Fishpond

Now This Is Funny!

2008-09-20T08:10:00.001-07:00

Scientists in Europe constructed this 17 mile long supercollider to re-enact the Big Bang. It took more than two decades to build and cost over ten BILLION dollars. They started it up last week, and it ran for about 36 hours before it broke down. It will now require a couple of months to repair.

What a remarkable use of resources! How well built and cleverly designed! It is reminiscent of the Hubble Telescope which was put into orbit with faulty mirrors and opticals and needed to be repaired in outer space before it was useful. Don't you just love the care and precision of modern science! This is just hilarious!

Fascinating!

2008-09-09T13:26:00.001-07:00

What would you do if you had the ability to shape the perspective on the world of huge numbers of your fellow citizens?

That is the question the denizens of the so-called "Main Stream Media" have been busy trying to answer. The MSM, as it is widely known, holds the marvelous ability to shape how people see the world by both what it reports (and chooses not to report) and how it deigns to color that report. In some cases, details, like party affiliation, are highlighted, and in others, they are completely ignored. Recountings of history can include events, and assign them a significance they did not originally possess, or significant events can be ignored entirely! The power of the MSM is eeriely like that of Big Brother in the Orwell book, 1984.

So what is the MSM doing with that frightening power? They are using it to reveal, not disguise, their prejudices and errant presuppositions. Rather than quietly and craftily guide and shape public opinion, as they had for so many years, the MSM seems to have adopted the program of wildy flailing about in obvious and ridiculous ways to call attention to the complete lack of objectivity they possess, and to emphasize their utter lack of interest in anything but their own desire to deceive.

This makes for great theater! If you agree with the perspective on society and politics clearly embraced by the MSM, it is pleasing - or it should be - to see one's own prejudices so energetically endorsed. For those who hopes and dreams (or, merely their intellect) lead them to view society from a different political and social paradigm, the display undresses the naked biases and goals of the media that they once sought to hide beneath the disguise of objectivity and the stated desire to merely report (not shape) the news of the day. Those who agree can find joy in such overt endorsement, and those who disagree may find cheer in the transparency of the activism of the reportage.

Oddly, the clarity of their advocacy of a specific partisan agenda seems to have been working against the effectiveness of their effort. Even partisans on the MSM's side of the issues find themselves blushing for shame at the naked ambition and the complete disregard for fact coming from the media claiming the mantle of "truth-speakers".

Take the case of Governor Sarah Palin. She is a demonstrably respectable woman. She is bright, and her value system shines forth from her personal acts and decisions. She takes on political corruption for the benefit of the populace. Her home-grown naivete is reflected in the quaint notion that government should serve the people, and not the other way around. She carries a Downs Syndrome child full term, living out her stated convictions about the sanctity of life, and her opposition to abortion. Like the elephant in the tale by Dr. Seuss, which so many of us grew up hearing, she means what she says, and she says what she means -- or so it would appear. A decent human being, one of apparent conviction and action, Mrs. Palin has natural appeal. She seems like someone it would be nice to know personally.

But the MSM responds to her viscerally and violently. If they don't like her stand on the issues, and it seems clear that they don't, they could debate her, or simply dismiss her stance as they have so many others for so many years. But they attack her ad hominem, that is, against her person and not her opinions or her issues. The depravity of the attack is breath-taking!

What is fascinating is how this time it appears to be flashing back upon the MSM. It puts one in mind of the child's response to school-yard verbal bullying, "I'm rubber, you're glue. Everything bounces off of me and sticks on you." How very appropriate! It is about time.

The Meaning of Words

2008-09-02T07:14:00.001-07:00

Rush Limbaugh is always saying "words mean things". During the non-stop coverage of Hurricane Gustav, we became quite familiar with the phrase "Breaking News!" Judging by its continual use to introduce non-news, it appear that the phrase has been forcibly modified to mean, "Here is something we haven't mentioned in the last quarter hour or so." And, by the way, the reporters don't have to look and sound so disappointed that we did not have another disaster with Gustav the way we did with Katrina. It was an almost out-of-body sort of experience to hear the so-called "news" media repeating lies and distortions about Katrina which have since been proven to be false. Oh, for the good old days of hype and excess, eh, Shep?

I must be getting old

2008-08-11T12:13:00.001-07:00

I just read the Lutheran Witness for August 2008. I remember a time when it was a theological magazine. Today it is something else. Actually, it has been for sometime now.

In the present issue is an article of personal recollection with no apparent point, except to vent the author's memories. Of course, there was also the cutesy use of the nickname, "Shabby".

The article on marriage was nice, but it almost seemed like a set-up for the reprinting of a widely reported statement by President Kieschnick on the issue of same-sex marriage. The statement is fine, except for the unfortunate use of the term "Judeo-Christian", and the omission of the stance of the Missouri Synod that homosexual inclinations are also not according to the will of God.

The next article dealt with Mormon plural marriage. It makes no point, except to inform in a general sort of way.

Then there is an article by the CEO of the Lutheran Social Service of the South. Judging by the accompanying picture (and the first paragraph) , it takes off from the point of plural marriage to make a heart-felt appeal for dealing in a socially responsible (and culturally mandated) way with abuse of children. It is really about following society's values and doing what our laws instruct us to do.

The high point seemed as though it would be the article on Music. It highlighted a note that organists were becoming harder to find, especially in smaller parishes, but then offered no hope and no ideas workable in my situation, or other situations I am familiar with. Seemed to me that it would have been the right place to talk about the need for standard MIDI music for the parish, but no such luck.

Next was a fine advertisement for the LCMS Foundation, disguised as an article. Give more money was the message. It was followed by a full-page ad entitled, "Have You Discovered the Joy of Giving?", for the Foundation.

Then we have a heartwarming article about people who raise miniature donkeys, and apparently use the coloration of the fur on the animal's shoulders as an evangelism tool.

Then we have a discussion of suicide from the statistical and psychological points of view. No theology here, either.

I confess there was a Bible Study. I tried to read through it, but it was . . ., well, dull. But that is my problem.

And the magazine wraps up with a paean to "Fan into Flame", the fund-raising portion of the "Ablaze " program. More money. Another appeal to give.

Reading the "Official publication of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod" is depressing. There was nothing uplifting in it. Like I said, I must be getting old. I expected more.

Memories

2008-07-22T08:39:00.001-07:00

I received word the other day that one of the congregations I served in my first parish is closing its doors after a final service on August 17th. Zion Lutheran Church of Hoskins, Nebraska. The locals call it "Zion East".

I have mixed feelings about it. I loved that church and most every single member. Clem and Lorena Weich, who were the perennial youth group leaders, Herman Koepke (and his bride, Dorothy, and their children), The Andersons, and, well, too many people to name, and too long ago to be sure that I would not misspell their names or forget someone who is, in memory, precious to me. I have personal stories about most of them, and they delight me when I think about them.

I only served as pastor there for two years. These were the people who had the first shot at teaching me how to be a pastor, and they did it with great patience and love.

I don't feel badly that the congregation must close. Every congregation has a life - it is born, it lives for a time, and it "dies". When I was there almost thirty years ago, I told them that if they could not support their congregation, they should close. At that time, they stepped it up a notch, and the congregation continued. As a small farm congregation, many of whose members drove past several other Lutheran congregations to get to "their" church, slow death by attrition was almost inevitable.

I just wanted to say, "Thank God for Zion East". It sheltered the saints of God for generations, and trained more than one pastor in how to be a pastor. I buried a number of the saints in their cemetery, and baptized a few children. It was my joy and honor to serve them, and serve the Lord among them. May God bless and keep the members who still live among us, and gather us in heaven, when the time is right, to sing that song of glory before the throne!

Hypocrisy

2008-07-01T07:43:00.001-07:00

I observed many years ago that I went to the seminary to train for a job that didn't really exist in a church body that wasn't really there. I meant -- as I explained to anyone who asked -- that what I thought the parish ministry was, it wasn't. My mental picture of what a pastor was did not really resemble the reality. People did not deal with their pastors the way I did, and thought that everyone would. There was less respect. They tended to treat their pastors as oddities.

And the church I had grown up in had seemed so united and Christian, and about God and worship. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that it was not so. The church body (the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod) was all about money. Go figure. They talked about being united, but they had been divided since before my birth on theological grounds. Half of the church body did not believe the Bible was the Word of God. Some did not believe much of what the Bible teaches about Jesus. And that was almost thirty years ago.

A decade (or more) ago, I had a friend describe to me the arrogant dismissal of doctrine by a member of the Synodical missions staff. He called concern about truth and sound doctrine a "seminary mindset", and one which my friend was cautioned to dispose of as quickly as possible.

Apparently the church, which our beloved Synod's president intoned "is not your grandfather's" wasn't really my grandfather's church even back a while ago.

So, we live in a church that says that it stands to promote sound doctrine, but actually opposes it. It says that it exists to protect congregations from renegade pastors, but refuses to do so. It says that it stand to protect pastors against rogue congregations, but rather chooses to assist rogue congregations in abusing faithful pastors.

We call this the church militant. We are at war. Sadly, it seems like we are at war with one another rather than with the enemy, you know, the old evil foe. This is the place where you are trained to stand up for the truth -- and if you stand up for it, it simply makes you a target.

I do not regret for a minute that I became a pastor. I have known so many wonderful people -- and roughly as many monsters who wear their sheep disguise badly. I am what God called me to be. I gladly stand and take the arrows. I love to share the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ. I am simply not willing to pretend that the world - or the church - is anything other than what it is. And I wish that we could stop all the pretending and hypocrisy around us, at least in the church.

To that end, one must admire the fresh new openness of the Kieschnick Klan in St. Louis. They force faithful men out of their positions, fire confessional radio people, and can missionaries for the effrontery of actually doing mission work. Don't these people (the fired and abused) know that this all a con, and the synod is about money, not the Word of God? This not just not my grandfather's, it isn't really church, either. But dressed up in the disguise of religion, and the sense of "rightness" that accompanies so many in religion, they are confident that they are doing "God's work".

And He shall hold them accountable. May God have mercy on their souls.

An End to Freedom

2008-05-23T12:33:00.001-07:00

We in America are facing the end of our liberties. We still retain the right to move around freely, if we can afford the fuel. We have a limited say in who our leaders are. But it is fast slipping away.

Choosing our leaders has become something decidedly other than the American people choosing them. It is true, of course, that we almost never have had the mythical power to choose who would be president. That was done for us in smoke-filled rooms. Today our candidates are chosen by primaries.

Republican candidates are chosen in Republican primaries where independents and Democrats cross over and vote for the least offensive candidate running, and slowly squeeze conservatives out of the race. It is amusing to hear the Democrats wringing their hands over Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" in which he encourages Republicans to do the same sort of thing to prolong the Democrats' pain in the primary process. This deeply flawed and deceptive process is aided and abetted by the Mainstream Media deliberately smearing some candidates - even with deliberate untruths - and hiding and refusing to report the failings and foibles of the preferred candidates. This year the result is that there are no Republicans on the ballot, just two potential Democrats for the DFL ticket and a Democrat doppelgänger (and wannabee) as the "presumptive" Republican Candidate.

The severely flawed system has produced remarkable results in the past, such as JFK being elected by fraudulent votes in Kansas and Illinois. This year we have candidates staking out positions on issues before the primaries, and as soon as their candidacy is secured, they boldly deny their positions.

Freedom is gone when we cannot actually elect someone to do something that they say they will do and enforce their doing of it.

Most Americans, in any opinion poll, want our Immigration laws enforced. Our elected politicians stubbornly refuse to do it.

Our national security is daily eroded by elected leaders who will do and say anything, regardless of the long-term consequences. We desperately need a means of controlling their conduct -- but there is none available to us. They are not held to standards - not truth, not decency, not even the standard of the Law. Average Americans who did the things our politicians routinely get away with would be serving serious prison time.

It is facing the ugly realities that are arising in our modern society, and the sad truth of our impotence to make repairs to our system that make me so delighted I have faith in God who will make all things work out just right. Frankly, I can't imagine how to do it, even if I had the power to do so.

"Even so, Come Lord Jesus!"

Serendipity

2008-05-11T14:51:00.000-07:00

The new Lutheran Witness arrived the other day. I assume it is for the month of May. The President's page, which is now prominently featured in the front of the magazine, was all about the shortage of pastors in the Missouri Synod - how we will need more pastors each year in the next ten years than we have been producing in any year for the last 35. The arguments were true. The statistics were doubtless accurate. The appeal to action was as it has been for decades.

This week we also received notice that a number of men will graduate from the seminary and not be placed immediately because there are too few calls for graduates. I didn't write down the numbers, but it was something like 18 St. Louis Graduates and 13 from Fort Wayne that will wait for someone to need one of those hundreds of pastors that we will need each year (something like 280) badly enough to call them. Meanwhile, the roster of congregations designated as "vacant but being served" (and therefore NOT calling a pastor) continues to grow in almost every district.

Of course, we must also add to the list the four hundred (plus!) pastors still on the roster who have been removed from their calls by various mechanisms due to the unchristian actions of their congregations. Men are fired, their compensation reduced or eliminated in order to force them out without technically 'firing' them , they are harassed daily and endlessly until
they collapse physically, or emotionally, and finally resign for the sake of a) their health, b) their families, c) the well-being of the few Christians in their congregations, or d) simply to escape the pressure-cooker their office has become. All of this, of course, with the approval, and often the participation of their District Office. In one case in Missouri, a pastor was forced to resign with
a small severance package, or be terminated immediately with no severance package, and the district president announced to the Circuit Pastor's Conference that he had "never seen that sort of situation handled in such a Christian manner before". That begs the question, of course, "How can something so ungodly be done in a 'Christian manner'?".

This all follows the time tested principle that if you just keep saying the same old things, and act as though nothing is happening, nothing is changed, most people will never notice. Stories are told of Jews during World War Two who were moved from their homes to concentration camps, and did not actually understand what was happening to them until they were being herded
into the gas chambers themselves. They were told that things were fine, they were being resettled in a new place, that things were a little rough for a short while, but nothing was amiss. They didn't pay attention to much -- not that it would have helped them a great deal -- because they were constantly being reassured that things were just fine.

During the time of the Synod's greatest upheaval, the official line from the Synod was that we are united in confession and moving forward. Until the Seminex debacle in the 1970's, most everybody seemed to believe that line. Even conservatives deeply involved in the controversies considered their adversaries to be friends who had just gotten a little mis-guided. "Oh, yeah, Ott. He's always been a little like that!" And any attempt to hold one to their words or their actions that went against the official line of the Synod was labeled a violation of the Eighth Commandment, true or not! (Actually, that is still happening!)

So, this past week we heard about the sorry situation of men who trained for at least four years, sometimes eight, and found no call at the end of their training, and at the same time, and impassioned plea to encourage young men to consider training for the parish ministry because we are going to be so short-handed in the very near future. Talk about the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing!

Lord, have mercy upon us!

Another Start

2008-04-25T06:03:00.001-07:00

I am always intending to blog, but I never seem to stop to do it. I am trying something new - ScribeFire - an add-on to my Mozilla Firefox. Perhaps I can find time while I await the other things on my browser. Dial-up (which is all that is available at this address) is a pain in the sitting parts!

So, here we go with another start.

The Wonder of It All

2007-12-24T07:57:00.000-08:00

Luke 2:1-14

Now it came about in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all were proceeding to register for the census, everyone to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register, along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child. And it came about that while they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her first-born son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

And in the same region there were some shepherds staying out in the fields, and keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord suddenly stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them; and they were terribly frightened. And the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy which shall be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths, and lying in a manger." And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased."

I have heard the Christmas story every year for the fifty-seven years of my life. As a child, I memorized parts of it each year for my place in the annual Christmas program of the Sunday School. I memorized different parts each year until I had committed to memory the entire passage, from Luke 2, verse one, to verse twenty. I have sung it, and shouted it, and cried my way through it. I have preached it for over twenty years, and written several Christmas programs for Sunday Schools of parishes I have been called to pastor. Through it all, I have never gotten tired of it, nor ever lost the sense of the Wonder of it all.

It almost seems like a faerie tale. It has so many legends built up around it that many people today think that it is a legend itself. The Archbishop of the world-wide Anglican fellowship declared the Christmas narrative to be legend and fiction just this past week. It has the best qualities of a legend it is oft repeated, generally known although not generally well known, and has characters larger than life and it is filled with elements almost too fantastic to believe. It is often called "The Christmas Story." I try to avoid that phrase because it permits people to go on thinking that it is fiction. I try to be careful to call it the Christmas Narrative or the Christmas account. This re-telling of the events of that night so long ago, events of such cosmic significance, are the focus of our attention this day. Our theme is, "The Wonder of It All".

One of the things that doesn't seem to naturally occur to people as they consider the Biblical account of the birth of Jesus is how this simple narrative separates the Christian faith from so many religions, and this account from all of those myths and legends. Have you ever noticed how myths and legends begin? "Once upon a time . . .". They have no historical particularity. You cannot place them in real time and you cannot place them among real people. You cannot ever say that they really happened, nor can you often assert that nothing like it ever did happen.

But Christianity is different. The Christmas account is filled with time and place and people data that gives our faith a firm rooting in real time and history. Christmas is the first, and a very vital step, in bringing God and our salvation down to earth and reality.

God became one of us. You are dust and to dust you shall return, so said God through the Scriptures. He took on that dust for us. He stepped down from the glory of heaven and from what it is to be God and took on our humanity. He did that in Bethlehem. He humbled Himself to the form of an infant. The Wonder of it all!

Think about it! Almighty God endured becoming a helpless infant. Surely He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows! He bore every grief, not just the grief of death. On Christmas day, over two thousand years ago, God stepped out of His glory and into our humility. And there was nothing half-way about it. He did not simply become one of us, but He became a poor and helpless child, of poor and insignificant people. He was not born in a hospital, or a birthing room, or superintended by even a lowly midwife. He was born of a young girl in a stable. It puts me in mind of when I was a child and left a door open in my haste. My mother would ask, What? Were you born in a barn? Jesus would have had to answer, "Yes." Here he is, God in the flesh, born in a stable, cradled in a manger. Imagine the wonder of it all.

He had no glory that man could see. He was laid in a feed trough a hay-rack. The manger was no delightful nativity piece. It was a rough-hewn thing slapped together to hold hay or feed for the animals. The shepherds came because God could not contain Himself. Heaven burst with the joy and the glory of the plan of our salvation and the marvel of the Incarnation. "Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy which shall be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. "And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths, and lying in a manger." God announced it to mere shepherds, because He just had to tell someone. And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased." ! The wonder of it all! Not only did God come, as promised, to save His people from their sins, but He came so simple, and so humble, and so accessible. And you can bet that there were still shepherds alive who could hear someone read the words of Luke and say, "Yes, I was there!"

He not only humbled Himself to the point of flesh and poverty and ultimately suffering and dying for us, He left us the details. This is not a "Once Upon a Time" sort of yarn. This is an historical account filled with place and time and people identifiers. In those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus. We know of him! We know when he ruled, and how. We can place this man in history. We even know what his name was before he adopted the title Ceasar and called himself "Augustus". His name had been Gaius Octavius Thurinus, until Julius Caesar adopted him and he had been born in 63 B.C..

And this census was first taken when Quirinius was governing in Syria. Only a few people know today that Quirinius governed twice in Syria; once as a military governor and once as the official civil governor. One of those governings began in 8 A.D., so that would be too late for Jesus' birth. The other term was supposedly quite a while before Jesus could have been born. Some people thinks that means that the Bible is in error. Not so! The census (which the King James Version calls a tax because the census was for the purpose of assessing taxes from each region) was ordered originally while Quirinius served in his first term, which lasted until 5 B.C.. Things being what they were, it took a while for the order to be proclaimed and the actual census to happen, just in time for Jesus' birth in about 4 B.C. But many who first read or heard Luke's account would say, "Oh, the census ordered during the governorship of Quirinius in Syria. Yeah, I remember that!"

God has provided us with detail in time and place and people so that we can identify who and where and how in history. All of this was so that we might know for sure from this vantage in history, nearly two thousand years later, that it really happened. Jesus was born at an identifiable time in history, lived among people and through events we know about outside of our religion, walked in places you can visit today, if you wish. The details tell us that it is no myth, no legend, no work of fiction, but history that God came down to rescue us.

God got down to accomplishing that rescue three decades later. He took on our sins with all their shame and guilt, and suffered crucifixion. He was whipped and beaten, spit upon, cursed and mocked. He was nailed rudely to the cross and hung between heaven and earth betrayed and murdered by man, forsaken and punished by God. He endured it all for us and for our sins, to redeem us from sin and death, so that He might forgive us our sins and give us eternal life with Him. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.

"Peace" is the word the angels sang to the Shepherds on that Christmas night so long ago. The sang of peace with God and peace from our sins and the condemnation due to us because of them - given to us in Christ. That is why the angels sang of it. And the judgment of well-pleasing is the judgment that is ours in Christ. He was Well-pleasing to His Father at His Baptism, as He began His public ministry. And He was well-pleasing to His Father on the Mount of Transfiguration as He began the descent into Jerusalem and to the cross. When our sins are forgiven, that is when God declares us well-pleasing to Him in Christ, and we are at peace with Him and at peace with one another in Christ. The blessing sung by the angels was nothing other than the Gospel, only in words that those who do not know the Gospel could not decipher. That is why the world loved the "Peace on earth, goodwill toward men", but despise the Prince of Peace, and reject the gift of Peace which He brings.

But even with all the details provided and the wonderful message of the promises of the Gospel, it is hard to believe, and many do not. Even from within the church, many call this miracle of grace a myth, a legend, or, worse yet, a symbol, and they deny the saving reality of God come into the flesh and the reality of the need to be saved. Outside the church they often don't even pay Christ any attention. Christmas is, to them, a nuisance, or a holiday of human good will and good works, a holiday for children's stories about Santa and Rudolph, and a traditional occasion of gift-giving. Unbelievers either in the church or outside of it are in grave danger for only those who know the truth and place their trust in Jesus Christ have eternal life. Jesus has purchased that salvation for everyone, paying with His own life and His own sufferings and His own blood. Those who would be saved need only take God at His Word, and trust Him, but those who reject Jesus, or His historical reality, or their own need for salvation, are lost.

But we have heard the song of the angels, announcing the glory of God, that He has sent His Son to be born among us Immanuel, God with us. We have heard it through the ears of the shepherds, and have seen it all through the eyes of the Apostles to the bitter end. And tonight we rejoice in it. This is the good news of a great joy, our Savior has been born. Our sins have been lifted off from our shoulders. We have the assurance of God's love and abiding concern. Let us rejoice tonight and sing with the angels of the glory of God which is His indescribable love for us and His remarkable and glorious grace which worked our salvation! Oh, the wonder of it all!

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Amen

Just a Thought

2007-09-27T17:19:00.000-07:00

I have great respect for the author of the blog. I agree with him on so many things, and I cannot really take issue with anything substantive at the moment. It just struck me tonight: "Cyberbrethren:A Lutheran Blog" is misnamed.

The blog is clearly the blog of a Lutheran, but it is not so clearly Lutheran itself. It represents the interests and opinions of a Lutheran, but it is audacious hubris to say that the blog itself is Lutheran.

Mind you, I named the web site I started well over a decade ago, "The Confessional Lutheran Web Page", so who is to talk? It may be similar to the pot referencing the carbon build-up on the lower surface of the kettle - presumably both having been well-used over an open fire.

Hmmmmm.

Preaching

2007-08-31T07:39:00.000-07:00

The debate on how one goes about preaching has heated up just a little recently. There is really no reason for a debate. The man called to be the pastor, the seelsorger, of the congregation should be quite clear on the task. He is to think of what he does, what he has been called to do, as a seelsorger (a curate of souls) and a shepherd (for that is what the word “pastor” means).

When one begins to think that their job is to simply proclaim the naked law and the naked Gospel, they have ceased being a pastor and taken on the role of an evangelist, and that only in the modern sense of the word. A shepherd does not create sheep, and one who is the “curate of souls” does not go about creating patients, but taking care of the ones who are his assigned lot. His lot, of course, is assigned by the Lord, which Lutherans believe is accomplished by the call. The Lord, then, adds to or subtracts from the “cure” (an old word meaning the district or persons assigned to the spiritual care of a clergyman) by calling individuals into His family by conversion, and calling them home to Himself in eternity by what is known as death of the body.

Between those two events - the call into faith and the call to eternity - the pastor has the care of such souls as His responsibility. He is equipped with three tasks and two sets of tools with which to accomplish this care. The tasks are preaching, teaching, and administering the Sacraments. Note that these three tasks are intertwined, not individual and self-standing tasks. The tools with which these tasks, and the entire cure (or care) of the soul, is to be accomplished are The Word of God and the Holy Sacraments, namely Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and, whether you count it as Word or sacrament, Absolution. I left the word “holy” out of the names in order to avoid the modern offense of seeming to be too “catholic” and because there is little point in redundancy. If it is the Word of God, or worked by His Word, it is holy, and simply saying or not saying the word does not alter that condition.

When one considers the task of the pastor in the light of the call to be curate of souls, the issue of whether one preaches to teach or preaches to convert disappears. No proper sermon ignores the Gospel, and yet there is more to caring for the flock than simply announcing forgiveness. The flock of God needs to be armed against the devil, the world, and their own sinful flesh. That armor is applied by the Word, by knowing God’s good and gracious disposition toward man, and how far one may trust in God and for what one may count on Him - in short, the more that a believer knows of what God has revealed for his edification, the more he or she can believe and trust in the Lord, and understand their lives and circumstances as in the presence and care of God.

The preacher who is teaching his flock, and nurturing them in the Word with both Law and Gospel is also preaching that which converts. If He is not preaching the Gospel, he is not serving as shepherd or seelsorger for his flock. If he is preaching without teaching and warning his flock, he is not serving the shepherd duties either. Any individual who believes that they can do one without the other is not competent for the office.

Modern seminarians are taught to preach short sermons. Such a practice is often aimed at the short attention span of the modern listener. The problem with that approach is twofold: first, it short-changes the congregation, and second, it misunderstands the attention span of the average listener. First, the congregation comes to worship to receive God’s gifts. The Word proclaimed and taught is one of those gifts. The Sunday service is the chief contact time for the pastor with the congregation. More of his flock is present at that one time (even if it involves multiple services on a Sunday) than any other time. He must teach the dickens out of the time He has been given in the service.

Second, the congregation’s attention span, as a product of modern American culture, is significantly shorter than ten minutes. Some are able to discipline themselves and focus on the sermon for the ten minutes, or twenty, or thirty, depending on how long one preaches, and the discipline of the individual. On the other hand, some cannot actually focus as long as the reading of the text. There are a variety of reasons for their distraction; children, their health, the comfort of the seating, the temperature of the air, ambient noises, and how well they slept the night before, and the attire, behavior, or personal grooming of the people seated around them, including their perfumes, among other reasons. People tend to fade in and out of the sermon, despite their best intentions and efforts. The short sermon doesn’t give them time to fade in and out and still hear the message. It rudely demands that they be as capable and clear-headed as the preacher was when he wrote his sermon – and sometimes the sermon demonstrates that the preacher wasn’t all that capable or clear-headed.

There is no ideal length for a sermon. Each sermon should be as long as it takes to proclaim the Word of God, both Law and Gospel, and teach what the Word for the day teaches. Some sermons are shorter, and some will be longer. I have preached as short as fifteen minutes (rarely), and as long as forty-five (a couple of times). The shorter sermon was greeted with complaints that the congregation felt cheated, and were just settling down to listen when I finished, and the longer sermons have been met by several in the congregation noting that they were totally unaware that such an amount of time had passed. I imagine that the important thing is to say something worth listening to, however long or short your sermon may be.

The sermon might well be viewed as a public speech, with the purposes of informing, persuading, and moving to action, to use the categories I learned when studying public speaking as a youth. While the power of the sermon rests in the Word of God, the preacher does well to keep in mind that he is part of the process God has chosen to deliver that Word to his specific group of people. If the Word alone were sufficient, without regard to the deliverance of the Word, one could simply read the original language to the people and be done with it. Of course, that is silly.

The preacher must consider the message, and the audience, and his own abilities, and structure his sermon to inform the congregation of the meaning of the text, and to persuade them that it is true and applies also to their lives and faith, and that they might live in the light of the truth they have just heard. For some preachers, “Goal - Malady - Means” works just fine. For others, the old, ‘Tell them what you are going to say, then say it, and then tell them what you said’ is effective. For some a didactic style works and for others a more conversational approach is better. The style isn’t as important as the Word of God, nor as important as the preacher remembering who he is and why he is standing before a congregation on a Sunday morning.

He is the messenger of God, sent to proclaim the glories of salvation, the goodness of the grace of God, and to feed, nurture, comfort, strengthen, and encourage the people of God in faith and by means of the Word of God. He is not standing before them as a showman. He is not a great adviser. He is not the programmatic “vision-caster”. He is not here to win their respect or to be popular. He is there as the mouthpiece of God, like a radio-station repeater, speaking what God has given Him to speak in the text for the day.

If you can do that, the questions about where your focus is supposed to be in the sermon will fade away. The focus is on the Word of God being delivered, proclaimed, and taught to the people of God for their blessing, comfort, encouragement, and faith. If you cannot preach, teach, and administer the Sacraments, then you don’t belong in the pulpit to begin with. Seelsorger. “Curate of souls”, Pastor, Shepherd, all mean the same thing. If the pastor forgets what he is there for, his presence serves someone other that Christ.

An Age of Unbelief

2007-08-27T06:18:00.000-07:00

We are living in an age of unbelief.

In the church, politics and power matter more to most than does truth, God, or salvation, although the majority of those rightly accused by these words would cry out that I am unjust in saying so. But that is just part of the game. You have to pretend to be about Christ and church and such, but in reality it is the advance of power and personal privilege that takes center stage.

In society, I see the very same dynamic. Our politicians, with precious few exceptions, play at national politics as though it were a game and the dangers of the world around us cannot possibly intrude. Logically, if the dangers of the world around us could not possibly intrude, we would have no need of government. But if the dangers are real, the "playing of politics" as a game, without an eye to the potential repercussions, is idiotic to the point of treason.

Today the enemies of our nation's elected leader have succeeded in finally acquiring the resignation of the Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. He was hounded into resignation over the perfectly legitimate firing of eight Federal Prosecutors. They do serve at the pleasure of the President. The previous president fired every single one of them - ninety-three, I believe. That firing put an end to some troubling federal investigations - one into the President's own conduct. But that action was defended as entirely legitimate at the very same time the firing of eight men was called a presidential abuse of power. The only differences one can observe is that President Bush did not terminate any on-going investigations into his own conduct or that of another Republican, while President Clinton did, and President Bush only fired eight men, not ninety-three.

I carry no brief for Mr. Gonzales. I find the Democratic Party's attack on everything that they can possibly connect to President Bush to be irresponsible to the point of being treasonous. There are real-world dangers from which all of our elected representatives are charged with protecting this nation, and the wholesale assault on every effort of one party to do anything does not strengthen us. It is playing politics as though it is a game with no other consequence than winning a prize. But there are enemies looking to destroy us, and the Democrats are willing allies with those people in appearance, if not in fact. And I am none too sure about the fact in this case, either.

I do wish there was some way that the game players could reap the whirlwind without the destruction and misery that their behavior strives toward falling upon the whole nation of us. My greatest concern is that they will reap what they are sowing -- and so will we.

And in these times of turmoil and uncertainty, we should be able to look to the church for comfort and peace of mind. God offers it in Jesus Christ, and the knowledge that He is still (and always) in control, even when the world seems to be spinning out of it. Sadly, though, the institutional church is failing because its leaders are caught up in playing politics just like our national leaders. Like them, they also forget that there are real dangers and real enemies, and they play down and dirty to win the prize of position and power without thought or concern for the real-world consequences for those they are called to protect and shepherd.

With regard to the church leaders, at least I have the comfort of knowing that they shall reap what they sow, in the end. I, and others who continue to fight the good fight, will have to reach out to care for those forgotten by the ones who style themselves as "leaders" in this age of unbelief.

An Old-Fashioned Bully

2007-08-19T15:22:00.000-07:00

I was watching Bill Maher on the Larry King show on CNN when it struck me, the man is a bully. He has the microphone, and says the most outrageous things, offensive and deliberately so, in situations where those he offends and insults cannot respond.

Sure, he doesn't kick them or punch them. He does something much worse. He wounds them with unreasonable attack while the ones he attacks are unable to either defend themselves or respond in any effective manner.

I was always told that bullies were cowards. I guess attacking faith and any opinion you don't like - and not just arguing a reasoned objection but pathetic name calling and ad-hominem of the most extreme sort - from the safety of the working end of the microphone qualifies one as a coward.

He makes a big deal of how unreasonable people like Rush Limbaugh are. I don't think his insults toward Rush are anything particularly bully-ish. Rush has a microphone and an audience. He can respond. It is when Mr. Maher spreads his contempt toward those - either individually or as a class - that hold opinions contrary to his own by ridicule and insult, rather than reasoned discourse, that he demonstrates the character of the big thug who can take your lunch money away, and there is nothing you can do about it! So there!

Bill Maher is just a bully. And he styles himself as a humorist. How sad.

Early Communion

2007-08-18T15:28:00.000-07:00

I link to an article on the idea of early communion, advanced on Cyberbrethren. It is worth some debate. I find it disquieting, and not because I appose early communion. I began training children for confirmation earlier, in my last parish, due to the pressures of the culture and society, and the eagerness of the children. I don't see age as an impediment. When they are ready, they are ready.

The defense of the idea - the case that the author, Pastor Rick Stuckwisch, was making began to sound oddly like, "Oh, what the heck! Let's do it!"

I respect Pastor Stuckwisch, and believe he is sincere and careful. I suspect, however that the approach he and Rev. McCain are advancing would tend back to the Roman practice of first communion at about first grade, whether the child is prepared or not. At least the practice of instruction for confirmation before communion gives us a fighting chance to pound something into the heads of the children. I am not opposed to the very utilitarian nature of the practice which gives us the confirmation class years to teach. We need to get something into the child's brain about Christian doctrine. Memory work is good too. What we get in there the Holy Spirit can call up for use any time. What isn't there cannot be recalled. Changing the practice to earlier communion isn't a real answer to the questions people raise - including the Rev. McCain - about the age of confirmation. It is simply moving the same questions from 14 to 6. We will then be facing the question of why not just commune infants - and some Lutherans are asking that already.

The Lord's Supper is not required for salvation. It is not a sine qua non as Baptism is (and we have people debating the necessity of Baptism!). I don't like the graduation idea, either, but we can use the opportunity to instruct. I think the current practice is useful.

I know that faithful pastors like Rev. Stuckwisch will exercise his spiritual oversight faithfully. But when the practice is established, those who follow may not. It is hard enough to get pastors to do confirmation instruction now. Imagine how careless many would be if first communion were at first grade, and there was no incentive to endure or demand what is now confirmation instruction.

I know, it is the parent's responsibility. (That takes a load off my pastor's head.) I am all for admitting those who are ready to the altar - meaning those who understand what the Supper is, and are capable of examining themselves. But let's not set a bad rule in place. I think the age should stay where it is and exceptions be made when individual Christians demonstrate that they are ready.

That's my $.02 worth.

Anne Rice

2007-08-18T15:11:00.000-07:00

The author of the Vampire stories professes a change to being a Christian. I hope for her sake that it is true. Still, on her blog, Anne Rice.com, she still tries to defend her artistic vision when writing An Interview with a Vampire, and the subsequent books. Okay, perhaps I can swallow that.

Now she is taking the position of being a pro-life Christian, who is a Democrat, and most admires Hillary Clinton as a candidate for President. This stance is way too much for me. I understand political devotion, but it is not consistent to be pro-life and support a strongly pro-abortion candidate. Then she says that she believes that the only hope for pro-life positions is with the Democratic party. That is the party that has made pro-choice (meaning pro-abortion) the litmus test.

Politics aside, these positions are not intellectually consistent.

A Small Aside: As I typed this post, with Anne Rice's site in another window, suddenly "Ave Maria" began in the background. Surely this woman cannot take her political stance as a serious Catholic?

Spooky!

Defining Don Matzat

2007-07-23T11:35:00.000-07:00

The July 23rd issue of Christian News gave two thirds of a page to Don Matzat’s assault on the Lutheran Service Book Agenda, entitled "Defining the Center". It was a diatribe critical of one sentence on the first page of the overview of the Agenda. It reads, "Baptism is at the center of the Christian faith and life." While it is not likely anyone would take this critique seriously, little errors sometimes grow into huge problems if not addressed, so this unfortunate commentary begs a response.

First, I carry no agenda for the LSB. I am a dyed in the wool TLH sort of guy, and I have no plans to use the LSB, so I am not defending it out of devotion to the product. The attack, however, is classic liberalism and in and of itself false doctrine. This does not surprise, considering the author. Don Matzat is a former charismatic, former conservative, recently connected to Jesus First, who lately defended the gross unionism of Yankee Stadium and aggressively advanced the un-Christian notion that Muslims and Christians worshipped the same God. When Pastor Matzat asked the question: "If I reject that statement, am I still an orthodox Lutheran?", one was tempted to respond, "What ever do you mean by ‘still’?" You haven’t been orthodox in a long time, sir.

Rev. Matzat declares that offending sentence is "false doctrine". It appears from his article that the charge might be maintained if one defined their terms carefully and idiosyncratically enough. Matzat doesn’t do that, however. He simply states as fact things which he does not illustrate or support, and appears to have a unique personal understanding of several concepts over which he is anguishing.

For example, he asserts that Lutheran theologians have always taught a distinction between the baptism of infants and the baptism of adults. He does not clearly articulate the distinction of which he writes. Presumably the distinction is, as he asserts, "Baptism is simply adult confirmation." One would want to see the quotes supporting that distinction which "Lutheran theologians have always properly taught". Matzat doesn’t provide them. Even the single source he references a few paragraphs later speaks of adult baptism, according to Rev. Matzat’s own summary, as sealing, confirming, and increasing the redemption and regeneration wrought by the Gospel. It would appear from his own source to be something more than "simply adult confirmation".

Lutheran theologians of the past have spoken with greater respect for Baptism. Chemnitz, in his Loci Theologici, refers to Baptism as the "ordinary means" of regeneration "But Baptism is the regular [or ordinary; ordinarium] means, that is, "the washing of regeneration," Titus 3:5, so that those who are born of the flesh and were not in the kingdom of heaven might be born again of water and the Spirit and thus enter the kingdom of heaven, John 3:5. For they are "baptized for the remission of sins," Acts 2:38, in order that the sins in which they were born might be washed away, Acts 22:16, and that they might be cleansed and saved by God through the washing of regeneration, Eph. 5:26; Titus 3:5."1 Pieper says, "Baptism, then, involves the establishment of a covenant of grace between God and the person baptized."2 "Scripture has decided this question. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper certainly do belong to the foundation of the Christian faith, together with the Word of the Gospel, for Baptism is given "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38), and in the Lord’s Supper Christ’s body and blood are imparted as "given for you" and "shed for you for the remission of sins" (Luke 22:19 ff.; Matt. 26:26 ff.). The promise and offer of the forgiveness of sins, which is the foundation of faith, is contained also in the Sacraments."3

Elert says, "Baptism is the basic and crucial event which makes a new man out of the old, and so regarded it is the event of an individual. Its purpose, however, is not private or isolated. By Baptism we are drawn into the death and resurrection of Christ and so out of the domain of enemy powers, above all out of the domain of the Law into the freedom of that kingdom where Christ is Lord. These thoughts are developed by Cyril of Jerusalem in his catechetical instruction of the newly baptized, and he finds in them the basis for the renunciation of the devil effected in Baptism as also for the koinonia of the baptized with the suffering and death of Christ. Now Paul also describes the relationship with Christ which we enter through Baptism by saying that we are baptized in one Spirit into one body, and he derives from this the organic relationship of the members of the body of Christ also with one another (1 Cor. 12:12 ff.). Through Baptism we become not only saints but also "holy brothers" (Heb. 3:1). All Christians share the same sonship, and Christ is "the firstborn among many brothers" (Rom. 8:29). Both the common bond of the ethos of an organized congregation, by which the church separates itself from its unholy surroundings, and specifically also its brotherhood rest on the fact that its koinonia is a baptismal fellowship."4 These descriptions certainly appear to go beyond "simply adult confirmation".

Matzat also declares that Baptism is not absolutely necessary. While he quotes Pieper on this point, he makes more of issue than is warranted. He appears to suggest that Baptism is not really necessary, and brings Pieper in to play seemingly ignoring the context of the quote. Franz Pieper did not argue that Baptism was not necessary, he argued that where Baptism was not possible, there Baptism is not absolutely necessary. "Whoever, therefore, comes to faith in the Gospel, has remission of sins and salvation, even though circumstances prevent his being baptized."5 (emphasis mine) It is disingenuous to argue that because one might in extreme circumstances stand in God’s grace and favor without Baptism, that Baptism is therefore not truly necessary and so not at the center of Christian faith and life.

First, "at the center" does not mean it is the center, just central, connected to the center. One has to reject the Augsburg Confession to arrive at the point Rev. Matzat seems to be making, denying its importance. View article IX: "Our churches teach that Baptism is necessary for salvation, that the grace of God is offered through Baptism, and that children should be baptized, for being offered to God through Baptism they are received into his grace.

"Our churches condemn the Anabaptists who reject the Baptism of children and declare that children are saved without Baptism."6

We also confess that those who are not baptized are lost: Article II. OF THE AC, [ORIGINAL SIN] "Our churches also teach that since the fall of Adam all men who are propagated according to nature are born in sin. That is to say, they are without fear of God, are without trust in God, and are concupiscent. And this disease or vice of origin is truly sin, which even now damns and brings eternal death on those who are not born again through Baptism and the Holy Spirit."7 (emphasis mine)

The truly regrettable element of Matzat’s article, however, is the apparent contrasting of Christ and His work, and holy Baptism. He appears to present Baptism as a work we accomplish, which is to be understood as separate from and at odds with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. While I cannot address the possible errors of thinking in the mind of that seminary field-worker from so many years ago whom Matzat references as apparent justification for this concept, I have no experience with any Lutheran teaching Baptism as saving ex opera operato or effective in distinction from and contrast to the work of Christ. The notion that we should "remember our baptism" is thoroughly Lutheran. It comes from an honest reading of the Small Catechism, on Baptism, part four; "What does such baptizing with water signify?
"Answer: It signifies that the old Adam in us, together with all sins and evil lusts, should be drowned by daily sorrow and repentance and be put to death, and that the new man should come forth daily and rise up, cleansed and righteous, to live forever in God’s presence.
"Where is this written?
Answer: In Romans 6:4, St. Paul wrote, "We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life." 8

Pieper clearly teaches the same idea as the Catechism, "Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are signs that continually admonish, cheer, and encourage desponding minds to believe the more firmly that sins are forgiven,"9 Or, lest one think that one need "cherry-pick" their Pieper citations, "Though administered only once, Baptism is to be used by Christians throughout their whole life. Nowhere do the Apostles call on Christians to repeat Baptism; however, they frequently recall to their minds the Baptism once received. This reminder is intended both for consolation and for admonition."10

When Matzat suggests that this phrase is in error or leads to "putting at risk the eternal salvation of our people" he is simply not dealing honestly with the theology he is confronting.

Baptism rests on the work of Christ, and connects us to the work of Christ, making us part of the body of Christ. If Christ is the center, Baptism is at the center for the Christian because Baptism initiates our relationship with Christ, being "baptized into Christ" and "putting on Christ" and being "baptized into His death". Walther quotes Luther: "It has been determined that God will not create any Christians unless they are baptized and called by the Gospel. He desires that all who are called Christians should be separated from the world by the Gospel and Baptism."11 The strange notion that we preach might preach "Law and Baptism" rather than "Law and Gospel" suggests that the Baptism is excluded from the Gospel, or offers something other than the Gospel. It is true, or ought to be, that we preach Christ. It should also be true that we preach Baptism, since Baptism is the ordinary means for becoming a Christian and being made part of the Church, and connects us to Christ and His work, whether we are adults or children.

Luther stresses what a precious thing Baptism is, and does not appear to distinguish between adult and infant when expressing the power or majesty of Baptism, as follows:

"This passage must be studied carefully, in opposition to the fanatical spirits who minimize the majesty of Baptism and speak wickedly about it. Paul, by contrast, adorns Baptism with magnificent titles when he calls it ‘the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit’ (Titus 3:5). And here he says that all who have been baptized have put on Christ. Now, as I have said, Paul is speaking about a ‘putting on,’ not by imitation but by birth. He does not say: ‘Through Baptism you have received a token by which you have been enlisted in the number of the Christians’ ; this is what the sectarians imagine when they make of Baptism merely a token, that is, a small and empty sign. But he says: ‘As many of you as have been baptized have put on Christ.’ That is: ‘You have been snatched beyond the Law into a new birth that took place in Baptism. Therefore you are no longer under the Law, but you have been dressed in a new garment, that is, in the righteousness of Christ.’ Therefore Paul teaches that Baptism is not a sign but the garment of Christ, in fact, that Christ Himself is our garment. Hence Baptism is a very powerful and effective thing. For when we have put on Christ, the garment of our righteousness and salvation, then we also put on Christ, the garment of imitation."12

Baptism also has a place in the life of Christians daily. Hear Melancthon: "Therefore when the baptized person learns the doctrine, he should exercise his faith [and] believe that he truly is received by God for the sake of Christ and is sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Baptism is to be used in this way throughout life. It should daily remind us: Behold, by this sign God testified that you have been received into grace. He does not want this testimony to be despised. Therefore you should believe that you have truly been received and you should call upon Him in this faith. This is the constant use of Baptism."13 Or listen to Walther again, this time at the end of Lecture 34 in The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel: "When a person has fallen from his faith and baptismal grace, we do not tell him to construct a new ship for himself in which to continue his voyage to heaven, but to return to his faith in Baptism, which is a covenant that remains unshaken, because God does not cancel the word of promise which He has pledged to the baptized. The renegade, who has come to the knowledge of his fall and is penitent has nothing else to do than to cling to God’s promise given him at his baptism, and to rest assured that, since by Baptism he was made a child of God and has now been quickened out of mortal sins, he can rest assured that he will not perish."14

Luther also addresses how we should continue to make use of our Baptism, particularly in the context of those who might try to put their Baptisms behind them, so to speak:

"Those who presume to blot out and put away their sin by "satisfaction" are the same sort of people. They go so far as to disregard their baptism, as if they had no more need of it beyond the fact of having once been baptized. They do not know that baptism is in force all through life, even until death, yes (as said above) even to the Last Day. For this reason they presume to find some other way of blotting out sin, namely, by works. So for themselves and for all others, they create evil, terrified, and uncertain consciences, and despair at the hour of death. They do not know how they stand with God, thinking that by sin they have now lost their baptism and that it profits them no more.
Guard yourself, by all means, against this error. For as has been said, if anyone has fallen into sin, he should all the more remember his baptism, how God has here made a covenant with him to forgive all his sins, if only he will fight against them even until death. Upon this truth, upon this alliance with God, a man must joyfully dare to rely. Then baptism again goes into force and operation. Then his heart again becomes peaceful and glad, not in his own works or "satisfaction," but in the mercy of God promised to him in baptism, a mercy which God will keep forever. This faith a person must hold so firmly that he would cling to it even though everything and all sins attacked him. For he who lets himself be forced away from this faith makes God a liar in his promise in the sacrament of baptism." 15

Or Pieper (again): "Though administered only once, Baptism is to be used by Christians throughout their whole life. Nowhere do the Apostles call on Christians to repeat Baptism; however, they frequently recall to their minds the Baptism once received. This reminder is intended both for consolation and for admonition. In Gal. 3:26-27 Paul reminds the Christians that by their Baptism they put on Christ, that is, became God’s children, without the Law, by faith in Christ. In Rom. 6:3 ff. Paul employs Baptism for admonition, instructing Christians that by their Baptism they have become dead unto sin, but alive unto righteousness. Peter strikingly sets forth the consolation of Baptism. He says (1 Pet. 3:21) that as Noah and his family were saved by the water of the Flood, even so the water of Baptism now saves us, and the reason he gives is that Baptism is ‘not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the covenant of a good conscience toward God.’ Baptism, then, involves the establishment of a covenant of grace between God and the person baptized. With good reason, therefore, the daily repentance of Christians is called a daily return to Baptism, or to the covenant of Baptism, inasmuch as the believers daily confess their transgressions, by faith seize the remission of sins guaranteed by Baptism, and, thus consoled, strive for fruits worthy of repentance in a new life."16

Matzat sets two truths of the Christian faith at odds with one another, contrasting and dividing them. He sets up a straw man, and knocks it down. He seems to actually acknowledge this problem when he complains that he cannot file a complaint with the Commission on Doctrinal review, having been told by the Chairman of the Commission that "no one would agree with [him]". He addresses this rejection as demonstrating the need for theological discussion as though if one individual departs from sound doctrine their departure illustrates the need for further theological debate. Sometimes, however, departure from sound doctrine is just another example of a pattern in that individual’s life

1 Chemnitz, Martin, and Jacob A. O. Preus. Loci Theologici. electronic ed. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1989, p. 728.

2 Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1950, c1951, c1953, Vol. III, p. 276.

3 Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1950, c1951, c1953, Vol. I, p. 86.

4 Elert, Werner. Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries. electronic ed. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1966.

5 Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1950, c1951, c1953, Vol. III, p. 280.

6 Tappert, Theodore G. The Augsburg Confession : Translated from the Latin. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2000, c1959.

7 Tappert, Theodore G. The Augsburg Confession : Translated from the Latin. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2000, c1959.

8 Tappert, Theodore G. The Book of Concord : The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2000, c1959.

9 Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics. electronic ed. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1950, c1951, c1953.

10 Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1950, c1951, c1953, p. 275.

11 Walther, C.F.W. Church and Ministry : Witness of the Evangelical Lutheran Church on the Question of the Church and the Ministry. Tranlsation of: Die Stimme Unserer Kirche in Der Frage Von Kirche Und Amt. electronic ed. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1987.

12 Luther, Martin. Vol. 26, Luther's Works, Vol. 26 : Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4. Edited by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann. Luther's Works. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1963.

13 Chemnitz, Martin, and Jacob A. O. Preus. Loci Theologici. electronic ed. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1989.

14 Walther, Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm, William Herman Theodore Dau, and Ernest Eckhardt. The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel : 39 Evening Lectures. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, c1929, p. 360.

15 Luther, Martin. Vol. 35, Luther's Works, Vol. 35 : Word and Sacrament I. Edited by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999, c1960, p. 36.

16 Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1950, c1951, c1953, p. 275-276.

Romans 1:22

2007-07-09T06:37:00.000-07:00

The passage named in the title says. "Professing to be wise, they became fools." The Apostle Paul writes these words about the decline of man into sin and godlessness. In the environment of our world today, it seems like trenchant political and social commentary.

Our nation faces a threat from an enemy that hides in a religion, Islam. The goals of Islam are clearly and frequently stated: a world-wide caliphate. The whole world under Islamic law and morality. One political party and a significant number of Americans behave as though "it couldn't happen here," or "it really couldn't be all that bad." The evidence of the nature and effect of the Muslim mentality is freely available by looking at Islamic nations. The possibility of it happening here can be assessed by examining the Islamification of Europe, and noting the remarkable similarities between the European response to militant Islam in their midst, and the American government's official response (dhimmitude) to the same sort of insanity as it unfolds among us.

We are winning the war in Iraq, militarily, but losing it in the media, who appear determined to undermine our nation at every point of its strength. The media's behavior defies reasonable analysis. That anyone would pay any attention to it any longer is just as irrational.

The President has led an effective effort of protect our nation from terrorism. The economy is booming. Yet people want to impeach him, and his approval numbers are just below abysmal.

We have people over-wraught about the 3,000+ deaths in a war in Iraq in over three years, and they are absolutely frantic to end our involvement there. These same people seem unaware and unconcerned about the roughly 25,000 people who die each year at the hands of illegal aliens (p.c. speak = "undocumented immigrants"). Statistically, 12 people are murdered by the alien hoard invading our nation each day, and 13 more die daily as a result of things like traffic accidents, usually coupled with alcohol abuse, at the hands of illegals. Still, the deadly invading force is presented to us as nice people who want only to make a living to support their families, and want to do the work no American is willing to do.

That would be nice if it were true, but the illegals often work jobs Americans would do: construction for fifteen to twenty-five dollars per hour. That kind of wage would be welcome by any job-seeking American. They have been hired as Border Patrol Agents, Police Officers (by some communities), teachers, and government employees. All of these jobs would be happily filled by your average American job-seeker.

Speaking of the invasion, how is it that our borders cannot be controlled? How is it that twelve million or more have crossed our borders, and nothing is being done about it? How is it that there is no outcry? How is it that those we have placed in office to do these sorts of things are not being held to public account for their egregious failures?

How can it be that a man can be convicted and sentenced to two-and-a-half years in jail for remembering something differently than someone else? How can he be convicted of lying when the main evidence against him is the recollection of a politically motivated member of the news (yeah, that's a joke) media, who also cannot clearly recall many of the details he is to testify about? How can the act he is convicted of - lying to the FBI in the course of an investigation into what turns out not to be a crime - deserve far more stringent punishment than lying to a federal court under oath (like Pres. Clinton), or stealing classified documents from the national archives, and shredding them, and doing so repeatedly over a period of days? How can a bad memory, or small deceit in insignificant matters be more aggressively punished than, say, coercing bribes of hundreds of thousands of dollars from people while serving as a US Congressman?

How can the President who apparently sold pardons, and pardoned murderers and terrorists, be given any credibility when he criticizes President Bush for commuting the sentence - not pardoning - of the man mentioned above?

Then again, how can it be that congress can pass laws which apply to us, and then exempt themselves from these very same provisions??

The privileged class tells us how to live our lives - save the earth from anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming. The Scientific community is clearly divided as to any man-made effect of terrestrial temperature cycles, but setting that aside, the privileged class ignore their own warnings and urgings. They have bigger, less energy-conserving homes. They drive larger and less fuel-efficient vehicles. They travel by private airplane, and their concerts to encourage an environmentally sensitive lifestyle consumes more resources and creates vastly more pollution while ostensibly trying to persuade us of the urgency of living more frugally, and creating a smaller "carbon footprint".

Someone is constantly trying to tell us what to eat, what to drive, and how to live - while ignoring everything they tell us. Somehow, they are exempt from the need to do these thing.

Am I missing something, or is this insanity? The "wise" who would guide us, are the biggest fools of all. We are living in dangerous times, and we have permitted the inmates to run the asylum!

Defining Your Opinions

2007-07-05T07:39:00.000-07:00

The recent resurgence of the Ann Coulter controversy has brought into focus one of the modern media's most irritating agendas, defining your opinion.

I used to think that the media excitement about this topic or that was merely the result of a slow news day and reporters of limited talent. Now I discern the goal of shaping your opinions, and mine, by reacting strongly and repeatedly to people and events. Sometimes the media can coerce behaviors out of our leaders (or celebrities) my the artificial uproar they create, but their more fundamental agenda is to tell you how you should see and value people and events.

This would account for the declining popularity of the President in the midst of a booming economy and despite his steadfastness in prosecuting a war on terrorism for the purpose of our own national safety and security. With Ann Coulter, they are deliberately misconstruing her words and telling us that we should have no patience with this woman as she exercises her freedom of expression. We are supposed to be patient and tolerant of expressions that attack our faith, and our sense of what is right and wrong, and our customs and traditions, but let someone poke fun at the politically correct, and freedom of expression has apparently gone too far!

I am looking forward to the Synod's attempt to tell us what to think after the coming convention. True, the national media will probably not pay much attention or care what you think - - but watch the Synodical media! They will try to spin and tell you what you should think and how you should feel. It will be interesting.

It Makes Pefect Sense to Me!

2007-07-01T05:30:00.000-07:00

I was breezing through a post on Cyberbrethren that posited the question of how they could do it -- "it" being fellowship between church bodies like the United Church of Christ which sanctions homosexual unions and the E.L.C.A. which does not, yet.

As I looked at the picture, it all made perfect sense to me, in a perverse sort of way. The churches that can marry those two men and/or those two women in the picture almost always give hearty apporval to the fifth person in the image, the female "reverend". Some of my friends refer to women 'ministers' as "priestitutes". I simply call them "penguins." I like the description I once heard Dr. David Scaer give, "true transvestites: women dressed in clothing reserved for men".

In any case, it makes perfect sense to me! If you can ignore the Word of God and ordain women, "Same Sex Unions" are an easy step. They have already lost any ability to tell the difference between the sexes anyhow.