Garden of Gethsemane

The Kingdom of Heaven Belongs to Such as These

2010-09-21T16:14:00.000-07:00

My friend and I have an ongoing debate about the relevance of Matthew 19 for the discussion of infant baptism. He says it has nothing to do with the Sacrament of Baptism, and I insist it does. Some were bringing children to Christ that He might lay His hands on them. When the disciples saw it, they tried to prevent them. But our Lord responds, "Let the little children come to Me and do not forbid them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
On the surface, my friend is right; baptism is not explicitly mentioned. But the failure to see the connection between this text and the Sacrament of Baptism says something about the way he views Baptism as well as revealing the way he does theology.
First, what does Scripture tell us Baptism does? For many evangelicals the question itself does not make sense. When I ask the question in person, I often get a response similar to the one I get when I hit the wrong button on my computer and the computer doesn't know what to do with it. It doesn't compute. That's because most evangelicals are taught that baptism is an outward sign of an inward thing. In other words, Baptism is merely symbolic. But is that true?
According to Scripture, Baptism washes away sin (Acts 22:16), grants forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), and saves us (1 Peter 3:21). Awww, did he just say Baptism saves us? No, he just pointed out that Scripture tells us Baptism saves us. Baptism washes away sin, forgives sin, and saves because in Baptism we are joined to the work of Christ, "Don't you know that all of you who were Baptized into Christ Jesus were Baptized into His death. We were, therefore, buried with Him through Baptism into death in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so you too may have new life." In Baptism were are united to Christ and enjoy the benefits of His saving work.
So, we see that Baptism is not an empty sign. It is not an outward sign of an inward work. Far from it. Baptism is truly a Sacrament that really DOES SOMETHING for us.
Baptism, according to the apostle Paul in Romans 6, unites us to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Being united to Him in baptism, we belong to Christ and His community. Paul's language is Baptismal language. Often we see Paul writing the phrase, "in Christ." This, "in Christ," language is baptismal language.
And to be Baptized into Christ is to be united to His Church, the community of believers. Paul uses this language in 1 Corinthians 12, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body." To be Baptized into Christ is to be Baptized into the Church, Christ's community. Acts 2: 41 says, "So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls."
In Matthew 19, it is clear that the disciples believe that the children being brought to Christ do not belong there. Obviously, they think that Christ should not be bothered by these little curtain climbers. But you can sense Christ's indignation in His answer, "Let the little children come to me and do not forbid them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." If the Kingdom of heaven belongs to "these," then the gifts of Christ's kingdom belong to them as well.
How can the kingdom of heaven belong to the little ones? Does it belong to them by nature? In other words, are children innocent and natural members of the Kingdom? No. Romans 5 makes it clear that Adam's sin has impacted all of humanity with no exceptions. Everyone born in Adam is dead in sin and condemned. David tells us in the great penitential Psalm 51, that we are conceived and born sinful. By nature we are alienated from God and His kingdom and are children of wrath. Christ says, "That which is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit." (John 3:6)
So how can little children be part of the community of Christ? The answer is the same as it is for adults. "You must be born again," and "unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:5) One is not a member of the kingdom of God by nature, he must be born again. It's true that God does not have any grandchildren, but God graciously makes our children his in the waters of baptism, "for this is for you, and FOR YOUR CHILDREN, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call. (Acts 2:38)
Children become part of the community of Christ through the Sacrament of Holy Baptism. The children in Matthew 19 similarly were part of the kingdom through the Old Testament rite of circumcision. Now, in the community of Christ, children belong to the kingdom through the waters of Baptism where something actually happens, they are united to Christ in His life, death and resurrection and now belong to Him.

2008-05-19T21:05:00.000-07:00

At the seminary, I remember most of my professors opposing the policy of first communion separated from catechesis and confirmation. For a long time, when I would hear of it, I opposed it also. This had less to do with traditionalism than the conviction that we should not give the Sacrament to those, "who do not know what they are receiving or why they are receiving it. " (Luther's Large Catechism) All the examples I saw of early communion confirmed that conviction. Most churches that practice early communion take the children through a short 3 or 4 week course on the specific topic of the Lord's Supper. But the question is, do the children understand what sin is so that they see their need for the Sacrament. Do they have a working definition of sin as defined by the Ten Commandments? Also, do they know who that God is whom they are to fear and love? It seemed to me that a conscientious partaking of the Lord's Supper required an informed knowledge of the faith in all its chief parts. I still believe that.

But recently, godly men and pastors whom I respect for their faithfulness to the Word of God and the Lutheran Confessions have taken a somewhat different approach than that which has been held historically by most American Lutheran Churches. Three churches that I am aware of have moved to an early communion practice for young children. Their arguments seem to me to be solid. The primary reason for their new practice is a desire to get the precious Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ to the children at the earliest possible age. I, also, share that desire.

One of their arguments is, first, most adult converts are not required to undergo all the memorization, so why should we insist that it be done by children. More to the point, why should children be denied the Sacrament until they have mastered the memorization work when adults are given a pass? Is this a double standard? Why should we deny communion to children who have not completely mastered the memorization of the Small Catechism and give it to adults who haven't even tried? What about children who are developmentally handicapped who may never be able to master the memory work? Also, as every pastor knows, there are many children who have been confirmed when they have not fully memorized the Small Catechism. We go ahead and confirm them anyway, because confirmation has become another rite of passage.

Rev. William Weedon makes the argument that our system of catechesis was not part of the age of Lutheran orthodoxy but a later development of Pietism, a movement that was more about personal devotion and introspection than objective faith in Christ. Are we going to say that Luther and the Reformers did not have a solid confirmation practice. Luther saw the parents as the primary catechists. Many old Lutherans learned the catechism from their parents then were brought to the pastor for examination. In this way they were admitted to the Sacrament.

Rev. Richard Stuckwisch makes the argument that catechesis is never really complete. It is a process that begins with baptism and ends with our ascent to glory. He also makes the point that many congregations require memorization of the six chief parts as a sort of hoop that children jump through to show their worthiness to receive the Lord's Supper. In fact, as our catechism states, "That person is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words, 'given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.'"

The new synodical hymnal makes a provision for first communion providing a rite for it. This shows that our synod is already taking steps to make this possible for congregations. In fact, congregations who wish to do it can.

As the people at Gethsemane know, we have been moving confirmation to younger ages for some time now. I still believe that a thorough catechesis for the young has value in that it prepares children to withstand the onslaught that Satan will throw at them. On the other hand, I wish for children to receive communion as early as they desire it and can receive it responsibly. The Lord's Supper itself is a faith building means of grace that strengthens and confirms us in the faith. Children coming to communion must have a handle on the six chief parts of the catechism. Luther said every Christian should know the Ten Commandments, the Apostle's Creed, and the Lord's Prayer. Without these how can we examine ourselves, believe in the One true God who has created, redeemed, and sanctified us, and how can we call upon Him.

Maybe the answer is to take the children through an introduction to the Small Catechism of about ten to twelve weeks, making sure they know the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer. They should know something about what God has done for them in Baptism. They should know something about confession and absolution and be able to examine themselves. They should know all about the Lord's Supper, or at least the catechism material. This is, after all, what we require of adults. Later, when they are able, we can take them through again at a deeper level. But, rather than calling it first commuion, my gut feeling is, if we do this, to just go ahead and call it what it is, confirmation.

This blog, of course, is on the world wide web. I welcome all comments, but I am especially interested in the comments of my own congregation. My plan is to present some material to the congregation for them to read and consider and then to present this to the Voters' Assembly meeting in July. I look forward to having a conversation about this.

Missions Gone Wild

2008-05-12T17:11:00.000-07:00

Thanks to 'the Old Parson' for posting this blog. It's bad enough when members of the synod try to accommodate the Divine Service to reformed sensibilities, but to have the chair of the missions department at one of the Concordia's suggest that we should accommodate it to Muslim sensibilities is unthinkable.

The professor in question is Herb Hoefer, chair of Missions at Concordia, Portland. He begins with apparent giddiness that a group of Muslim academics visiting the chapel service approved of the fact that the hymns, assuming they sang hymns, did not mention the name of Jesus, saying, "They discussed that they could have worshipped with the same words that they heard, for it so happened that the songs they heard only referred to God and not to Jesus." What a shame that a chair of missions welcomes their approval. Sadly, it doesn't end there; he goes on to wonder what else could be changed for the sake of mission in the "the Muslim context."

Perhaps, making Jesus the, "object of our worship," is a mistake. He says, "We have strong biblical authority for using the most common term 'Lord' when addressing the Resurrected One. That term would not feed Muslim misconceptions, as the term :Jesus' does." Well, there goes the ancient Church's earliest confession that, "Jesus is Lord."

He proposes changing the wording of the creeds to avoid Muslim misconceptions about Christians worshiping more than one God. He proposes that the third article of the Creeds be changed to avoid the offensive words, "Christian," or, "catholic." Instead he advocates using the word "umma," a Muslim term that suggests a fellowship of believers.

He also asserts that we remove the epistles from the Divine Service, or any worship service, since the epistles are largely Pauline and Muslims think that Paul was a false teacher who altered the Christian message from its previous pristine purity. This was a purity that conformed to the teaching of Muhammad. Of course, if you take out the Pauline epistles you don't hear unhelpful things like, "I am not ashamed of the gospel," and, "The Word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness."

The gist of the Professor's proposals is that we should alter Christianity itself, at least in the Muslim mission context, and seems to want to allow the Muslims to interpret our faith according to their own. Take out anything that is offensive in the Christian faith and what do you have...nothing, or maybe in that context, Islam.

Here are some other gems from the professor:
"Whenever we use the term 'Son of God,' Muslims immediately think blasphemy. We need to explain to Muslims that the term is a biblical metaphor that is used of individuals and even of Israel. It is not a biological description but a theological affirmation using a human metaphor. The Second Person of the Trinity is a 'chip off the old block.'"

"We need to make that explanation, but public worship typically is not the proper venue for that discussion. It would be best simply to avoid the term (Son of God) in our preaching and guide our people also to avoid it in their witnessing."

"In all of these matters, the process of discussing the reasons for the changes would become a great opportunity for educating and training our Christians as well as they try to witness effectively to their Muslim neighbors."

Of course, orthodox Christians would say that were we to adopt these proposals we would not be witnessing at all but compromising the truth of the gospel. The Apostles words are appropriate here, "even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we have preached to you, let him be accursed."

In an earlier blog, I took Tiny Muskins, a Danish Roman bishop, to task for suggesting that Christians adopt the name "Allah" as a title for God in order to accommodate Muslim sensitivities. These suggestions by one of our own are just as bad.

Rather than altering the historical Christian witness and removing traditional language from the Divine Service in order to be "effective," perhaps Concordia should alter the status of the professor and remove him from his position at one of our colleges.

Sacramental Docetism

2008-05-09T08:30:00.000-07:00

Docetism is a term that comes to us from the Greek word "doketo." Doketo means "to think" or "to seem." An early heretical group, the gnostics, claimed that Christ did not truly appear in the flesh, but merely "seemed" to possess a body. Thus, the gnostics taught docetism. This was a denial of the true flesh of Christ and a heretical challenge to the fundamental doctrines of the incarnation and the substitutionary atonement. If Christ merely appeared to be human or have a body, He did not pay for the sins of the world on the cross. In fact, He did not become human and has in no way shared in our humanity. The apostle John addresses this error in his first epistle to the church, saying, "every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God." 1 John 4:2

But the reformed denial of the true, bodily presence of Christ in the supper is a sort of sacramental docetism. That is, they deny the very words of Christ in the institution of the Supper as being in any sense real. Classically, the reformed have done this on the same basis as the underlying philosophical position of the gnostics. That is, they deny any real connection between the human and divine natures of Christ. The communication between the divine and human natures has always been a problem for the reformed. That denial has real consequences in their view of the nature of the Lord's Supper. They deny that Christ's body is actually or really present, distributed and received in the Sacrament at the Altar. They are in effect Sacramental Docetists.

Lutherans boldly confess the true, bodily presence of Christ in the Holy Supper. We confess it in word and deed. How can we confess the true, bodily presence of Christ by our deeds? Christians have historically done this by reverencing the elements at the consecration. First, it should be clear which elements we reverence. We do not, as some say, reverence the bread and wine. That would be idolatry. We reverence the heavenly elements of Christ's true, physical body and blood which are, "in, with, and under," the earthly elements. We do so by bowing deeply or genuflecting at the consecration and elevation. With these bodily actions we are making a bold confession of the true, bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament. Christ has come physically and really into our presence in the consecration. How can we do other than humbly and reverently acknowledge that presence?

This may seem foreign at first, maybe a "little catholic." Of course, it is. It's what catholics, Lutheran, Roman, and Greek, have done for centuries. It is also a confession against the Sacramental Docetism of American Evangelicalism.

On Making the Sign of the Cross

2008-04-15T01:33:00.000-07:00

Most rites of baptism include signing the cross over the one to be baptized. "Receive the sign of the holy cross both on your forehead + and upon your heart+ to mark you as you as one redeemed by Christ the crucified." In baptism we are united to Christ in His life, death, and resurrection. This baptism comforts us throughout our lives, assuring us that all the benefits of the death and resurrection of Christ have been delivered to us personally.

It is appropriate, then, that Christians through the ages have made the sign of the cross to remember that they have been redeemed by Christ the crucified. As early as the third century, Tertullian wrote that Christians make the sign of the cross, "in all our travels and movements. " Chrysostom in the fifth century said that making the sign of the cross reminds us of the price that has been paid to remove sin. In the Small Catechism, Luther prescribed making the sign of the cross at the opening and closing of the day.

In the Divine service we also make the sign of the cross. We do it at the invocation to remind us that God has called us together as His baptized people. At the absolution we make the sign of the cross, recognizing that absolution, along with the other sacraments, derives its power and authority from the salvation won on the cross. Also, absolution is a renewal of our baptism. At the last line of the creeds the cross is made because the creeds are a summary of the gospel that the Christian Church proclaims. The Nicene Creed was an expansion of the baptismal creed in Jerusalem, just as the Apostle's Creed is used in the in the west for baptism. In some churches the practice of making the sign of the cross at the last petition of the Lord's prayer is observed. God has truly delivered us from evil by the cross. It is appropriate to make the sign of the cross during the consecration, when you receive the elements, and at the dismissal from the table. At the benediction the sign of the cross is made. Just as God called us together as His baptized people, He sends us back out into the world as His baptized people.

At the seminary, the baptismal font stood at the entrance of the nave. As we passed the font, many of the seminarians would put our fingers into the font and sign ourselves upon entering and leaving the services. For some time now, our church has had a font near the entrance of the nave to give people the opportunity to remember their baptism in that way.

The sign of the cross is made either with two or three fingers. Two fingers represent the two natures of Christ. Three fingers represent the Holy Trinity. It begins at the forehead and goes down to the breastbone; it rises to the right shoulder and over to the left shoulder. Some go from the breastbone to the left shoulder and over to the right. The number of fingers or precise directions are not important.

Making the sign of the cross, of course, is neither commanded nor forbidden by Scripture. It is simply and ancient and commendable practice of the Christian Church. The gestures and postures of Christian worship exist simply to instruct us and remind us to offer service to God with reverence and awe. I commend this practice to you as God's baptized children.

Reverence and Awe

2008-04-10T13:20:00.000-07:00

With the advent of contemporary worship, there has come a radical paradigm shift in the way that Christians approach God. The friendship of God is so emphasized that the worshiper forgets the glory and majesty of God. Yes, Hebrews invites us to approach God with boldness and confidence, but does that mean we approach Him so casually without any reverence and awe?

A local church recently pulled its pews from the nave in order to accommodate tables and chairs. Now the worshipers can come with their lattes and relax while the band plays really rad music. I suspect the church lady might say something like, "Isn't that special? Where did you get the idea for that? Could it be....SATAN?"

In the past there were some good, solid customs established in the worship of the Church that helped inspire a sense of reverence and awe for the majesty of God. The pews had kneelers and the worshipers knelt to offer prayer and thanksgiving to God. Before entering the pew you would kneel toward the altar as a sign of reverence for God's gifts. At the name of Jesus people would bow their heads. Christians would bow slightly at the Gloria Patri. When it came to the "incarnatus est" clause of the creed, the parishioner would bow deeply as a sign of reverence for the doctrine of the incarnation. Christians would make the sign of the cross at the invocation, absolution, the end of the creed, at receiving the elements, and at the benediction. Another old custom, and one that is worthy of imitation, was to bow at the consecration of the elements. They recognized, as we should, that Christ is truly and physically present in, with, and under the elements because of the consecration.

Now, of course, this can all be done in a hypocritical fashion without any true reverence in the heart for our Savior, but these old customs also had the advantage of reminding people they were in the presence of God. God is to be treated with reverence and awe. Although we approach God with boldness and confidence, we do not approach Him in a casual way.

Think about how the worshipers in the Scriptures approached God. When Moses met God at the burning bush, he not only took off his shoes but fell on his face. When Isaiah was ushered into the presence of God, He cried out, "Woe is me; I am undone. For I have seen the Holy One of Israel." When the apostle John saw the image of Christ in a vision in the book of Revelation he fell on his face, John says, "as a dead man." Don't we believe that God Himself is truly present with us in worship anymore?

So leave your latte at home and remember that it is no small thing to be in the presence of a holy God. Come and worship with a sense of reverence and awe.

Confessions of a Lent Lover

2008-02-10T04:59:00.000-08:00

The Season of Lent begins with Ash Wednesday and continues 40 days, Sundays excluded, in preparation for Easter. Lent is a season of repentance and reflection, a time to turn from our sin and to look to Christ in faith. It is especially a time to remember the sufferings of Christ and His atoning work.

The gospel lessons during Lent highlight our Lord's struggle with the evil one. The first Sunday, Invocabit, reminds us of our Lord's struggle and victory over the temptations of Satan in the desert. On Reminscere Sunday Christ delivers the Canaanite woman's daughter from the demon. On Occuli Sunday Christ delivers a deaf-mute from demons and is accused by his human enemies of being the prince and ruler of the demons. Laetere Sunday is a respite with Christ feeding the five thousand, but on Judica Sunday the struggle intensifies with the enemies of Christ attempting to stone him. This struggle finds it culmination on Passion Sunday and Good Friday where Christ triumphs over sin, death, and hell on the cross.

Although Sundays are considered excluded from the 40 day count in Lent (Sundays are always celebrations of the resurrection), the mood of the Sundays in Lent is more subdued than most Sundays. The alleluias are absent, and there is no Gloria in excelsis. The gospel verse is changed in Lutheran Worship from "Alleluia, Lord to whom shall we go..." to "Return to the Lord Your God..." There are no flowers on the altar except on Laetere Sunday. During passiontide, beginning Judica Sunday, the crosses and crucifix are either removed or covered in purple.

Lent is also a season of catechesis. In the ancient church catechumens were prepared during Lent for their baptism at Easter Vigil. The Lutheran Church has customarily used the Lenten season for sermons on the catechism. This year we are looking forward to baptizing several people at Easter Vigil and during the Lenten season.

I love Lent. I love the Wednesday soup suppers, the increased focus on repentance and confession, and the anticipation of the celebration of Easter. I love the hymns and the responses. I love the Dorian chant. I love it all. Blessings to everyone during this blessed season.

What if It had been Harry Potter?

2007-12-31T07:39:00.000-08:00

The transit system in Ft. Worth Texas has a strict policy; there will be no loud or abusive behavior on their buses. The question is, what constitutes loud or abusive behavior. Is it loud or abusive when a woman reads to her children on the bus? Most sane people would answer no. What about when she reads something really subversive like the Bible?
Christine Lutz, a mother of four, was riding on the bus with her children on Saturday, sabbath for Seventh Day Adventists, and reading the Bible to them when the driver ordered her to stop reading. The bus driver insisted, "This is not the time or the place." Mrs. Lutz refused. A supervisor was then brought on board. When the mother refused to stop reading the Bible, The supervisor escorted her and her children off the bus.
Without knowing all the facts in the incident, it's hard to say for sure. Hypothetically, she could have been making a nuisance of herself. On the other hand, its hard to believe that the woman could have been creating a disturbance simply by reading the Bible to her children. Since when does a bus driver decide an appropriate time and place for a mother to be teaching her children the Bible? What if she had been reading Harry Potter or Grim's Fairy Tales? Can you picture the bus driver telling her that it's not an appropriate time or place to read these books to her children.
Religious conversation seems to make a good number of people uncomfortable. Religion and politics are the two things you don't bring up in polite conversation. But religious expression is a guaranteed right in the first amendment. In the end, it doesn't matter if this mother's conversation with her children was offensive to passengers or uncomfortable to them. The constitution does not guarantee the right to not be offended. Of course, I'm sure there are judges who could find that right in the constitution if they were so inclined.
Let's hope that this woman is able to sue the transit system in Ft. Worth and that it sends a signal to a culture that is becoming increasingly hostile to faith.

Are Christians Taking Christ out of Christmas?

2007-12-26T19:54:00.000-08:00

I remember that as a kid I would sometimes hear people express disapproval over Christmas being shortened to Xmas. You would hear a lot of expressions of disgust that, "Christ was being taken out of Christmas." In fact, Merry Xmas is a legitimately Christian expression, at least in writing. X is the Greek symbol for Christ. So merry Xmas is Merry Christmas.
Today, Christians are rallying together to combat the 'War on Christmas.' We don't like it that people have stopped saying, "Merry Christmas," for the more politically correct, "happy holidays." Actually, "happy holidays," should be offensive to about 10% of the population who consider themselves atheists. Maybe it's not such a politically correct term after all.
But if Christians are going to fault the secular world for taking Christ out of Christmas, perhaps they should think about how they celebrate Christmas themselves. I wonder how many Christians who complain so loudly about the war on Christmas actually came to either a Christmas Eve or Christmas day service. Remember what your mother said, "When you point a finger at someone else, there are three more pointing back at you.
I realize that the reason so many Christians have forsaken the custom of going to Mass on Christmas is that pastors have not given them the option. Protestantism in particular has a long history of eschewing any Christmas celebrations. But most Christians today celebrate Christmas. The difference is that it is now a more secular holiday. Secular holiday, boy talk about your oxymorons!
One church in our town actually canceled services a couple of years ago when Christmas fell on a Sunday so that people could stay home and be with their families. Well, after all, that is what Christmas is about, isn't it.
Look, I don't believe Christians are required to attend religious services on Christmas. But please, if you are going to complain about people forgetting, "the reason for the season," don't be a hypocrite and forsake the traditional assembling of Christians on that day. After all, He truly is the reason for the season.

From Apostolicity to Apostacy

2007-08-15T16:04:00.000-07:00

Tiny Muskens, a Roman Catholic bishop in the Netherlands, is calling for his flock to start referring to God as "Allah," as a way to relieve tensions between Christians and Muslims. According to the bishop, God is above the names we give Him, so it shouldn't be a problem. Someone should point out to this priest that we do not give names to God, we receive the ones He has revealed to us. God has not revealed Himself as Allah. Of course, in order for this argument to make sense, you have to believe that God has revealed Himself, something that may not be true for this apostate bishop. Incidentally, the head of the protestant church in the Netherlands opposes such a move, but on the grounds that it "does no justice to western identity."

Vacation Bible School

2007-08-04T08:32:00.000-07:00

This week we had Vacation Bible School. I led the music and instead of using the songs sent out with the program, we taught the children hymns. Some of the hymns they learned were 'Christ Be My Leader,' 'Salvation Unto Us Has Come,' 'Christ Jesus Lay in Death's Strong Bands,' and 'Come, O Almighty King.' Needless to say it took some work explaining what these hymns meant and explaining the language, but I think it was well worth it. Did they get it all? Probably not, but how many adults get it all. They were exposed to Gospel truth in those hymns, which is the rich heritage of Lutheran hymnody. Some had no idea at all how to even negotiate the hymnals. That was OK too. We turned the pages for them even if they couldn't read and they stared at the pages. Everyone learned something. The hymns were on their lips and in their ears, and that was a start.

No Silly Love Songs

2007-07-30T13:55:00.000-07:00

You'd think that Christians would have had enough of silly Jesus music. I wonder if we're conditioning our kids with this tripe by introducing the silly music they send out with the VBS programs. This week our congregation is having Vacation Bible School. I was recruited to lead the music since no one else wanted to do it. I've decided that there will be no "Jesus is my boyfriend" music. I'm taking this opportunity to teach the children hymns rather than the silly, bubblegum music they send out with the program. I'll keep you posted no how it goes.

Another Example of the Problem with Liberalism

2007-07-25T12:10:00.001-07:00

An article in the Christian Science Monitor, www.csmonitor.com/2007/0725/p01s02-ussc.html, today tells of a gathering of pastors of various denominations who are asking the question, ""In the midst of a world of violence and suffering, how can we believe in an almighty and all-loving God?"
The problem of pain and violence is certainly hard to bear. This question reminds me of the trilemna, If God is almighty and good is good, evil does not exist. Wrong. If God is almighty and evil exists, God is not good. Wrong. If God is Good and evil exist, God is not almighty. Wrong. Scripture does give us answers in the face of suffering, but it's sometimes the answer we don't want to hear.
First of all, evil exists. There can be no doubt about that. Parents lose their children. Hurricanes displace hundreds of thousands and kill many. Wars bring out our brutal and greedy natures. Evil is alive and well. Perhaps the place they should have started is, why does evil exist. Scripture is clear on this point. Evil exists because man succumbed to temptation, in paradise, and sin, death, and destruction was introduced into the perfect world God created. It is God's judgment on sin, a judgment which He carries out with all righteousness. God is not to blame for the evil in this world. The problem is sin.
Second, God is almighty. Since evil does exist in this world, God is in control of it. He limits it and lets it advance according to His own purposes. He is not the author of evil, but since evil exists He uses it to carry out His will. Ephesians tells us that God causes all things to work after the purpose of His own will. In His mercy, however, God uses that evil to work the ultimate good of those who love Him. (Romans 8:28)
Third, God is good. He proves His goodness by giving us His Son who has bore the sins of the world that He might save us eternally and restore us to paradise. Through the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord we have hope that evil has been defeated and we await the restoration of God's good creation at the parousia of Christ. Of course, if you ignore these facts, especially the cross, evil can be a confusing problem. Even knowing these things Christians struggle with the reality of evil every day. But we have hope.
There were two things that annoyed me about this article. One is the feeling among the theologians that they have to come up answers, "that satisfy." They see Churches shrinking and their motivation seems to be getting butts back in the pews rather than proclaiming the truth.
Another thing that bothered me is the faithlessness of liberalism in the face of unpleasant facts. The organizer of the event, Pastor Liz Magill, said in response to the question, "I give up the 'almighty' part... God is as powerful as those who believe in Him or Her and who let God guide them.... But we don't always do that, so God becomes less powerful." This is, of course, the problem with liberalism. Who would anyone want to believe in the God that Ms. Magill worships? And they wonder why people are leaving those churches.
Finally it annoyed me that these so called "pastors" do not see what it is that pastors actually do. Another participant, a United Methodist female pastor, Barbara Herber, said, ""We don't have easy answers...Our primary job is to sit with people in their suffering because it's really lousy to sit alone." It may be the job of a pastor to sit with the bereaved in the midst of suffering, to hold their hand and comfort them by being a companion in their suffering, but ultimately it is to bring the Word of God to bear. That Word is the most comforting thing you can give.
That is not to say that pastors rush in with quick answers and rush back out. Sometimes people are not ready to hear the answer that Scripture gives about the problem of evil until they have had time to grieve, but to say that Scripture does not provide the answer to evil is a faithless position.

Born on the Fourth of July

2007-07-04T12:30:00.001-07:00

Today our nation is again celebrating its independence from the land of fish and chips. In the Lord's prayer we are taught to pray for our daily bread, which Luther teaches also includes things like good government. Among the first article gifts of our heavenly Father, good government is certainly a great blessing, and we have a good government. Our constitution is, indeed, the best form of government under the sun.
What a privelege it is to be an American. What a privelege to enjoy the great freedoms this country recognizes as having been given by God. While there are many problems and inconsistencies in the way our governement actually governs, we are far better off than anyone living in any other nation.
May God continue to bless our nation and guarentee to us its freedoms.

Almighty God, who blesses mankind with good things and has established the gift of government without any merit or worthiness on our part that we may enjoy peace and tranquility, grant your continued blessings to the United States of America, its leaders, and its institutions, and by your mercy give those who govern us wisdom and resolve to lead us in justice, truth and peace, that our country and its leaders may, by your grace, conform to the purposes for which you have established the office of human government; through Jesus Christ, Your Son, our Lord, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.

Some Thoughts on Birth Control

2007-06-28T13:09:00.000-07:00

Alright, this is going to sound really wierd.
Most of the west sees the advent of the birth control pill as an unqualified good. It is believed to help people control their reproductive choices and so give them more control over their lives. It is seen as certainly lifting peple out of poverty, since children are certainly expensive to raise. The west is also concerned about a population explosion and an increasing scarcity of resources. For these reasons, the birth control pill and other products available are generally promoted in our culture.
But in other parts of the world, reproduction goes on. Live births in other parts of the world, especially the third world, far outstrip western cultures. To paraphrase 'the Doors,' we may have the guns, but they have the numbers.
Even in Europe, the West risks the danger of being outnumbered in coming generations by immigrant populations that do not share its values. England, France, Holland, and Germany are already beginning to experience some negative impacts of this phenomenon. Immigrant populations are becoming increasingly powerful in those countries. Some have speculated that in the next few generations Europe, along with its western values, may be overcome politically by the sheer numbers of these immigrant populations. It makes me wonder, has the west sewn the seeds of its own destruction by its position on birth control.
In America, where birth control has been wildly popular, we are beginning to experience the pangs of relative underpopulation. Our social security system relies on the replacement of workers to keep the system solvent. When the system was started there were roughly 15 workers for each retiree. Today that number is something like three to one. When the baby boomers begin to retire that number will shrink considerably. The only way to keep the system solvent, especially since our politicians have plundered whatever could have been saved and invested, is to either raise taxes on the working or increase immigration at an alarming rate. But these solutions will not work.
It used to be that every family had a built in social security policy. Parents would have children and care for them when they were young, and later the children would care for the parents. Ideally, large families insured the security of the parents. Now that the responsibility has shifted to the government, people have turned, mostly for reasons of convenience, to a model of 2.3 children. This is not enough to sustain Social Security.
I personally know people who have opted to have no children at all because they wanted their freedom and a healthy disposable income to spend on toys. In reality they are like children themselves who don't want to grow up. These people usually gripe and moan about welfare programs for children that they are forced to pay for through taxation. Ironically, it is these children, the ones about whom they complain, that will probably be supporting them in their old age.
Through birth control, has the west forgotten a fundamental principle of human existence? Does society need to multiply in order to sustain itself?
In the garden, God said to our first parents, "be fruitful and multiply." In my opinion, our culture tend to think of sex as being primarily for pleasure. Certainly this is one purpose. Sex does provide pleasure and strengthens the bonds of marriage. But have we unwisely eliminated one of God's purposes for sex, the propagation of the race? Will the west pay the consequences for this turn in our culture?

Presentation of the Augsburg Confession- 25 June 1530

2007-06-25T06:25:00.001-07:00

Our Lord tells us, "Whoever confesses Me before men, Him will I confess before My Father in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, Him will I deny before My Father who is in heaven."

I just finished spraying Round Up around my house. The weeds and little trees that have infiltrated the perimeter of my house make the house look unkempt, but even more, it threatens the foundation of our home. Those little trees become big trees and their roots threaten the very structure of our home. So I went around with a 1 gallon jug of chemicals to kill the weeds and will next go out with a hatchet and saw to take down the trees.

The Apostle Paul tells us that the Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone. He says no one can lay any other foundation than that which has been laid, Christ Jesus.

The little weeds and stink trees native to the human heart attack the Church at its foundation. Those weeds are the law and faith in human ability to save us. They attack the very foundation of our faith, that Christ alone saves.

The weeds had been growing for quite sometime because the house was unattended. The Roman Church, once a stalwart of western orthodoxy, began to have caretakers who were uninterested in preserving the faith, and instead looked upon the weeds as beautiful flowers, and only snipped them so they could sell them as such. The Popes began to use their power, not to preserve the faith, but to enrich themselves with wealth and power.

It was a nasty mess until an Augustinian monk, Martin Luther, decided it was time to spray a little Round Up, on all the weeds that had grown up around the Church. His tools were the Word and Sacraments, the law and the gospel. He stepped forward to confess that sinful mankind is saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. When he was threatened and ordered to stop, he gracefully and faithfully maintained his confession saying, "My conscience is bound to the Word of God. Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen."

Luther had not been the first to resist the abuses of the Roman Church, but he did it with such boldness, clarity, and faith in Christ that he is forever known as the Great Reformer of the Church. Luther did not attack the peripherals of Roman abuses, but went straight to the heart of the matter. Luther saw that the gospel was being buried under the law, and that Rome was denying Christ by teaching that good works contribute to our salvation.

But Luther was not alone. As Luther stood before the emperor at the diet of Worms in 1521, so his companions and princes stood before the same emporer in 1530, and presented a confession of Christ so clear that the enemies of the gospel could not come up with a confutation of it worth publishing. Reading the Augsburg Confession today we find it bound together by the central article of the faith, justification. The sweet gospel of grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone drips from every page. Those 28 articles are a confession of Christ as clear as any yet to be produced since the apostolic age.

Our Lord knew what He was demanding when He said, "Whoever confesses Me before men, I will confess Him before My Father in heaven." He was asking those who would follow Him to take up their cross, suffer the attacks of the evil one, the rejection of men, humility, suffering, and death. In other words they were to bear His image in this world. The authors and signers of our confessions did so with integrity and honor. They now dwell in the unapproachable light of their Father in heaven. Just as they, by grace, confessed Christ in this world, He has confessed them before His Father in heaven. With such a great cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us press on in the great confession of our faith to the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Oops! a French salad ending.

Confusion of the Kingdoms

2007-05-16T11:06:00.000-07:00

Constitutional lawyer John Whitehead recently editorialized that Christians should be pacifists since Christ preached a message of non-retaliation and non-violence. He used as the model for Christian pacifism the sainted Martin Luther King Jr., the celebrated civil rights activist of hippie lore. This kind of drivel naturally drives confessional Lutherans, and others, up a wall. It is a horrible confusion of the two kingdoms.
Christians live in two kingdoms. The kingdom of the right is the Church, a dispenser of mercy and grace in the world through the Word and Sacraments. If he were referring to this kingdom he would be correct. The Church does not take up arms and settle worldly disputes. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." But the kingdom of the left is a kingdom of justice exercised by worldly power. It is a dispenser of vengeance and wrath wielded by the use of reason. It too is ruled by Christ since His ascension not by the Word but by human reason.
The problem with Whitehead's thesis is that he confuses the two kingdoms. Christians are citizens of both kingdoms. Christians are called to peace and mercy by the Church, but are called to arms and defense of justice by the State. As individuals living in the kingdom of the right we are indeed called to non-violence, but as citizens of the left hand kingdom we are called by legitimate authority to the defense of the nation. When rulers, who happen to be Christian, occupy an office in the left hand kingdom, they operate according to the callings of that office rather than their calling as Christians. This view is endorsed by Scripture in Romans 13.
Whitehead should stick to constitutional law and leave theology to the theologians.

Johann Gerhard

2007-04-26T12:37:00.000-07:00

If you haven't already, I recommend that you buy the Repristination press translation of John Gerhard's 'Sacred Meditations.' It's the best devotional book I've ever read. It is filled with the warm, faithful meditations of one of the classic "rock-ribbed" Lutheran dogmaticians of classic Lutheran orthodoxy. It manages to be pious without becoming pietistic. It is a must read for the serious Christian.

Here is an excerpt:

"When the people would have made Christ a king He fled from them; but when they sought to put Him to a shameful and ignominious death upon the cross, He freely and voluntarily offered Himself. If thou wouldst become more and more conformed to Christ, take more satisfaction in the shame the world heaps upon thee, than in the empty glories it offers to thee. If thou canst not lightly esteem the honors of this world for the sake of Christ, thy Savior, how couldst thou rise to that point of love that thou wouldst pour out thy life for Him? There is no other path to the attainment of true glory with Christ than through a holy contempt for world glory, just as Christ Himself thorugh the ignominy of the cross entered into His glory. Therefore choose rather to be despised, to be lightly esteemed, to be scorned in this world, that thou mayst be honored of God in the world that is to come."

Yes, Barabbas, You are Free

2007-04-05T13:50:00.000-07:00

He was not a likable person. He was a scoundrel, a wicked man. He was a bloody, violent, incorrigible criminal. The Jewish authorities certainly never would have lifted a finger to save the likes of Barabbas. But he was convenient. He was a tool. Barabbas was fortunate that the Jewish authorites hated the this Jesus of Nazareth so much, they were willing to release a murderer and an insurrectionist to the streets in order to insure our Lord's condemnation.
And so our Lord took the punishment due Barabbas. It was his condemnation, his flogging, his humiliation, his cross, his nails, his nakedness, and his death, but Christ became his substitute. Surely, if it hadn't been for the jealousy and hatred of the Jewish rulers, Barabbas, rather than Jesus, would have occupied the central cross that morning. It was Barabbas who would have been crucified, and rightly so, between two thieves.
But by the predetermined plan and purpose of God, our Lord was crucified and Barabbas went free. The one in whom Pilate could find no guilt took the place of the one in whom Pilate could find no earthly good. Barabbas is a wonderful illustration of the substitutionary atonement. God punishes His own, dearly loved Son, so that a nasty sociopath like Barabbas could go free.
I wonder where Barrabas went after this. I wonder if he ever realized what exactly happened there at the cross. If ever anyone should have appreciated the magnitude of our Lord's passion, it should have been Barabbas.
Yes, Barrabas, you are fortunate. You have a substitute. He has stepped into your place and paid the ultimate price for your sin, your idolatry and blasphemy, your despising of God's word, dishonoring of your parents, your murderous passions, adultrous thoughts, petty thefts, slander, and covetousness. Every crime you committed has been charged to His account. He died like the lawbreaker you were and still are.
Go Barabbas and gaze upon His wounds. See your substitute horribly blasphemed, forsaken by God and men, naked, bleeding, and dying for you. Mark it well, Barrabas, for this is what it took to set you free.
But remember, Barabbas, you are only one of many. He did it not for you alone, but for the whole world. He did for every Barrabas born of the seed of Adam. He did it for us all.
The joyful gospel of Pilate that surely rang in the ears of Barrabas as if it were a dream, rings also in our ears. "Barrabas, go, you are free." It is the gospel of Christ to every sinner. Someone has taken our place. The punishment due us has been paid by the innocent lamb of God, and God says to each of us, "Barrabas, go, you are free." We surely deserved every condemnation pronounced upon Barrabas, but an innocent victim has taken our place.
Like Barrabas there is blood on our hands. It might not be the blood that the geniuses in forensics are interested in, but is blood nevertheless. The blood on our hands is the blood of hatred and unjust anger, our covetousness and thefts, our adultery fantasies, our plotting to obtain what belongs to another, and our rebellious, scandalous, wicked turning from the one who made us and requires better. Those stains cannot be washed away by human effort. We are guilty and punishment is required.\
And because God intervenes in human history under the court of the pagan Pilate, the innocent is condemned and the guilty go free. Praise the Lord, for our innocent substitute does what Barrabas could never do. He goes condemned to the cross and thereby breaks the power of sin, plunders hell of its power, and lets all the condemned go free.
And like Barrabas there is no longer room at Calvary for us. We have been released from judgment, we have escaped death, and we are free to go. Yes, Barabas, you are free.

Baptism's Continuing Significance

2007-02-23T21:22:00.000-08:00

No denomination values Baptism as highly as the Lutheran Church. The Reformed view Baptism largely as an outward sign of an inward thing, a mere symbol. Roman Catholics view Baptism as an initiating sacrament that infuses grace, which they view as a substance, for the purpose of starting one off on the path to salvation. Lutherans view Baptism as a means of grace through which God washes away sin, confers regeneration by the Holy Spirit, creates a living faith in the believer, and unites us to Christ.
Paul says in Romans chapter six, "Or don't you know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death. Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin."
One of the benefits of Baptism that Paul so clearly teaches is that Baptism unites us to Christ so that we may share His life. Luther teaches in the Small Catechism, "It (baptism) indicates that the old Adam in us should by daily contrition and repentance be drowned and die along with all sins and evil desires and that a new man should daily emerge and arise to live before God in rightoeusness and purity forever.
What Luther is teaching in the Small Catechism is that Baptism continues to work daily in the life of the believer, putting to death the old man and bringing to life the new. It happens once, but its effects are ongoing. Each day the Christian is renewed in His Baptism by, "daily contrition and repentance." This fits well with Paul's own assertion in the pages of Holy Scripture telling us that Baptism works new life in the believer, a Christ like life.
The comforts of Baptism are manifold. It assures of the forgiveness of sins and our identification with Christ. It teaches us that God does the saving alone, applying the salvation earned by Christ to us by water and the Word. And it works in us a renewal of life, which although incomplete in this life, has a beginning in Baptism. As often as we return to our Baptism by daily contrition and repentance, we receive the renewing effects of that Baptism and are empowered to live a Christ-like life.
So Baptism has enormous significance for us. It is central to the life of the Christian. That is why we should be reminded of our Baptism and its blessings often, even daily. In our Church we begin our service at the Baptismal font, which is located in the center of the chancel. By doing so we give a visual reminder to God's people that He has called us together as His children in the waters of Baptism where He first put His name upon us. I stick my fingers in the font, draw out its water, and make the sign of the cross over the congregation. I do this not because I believe the water in the font is somehow blessed and made holy water, but because people need every opportunity to be reminded of their baptism and its continuing sifnificance in the Christian life.

What, 2008 already?

2007-02-15T02:17:00.000-08:00

It's hard to believe that we still have almost a year to go before the first primary, yet the presidential campaign is heating up already to the extent that the field is quickly narrowing in both parties to just a few candidates. On the Democratic ticket the field is as bleak as ever. That Hillary or Obama will get the nomination seems to be a foregone conclusion. Either one would be a disaster as the leader of our country.
What is most distressing is that the major candidates on the Republican side seem to be just as bleak. There is not a true conservative in the bunch. Guliani, the frontrunner, is a definite liberal. Mitch Romney, the liberal governor of Massachussets whose positions have been slightly to the left of Ted Kennedy, wants everyone to believe he has seen the light and is the conservative alternative in the race. John McCain, although strongly conservative in key areas, is one of the authors of the infamous, liberty destroying McCain-Feingold bill which regulated campaign finance laws and harshly limited free speech in the place we need it most, politics. In addition McCain has bought into the Al Gore, Chicken little, global warming scaremongering that threatens to wreck our economy.
There is, however, an interesting candidate in the field. He is little known because he is not a Washington powerhouse, MSM darling, or Hollywood hopeful. His name is Duncan Hunter, a US representative from southern California, but don't hold that against him. He has been a faithful Reagan conservative since 1980, a strong supporter of the military with 2 sons who have actually served in Iraq. He himself quit college to serve in Vietnam. He believes in a strong national defense, peace through strength, strong border security, and opposes free trade that takes American jobs to third world countries. He is not a phony conservative or a vichy Republican.
I encourage you all to check this candidate out. We need strong leadership in our country and I like his positions.

Conference on the Augsburg Confession

2007-02-12T07:46:00.001-08:00

Final Preparations are underway for a new conference on the Augsburg Confession. It will be held on June 23, 2007 at Gethsemane Lutheran Church in Marion, Ohio. The purpose of the conference is to renew an interest among clergy and laity in the confessions of the Lutheran Church and to promote a greater fidelity to them.
The speakers for this conference will be Rev. Dr. Lawrence Rast, Rev. Dr. Lloyd Gross, Rev. Terry Cripe, Rev. Lance O'Donell, and Rev. Brett Cornelius. Dr. Rast will give the keynote address on Justification as the heart of the Augsburg Confession. The conference will include 4 breakout sessions on Worship, the Church, The Office of Holy Ministry, and Private Confession and Absolution.
The cost for the conference will be $30.00 for those who register before May 15th and $40.00 at the door. Registration forms will be made available by March 1st, and will be posted at www.gethsemane-lcms.org.
This conference will, I'm sure, prove to be a blessing to both clergy and laity. I hope that you will all consider attending.

Return of the LLF

2007-02-10T10:46:00.000-08:00

The Lutheran Liturgical Forum has been a helpful email forum in the past for discussing liturgical matters and getting information. After a long shut down the LLF is now functioning again. I hope that those who subscribed in the past will continue to do so. If you haven't been a subscriber I invite you to send an email to: forum-on@LutheranLiturgy.org
In the past this email list has been the source of some very helpful information on the liturgy, church year, etc. , as well as some interesting debate. I hope that you'll check it out and join us to participate in the discussion.

2nd Sunday after Epiphany

2007-01-17T08:04:00.000-08:00

It's been awhile since I've gone ablogging, so here is my new post. It is taken from my last sermon.

Grace, peace, and mercy from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Wine is a gift of God. I realize that wine can also be a curse, because any gift of God can be abused and turned into a curse rather than a blessing. When it is abused the effects are apparent and disgusting. Butwine is a gift of God. The Christian religion is not a tee-totaling religion. That is the Muslim religion. The Christian religion recognizes
that God gives man wine to cheer his heart. One of the Messianic signs
alluded to in our Old Testament lesson is that, “The mountains shall
drip with sweet wine.” When the Messiah delivers His people, they shall,
“Plant vineyards and drink its wine.” Wine is portrayed as a positive
good here and a sign of the Messianic kingdom.

Wine is especially appropriate at weddings. Weddings are occasions of
joy and happiness. Who would not want to accompany the joining of man
and woman in a lifelong union and not have this heart gladdening
beverage available? It would certainly not be those who invited our Lord
to their blessed wedding feast, It was certainly not Mary, the mother of
our Lord, who, when the wine gives out, goes to our Lord and pleads for
the couple. It was certainly not our Lord, who, when the wine gives out,
blesses that couple with His first miracle. In fact, He supplies more
wine, and not just a little. He changes six stone waterpots filled to
the brim, about 20 or 30 gallons each, to the best wine at the wedding.
After the wine gave out, He supplied about 480 bottles of wine,
estimating the amount conservatively.

It was the groom who was required to bring the wine. It was his duty as
host to see to the enjoyment of the guests. He was in charge of its
dispersal. He had control over when the wine was served and how much was
served. Unfortunately, this groom had planned poorly for his wedding
feast. The wine gave out.

It was an embarrassment for the couple to run out of wine. They had
failed to sufficiently cheer the hearts of their guests. It was also a
sign of their own human frailty, an example of the way we fail to serve
our fellow man. Human nature in its frailty often fails to do our duty
to God and man, not just in being hospitable, but in loving our neighbor
as we love ourselves, and, more importantly, loving God above all
things. We have failed to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and
strength. We have failed to love our neighbor as ourselves. Born with
this sinful human nature, we have discovered that we do not have the
resources necessary to do what God requires of us. We are guilty.

But where all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, God
Himself sends a Redeemer. He sends His own Son to rescue us and deliver
us from the consequences of our sinful nature. He spares His own Son not
at all but freely gives Him up for the life of the world. Christ Himself
willingly goes to the cross and opens up His own veins so that the
mountains may drip with sweet wine, so that you can drink and have your
fill. There you find forgiveness for your sin. There Christ does what
you cannot do and saves you from your death, hell, the devil, and
eternal shame.

Weddings are a joyous occasion and should not be marked by shortages.
This is because the union of husband and wife in heart and body
represents something greater than the sum total of the bride and groom.
In the union of man and woman a mystery is revealed, the two shall
become one. The estate of marriage is meant to be a reflection of
relationship between Christ and His Church.

Paul teaches this in our epistle lesson. He says, “Wives, submit to your
own husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as
Christ is the head of the Church, his body, of which He is the Savior.”
He says, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loves the Church and
gave Himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing
with water through the word… In this same way husbands ought to love
their wives as their own bodies.” This unique relationship that Christ
calls man and woman to reflects the will of God not only for two
individuals but for mankind in general. God calls you into relationship
with Himself. As a husband lays down his life for his bride, or at least
he should, so Christ laid down His life, to make you His own. In the
waters of baptism He washed you and cleansed you so that you stand
before Him now without spot or wrinkle or any blemish, but holy and
blameless.

When we see the groom standing at the altar, loving and cherishing the
woman coming down the isle to be His bride, we are reminded of the love
that Christ has for the Church. It is that love which Christ has for
you. He wants you to be His own and has spared no expense but gave
everything so that you would be His. When you sin and go astray, like
Hosea’s wife, He lovingly calls you back to mercy and grace. He forgets
your sins and welcomes you home.

Christ, your heavenly bridegroom, then, prepares a feast. This is no
meager meal. It’s not an MRE. He doesn’t provide the meager bread and
water of a prisoner. It is not the soup kitchen that philanthropist
provide for the poor and homeless. No. It is a marvelous feast provided
out of his limitless abundance. At that great feast, His wine does not
give out. There are no shortages, no lack of planning. He knows exactly
what you need and He provides it for you in spades. He doesn’t give just
a little, just enough to satisfy the palate. He gives out of His own
liberality and the abundance of His goodness. The mountains drip with
sweet wine in the kingdom of our Lord.

Perhaps we fail to recognize the goodness of God because we ourselves
are so sparing and limited in our capacity to bless and forgive others.
We are like the bridegroom at the wedding of Cana who measures out what
we think is just enough to satisfy but never waste. We are afraid to
waste things like mercy and forgiveness on those we think might not
appreciate them. Peter comes to Jesus and asks, “Lord, how often shall
my brother sin against me and I forgive him, up to seven times?” You
know our Lord’s answer, “I tell you Peter not up to seven times, but
seven times seventy.” He doesn’t mean 490 and then you’re done. He means
keep forgiving. Repent! Quit being so stingy. Forgive truly as you have
been forgiven in Christ. Be sons of your father in heaven whose mercy,
grace and forgiveness has no limits.

Christ’s forgiveness has no limits. He is ready to forgive more than you
need. He will gladly waste His forgiveness on you. He lavishes His love
on you. He doesn’t spare any expense, but has paid for everything on the
cross and it is more than enough. Christ went overboard by giving His
precious blood for you. There is no giving out when it comes to God’s
forgiveness in Christ, because the precious blood of Jesus outweighs by
far all the sins of the whole world. God will be generous to you in
forgiveness and mercy and life. If Christ is so gracious and liberal
with earthly things like wine, why would we believe that He is stingy
with things like mercy, forgiveness, and eternal life?

So Christ, the heavenly bridegroom, has prepared a feast. And today we
come and enjoy a foretaste of that feast to come. Here in this cup the
mountains drip with sweet wine, the best wine. This is the best wine
because it is accompanied by His very blood. It is shed with love and
liberality on Calvary’s hill. We see it gushing out from His pierced
side. Our Lord’s wounded side is a fountain of grace and peace. It is
delivered to you here in this cup. It is a cup that never runs dry. His
forgiveness is always there. The steadfast love of the Lord never
ceases. His mercies never come to an end. They are new every morning.
They are new to you this morning. Come and drink from the finest of
wine, squeezed from the grapes of wrath on Calvary and delivered to you
in this cup. There is no wine like it.

After the miracle of Cana, Christ’s disciples believed on Him. There He
revealed His glory. This is the second Sunday after the Epiphany. This
miracle was an epiphany to our Lord’s disciples. They saw and believed.
After seeing this sign they believed. Today Christ gives you His signs.
He brings you to the waters of baptism where He washes clean from every
spot or wrinkle. As one popular comedian puts it, “There’s your sign.”
He pronounces forgiveness through the pastor. There’s your sign. He
makes known His grace and mercy through the bread and wine of Holy
communion. There’s your sign. This is what He shows you so that you may
know His will toward you, and not doubt that He is there to forgive,
renew, and strengthen you to life eternal.

And this great miracle occurs on the joyous occasion of a wedding. He
produces His first miracle there, so that you may see how much God
approves of this estate of marriage and so that you may have a picture
of the love and longing that Christ has for you. It’s a little embarrassing
isn’t it, to think that Christ loves you so much, but He does. He is your
heavenly bridegroom who has spared no expense to make you His own and to
rejoice exceedingly over you. He celebrates His love for you with
liberality and abundance. And this He will do for eternity as you are
ushered into that ultimate wedding feast and there is joy and happiness
forever. Amen.

On Spiritual Smoking

2006-12-12T09:33:00.000-08:00

With the new season upon us, I haven't had a lot of time to blog. But I couldn't resist this one.
In light of Ohio's new smoking law, I thought I'd pull a gem from one of our "Reformed" brothers, Ralph Eskine, and 18th century theologian. Enjoy

Smoking Spiritualized.In Two Parts.

Part One: The Law *

THIS Indian weed now wither'd quite,Tho' green at noon, cut down at night,Shows thy decay;All flesh is hay.Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

The pipe, so lily-like and weak,Does thus thy mortal state bespeakThou art ev'n such,Gone with a touch.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

And when the smoke ascends on high,
Then thou behold'st the vanity
Of worldy stuff,
Gone with a puff.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

And when the pipe grows foul within,
Think on thy soul defil'd with sin;
For then the fire,
It does require.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

And seest the ashes cast away;
Then to thyself thou mayest say,
That to the dust
Return thou must.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

Part Two: The Gospel

WAS this small plant for thee cut down!
So was the Plant of great renown;
Which mercy sends
For nobler ends.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

Doth juice medicinal proceed
From such a naughty foreign weed?
Then what's the power
Of Jesse's flower?
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

The promise, like the pipe, inlays,
And by the mouth of faith conveys
What virtue flows
From Sharon's rose.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

In vain th' unlighted pipe you blow;
Your pains in outward means are so,
Till heav'nly fire
The heart inspire.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

The smoke, like burning incense, tow'rs;
So should a praying heart of yours,
With ardent cries,
Surmount the skies.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

Pastor or Buddy?

2006-11-21T11:57:00.000-08:00

When my oldest son was still a young rug rat, I used to sometimes take him into my office and let him climb on the furniture. At the time I was an insurance agent for Farmers Insurance. Of course, I would occassionally stop working to bounce him on my knee or play ticklemonster, then I would return to my paperwork and he would go back to playing on the floor. This became an annoyance to the man in the next office who, although we were separated a door, didn't like the idea of me bringing my son to the office. One day he pulled me into his office to give me a tip for success in parenting. He told me, "Brett, that boy is your son, not your buddy. You should be a father to him not a friend." Well, I was slightly offended by his intrusion into my personal life, but I blew it off as the rantings of a cantankerous old man.

I've begun to wonder recently if I shouldn't take some of that advice in my capacity as pastor of our congregation. I have the kind of personality to seeks to be friendly with others, especially those in my congregation. I thought this would make the parishoners more apt to take me into their confidence and give me the opportunity to minister to them. In fact, I have recently found out that it has had the opposite effect. I had someone tell me that, because they considered me a friend, they were reluctant to come to me and share details of their personal life for which they felt guilty.

Now I like to have friends. And there are people in my congregation that I consider to be dear friends, but I can see now that our relationship as friends may have hindered me from serving them as pastor. Given the choice between the two, I would definitely choose the latter. After all, I am called to be a pastor first and foremost and nothing should get in the way of that.

Of course, there is a natural reluctance in people to open up and confess their darkest secrets. The sinful nature loves the darkness. We want to hide our sins away because in our vanity we want people to think the best of us. If it means suffering under the horrible weight of guilt and condemnation, so be it. Such is our desire for self justification. That desire is magnified when you want someone to think well of you because they are your friend.

But a pastor is not primarily a friend, at least not as we typically think of it. The pastor is not your pal or buddy. The pastor is your pastor. He is your soul doctor, your seelsorge. Most people have no reluctance at all when it comes to seeing their doctor and submitting to a physical examination, even if the doctor is someone of the opposite sex. If a friend, even a close friend, asked you to drop your drawers and turn around, most of us would end that relationship pretty quickly, but a doctor tells us to do it and we obey because he is a professional. Nothing is too personal. In consulting with our doctors we will tell of behavior that we would admit to no one else in order for them to get to the bottom, no pun intended, of our problem.

So it is with a pastor. The pastor is a professional who is there to handle your problem, sin, and its side effects, guilt and shame. He is there to administer the God given healing, absolution. People should see their pastor as their soul doctor. They need to know that we keep these things in the strictest of confidence. In fact, we take a vow at ordination never to divulge the secrets confessed to us. People carry around a tremendous amount of guilt because they can't rouse up the courage to avail themselves of God's antidote. What a pity.

Also, the pastor is not there to be a counselor. Often people come wanting advice, or wanting an ear to bend. At times they will pour out their hearts. In those moments a pastor should be ready to move them to confession and absolution. A parishoner may not even be looking for it, but the pastor should know when absolution is necessary.

Am I alone in thinking this? How many of you pastors have had a similar experience? How many lay people have been reluctant to share their intimate problems with their pastor? I fear it's too many. God grant that pastors may act in an appropriate way toward their parishoners. After all, we are called to be pastors, not pals. We cannot alleviate the guilt of sin with a friendly disposition. God grant that parishoners would see their pastors in an appropriate light and have the confidence to seek them out for Divine mercy. When you feel the weight of sin and desire certain forgiveness, your pastor is there to hear and absolve you.

A Little Buckeye Poetry

2006-11-18T19:14:00.001-08:00

Boo, hoo, hoo, still number 2.

Poetry in motion

Go Bucks, Beat Blue

2006-11-16T13:35:00.000-08:00

The aniticipation is growing for this weeks no. 1 Ohio State, and no. 2 Wolverines contest. This game is always big no matter what, but this year we're the no 1. team and they are no. 2. Sadly, I may miss the first few minutes of the game as I have a wedding scheduled, but hopefully I'll be there by the second quarter.
I saw a couple of good commercials related to the big game. One is of these two college kids necking on a couch. The camera is, at first, zoomed in on their faces, but as it pans out you see that he is wearing a Buckeyes shirt and she is wearing a Michigan shirt. Then the caption comes across the screen, "If it wasnt for sports, this wouldn't be disgusting."
Another is of a couple on a blind date driving down the road. He is from Ohio and she is explaining that she is from Michigan. She tells him jokingly, "Go blue." At this point the man, who is the passenger, turns around and unbuckles his belt, opens the door and jumps out of the speeding vehicle. Hey, no since wasting time with someone with whom you're obviously not compatible.
My prediction for the game is Buckeyes, 42- Michigan 39.
By the way, did you know that Michigan and Ohio once fought a battle to see who would get Toledo? Ohio lost.

Is Our Polity the Problem?

2006-11-15T08:54:00.000-08:00

You may have heard about the woman deacon in the Mid-South district. An official publication of the Mid-South district featured a picture of "persons" involved in the new deacon program in the district. Pictured there among the new deacons and a supervising pastor was a woman, Jean Fleischer, dressed in alb with a deacon's stole. Yes, there are a number of pastors within our synod who are determined to undermine the synod's position of womens' ordination. This they do 0nly with violation to the texts of Scripture which forbid it, and the historic Christian practice. Have mercy, O Lord, on our synod.
This is a problem, but what is the root cause of the problem? Recently, in a blog, a fellow pastor commenting on this issue located the source of the problem in our synodical polity. The problem was, at least in part, as he saw it, our rejection of the classic polity of the Church. Specifically, it is the rejection of the heirarchal system of Bishop, pastor, and deacon that has led to the errors that the Church is now experiencing, especially that of women's ordination.
First, let me say that the heir archal system has not saved Rome or Greece from many of the errors which those churches believe. But secondly, and more to the point, the heirarchal system has not saved the Church of Sweden from embracing women's ordination, neither has it preserved the Church of England. The picture above is the new head of the American Episcopal Church. Even though they have a traditional Church polity, a woman now sits at the head of the Episcopal Church in America. So the problem is not the polity but the clear rejection of Scripture.
Finally, let me say that, while there are some within our synod who are hedonistically pushing the boundaries, and some in leadership who are clearly letting it happen, we do not have women's ordination in our synod. It, at the moment at least, doesn't have a chance of passing. We've managed to keep it out without a heirarchal system.

The Day After

2006-11-09T09:47:00.000-08:00

A U.S Senator is walking down the street and is tragically struck by an ambulance and ends up at St. Peter's gate. St. Peter warmly greets him and says, "I see you were a politician on earth. Well, we have a special procedure for you. You have to make a choice about where you will spend eternity," said St. Peter, "You will spend one day in hell and one day in heaven, after which you will choose." The Senator said, "I don't need to go to hell; I already know I want to spend eternity in heaven." "I'm sorry," St. Peter replied, "but those are the rules."
So Peter escorts the man to an elevator that takes him down to hell. When the door opens the man is greeted by the fresh smell of green grass, the warm sun, and a cool breeze flowing from a beautiful, blue lake. The birds are chirping and the flowers are in bloom. Stepping out of the elevator he discovers that he is actually on a beautiful golf course and he sees some of his fellow politicians, old friends, standing on a nearby green and waving him to them. When he gets to them he discovers a golf cart with his name marked on the side and a beautiful, new set of golf clubs with a cold beer waiting in the drink tray.
After a round of golf, they retire to the clubhouse where they are surrounded by beautiful waitresses, drink fine wine, feast on prime rib and lobster, and enjoy old memories of the way they got rich at the expense of the tax payer. The devil even stops by to fill up their glasses and tell a few jokes. The Senator finds the devil quite charming and not at all as he had heard him described on earth. At the end of the day, the politician does not want to leave, but rules are rules.
The next day he spends in heaven. He moved along from cloud to cloud enjoying the majestic sunrise. It, too, is beautiful and serene, but it doesn't seem as exciting or familiar as his day in hell.
At the end of the second day, St. Peter asks the politician, "Well, have you made your choice?" The Senator responds, "Yes, and while heaven is a wonderful and magnificent place, I believe that I would be more at home in hell."
So he sent once more to the elevator, which he boards for his descent to his eternal home. When the elevator reaches its destination and the door opens, the Senator finds a much different scene than he encountered the day before. Fire and brimstone are exploding all around, the putrid smell of thick sulfur burns his nose, and his friends are dressed in rags, sweating blood, and shoveling mounds of rat manuer into the furnace. The devil comes and puts his arm around the Senator and gives him a short handled shovel with which to dig for eternity. The Senator is shocked and says, "I don't understand. Yesterday this place was a virtual paradise." "Well," said the devil with an broad grin, "yesterday we were campaining, today you voted."

Mindless, Knee-Jerk Protestantism

2006-11-08T13:36:00.000-08:00

Yes, there are many errors in the Roman Catholic Church. They have anathematized the gospel, exatled the Pope above the Scriptures, changed the institution of the Supper, forbidden their priests to marry, turned gospel into law and law into gospel, invented purgatory thus denying the efficacy of the atonement, turned the saints into mediators, and many other such things. In fact, there is a lot more wrong with the R0man Church than can be dealt with in a short blog.

But, and this is a big but, there is something just as wrong with the kind of knee-jerk, mindless protestantism that seeks to find distinctions between the Roman church and ourselves in the outward ceremonies and customs that we share in common. How often have you heard someone reject a practice or custom of the Church because, "it's too Roman"? When questioned about why it is wrong, the person who objects really has no answer. It is as if "being Roman," was enough to banish said custom or practice to the ash heaps of Church ritual.

Why do many American Lutherans reject the crucifix? It's too Roman. Why do many American Lutheran reject the elevation and adoration of our Lord in the Sacrament at the altar? It's too Roman. Now when questioned, many Lutherans will say that the reason the crucifix is wrong is because, "Jesus rose from the dead," as if Roman Catholics don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead. So the empty cross is a symbol of the resurrection? What about the empty crosses of the thieves next to Christ? Have they risen from the dead? The Sacrament should not be elevated? Why, if Christ is in the Supper, shouldn't Christians make that confession by bowing or genuflecting.

Here's a list of things that are Roman Catholic.
1. Having Church on Sunday morning.
2. Reading the Scriptures in the service.
3. Praying.
4. Singing to the Lord.
5. Receiving Communion.
6. Hearing a sermon.
7. Baptizing.

You're right. These things are catholic, therefore we shouldn't do them.

Of course we should. And we should do the others as well; Chanting, candles, observing the church calendar, vestments, processions, gospel processions, elevating the host, displaying the crucifix, conferring absolution, etc. We can do these things in Christian freedom. We should do these things to confess that they fall within the bounds of Christian freedom, especially in the face of all who tell us we shouldn't because they're too Roman.

We shouldn't try to fix the boundaries between the papal church and ourselves on the basis of customs that the church has practiced before there ever was a Roman Catholic Church in the sense in which we know it today. We fix those boundaries around doctrine. The Augsburg Confession defines the Church as the place where the pure word of God is taught and the Sacraments are administered according to their institution. We define our difference with the papal church by doctrinal truth and error. Anything else is mindless, knee-jerk protestantism.

The LSB and the Eucharistic Prayer

2006-11-02T11:23:00.000-08:00

The new hymnal is out and in use already in many congregations. Although we will probably not adopt it in our congregation, I have a copy. There are many good features in the new hymnal that commend it to congregational use, but one thing that, at least to this poor sinner, strikes me as something of a dissapointment. That, as the title might suggest, is the Eucharistic prayer.
I ran across this little gem in Sasse today as I was re-reading, 'We Confess the Sacraments.' In a chapter on the Lutheran understanding of the consecration, Sasse defines the main difference between the Church of the Augsburg Confession and Papal Church in the function of the Words of Institution. Sasse says, "Hidden deep in the Canon of the Mass among purely human prayers and in such a way that the Christian people can no longer hear them, the words of the Lord's Supper, the Gospel pure and simple, are stuck...they have robbed the words of consecration of their real meaning. For in the Mass they are no longer good news to the believing sinner but only a consecration in the sense in which there are other consecrations..."
As is characteristic of Sasse's writing, he has succinctly summarized the main issue before us. Now I know that many good, liturgical scholars worked on the hymnal and a lot of thought went into it. I don't want to impugn them or their efforts. But as Sasse points out, in clothing Christ's words of pure gospel in our prayers, we have robbed them of one of their most important functions.
The Words of Institution are not only used by the church as a consecration of the elements but an announcement of the gospel itself. Here the Church stops praying and listens. Here they listen to Christ give us His body and blood. The attention is focused on His words and we are built up in our most, holy faith by them. This is the rationale for the freestanding altar. Now the pastor can face the congregation and speak to them. He can speak these words into their ears as well as into the elements.
In our desire to remain faithful to the customs of the ancient Church, which is in most cases a commendable motive, I feel that we have lost a Lutheran and evangelical distinctive. I know that in the LSB it is only presented as an option, but why provide the option of obscuring our Lord's pure words of gospel by surrounding them in merely human prayers.

Liturgy: Law or Gospel?

2006-11-01T08:29:00.000-08:00

It occurs to me that among those who love the Lutheran liturgy and customs of the Church retained through the Christian era, there seems to be, at times, a fundamental difference. While all of us would balk at the move toward contemporary worship styles by some of our brethren, the criticisms seem to come from different perspectives. And it seems that those perspectives fall within the classic Lutheran categories of law and gospel.
We know that the Roman, Greek, and Reformed churches all begin their theology of worship in the law. Admittedly, that law has different sources. The Romans and Greeks believe their customs are handed down through tradition and that those traditions are law. Their presupposition is, "this is the way it is to be done because this is what we have received." The Reformed, on the other hand, begin in law with the regulative principle. That is, nothing is to be included in worship unless it is commanded by Scripture. While there is something commendable in wanting to remain faithful to God's instructions, it remains misguided and a horrible confusion of law and gospel.
We might even say that contemporary churches begin their theology of worship in the law, that is, love of neighbor. They want to do what will not offend their neighbor and what will make them more amenable to hearing our message. They want to influence them and give them a reason to choose fellowship with their group. This, too, is a confusion of law and gospel in that it springs from Arminian notions about human freewill.
Most distressing, though, are those Lutheran who love the liturgy and customs and rites of the ancient church and should know the difference between law and gospel, but don't seem to approach the subject of worship in that way. You're out there and you know who you are.
The liturgy is gospel. It is a gift. It is God's Word, and because it is God's Word it is a vehicle for the Holy Spirit. The liturgy has sustained the faith of Christians througout the Christian era, because in the liturgy God's people hear the gospel.
I remember attending an ELCA church that, while the pastors denied the innerrancy of SCripture and couldn't preach the gospel if there life depended on it, tenaciously held to the liturgy. When the people weren't getting the gospel anywhere else, they at least got it in the liturgy.
That is the great contribution of the classic liturgies of the Church. Although they vary somewhat in form from church to church and from time to time, the Kyrie, Gloria in Exelcis, Creed, Sanctus, Words of Institution, and Agnus Dei are remarkably consistent and feed the people of God with the Words of the gospel, even when their pastors don't. That is why we don't toss the liturgy out. We retain because it is simply the best means of communicating the gospel. The Christian Church knows this from centuries of experience.
So the perspective from which we approach the liturgy reveals whether we are making a proper distinction between law and gospel. We keep the liturgy not because this is the way it's always been done and it has to be done precisely this way. We keep the liturgy not because this is what Scripture commands. We keep it because experience shows it is the best vehicle for the gospel.
Once we have established that, there are many other things that commend the liturgy to the Church; its beauty, it practicality, and the fact that it connects saints in the present with all who have gone before and, hopefully, those who come after.

The Antichrist and Politics

2006-10-31T11:57:00.000-08:00

There was a discussion recently about a Lutheran political candidate in Minnesota, Republican Michelle Bachmann, being asked, in a debate, whether she believed the Lutheran Confessions when they identify the Pope as the Antichrist. Her answer was that it was absolutely not true that Lutherans believe the Pope is the Antichrist. Evidently, someone hasn't been reading her Book of Concord.
Here are a few snippets from the BOC:
...This is a powerful demonstration that the pope is the real Antichrist who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ, for the pope will not permit Christians to be saved except by his own power... (S. A IV, 10
...just as we cannot adore the devil himself as our lord or God, so we cannot suffer his apostle, the pope or Antichrist, to govern us as our head or lord... (S.A IV, 14
But it is manifest that the Roman pontiffs and their adherents defend godless doctrines and godless forms of worship, and it is plain that the marks of the Antichrist coincide with those of the pope's kingdom and his followers... (Treatise, 39)

As you can see, the Book of Concord explicitly identifies Antichrist with the papal church. Much more could be said about this, but this should be sufficient to prove that our Lutheran politician was quite wrong in denying that Lutherans teach the pope is the Antichrist.
However, there is a good deal of criticism due for the journalist who asked the question, since she neglected to ask Bachmann's opponent, Patty Wetterling, who is a Roman Catholic if she supported the 16th century anathemas against the Lutheran Church and all who teach that we are justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
Ms. Bachmann should have called out the journalist for practicing "gotcha" politics, answered the question in the affirmative that anyone who claims to decide all matters of faith, stands above the Scriptures, defends godlless doctrines, and condemns all who preach the truth is an Antichrist, confirm the doctrine of the two kingdoms that she is called into a secular calling and not a religious one, that she will govern by reason and not by Scripture, and demand that her opponent either forsake Roman Catholic teaching or affirm what her church says of protestants.
Of course, maybe that's asking too much of a politician.