A Stewardship Renaissance?

I received an email from the Synod. I quote a portion of it, "He also spoke about the recently released report of the Synod's Blue Ribbon Task Force for Funding the Mission and its recommendations, especially that a 'stewardship renaissance' take place in the Synod, and that ways be sought to increase unrestricted giving in the LCMS." A stewardship renaissance, huh? Interesting. This sounds an awful lot like money is becoming an idol for us as a synod. How about a Gospel renaissance or a doctrinal renaissance? That is what we need. If we preach and teach the pure and unadulterated Gospel and administer the Sacraments according to the institution of Christ, the money will follow. Everything will follow. Our priorities seem to be completely mixed up. I wonder if they realize how ridiculous a "stewardship renaissance" actually sounds? Just my humble opinion. Lord have mercy!

The New Hymnal

I want to thank CPH for making such an appealing looking new hymnal. From the outside, it looks like something you want and need. However, what is on the inside leaves something to be desired. Our congregation uses both TLH and LW and we have little desire to go to a new hymnal. The only thing that would have drawn us into considering using it might have been if what we love about TLH was in the new hymnal. All the good hymns, as well as, the services of TLH included with some newer expressions of reverent and confessional hymnody. However, that is just not the case. Now, they say that the TLH service and TLH hymns are in the new hymnal. Some are and some are not! The TLH service is the TLH service, with all the "thee"s and "thou"s in there! I have heard for years that I should not support using language that is out-dated and not relevant to the generation of today. What they fail to understand is that the language of TLH is the language of the church. The "thee's" and the "thou's" take us out of the world and into the church. Holding onto the TLH language is far more than just something done because we are comfortable with or used to it. We hold on to TLH because the hymns are superior and the language is churchly. Why did the editorial committee choose to keep some of the old language and disregard other parts of it? It makes no sense. It seems arbirtary. On the other hand, I want to thank some of the modern hymn writers for their contribution. We plan on using them in the future. May God bless our Synod!