Prelenten Preaching Seminar

11 January 2008 Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, Lincoln, NE

Keeping the Fourth Commandment: Honoring Our Father in the Faith, Dr. Martin Luther!

+Jesu Juva +

Little Martin: The Red Headed Stepchild

I realized the need of a complete liturgy. It was not an easy task, for it meant a thorough understanding of the Apostolic and post- Apostolic Church. Luther, of course, was not a liturgiologist, nor a sacramentalist. The most stupid thing which Luther let himself in for was the Colloquy in Marburg with Ulrich Zwingli. How much time and thought has been wasted by insisting on absolute truth in dogmas! Luther fell into that trap in his controversy with Zwingli and split the Reformation. Zwingli had a much deeper understanding of the liturgy than we give him credit for, and his liturgy is far superior to that of Luther. The argument of dies bedeudet und dies ist (‘this represents and this is’) was sheer nonsense. In scientific language bedeutet and ist are the same thing. Luther was fighting windmills, and his position, ‘Ihr habt einem anderen Geist . . .,’ was a tragic statement. Those familiar with John Calvin will also realize that he was a much more profound theologian than Luther. What a pity it was when the liturgy was castrated. Luther’s greatest blunder was his writing of the Mass. He was out of his element . . . All that was necessary was the restoration of the full liturgy – it was the first task I set myself out to do, to write a truly catholic liturgy. I found my sources in the post-Apostolic liturgical practices. I restored the Prayer of Consecration . . . It consists of: 1) praise to the Father, 2) the Words of Institution, 3) the Remembrance, 4), the epiclesis (literally ‘the calling upon’) or Invocation of the Holy Spirit . . . Luther showed his amazing ignorance by substituting the Our Father for the Great Prayer. His reason for substituting the Our Father for the Prayer of Consecration is unforgivable . . . We have only the recitation of the Words of Institution as the Consecration – really a bit of magic . . . it would be well for Protestant theologians to discover the truths, insights, and benefits inherent in Roman Catholic teaching and policy of the Counter Reformation period, as expressed in the statements of the Tridentine Council and also by such theologians as Odo Casel, Romano Guardini, Karl Adam, H. Küng, and others. 2

Are these the words of a Roman Catholic? An Episcopalian? No. They are the words penned by a Lutheran! A remarkable and most controversial minister of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod: the Rev. Berthold von Schenk (1895-

1974), long time pastor of Our Savior, Bronx, NY, and founder of the St. James

Society.1 Such critiques of Dr. Luther and the Reformation are not unusual especially within the Missouri Synod. John Fenton, who left Missouri for Antioch last year, harshly criticized Dr. Luther’s revision of the Mass (deleting the canon) at every opportunity. And yet while serving at Zion, Detroit, he pasted the anaphora of St. John Chrysostom to the Western Rite. What was good for the goose was not good for the gander! Printing von Schenk’s autobiography by the

ALPB coincides with the ELCA’s new hymnal Evangelical Lutheran Worship that contains ten versions of the Eucharistic Prayer (ELW, 65-70 [versions V-XI were they are entitled “Thanksgiving at the Table”], 108, 110, 111, [versions I, III, IV]).

Only option II offers the Verba without prayer (ELW, 108, 130). The fundamental theological presuppostion that went into ELW was Principle 43:

“The biblical words of institution declare God’s action and invitation. They are set within the context of the Great Thanksgiving. This eucharistic prayer

1 Lively Stone: The Autobiography of Berthold von Schenk, edited by C. George Fry and Joel R. Kurz, (Delhi: American Lutheran Publicity Bureau, 2006), 126ff. John R. Hannah praises von Schenk for his “recovery of confessional Eucharistic practice,” (6). Von Schenk called the Roman Catholic Liturgical Movement of the last century to be, “the greatest movement in the history of our church,” (Lively Stone, 123). Von Schenk’s book, The Presence: An Approach to the Holy Communion (1945) reflects the influence of the Liturgical Movement in his thinking. For a more personal reflection of von Schenk see David P. Scaer’s review in Concordia Theological Quarterly 70:3-4 (July/October 2006), 377-378. Dr. Scaer is correct when he states that this autobiography “is ‘a must’ for Missourians, especially for those who are interested in knowing how we evolved as a church body between the 1920s and the 1970s.” 3 proclaims and celebrates the gracious work of God in creation, redemption, and sanctification.”2

Martin Luther is like the red headed stepchild in Momma Ecumania’s family!

A Verba fool! A Verba clown! Downright embarrassing! So when it comes to her visible reunification agenda regarding the Lord’s Supper, stepson Martin is nothing more than a liturgical hack. He stands in the way of Momma E’s world changing potential: realizing the kingdom of God on the earth. Stepchild Martin is a roadblock to her ecumenical plans that we all may be one so that before you can say “Jack Robinson”: utopia!

Dr. Luther D. Reed (1873-1972) who chaired the Service Book and Hymnal

Committee, provided what von Schenk desired and provided: the Eucharistic

Prayer or Prayer of Thanksgiving (SBH, 34, 62). In the preface to the 1958 SBH the red headed stepchild is slandered but he is not mentioned by name: “A vision clearer than was sometimes possible in the turmoil of the Reformation controversy has revealed the enduring value of some elements which were lost temporarily in the sixteenth century reconstruction of the liturgy, as, for instance, the proper use of the prayer of thanksgiving and the essential meaning of the term ‘catholic’ in the creeds.” (vii)

The reason for including the Eucharistic Prayer was due to all the wisdom we now possess. “The sixteenth-century Reformers on the continent . . . None of them had the advantages we have today by way of discoveries and study of early

Christian liturgies. None of them could have known of the great body of liturgical

2 Renewing Worship, Vol. 2: Principles for Worship (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 134. 4 discussions by early scholars which has only recently become available.”3 Red headed stepchildren are known to be quite dull. In poor Martin’s case, he just couldn’t shake his Roman tendencies: “Luther, under the prevailing scholastic and Roman view that consecration was effected solely by the recitation of the

Verba, and possessed by his dynamic conception of the supremacy of the

Word . . . cut out everything except the Dominical Words.”4

Momma E knows better than that. And as a faithful favorite child Reed pushes

Momma’s position: “The use of the Verba . . . is a solemn, corporate act of prayer, an exalted liturgical celebration, in which the worshiping congregation apprehends and holds aloft the divine promises, claims the divine warrant and invokes the divine blessing. It becomes a vivid and exalted rite as the minister not only repeats our Lord’s own words, but in a measure imitates his actions . . .

Dr. Horn says: ‘The Words of Institution are addressed to God.’”5 And finally the obedient son states: “A relatively few scholars, unable to free themselves from the domination of scholastic theology and the continuing fore of medieval tradition, which asserts that consecration is effected at a precise moment by the recital of the Verba, and by this alone, insist that the Epiclesis should precede the

Verba. We rejoice that the Common Liturgy has rejected this mechanical view, has recovered the ancient and universal prayer of thanksgiving with its

3 Luther D. Reed, The Lutheran Liturgy (Philadelpia: Muhlenberg Press, 1947), 361- 362. 4 Ibid. Eugene Brand, an editor of Lutheran Book of Worship (1978) wrote that Dr. Luther practiced illegitimate “surgery” that any trial lawyer of today would sue for malpractice. “Luther’s Liturgical Surgery,” Interpreting Luther’s Legacy, (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1969), 108-119. 5 The Lutheran Liturgy, 360. 5 invocation of the Holy Spirit [for] . . . in the words of St. Paul, ‘the Spirit giveth life.’”6

Momma E has given birth to many children. She is a very fertile woman.

Mark Chapman, a self proclaimed “Evangelical-Catholic” and faithful son states:

“Whatever may be the case for other issues, the Reformation is over in regard to the form of the Eucharistic liturgy and the Eucharistic Prayer has been restored and reformed.”7 And like his brother Luther Reed he obediently remarks:

His [Christ’s] Words of Institution, set in the narrative of his life and Israel’s life, emerge as the powerful and performative word of his holy promise made real and effective . . . This is something that the Verba alone could never do . . . Embodied in the dialogue of the Eucharistic Prayer, the Words of Institution became incarnate as the living Christ and his living Bride in holy conversation and communion. And that is salvation. The remembrance is what we bring to the Eucharist, and so is part of our sacrifice, our offering – of our tradition, our memory, our instruction, our scholarship our upbringing of Christ, we lift up in prayer and praise the narrative that holds and hangs flesh on the Words of Institution.8

Our doing. Our praying. Our whatever. The primary liturgical direction is from us to Him (or Her depending on your taste). When you’re not quite sure of

Jesus and His words, you resort to something else. Somebody else’s words or some kind of technique to give Jesus and His speaking an assist. So Momma E’s had many liaisons that can’t trust the Verba Domini to do and give what they say.

Today’s liturgical experts don’t start there. Their number one starting point is postmodern’s deconstruction of words. Can’t trust the words! The words don’t do or give anything because they’re not the Lord’s words. Matthew 28 and Mark

6 Ibid., 363. 7 ”Fundamental Unity. Evangelical-Catholic Non-Negotiables,” Lutheran Forum (Christmas, 2005), 13. 8 ”The Eucharistic Prayer in Lutheran Liturgy,” The Bride of Christ 15 (1991), 25. 6

16 are not received these days as from the Lord Himself. They’re the community’s words. The liturgical ticket today is: ritual action. That does the trick. Gets you in on the story. A participant. Thus, even the pope speaks of “re

—presentation”9 and “recapitulation” going on in the liturgy. “Every priest who celebrates Holy Mass, together with the Christian community which takes part in it, is led back in spirit to that place and that hour [Good Friday’s Cross] . . . In this gift Jesus Christ entrusted to his Church the perennial making present of the paschal mystery. With it he brought about a mysterious ‘oneness in time’ between that Triduum and the passage of the centuries.”10 Get the ritual right and there’s certainty (Gewiss). So the church has to get the ritual right. That’s what makes the difference, not the words! When one abandons the objective mandate and institution words of the Lord one moves into subjectivity.

9 Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter: “Ecclesia De Eucharistia,” calls it “the sacramental re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice.” Tertullian uses this term in the way of “representation,” “manifestation,” or “public declaration.” Thomas Aquinas speaks of the Sacrament in this way: “imago . . . repraesentativa passionis Christi” (Summa, III, Q. 83, Art. 1). Odo Casel uses the term in the way of Greek pagan rituals, namely, that: “Worship is the means of making it [the saving, healing act of God] real once more, and thus of breaking through to the spring of salvation. The members of the cult present again in a ritual, symbolic fashion, that primeval act; in holy words and rites of priest and faithful the reality is there once more . . . The mysteries’ way is, therefore, the way of ritual action as sharing in the gods’ acts; its aim is union with godhead, share in his life. The mystery, therefore, embraces in the first place the broad concept of ritual ‘memorial’ -- , commemoratio – the ritual performance and making present of some act of the god’s, upon which rests the existence and life of a community . . . The sacred rite [the Mass] with its full divine content is what the disciples are to ‘act in memory’; they are to make real again the passion of their divine master. . . . Christ has given his mystery to the church’s care; she acts it out, and thereby fulfils his action, which has become hers. So Christ and the church become one in act and passion: the mystery is made a new and eternal covenant” (The Mystery of Christian Worship, 1962, 53-59). For Casel, in the tradition of Rome, the Mass is the real presence of an event or action of the past, namely, Good Friday. 10 Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter: “Ecclesia De Eucharistia.” 7

Externum Verbum is not an option these days for the liturgical experts. It is a delusion. So there is the shift from the external objective reference to the internal reference point. Schleiermacher spoke of the “feeling of absolute dependence.”

Pope Benedict XVI speaks of love.

Becoming contemporary with the Pasch of Christ in the liturgy of the Church is also, in fact, an anthropological reality . . . It is meant to be indeed a logike latreia, the ‘logicizing’ of my existence, my interior contemporaneity with the self-giving of Christ . . . but . . . the semel (‘once for all’) wants to attain its semper (‘always’). This Sacrifice is only complete when the world has become the place of love, as St Augustine saw in his City of God. Only then, as we said at the beginning, is worship perfected and what happened on Golgotha completed . . . We are incorporated into the great historical process by which the world moves toward fulfillment of God being ‘all in all.’11

When the internal reference point of Schleiermacher or the pope no longer holds there is “certainty” when we act, take the plunge, do the ritual or whatever. The more you get in on the “act(s)” the better the liturgy. And so there’s Odo Casel and his emphasis on the rituals.12

Then there is Dom Gregory Dix who argues in his The Shape of the Liturgy that the liturgy of communion is imitation of actions. He contends for four

11 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000), 58-59. 12 Mark Chapman says that the Lord’s Supper is a ‘re-enacted ritual” where imitation of the actions is important. “Fundamental Unity. Evangelical-Catholic Non- Negotiables,” Lutheran Forum (Christmass, 2005), 13). See also Gordon Lathrop, Holy Things: A Liturgical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). Primary in this book is that the “things” used in the liturgy such as water, bread, wine, buildings, calendars, leadership roles are SACRED before they ever come into contact with Christianity (God’s Word). I.E. Christianity has taken over the “SACREDS” of other religions. Consequently there is hardly any discussion or reference to the verba institutionis for Baptism or the Lord’s Supper except to be disregarded. Without the verba institutionis of the Lord then you’re left only with what Christians [and pagans] have been “doing” from the beginning. 8 actions of taking, blessing, breaking, and eating that must be repeated

(imitated).13 Dix’s shape “shaped” the Missouri Synod’s 1969 Worship

Supplement (59-62). Herb Lindemann commends this shape for the church. 14

ALC pastor Mandus Egge contended that these four actions “remain unchangeable for they were the actions of Jesus in instituting the sacrament.”15

And since the four-fold action romance appears to be over it’s now time to have a worship experience! It’s time for you Lutherans to drop all that head stuff

(i.e. doctrine). It’s time to celebrate!16

13 The Shape of the Liturgy (Westminster: Dacre Press, 1945), xi, 48. Please note that imitating a primeval event is common to pagan rituals and pagan religion. No wonder that Dix states: “But it is important for the understanding of the whole future history of the liturgy to grasp the fact that eucharistic worship from the outset was not based on Scripture at all, whether of the Old or New Testaments, but solely on tradition,” (3, emphasis in the original). 14 The New Mood in Lutheran Worship (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1971), 53f. 15 ”Let There Be Surprise,” Journal of Church Music 13 (1971), 5. Cf. Reed’s The Lutheran Liturgy, 355. 16 See Wolfhart Pannenberg, Christian Spirituality (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1983). Vital here is Pannenberg’s call to eliminate a guilt complex and an individualism bestowed inappropriately by the Reformation and replace it with a much better piety that he labels “eucharistic” piety. With this piety the center of the service cannot be the preaching of the Law and Gospel (and so confession and absolution). Instead the service has to be eucharistic, i.e. a celebration that produces joy instead of guilt and provides communal in place of individual faith. Such a piety centers on the feelings of joy coupled with giving thanks that is made up of signs that exhibit the visible unity of the happy worshipers as they do their Eucharist! In Neo-platonic fashion the Eucharist is the “sign” of something better and higher than earthly bread and wine and a forensic “forgiveness” that doesn’t change anyone. Consequently, “the Eucharist, not the sermon, is the center of the church’s life” (p. 40) and the Reformation was incorrect to stress the sermon. In addition, since there can be no guilt or death in Pannenberg’s eucharistic piety the confession and absolution must be eliminated and cannot be expected to precede the community’s celebration of joy! The church’s reason for existence is to be a “symbol” for something higher and better, not to deliver the goods of forgiveness (38ff.). To see how this is going on in the ELCA see the Renewing Worship materials where the language goes like this: “word,” “meal,” “the shape of the rite,” and “gathering.” In particular the preparatory part of the service has shifted dramatically from LBW. Now the two options to start the service are two versions of a double rite called Remembrance of Baptism. One version has no confession and absolution at all! In place of absolution it puts a communal “Thanksgiving [Eucharist piety of 9

So like most red headed stepchildren Dr. Luther must be slapped down, told to be quiet, and only speak when spoken to. Otherwise Momma E. will lock him in his room without any supper until he promises to be an obedient and malleable boy. No need to call ecclesiastical social services to report this as child abuse.

Momma E has the authorities in her back pocket. Little Martin deserves such treatment for his misbehavior and resolute stubbornness that spoils Momma E’s

Kingdom of God On the Earth Revelation Party.

Honoring Father Luther

The Rev. Dr. Kenneth F. Korby (1924-2006) usually made the observation that the Lord not only punishes people for their sins but that He punishes them with their sins! Part of the throes and struggles in the Lutheran Church –

Missouri Synod is that we have not honored our spiritual fathers. Who reads

Luther? Walther? Peiper? Chemnitz?17 Hardly anyone. Who knows the Small

Catechism by heart any more? Who among our people (including the pastors) can give the very simple but faithful answers to the questions: “What is the

Sacrament of the Altar? Where is this written?” How can such bodily eating and drinking do such great things?

Pannenberg!] for Baptism.” This includes a prayer for the allegorical interpretation of the symbolism of water taken with large edits that specifically remove any references to death and sin from Dr. Luther’s “Flood Prayer.” In the confession itself there is no reference to bondage and sin has been changed to “sins,” until finally in the theological explanation provided it is not even “sins” that are confessed but merely a confession that we need God’s mercy. See Renewing Worship 6: Holy Communion and Related Rites (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004), 6-8. Cf. Lively Stone, 141, “We have not only inherited a fear that we may receive the Sacrament unworthily but we have made the whole spirit of the liturgy penitential.” 17 Von Schenck calls Chemnitz “a museum theologian,” Lively Stone, 103. 10

Let’s listen to our spiritual father Dr. Martin Luther. Let’s not treat him like

Momma E’s red headed stepchild. It’s time to let him speak for himself. Where he confesses what the Scriptures teach concerning the Sacrament (in particular the Verba) let us honor him by confessing it too. I wholeheartedly agree with Dr.

Korby (one of my spiritual fathers) who told me time and time again that, “there is no equal to Luther’s writings on the Sacrament! No equal! Not even in any of the church fathers! NONE! Including Irenaeus!” Below are just a few samples.

The Small Catechism tells what’s essential. The Sacrament of the Altar is the

Body and Blood of Jesus under the bread and wine. It was instituted by Christ

Jesus Himself for us Christians to eat and drink. We know this from the Verba

Domini as recorded by the holy evangelists and St. Paul. We know that our words or our eating and drinking don’t do the great things. Instead the Lord’s words do it. “Take and eat. Take and drink. This is my Body. This cup is my Blood. Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of your sins.” The liturgical direction is from

Him to us. Beneficium! Donum! “Here, this is for you.” For you talk is gift talk.

Believe what Jesus Himself says and gives and you have exactly what they say: forgiveness as well as life and salvation.

The Large Catechism repeats and expands on all this. After the Verba Domini

(that every Christian should know) are quoted, it clearly articulates that, “the chief thing is God’s Word and ordinance or command . . . This must always be emphasized, for thus we can thoroughly refute all the babbling of the seditious spirits who, contrary to the Word of God, regard the sacraments as something that we do.”18 This is a crucial liturgical rubric with regard to the Sacrament of

18 LC V, 467:4, 6 (emphasis added). 11 the Altar. It’s none of our doing. It’s all God’s doing and giving through the

Verba Domini. “It is the Word, I say, that makes this a sacrament . . . by virtue of them the elements are truly the body and blood of Christ. For as Christ’s lips

[Mund] speak and say, so it is; he cannot lie or deceive.”19 “Because the words are there, and they impart it [forgiveness] to us!”20 “This treasure is conveyed and communicated to us in no other way than through the words ‘given and shed for you’ . . . yet it [salvation’s Calvary benefits] cannot come to us in any other way than through the Word . . . by the oral Word . . . the whole gospel . . . offered to us through the Word . . . this treasure is fully offered in the words.”21 Nothing at all about our words, our praying, our imitating. That’s not the Gospel. What

Jesus gives with His words “for you for the forgiveness of sins” is the Gospel.

Dr. Luther came to this conclusion from a hermeneutical discovery with regard to the Gospel / Absolution, namely, that the Word actually does and gives what it says (e.g. Isaiah 55; Roman 1:17) Prior to this reformational discovery, Dr.

Luther ran with the ancient understanding of language that came mainly from the Stoics. This ancient Stoic way of thinking about language strongly influenced

St. Augustine’s hermeneutic of signification that even to this day is how most people think language operates. According to the Stoic way of thinking, language is a system of signs that point to a thing, a state of affairs, or express an emotion.

The bottom line, however, is that the sign (signum), understood as a statement or as an expression, is not the thing itself (ding / res). Dr. Luther breaks from this.

“Let there be light.” God speaks and it happens. “This is my Body. This is my

19 Ibid., 468:10, 14. 20 Ibid., 469:22. 21 Ibid., 469:29-470:36. 12

Blood.” Jesus speaks and it is. “For the forgiveness of your sins.” What He promises He gives.22

Consequently, when the Western liturgy mixed Christ’s words with our words,

His actions with our actions, His giving with our giving, so that it was the

“sacrifice” of the Mass or our work for God, the Gospel was not properly distinguished from the Law. Faith is then extinguished. And so Dr. Luther revises the liturgy for the sake of the Gospel and the life of faith. “We must turn our eyes and hearts simply to the institution of Christ and this alone . . . For in that word, an in that word alone, reside the power, the nature, and the whole substance of the mass.”23 To set the Verba Domini in the context of human praying or human offering is like embedding most holy words in a heathen temple: “From here on [from the offertory in the Roman Mass] smacks ad savours of sacrifice. And the words of life and salvation are embedded in the midst of it all, just as the ark of the Lord once stood in the idol’s temple, next to

Dagon . . . Let us, therefore repudiate everything that smacks of sacrifice, together with the entire canon [Eucharistic Prayer] and retain only that which ‘is pure and holy and so order our mass.”24 All that matters “is that the Words of

Institution should be kept intact and that everything should be done by faith.”25

22 This hermeneutical insight is repeated in Dr. Luther’s 1528 “Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper,” (LW 36:181ff.). For example: “So his word is not merely a word of imitation, but a word of power which accomplishes what it expresses, Psalm 33, ‘He spoke, and it came to be,’” (181). that goes into the confession of the FC, SD, VII regarding the consecration. 23 1520 “Babylonian Captivity,” LW 36:36. 24 1523, “An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg,” LW 53:26. 25 Ibid., 31. 13

Why? Because “in the mass we give nothing to Christ but only receive from him.”26

Everything that smacks of sacrifice includes our prayers. “We must therefore sharply distinguish the testament and sacrament itself from the prayers we offer at the same time.”27 Oh, come on! Surely a few prayers won’t hurt. Let’s not take things to extremes. Dr. Luther will not let anyone deter him from the Verba

Domini. “For unless we firmly hold that the mass is the promise or testament of

Christ, as the words clearly say, we shall lose the whole gospel and all its comfort.

Let us permit nothing to prevail against these words . . . for they contain nothing about a work or a sacrifice.”28 “Therefore these two things – mass and prayer, sacrament and work, testament and sacrifice – must not be confused; for the one comes from God to us through the ministration of the priest and demands our faith, the other proceeds from our faith to God through the priest and demands his hearing. The former descends, the latter ascends.”29 “Everything depends on these words . . . Language cannot express how great and mighty these words are, for they are the sum and substance of the whole gospel.”30

And so when the Formula settles the heated disputes surrounding the Lord’s

Supper, the clear teaching of Holy Scripture confessed by Dr. Luther is upheld.

The authors of the Formula honor their spiritual father. They quote the questions and answers from the Small Catechism as well as a portion from the

26 1520, “A Treatise on the New Testament, that is the Holy Mass,” LW 35:93. 27 ”Babylonian Captivity,” LW 36:50. 28 Ibid., 51. 29 Ibid., 56. 30 1523, “The Adoration of the Sacrament,” LW 36:277. 14

Large Catechism.31 “Dr Luther in his Great Confession and especially in his Brief

Confession on the Supper defended the formula that Christ used in the first

Supper with great zeal and seriousness . . . In the same way, the position of

Luther recounted here is based upon the unique, firm immovable, indubitable rock of truth from the Words of Institution in the holy, divine Word.”32

When the Verba Domini are recited “Christ himself exercises his power through these spoken words, which are still his Word, by virtue of the power of the first institution . . . because of his command in which he has told us to speak and to do and has attached his own command and deed to our speaking,”33

“through our ministry or office.”34 The Verba Domini: “this word is the whole gospel”35 for you for the forgiveness of your sins. Faith receives what Jesus says and gives. In this way we honor our father in the faith this Lent and Easter and at the same time we proclaim His all-atoning death for us until He comes in glory on the Last Day to usher us into the eternal wedding feast of the Lamb.

In these last days of great distress Grant us, dear Lord, true steadfastness That we keep pure till life is spent Your holy Word and Sacrament (#585:2 LSB)

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

Rev. Brent W. Kuhlman, S.T.M. Trinity Lutheran Church, Murdock, NE

31 FC, SD, VII, 596:20-23. 32 Ibid., 600:40, 42. 33 Ibid., 606:75; 607:78. 34 Ibid., 607:77. 35 1523, “The Adoration of the Sacrament,” LW 36:288. 15