divino [“ by divine right”].”

Herman, Sasse. Letters to Lutheran Pastors. Volume 1:  “Letter 8: On The Problem of the Relation Between the Office of the Ministry and the Congregation,” (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2013), p. 121.

The following is an interview with Matthew C. Harrison addressing the importance of Hermann Sasse and his Letters to Pastors to the current life of the Church. The book is also available in Kindle eBook format.

Who was Hermann Sasse?

Until the end of World War II, Sasse was a pastor and professor in Germany; then he emigrated to Australia, where he served as a professor at Immanuel Seminary in South Australia. He came out of a very liberal education prior to the end of World War I, but gradually and decisively turned toward confessional Lutheranism. Sasse was very active in the ecumenical movement before he was forbidden to travel by the Nazis. He was the first in the German church to publicly take the Nazis to task for the “Aryan paragraph” in the party platform. Sasse contributed to Kittel’s Dictionary of the New Testament and wrote the greatest book in English on Luther’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper (This Is My Body: Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar). He fought tirelessly for solid Lutheranism. When his own church, the Bavarian Church, joined a union of Lutherans and Reformed churches (the Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland [Evangelical Church in Germany or EKiD]), Sasse joined the German free church. Ultimately he left Germany to teach at the seminary of the Lutheran Church of Australia. He spent the rest of his life writing public letters, books, and treatises rallying confessional Lutherans around the world and rousing particularly The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) just as it was drifting from its historic confession. He died in 1976.

Describe the relationship between Sasse and the LCMS. Why are his writings of importance for the ongoing life of the Church?

Sasse saw the LCMS as the “last hope” for world confessional Lutheranism. Yet post-World War II Missouri Synod (and particularly the seminary in St. Louis) was bent on a path of Lutheran union in the United States. Sasse believed the danger to the LCMS was either a confessionless entry into the Ecumenical Movement and the loss of doctrinal substance, or evangelical fundamentalism. His writings are largely historical/doctrinal treatises on pertinent topics of world Christianity and Lutheranism that apply even in our day. LCMS President John Behnken (1884–1968, president 1935–62) very much wanted Sasse to teach at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, but the administration of the seminary was strongly opposed.

What was the genesis of the group of documents gathered together as Letters to Pastors? Who received these letters and how were they communicated more broadly?

In 1948, Sasse wrote to Herman A. Preus: “The only thing I can do is write letters.” As he was preparing to enter self-imposed exile in Australia, Sasse began writing treatises on what it means to be a confessional Lutheran, commenting on basic issues of Bible and confession, the Lord’s Supper, church fellowship, Baptism, the Office of the Ministry, church governance, Luther’s teachings, and much more. The letters, written in German, were dispersed in mimeographed form in the early years by Sasse’s friend Rev. F. Hopf, who had remained in Germany. Americans began translating the letters immediately. Now, for the first time, we have translated all seventy letters and are publishing them in a series of three volumes.

There is great controversy surrounding a couple of the letters in this volume. Why publish them?

Upon his arrival in Australia, Sasse was immediately placed on a committee working toward the unification of the country’s two Lutheran bodies (one associated with the American Lutheran Church and the other with the LCMS). The issue of Scripture, its inspiration and inerrancy, was central in the discussions. Sasse had studied under the most notorious liberal of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries—Adolf von Harnack. While Sasse had moved far away from Harnack’s rejection of all the supernatural content of the Bible, when Sasse wrote Letter 14 and then Letter 16, he was convinced that the inerrancy of the Bible did not include all issues addressed, but only issues of faith and belief. There was a tremendous backlash, and eventually Sasse retracted Letter 14. However, many in the LCMS who were arguing against absolute inerrancy and for higher criticism picked up on this letter in particular. I have included these significant letters along with other supporting documentation so readers can see that Sasse moved significantly on the issue, and so readers can see, in part, what was at stake in the great battle for the Bible in the LCMS. At the same time, Sasse’s concern that the Missouri Synod might lose a fundamentally Lutheran view of Scripture and church because of its participation in America’s evangelical/Protestant context remained a real concern. Although we must disagree with Sasse at this point in his career, we can also see the validity of his concern.

Rev. Matthew C. Harrison

How do you hope this volume will benefit the Church?

Sasse is tremendously lucid. He is a profound Lutheran historian. Jumping on his back, as it were, gives one a tour of the 2,000-year history of the church. He’s clear. He’s scriptural. He calls for

repentance and faith. He’s courageous. At times he’s a curmudgeon. He often says what is unpopular, though he says it in a gentle and generous manner. He’s uncompromisingly Lutheran yet sees what is good in other churches. Sasse touches on so many of the issues that challenge us today: the Office of the Ministry, the priesthood of believers, relationships with other church bodies, closed Communion, understanding the Roman Catholic Church, mission/evangelism, theological education, and so much more. Through it all, Sasse brings us back to basics, to the very Gospel itself.

One of the most misunderstood and therefore offensive practices in the historic churches of West and East is the practice of limiting participation in the Lord’s Supper to those who have been catechized and received as communicants in a given church. The practice, known most correctly as “closed communion”* is the universal practice throughout both Western and Eastern catholic churches, including, of course, the Lutheran Church, along with the Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox) churches. The history of this practice is well known and there is simply no denying that it has been the Church’s historic practice. (see Elert’s Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries.)

With the Reformation and the advent of the Zwinglian/Reformed/Calvinist views of the Supper (nuances of difference but finally not much of a difference), and with new understandings of what public confession of the faith meant, and the implications this has for participation in the Lord’s Supper, the entire Reformed wing of the Reformation no longer practiced closed communion and this lack of practicing closed communion spread widely wherever Reformed churches and those churches that spring from the Calvinist Reformation were established (Methodist and modern Baptist and modern Evangelicalism).

Of course, we here in the USA are literally surrounded by congregations that do not practice closed communion. Add now to the mix the fact that no liberal mainline protestant church body regards it necessary for there to be any restriction in who participates int he Supper, this is true for the liberal Methodist, Presbyterian, Reformed, Lutheran and Episcopalian churches which are now in full communion fellowship anyway. The trend is now growing in all these church bodies not even to regard baptism to be a prerequisite for Holy Communion. The liberal Lutherans no longer insist that the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord’s Supper articulated in the Book of Concord is alone the true confession of the Supper, so, in other words, all bets are off and it is, more or less, a “ya’ll come” approach to Supper fellowship, since there no longer is any certainty that in fact the actual body and blood of Christ are under the bread and wine of the Eucharist.

Sadly, even many congregations in confessional Lutheran churches think they have found a way to be more “open” about communion fellowship by putting a “statement” in their church bulletin which, in a variety of ways, puts the burden for the decision to commune, or not to commune, on the guest and visitor. Often the statements contain very intentionally vague declarations about “if you believe Jesus is truly present in His Supper” you are welcome to communion. But here is the problem: no self-respecting Christian of any denomination would likely deny that he believes “Jesus is present in His Supper” … in some way or another. And what is more, the Lutheran Confessions know of no practice by which a visitor simply presents himself at a congregations altar without first being examined to find out what it is they seek in the Supper and why they come. And this is hardly possible five minutes before the worship service begins. Let’s be honest about it, shall we? (see LC SA.2).

I’m growing more convinced that the reason that some Lutheran pastors no longer are willing to practice closed communion is because they simply are no longer are willing to insist on the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper as taught in our Lutheran Confessions. They are no longer willing to regard this assertion in the Augsburg Confession to be absolutely true and binding on them and their ministry and true and binding for any and all who approach the altar for Holy Communion: “Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.” (AC X) And what is more, as we move further into the Lutheran Confessions we find very helpful ways to ascertain if in fact a person communing does confess the actual, true and real presence of the Lord Christ’s body and blood under the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Have we let convenience preclude adequate, careful, genuinely pastoral care? “Pastoral care” is not, or should not be, a euphemism for actions that reflect this attitude: “I know what our Synod’s stance is, but it seems to me to be unloving, who am I to judge what a person communing thinks or believes? I’ll take the path of least resistance and avoid confrontation and controversy.” Simply because a person says that they want to take Holy Communion is not the grounds on which to commune them. If they do not clearly and accurately believe, teach and confess the basic truths of what the Real Presence actually is all about, they should not be communed, no matter who their parents, grandparents, nieces, nephews, grandparents or spouse happen to be.

The great “litmus test” questions for a proper understanding are these:

(1) Do you believe the bread and wine are the Lord’s body and blood? (see SA III.vi)

This is a test to see if the person does believe and confess the unio sacramentalis .

(2) Do you believe that the Lord’s body and blood are put into your mouth and on your tongue? (see FC SD XII.105).

This is a test to see if the person does believe and confess the manducatio oralis

(3) Do you believe all who receive the consecrated bread and wine do actually receive the Lord’s body and blood? (see FC SD XII.26).

This is a test to see if the person properly understands and believes in the manducatio indignorum et impiorum. 

[Pastors, if you have forgotten the meaning and use of these three key Latin phrases, go get your dogmatics text and brush up please!].

But here’s the thing: nobody who can not faithfully answer those questions correctly should be communing, regardless of whether or not they claim to be Lutheran, let alone the casual visitor to a Lutheran congregation. That is, after faithful teaching and instruction, nobody should be admitted to the Supper who can not in good conscience say, “Yes, this if my faith and my confession.” The pastoral application of closed communion is not to be found in “making exceptions” to the confessional standards of the Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, but in discerning when and where a person may be communed who in fact does properly confess the Supper. This is where one may well find exceptions, for any number of valid reasons.

But again, there are no “exceptions” to the confessional standard. This point is sadly lost on far too many pastors, congregations and laity. In other words, just because your Methodist believing and confessing mother-in-law shows up a few times at the Lutheran church every year does not mean she is to be communed, nor the casual visitor to the Lutheran congregation who has been catechized in the Calvinist confession of the Supper, or no confession at all, is not to be communed while holding to this confession. And let’s be honest here: a few brief minutes before the Divine Service starts is hardly the place for pastoral examination and discernment in most cases.

Let it also be very clear: Where a person regularly communes and has thereby given his public witness that this is his confession, that then is his public confession. In other words, to use but one example, a person who communes at the altar of a congregation that is part of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is, by that action, giving public testimony that they consent with what that particular altar represents and stands for. In such a case, presenting oneself for participation in the Sacrament of an orthodox Lutheran congregation is not appropriate unless or until that person has moved away from that public confession within a heterodox church body.

And no, you do not have to require a person to read the Book of Concord. These three key truths are taught quite plainly and simply in the Small Catechism’s Sixth Chief Part.

And so, there you have it, the bottom line is simply this. All Lutheran pastors must examine their conscience and ask themselves this question: “Do I still believe, teach and confess that what the Lutheran Confessions assert about the Lord’s Supper is true, or not?”

* Yes, it is most properly “closed communion” not “close communion.” People think “close communion” sounds a bit less harsh. But here’s the point. A door is either open or closed, there is no such thing as a “close” door. The altar is open to some, closed to others. Our Lutheran Confessions make it clear the minister’s duty is both to invite and welcome some to the Altar and to turn others away (see AC XXIV.36).

Christopher Tolkien considers the Jackson movie adaptations from his father’s books to be nothing short of disastrous failures. I simply can not agree with him and have been consistently delighted, frankly, by the nuanced presentations in Jackson’s movies, but it surely does make for some thought provoking reading to review Christopher Tolkien’s opinions, which you can read for yourself in their entirety here. The longer article is the first time Chris Tolkien has given a public interview, in forty years! Very interesting comments from him about his father’s vast treasure of unpublished work. Here’s is what Christopher Tolkien has to say about Jackson’s work:

Invited to meet Peter Jackson, the Tolkien family preferred not to. Why? “They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25,” Christopher says regretfully. “And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film.”

This divorce has been systematically driven by the logic of Hollywood. “Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time,” Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. “The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away.”

It is hard to say who has won this silent battle between popularity and respect for the text. Nor who, finally, has the Ring. One thing is certain: from father to son, a great part of the work of J.R.R. Tolkien has now emerged from its boxes, thanks to the infinite perseverance of his son.

One thing that many non-Lutherans find puzzling, if not downright offensive, is that the Lutheran Church is a church that knows and appreciates the historic liturgy of the Church, and in particular, the “communion service” used throughout the history of the Church, starting very, very early in the Church’s history, with the core/key elements of the historic form of that worship service found already in evidence well back into the late first and early second century. That form of worship service, the service in which the Lord’s Supper, is the center piece, is known in the Western Church as the “Mass.” Even the Lutheran Confessions use the term “Mass” and indicate that the Evangelical [Lutheran] reformation of the church does not include ditching the Mass and the various salutary and helpful liturgical forms, structures, practices, rites and ceremonies. Rather, they are allowed to be the structures and ways in which the Gospel shines forth in the congregation, quite apart from any whims of the moment or pecularities of the man in the pulpit who may (please God!) preach the Gospel well. The liturgy anchors the congregation in the read and heard Word of God and the objective declaration of the Gospel in the Absolution and the great “for  you” of the Lord’s Supper.

The Lutheran Church is not a radical reformation of the Church, which, actually, is more appropriately called the Deformation of the Church. But why is this? Why not toss the historic liturgy? What value can it possibly hold for the modern world? Aren’t these words, phrases, forms and structures simply archaic relics of a superstitious past, one in which the Gospel was obscured and clouded by human tradition? The Calvinist/Reformed/Evangelical answer to that question has been: Yes! And so you have, historically, an absolute liturgical poverty throughout Reformed/Calvinist worship. As one Lutheran scholar, Werner Elert, noted with sour sarcasm, “The only thing Calvinism has contributed to the church’s liturgical life has been hymn boards.”

Herman Sasse, who was keenly mindful of the dangers associated with liturgy set adrift from proper confession, provides a beautiful explanation of why the Lutheran Church is a liturgical church. How sad it is to see far too many Lutheran Churches, particularly here in America, scuttling the historic worship forms of the Church and replacing them with nothing more than a poor imitation of the kind of “worship” forms that are used in the large non-denominational/Calvinist/Evangelical churches. Here then is how Sasse answers the question: “Why is the Lutheran Chuch a Liturgical Church?”

“Unlike other confessions, the Lutheran Church has, we know, received a definite liturgical heritage. She is not saddled with the heritage of the ancient pagan notion of sacrifice, a heritage which makes every renewal in the Catholic Churches of the East and West always a renewal of the notion of sacrifice, and therewith a renewal of paganism. And yet, on the other hand, the Lutheran Church has never made a complete break with the early Christian New Testament liturgy, a break which couldn’t be avoided by the Reformed Churches because they had abandoned belief in the real presence— a fact that we must expand in a later letter— without which there can be no true liturgy. Our Church’s liturgy therefore could be that which it was in the sixteenth century according to a Catholic liturgical scholar, namely: “the first serious attempt undertaken with unique linguistic and musical means to create a German folk-liturgy and thus to bridge that estrangement which has remained between the German people and the liturgy ever since their becoming Christian” (F. Messerschmid, Liturgie und Gemeinde [1939], 66).

“If one is to have an idea of the triumphal course of the Reformation in Germany, then “one must,” the same author tells us (ibid., p. 49), “have received from the sources an intimation of the unheard-of vitality of these divine services; of the powerful religious feeling with which they were celebrated by those congregations which had before this been only dumb witnesses and spectators and listeners in the church … one must have received an intimation of the power with which these chorales were taken up by old and young and by all classes! Even Jesuit eyewitnesses have averred that these chorales brought more believers to this new teaching than all preaching and other efforts to win them!” Why are things not so today? Why has our Divine Service lost the power over men’s spirits? This is one of the most earnest questions which our church has to consider.

“One answer that must be given to this question is the fact that we pastors no longer know and understand the liturgical treasures of our church, and therefore are not in a position to introduce our congregations to them. And one of the urgent duties of the Lutheran pastorate today is to win back that which has been lost. Why don’t we preach more often on the liturgy? Why do we believe that we must enliven our liturgical life by borrowing from the Eastern Church or from the Roman Catholic Church? Why don’t we know any longer what the evangelical Divine Service of the old Lutheran Church was like? Why do we leave it to Catholic theology to rediscover Luther’s importance as one of the greatest liturgical geniuses? Why do we know practically nothing about the greatest liturgical scholars of our church in the nineteenth century, about Löhe and Kliefoth? How can we explain the mass printing of theologically and liturgically worthless works on modern liturgical art, from Arper-Zillessen to Burghart’s unfortunate new Prussian Agenda? God help us to teach again the great prayer of the church, that our church may become a genuine ecclesia orans.”

From:

Herman Sassed, Letters to Lutheran Pastors: Volume I – Ecclesia Orans [The Praying Church], April 1949. Concordia Pub House. Kindle Edition.

When I recently mentioned the updates and upgrades to the PrayNow App, I was surprised when a number of people said, “What’s that? I’ve never heard of it.”

Silly me, thinking that just because I, or we here at CPH, mention something a few times, and promote something a bit, this means, of course, everyone will hear about it. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

So, in case you have not heard about PrayNow, let me introduce you to it. It is truly the most complete/comprehensive daily Christian prayer App available for mobile devices. Think that is a bit of a grand claim? Nope, it isn’t. There is no other App avaialble that offers you as much content, prayer suggestions, orders of daily prayer, Psalms, Bible readings, etc. etc. as PrayNow. It’s all resident and native on your device, no Internet connection required once you install it.

If you are looking for a way to enhance and richen your daily prayer life and follow the practice of the historic Church in using the classic daily prayer “offices” or “orders” … Matins, Vespers and Compline, then PrayNow is for you.

Here is the Apple version.

Here is the Android version.

This was passed along from Concordia Historical Institute and I thought you would like to see it. It is a very well done documentary on the Saxon immigration and really gives you a good idea of what the Saxon immigrants to Perry County went through and experienced. Link to the video here.

This is an incredibly powerful sermon delivered by Pastor Matthew C. Harrison, president of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, on the subject of our society’s attitude toward life deemed not worthy of being lived. Powerful, powerful stuff here folks. You owe it to yourself to gather your family and watch this together.

The Scriptures Appointed for Septuagesima

Introit: Psalm 18:1–2a, 27, 32, 49; antiphon: Ps. 18:5–6
Psalter: Psalm 95:1-9 (antiphon: v. 6)
Old Testament: Exodus 17:1–7
Gradual: Ps. 9:9–10, 18–19a
Epistle: 1 Corinthians 9:24—10:5
Verse: Ps. 130:1–4
Gospel: Matthew 20:1–16

The people of Israel contended with the Lord in the wilderness (Ex. 17:1–7). They were dissatisfied with His provision. In the same way, the first laborers in the vineyard complained against the landowner for the wage he provided them (Matt. 20:1–16). They charged him with being unfair, but in reality he was being generous. For the Lord does not wish to deal with us on the basis of what we deserve but on the basis of His abounding grace in Christ. The first—those who rely on their own merits—will be last. “For they were overthrown in the wilderness” (1 Cor. 10:5). But the last, those who rely on Christ, will be first. For Christ is the Rock (1 Cor. 9:24–10:5). He is the One who was struck and from whose side blood and water flowed that we may be cleansed of our sin.

Luther on the Gospel Reading [see full comments below]

“When the Gospel comes and makes all alike, as Paul teaches in Rom 3,23, so that they who have done great works are no more than public sinners, and must also become sinners and tolerate the saying: “All have sinned”, Rom 3, 23, and that no one is justified before God by his works; then they look around and despise those who have done nothing at all, while their great worry and labor avail no more than such idleness and reckless living. Then they murmur against the householder, they imagine it is not right; they blaspheme the Gospel, and become hardened in their ways; then they lose the favor and grace of God, and are obliged to take their temporal reward and trot from him with their penny and be condemned; for they served not for the sake of mercy but for the sake of reward, and they will receive that and nothing more, the others however must confess that they have merited neither the penny nor the grace, but more is given to them than they had ever thought was promised to them. These remained in grace and besides were saved, and besides this, here in time they had enough; for all depended upon the good pleasure of the householder.”

We pray:

O Lord, graciously hear the prayers of Your people that we, who justly suffer the consequence of our sin, may be mercifully delivered by Your goodness to the glory of Your name; through Jesus Christ, Your Son, our Lord, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.

The extended entry includes Bach’s Cantata BWV 92 for this day and Luther’s complete notes on the Gospel, from his Church Postil.

Read more…

“Golden mouth” – that was John’s honorary name and well earned. One of the most famous preachers in the history of the Church, today is the day we commemorate, remember and thank God for John and his faithful ministry. Here are some interesting reflections I found on Chrysostom. If you are interested in more on the life and activities of John, please refer to the Wikipedia article, that also contains a nice bibliography at the end of the article.

Lessons from the life of John Chrysostom

John Chrysostom was nicknamed “Golden Mouth” and stands as one of the most famous Greek preachers in church history. I return to his life frequently to be reminded of some golden lessons.

1. Earnest education in the grammatical-historical interpretation of Scripture. Plaguing the exegesis of the early church preachers (the Patristics) is an allegorical interpretation of Scripture. The move away from allegorical to the grammatical-historical was attempted by several but matured primarily under the scholarship of Diodore of Tarsus and it was this man who passed this method of interpretation to Chrysostom in Antioch. Contrary to most schools, the Atiochene school was “built on a method of interpretation rather than a theological tendency” (Old, Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures, 2:169).

Training in the grammatical-historical method shows itself clearly in the fruits of Chrysostom’s preaching, reflecting a high view of the authority of Scripture. “The preaching of the Word of God is authoritative and efficacious because it is God’s Word, not the preacher’s. Here is the foundation of the passion and the power of great preaching. It is for this reason that the great preachers have preached and their congregations have heard them” (Old, 2:185). Only a conviction of Scripture’s authority forces the preacher to interpret carefully. Chrysostom held a high view of Scripture.

2. Secular liberal arts education. Amazingly, Chrysostom was both educated by one of the great Christian exegetes of his era and one of the great secular orators. His widowed (but wealthy) mother sent John to study under Libanius, a pagan professor famed for his rhetorician in Constantinople and Nicomedia. It seems to be an odd decision for a Christian mother but the fruit of this secular learning – a strong imagination, skills in clear communication and a powerful literary talent – are all evident throughout John’s later work (see our excerpt on spiritual warfare from last week). Hughes Oliphant Old writes, “Metaphors and similes seem to come to this preacher all quite naturally and without the least sort of effort” (Old, 2:193).

This blending of the secular/pagan and Christian educations was beneficial. Getting good exegetical and theological training is obvious. But those seeking to preach are encouraged to also seek a secular degree in liberal arts, too. “One of the reasons John Chrysostom achieve such distinction as a preacher was because he mastered both classical oratory as it was so brilliantly taught by Libanius and the principles of biblical interpretation as taught with no less luster by Diodore” (Old, 2:172). The diversity of training provides the preacher excellent skills in critical thinking, communicating in general and specifically in speaking the Gospel to fellow classmates who represent the diverse colors of culture (homosexual worldview, humanism, naturalism, atheism, agnosticism, theological liberalism, feminism, etc.).

3. Preaching against the sins of culture. In our day, when church-going Christians are in the minority, we are told the church should resemble the world in order to get non-Christians in the door. Chrysostom knew better. Christianity in his time was also the minority, lived among a majority of pagans in Antioch. Crowds of pagans would gather to hear good oratory and so Chrysostom’s sermons were well-attended by non-Christians. This did not stop him from taking the cultural sins and idols head-on. And he encouraged his people to live differently than the culture around them, to evangelize their neighbors by their actions before evangelizing with words. Chrysostom encourages us to evangelize our culture by being radically different.

4. Fighting worldliness. Chrysostom wrote on the topic of fasting: “Fasting is, as much as lies in us, an imitation of the angles, a contemning of things present, a school of prayer, a nourishment of the soul, a bridle of the mouth, an abatement of concupiscence: it mollifies rage, it appeases anger, it calms the tempests of nature, it excites reason, it clears the mind, it disburthens the flesh, it chases away night-pollutions, it frees from head-ache. By fasting, a man gets composed behaviour, free utterance of his tongue, right apprehensions of his mind.” Chrysostom understood the benefits of fasting and taught his people to prefer godly sorrow over worldly joy. John challenged his congregation to fast as an offensive against the idol-saturated Antioch. His asceticism and preaching against extravagance infuriated emperor Arcadius and his wife Eudoxia. Despite the mocking of the day, great and earnest preachers perceive the sinfulness of worldliness and warn souls.

5. Preaching plainly. I don’t suggest that John was a plain preacher. He was trained under one of the greatest Pagan orators in Libanius and his sermons bear the watermark of oratorical greatness. Whether a true offer or not, it is said Libanius eyed his prized student Chrysostom as his replacement. Obviously, Chrysostom could have preached with the greatest eloquence of his age. However, he chose rather to open Scripture in a simple manner, accessible to all of his hearers. “His plainness of speech gave great offense to the beautiful and imperious Eudoxia, the worldly consort of Arcadius. This hatred of the empress and the envy and anger of many of the clergy were the causes of Chrysostom’s deposition and banishment” (Dargan, A History of Preaching, 1:90).

Chrysostom preached to sinners in the “real world.” He touched understood the lives of his hearers, he was experientially sensitive and these qualities made a great impact. “The Shakespeare of preachers has not appeared,” John Broadus wrote in 1907. “But why should he not some day appear? One who can touch every chord of human feeling, treat every interest of human life, draw illustration from every object and relation of the known universe, and use all to gain acceptance and obedience for the gospel of salvation. No preacher has ever come nearer this than Chrysostom, perhaps none, on the whole, so near” (Broadus, Lectures on the History of Preaching, p. 78).

6. Late start. Chrysostom, who died at 60, took to the pulpit in Antioch at the age of 39. He had been educated in the Liberal Arts, worked in law and served as a deacon for several years. He had many years of Christian service behind him and a great knowledge of the world when he rose to the primary preacher in Antioch. But he was also a considerably old man when he got his start. This teaches preachers a bit about patience. You may know God has called you to preach His Word but now you are in school or working a secular job or otherwise wondering what God has in store. Chrysostom reminds us that God’s timing may come later than we want but He is sovereignly preparing us for ministry no matter where we are. We are called to commune with God and experience life in the “real world” in preparation for our future tasks. John Broadus writes, “In our impatient age and country, when so many think time spent in preparation is time lost, it is well to remember that the two most celebrated preachers of the early Christian centuries began to preach, Chrysostrom at thirty-nine, and Augustine at thirty-six” (Broadus, p. 76). Nearly 40 years of preparation for 18 years of fruitful ministry (12 years in Antioch and 6 in Constantinople). However in these 18 years, Chrysostom preached daily and only Spurgeon has left more sermons in print. Be patient in the preparation.

7. Sensitive to the cultural events. One of the most powerful experiences of Chrysostom’s ministry in Antioch occurred in 386. The people believing emperor Theodosius was overtaxing them rioted and destroyed imperial statues in the Antioch. Such an act brought swift and harsh response from the emperor including many arrests and killings. Even before the reprisal took place, the people knew they had sinned and were in deep trouble.

Amidst the upheaval in Antioch as the city awaited certain reprisal from the emperor, Chrysostom asked his city who they feared more. Do they fear the wrath of the emperor more than the wrath of God?

Chrysostom immediately began preaching sermons we now know as the “Sermons on the Statues” and initiated a 40 day fast for the city. Of his sermon content we are told, “At one time his object here is to console a people struggling with present distress; at another, to strengthen minds that were sinking under the extremity of danger; and above all, by repeated admonition, to persuade the people of Antioch, on occasion of the threatened calamities, to correct the vices and to wipe away the crimes that had thus provoked God’s wrath; which endeavor on the part of Chrysostom certainly ended in results agreeable to his desire, as he sometimes acknowledges” (Preface to the Benedictine edition).

In one sermon Chrysostom said,

“How then is it any thing but absurd, to submit to the greatest hardships, when an Emperor enjoins it; but when God commands nothing grievous nor difficult, but what is very tolerable and easy, to despise or to deride it, and to advance custom as an excuse? Let us not, I entreat, so far despise our own safety, but let us fear God as we fear man. I know that ye shudder at hearing this, but what deserves to be shuddered at is that ye do not pay even so much respect to God; and that whilst ye diligently observe the Emperor’s decrees, ye trample under foot those which are divine, and which have come down from heaven; and consider diligence concerning these a secondary object. For what apology will there be left for us, and what pardon, if after so much admonition we persist in the same practices.”

Chrysostom, like Jesus, used the climate of the day to point souls towards the holiness and wrath of God and to encourage repentance (Luke 13:1-5)? When preachers today use 9/11, tsunamis and hurricanes to point souls towards God they walk in the pattern set by Christ and followed by Chrysostom. So preachers, take advantage of the times. Be acquainted with the conditions of your culture and put them to use spiritually in calling sinners to repentance.

8. Preaching as a prophet calling God’s people to repentance. Chrysostom did not hesitate to call professing Christians to repentance. In this sense he was prophetic. “One can hardly avoid the observation that if he was everything a Greek orator was supposed to be, he was also everything a Hebrew prophet was supposed to be. With all the passion of Elijah he confronted God’s people with their sins; with all the eloquence of Isaiah he called his congregation to repentance” (Old, 2:195). This certainly flows from an understanding of the age he preached and the specific temptations of his people. The great preachers seek to pull their congregation out of their sins to humble them and lead them to the Cross. A failure to lead a church out of a particular sin leads to serious corporate troubles (see Rev. 2:1-3:22).

9. Errors. Chrysostom leaves a great legacy to follow but not without errors. While watching the busy city of Antioch, John “sharpened that penetrating knowledge of human nature,” but would later move to a monastery, a decision that would certainly hamper his (and his followers) sensitivity to the surrounding culture (Broadus, p. 73). While not allegorizing, he is known for twisting passages to suit his own needs. His emphasis on celibacy, transubstantiation, monasticism are all quite unfortunate though compared to his contemporaries Chrysostom held a cautious and discerning Mariology.

But most unfortunate, Chrysostom said far more about ethics and works than about Christ and redemption in the Cross. Too frequently readers of his sermons will find only momentary glimpses of the Cross. Were it not for his concluding benediction, Jesus Christ would be altogether absent from many of his sermons.

Conclusion

It does no good making a list of errors if we don’t humbly recognize we have our own. Church history repeats one general theme: Even the greatest preacher will not escape the errors of his day. We take lessons from Chrysostom’s life tempered with the sober reality that the Patristic era of church history contains many grievous errors. It will prove beneficial to pray and ask God this question: What errors of my age – those errors commonly held by my friends and associates – what of these errors have I unknowingly fallen? The errors which seem so obvious centuries later go unseen at the time.

The beauty of history is that we take the good and leave the bad. From the fruit of Chrysostom’s life we can return to our ministries with a basket filled with rich lessons.

Mosaic of Chrysostom in the Hagia Sophia. Istanbul (Constantinople), Turkey.

Given the added name of Chrysostom, which means “golden-mouthed” in Greek, Saint John was a dominant force in the fourth-century Christian church. Born in Antioch around the year 347, John was instructed in the Christian faith by his pious mother, Anthusa. After serving in a number of Christian offices, including acolyte and lector, John was ordained a presbyter and given preaching responsibilities. His simple but direct messages found an audience well beyond his home town. In 398, John Chrysostom was made Patriarch of Constantinople. His determination to reform the church, court, and city there brought him into conflict with established authorities. Eventually, he was exiled from his adopted city. Although removed from his parishes and people, he continued writing and preaching until the time of his death in 407. It is reported that his final words were: “Glory be to God for all things. Amen.”

Today, we pray:

O God, You gave to your servant John Chrysostom grace to proclaim the Gospel with eloquence and power. As bishop of the great congregations of Antioch and Constantinople, John fearlessly bore reproach for the honor of Your name. Mercifully grant to your church bishops and pastors who are like John in preaching and fidelity in their ministry of the Word to your people, and grant that we all be partakers of the divine nature through Jesus Christ, our Lord, who lives and reigns with You adn the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.

For a longer biographical sketch of Chrysostom, read the extended entry. Read more…

A disciple and companion of St. Paul to whom the great saint addressed one of his letters. Paul referred to Titus as “my true child in our common faith”. Not mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, he was noted in Galatians where Paul writes of journeying to Jerusalem with Barnabas, accompanied by Titus. He was then dispatched to Corinth, Greece, where he successfully reconciled the Christian community there with Paul, its founder. Titus was later left on the island of Crete to help organize the Church, although he soon went to Dalmatia, Croatia. According to Eusebius of Caesarea in the Ecclesiastical History, he served as the first bishop of Crete. He was buried in Cortyna (Gortyna), Crete; his head was later translated to Venice during the invasion of Crete by the Saracens in 832 and was enshrined in St. Mark’s, Venice, Italy. Here is where Titus is mentioned in the New Testament:

2 Corinthians 2:132 Corinthians 7:6-142 Corinthians 8:6-232 Corinthians 12:18Galatians 2:1-32 Timothy 4:10Titus 1:4

The appointed Scripture readings for today are:

Acts 20:28-35

Titus 1:1-9

Luke 10:1-9

We pray:

Almighty God, You called Titus to the work of pastor and teacher. Make all shepherds of Your flock diligent in preaching Your holy Word so that the whole world may know the immeasurable riches of our Savior, Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.

Attention PrayNow iOS Version Users! Attention PrayNow iOS Version Users!

You should have an update waiting for you on your iOS device, indicating you have an update to download, it is Version 3.0 of PrayNow for iOS and includes some great new features:

The ability to insert readings, hymns, etc. into the Orders of Daily Prayer.

iPhone 5 compatibility (this means support for the larger Retina display on the iPhone 5 – sweet!)

Psalm tones toobar added to allow you to play the chant tones so you can sing the Psalms.

If you do NOT own PrayNow for iOS … you should! Get it here:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/praynow/id375144431?mt=8

It is not only the best Lutheran prayer App out there, but frankly the best Daily Prayer App, period!