Cantemus…
Feed: HYMNOGLYPT
Posted on: Saturday, September 17, 2011 10:31 AM
Author: Matt Carver (Matthaeus Glyptes)
Subject: Ach liebe(n) Christen, seid getrost* (Revised)
Here is my revised translation of "Ach liebe(n) Christen, seid getrost" (D. Spaiser, st. 1, 1521; J. Gigas, sts. 2–6, 1561); M. Erhard; Moritz Landgraf von Hessen: proper tune, or: "Wo Gott der Herr nicht bei uns hält." (1561).
|
Cantemus…
Feed: HYMNOGLYPT
Posted on: Thursday, September 15, 2011 2:21 PM
Author: Matt Carver (Matthaeus Glyptes)
Subject: Dicimus grates tibi
Here is my translation of "Dicimus grates tibi summe rerum Conditor" (P. Melanchthon, 1539) from the Latin rather than from the German paraphrase by Paul Eber (†1569; translations of that have been made by Seiss and Cronenwett). This one preserves the 11.11.11.5 meter. I provide the melody from Lossius Psalmodia (1579):
1. Dicimus grates tibi, summe rerum |
Consider…
Feed: Cyberbrethren Lutheran Blog Feed
Posted on: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 12:24 PM
Author: Paul T. McCain
Subject: Lutheran Mythbusting: The Empty Cross is Lutheran. The Crucifix is Roman Catholic.
I was reading some comments a person made about what represents Christ's love best in Lutheranism. He said: "Christ's love in Lutheranism is represented by the empty Cross…" Ah, no. There's nothing wrong with a plain cross symbol, but the plain or "empty" cross is not somehow a "Lutheran" symbol, as opposed to the crucifix. In fact, the crucifix enjoys a very long use in Lutheranism. Here's more information from The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod's web site. Q. Question: Is the use of crucifixes a Roman Catholic practice? Doesn't the empty cross provide a better symbol for Lutherans? How does the LCMS feel about using a crucifix in church? [Note: A crucifix is a cross with a statue of the crucified Christ on it]. A. A common misunderstanding among some some Lutherans is the opinion that a crucifix, or the use of a crucifix, is a "Roman Catholic" practice. The history of Lutheranism demonstrates that the crucifix was a regular and routine feature of Lutheran worship and devotional life during Luther's lifetime and during the period of Lutheran Orthdoxy. It was also the case among the founding fathers of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. If you were to visit most of the original congregations of the LCMS here in the United States you would find lovely crucifixes adorning their altars, and in addition, beautiful statues on the altar of Christ and the four evangelists, or other such scenes. There is nothing uniquely Roman Catholic about this. Many Lutherans and Lutheran congregations use crucifixes. Crucifixes are used in the chapels of both of our seminaries. Lutheranism has always considered the crucifix to be a powerful reminder of the sacrifice our Lord Jesus made for us and our salvation, on the cross. A crucifix vividly brings to mind the Apostle Paul's divinely inspired words, "We preach Christ and Him crucified" (1 Cor. 1:23). Interestingly enough, while there is certainly nothing "wrong" with an "empty" cross, the practice of using an "empty cross" on a Lutheran congregation's altar comes more from non-Lutheran sources. At the time of the Reformation there was conflict between Lutherans and Reformed Christians over the proper place of pictures, images, statues and the like in the church. Lutherans stood with historic Christendom in realizing that such art in the church was not wrong, and was a great aid for helping to focus devotional thoughts on the truths of the Word of God, no greater truth can be found that the death of Jesus Christ our Lord for the world's salvation. The "empty cross" is not a symbol of Christ's resurrection, as some say, for the fact is that the cross would have been empty regardless of whether or not Christ had risen from the grave. The point to be kept clear here is that both an "empty cross" and a crucifix, symbolize the same thing: the death of Christ our Lord for the salvation of the world. Many feel that the crucifix symbolizes this truth more clearly and strikingly. That has been the traditional opinion of historic Lutheranism, until the last fifty years ago, due to the influence we will now mention. Some Lutherans began to move away from crucifixes during the age of Lutheran Pietism, which rejected much of Lutheran doctrine and consequently many Lutheran worship practices. At the time, Lutheran Pietists, contrary to the clear postion of Luther and the earlier Lutherns, held that symbols such as the crucifix were wrong. This was never the view of historic Lutheranism. Here in America, Lutherans have always felt a certain pressure to "fit in" with the Reformed Christianity that predominates much of the Protestant church here. Thus, for some Lutherans this meant doing away with things such as crucifixes, and vestments, and other traditional forms of Lutheran worship and piety. It is sad when some Lutherans are made to feel embarrassed about their Lutheranism by members of churches that teach the Word of God in error and who do not share Lutheanism's clear confession and practice of the full truth of the Word of God. Lutheranism has always recognized that the use of any symbol (even the empty cross) can become an idolatrous practice, if in any way people are led to believe there is "power in the cross" or that a picture or representation of a cross has some sort of ability, in itself, to bring us into relationship with Christ and His Gospel. Any of God's good gifts can be turned against Him in this life and become an end in themselves. Lutherans have never believed that banning or limiting proper artwork in the church is the way to prevent its improper use. Rather, we believe that proper teaching and right use is the best way, and the way that is in keeping with the gift of freedom we have in Christ to use all things to the glory and honor of God. Thus, many Lutherans use and enjoy the crucifix as a meaningful reminder of our Lord's suffering and death. It might interest you to know that our Synod's president has a beautiful crucifix adorning the wall of his office, constantly reminding him and visitors to his office of the great love of God that is ours in Christ Jesus our Lord. In short, and this is the most important point of all: there is nothing contrary to God's Holy Word, or our Lutheran Confessions, about the proper use of the crucifix, just as there is nothing wrong with the proper use of an empty cross, or any other church symbol by which we are reminded of the great things God has done for us. We need to guard against quickly dismissing out of hand practices that we believe are "too Roman Catholic" before we more adequately explore their use and history in our own church. In Christian freedom, we use either the crucifix or an empty cross and should not judge or condemn one another for using either nor not using either symbol of our Lord's sacrifice for our sins. Here are quotes from Martin Luther on crucifixes, images and making the sign of the cross: The custom of holding a crucifix before a dying person has kept many in the Christian faith and has enabled them to die with a confident faith in the crucified Christ. (Sermons on John, Chapters 1-4, 1539; LW, Vol. XXII, 147) It was a good practice to hold a wooden crucifix before the eyes of the dying or to press it into their hands. This brought the suffering and death of Christ to mind and comforted the dying. But the others, who haughtily relied on their good works, entered a heaven that contained a sizzling fire. For they were drawn away from Christ and failed to impress His life-giving passion and death upon their hearts. (Sermons on John, Chapters 6-8, 1532; LW, Vol. XXIII, 360) [W]hen I hear of Christ, an image of a man hanging on a cross takes form in my heart, just as the reflection of my face naturally appears in the water when I look into it. If it is not a sin but good to have an image of Christ in my heart, why should it be a sin to have it in my eyes? (Against the Heavenly Prophets, 1525; LW, Vol. 40, 99-100) IMAGES AND STATUES OF SAINTS Now we do not request more than that one permit us to regard a crucifix or a saint's image as a witness, for remembrance, as a sign as that image of Caesar was. Should it not be as possible for us without sin to have a crucifix or an image of Mary, as it was for the Jews and Christ himself to have an image of Caesar who, pagan and now dead, belonged to the devil? Indeed the Caesar had coined his image to glorify himself. However, we seek neither to receive nor give honor in this matter, and are yet so strongly condemned, while Christ's possession of such an abominable and shameful image remains uncondemned. (Against the Heavenly Prophets, 1525; LW, Vol. 40, 96) And I say at the outset that according to the law of Moses no other images are forbidden than an image of God which one worships. A crucifix, on the other hand, or any other holy image is not forbidden. (Ibid., 85-86) Where however images or statues are made without idolatry, then such making of them is not forbidden. [M]y image breakers must also let me keep, wear, and look at a crucifix or a Madonna . . . as long as I do not worship them, but only have them as memorials. (Ibid., 86, 88) But images for memorial and witness, such as crucifixes and images of saints, are to be tolerated . . . And they are not only to be tolerated, but for the sake of the memorial and the witness they are praiseworthy and honorable . . . (Ibid., 91) SIGN OF THE CROSS Morning Prayer In the morning, when you get up, make the sign of the holy cross and say: In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen . . . In the evening, when you go to bed, make the sign of the holy cross and say: In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. (Small Catechism, 1529, Section II: How the Head of the Family Should Teach His Household to Pray Morning and Evening, 22-23) Thus has originated and continued among us the custom of saying grace and returning thanks at meals, and other prayers for both morning and evening. From the same source came the practice with children of crossing themselves in sight or hearing of terrifying occurrences . . . . (Large Catechism, 1529, The Second Commandment, section 31, p. 57) If the devil puts it into your head that you lack the holiness, piety, and worthiness of David and for this reason cannot be sure that God will hear you, make the sign of the cross, and say to yourself: "Let those be pious and worthy who will! I know for a certainty that I am a creature of the same God who made David. And David, regardless of his holiness, has no better or greater God than I have." (Psalm 118, LW, Vol. XIV, 61) If you should have a poltergeist and tapping spirit in your house, do not go and discuss it here and there, but know that it is not a good spirit which has not come from God. Cross yourself quietly and trust in your faith. (Sermon for the Festival of the Epiphany, LW, Vol. 52, 178-79) Bibliography of Primary Sources Large Catechism, 1529, translated by John Nicholas Lenker, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1935. Luther's Works (LW), American edition, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan (volumes 1-30) and Helmut T. Lehmann (volumes 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (volumes 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (volumes 31-55), 1955. Small Catechism, 1529, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1943. |
Consider…
Feed: Cranach: The Blog of Veith
Posted on: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:00 AM
Author: Gene Veith
Subject: Closed Communion question
I know that the confessional Lutheran practice of "closed communion," in which you have to be a member of the church body (or a member of a church in formal doctrinal fellowship with that church body) to commune at the Lutheran altar, is offensive to many non-Lutherans. I don't particularly want to debate that practice, which we've talked about extensively. Rather, I would like to ask those of you who are offended some questions: Have you ever been to a Roman Catholic mass or an Eastern Orthodox divine liturgy? Perhaps you attended a funeral or a wedding or had an assignment in a religion course or dropped in on a service for one reason or another. Were you offended because you could not commune? Did you expect to? Did you even want to, given your theological reservations about what was going on? Though some Roman Catholic priests will commune anyone, this is strictly forbidden by canon law. I would say that there are proportionally more Missouri Synod Lutheran pastors who practice open communion, even though it is against denominational policy, than there are Catholic priests who do it. And, as an Orthodox commenter helpfully observed in one of our earlier threads, you will come close to never finding open communion practiced in an Eastern Orthodox church. Used to, one's membership in a particular theological tradition was defined by whom you would take communion with. Then we had the ecumenical movement, largely among Protestants, and different churches–usually highly liberal–started sharing Communion with everyone. Anyway, my impression is that few people feel insulted when they don't join Catholics or Orthodox in their sacramental rites. After all, we think, I'm not Catholic or Orthodox. So why is it different with Lutherans? |
Cantemus…
Feed: starke Kirchenlieder
Posted on: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 9:33 PM
Author: Stephen P. Starke
Subject: The Call Of God Ordained You
This text was written for the 25th ordination anniversary and retirement of Pastor Richard A. Bolland. It is set to the tune VON GOTT WILL ICH NICHT LASSEN (LSB 713) |
Consider…
Feed: Tullian Tchividjian
Posted on: Monday, September 12, 2011 7:00 AM
Author: Tullian Tchividjian
Subject: Luther On Law
Ok, get ready to do some real thinking here. What follows is heavy theological lifting. I asked my friend Jono Linebaugh to weigh in on the recent discussion about Law and Gospel. His thinking is solid. His nuances are crucial. He adds serious depth to this ongoing conversation. Much food for thought here. Jono recently joined the Faculty at Knox Theological Seminary (the seminary owned by Coral Ridge). He graduated from Messiah College, Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, and then earned his PhD from Durham University studying Pauline Theology. He's published articles in the following leading academic journals: New Testament Studies, Early Christianity, and Studia Patristica. He was a two-time college All-American in lacrosse and he surfs (which is the real reason he was hired at Knox). He's 29, married to Megan, has two children (Liam and Callie) and one on the way. Enjoy… ————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
In a treatise from 1520, "The Freedom of a Christian," Luther stated an essential element of his theology: "the entire Scripture of God is divided into two parts: commandments [Law] and promises [Gospel]." The basic distinction is straightforward: the Law tells us what we ought to do; the Gospel tells us what God has given. At this level – what Luther called the "level of words" – "There is no one so stupid that he does not recognize how definite this distinction between Law and grace is." At a more basic level, however – what Luther called "the level of reality and experience" – this distinction "is the most difficult thing there is" (Galatians 1535). There are two reasons why this simple linguistic distinction is an existential difficulty. First, and for Luther most importantly, when a Christian is aware of and afflicted by their sin, it is "the most difficult thing in the world" to let the conscience listen to the voice of Christ rather than the condemnation of the Law. Second, the distinction between Law and Gospel is ultimately – that is, in reality – not a distinction between what is said; it is a distinction between what is heard; or more precisely it is a difference between whether God's verbal encounter with the human effects condemnation and death or works faith, forgiveness, and freedom. Thus, for Luther, the same words can be heard as either Law or Gospel. For example, the 10 Commandments are both the "hammer of God" that terrifies sinners with the "thunder of Mt. Sinai" and the pure promise that "I am the Lord your God." Conversely, the beautiful and basic words of the Gospel – "Christ died for your sins" – can be, to the ears of unbelief, nothing but an announcement of the "enormity of God's wrath" (Against the Antinomians 1539). An awareness of the doubleness of the distinction between Law and Gospel – a distinction that is so simple that the "stupid" recognize it and so difficult an art that "only the Holy Spirit practices it" (Galatians 1535) – forces us to step back and ask about Luther's theological definition of Law. God's Use of God's Good Law "But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it rightly." For Luther, this short sentence from 1 Timothy 1.8 reveals two things about the Law: first, it is good; second, it has a proper use. The goodness of the Law is emphatically affirmed in Romans 7.12 ("the Law is holy, righteous, and good") and is a frequent refrain in the Psalms. The proper use of the Law is specified in 1 Timothy 1.9 ("the law is not given for the righteous but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and the sinner") and its function and effect is detailed in Romans: the law makes the whole world guilty before God (3.19), works wrath (4.15), increases sin (5.20), and, as a weapon in the hand of Sin, kills (7.11). Taking his cues from Paul, Luther described the Law as good – as "the most salutary doctrine of life" (Heidelberg Disputation, Thesis 1) – and he defined the Law in terms of its function: "when the Law is being used correctly, it does nothing but reveal sin, work wrath, accuse, terrify, and reduce the minds of men to the point of despair" (Galatians 1535). Thus, following the pattern of 1 Tim 1.8, Luther affirms both "that the Law is good and useful" and that this is only the case "in its proper use" (Galatians 1535). What this means is that, for Luther, the Law is not primarily a moral codex (e.g. the Mosaic Law) or a grammatical pattern (e.g. imperatives); Law is a theological term that describes one of two ways that God encounters humans verbally. In other words, Law names the event of divine speech that condemns sin and kills sinners. As one of the Lutheran confessions puts it, "Law is everything that proclaims something about sin and God's wrath" (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration). Two important implications follow from this theological definition of Law. First, because Law is a way of identifying God's action with words, talk about "uses" of the Law cannot be human uses of the Law but God's use of his Law. In other words, God is the acting subject; he wields the words of death and life and the theological term Law is a way of pointing to God's accusing, condemning, and killing speech. Second, because Law is defined in terms of its function and effect rather than simply its content, it is not, as noted above, reducible to a moral codex or a grammatical pattern. This means that the common assumption that "imperative = Law" is far too static an equation. There seems to be some persistent confusion on this last point, so it is worth teasing out Luther's perspective a little more. No Condemnation and the End of Conditionality
Compare this to a couple examples of New Testament imperatives. First, consider Galatians 5.1. After four chapters of passionate insistence that justification is by faith apart from works of the Law, Paul issues a couple of strong imperatives: "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore stand firm (imperative) and do not be subject (imperative) again to the yoke of slavery." Are these imperatives instances of God's accusing and killing words? Are these commandments with conditions? Is Galatians 5.1 an example of Law? No! The command here is precisely to not return to the Law; it is an imperative to stand firm in freedom from the Law. Or take another example, John 8.11. Once the accusers of the adulterous women left, Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you. Depart. From now on, sin no more." Does this final imperative disqualify the words of mercy? Is this a commandment with a condition? Is this Law following the Gospel? No! This would be Law: "if you go and sin no more, then neither will I condemn you." But Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more." The command is not a condition. "Neither do I condemn you" is categorical and unconditional, it comes with no strings attached. "Neither do I condemn you" creates an unconditional context within which "go and sin no more" is not an "if." The only "if" the Gospel knows is this: "if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous" (1 John 2.1). For Luther, it is within this unconditional context created by the gospel, the reality he called "living by faith," that the Law understood as God's good commands can be returned to its proper place. Freed from the burden and bondage of attempting to use the Law to establish our righteousness before God, Christians are free to look to commandments, not as conditions, but as descriptions and directions as they seek to serve their neighbor. In other words, once a person is liberated from the commonsense delusion that acting righteously makes us righteous before God, and in faith believes the counter-intuitive reality that being made righteous by God's forgiving and resurrecting word precedes and produces righteous action, then the justified person is unlocked to love. For this reason, Luther would insist that the Law only applies to the second question of Christian living: what shall we do? It helps to answer the "what" question, the question about the content of good works. The Law, however, does not answer the more basic question, the question far too few people ask: How do good works occur? What fuels works of love? While the Law demands and directs, what delivers and drives? For Luther, the answer to this question always follows the pattern of 1 John 4.19: "We love because he first loved us." Works of love flow from prior belovedness. Thus, as Lutheran theologian Oswald Bayer has said, the essential question of theological ethics is this: "What has been given?" The answer: "God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us" (Rom 5.8). A Third Use of the Law? Recognizing this distinction between the conditional and condemning function of the Law and the descriptive and directive statement of God's will addressed to the unconditional context of faith in the God who justifies the ungodly is essential for understanding the purpose and place of New Testament imperatives, not to mention the Ten Commandments. The proper pattern is always "in view of God's mercies…" (Rom 12.1), or as Luther pointed out with respect to the Decalogue, the pattern is the opening promise: "I am the Lord your God…" (Exod 20.2). In other words, the ears of faith are free to hear a commandment without a condition because the Christian conscience listens not to the condition and curse of the Law, but to the Christ in whom there is no condemnation (Rom 8.1). This is why, for Luther, the phrase "the third use of the Law" is a category mistake. For him, as suggested above, Law names the divine speech that accuses and kills. Cut off from its conditionality and kicked out of the Christian's conscience, a commandment is not Law in the theological sense. This does not mean that Luther didn't think those portions of scripture that we think of as Law should be preached to Christians; he emphatically did (as his disputations against the Antinomians and his expositions of the Ten Commandments in the Catechisms demonstrate). But it does mean that "Law" is a slightly misleading term in this context because Law, for Luther, is defined by its "chief and proper use" which is "to reveal sin" and function as a "Hercules to attack and subdue the monster" of self-righteousness (Galatians 1535). Defined this way, Law only applies to the Christian insofar as they are still sinful. (For Luther, a third use of the Law – a phrase his younger colleague Melanchthon coined in 1534 and which Luther never adopted – can only mean that the first two uses still apply to the Christian because while they are righteous they are simultaneously sinful). Insofar as the Christian is justified by faith, however, the Law has ended – and precisely because the Law has ended as a voice of condemnation, because it has been divested of its saving significance, a commandment can be heard by the ears of faith without a condition. Passive and receptive before God, the justified person is free to be active and giving toward the neighbor. The end of the Law (Rom 10.4), understood by Luther as Christ kicking the Law out of the conscience and rejecting its role as the regulator of the divine-human relationship, is thus the end of the "ifs" that interpose themselves between God and his creatures. In place of the "ifs" Christ has uttered a final cry: "It is finished." These three words are the unconditional guarantee of the three words God speaks to sinners in the Gospel: "I love you." In this unconditional context the justified person is freed from the inhuman quest to secure a standing before God and freed for the human task of serving one's neighbor. In Luther's memorable words: "A Christian is a perfectly free Lord of all, subject to none. A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all" (Freedom of a Christian 1520) Listen for the Creature
For this reason, distinguishing Law and Gospel in real life requires a double listening. First, as we attend to God's word, we listen for the "if" that accuses and kills and the "nevertheless" that forgives and makes alive. Second, in Luther's deeply pastoral phrase, we "listen for the creature, i.e. sinful humanity." When God's word is spoken and heard as forgiveness without any "ifs," then we know God is speaking Gospel. It is no surprise, then, that Luther referred to the practice of distinguishing Law and Gospel as the highest art, an art that "none but the Holy Spirit" practices because he alone is "intent on using the Law and preaching the Gospel" (Galatians 1535). |
Cantemus…
Feed: HYMNOGLYPT
Posted on: Sunday, September 11, 2011 6:29 PM
Author: Matt Carver (Matthaeus Glyptes)
Subject: Christe sanctorum decus (corr. H. Bonnus)
Here is my translation of Hermann Bonnus' correction to Rabanus Maurus' hymn for the Feast of St. Michael and All Angels. I have attempted to translate it twice, on the basis of each commonly used versions, one unrhymed and the other rhymed, since the first and last stanzas are largely the same as the original. The sixth stanza is a generic doxology for this meter, apparently from St. Gregory the Great. Since that of Riley is less literal (Dearmer does no better), I have provided an alternate translation, and also direct the reader to the superior doxology provided in the other (Roman use) translation. The following tune is that appointed in Lossius Psalmodia (1579).
Father and Son and Spirit, grant this blessing; Whose glory, all the universe pervading Knoweth no fading.
1. Christe, sanctorum decus Angelorum
1. CHRISTE, sanctorum decus Angelorum
1. Christe, sanctorum decus Angelorum, |
