Stirring the Pot

When I say "stirring the pot" I mean that I like to occasionally say things that create conversation, it isn't always important that I agree with what I have written, however, I think conversation is healthy. For those of you who follow this blog you probably got here through Facebook, one of my favorite modes of stirring the pot. I love to put links on my page that I know will create conversation, especially between me and my politically active son Allan and daughter Martha. It doesn't take much to get them stirred up.

Last week I read a link that had been posted by one of my favorite seminary professors, Dr. Susan Hedahl. Her link was to an article by Chris Hedges (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/after_religion_fizzles_were_stuck_with_nietzsche_20100510/). In the article Hedges presents a pretty gloomy prediction for the future of religion, to be specific Christianity. I agree with much of what Hedges observes, by the way. If it was Susan's goal to "stir the pot" she was certainly successful.

In my comment I questioned some of the language that is used in churches today. A church that says it is "Welcoming" but churches seldom are. Two weeks ago while I was at Gettysburg Seminary I heard the following line of welcoming to the Communion Table. "All are welcome to Communion with us today. If you believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist and are baptized, please come forward to communion" or words to that affect. Is that really being welcoming? What, as an example, one of our Full Communion partners whose view of what happens in communion is a bit different than ours is in attendanceI, they would not feel welcome. What if I am a "seeker Christian" someone who has come to accept the teaching of Jesus but have not yet been baptized? I would have to have stayed in my pew, not feeling very welcomed. Anytime we "welcome" people but then add qualifiers (if, or, but) we are not welcoming, it only sounds like we are and that makes us feel good, but does not make someone else feel welcome.

Well my comment received some pretty harsh response from a pastor from Penn. He describes himself as an "Evangelical Catholic" which means he is a Lutheran who really would rather be a Roman Catholic. He suggested that I take a refresher course in the Lutheran Confessions. My question is simply this; does God speak to us today through the Lutheran Confession of the 16th Century? Is it healthy for the church to cling to documents written from a drastically different world view then we have today. When Martin Luther wrote his Small Catechism there were not IPod's, IPad's, Wii or X-Boxes. Most children were born into and were raised in a two parent home. The adults, and children, spent most of their day in heavy labor without the distraction of cable TV or the local Mall to get in the way of their everyday life. The church clergy was made up of men, still mostly single men, and their biggest concern seemed to be the Muslims at the gates of Vienne.

Now, before my Orthodox friends get all excited and start sending me anonymous emails, I am not saying the Lutheran Confessions should be filed away under ancient history. I would like to suggest that we read them through the eyes of the 21^st century, in light of the issues that face us in our world today. Is it really that bad if we welcome everyone to the communion table and risk the chance that an un-baptized person receives the bread and the wine? Isn't worth the risk? I think it is!

 

See you next week.