Document Actions
Berthold von Schenk's Kindgom Plan - A Sermon Series on "Giving'
The Rev. Dr. Berthold von Schenk is probably most famous in Lutheran circles for being one of the key catalysts for liturgical renewal among 20th century American Lutherans. But if you were to ask him, what his greatest legacy was as a parish pastor, he would likely reply that it was his “Kingdom Plan.” The Kingdom Plan was based on this simple rule: every parish must be the Church. Word and Sacrament were to be the content of every official meeting of the congregation... To address the topic of tithing and its role within his Kingdom Plan von Schenk preached a 6-part sermon series on offering and giving. Over the next six Wednesdays, Lutheranforum.org will be reprinting each of von Schenk’s Kingdom Plan sermons. Though the illustrations are at times a bit dated, nevertheless his approach to the dreaded topic of “stewardship” remains valuable...
The Rev. Dr. Berthold von Schenk is probably most famous in Lutheran circles for being one of the key catalysts for liturgical renewal among 20th century American Lutherans. But if you were to ask him, what his greatest legacy was as a parish pastor, he would likely reply that it was his “Kingdom Plan.” The Kingdom Plan was based on this simple rule: every parish must be the Church. Word and Sacrament were to be the content of every official meeting of the congregation. In short:
God would bless the congregation if the members worshipped faithfully by listening to the Word and Receiving the Sacrament every Sunday. He would bless the congregation if the members adopted tithing as a way of life and brought their offering. God would bless the congregation if they prayed daily for the parish and members, and if the members of the congregation evangelized, God would also bless them.[i]
To address the topic of tithing and its role within his Kingdom Plan von Schenk preached a 6-part sermon series on offering and giving. Over the next six Wednesdays, Lutheranforum.org will be reprinting each of von Schenk’s Kingdom Plan sermons. Though the illustrations are at times a bit dated, nevertheless his approach to the dreaded topic of “stewardship” remains valuable.
Sermon 1: The Grace of Giving
During the next five weeks, we will base our sermons on the subject of giving.
In this day and age the word giving lies in disrepute, especially in our parish lives. By preaching on giving, or to announce this subject may not be the best way to draw a crowd. However, this emphasis on giving can become a very intriguing series. What are the reasons for this disreputed subject of giving? When we speak of giving parish attitudes and individual ideas make it subjective. Suddenly in late autumn church councils must discuss this subject seriously. This question becomes basic - Should we make special efforts to raise more money for the churches treasure? Should there be an every member visitation, send out synodically inspired literature and culminate the whole business with observing a loyalty Sunday? We do not under-estimate this approach to work some good. However, in many of our parishes this method has tired out.
This year we present a different approach and we hope one with influence for years to come. The general subject is The Grace of Giving. To state it simply: We give to the work of the Church and the promoting of the Kingdom of God, not because the church needs our money; not because we want to meet the budget for the coining year, but because giving Is living! Giving is fun when we have the proper attitude. We accept giving as a grace, a grace caught up in the involvement of the grace of God in Jesus Christ.
When one speaks of grace one usually connects it exclusively with the redemptive work of grace by God for us and our salvation. Grace’s category is greater, however, since Scripture does not limit its meaning to one area. So often preachers and theologians limit grace to what St. Paul calls "the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ," misunderstanding St. Paul and even the insight of Luther. Grace means only the forgiveness of sins in such an interpretation. However, St, Paul and Luther do not limit grace only to the forgiveness of sins. To be sure, the Reformation fathers made justification by grace alone the big issue - the sola gratia. They had to in their day. Because of indulgences they played down good works, but many churches went too far, even to the extreme of omitting the collection during the service, since a collection would be a good work interfering with God's grace in Christ alone. Every age has its exaggerations.
Now, we do not disagree with the Augsburg Confession when it states, "It is necessary that the chief article of the Gospel be preserved, to wit, that we obtain grace freely by faith in Christ, and not for certain observances or acts of worship devised by man." (28:52) We also cannot question the words of Luther in the Large Catechism (Creed, 1.23) "...It is Good who gives and does all these things, that therein we sense and see the paternal heart, and his transcendent love toward us." One commentator notes that Luther uses the word Love to define the divine motivation for creation and preservation, He notes that a difference in emphasis exists between the words love and grace. He really means and says this, "I believe in the love of God who created me, preserves me and provides for me,” speaking of the I Article and of the II Article, which treats of redemption, has us confess, “I believe that Jesus Christ made me free, and brought me again into the favor and grace of the Father, and takes me as his own property under His shelter and protection, that He may govern me by His righteousness, wisdom, power, life and blessedness.,"' What we say in all this is that grace cannot be analyzed in a laboratory or limited in any manner Beneath the word grace stands a deeper meaning, something beyond limitation. We cannot define the word grace, since grace embraces the whole of man from the cradle to the grave, and not limiting God as a Father of the few people who have been baptized:, instructed, confirmed and joined a church by repeating a creed. Grace works in mysterious ways. It embraces the whole of life.
We conclude that everything a Christians life exists by grace. No self-made men exist in the Kingdom of grace, since all is grace. Over a certain pastor’s work table hangs this saying in German:
Wachseinde Pfade Life is a changing pathway-
Schattan und Licht Shadows and Light
Alles is Gnade All is grace-
Furerchte Dich night. Don't be afraid.’
All is grace "I am what I am by the grace of God," St. Paul states. Grace is not cheap, since it cost God much, the greatest price. His Son, Man makes grace cheap when he does not want to be involved in God’s grace. Religion becomes cheap and easy when God does something for me, apart from me, leaving me uninvolved, not included. But God is not cheap in His grace. God's grace involves us completely, since God's grace is not one-sided. Grace remains free, a truth which stands forever, But we as man become involved as children of God.
Our difficulty comes not in knowing the grace of God, since that comes easily. God is my life and my salvation. "Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to the cross I cling," we sing. This nothing has been greatly misunderstood, for that nothing is really everything. The everything comes through in this: I know that God has created me, I know that I am unworthy of my humanity, unworthy of God's creating me in His own image. He did not make me a god, but a man. Through sin man became unworthy of the dignity of his humanity, since men wanted to be God - like God - knowing good and evil. He wanted to step out of his order of creation. He thought God had cheated him out of something. However, God became man in Christ to restore me to my humanity Since Scripture says, “The word became flesh," I know that God totally became a man, a man that I should be, one with my humanity. God again makes me a child of God, an heir of salvation, a royal priest.. And my problem remains that I do not really want this image returned. I fight God instead of surrendering to Him. My problem is how to accept the grace of God and become involved once again. No hocus-pocus exists when we think of grace in this manner. I am born in sin.. Even some theologians fall so low in their estimate of self that they insist that the sexual act which conceived me in the womb of my mother was ‘sin.” I know that I am a miserable no good. Now comes the Gospel: “God was in Christ reconciling the world with himself – not reckoning our sinful peccadilloes.” I accept Jesus Christ as my Savior and confess, "The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses me from all sin.” Now I am saved by grace freely. However, this concept can become dangerous, or at least be misunderstood, making grace meaningless, because this kind of grace is uninvolved.
Well, grace is not that simple, easy and cheap, that is, merely to give intellectual assent to what God does for us and our salvation. Such an attitude can develop into an all-sufficient creedalism, an adherence to a mere formulation of words. Our difficulty with grace remains at the point of accepting it from God and yet at the same time to become involved in it. This involvement means a happening - the old passes away and all becomes new. We really do not want this now. We can love that man, Jesus, on the cross, even our dying with Him, but we hate the Christ who lives. He is the "hound of heaven," the one for whom we are to be doing and living. However, by accepting the grace of God I am in unison with Christ and this is a living relationship with Him. St. Paul knew of no cheap grace: "Know you not," he writes in Romans, "that you were baptized ("the greatest sacrament of grace", Luther), into Christ - into the whole Christ, his life, his death, his resurrection." To accept grace means to die daily to self, "by daily repentance.”
This kind of faith overcomes, I like what Luther said about faith; "...that it is mighty and effective. It does not ask, what should be done?, but before one has been asked it is done already." To be sure, it is no cheap grace. Yet, you cannot buy it with money or price. Just take grace freely, and when you take it you are a different person, a new man. You belong to God. He owns you. With Christ we are daily condemned and say; "I die daily.” "I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; and the life I now live I live by faith in God who loved me and gave himself for me."
I must realize this and never forget it for a moment: "What ever is in my Christian life I have by the grace of God." This even applies to people who have not made a commitment to Jesus Christ, since God’s grace falls on the ungodly also, we are told. Wonderful sacramental things exist in life for all: For example, our birth, a Christian education, friendships, membership in a Christian Congregation, a good marriage and good health. Even a sorrow may turn into a grace by those who accept life as grace and we can boldly come to God, our loving Father, and say, “Our Father.” We did it in the first prayer we learned, “Abba, dear Father.’
To be born and live in a Christian home is grace. It is grace, and should not be considered a moral duty that you and I are here this morning, participating in our Liturgy, listening to the instruction of the Apostles, in the fellowship of collective living, in the breaking of bread, the communion, and praising God from whom all blessings flow.
It is grace that you can bring your offering, not primarily motivated by what God gives you, not because of the need of giving, no because of the blessings that come through giving, but that God accepts your offering as the symbol of the offering of one’s whole self. Other motives may have value, but they can be exchange motives. “I’ll do something because God or someone did something for me.” The purest way is grace, and it is grace at its best when we make our offering.
What I want to say is that there is a vast difference between a dutiful obligatory, forced giving, and the giving of one who is baptized into Christ and participates in the Liturgy of which the offering is the high point. Since here grace comes through at its purest, that is, when we can give freely as new men, restored in our humanity, a humanity created for giving. We see this type of offering in the Good Samaritan, the giving of the Magdalene, the giving of Christ upon the cross, the giving of St. Paul who said, “For me to live is Christ.” “By the grace of God I am what I am.”
In my following sermons I intend to motivate you with the grandeur of giving, the joy of giving, the adventure of giving. May the Holy Spirit give me wisdom and courage to take you out of the dark cellar of giving to the glorious adventure of giving, to the grandeur of giving. In a word, to direct you to the involved grace of giving” Grace which involves you!
[i] Berthold von Schenk, Lively Stone: The Autobiography of Berthold von Schenk. C. George Fry and Joel Kurz, eds. ALPB Books, New York, 2006, p. 65. Available from the ALPB at http://alpb.org/livlystone.html
the use of "if"
those "ifs" are from the article
My point is that if you buy into the article above, their free giving is evidence of grace regardless of whether or not you think gay sex is automatically a sin.
Perseveration
Your focus is amazing. EVERYTHING relates back to gay sex!
same hermeneutics
That's because I believe recognition of same-gender marriage and ordination of people regardless of sexual orientation or marital status springs directly from the proclamation of the Gospel. I think there's a disconnect some people have specifically with the sexuality issue-- they can understand how we ordain sinners of one type, but not of another type, and miss that when grace is freely given to all, it really means ALL. Even married homosexuals get this grace, and are reborn as God's children through faith in Christ's death and resurrection.
Showing that what von Schenk says leads to a theology that supports ordination of married gay clergy is an attempt to break that disconnect. You need to find flaws in what von Schenk says (which may be a useful discussion in its own right), show that my conclusions do not follow from his premises, cling stubbornly to human pride in the face of all reason and despite anything that Scripture, the Reformers or anyone else says about such pride, or change your stance on the sexuality issue.
Reply to Peter
I was simply trying to point out that in your numerous posts, it appears that you look through the lens of your agenda. We all do this; it's called a paradigm.
As for changing my stance, is it me specifically or the vast millions of unreconstructed Christians around the world who need to change?
For now, I am part of the loyal opposition. As the purge of traditionalists continues in the ELCA, I will likely join those who choose to vote with their feet.
the "agenda" is the result
I don't think that I'm looking through the lens of "my agenda", so much as showing that all of these Christological pronouncements lead to the same place. I think welcoming people of all sexual orientations and gender identities is a downstream conclusion if you follow any these theologies, and that's what I'm trying to demonstrate.
The 'you' in my post was plural, specifically meaning any and all who read it. It was meant more as a statement of what is than a command, as I think those 4 cases cover what everyone who disagrees with me is going to do, even if they don't post which one here. Were I a betting man, I'd say #2 is the most popular, followed by either #1 or #3, depending on whether the lack of discussion is because no one sees the point of posting 'I agree, this is the most perfect explanation of giving EVAR!!!' or because people don't agree, but either don't really feel like defending their views or don't really care enough.
For all this talk of 'purge', though, where's the evidence? Who has been forced to leave? It's hard to call it a purge when people "choose to vote with their feet".
Reply to Peter
It's early days. The nuclear blast at CWA 2009 generated a massive amount of debris; the dust has only just begun to settle. As the current crop of pastors retire, congregations will be hard pressed to find candidates who do not toe the new party line. Sadly, CWA 2009 further politicized the office of Bishop.
You might also take note of the proceedings at Synod Assemblies around the country, especially regarding budgets. Meanwhile, pastors and congregations who in good conscience (remember "bound conscience"?) seek to affiliate with more orthodox Lutheran groups are told that they cannot do so and remain in the ELCA (read: purge), thus proving the lie of "bound conscience" and respect for local decision making. Political shenanigans are on the rise -- check out the mess in FL Bahamas, for example.
I am of the opinion that this false teaching (that is, the concept of homosexuals "married" in the eyes of the church) may be unforgivable blasphemy.
THIS IS SERIOUS STUFF.
How does the 'Good Fruits" argument borrowed from Galatians square with the millions of African Lutherans who now have 'bulls eyes' painted on their backs? Perhaps creating more martyrs is an an example of good fruits?
For the reformers here in the West, this is about social justice. In Africa, it is life and death.
clarity
Dual rostering is a more dramatic step than just affiliating with other Lutheran groups that share one's views. The big problem is that CORE wants to simultaneously be its own denomination and still influence the ELCA within it. The ELCA is not going to take actions against local congregations that refuse to call married homosexuals. A congregation doesn't have to be part of CORE to do that. There's also ways people could organize within the ELCA to try to work against the CWA09 decisions. I will be mindful of the 8th commandment and not speculate on how you would go about labeling churches participating in essentially the opposite of the RIC program.
Synods are also certainly free to offer memorial resolutions condemning CWA, or urging its repeal. My synod will probably do one or both this weekend. (or there's an offchance they'll vote us all into CORE... leaving the whole issue of the ability of administrative elements of the ELCA to have some kind of membership in another Lutheran body for national to deal with... I think it would be a learning experience for everyone here, at the least.)
We've gone on at length about blasphemy yes/no, so I'm not going to revisit that here aside to reiterate that I think such a stance does not logically follow from the Confessions, unless you'd like to pursue it further.
I don't understand what you mean about the bullseyes on African Lutherans. That they'll be persecuted for being associated with a church that accepts homosexuals? Sometimes God puts a cliff at our back because He knows we'll run away otherwise. I can intellectually understand not wanting to stand up for homosexuals in Africa out of a very real fear of getting beaten or killed. However, Christ's promise of forgiveness is specifically that we no longer need to fear death. It is certainly easy to say 'don't fear death' while I'm still here in the US and don't emotionally understand that fear of death. But it's not my words the African Lutherans need to read. They can read what Christ said about persecution, what Paul said, what Job said, what John of Patmos said, what Ignatius said, what John of the Cross said, what Luther said, even what Martin Luther King, Jr said about what Jesus said. All of them had far more direct experience with death.
When we say that Christ has defeated death forever, and that we are no longer under death's sway, what does that mean to you? Is this all symbolism, or is it the very power to bring life to places of death even knowing that traveling to a place of death is lethal for us?
addendum
This is also why there is not as much sympathy as one might hope for those who feel on account of the ELCA permitting congregations who so choose to choose an openly gay pastor that they must leave the church. There is quite a number of congregations and pastors who have actually been removed from the church. There are seminarians who cannot be ordained solely on account of being unwilling to take a vow of celibacy. It's incredibly hard for many to see how voluntarily distancing oneself from the church because it passed one resolution one didn't like is anywhere near the same thing as being thrown out of said church because the church does not recognize your faithful marriage to another. That doesn't mean they're not trying, but that there is a LOT of anger still on that side that needs healing.
Read the whole Bible, please
Certainly all people, including homosexuals in manifest and unrepentant sin are within the totality of God's Grace. I would never decline to care for or proclaim the Gospel to any person regardless of "type". But, understanding such Grace, one should then be moved to behave according to the instruction of the Word and refrain, as St. Paul clearly says, from fornication and sexual immorality. No church body, understanding Holy Scripture and applying Law and Gospel according to the instruction of the church Fathers and Confessors, could allow a pastor to live in a sexually immoral condition. Such a person should simply be removed from office. Failure to do so is evidence of a church that no longer is subject to the Holy Scriptures but clearly has come to a "magisterial" use of reason-- oh, and Experience which now trumps all.
As for closed communion, we don't withhold grace from anyone, they withhold grace from themselves by not confessing the truth of the meaning of the Sacrament and denying its efficacy (its just a symbol, etc...)
allow a pastor in an immoral condition?
This is exactly the problem. The church's role is not to worry about "allowing" or "disallowing" sin in either its pastors or its congregants.. The church's role is to guide people to the healing of sin freely given by Christ's death and resurrection. I think your statement: "understanding such Grace, one should then be moved to behave according to the instruction of the Word" is very close, but I would say it a little differently: "having received such grace, one is moved to live according to the Word". Living according to the Word is downstream of receiving Grace. Any efforts to enforce living according to the Word is Law, and hence doomed to fail. The only recourse we have is Grace-- freely given through Christ's death and resurrection. If that doesn't take, it doesn't matter how they live-- it won't save them.
We also know that we continually need that Grace, as we are all in bondage to sin this side of the grave. No one is without sin, so trying to use it as a criterion for being fit to proclaim the Gospel would leave no one qualified to proclaim the Gospel. What qualifies us is God-- note well St Paul's witness of his call, and specifically how it was Christ and no one else who called him. We dare not take on that role of Christ and dictate who can and cannot proclaim the Gospel (and even note what Christ says when the disciples claim someone unknown to them is casting out demons in Christ's name).
As to closed communion, if the pastor does not give the Sacrament, he is the one withholding it. The pastor is trying to act as a mediator between the communicant and God, and the nicest thing I recall Luther saying of priests as mediators between us and God is that we are the priesthood of believers.
That argument fails in application and in scripture
The position / argument presented presupposes that no one can be disqualified from serving as an ELCA Pastor due to any personal and ongoing sinful condition and acts. And if so, then other church pastors like Jim Baker would have been wise if they had been an ELCA Pastors, they could use the arguments above to not only defend and keep their ordinations, but they could announce their intentions to commit further transgressions against the law before they are even committed and they should still be allowed to lead ELCA congregations with the blessings of the denomination. Other transgressions too, such as Tim Haggard’s and all the Catholic Priests who have been thrown out of the RC church for their personal sins and transgressions, all of them should have been ELCA pastors instead because according to Peter’s position, it is not the role of the church to worry about allowing or disallowing sin in its pastors…
It is self evident that the position outlined above fails in application. But in addition to that, another counter is to remember that It wasn’t only Paul that told us not to allow open sin in the church, and especially sexual immorality because it’s a sin against the very body of Christ itself, but Jesus who told us directly not to be like the Pharisees, who did not live as they preached we should live. Jesus did have a problem with preachers and church leaders who sinned in secret and sinned openly, he called them hypocrites. And according the Paul, the church is not to disgrace itself in the eye of the general public because it will not convert the unbeliever that way. No, the behaviors of the Pastors are directly accountable to the church as a whole, it was designed that way.
Law and Gospel
First of all, I said nothing about pastors not being accountable to the law. It is the church's task itself for which this is unimportant. Every person in the church still has their left-hand obligations to the state to help it deal with crime, and if you are a transgressor, your legal obligation is to surrender to the law. Those are important insofar as you might get locked up for the rest of your life, or get someone else locked up for the rest of their life, but not important insofar as salvation goes. You can still be saved, and you can still proclaim the Gospel from your jail cell. I think it's also important to remember that while the Gospel can be proclaimed in both word and deed, both are downstream of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, and the healing does to our relationship with God and our heart, without which, anything we do is sin. Or to look at the OT lesson for last Sunday, there are still consequences, and bad ones at that, for David's actions, but that does not undo God's promise to him.
As to Christ, I think the problem He had was more than just hypocrisy (which is not what I'm advocating-- nowhere do I say that pastors can be openly gay but the membership should avoid it, for example), but the whole problem of using the law as a means of salvation. For Paul, it was, as you say, about bringing the Gospel to the unbeliever and that the church should not try to hinder that, in your case through disgraceful behavior that leads to scandals. However, the anti-homosexuality stance of the church directly drives people from it. Not in 'we're going to join another group calling itself Christian' sense, but in a 'the Christian church (and God) hates me and wants nothing to do with me unless I lie to them and myself' sense. Incidentally, at Pridefest yesterday, those were some of the comments we got: 'I grew up Lutheran, but now I'm pagan because there I am saved, loved and needed' or 'I don't trust any church'. I pray for those people.
the Liturgy of which the offering is the high point
If the "purest way is grace, and it is grace at its best when we make our offering", that leaves behind all divisions, including race, gender identity and sexual orientation. If grace can shine through a married homosexual at its purest (at the high point of the Liturgy, no less), in the giving freely as new men, why block them from ordination, and work against their sharing of that grace with everyone?