miscellany [ mis-uh-ley-nee], noun
1. a miscellaneous collection or group of various or somewhat unrelated items
2. a miscellaneous collection of literary compositions or pieces by several authors, dealing with various topics, assembled in a volume or book

Real Worship. This is a reposting of an article originally written in 2011. In my opinion, as a retired Air Force chaplain, it is one of the best short pieces I've ever read that focuses us on the realities and importance of worship in an ultimate sense--think about gathering to worship this Sunday after our building had been bombed into oblivion. Would you bother getting out of bed to do it? If you truly believe that we meet our Lord in a real, unique way that is unlike any other time of the week you definitely would. Unfortunately, many American Christians don't have this understanding of worship, and we are impoverished as a result.

The Myth of Technological Neutrality. Most people think that technology is neither inherently good nor bad. It just is. While it is true that almost all technology can be used for good or for evil, I agree with the author (who is not unique in his views) that technology is not neutral and much of the technology that we laud and praise (smartphones, computers in front of every student, screens everywhere) has a negative influence on our lives, individually and corporately. Not only is it not neutral, in our increasingly fragmented political culture, technology is almost always political. The author speaks from personal experience. "I spent two decades, from 1999 to 2019, in New York City, where I watched social media and smartphones change the early adopters. My reading of Neil Postman and Marshall McLuhan convinced me that 'the myth of technological neutrality' was just that. In conversations with friends, often somewhere downtown, I disputed the view that these technologies merely added technical capacities to our lives. They exerted a negative spiritual, cultural, and political effect. They were superseding better ways of being and acting, while empowering certain groups over others. I argued that the first question about any technology was what kind of people it made us into. I convinced basically no one."

Lutherans are not Protestants. Here's an interesting piece that contrasts the Creedal and Confessional view of church with the modern day Evangelical (Pr. Peters calls it Protestant, though I'm not sure I completely agree) view of authority. "Lutherans have always found themselves the odd man out at the table of religious traditions.  We seem to be Protestants but we are not.  We claim to be Catholics but we aren't Roman.  Nowhere it this more true than when it comes to our approach to authority.  It sounds like Lutherans are right there with every other Protestant in putting authority in reason.  Unless we can be shown by Scripture, we will not believe it. It almost sounds like Luther but it is not Luther.  Luther was bound by the Word that had authority over his conscience and not because of it.  Luther did not place Scripture into the realm of personal interpretation (though, to be sure, sometimes he sounded that way).  Luther believed in authority -- an authority bigger than him and bigger than the moment.  I sometimes wonder if we as Lutherans have forgotten that.  Luther was not a Protestant -- at least not in the way that term has been used since the first days of the Great Reformation.  Luther was a creedal theologian and one whose whole purpose was not to vitiate the authority of the Church but to correct that authority by placing it upon the firm foundation of Scripture.  The Reformation was and remains about authority and where it resides."