Cyberstones-A Lutheran Blog

Comments...

• Mar 28, 2009 11:13:13 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Rev. George Borghardt
  I wanted to take a second again and apologize for the offense that I caused...
  
  My posts, while intending to be funny, were way over the top. I'm very very very sorry. The sharpness of the Law that I preach in my sermons does not work in blogging.
  
  I'm going to apologize again specifically to Pastor Petersen. I'm sorry for very immature comments and any slanderous remarks that I have made in the past. My humor again has come off as punkish. I'm sorry. Please, forgive me. If there can be a gift in all of this, it can be found in our reconcilation. Your forgiveness can bring all of this to an end, Dave. Please forgive me.
  
  It was never my intention to harm Higher Things at all. For this, I'm very very sorry.
  
  In Christ,
  
  Pastor Borghardt
  • Mar 28, 2009 13:47:13 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Petersen
    Dear Pastor Borghardt,
    
    You have my forgiveness and always have.
    
    Yours in Christ,
    
    Pastor Petersen
    • Mar 28, 2009 14:50:54 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Rev. George F. Borghardt III
      AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
• Mar 28, 2009 10:19:39 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Sandra Ostapowich
  I have disparaged the use of rose vestments and those who wear them. I have failed to keep my personal sense of humor and cynicism in check and have hurt others with it. In so doing, I have harmed the reputation of Higher Things and those of my friends in it.
  
  I'm sorry.
  
  Also posted publicly on my blog.
  • Mar 28, 2009 13:47:58 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Petersen
    Thank you.
    • Mar 28, 2009 15:07:38 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Sandra Ostapowich
      Pr. Petersen,
      
      Please forgive me.
      • Mar 29, 2009 05:13:19 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Petersen
        Sandra,
        
        I forgive you.
        
        Pastor Petersen
        • Mar 29, 2009 10:04:14 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Sandra Ostapowich
          Amen.
        • Mar 29, 2009 07:52:20 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Sandra Ostapowich
          Amen.
• Mar 24, 2009 21:03:38 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Bethany Tanis
  I just posted on this same issue on Pastor Esget's blog, but I'll do the same here. I know absolutely none of the people involved in this debate, but after accidentally coming across it while surfing the Lutheran web I read the blogs posts by Ms. O and Pastor Borghardt. I am very, very sad and completely disgusted by the tone of the discussion and can only assume something else is really going on here. Honestly, I can't even begin to imagine how something this nasty grew out of something so inconsequential. For the record, before I knew there was any debate I was looking at this blog and noticed the pictures. I looked at them and was happy to see a congregation had purchased a nice set of vestments for what looked like a reverant celebration of the Divine Service. I can't quite understand how anyone saw anything else, but, then again, I suppose it's hard to get in someone else's shoes. In any case, I am deeply saddened and disgusted with the violent nature of this controversy.
  Bethany Tanis
• Mar 24, 2009 20:07:20 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Weedon
  ACK! It was supposed to read: be NOT ashamed of your pink!
• Mar 24, 2009 20:06:11 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Weedon
  David,
  
  Pity sake, this controversy is the silliest thing I've read in a long time. God bless you for your commitment to the beauty of the Lutheran Liturgy. If ever there were something that Augsburg Confessors have zero business arguing about this is it. I am thinking our behavior as Lutheran Christians in even bringing the topic up for debate calls rather for black - for sackcloth and ashes. We ought not be giving the enemies of the Gospel the opportunity to rejoice.
  
  Kind regards - and be ashamed of your pink, er, ROSE!
  
  Will
  • Mar 24, 2009 20:51:26 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - boaz
    Ms. Ostapowitch is the one who brought it up for debate. Can you explain why you think Ms. Ostapowitch's bringing up the topic calls for sackloth and ashes? Isn't it a good idea to examine our practices to make sure they accord with Lutheran doctrine?
    
    The subject of the controversy is silly. The way many individuals--pastors even-- have made harsh speculation about motives and publicly called for repentence is a very serious matter. Do those actions also call for sackloth and ashes?
    
    
    • Mar 24, 2009 21:58:12 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - helen
      Ms SandraO is indeed the one who brought it up "for debate." Instead of consulting an antique RC source and then making rude insinuations she might have asked the Lutherans using rose paraments why they chose to do so.
      
      And to think that some people equate "Higher Things" with "high church"! I'd be sitting here laughing if I didn't realize how much joy Sandra & Co. have given to ***usFirst!
      Finally, there is something else to spread on the blogs instead of the last "Issues" fiasco.
      
      Why should anyone think that a woman as extensively educated as Sandra should need an explanation in advance?
      I wasn't raised with these colors but I know about them.
      
      I'm sorry it's being dragged over to WT but I hope it dies quickly there.
      
      Thanks for the pictures, Pr. Petersen.
      Helen
      
      
      • Mar 25, 2009 01:02:44 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - boaz
        She might have asked privately, but she didn't. Is that deserving of public rebuke and calls for repentence by a number of pastors and laypersons?
        
        Why would you laugh at higher things? and what is ***usFirst? Why don't you want them to be joyful?
        • Mar 25, 2009 13:22:15 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Helen

          Quote:

          Public [error] deserves public rebuke.

          If Sandra had written to Pr. Petersen privately instead of posting erroneous information on her public blog, none of us would ever have read this.
          
          Higher Things poses as at least slightly more "Lutheran" than the rest of us. That Sandra could write what she did makes that seem unlikely. (I won't touch the more rude comments from the rev borghardt.) Others on the HT board could have helped, I should think.
          I'm <b>not laughing</b> because it's sad that a wedge should be driven (out of ignorance) between confessional Lutherans.
          
          The other question makes me wonder if I'm talking to lcms; if not, it needn't be answered.
          • Mar 25, 2009 13:54:13 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Sandra Ostapowich
            Helen,
            
            You may want to read subsequent posts on both my and Pr. Borghardt's blogs.
            
            This has all been blown way out of proportion and Satan has had his way with gossip and breaking of the 8th commandment. I, for one, have apologized for my part in it.
            
            The silence today is deafening. And disappointing.
            • Mar 25, 2009 15:50:21 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - helen
              Sandra,
              I came in late and probably shouldn't have come it at all.
              No doubt we've all learned something, the hard way.
              Let's try to do better.
              God bless!
              Helen
              • Mar 25, 2009 16:08:34 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Sandra Ostapowich
                Amen.
• Mar 24, 2009 18:58:38 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Boaz
  The lack of charity on both sides of this argument is alarming.
  
  Shouldn't "putting the best construction on everything" mean we should give everybody the benefit of the doubt until someone has made it absolutely impossible to do so? Especially on the internet when tone and attitude disappear behind emotionless text.
  
  I propose a new internet rule for Lutherans: nobody will be publicly accused of heresy or called on to repent until the person has been asked to explain or clarify, and then, if the answer is still not satisfactory, private attempts to address the sin are made in accordance with Matthew 18. If somebody has sinned, they may graciously withdraw their comments and without humiliation.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  • Mar 24, 2009 19:45:27 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - boaz
    In short, we as Confessional Lutherans who preach Christ Crucified should make every attempt to Confess Christ by the manner in which we discuss our doctrines and practices.
    
    
    • Mar 24, 2009 20:17:31 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Rev. Mark Buetow
      Oh we should, we should!
      
      But if nothing else we're acting pretty much like Jesus' disciples here. He's going to the cross and they're arguing who's greatest. He heads toward suffering and we're mad we didn't call "shotgun" like Jame and John for whom positions of glory were not prepared anyway. He's sweating blood and we're snoozing.
      
      And yet, our Lord sent them out to be preachers.
      
      And He sent some of us to be preachers. Crazy, isn't it?
      
      Some blood that must be to cover all this!
      
      Pr. Buetow
• Mar 24, 2009 18:31:19 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Boaz
  Ostapowich raised a good point. If you are going to introduce a practice that is closly connected to Rome that is highly unusual in Lutheran practice, you should have an explanation ready for it. Importing a practice used by Romans to give thanks for Papal gifts is highly likely to cause offense. If no explanation is offered, speculation of motives can be expected.
  
  The only explanation offered here could be used to justify many bad practices. Is the idea so long as a congregation thinks a practice is "a celebration of God's love in Christ" and sees it as "beautiful and reverent", it's okay? Of course color doesn't matter. But motivations do matter.
  
  Here, what is the basis for using pink vestments? Is it purely Roman practice? If so, is there a legitimate reason for using to their practice as the standard for appropriate Lutheran practice? Did Lutherans ever do this? Do you wear any vestment your congregation donates?
  
  If there is a good Lutheran justification for the practice, great. The pink vestments are beautiful. I won't question them. I just want to know the reason for the choice.
  
  And, if you take offense at "fancy schmancy" and
  • Mar 24, 2009 19:28:54 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - ER Fickel
    Charity indeed.
    
    One will look hard to find charity in the posts to which Father Petersen linked. If those authors really wanted an explanation, the place to ask was here. Cyberstones is an open comment blog. Ms. Ostapowich and Fr. Borghart and Mr. Lemon could have all asked for an explanation right here, and Father Petersen would have surely answered.
    
    Instead of that quite simple course, they all chose quite another path, a course not so charitable.
    
    -ERF
    • Mar 24, 2009 19:34:07 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - boaz
      Nothing wrong with Ostapowitch asking for further clarification on their own blog. I agree Ostapowitch could have worded her comments more charitably. I don't see any justification for Borghardt's accusation of pride and arrogance.
      
      I do think Ostapowitch has a point that hasn't been addressed yet. What's the Lutheran motivation for pink vestments?
      • Mar 24, 2009 19:42:47 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Tim Schellenbach
        Here's what I posted in the original thread on Madre's Missives. I can see how it got lost in the avalanche of responses there, so I'm reposting it here.

        Quote:

        (Full disclosure: Our Savior of Norwood Park doesn't have rose paraments or vestments, so I wore purple, but I would have no problem wearing rose if we had it, just as I have no problem - along with most other LCMS congregations - lighting a rose colored candle on Gaudete Sunday)
        
        The reason why lots of people reacted with the "freedom in the Gospel" argument was because it was precisely the Christian freedom of those who happen to have and wear rose paraments that was impugned by the original blog post. Redeemer (of which I was a member during my seminary years) did not previously have rose paraments and vestments. Someone donated some. Showing them off as a really cool gift by one of God's people is not necessarily any more problematic than is showing off a new crucifix or really cool painting or anything else.
        
        Now, as to how the rose color confesses the Gospel. The Introit for Laetare (which is where the name comes from, too) has as its antiphon an exhortation to rejoice with Jerusalem, those who are fed by her bosom. In other words, Jerusalem, aka the Holy Christian Church, is depicted as the mother of believers, the provider of the pure milk of His Word (thus mirroring, btw, the image found in the Quasimodogeniti Introit a few weeks hence) to us. This theme is reinforced by the Gospel lesson found in John 6, in which Jesus feeds his people miraculously, in words highly reminiscent of the institution of the greater meal in which He feeds us with His body and blood.
        
        In Europe, Laetare has been celebrated as their equivalent of mothers' day for this very reason, in connection precisely with how mothers are an icon of the Bride of Christ in their providence of good things for their children. The tradition of the bishop of Rome blessing roses likely stems from this mothers' day connection. It's also pretty doubtful that the rose vestments stem from the papal tradition, but in fact both relate originally to the (Gospel-filled) church-as-mother theme in the day's propers.
        
        As to the fact that the photos were posted before the sermon, while it's true that few churches have rose paraments, enough do that I doubt anyone at Redeemer (including several Seminary professors - the celebrant that day is the head librarian at Walther Library) thought it necessary to teach about it before showing off the new vestments. And as to their ornateness, there is nothing extra-special about that either in the context of Redeemer. All their sets of vestments and paraments are just as ornate and complete (including deacons' vestments, etc) as the new rose ones are.
        
        The fact is, one simply cannot anticipate every possible misunderstanding of every rite and ceremony one chooses to practice within the context of the Divine Service. If one is to teach everyone, everywhere, before posting photos of one's Divine Service on the Internet, we would never get anything done. Not to mention the fact that even the best-catechized congregation will on a given Sunday have visitors who haven't been catechized. Should this keep us from doing anything that possibly might be misunderstood? Mae genoito! That would also keep us from doing anything at all. Rather, such occasions are to be seen as "teachable moments," in which the practice and its connection to the Gospel can actually be better understood once the practice has already been seen, than in a prior explanation of something one has not seen.

        • Mar 24, 2009 20:15:06 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - boaz

          Quote:

          The reason why lots of people reacted with the "freedom in the Gospel" argument was because it was precisely the Christian freedom of those who happen to have and wear rose paraments that was impugned by the original blog post.

          I don't think anybody, including Pr. Borghardt, has impugned Christian freedom. I don't think anybody agrees here that we have Christian freedom to adopt practices that do not accord with our doctrine. I think the practice was questioned (I don't know whether Ostapowitch intended to impugn or not) because of its questionable relation to doctrine. If it arose out of recognition to papal authority, it is reasonable to question the practice.
          

          Quote:

          Now, as to how the rose color confesses the Gospel. ....

          If your explanation was offered to me, I would say, thanks pastor, I think the rose colored vestments look beautiful, but I don't think I understand.
          
          This from wikipedia makes more sense to me: Gaudete Sunday anticipates the joy of the Christmas celebration, so its color is a mixture of Advent purple and Christmas white. It may also symbolize the color of early dawn.
          
          If I was offered that explanation, I'd say it sounds neat, and (if as it seems, this explanation also applies to Laetare) I think it will heighten my anticipation of Christmas and Easter.
          

          Quote:

          If one is to teach everyone, everywhere, before posting photos of one's Divine Service on the Internet, we would never get anything done. Not to mention the fact that even the best-catechized congregation will on a given Sunday have visitors who haven't been catechized. Should this keep us from doing anything that possibly might be misunderstood?
          

          Some would say yes. Uniformity and rigorous compliance with LSB avoid these issues. I think Pr. McCain has made that argument. Your argument could be used to support contemporary worship so long as the innovations complied with doctrine. I don't necessarily agree with the uniformity argument, but it has some merit.
          
          Again, the problem isn't Divine Service, it's unusual or innovative practices within Divine Service. It's because of the risk of misunderstanding that innovations should be fully explained, especially if posted on the internet.
          
          My only intent is to learn and discuss in good faith. I apologize if I unintentionally have caused offense.
          • Mar 24, 2009 22:34:31 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Braaten
            Boaz wrote: "Again, the problem isn't Divine Service, it's unusual or innovative practices within Divine Service. . . . "
            
            With all seriousness, I wasn't aware that changing the colors of paraments and vestments to suit the theme or tenor of the day or liturgical season was unusual or innovative. In fact, I consider it quite status quo. Now, this particular change, perhaps, is not the norm within the LCMS, I'm not sure it makes it unusual for Christendom or innovative.
            
            With respect to the donation of the golden rose that accompanied Laetare Sunday in Roman Churches, the article quoted in the original blog post by Sandra Ostapowich was not entirely clear which practice came first. When, however, you look into the embedded links in that same article to Laetare and Gaudete Sundays, it seems that the golden rose donation followed not preceded the tradition of rose-colored paraments and vestments for those Sundays. I wonder if the donation practice is really of concern for us, the last time one was given was the late nineteenth century. What's more, it isn't entirely unusual for the church to honor laity with a church service of some sort and a token of appreciation.
            
            Maybe I'm being overly simplistic theologically, but I really don't understand the what's at issue here.
            • Mar 25, 2009 00:59:29 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - boaz
              Ms. Ostapowitch's concern, construed charitably, was whether this practice conforms to our doctrine. It's a reasonable concern as we frequently ask if of church growthers.
              
              What's my concern is, is how we treat each other when discussing doctrine, and more importantly, how our pastors conduct themselves online.
              
              I've never heard of rose vestments. If my pastor started using them and all I could find about them was that they were used by RCC in connection with its ancient practice of blessing and giving of a golden rose to a faithful RCC prince or church, I'd be concerned about my pastor's motivation.
              
              When the reasonable concern was raised, albeit in a slightly snarky fashion, several pastors harshly and publicly rebuked Ms. Ostapowich and told her to repent, and a number of others joined in.
              
              Such a public rebuke from pastors is totally out of line when it can be addressed privately. Did all of those condemning Ms. Ostapowich first contact her privately and address her concerns?
              
              
              • Mar 25, 2009 07:08:37 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Braaten
                Yes, I understand that this was the case. But, I believe this has been shown to be false: that it is in conformity with our doctrine based upon what others have said as well as my own posts. Is this unsatisfactory and why?
              • Mar 25, 2009 06:02:31 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Jane
                This is a very interesting mischaracterization of what happened.
                • Mar 28, 2009 17:27:20 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - boaz
                  It's called putting the best construction on everything
                  
                  
                  
                  
  • Mar 24, 2009 19:07:41 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - boaz
    Sorry, forgot to finish my thought.
    
    If you take offense at "fancy schmancy" and the tone of her post, that is an entirely different issue than the substance of what she is raising. It is difficult to correctly determine the tone and attitude a person intends their internet comments to have. As I suggest above, a private message will often clarify things and give a chance for correction of misplaced snark before things get out of hand.
• Mar 24, 2009 16:49:07 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - The Common Sense Mom
  I was too upset to read all of the horrible posts by Sandra and Stan. All I can say is they should be ashamed of themselves to say such nasty and uncharitable things about Pastor Petersen. Whether their writings were sincere or "taken out of context", there should be an apology given.
  
  If anyone has taken the time to get to know Pastor Petersen you would also know that his intent is definately not on self-glorification by adorning himself in whatever color chasuble his church sees fit to provide for him. Rather, his intent is to always focus on Christ and to have Christians rejoice in His sacrafice and repent of their sins. He preaches faithfully and is fair and kind to all but not afraid to call people out when they are in the wrong.
  
  I suggest to Sandra and Stan to stop right now...you're digging a deeper whole. Just say you're sorry.
  
  The Common Sense Mom
  www.blog.thecommonsensemom.com
• Mar 24, 2009 15:29:30 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Sandra Ostapowich
  In hopes of explaining my perspective of the post in question, about which a lot of assumptions have been made, I have written this new post. This has been blown way out of proportion and I am sorry that it has gone in the directions it has and people have been hurt.
• Mar 24, 2009 14:40:49 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Rev. M Erickson
  Pr. Petersen,
  Thank you for sharing your congregation's joy and the reverence brought about by the body and blood of Christ.
  
  What I really like about the paraments and vestments is that you kept the Rose color subdued. The vestments are manly and royal. Yours are the best I have seen. The designer of these paraments and vestments really did a nice job.
• Mar 24, 2009 14:03:44 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Rev. Mark Buetow
  Pr. Petersen,
  
  You are right indeed that one should not presume to address sins we think are in another's heart. Therefore it is troubling that you disparaginlgy link to two blog posts that neither address nor call out any individual or church.
  
  I also must disagree with the notion that any discussion of a particular liturgical practice--even a spirited one--is necessarily some insidious despising of any pastor or church that adopts that practice.
  
  While the discussion related to the blog posts on our site was certainly lively, and perhaps degenerated into something antagonistic, I do not think that was the intention of either of the posts. If anything, the posts remind us that we must always base whatever practice we adopt on the clear confession of the Gospel.
  
  I give you and your congregation joy of your new paraments and vestments and am pleased that they may be used to the edification of Christ's people and above all the clear confession of Christ and the forgiveness of sins delivered in the means of grace.
  
  Laetare blessings in Christ,
  Rev. Mark Buetow
  Higher Things Internet Services Executive.
  • Mar 24, 2009 15:07:06 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Josh Osbun
    Rev. Buetow,
    
    These phrases appeared on those blogs:
    
    - "fancy-schmancy rose vestments,"
    - "trying to show that we are Lutheraner-than-thou by the size of our vestment collection,"
    - "the uber-special ones," and
    - "our liturgical purity and correctness," from Madre
    
    - "we were so proud of our 'liturgical' threads and playing dress up,"
    - "how dare someone catch us magnifying ourselves and not Christ,"
    - "the issue is our pride and arrogance,"
    - "we can be the great defenders of liturgical colors,"
    - "Look at me! I'm wearing rose! I call it 'rose.' I'm a real Lutheran. You and your violet are not,"
    - "we play ecclesiastical dress up,"
    - "it's not about pink, boys...It's about how we are so very proud of the colors we wear," and
    - "take your 'rose' vestments and put them back in the closet" from Bloghardt.
    
    Would you kindly explain how these phrases work to avoid a sentiment of antagonism?
    • Mar 24, 2009 18:17:19 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Rev. Mark Buetow
      I really do believe that those statements could only be antagonistic to the flesh who revels in such things. A Christian who is free in Christ to wear rose or not wear rose or whatever is not offended.
      
      It is of no use to stomp around in the muddy pits of one another's sinful hearts, looking for motives, trying to identify targets, and so on. The target of any aspersion ought always to be our sinful flesh and the defense of any action or legitimate practice ought to be the glad and happy confession of the Gospel.
      
      The sinful nature loves to play the victim and be the one offended. The Christian does not. The Christian rejoices in Christ regardless of what anyone has to say. The Christian knows they will be crucified as Jesus was.
      
      If someone's behavior causes me to be indignant, then I'm guessing repentance is my best course because I'm fearing or loving something other than the Lord if I'm getting all worked up over it. That's certainly how my flesh operates!
      
      One of the great dangers of the Internet is it's enticing temptation to say to others things we would only think and never say in person. Arguing impersonally has that effect.
      
      Be that as it may, the blood of Christ was shed even for those who like to blog and discuss blogs!
      
      In Christ,
      Rev. Mark Buetow
      Higher Things Internet Services
      • Mar 24, 2009 19:22:38 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Rev. Thomas C. Messer
        Mark,
        
        With all due respect, you need to seriously re-think your argumentation here, brother.
        
        I was offended by what I read in those posts, and it had absolutely nothing to do with my flesh loving to revel in such things. I was offended because, whether intentional or not, the loud and clear message being delivered was that those who had posted pictures of rose paraments and vestments were guilty of seeking the glory of men and of diminishing the glory of Christ, etc.
        
        I'm with Biesel; I really was quite shocked to read what had been written. Sandra's first post would have been just fine had she just stuck to trying to discover why Lutherans had adopted what her research led her to believe was a "very Roman" practice. But, she didn't wait to hear an answer and, instead, went on to make some comments that were unfairly harsh and judgmental. This led to the heated conversation which followed, in the midst of which Stan Lemon chimed in a few times with some extremely ridiculous comments, which just added fuel to the fire. Then, George added even more fuel with his posts.
        
        What was said and how it was said is what offended me, Mark. You can't come along after the fact and play the "Come on, everyone, let's just focus on Jesus" card (which is what George did, too), without first dealing with the damage and hurt reputations these posts have caused, 'cause then your "let's focus on Jesus" admonition is more than shallow.
        
        Sandra has apologized. Great. So should Stan and George. So should you for accusing those who have been offended by your accusation that their original offense must mean that they "revel in such things."
        
        In Christ,
        Tom
      • Mar 24, 2009 18:54:23 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Tim Schellenbach
        Actually, the statements Josh objected to were themselves objectively "stomp[ing] around in the muddy pits of one another's hearts." If those who made those statements had said something to the effect of, "there is a danger that we could get caught up in these things," rather than simply associating them with those who choose to outwardly wear rose vestments, their point would be well-taken, and indeed Sandra in today's post said it the right way. And with that caveat, the point is well-taken. But the caveats weren't there to start with. The motivations and contents of the hearts of those who wore rose on Sunday were objectively called into question. And I am glad that Sandra, at least, has now corrected herself.
        
        I'm not judging Sandra's or Pr. Borghardt's hearts here; I'm interpreting, according to the normal rules of the English language, what appeared on my computer screen when I pointed my browser to their blogs. That they did not intend their posts this way doesn't change the fact that this is, in fact, what they said.
        
        Now, as to your fourth paragraph, are you saying that if someone blasphemes God's name in front of me I shouldn't be indignant and call that person to repentance, but only be repentant myself? If someone physically assaults my wife I shouldn't seek to defend her but only be repentant for making an idol out of her? I'm sorry, but this argument doesn't really fly.
        
        Intentional or not, the motivations of everyone who wears rose vestments were called into question, objectively, in plain text, on their respective blogs. That Sandra and Pr. Borghardt perhaps didn't intend to do so, speaks more of mistakes made in the wording their posts, than of any lack of charity among those of us who were offended by the results. I'm glad Sandra recognized this and apologized, and I do agree that we all need to examine ourselves to be sure that our old flesh isn't being like the scribes who with their long robes and long prayers are, in their hearts, glorifying themselves rather than Jesus.
      • Mar 24, 2009 18:51:41 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Josh Osbun
        You said, "I really do believe that those statements could only be antagonistic to the flesh who revels in such things."
        
        Two implications may be drawn from this statement:
        
        (1) You acknowledge that these words are antagonistic.
        (2) You accuse anyone who might take exception to these words as being a reveler in vestments, whether they actually are or not.
        
        Are these peaceable, charitable, and hospitable words? Are they loving, caring, and gentle? Would you speak these words when a parishoner came in for absolution? Would you speak these words when a brother sinned against you and asked for your forgiveness? Would you speak these words to someone who was in the middle of a family crisis and needed comfort and solace? Would you encourage your children to behave in this manner?
        
        Let me ask my initial question another way: how are these words to be commended as acceptable from one Christian brother to another?
    • Mar 24, 2009 15:26:12 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Jane
      Thanks for posting this, Josh. I was going to do the same thing, The disingenuous tone of some of the comments that have been made here, there, & on Facebook is truly amazing.
      
      Words mean what they mean.
  • Mar 24, 2009 14:29:46 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Keith Reeder
    Rev. Buetow,
    
    I fail to see anything disparaging in Rev. Petersen's posting of the HT links. They direct the reader to the background for his own post, and he merely noted that they provided a different view. Am I missing something here?
    
    Regards,
    Rev. Keith Reeder
• Mar 24, 2009 12:53:54 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Paul Beisel
  I am glad you included those links. I just couldn't believe what I was reading. All I could think of were these words of St. Paul: Philippians 4:8 ESV "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."
  
• Mar 24, 2009 12:36:07 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - Josh Osbun
  I am curious as to what the general reaction would be if you were to purchase brand new Communionware and then post pictures of it for people to see. Would you be accused of claiming to be more "Lutheraner-than-thou" for having a new silver paten, ciborium, and pyx? Would you be accused of condemning people to hell by speaking of the chalice instead of the common cup?
  
  My father was so very excited when he told me that the new vestments and paraments were coming. He is used to seeing beauty in Church, and this was going to be a new, beautiful ceremonial for him and his fellow believers there. It was good for him, and I assume it was good for others.
  
  Your posting of pictures seems to be nothing more than sharing the joy of the congregation. The worst I can say regarding it is that you are making some of us pine for being back home. I can't understand why people would be offended by it; but then again, I may be too close to the source.
  
  I look forward to Advent.
  
  As a side note, didn't Redeemer once have rose vestments? I thought I had seen you wearing something rose-colored once that almost looked like a chasuble that had had all of the material removed from the shoulders down the arms.
  • Mar 24, 2009 19:29:30 Re: Contagious Joy and Beauty - boaz
    A better analogy would be if you purchased a tabernacle or processed on Corpus Christi sunday.
    
    (I think everybody gets this is a joke! I'm fine with both if they have Lutheran motivations.)