Fishpond

My Confession

2012-01-26T19:52:00.000-08:00

Serously, Call Jerry Goetz
His Mission is truly worthy!

I cannot tell you why it is. Not yet. But it troubles me to my soul when I see my brother pastors, retired men I truly respect, seeking opportunities to preach the Gospel in emails and Facebook, and such.

I understand their zeal. I share it. I just feel like they quit too early.

I have the same sorrow about those who left the Missouri Synod for solid confessional reasons., Obviously I don't share their decisions, but I understand their reasons and I support them. I love these brothers and sister of mine (see, Ste. Em, I respect and admire you also). But I don't share their decisions. I have chosen a different path, a path they have rejected and disclaimed. Their condemnations rest heavy on my soul, but I believe they are in error. Not the error of making the wrong choice, of course, but the error of condemning the differing confession --- or path.

Some of my brothers, toward whom I would look for support in my struggle, have condemned me for not abandoning my call and the first church body that I took my oath of ordination within. They leave me to doubt whether my confession, shared with them, is honored by them or disdained by them.

Take note, fellow pastors, and deaconesses, that your swift condemnations are brutal and difficult to bear. I have counted you as my brothers and sisters, and now your words have condemned me for not being as swift as you to abandon my first confession. I rejoice that you can, with such facility, deny that to which you have proclaimed life-long fidelity. I cannot. I serve a body of believers (my congregation) who have stood shoulder to shoulder with me in the confession of the faith. I cannot deny them, and I will not move on without their agreement and confession. But you call me coward and unfaithful for not following your sudden change of commitment. but let us leave that issue behind.

The issue I began with are those pastors who retired, and now are seeking "preaching engagements". If you are retired, then honor your theology, and await a call. Let the Lord call you to speak.

You know, I observed the pitiful practice of the "Reformation Lands Tour". Pastors, or those who once held that highest office in the church, seeking laymen to pay inflated prices to facilitate their travel to the holy land, or somewhere in Europe. It is an abuse of the laity to trick them into paying your way to the Holy Land.

Anyhow, those brothers of mine, and I do still call them brothers, who call out for preaching opportunities: listen to your theology, and not to the spirit of our age. When the Lord calls you, He calls you. Do not advertise. Advertise the mission, but not your desire to preach. Ask for the Lord's blessing, but not for the preaching date. There is something truly creepy and unfaithful about seeing those who were faithful messengers of the Gospel peddling the message and seeking opportunities to preach. I cannot tell you what it is -- someone will, doubtless, write a gripping and astute theological piece about it some day, but there is something truly wrong and sick about such seeking. The verse that comes to mind is something about casting one's pearls before swine.

I confess. I often find my unease with what is happening is correct while it precedes my understanding of the theological problem. I can only say with certainty that something is amiss. If you want to preach, serve a parish. If you want to be "retired", sit down, and shut up. Or at least, join a parish and participate as a member.

Honesty

2012-01-19T17:31:00.000-08:00

As I watch Hollywood celebrities stand up and march for liberal and anti-American causes and politics, I wonder why movies don't come with disclaimers: "I am a communist!", or "I stand for the destruction of the very society that has made me rich!", or "I am glad that you are making me rich, but I oppose you ever getting rich!"

Celebrity after celebrity gets rich on capitalism, and seems to think the system owes them that, but then they stand next to Castro, or Chavez, and condemn the society and the people that made them rich and notorious. They prove themselves right, we are stupid to make such imbeciles famous, rich, or influential, but they are morons to condemn that which made them rich and influential.

Movies should come with disclaimers: "The film you are about to see employs idiots who will try to destroy you and your economic well-being. Purchase a ticket with the knowledge that you are shooting yourself in the head."

Atheism

2011-12-09T14:05:00.000-08:00

Does God exist?

He says so. The evidence for the existence of God is the existence of the natural world. The mind that says, “I do not see any evidence of God”, is a remarkably incurious thing. Such an attitude requires that one take the existence of all things as a neutral condition. Given the state of human knowledge about the nature of reality, that is not a reasonable position.

Once upon a time, man could look at the world as big lumps of “stuff” that had always, in his experience, been there. In those simple, bygone days, most people took it for granted that there was a deity behind it all, somewhere. Today, with physics speaking of sub-atomic particles, describing the atomic structure of matter with some confidence, and wrestling with the nature of the forces of all of those things, to suggest that this all “just happened” is risible.

Before the age of genetics, life was a challenge to explain, absent a deity. The greater the sum of human knowledge and understanding about the structure of living things, and how they function, the clearer it becomes that such elegance and efficiency in the structure and function of life-forms of all descriptions, and their interdependency, cannot be explained by careless and casual reference to some vague metaphysical statement about evolution. If ever there was a religion built on shaky evidence, flying in the face of both common sense and serious thought, it is atheism.

As the equation is stated in the Bible, “every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.” When one encounters a wristwatch on the beach, no one ever assumes they have stumbled upon a unique natural phenomenon. The appearance alone suggests manufacture and artifice – the word behind “artificial”. It is instantly clear that someone has lost their watch. Similarly, when one comes across an automobile in the woods, even such as has a tree growing up through the floorboards and the roof, one can tell that someone drove that car there at some previous time. No one mistakes it for a natural formation.

However, when one looks at the intricacies of a living cell, just one of the millions in a plant or an animal, science would have us believe that it just sort of fell together with some sort of inevitability provided by time. The information stored in a unique and efficient, self-replicating library called DNA, is imagined to have arisen from random happenings. Information Theory, a relatively new field of study in the last century, has concluded that information cannot arise from random processes. But the information stored in the simplest cells is huge! One scientist speculated that there are more bits of information in the simplest living cell that there are letters in all of the books in the world’s largest library combined!

The processes of life as we know it require an oxidizing environment. The process of forming the chemical components of life, however, require a reducing atmosphere. In order for life processes to continue, they say, the chemicals of life must be transferred from one environment to another quickly – and the living molecules must be sufficiently complex to protect themselves from ruinous oxidization and able to replicate themselves in order to proceed to develop into more complex life. With no intelligence and no force directing the process the chemicals would have no way of knowing either of those things, and no method of transport from one environment to another.

Then we come to the incredible complexity of the living cell, and chemical operations which must occur within the cell in order for life to continue. Looking at an apple as a thing, and a solitary unit, one might be able to imagine that such a process could somehow develop by chance. Looking at the variety of cells within the apple, and examining the many processes that must occur, and produce a variety of effects, depending on the cell, leaves one with the feeling of having stumbled across a very complex and expensive wristwatch on the beach, and being asked to accept that it pulled itself together into its present form all by itself, through random chemical processes with random resources available. Either than, or matter has an innate directionality to it that requires it to organize itself into living things, which the dust-bunnies under my bed do not appear to possess.

The structure of matter, being composed of energy bound into some form somehow, and then being further organized into atoms, molecules, elements, planets, and such, cries out for an organizing principle. Piled on top is life, which comes in an amazing variety and mind-boggling complexity, which cries out for a creator of some sort. God. The next question would be who is God?, or which deity is God?, or do we know the deity who is responsible? But until men can humble themselves enough to acknowledge the painfully evident – that there is a god, and that this deity created, or guided the processes of creation, we are hardly ready to honestly ask and discuss the questions about God’s identity.

When you get there, He has weighed in and we are ready to talk.

Hans and Jacob

2011-09-01T08:01:00.000-07:00

A poem from my childhood, which my mother kept repeating at odd moments. I quote it here to preserve it and share it.

To be read with a Norwegian accent, if you can do it.

We were twins
Me and my brother.
We look so very much alike
You couldn't tell one from the other.

One of us was Hans,
The other, Jacob was His name
But whether Hans or Jacob
We both got called the same.

Now one of us is dead.
Yea, mister, that is so.
But whether Hans or Jacob
My mother she don't know.

So, Now I am in trouble
'Cause I can't get through my head
Whether I am Hans, what am living
Or Jacob, what am dead.

A Pastor’s Daily Prayer

2011-08-15T11:26:00.000-07:00

O Almighty God, merciful Father, I, a poor, miserable sinner, confess unto Thee all my sins and iniquities; especially do I acknowledge my indolence in prayer, my neglect of Thy Word, and my seeking after good days and vainglory. But I am heartily sorry of them and sincerely repent of them; and I pray Thee, of Thy boundless mercy and for the sake of the holy, innocent, bitter sufferings and death of Thy beloved Son, forgive me all my sins, and be gracious and merciful to me. Yea, cleanse me through Thy Spirit by the blood of Jesus Christ, and give me more and more power and willingness to strive after holiness, for Thou hast called me that I should be holy and blameless before Thee in love.

I thank thee also, O faithful God, for my family, my wife and children, and for all my relatives. Thou hast given them to me purely out of fatherly, divine goodness and mercy, without any merit or worthiness in me. Preserve them in good health, and give them their daily bread; but above all keep them in Thy grace and in the true confession of Thy name unto the end.

Thou, O God of all grace and mercy, hast also called me, a poor unworthy simmer, to be a servant of Thy Word and hast placed me into that office which preaches the reconciliation and hast given me this flock to feed. In and by myself I am wholly incompetent to perform the work of this great office; and, therefore, I pray Thee, make me an able minister of Thy Church. Give me Thy Holy Spirit, the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge, of grace and prayer, of power and strength, of courage and joyfulness, of sanctification and the fear of God . Fill me with the right knowledge, and open my lips that my mouth may proclaim the honor of Thy name. Fill my heart with a passion for souls and with skillfulness to give unto each and every sheep or lamb entrusted to my care what is due unto it at the proper time. Give me at all times sound advice and just works; and whatever I overlook something or in the weakness of my flesh speak or act wrongly, do Thou set it aright, and help that no one may through me suffer harm to his soul.

Glory and honor, praise and thanks be unto Thee, God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for all the mercy and faithfulness Thou hast shown to this congregation. Thy Word has not returned unto Thee void, but Thou hast here fathered a people that knows Thee and fears Thy name. Give me Thy Holy Spirit, that I may at all times see the good things in this congregation and praise and thank Thee for them. Bless Thy Word in the future, that it may preserve the believers in Thy grace, convert those that are not yet Thine, and bring back the erring and delinquent. Gather Thy people as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and be Thou a wall of fire round about Thy congregation.

Graciously take into Thy fatherly care the sick and the needy, all widows and orphans, and all who are in any trouble, temptation, anguish of labor, peril of death, or any other adversity. Comfort them, O God, with Thy Holy Spirit, that they may patiently endure their afflictions and acknowledge them as a manifestation of Thy fatherly will. Preserve their soul from faint-heartedness and despondency, and help that they may seek Thee, the great Physician of their souls. And if any pass through the valley of the shadow of death, suffer them not, in the last hour, for any pain or fear of death, to fall away from thee, but let Thine everlasting arms be underneath them, and grant them a peaceful departure and a happy entrance into Thine eternal kingdom.

Furthermore, I pray Thee, Thou wouldst at all times fill the offices of this congregation and its societies with upright, honest, and sincere men and women, who have the welfare of their congregation at heart and are able to help me in my office with their counsel and their deeds. Unite their hearts with me in love for the truth; give them the spirit of prayer for me and for their congregation, so that we may in unity and harmony build Thy kingdom in this place.

And since hypocrites and ungodly people are often found within the visible church organization. I pray Thee, do not permit Satan to disrupt this congregation through such or hind the efficiency of my office. If there are such in our midst, let Thy Word be like unto a hammer upon their hearts of stone. Have patience with them; but if they persist in their unbelief, hypocrisy, and wickedness, do Thou reveal them, so that they may be put forth from Thy congregation. Give me a forgiving heart towards all, and help me, especially for their sake, to speak and act cautiously.

Preserve and keep the youth of our Church from falling away and joining the world, and keep them from the many sins of youth. Thou, O Lord, knowest how difficult it is to lead the young on the right paths and to divide the Word of Truth with respect to them; do Thou, therefore, give me particular wisdom and skill to be stern without estranging their hearts, and mild and charitable without strengthening them in frivolity and unruliness.

Mercifully bless the education and instruction of the children, that they may grow up in Thy fear to praise of Thy name. I commend unto Thee also the nursery of our church, the Christian day school. Hinder and frustrate all enemies of this institution. May I ever regard and accept it as a precious gift of God! Give our congregation able and apt teachers. Preserve them from an indecent and evil walk and conversation. Bless the work of our Sunday school teachers, and help them to lead the little ones into the Savior’s loving arms.

To Thy grace and mercy I also commend all my brethren in office. Arrest and suppress all discord and dissension. Give me a brotherly heart towards all and true humility, and help me to bear with patience their casual weakness or deficiencies. Grant that they also may act as true brethren toward me.

Keep and preserve our whole Synod, its teachers and officers, true to Thy Word. Cause the work of our Synod to grow. Guard and protect all members of Synod against sinful ambitions, dissension, and indifference in doctrine and practice. Bless all higher institutions of learning, our colleges, seminaries, and universities. Accompany all missionaries on their dangerous ways, and help them to perform their work. Gather the elect from all nations not Thy holy Christian Church, and bring their at last into Thy Church Triumphant in heaven.

Grant also health and prosperity to all that are in authority in our country, especially to the President and Congress of the United States, the Governor and Legislature of this State, and to all Judges and Magistrates. Endue them with grace to rule after Thy good pleasure, to the maintenance of righteousness and to the hindrance and punishment of wickedness, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

Hear me, most merciful God, in these my humble requests, which I offer up unto Thee in the name of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, to whom, with Thee and the Holy Ghost, be all honor and glory, world without end. Amen.

Another prayer I use regularly - although not daily - which comes from The Lutheran Liturgy - pp. 117-120.

I reproduce them here so that they will be more widely available.

A Pastor's Prayer

2011-08-13T13:50:00.000-07:00

O Lord Jesus Christ, Thou Chief Shepherd and only Head of Thy Church, help me to minister unto this flock, to which Thou hast called me as a pastor. And since I am a man of unclean lips and not worthy to proclaim Thy Word, I beseech Thee, send down Thy Holy Spirit to cleanse my lips, so that I may be bold to preach Thy Word in all its fullness, in season and out of season, ready to offer up the prayers and supplications of Thy people, and willing to serve as a faithful minister of the means of grace.

Help me, O Lord, to give myself wholly to my office by daily meditation and study of the Scriptures, that I may be able to make full proof of my ministry, to feed, to instruct, to build up, to warn, to watch over , and to guide the lambs and the sheep of this flock, which Thou hast purchased with Thy blood. Let Thy Holy Spirit direct me that I may always speak the things which become sound doctrine and in all things show myself a pattern of good works, and example to the believers in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, and in purity.

O Lord, make me daily more conscious of the great responsibilities of my high office as Thine ambassador and steward of Thy mysteries, to preach good tidings unto the meek, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and the opening of the prison to them that are bound, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of the vengeance of our God, to comfort all that mourn, to appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness, that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that He might be glorified. For Thy name and for Thy truth’s sake hear me, O Lord Jesus. Amen.

from the The Lutheran Liturgy, Concordia Publishing House, circa 1942.

Prayed this every morning in my first parish. Less frequently after, but it still seems to be a marvelous prayer with which to approach the ministry.

Is the Pope the AntiChrist?

2011-07-18T09:49:00.000-07:00

Yes.

Some argue that the office of the Papacy is the Antichrist, not the particular men who hold the office. It is a silly argument. The man who holds the office of Pastor is pastor while he holds it. So, the man who holds the office of the Antichrist is the Antichrist while he holds the office.

Does that mean that Roman Catholics are not Christians? No. It means that the Pope is the Antichrist. Individual Catholics may well be Christians, just as individual Lutherans of the most orthodox denominations may not be Christian at all. It is not one's label that makes them a Christian.

Those who belong to anti-Christian religious bodies are clearly not Christians. Those who choose not to belong to any Christian church at all are clearly not Christians. Those who disavow Christ and the church are clearly not Christians. But those who profess a faith in Christ may be Christian, and may not be, depending on what they mean by believing, and who they think Christ is, and what they believe about Him and sin and forgiveness and such topics. Then again, some who profess faith are quite self-consciously hypocrites. They are not Christians. But whether they are or not is in the hands of God to judge, not mine or anyone else's.

The judgement that the Pope is the Antichrist is Scriptural and Confessional. Those same Scriptures and Confessions instruct us not to be judging one another but to leave judgment to God. We may assess theological statements as to being true and in accord with Scriptures or not, but we cannot judge the heart of another. We don't have the ability to do it correctly, and we do not have the authority from God, to whom the job of judging hearts belongs.

Sadly, this doctrine of the faith has become a wedge to damage the political campaign of a candidate, and still it is not being addressed or examined for its meaning or truth. Our nation and the world are the worse for both of these realities.

An Ugly Moment

2011-02-15T06:54:00.000-08:00

All of my life I have prided myself that I could do just about any job. And I have at one time or another.

The other day I was sitting in the restaurant watching the help as I waited for my dinner, and it struck me that I could not make my body do many of those tasks for any length of time any more. If I need to get a job, I now have to be very careful to find one that I can actually physically do!

You know that you are getting old when you have to admit to yourself that you cannot do the things that you once could -- even things you would rather not do. That flexibility was kind of like an ace in the hole just in case. Now I cannot do many things just because this body is getting older.

It is a truly ugly moment in one's life!

Why Me?

2011-02-07T12:35:00.000-08:00

Sometimes I want to ask that question. Or "Why not me?".

I just read the district newsletter. It was full of wonderful articles about people doing things and how wonderfully they worked for them. I am delighted that they have captured success.

I just wonder why when I do those same exact things, it never has those same salutary results for me. I go out of my way to help people and if I get a thank you I am doing better than average. People don't join my church. They don't come and help me when I need it. Sometimes, if they have the opportunity, they will turn on me and do or say something nasty.

I read an article about a pastor who began to read through the Bible with his wife. Suddenly, he had a Bible study with thirty people attending! Two Bible studies, actually. I am happy for him. I have been reading the Bible for decades. My Bible classes are basically reading through the Bible, sometimes with commentary, and answering questions. My Bible studies have shrunk, not grown. Mind you, most everyone who attends tells me how wonderful they think they are! I have had people leave my congregation for a different local congregation telling me how terrific I am, and that I ought to be the pastor of a large congregation, so that my talent will benefit even more people - as they are on their way out the door! Why doesn't it work for me?

I am not complaining. No, really! I know why the things that are happening are happening. God works in His own way and at His own time. I have been doing the same things for decades, and have had varying "success" at different times. I just find it frustrating to read all the 'how to' articles and the 'we did it this way' testimonials, which all suggest or say outright that if you are creative and clever like them and do things the right way, you will be amazed at the results.

I understand that God works in His own way and at His own time. I would love to have different results, but I would love even more if people in the church stopped acting as though it is their creativity and their effort that makes things work the way they work. I have figured out that God grants the prosperity we enjoy, whatever that prosperity may be (actually, the Bible teaches that principle). I just worry that someone who hasn't figured that out might actually take those theology of glory kind of messages to heart and be beaten-up by the sense of failure that accompanies doing all the right things - things others are boasting about making them so successful - and finding their results are not all that impressive.

Limited sucess is hard enough to handle without those who ought to know better preaching to you that the right program or technique is all you need.

When will the church get back to living out and living in her own theology?

A New Trend?

2011-02-06T08:54:00.000-08:00

I have noticed recently that fewer and fewer of the Obits list church affiliation for the "dearly departed".

It started with fewer services being held for the departed at any church. Now it is rare to find a church mentioned in the obituary. I have also noticed that there seems to be an increase in no funeral or memorial service at all. The obit simply tells us that beloved so-and-so has died, and will be fondly remembered, and so forth. Sometimes it says, explicitly, that there will be no service. Sometimes the mention of any funeral or burial is simply lacking.

I see this as a measure of our culture. Faith is waning. People have more generally accepted the evolutionary idea that we are just life forms, and that life is limited to this realm. The hope or hunger for the eternal has been morphed into the fascination with "ghosts" and the paranormal.

On a similar vein, our local animal rescue establishment is ever expanding, but the local 'help the needy' effort, which is - oddly enough - located right next door to the animal rescue establishment, is small and struggles for support. It would appear that those cute little animals are more worthy of charity and assistance than our fellow human beings.

Our society is sick, and getting sicker. Pray for us!

An Odd Thought

2011-01-31T14:06:00.000-08:00

I post my sermons on-line. I also post my newsletter articles. I do it to make them freely available to the church.

I am flattered and gratified that I occasionally get emails from all over the world about what I have posted. I received notes from pastors who use my sermons and my newsletters for ideas, for study, for theology. I receive notes from people from three or four continents who find solace and spiritual substance in my sermons. I have received notes from vacant parishes acknowledging that they use my sermons to fill their pulpit while they do not have a pastor, or, occasionally, while their pastor is on vacation or absent for some other reason.

I have told my tiny congregation that their continued struggle to exist and support a pastor provides this service to the church at large, and that our congregation is really quite a bit larger than we see on Sunday mornings. Since my congregation does not fully support me, paying a small fraction of the "budgeted salary and benefits", I find that thought comforting too, when I ask the 'coming-from-my-flesh' question of why I continue to struggle at this task. I know that I continue because God made me to be a pastor, and called me into this work.

But the thought crossed my mind a while back about the state of the Christian faith in this internet age where many acknowledge receiving from this congregation and its pastor, and appreciating what they have received, but to date, none has ever even asked how they might support this ministry. The Bible says that a laborer is worthy of his hire, but today many Christians feed themselves for free and consider that the way it should be, and have no sense of how they might return to God for what they have received, or have any idea that they might have some reciprocal obligation to help the laborer continue his work from which they draw sustenance and comfort.

God takes care of me, which is good. But there is something amiss on the receiving end when there is no curiosity about how they might return something to the one from whom they receive. Gal.6:6, "Let the one who is taught the Word share all good things with him who teaches." Like Paul, I have learned to live within the blessings the Lord gives me, but I wonder about the church that has learned to take but not to give.

Insane

2011-01-26T15:24:00.000-08:00

As I read the news and the opinions sprouting from what is referred to as the Main Stream Media, I am impressed by one thing, the insanity of what is acceptable today in society.

I pray daily for this nation, but I understand why the Lord allows it to go the path it going. Sickness and stupidity are not just accepted, but endorsed and encouraged.

Lord have mercy.

A Moment of Sorrow

2011-01-03T09:22:00.000-08:00

This year I did not receive the annual pocket calendar from CPH. When I inquired of my friends, they told me that CPH was eliminating them.

I am just writing to express my sorrow -- and my thanks. My sorrow that they will no longer be available. I have looked at the regrettable replacement offered by CPH in the form of the online calendar. Sadly, I cannot fit that into my pocket , and I, unlike my better compensated brethren, cannot afford those cute electronic devices that can access the web and fit into a pocket.

I want to express my thanks for the thirty years of calendars that I have enjoyed. The one thing that had not changed in my ministry over the thirty years was my dependence on my "brain in my pocket" - the memory helper of that burgundy calendar. I can track through the past thirty-plus years in the pages of those calendars, most of which I still have on my bookshelf. I will make do with something else. It will be a minor inconvenience, and a constant nagging pain for a while, but such is life at times.

Thanks again to Concordia Publishing House for the years of calendars in the past. I am sorry you that CPH has decided to stop serving the church in that specific way. I understand some of the likely reasons. It is just a point of sorrow that it is to be no longer.

New Person to Blame

2010-11-27T15:45:00.000-08:00

A Spanish woman is claiming to own the sun, according to the news. She intends to charge for the use of it. The thought occurs, does she open herself up for lawsuits for the unrequested shining of the sun, sun-burns, fading fabrics and the like? If you have skin cancer, is she now legally responsible?

I figure I am going to sue her for waking me up in the morning with all of that light I did not request.

How silly can anyone be?

The Gospel Is Still Needed

2010-10-30T12:15:00.000-07:00

In this age which runs from the Christian religion and which denies that there is any need for that “crutch”, the need for the Gospel is still there and still evident. In ages past, men followed a variety of false Gods. There was Dagon, the Philistine fish-headed god, the sacred trees and poles called the Ashtoreth, a tremendous variety of deities called the “Baals”, and, well, if I tried to name all the various “gods” that men have worshiped, it would require many pages on this blog post. The world that knew that multiplicity of deities needed the Gospel, and the need was obvious.

Our age has its multiplicity as well; Allah, the various Hindu deities, the not-quite-divine focus of Buddhism, the modern occult deities, Mother Earth in her many ecological disguises, and the false gods cruising the realm of pseudo-Christian civic religions: the grand old man in the sky, the god who rewards men on the basis of their good works, and the various gods who wear the names of Christ and Jesus but bear no resemblance to the Biblically revealed Son of God. Our age needs the Gospel, too.

Oddly, it is the secular, pagan world around us that reflects that need – the hunger for something spiritual and someone real – most clearly. You can see the need highlighted in the entertainments that they create, movies like “Ghost”, or “Always”, or the recently released new movie starring Matt Damon, “Hereafter”, and television shows of the sort of “Ghost Whisperer” or “Touched by an Angel”. They all want to tell us what death is like. They try to answer the question that haunts humanity, “After death, what?”.

The problem is that they answer this question from ignorance. They tell us what they creators of these answer wish were so, not what is true, because they have no truth. The answers are entertaining, and comforting in what they present, if not in any lasting effect. The uniformly show a common result that includes everyone, without distinction between good and evil, between this religion and that, between age or social condition. The answer is always something peaceful and pleasant. The concoction they come up with varies in this element or that degree, but it is fundamentally the view that we all die and go to the same pleasant place without distinction or discrimination. Death is a friend. It is pleasant and the afterlife is wonderful. There is not a hint of judgment, particularly in regards to religious belief, except that in most cases, something awful is reserved for the truly wicked and extremely evil such as murderers and those who offend the secular morality of the moment most egregiously.

The message is, don’t worry about death. You are going to be okay. Whatever there may be will be good and you will come out well in the eschatological future. This message is, of course, false. It is the answer of the world and of the devil to the judgment of God, namely, denial. It is the proclamation that there is no real religion and there is nothing to worry about. I imagine that they movies would show that death was the end and there was nothing more to come, if there was a reasonable plot-line to it, and the true doctrine of demons would sell tickets. This teaches us nothing, except, perhaps, that the world is still riveted by the question of what happens after death, and uneasy about the judgment that they somehow know is coming.

We have the answer! We have the truth, revealed by God Himself. There is judgment coming, and there is a hell, and it is something that we all deserve. That there is no distinction between people, by nature, is the one part of the picture that the modern media answers have right. We all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God! But there is a distinction in the day of judgment. It is the judgment that distinguishes those who are God’s from those who patently refuse to be His.

There is a need for the Gospel of the redemption which is in Christ Jesus and of the grace of God which forgives us our sins. In this Gospel, God bestows as a gift the perfect righteousness of Christ, and as a result gives life everlasting and salvation to those who believe. By "believe" we mean those who trust in the Lord to be who He has revealed Himself to be and to do all that He has promised to do in connection with Jesus Christ. This is not the Gospel of meeting felt needs, but the Gospel of the grace of God. This Gospel, however, also answers those “felt needs” ultimately, but it does so much more. It actually comforts with a lasting comfort, and, although it refuses to answer all the questions that the mind of man can conjure up with any specificity, it answer the main questions: Is there something after death? Yes. Is it good for everyone? No, but for some there is eternal life in glory, and for others there is eternal death in pain of body and mind and soul. How can I know what is my part? What can I do? Believe in Jesus Christ (the One revealed in the Bible, not the imitations invented by society) and you shall be saved. Jesus has accomplished all that you need done, and salvation is His gift.

“Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make your path straight.”

Good Words

2010-10-29T07:40:00.000-07:00

I love Walther! He hits the nail on the head so clearly and sweetly. Today’s devotion from “God Grant It” struck me as particularly applicable to the daily struggle of the Christian’s life. Here is just an excerpt:

“. . . Our text advises us to ‘put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil’ (Ephesians 6:11). The evil spirits employ exceedingly cunning attacks against us. Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. If he wants to cast us down into error, he presents this error as truth and distorts God’s Word in an effort to support his claim. If he wants to cast us down into sin, he presents the sin as a virtue or as something permissible, innocent and unimportant, If he wants to persuade us to fall away from God, he tries to convince us, as he did Adam, that this is a way for us to draw closer to God and become more like God.
When we think we are furthest from Satan – for example, when we are praying, reading or hearing God’s Word, or when we are in the midst of upright Christians – there Satan is next to us, seeking to remove the seed of the Word from our hear and to annihilate the blessing of the communion. He does not attack us where we are strong, but here we are weak. Wherever he finds and opening in the wall of our heart, there he comes in.”

God Grant It, Daily Devotions from C.F.W. Walther, translated by Gerhard P. Grabenhofer, Compiled by August Crull, Concordia Publishing House, Saint Louis, MO, 2006, pp. 829-830.

What a Big Difference a Small Difference Makes

2010-09-21T13:19:00.000-07:00

We were talking about Contemporary Worship - so-called - when it occurred to me what a difference a couple of letters can make. Someone asked the question of why it was so important in this generation to bring culture, our modern culture, into the church. No other generation had done it.

That, of course, was balderdash. Every generation has done it to some extent. We use the language of our culture, in one form or another. We change our Scriptures to more modern translations from time to time. But those intrusions of culture are relatively mild and, often, necessary so that the members of the congregation can participate in the service with understanding. The intrusions of culture in what is called "Contemporary Worship" are far more significant, and are often done simply as a matter or taste (or the lack of it) and preference.

Contemporary Worship involves a theological shift as well. The focus of the service becomes the individual worshiper's entertainment or sense of accomplishing something religious. The worshiper is the one the service seeks to please. Traditional Liturgical Worship was centered in the deity, and, for Lutherans, in receiving from God the gifts He came to bring in the Divine Service through Word and Sacrament.

The question, "Why is it all of a sudden so important to bring the culture into the church?", elicited the response from me that the churches that practice Contemporary Worship are different now than they once were. Now they are apostate - unbelieving - worshiping the worshiper instead of the One who is worthy of all worship, the Lord.

The little difference that struck me is the difference from what was to what is: from apostolic to apostate. Just a couple of letters. Such a small difference in language but such a huge difference in everything else. Of course, the two words come from significantly different roots in Greek, but in English, they look and sound so close to each other. Just three or four letters and you go from faithful and true to Contemptible - that is Contemporary - Worship

The Installation

2010-09-11T09:47:00.000-07:00

It was good to see our new president installed, even though it had to be on-line. Some of the pomp could lead one to wonder if we were installing a president or a pope, but that is the way it works in large organizations, I suppose. I am puzzled that the Holy Supper is served in a crowd with so many of other faiths acknowledged to be present. How does one regulate admission to the altar?

I guess this is why I am merely a humble parish pastor.

Surprise, Surprise!

2010-09-10T12:25:00.000-07:00

The experts are reporting their surprise that terrorist are being radicalized here in America. Given the high level of hostility on the political left to our nation, its prosperity, and its prominence, all soon to be former, the development of home-grown terrorists should be no surprise at all, particularly in the light of the eco-terrorists active for more than a decade with the full approval of lap-dog media.

But the most surprising thing is that none of the analysts seem willing to look at the source of the "radicalized" Muslims, Islam itself. The religion teaches jihad, and commands jihad as part of the faithful Muslim's life. It takes no more work to 'radicalize" your typical Muslim male than it does to encourage your average Protestant teen-ager to live out his or her Christian faith. They begin with a well-stocked pond of adherents to the religion that demands and encourages and endorses and praises violent actions in what is believed to be the support of their religion and their deity.

The most moderate leaders of the Islamic religion will not condemn violent jihad. There is no official element of the religion that opposes it. So-called moderate Muslims were dancing and singing in the streets when Islam struck the twin towers on September 11, 2001, celebrating their victory against the "great Satan" of America, even inside the borders of this nation. Islam is not merely a religion, but a political movement as well. The very best Moslem has a split loyalty.

How can our "experts" be surprised that the ardent followers of this religion can be induced to do terroristic things? They are either deliberately looking away, which is dumb and irresponsible, or they are idiots.

A Failure to Communicate . . .

2010-09-10T08:38:00.001-07:00

Some days, life seems to imitate art.

This is not one of those days, but the topic at hand put me in mind of the line from the film, Cool Hand Luke, "What we have here is a failure to communicate." I was enmeshed in a mini-controversy on one of those email discussion groups when it struck me that the problem we were having in the discussion is often the problem in most human communications on topics of interest. People confuse opinion with fact and knowledge with uninformed prejudice.

It appears that the combination of fierce individualism and thorough-going egalitarianism have produced circumstances in which everyone believes that their passing opinion on any topic they deign to opine upon is absolute truth, or at least every bit as true as anything anyone else might say. I blame this on the Psychologist Carl Rogers as much as anyone. He pioneered the idea that everyone and everything was precious and wonderful just by virtue of being. His approach to self-esteem has crippled a couple of generations of American children, and it is on the way to crippling discourse in our nation.

It is bad enough that everyone thinks they are right, but when they lose the ability to distinguish between a mere opinion and a clear fact, debate and even education may be at risk. In the on-line discussion that prompted this entry, an individual asked a question, having admitted a lack of knowledge to form a decisive assessment of a situation. When offered the information upon which he might form his opinion, the individual became argumentative. He rejected and contradicted facts simply because they did not conform to his prior prejudices nor support his hastily formed and unfounded opinions. He subsequently withdrew from the on-line forum altogether, convinced that the group was the sort that would not grant equality to his passing thoughts with the results of careful inquiry and scholarly investigation.

It was an unfortunate decision, but it highlighted the problem in modern communications. Too many people think that just because they hold an idea, it outweighs facts and reality altogether. It is fine if someone wishes to cling to their own ideas and prejudices, even in the face of truth and evidence to the contrary. It is not productive, but they have that right. It is not helpful, however, if they feel the need to dismiss and invalidate facts and reality in pursuit of their ill-informed ideas, and to hold those who treat facts as something other than a mere opinion as unjustly prejudiced and even arrogant.

If bigoted fantasy and hard, cold facts are believed to be on an equal footing, rational discourse will cease to be possible. We will have a true failure to communicate.

The Problem with Blogging

2010-08-30T09:53:00.000-07:00

My son is always after me to blog more often. In principle, I think that would be great. In practice, by the time I have formulated my blog entry in my mind, my need to express myself is often satisfied.

I recently realized one of my biggest problems with blogging is the "So what?" factor. I have read so may things that people blog that leave me wondering why they bothered. What was the point?

It is like Facebook or Twitter. I have trouble understanding the point, unless the point is for someone to say, "Dig Me!!!". I was raised in the time when one did not pursue shameless self-promotion just for the sake of being noticed. I remember telling a joke once in the presence of a couple of older acquaintances,and the joke sounded like I was bragging - that was the joke part of it. One of the older women, an old German lady, simply spoke the German phrase which translates "Self-praise stinks". That was my upbringing. Even when one did promote themselves, it had a purpose - like getting elected or making money. Waving my arms (so to speak) and yelling for people to notice me just to be noticed for a moment seems shallow and pointless -- and when I am done, it makes me feel more insignificant than ever. Imagine! I have to behave in this silly fashion to get anyone to pay me any mind. Embarrassing!

I wish that when people were to take the time to write something, they would have a purpose for it, a goal other than being noticed, or mere self-expression. I imagine, however, that my wishes perfectly fit my mother's favorite adage, "Wish in one hand . . ."

My Second Chance!

2010-08-20T13:44:00.000-07:00

It came in the mail today. Emblazoned across the front of the envelope, "Here's that second chance you hoped for!". It came from an insurance company. I was suspicious from the get-go.

It was an offer to sell me some life insurance! It started, "Why didn't I get more life insurance when I was younger . . . and when it was cheaper?" Yes, it was in bold green!

I couldn't help laughing out loud and reading the ridiculous thing loudly to the neighborhood. It was over 95 degrees out, with high humidity, so I had a very small audience, mostly squirrels, and my dog, Martin.

I did not buy more insurance when I was younger because I could not afford it then. Since I lived this long, it proved to be a wise lack of investment. All of those years not paying for that insurance! I feel silly about the stuff I did buy. Wasted money so far.

My mother always said life insurance is a bet that you are going to die before your spend too much on the insurance. The insurance I have is the sort that pays you back after a while, like an investment, if you don't die and use it up. I can justify something I can use later. The last thing I am looking for right now is more life insurance.

But a good laugh? Thank you Mutual of Omaha!

The Superhero Problem

2010-08-16T07:11:00.000-07:00

We have read it in the comic books often enough. The villain tells the superhero that his weakness is that he cares about the little people, or that he has this set of rules that tie his hands that the villain is always prepared to ignore. We have that problem as those who battle for the truth in the church and in society. We have guiding principles. The adversary is often fighting the battle with the 'victory at all costs' mentality.

There seems to be very little point in fighting for the truth and all that is right if we are willing to do wrong in order to achieve the victory. Those who are on the other side of the battle, however, appear to be willing to say whatever they need to say in order to win, or persuade, or whatever their goal is at the moment. The problem is apparent, but not real.

Greater still is the problem of the impatience of the one fighting for the truth. All too often, we want to win the whole battle in one grand effort. The adversary, on the other hand, is all about the long game. They work on the plan of incremental gains. They push and pry and argue and do whatever they are willing to do to gain just a little. They want to gain a foot-hold. They want to gain tolerance for their error. They want to gain a point on the public approval poll. They do not need the whole enchilada at any one point, because they know that if they get an inch here and now, and then another inch later, that eventually they will win the entire field.

People who stand for the truth are trying to hold their territory. If they lose a little bit, they take comfort in what they still have, and soon appear to forget where they were and how much they have lost. I heard an evaluation of the last convention of the LC-MS that acknowledged that several bad things happened, but that they were not as bad as they could be, and some were tempered in the process so that they could be good, in the right hands. If you are trying to rally the morale of the troops, that may be a reasonable argument, but it is a losing argument. "We may have lost this much, but forget that and look at what we still have." If your goal is to lose more slowly, that attitude makes sense. If your goal is to win, it makes more sense to always remember what has been lost, and aim to win it back.

Standing on the truth is not a passive task, it is a fight. The enemy must be engaged at every point and nothing can be sacrificed. The Statement of the 44 in 1945, "the Chicago Statement", serves as a great illustration of the principle. When it was issued, it created a firestorm. Most pastors recognized it as false doctrine and something was radically wrong. After a period of controversy, a compromise was arranged. President Behnken, unwilling to see the Synod split on his watch, permitted the signers to formally withdraw the statement without repudiating it, without acknowledging that it was wrong, without repenting, and without any charges. It was as if they said, "Let us pretend that it was never sent out in the first place." Peace, of a sort, was restored, and the Synod did not split - except for those few conservatives who acknowledged the reality that the Synod had formally corrupted itself and withdrew.

Today the false theology of that horrendous schismatic document is the orthodoxy of the Synod. It may have been "withdrawn", but the leaven of the document has percolated throughout our Synod. The spirit of compromise with false doctrine and of the political solution to a theological problem has also infected the Synod, becoming our standard operating procedure. During the Seminex years, Jacob Preus was also unwilling to see the Synod divided on his watch, and he found political solutions to his theological challenges. Afraid that the walk-out by students at the seminary and pastors in the field would decimate our Synod, Preus invented an amnesty program of his own for the Synod, and allowed those who had rejected the theological stance of our Synod to simply sign a piece of paper and re-enter the ranks of our roster, preserving their false theology's place in our church body, and providing them with employment. The ripple-effect of those compromises are still rattling the Synod, as the hand-wringing about the recent elections in many quarters demonstrates. We are a house divided because we have compromised with the adversary rather than standing firm and holding the line and fighting for the truth.

Another troubling aspect of the problem is that those who fight for the truth seem to grow weary and want to lay down their arms, set aside the battle and focus on the more pleasant aspects of their confession. The adversary never rests, however. He just looks for the unguarded door by which he may enter anew and raise the battle again. Meanwhile, the old battles are never really quite over. The advocates of error always believe that they are right, and when their opinions are not able to dominate, they seem to seek out teaching posts where they can spread the infection of their ideas to a new generation. Our age does not understand the principle of destroying error. Once it is rendered relatively powerless in the estimation of the leadership, practitioners of error are tolerated, and we grant them tenure at some institution, and promote them through the system as though their error were a personal peccadillo of no real consequence, and the stage is set for them to enable the next uprising.

Superheroes in the comic books always seem to leave the job not quite finished and thereby set the stage for their arch-enemy's eventual return. It makes a great plot point for a story writer, but for real life it simply ensures more division, more struggle, and more pain. The world of comic books is a pretend place of no real consequence. The battle for truth in the church and society is of lasting consequence and bears very real results in the real lives of real people. We cannot grow tired and rest. The Leader of our cause will decide when it is time for each of us to rest. Until then, there is always a need to be vigilant, watching for the encroachments of the enemy and taking the battle to the adversary. Oratio, meditatio, tentatio - prayer, meditation, and temptation - make a theologian. We need to stand firm and always contend for the faith - every little bit of it wherever it is tested or challenged.

Stewardship

2010-08-11T13:42:00.000-07:00

I was participating in an on-line discussion of stewardship when I realized that the thread sounded like a "giving of money" thread. Stewardship is a whole lot larger a topic than just that one aspect. Stewardship is the use and management of all the blessings with which God has blessed one. How one deals with life and all it contains -Stewardship - will be determined by either the Law or the Gospel, even among those who do not share the Christian faith -- only theirs is always Law (self-imposed). In most Christians, it is a little of both.

God gives us all He gives us for His purposes, not merely for our own. How one deals with life, time, talents, treasures, and so on is determined by whether or not one believes that assertion, and, if so, what one believes God's purposes are - and particularly His purposes in them and for them as He blesses them.

The difficult thing to keep in one's head is that God knows. He knows - always and everywhere - where you are and what you have and what you are facing and what you need, and so much more. When one believes the Gospel, they can act as though God knows - looking to see what God has set before them to do and what He has given them for the accomplishing of that task - or those tasks. Unbelief leaves one only with the use of stuff for one's own purposes and advantage, which almost never works out quite the way one imagines at the start.

God gives us abilities. Then He gives us a place in the world and circumstances in which to live. He sets work before us, and pleasures, and duties and opportunities, and the steward then must determine what there is to do, and what they are capable of doing, and what resources they have to do those things. They must decide - or remember - who it is they serve. We then go about life - giving ourselves to God (or not) by how we deal with our neighbor and how we manage the things God has given into our stewardship. Good stewardship is not necessarily giving a lot of time, or money, or both to the church. That might be part of it, but some who may do those things might be terrible stewards - if they do it reluctantly and because they feel coerced, for example. Some might give boldly to make themselves look good. Their foolishness may be useful to a church budget, but it is not good stewardship. Some people deny their families time or money for the sake of the congregation, proving themselves to be poor stewards, while others deny the church their participation or gifts, using their families (for example) as their excuse, also proving to be poor stewards.

Stewardship is to be measured by the Master, not by one's fellow stewards. Do you live out what you believe in a consistent manner? If so, you are probably a faithful steward.

When it comes to the plea for giving money, I always tell my congregation "The Lord loves a cheerful giver." If you want to do it, then do it. If you don't, then don't. That same principle applies to any service in the Church. If there are not enough faithful stewards around to support a congregation, the congregation will not last. If there are enough who hunger for the Word, they will find a way to support the congregation's needs in terms of time, talents and treasure. The focus needs to be on the Word, and not on perceived needs. God can stretch a little a long way, and He can burn through a fortune in no time flat.

Prov. 3:5-6 seems fitting: "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make your paths straight."

The Proof Is in the Pudding

2010-08-05T12:32:00.000-07:00

Affirm was once a great organization of conservatives. It was the outgrowth of a generation of battles fought in the Missouri Synod to hold the line against encroaching liberalism (as it was called back then). Those founding men are gone. So is the solid, conservative nature of Affirm.

I used to sit and listen to the war-horses of the battles of the '60's and '70's as they recounted their meetings and their strategy sessions and their valiant fight to hold Missouri to the confession of the faith. I was in high school and college when they fought those battles, but I remember some of them, watching them unfold and starting to get involved even as a kid and young man still in school, so hearing about the meetings and the strategies and the inner-workings of the small army that fought for faith once delivered to us by previous generations was heady stuff for me.

I also remember hearing about how there was a very small group trying to position themselves to be "the next generation" in those organizations that fought the good fight. Affirm was one such organization. Once solid, as the leadership aged, many found themselves squeezed out of the organization as younger men with different agendas quietly slipped into control of the organization. It is a sordid tale that should have been written, but all the primary sources, participants in the "good old days", have been called home to their Lord. Those left in the organization are second, third, and fourth generation and would likely tell that story from a less reliable perspective.

The July 2010 Affirm issue is a working illustration of how far the once venerable organization has fallen. A long time ago the Affirm group was invited to participate in developing what is now called the United List. They no longer know how to 'play nice' with the others and so they are no longer invited to a seat at the table when the list is developed. They now develop their own list, borrowing heavily from others, and malign the work of the good men and women who put together their recommendations as the United List. Small wonder they are not invited to the table with such bitterness. Affirm also plays fast and loose with statistics, proving the truth of the old adage that there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics".

The post-convention issue makes it sound like the chief player in the election of Matthew Harrison, other than Rev. Harrison, was Affirm. There seemed to be no recognition of the hard work of hundreds of people and dozens of organizations working for a change in leadership in our Synod. Nope, it was all Affirm! They seem to think that the margin of victory was small - only 58 people! Technically, 59 would have had to have voted differently, since a swing of 58 votes would have produced a tie, but I have seen elections where a swing of seven voters would have reversed the outcome! The election was not nearly so close as they try to make it sound. Frankly, I give the glory for the change to God, and thank Him, not the editor of Affirm, for the election results.

One of the more frustrating elements of their post-convention issue was the attack on the good men and women who issued the call to action calling themselves the "Association of Confessing Evangelical Lutheran Congregations." In the attack, Affirm sounds more like an arm of Jesus First than a supposed conservative bulwark for our Synod. Affirm accuses the signers of the letter of having an agenda to manipulate President Harrison. A cursory reading to the letter, coupled with the date of its sending, would suggest to anyone minded to be honest about it that the work of this group began long before the convention and was set for release without regard for how the elections turned out. Far from attacking or trying to manipulate President Harrison, they state quite clearly that their goal is to have a blessed and remedial effect on the Synod as she struggles with the pressures of our culture and society and "progressive" theologies afoot in the church today.

Clearly, the concerns of the ACELC group are not shared by the Affirm group. Affirm categorizes any stance on theological issues confronting our church that does not match their own as "anti-synodical". Apparently, they also hold the attitude that by-laws outweigh confession of the faith, and that politics, not Scripture, should decide issues among us. What was once called faithfulness is classed by Affirm as "right-wingers", and political unity and peace is preferred by them to standing up for the truth, referred to as "schismatic" in their brief diatribe. The faith of our fathers is also critiqued in Affirm as "teaching and practice contrary to the Synod". Affirm can say what it want to about who they are, the proof is in the pudding. They stand somewhere besides on the historic confession of our Synod, as this newsletter makes painfully clear.

Sadly, Affirm takes the irrational position that the "Synod's appointed Dispute Resolution Process" actually works effectively for expressing dissent and accomplishing change. They might have noted that during the convention, the egregious errors of certain CCM opinions were whitewashed and that the many memorials requesting that the convention reconsider them were set aside in favor of the impious fiction that it was misunderstanding of the CCM Opinion's words to take them to mean precisely what they said. The "Process" was used to silence congregations, circuits, and entire districts as they pleaded that the mistake of CCM Opinion 02-2309 be vacated. The resolution and its facile defense by the Committee Chairman, Lane Seitz - and members of Jesus First - showed the Synod that the vaunted "process for expressing dissent" was in reality a process for silencing unwanted opinions.

While accusing the members of ACELC of intending to break the 8th Commandment, Affirm actually goes ahead and does that very thing itself. Affirms is not what it used to be, nor is it a voice worthy of being listened to for confessional guidance. The proof is in the pudding.

The Timed Test

2010-07-28T07:57:00.000-07:00

Have you ever taken one of those timed tests? You know the kind, where you have a seemingly endless list of difficult questions, and only a certain number of minutes in which to complete the test, or as much of it as you are able? I have taken a few in my time, and sometimes the test flies by and you wonder why they have given you so much time. Other tests are so hard that you could swear that they have shortened the time when you were not looking, and you struggle to finish what you are able to accomplish in the time allotted. Then, there is the test that seems quite doable, but as you progress in the test, you find it so challenging that you pray for the time to run out so you can simply stop testing.

Life is a timed test. We have no idea how long it is, or how difficult it can or will be. Sometimes it seems like you will have all the answers finished long before you run out of time. Sometimes it seems like you will never be able to answer all of the questions. But most of the time, life is a difficult test. Just when you think you have it squared away, you turn the page and new challenges confront you.

I find myself hoping, at times, that the time runs out and I can quit testing. I miss those who have finished the test ahead of me and are no longer there to kibitz with. I find some of the questions tiresome, and some of them just too painful to keep answering. Mostly, I find it frustrating that instead of feeling more competent as time goes on, I feel less capable.

The Gospel is such a wonderful thing. It tells me that I never was capable, and God knew it. Sometimes it feels like the point of the test is to run out of gas and finally know that the only passing grade is a gift from the test administrator. The longer I sit and test, the more certain I am that I have little to offer the testing process. I cannot quit early, they mark that down as a failure, but I certainly long for the day I can lay down my pencil and turn the test papers in, and go out and join my friends and family who have completed the test before me. I am sure they are just waiting for me to join them so we can celebrate together.

Oh well. Back to the test. It seems I have a few more questions to answer, and who knows how much time yet to get it done.

Don't Start Now!

2010-07-26T12:05:00.000-07:00

If you do not normally read your bills while paying them, or someone else handles that chore, don't pick them up and start reading them. It is like a visit to the Twilight Zone!

I confess. My wife handles the bill paying -- by her choice and my happy compliance with her desire. But today I decided to open the bills that arrived and read them. The electric bill had an assortment of taxes and assessments, and energy charge (for the electricity) and an "availability charge" of $25.

That last one caught my eye. I actually called to ask them what the item was. The girl on the other end said it was just what it said it was -- it was the cost of providing the electricity - the buildings, the wires, the poles, and the salaries of various people. I asked if she was saying that I was paying for the electricity and then also paying them to deliver it -and she said, "Of course!"

Frankly, it strikes me as stealing. I don't go to grocers and expect to pay for the groceries and then have an additional percentage tacked on to cover the cost of the building and the employees. I don't expect the gas station in town to charge an extra premium for actually having a station and pumps and such. I expect that the products purchased are priced to include the cost of doing business. The electric company, however, is bold enough to charge a pretty premium for the electricity and then charge the customers for their cost of doing business on top of the high cost of their product.

Next, I imagine that they will add a profit surcharge - you know, to cover actually making a profit on top of the cost of the product and their cost of doing business. You can only get away with these shenanigans when the product is absolutely necessary and there is no real competition. Utilities and governments - the two really abusive entities. I wish I had not read my bills.

Optimism

2010-07-22T12:05:00.000-07:00

I have been reviewing the recent convention of the LC-MS with others by telephone and emails. Some of the things that were proposed for our Synod did not happen, and I think that is good. There is reason to hope for good things in our Synod, mostly because we have a gracious Lord and I expect good from Him. The elections at the convention also cheered me, but not as much as they cheered others. I have seen good men elected before, and when they are gone, the Synod is found to have deteriorated step by step during their tenure, in spite of their very fine work. The forces that want to see our confession altered never rest, and sometimes the warriors for the truth relax their guard when good men are in place, expecting them to do all the heavy lifting. That expectation is not always met.

I understand why warriors relax at times. They get tired of doing battle without relief. They face the accusations of being negative and cranky and critical all of the time. I know because I have been hearing that about myself since I was ordained. It does get tiresome. I have also seen good men, comrades in arms in this great effort, turn suddenly and abandon the battle, sometimes turning to the "dark side", to use a Star Wars analogy. It is always amazing, and disappointing, and sobering, and sorrowful when that happens. From time to time we all long for a break in the battle, but the truth is that the break in the battle comes at the casket, not at the election of the 'right man' to the office. God will tell each of us when it is time to relax and set aside our vigilance.

I remember the days after the Seminex thing and the supposed ascendancy of the conservatives under Jack Preus. I heard many an old war-horse say that we had finally won and now we could rest and get back to "gospel ministry". I heard a lot of young, new to the battle pastors saying the same thing -- as though contending for the faith and confessing Christ were something other than gospel ministry. Of course, Jack Preus changed a bit, apparently concerned that too rigorous a stand would split the Synod, and he was not about to have that happen on his watch! Then he pointed out his chosen successor, the meek and mild Ralph Bohlmann, and we were off to the races again. One can never set aside vigilance without setting aside faithfulness.

Now we are being treated to criticism of the vigilance of one element of the conservative coalition by another, and some talk of optimism, cautious, of course. I have been in this Synod and in the struggle for faithful confession of Christ within her ranks for just over thirty years. I have watched how things go, and have studied our history a little, going back to the days of Walther and Pieper and Pfotehauer, and I have found absolutely no cause for optimism. As I said, I have hope, but that is because of our gracious God, but optimism seems a little out of touch.

I expect good things from President Harrison. He is a good and sincere man and a Christian. He seems like the sort who is not the least ashamed of being Lutheran -- a sort of theologian and leader that has been in short supply in our midst for a long time. I am praying for him and his team and our Synod daily.

I am also aware that the men and women of Jesus First, and similar organizations in our Synod, have not given up and thrown in the towel. They have a vision for the future of our Synod that will not be set aside by them or easily denied by the Synod. Their sympathizers still hold many positions in our Synod, and they often sit in the seats of education where they can recruit new supporters and foot-soldiers. We are way too far down the path described by Krauth (on the progress of error in the church) for this battle to be done with quickly, and those who stand on the other side of the divide from me have come too close to dominance to give up and go away.

No, history shows us that almost never does the tide of error and tolerance with false doctrine get turned back. Some people praised our Synod in the seventies that we had done it, but that victory was only in one skirmish, and those who despise God's Word came back with a vengeance. The problem is that they always come as wolves in sheep's clothing and when we are too clear about identifying them, they cry out in feigned pain and hypocritical piety and take two steps forward for every one step back they were forced to endure. They move forward because the optimists consider too clear a confession to be unnecessarily offensive, and they want to appear reasonable.

I am not optimistic about the long term. The devil never sleeps or grows tired, but good men sometimes do. I have a hope that God will bless our Synod that for a time we may continue to be a voice for the Gospel, but no church body anywhere has ever stood faithful for very long. I have read how even during the days of Walther, some men were chomping at the bit, eagerly waiting for that good man to die and get out of their way so they could make the necessary improvements and modernizations in the Church. They were eager to see Pieper die and relieve them of the oppressive control of that good man. There is always a team of men and women just waiting for the opening to push their agenda forward, and patiently tilling the soil (so to speak) preparing for their opportunity to harvest their crop of change.

So, let us lighten up on the Optimism, and set aside the critique of those whose zeal for faithful confession is somewhat more strident than our own. May God bless President-elect Harrison, and our beloved Synod through him and his team and their work. But let us not forget which side of the great divide we are on and which "team" we want to see win.

It's Done!!

2010-07-17T10:22:00.000-07:00

The convention is over, for good or for ill. Some final thoughts:

First, let me give praise where it is due: President Gerald Kieschnick ran a great convention! I am addressing the chairing of the thing, not the business, of course. He was fair and impartial, patient beyond patience and good humored. If all the President did was chair the convention, he would be a great president. I thank him for his conduct of the convention. I was most impressed with his handling of the election of the new president, which must have caused him personal consternation, but he did not show it publicly. Well done, Rev. President!

What this convention will have done to our Synod waits to evidence itself, but reading the resolutions does not give one a good feeling. It appears to have changed the nature and polity of the Synod. It has become a top-down thing, not a congregation-led church body. The President, any president, has been given too much power. Any president of the future that is minded to dramatically distort our Synod has that power much more nearly at hand.

The majority of the delegates seemed to grow very tired, and simply passed whatever was given to them. Only three resolutions failed. Another three were referred back or withdrawn, and less than a dozen were amended. Everything else passed, often by huge majorities. That means that as the week went on, tired delegates simply voted "yes" to get it over with.

Some argued that since these "good men and women" on the committees had worked so hard, we should honor their work by passing it. But that was not the task of the delegates. Their task was to be to act as gatekeepers and only admit what was, in fact, beneficial for our church. Now, their judgment may have differed from mine at times, but the passage of so many resolutions so uncritically - even allowing the question to be called regularly without debate, means that they were not acting as gatekeepers, but as an unguarded gate!

It was troubling to see not just lay delegates, but pastoral delegates approach the microphone and confess that they did not understand parliamentary procedure, had not studied the resolutions they were acting upon, and did not even understand what was happening around them. When a pastor tries to amend "commend for study" with "encourage the Synod to read and study", he reflects that he had no idea what the language he was trying to amend meant. A Pastor! Senseless amendments to add words that were already there in previous resolves of the same resolution seemed to indicate that the amenders (sadly, pastors again) had not carefully read the resolutions, or comprehended them if they had read them.

Saddest of all is that the delegates repeatedly tried to fiddle with the insignificant language of the resolutions while ignoring the real issues. For example, no one addressed the perpetual gerrymandering of the Synod's regions they were authorizing as they approved that resolution, but they fiddled with - or tried to - relatively unimportant phrases in the whereas-es or the resolves. Clearly, many of the people who were voting to totally transform our beloved Synod were not serious about the work or even quite aware of what they were doing, in many cases.

One pastor stood up and condemned an overture in the workbook, one seeking to confirm our confession, as "controlling and dysfunctional". Whether one agrees with the overture -the overture asked the Synod to request those church bodies in altar and pulpit fellowship with our Synod to withdraw from the LWF because the LWF boldly states that membership in it is also altar and pulpit fellowship with all the other members - the judgment that expressing that concern is dysfunctional or controlling is simply outrageous! I found the dancing and spinning to avoid the issue performed before the convention by the CTCR leadership to be dysfunctional. But be that as it may, the condescension of the pastor who spoke so harshly should have been called out of order by the chair.

In fact, before I go on to the next thought, it should be noted that if those churches that stand in full fellowship with us can define altar and pulpit fellowship issues so differently that they can belong the the LWF and say that they 'do not consider it to be fellowship' while the LWF proclaims that membership is fellowship, how can we have any confidence that anything they agree to or sign means anything to them that it means to us? Confessing the same faith while acknowledging that they confess something different elsewhere ought to be a big red flag! If their traditions tell them that words mean something different to them than they do to us, Dr. Nafzger, how can we honestly have confidence that their confession of the same faith with us means the same things to them as we understand them to mean? The defense of rejecting Overture 3-16 offered to the convention casts doubt on the entire process of declaring fellowship that was being defended!

On to the next point: The same faces were seen at the microphones far too often. There was a convention of twelve hundred people but the same two dozen speakers showed up at the microphones on every issue. Some of that was doubtlessly an attempt to stall the convention and forestall it business, but they were out-maneuvered and out-planned. Every single resolution that the committees wanted to bring before the convention were acted upon. The planners gave the convention too much time to be forestalled, and the chair of the convention was far too able to be denied that victory.

On the bright side, from my perspective, the elections went well, and the convention made the best of the election process that it could have. The Synod has a new presidium and they will have the opportunity to make the best possible use of the unfortunate changes enacted by the convention. They will need our prayers. Only God knows what He has planned for the next few years of our church body, and we must pray and work to see that the best possible results obtain from all of this.

Still, this will not be the "Old Missouri". Whether that is a good thing or not will depend on the members of the Synod. I am not optimistic, but I do believe that God is in charge, and He can make wonderful things happen even in circumstances we might consider truly unfortunate. And what we have in our Synod is not evil, just different, unknown and unpredictable, and spooky to contemplate, knowing the history of the last decades of conflict in our Synod.

May God guide us and bless us, and prosper the Gospel through all of our work.

Let's Pretend!

2010-07-14T11:01:00.000-07:00

As happens with most conventions, almost everything is passing -- unfortunately. Sometimes pious fictions get approved as well. In the case of resolution 7-02, we had a deliberate white-washing of history.

The resolution, which finally passed with an 83.5% approval, stated that CCM opinion 02-2309 "should not have been and shall never be understood" to grant immunity to any member of Synod in the case of misconduct. During the debate on the issue, a delegate stood up and read the words of the opinion as published, "The member that acted cannot be charged since he or she acted according to the advice of his or er ecclesiastical supervisor" (emphasis added). The floor committee, in the person of its chairman, D.P. Lane Seitz, proceeded to say that the opinion did not say what it said and did not mean what it meant because the CCM has had other opinions on the same topic. That is intentionally misguiding and misinforming the convention.

I believe the assembly passed the thing by the margin it did because the delegates are getting tired of the debate - and the endless amendments, and some people there simply don't want that opinion overturned because it would mean that expulsion the D.P. David Benke, overturned by that CCM opinion, was proper all those years ago. Regardless of its consequences, or lack of them, the resolution as passed is wrong - and it is not even a 'pious fantasy'. The argument was made, by a member of "Jesus First", that the problem was so long ago and we should let the past be by-gones. A lie, however, even when codified and made part of the official history of the Synod by convention, is still a lie.

But, hey, we are church! This convention is all about unity and forgiveness and such. So why rock the boat?

Somebody someday will point back at words (not necessarily these, but it will happen) carefully crafted to hide the truth, and say, "See? They passed it back then!" It won't matter that people did not know what they were doing, or that they endorsed a dishonest statement. It will just be fodder for the mill, to promote something else, perhaps dicey and suspect. But, since it is a convention, and everyone is supposed to be on their toes and paying attention, let's pretend!

A Pleasant Surprise

2010-07-13T14:52:00.000-07:00

This has been a typical Missouri Synod convention. The delegates make a mess by choosing policies that are "progressive", and then select a solid, conservative man to handle the mess. They did it to J.A.O. Preus in the 1960's. They did it to Alvin Barry in the 1980's. Now we have done it to Matthew Harrison.

Don't get me wrong, I am delighted that Matthew Harrison was elected -- and on the first ballot! I praise God that He did not leave Matthew alone, but gave him a good man for first Vice-President in Herbert Mueller. Three of the four other VP's were also confessional men likely to be of one mind with our new president. Still, they will have to deal with the unwise re-organization of the Synod chosen by the delegates.

While I am not cheered by the direction of the Synod's votes on polity, I am comforted that we will have good men leading the Synod as it puts it into place. I must leave the final outcome in the hands of our Lord - nothing else is clear in this jumble.

Thank you, Lord, for the comfort of the election of this Presidium!

The Day the Music Died

2010-07-12T19:08:00.000-07:00

The song in my title came to mind as I was watching my home burn down. It wasn't the house I live in, it was the Synod that I had grown up in that burned down. No matter what else happens, we can mark July 12, 2010 as the day the Missouri Synod died.

It was a close thing -- 51.3% voted to change the Synod structure. Without seeming to recognize it, the delegates in the slender majority codified the change from Synod as a working-together of congregations, and an assisting organization for that work, into a thing of which congregations are merely sub-units and franchises. Synod now determines how we congregations will work and what our goals and emphases shall be. They haven't gotten to them yet, but other Committee Eight resolutions will change the definition of membership, reducing the significance and uniqueness of the pastoral ministry into just one of fourteen brands of "individual membership", and requiring congregational members to get on board, support the programs, and send in their money in order to remain members in good standing. Quite the change.

How do I know that they will approve this? They already approved on-going, perpetual gerrymandering of the Synod by the BOD and the COP to make sure that we elect the right sort of Vice Presidents - and BOD and what not. So, now we have a new structure, a new, top-down organizational polity, a new relationship of pastors to Synod and to other "individual members", and the new idea of congregations as sub-units of synod, instead of the Synod as the creation and tool for the service of the ministry of the congregations.

What is really frustrating, besides the self-serving dishonesty (we call that "spin") of the officials, is that the debate on the floor of the convention has revealed that this slender majority that is enacting all these sweeping changes in our Synod does not seem to understand the polity they are replacing, or parliamentary procedure. They seem to be in love with their own voices and with pointless amendments and terminating debate over the issues of greatest importance to the life our our Synod. But they do not appear to understand the issues, or the intended or unintended consequences of their actions.

God is in charge, but I don't think His aim in this convention is as bright and positive as the leaders of our church body would like us to believe. "My word will not return unto me void, without accomplishing that for which I sent it," does not mean that God always speaks to bless. Sometimes He speaks to judge. I weep for the Synod that once was, which nurtured me and so many, and which is very soon to be no longer.

I have always opposed the resolutions to change the name of the Synod. I think now, it is time. After all, it is not the Missouri Synod any longer, at least not the Synod of Walther and Wyneken, and Pieper and Pfotenhauer. More's the pity.

Lord, have mercy upon us!

Hard to Believe it is Lutheran

2010-07-10T19:27:00.000-07:00

I tuned in to watch the streaming video of the opening worship of the LCMS convention tonight. I was truly impressed. I was not sure I watching anything Lutheran, but it was impressive.

First, I have to confess I tuned in late. I came in at the middle of the sermon by our beloved President. I have a problem, and it is mine, personally, with the man. He does things that make no sense for a man in his position in a Christian church body, so I have trouble listening to him -- and I didn't do much listening. I found something else to do, as he was telling the gripping story of the frantic attempt to save someone's life so his daughter could be reconciled with him. It was a gripping, tear-jerking story. He told it well. I would rather have heard solid Word of God preaching, but I guess that is just me.

Then I watched the communion service. Now, I must confess, I do not believe that conventions and conferences have any business having communion services. There can be no proper exercise of pastoral discipline at the altar. I was raised to believe that closed communion was proper, and Missouri Synod polity said that such things (you know, communion services) belonged in the context of the congregation at worship. Still I watched, riveted by what was happening like someone might be as they watched a tragic accident unfold.

The service planning committee decided the issue of the Eucharistic Prayer. They used one. I would not have been able to commune for that reason alone, if I were minded to commune at conferences (which I believe is contrary to our Missouri Synod theology in this regard), because I believe that the Eucharistic Prayer is not appropriate for Lutheran services. I know I am not in agreement with many of my brothers on this topic, but that is where I stand, and I was disappointed to see that we had that issue resolved for the convention with the wrong answer.

I noticed that they practiced the showy but un-Lutheran practice of the fraction of the host - breaking the huge piece of bread - during the consecration. I had been taught that Lutherans did not do that because the Reformed insisted, contrary to sound doctrine, that it was essential to the proper practice and of the essence of the Supper. We avoided the fraction, not by law but by confession, just as we avoid Baptism by immersion because so many among the Reformed say it isn't a 'valid' baptism without total immersion. So they offended sound Lutheran practice, in my opinion, by breaking the host in the speaking of the Words of Institution.

Then I noticed that none of the elements on the altar during the consecration were used in the distribution. When all was said and done, those elements remained on the altar. The elements that were distributed were behind the officiant in the hands of the assisting ministers throughout the consecration - and the officiant never made any move to identify them or recognize them as present while he was speaking the words of institution. My judgment at that point was that they had no communion to distribute, just common cookies and Kool-aide, like the Reformed they seemed so eager to emulate. I had never seen a symbolic consecration like that before, at least not in a Lutheran Church.

Then the songs sung during the distribution - I hesitate to call them hymns - were, with one exception, '7-11' type praise songs. Some of them did not actually name the Lord of whom, presumably, they spoke. One of the songs mentioned the name of Jesus only once. Another kept singing about "my Jesus Christ", as though He were their personal possession and someone else might validly have another Jesus Christ? Clearly, the service was intended for someone who had not grown up in a traditional Missouri Synod congregation.

I found it all troubling. But that is just me, and I am a newcomer to Lutheranism. I was only Baptized about 60 years ago and raised in the LCMS, and attended one of the Missouri Synod's seminaries for four years. I only have 30 years experience in the parish ministry as an active advocate for true and confessional Lutheranism, so I probably misjudged much of what I saw due to my recent entrance into Lutheranism.

I also found the prayers in the service disquieting. Paul says that hearing the Word of God in a "tongue" and not knowing what is being said is a judgment of God (see 1 Cor. 14) on unbelief. The exception is when someone interprets. Unfortunately when the prayers were offered in Korean (I think) and some African Tongue, Spanish, and even our beloved German, there were no subtitles explaining what was being prayed. As Paul says, how can we add the "Amen" if we do not know what is being said (1 Cor 14:16)? Call me a fuddy-duddy, but 1 Cor 14:21 & 22 seem to speak to this situation, too.

I often have issues with convention service planners, like the year we had a preacher at our Synodical Convention wearing a yarmulke as he preached, which seemed to disregard God's Word about praying and prophesying with one's head covered. I stubbornly think that God's Word remains valid and true and we ought to respect it. This year just struck me as flying in the face of Lutheranism. I am sure I will be told that I am wrong, and that we have learned to understand those passages differently - or disregard them - but it was hard to believe that what I was watching streaming over the internet was Lutheran. Even harder to believe it was the LCMS. I guess this is not my grandfather's church any longer, after all!

A Dog's Life

2010-07-08T08:46:00.000-07:00

I was walking my dog the other day when it struck me how a dog could serve as an illustration of human behavior in sin.

My dog is always straining at the leash, and when he is permitted to run free in the yard, he is always testing the limits. It doesn't seem to matter how large or small the yard is, the only thing the dog is interested in is the edge of the yard - and he is constantly trying to escape to the 'outside'.

My dog is generally responsive to voice commands, so I can walk him around the yard - or sometimes the neighborhood - without a leash, but now and then, he acts as though he is deaf. I know that he is not deaf; he can hear me open a bag of dog treats (or the container of animal crackers - his favorite!) from three rooms away. Nevertheless, he acts deaf when he thinks I cannot see him, or I am too far away to grab him. He is particularly hard of hearing when he is facing something he does not want to do - like take a bath or get a haircut.

Human behavior when facing the will of God is similar. We tend to always want to go where we ought not to go and to do the forbidden thing. When our circumstances permit little freedom, we seem driven to disobey in some small way, and take a perverse sort of comfort in doing so. Where we have no limits -or so it seems- on our conduct, we tend to try to find the limits by doing more and more absurd, foolish, or dangerous things. We tend not to hear the Word of God unless we are in trouble, or we want something from Him very urgently.

One day, I asked him why he was so contrary (as though he is capable of understanding everything I say) - and it struck me that his conduct was just like sinful man's conduct before God. That did not make his misbehavior much easier to deal with, but it did make me laugh -- and thank God that He is so much more patient and forgiving that I am often minded to be.

It also put me in mind of the poem by Robert Burns, the Scottish poet, called, "To a Louse", referring to the insect, not to a particular sort of human miscreant. Anyhow, the first two lines of the last verse are as follows:

O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us.

A First Look

2010-06-12T13:34:00.000-07:00

The following is my first look at the "Today's Business" #1 for the July LCMS Convention. Take it for what it is worth. It may help you as you begin to unravel this thing. Note: now and again there is a little sarcasm in the responses. It is difficult to avoid when you spend hours reading self-serving bureaucratic jargon.

1-01

To Celebrate failing to meet the goal. Weird. Compare whereas #1 with #6.

1-02

Ablaze is not Lutheran to begin with. Let's put it away. It will pass no matter what. (That is called a "Gimmee")

1-03

A pointless Gimmee.

1-04

We could use better materials. Let's stop congratulating ourselves and develop some better stuff.

1-05

A nice thought. a reasonable idea. Hardly seems like it should require a convention resolution.

1-06

Reasonable.

1-07

This hardly needs a resolution. It just requires common sense.

1-08

A waste of time, and a gimmee.

1-09

Ov 1-11 needs to be removed from this and considered on its own merits.

2-01

Bad idea. Just reinforces the bureaucracy. Comes from them too.

2-02

That is what we need, Synod guidance on how to fire people. Sadly, another gimmee.

2-03 -- A bunch of gobbledy gook and techno speak. Ridiculous.

“as they cluster in Christian communities sometimes also known as congregations;” (??)

“Such concern is reflective of the mind of Christ and is integral to His mission mandate to reach out to all” *this is not a true statement*

2-04 -- a waste of time and energy, simply an advertisement for CPH

2-05 -- the first resolved asserts something that is not demonstrably true and should be edited or deleted.

2-06 -- good idea

2-07 -- a nice idea, but really.

3-01 -- need to determine what the heck is meant by statements like:

“Loving, compassionate recognition of the deep pain and personal struggles that same-sex inclinations produce in many individuals, families, and congregations may not be neglected in the name of moral purity” (“Theological Implications,” 2010 CW, p. 15);

and ask what the import of phrases like this are: “[T]he LCMS believes and teaches that same-gender genital sexual activity–in every situation– violates the will of our Creator and must be recognized as sin” - where does this striking precision come from - "same-gender genital sexual activity"?

Since all of the resolution becomes the official position of the Synod, should it not be plain and clear?

3-02
This resolved does not appear to be true: Resolved, That the LCMS commend groups such as Word Alone, Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC), Lutheran CORE, and others for their courage and faithfulness in maintaining their confessional identity by opposing the ELCA’s recent decision;

WHAT "confessional identity" are they addressing?

3-03

The resolution applauds the statement of the task force, fails to address the issue of the appropriateness of the 'cooperation in externals' and punts any thinking about the issue another three years down the road.

3-04

How can we discuss this issue when pastors are ejected from the Synod because their congregations have taken a confessional stand against the Synod, or failed to join the Synod - the case of a new congregation - in a timely fashion? If these men are not fit for fellowship as members of the Synod, how could we make that sort of determination about some fledgling church body?

3-05

We need a thorough response, and the issues raised by the ELCA document are for deeper and more significant than those mention in the resolution

3-06

As long as we commend it for study but do not commend it uncritically or commend the CTCR for the study, this is okay.

3-07

A sound idea.

3-08

A Gimmee

3-09

Needs to be substituted by the original memorial 3-16.

The LWF has declared itself a fellowship and all belonging are in Altar and Pulpit Fellowship - which means that we are in fellowship with everyone in the LWF if anyone we are in fellowship with is in the LWF.

4-01 Stewardship

a generic resolution: a gimmee.

4-02

These things are the duties of the Board of Directors, and should require no resolution. typical CYA waste of time.

4-03

Reflects the problem of the Synod, that the Synod sees itself as the central and top priority, and looks to manage the Synod full of churches and people for its advantage. Nonetheless, the idea is sound. Keep the people informed.

4-04

Stupid. Make stewardship and financial management a required course for all church workers? Resolution fails to understand that the problem is not going to be solved by programs and courses. It is about faith and the Word of God.

4-05

Resolution to permit two individuals from the same district to be elected to the Board of Directors for the simple expedience of the convention process. Not necessarily a wise idea.

4-06

Changes the priority of the purposes of Synod - making formation of new congregations and preaching stations primary and the support and maintenance of training and educating pastors and teachers moves down to about fourth place.

Removes the voting privileges from the pastors.

diminishes the identification of the Board of Directors.

Grants the authority to re-write the constitution of the Synod to the corporation. without any necessary turning to the Synod in convention.

Constitution and by-laws may be changed at any convention, special or regular, by a simple majority of the delegates, or by two-thirds majority of the delegates present for the vote. Whichever is less.

Not salutary changes.

4-07

Changes made to move the nominations and memorializing of the Synod farther away from the convention time. [sarcasm alert] I suppose with all our modern conveniences and tools, it is too much to expect that we could do the same work as those in previous generations without our modern conveniences.

The resolution also shifts a significant portion of the costs associated with the convention to the congregations and people, and changes the responsibility for delivery from Synod to user in most situations. Pay more, get less. Their solution to the problems of the changes in the post office is to put it up on a web site and make others find it and print it out at their cost.

4-08

Expands the presidents authority in planning conventions slightly and removes all time expectations from the procedure.

4-09

Streamlining the present system, but not altering the parts that have given offense - such as the president's power of appointment.

4-10

A reasonable change.

4-11

Codifying a CCM ruling. Even if it is defeated, the effect is null because the opinion will not have been vacated by the convention.

4-12

Housekeeping

4-13

Housekeeping

4-14

Poorly worded attempt to permit meetings to be done using technology rather than requiring travel and hotels.

4-15

Cost cutting. May not be wise - would rather implement go-to-meeting type technology and keep a variety of voices in the loop. Resolution is filled with bureaucratic-speak jargon.

4-16

Ov. 4-23 should be removed from the resolution by amendment. This issue is one that should be decided by the convention, not by the greedy overlords.

5-01

a gimmee.

5-02

Pointless, and a gimmee.

5-03

[Sarcasm alert] Why not simply ordain everyone at their baptism and stop this charade? - vote no. AC XIV

5-04

Waste of paper.

5-05

Another attempt to require continued education and hold the pastors hostage to the whims of the DP's - which they already are, pretty much - vote NO

5-06

Reverses things: the old way had the board of regents select the candidates and the electors elect them. This resolution has the electors -now called the "prior approval panel" determines who can be on the slate and the Board of Regents does the electing.

5-07

Generalizes the duties of the President and reduces his direct authority. The old by-laws gave the President the power to delegate his duties and responsibilities to others. I think that system was better.

5-08

A total change, eliminating by-laws about application, certification and placement. 5 pages of by-laws reduced to 14 lines.

5-09

The rationale explains that most people would not be qualified to be on the board of Regents. Gotta have advanced degrees and directly applicable experience and stuff.

5-10

Removes notification of intent to grant tenure from the process. Cuts out the ignorant layman and bellicose pastor.

5-11

. . . is the same resolution as 5-10

5-12

Eliminates the expectation that faculty will be rostered members of Synod, because "in many disciplines of study the most qualified faculty members are not rostered members of the Synod". Simply regularizing a practice that is contrary to the present constitution and by-laws.

5-13

Recommends rejecting specific memorials because the Board behind the committee doesn't like them.

6-01

Thank God that Human Care does what it is supposed to.
a Gimmee.

6-02

Another pro-life resolution. Good, but unnecessary.

6-03

Extending the definition of a call officially to those who serve as institutional chaplains and instructors.

6-04

To join the Lutheran Malaria Initiative - along with the ELCA, LWR and accept support from the UN. Good passion. Bad associations. Say NO.

6-05

To more formally support Prison Ministry - kind of a gimmee.

6-06

To continue working in the area of Domestic Abuse. a gimmee

6-07

To work to end human trafficking and slavery. another kind of gimmee.

After all, isn't the church really all about social ministry - helping the underdog. That is the real meaning of religion, right? Then we become ELCA Light.

7-01

To encourage the hokum called the Task force on Synodical Harmony. A Hokum Gimmee

7-02

Refusal to admit when the CCM makes a mistake - continuing to hold out the rationale for reversing the judgment against the unionism of David Benke. Once again, a rationalizing and justification.

7-03

To finally formalize a method of getting rid of troublesome members of Boards and Commission. Political expedience, and about time! Vote NO

7-04

Tweaking a bad system of reconciliation. Add a Layman.

7-05

Making sure that SMP's can receive calls, as long as they are approved by the DP.

7-06

Making it explicitly clear that we can call pastors from church bodies with which we are in fellowship.

7-07

Cannot pass this because the rationale, which is part of the resolution, is faulty and dishonest, and the resolution makes financial support of the Synod and completing statistical reports for the Synod part of the obligations of and condition of continuing membership in the Synod

7-08

Study the idea of establishing a statute of limitations in the Dispute Resolution Process

7-09

Decline overtures, specifically avoiding the desire to require CCM opinions to expire if not approved specifically in convention.

Committee 8 - Structure and Governance: "Run, Forest, Run!!"

8-01

Eliminate any distinction between rostered members of the Synod, now called "Individual Members" - and they all are eligible to be the non-lay delegate from the congregation.

8-02

Now moving to a quadrennium.

Congregations can no longer send in memorials to Synod - must send them to the circuit to process, and they must send them to District to process and send on to the Synod.

Enforcing the vocabulary of Minister of religion- Commissioned / ordained.

Eliminating Visitation Circuits and forming "Circuit Networks"

Circuit Forum will select the Circuit Counselor.

The District President shall nominate the candidates for Circuit Counselor.

The quadrennium will be Circuit Convocations, year 1, District Convocation, year 2, District Conventions Year 3, and Synodical conventions year 4.

8-03

Electing Circuit Counselors. Nominations begin with the congregations, but the District President has to have the right to nominate candidates. (Huh?)

8-04

Change in voting delegates to district conventions:
each congregation gets at least a layman, even in multiple congregation parishes.
In the event of a vacancy, each congregation can elect an "Individual member" to replace the pastor.
Churches with schools can send teachers instead of laymen.
Large parishes get twice as many delegates.

8-05

Synodical convention delegates are elected by the district
no longer pastoral delegates, but "individual member delegates"
The number of delegates per district will be computed based on A) 10% of the number of congregations in the Synod and B) the proportion of confirmed members in the district as a proportion of the Synodical whole.

8-06

Overtures may be submitted by congregations directly, but priority will be given to those which come through Circuit Forums and Districts.

8-07

To study how to deal with districts.

8-08

Leave CCM and CTCR alone - and Doctrinal review - and shuffle everything else into a two Board structure.

Treasurer will be CFO and appointed, not elected
Office of National Mission (ONM) and Office of International Mission (OIM) be established
Chief Mission officer oversee the ONM (above) working with CFO and CAO - Chief Administrative Officer
CMO also oversee the OIM (above)

8-09

makes explicit that congregations are sub-units of Synod, and responsible to carry out Synod programs - used to be Synod was the servant of the congregation

8-10

Adjusting things for the CFO no longer being an officer of Synod.

8-11

Formalize a procedure that will result in a new name for the Synod

8-12

To allow the BOD to adjust the handbook to reflect the new changes consistently

8-13

To give the President more power in the choosing of the First Vice-President.

8-14

To divide the Synod into five geographical regions and have one of each of the VP's elected from each region. Guaranteed to eliminate the possibility of electing conservative VP's

8-15

To allow the COP and the BOD to restructure the nominations to match the adopted new structure for this convention.

8-16

To require the new BOD be representative of the 5 regions.

8-17

To elect the president before the convention with all congregations having two votes two weeks before the convention.

8-18

To establish a 4 year cycle in place of the three year cycle.

8-19 & 8-20

Housekeeping to accommodate the change to a four year cycle.

8-21

changes to accommodate a four year cycle in term of office.

8-22

How to adopt doctrinal resolutions.

8-23 to 8-29
Housekeeping to update stuff

8_30

To change the requirements of membership in the Synod

8-32

to change the relationship of Synod to its members:
“B. Relation of the Members to the Synod

In their relation to the Synod, all members of the Synod, by voluntarily subscribing to the Confession (Article II) and the Constitution of the Synod, make a confession of faith, a joint commitment to God’s mission, and a mutual covenant of love. In so doing, they

1.Bind themselves to the confessional basis of the Synod (Article II);
2.Agree to abide by, honor, and uphold the collective will of the Synod as expressed in its Constitution, Bylaws, and convention resolutions;
3.Pledge their active involvement and support of the Synod’s efforts to carry out its mission and purpose; and
4.Promise that, if they find themselves to be in disagreement with the Synod’s actions or positions, they will so advise the Synod in a loving and evangelical manner, and if necessary follow the Synod’s authorized procedures for expressing dissent.

8-32

to reject all efforts to show this train down.

Hope that is a help as you sort through the book. Go ahead and comment your questions and I will try to respond.

A brief response to Enroute . . . to Increased Harmony

2010-05-08T11:06:00.000-07:00

One can hardly look at the report in the Reporter concerning the “Task Force on Synodical Harmony” without recognizing that it first and foremost illustrates the progress of error as outlined by the sainted Dr. Charles Porterfield Krauth, and that our Synod is well on it way between step two and step three. As a member of Synod, and therefore having a stake in the condition of our Synod, I find it difficult to trust the neutrality of the Task Force based solely on its origin. The contents of the abbreviated report in the Reporter appears to justify that lack of trust.

The first error of the report is the tacit assumption that the disharmony in the Synod is wrong, that is, that it is not as it should be in the light of the Synod as it exists today. One might effectively argue that the conditions in which the Synod finds itself is unfortunate, and in need of remedy, but that the consequent disunity and discord is viewed as a problem to be addressed independent of the causes of that disharmony is simply as symptom of the precarious condition of the Synod. The assumption that the Synod as it exists should not have sharp divisions and consequent discord is a demonstration of both the futility of the mission of the task force and that the task force itself is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Discord in the Synod is not destructive of our unity in Christ or our concord in doctrine and practice, as asserted in the report. It is, in fact, that lack of unity in doctrine and practice that is creating the discord and disharmony. Far from being the cause, it is the symptom. Since the report views the situation from precisely the wrong perspective, it cannot help repair the problem, but will only serve to deepen the divide. Lip service to the potential blessings arising from conflict cannot disguise the faulty foundation upon which the effort proceeds. Discord is the symptom of the underlying disunity, not the cause of it.

The report is correct in noting that the problem is not merely that we are divided, but that many times those involved in the disputes of our church body conduct themselves in ways that are unbecoming the children of God and unhelpful to achieving the results that one must assume they hope to achieve, if one puts the best construction of everything as Luther so wisely counsels Christians to do. Polemical language is often strident, and emotions run deeply, but it is the part of Christians to eschew judging the heart of the other and addressing the problems clearly, taking no offense at the casual weaknesses of others as they struggle with issues that divide us and are of such significance in the faith of the disputants. Forgiveness and charity are proper starting points even in a debate. The battle will not be won, after all, by human chicanery, but by the Word of God, and not always immediately, but in God’s good time and order.

I will briefly address the seven ‘aspects’ of disharmony as reported in the “Board Briefs” contained in the Reporter mailed to members throughout the Synod. Regardless of the intention of the individual members of the task force, the report both lays bare the nature of the problem and explains, unintentionally I believe, why the effort to find unity and concord in the Synod by this methodology is doomed to failure. First on the list is “Inability to Deal with Diversity”. It notes that “most (not all) presenters agreed that our church is blessed with amazing concord in matters of doctrine”. The standard applied, however, must be measuring our agreement in doctrine against the diversity of doctrine throughout the spectrum of what calls itself “Christianity”. By that standard, any agreement is significant. The historic position of our church body is not to seek a minimal amount of agreement, but total agreement in doctrine. Against the more rigorous standard of our forefathers, we do not possess “amazing concord” in doctrine, but striking disunity on all but the most fundamental of doctrines, and some uncertainty even there within our Synodical ranks.

Our concord is further tarnished by the relegation of such things as admission to the Holy Communion, worship substance and style, the Office of the Public Ministry, the role of laity, and the “service” of women in the church to the realm of “practice” as opposed to doctrine. The report appears to gloss over the significant disunity in our midst over the understanding of the relationship and connection between doctrine and practice. Every controversy in our Synod appears to be categorized as an issue over practice, and assumed to be “non-doctrinal” (however that may be variously understood). The issue is acknowledged in the report, but appears clearly to be viewed by the Task Force from the perspective on those who do not stand with the historic doctrines and practices of our Synod in these controversies.

Second is “A Lack of Civility”. It is unfortunate that the analysis is couched in the terms of the unhelpful characterizations of only one element in the controversies of our Synod. There is no doubt that commandments have been breached by members on all sides of the questions in our Synod, but the official response from elements of the leadership of the synodical organization has often been to mis-characterize sincere and honest efforts at addressing the issues amongst us as violations of this or that commandment with no possibility of debate or discussion concerning those judgments, let alone the issues in question. To hear the charge repeated without a frank acknowledgment that it applies to all parties in the disunity of our Synod is disheartening and counter-productive.

The third point is spot on. The Synod is becoming politicized because the problems in our Synod are increasingly addressed from a political rather than theological foundation. Power trumps, and it does not appear that which “side” is in ascendancy changes that element of the equation – to the frustration of many who are not fighting for a team, but for the Synod’s well-being and for the Word of God to hold sway.

Aspect number four suggests that this is primarily a clergy problem. Two truths stand out that argue against the assertion being made here. First, pastors are supposed to be shepherds who protect their flock against the wolves. When error is openly tolerated and practiced, pastors are supposed to speak up. Viewing this as a “problem” is false and unhelpful. This is a clergy problem much like sound Biblical doctrine is inconvenient. It is only a problem if the clergy are leading away from the Word of God and sound practice, unless the one making this judgment is inconvenienced by the truth and unwilling to conform to the “sound words”, as in 1 Timothy 6:3.

The second truth which argues against this “aspect” is that when a congregation changes in new and unsettling ways, the laity who find the changes robbing them of the comforts of the Word and the familiar commonplaces of the liturgy (for example), often find that there is no alternative available for them. They have no congregation to flee to, no safe-haven of Word and Sacrament when the congregation at which they have been worshiping takes it upon itself to divest itself of the familiar and strike boldly out in a new and diverse direction. When the preaching is corrupted, when the hymns are taken away and replaced with less substantial songs, when creeds are discarded as too confining or “not visitor friendly”, the problem is not a clergy problem, it is a laity problem - they have, in many cases, no adequate alternative, and no champion to speak for them or fight for them.

Pastoral formation is supposed to prepare men to stand on the battlements and endure all odds for the sake of the truth and to protect and defend the sheep of the flock. To question pastoral formation because there are occasionally men who will actually take up the task to which their vows of ordination commit them - rather than because there are so many who will not and claim the right to be called ‘pastor’ while they fail to shepherd the flock in the pastures of the Word - is misguided and appears unhelpfully partisan.

Poor Communication across “party lines” (#5) results as often as not from commitment to different positions. Children often assume that communication is the same as capitulation. You haven’t ‘heard’ them unless and until you agree with them. The same mind-set afflicts many in the controversies of the church. Until we can understand that someone may disagree with us who truly understands us, we will continue to talk past one another. The task force needs to understand that what is lacking is the humility to be corrected, not the ability to listen.

When a veteran of the controversies of the Synod hears someone talking about holding pastors accountable for causing disharmony, the nearly-automatic reaction is suspicion (#7) that someone wants to solve the controversy by eliminating the other side. What the Synod suffers from is not the lack of an enforceable code of conduct, but the lack of commitment to true concord and doctrinal unity. We have become unwilling to wrestle the big issues down, and as an organization, we have relinquished the authority to require our members to participate in resolving the divisions. In blunt terms, the Synod has surrendered doctrinal discipline, and error is treated as the equal of the truth in our Synod. In many places, error has the upper hand, and tolerates the truth no more. But our Synod is formally unwilling and unable to face that fact honestly. It is our inconvenient truth. It has been so since the Behnken solution to the shattering controversy of the Chicago Statement - the Statement of the 44 in 1945.

The result is distrust. (#7) The problem is not the loss of “the system” which served our Synod for so long, and finally betrayed our Synod in the twentieth century. Pastoral formation through high school and college and Seminary with those holding strikingly different theologies learning to treat each other as good buddies created the mess we have. Somehow, they learned not to fix the problem by addressing the theology but to be kind to one another as each “team” tried to out maneuver the other in controlling the Synodical apparatus. Truth became something like a game, and the truth lost when holding hands with one another became more important than standing for what is true.

The Task Force wants to understand how to go back to the days when “churchmanship” (#6) was more important than confession. If there was a real hunger for concord and unity, it would be sought in the Word of God, and addressing the questions before us frankly on the basis of the Word. Reading the history of the Synod shows us that there was a time when standing together on the truth was more important than standing together as buddies. Back then, when someone wanted to hold fast to something no one else agreed with, he left the Synod - willingly or not. If we want “Synodical Harmony”, we need to find our way back to that sort of commitment to truth and sound doctrine - and church practice that reflects both sound doctrine and our unity in it. This is called the church militant for a reason! As long as our commitment is to diversity in practice, which is also diversity in doctrine, we cannot and will not find concord and harmony. The most we can look forward to is the day when error is ascendant, as Krauth describes it, and drives out all who stand on the truth so that there is no one causing controversy left.

If that is the goal of the Task Force - a church without controversy - Charles Porterfield Krauth set forth the recipe back in 1871 in his book, The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology. All they need to do is open their copies and follow the directions.

Land of the Fee and Home of the Slave

2010-03-22T15:25:00.000-07:00

The nation I grew up in died a little last night. One political party chose to use the power of majority (while they still held it) to pass legislation that the vast majority of Americans did not want them to pass, and fundamentally alter the nature of our country. The Democratic Party, which once stood for the people is now the Communist party, and stands astride the people as a master and a dominator.

The President lied boldly about what his health care program would do as he labored to promote it. Congress continued to pretend that they were doing something good for the people, something that the people really wanted, despite the fact that they clearly did not want the stuff they were being force-fed last night. Benjamin Franklin, when asked what sort of government the founding fathers had created, said that we had a republic, if we could hang on to it. We lost our grip a bit last night.

This has been coming in the form of deceitful and anti-American education for a century, and in the form of at least a double-standard for the laws of the nation. The common man is held to account for following the law. "Leaders" are free to ignore them. For example, when President Clinton committed a felony in perjuring himself before a Federal judge, it revealed that awful double standard. He got away with a slap on the wrist. If I had done precisely the same thing, I would do hard time. Now we have a tax-cheat running the IRS, and an apologist for American enemies serving as Attorney General. Crime isn't crime if you are seated high enough in the right party -- see the corruption of the DFL politicians for illustration, or Barney Frank for example. and now America isn't America any longer.

Welcome to Amerika. Although he lied copiously on the way to this health care mess, President Obama actually told us what he intended to do when he was running for the presidency. Very few paid attention , and most of those who heard him could not believe he was actually capable of being what he said he was going to be and doing what he said he was going to do.

Now reality sets in. The only question is whether the defenders of freedom and capitalism and America that remain in our political system will have the courage to do what is necessary to turn this thing around. I hope so, but I sincerely doubt that we have conservative politicians with that kind of steel in their spine. Today we face a new reality - and it is going to get much worse before it gets better.

Internet Christianity

2009-10-24T11:02:00.000-07:00

I am a member of a number of email "chat" groups. They are all related to the faith. As I participate, and observe the nature of the discourse, I have begun to formulate an assessment.

Internet Christianity is not confessional, nor does it advance confessional thinking, generally. What it advances is personal kind of faith, a highly idiosyncratic theology. People start by asking questions, which is good, but soon the discourse turns to a discussion which floats heavily in the direction of "I think so-and-so," of "I feel thus and so about this or that."

Confessional theology is grounded in truth, an objective, outside-of-me truth. The Lutheran Confessions provide just such a framework on the topics that they address. Internet Christianity becomes very individual and not shaped so much by an external truth but by an internal monologue.

Faith has always been personal and internal, but it needs to be grounded in reality which is not open to personal modification. Scriptures provide that, to some extent, although most people are comfortable doing what they refer to as "interpretation". By that they generally mean that they dismiss what they are uncomfortable with and redefine terms in parts so that what it means to them is often contrary to the literal sense of the text.

Theology which is highly personal and, as I defined it above, idiosyncratic, is not a strength for the church. It may start innocently enough, but it can lead quite easily to the sort of denial and redefinition that one might observe in the Emerging Church Movement.

Aside from the "I believe what I like" sort of excess encouraged in Internet Christianity, we find it possesses an atomizing effect. The Church is a unity, a common confession of truth, and a body of shared experience. The individual sitting alone behind their computer screen determining for themselves what seems right and feels right and does not offend their sense of religion provides only half of the experience of the church. Everyone has always made those sorts of assessments in the privacy of their own thoughts, but historically in the church, people were forced to do this in the context of the constant presence of the body of the believers around them for worship, for the teaching ministry of the church, and for the fellowship of the saints. They were simultaneously being homogenized with the confession of the church around them and wandering freely in their own judgments. Either half of this process without the other is unhealthy.

There is no un-ringing of this bell. The contents of this 'pandora's box' cannot be forced back into the container. Internet Christianity is here to stay. This is just a caution for those who engage in it. Do not allow this process to become a fractionalizing experience in the church. It will not serve the Church, her mission, or you personally, well.

You Don't Own Me

2009-10-14T15:30:00.000-07:00

The one perspective I have yet to hear on the news is that the nanny-state health care being proposed for our nation overlooks one thing, the citizen is not a possession of the state. The government in America is supposed to be of the people, for the people, and by the people. The government has absolutely no business trying to decide who should or must have health insurance.

It is none of their business! I am not a ward of or the property of the state. It is supposed to be my servant as a citizen.

The state has no business telling me what I can eat, or what activities I can or cannot indulge in. It may limit activities by law that infringe on others, but what I do that does not involve others is none of their business.

This new none-dare-call-it-socialism is simply the unlawful removal of the basic rights and freedoms of American citizens. Get out of my business, and do your own job, government! Protect our nation's sovereignty, defend our freedoms, help the states co-operate in things that they must co-operate in for peace and prosperity, enforce our laws, but get out of my pocket, and out of my life where I am not threatening any one else's rights or freedom.

The state simply has no business telling me that I must be healthy, or do things the way someone else likes them done - at least not in my private life.

This used to be America, but, as the the security guard in the video that went viral on the web said, "it ain't no more!"

Definitions

2009-10-10T09:25:00.000-07:00

Theology is the art of making distinctions, at least in one sense. I like defining things, so that they makes sense, at least to me.

A Politician:

A person who will say anything, true or not, in order to be permitted to do (or get away with having done) whatever they desire.

For illustrations, look to Congress, or any state governing body (or elected government figure), i.e. Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Harry Reid, President Obama, etc..

This Is Why

2009-07-02T13:40:00.000-07:00

People wonder why the leaders of this nation do not appear to be overly concerned with the troubles that the citizens seem to be enduring. The answer is very simple, they are Humanists.

These people are humanists of the stripe of those who produced the Humanist Manifestoes in the last century. They stand in stark contrast to Christians and other theistic religions which generally have a code of ethics and compassion. It is sadly true that not every religionist has always lived up to their religous confessions. There is a simple reason for that. It is called, "SIN". Humanity, as a species, is sinful by nature, and tends to fail when it comes to keeping moral commitments. Some failures are small, and some are quite large. Some don't matter to anyone except the one who fails, and some matter a great deal to many people. But fail or not, these people who practice religion based on the Bible have a code of compassion toward others, and tend to be concerned about how the other guy is doing.

Humanists do not. They will use the distress of others to motivate people to support them, or to empower their agenda for change, but they do not care about people, precisely because they are humanists. Read the Humanaist Manifesto II. It boldly asserts that there is no deity out there, caring about us, motivating our caring about one another, saving anyone. When they list the great destructive pressures of human society, "vulgarization, commercialization, bureaucratization, and dehumanization", they offer no solution. They simply tell us to pursue life's enrichment "despite [these] debasing forces". The traumas and terrors of human life are merely the evolutionary pressures which are to be endured and overcome by those fit enough to survive.

If you wonder why they campaign on the troubles oflife, as though they were going to resolve them, if elected, but never seem to actually fix the problems, it is because they never intended to fix them. The troubles are easy handles to motivation for getting people to vote for them. Solving the problems would make the elected officials less important and less necessary. Besides, they expect you to either survive or not, pretty much on your own. These problems are viewed as the evolutionary forces necessary to cull the herd of the unfit. It helps to remember, when dealing with committed evolutionists, that evolution does not care about the individual. Evolution is scarcely conscious of the individual. It focuses on populations, and is really about the species as a group, without a concern for any specific member of the group -excluding themselves, of course.

A New World

2009-06-03T06:22:00.001-07:00

President Obama proudly proclaims that the United States is not a Christian nation. Sadly, this is only too true.

But now he tells the Muslim world that we are a Muslim nation - Now it is getting spooky!

Nonsense

2009-05-25T07:40:00.000-07:00

I read daily about the dust-up in the Republican party between the "moderates" and the "conservatives". Clearly this is a debate by people so deeply entrenched in the world of Washington politics that they have lost all sight of reality.

First, who is Colon Powell to be lecturing on what is or is not a Republican? He went public in support of the Democrat candidate long before the vote, and he has given no evidence that his opinion has been altered by the mismanagement of the government by Obama since. If he is still a Republican, then so is Obama.

Second, political parties are supposed to offer alternative ideas, not simply different groups of men and women to enact the same ideas. If the "big tent" is so big that social progressives fit in and should have a significant voice in guiding the party, where do those who disagree go to find representation? How do we challenge the status quo and the mindless assault on our prosperity and liberties? The Republican party is not just "our team". It is supposed to be the champion of a set of principles and ideas distinct from the Democrats. It is supposed to offer real choice, not just more of the same in a different color wrapper.

Because the two national parties have abandoned the business of offering real choices, the political landscape is becoming fragmented to a significant degree. I imagine that we will see the sort of multiple-party electioneering that we see in Europe in the none-too-distant future, right here is America.

Pity.

Something Old, Something New . . .

2009-04-01T07:40:00.000-07:00

I saw it in the newsletter of a congregation I was once a member of. It is called "Natural Church Development". I was curious. The few comments about the program indicated that they had gotten the materials from somewhere official. The program information suggested it was similar to a host of "church growth" programs. I wondered where it had come from and who was behind it. That sort of information often speaks volumes about things - church programs in particular.

So, I "googled" it. I discovered that it was a program of the Seventh-Day Adventists. As I read the materials available on-line, I found that it was pretty much a rehashing of the same-old church growth stuff. It claimed that it was not, and that it was all about allowing the Word of God and the Power of God to cause the church to grow all by itself. The only problem was that it identified concern over things such as sound doctrine as "legalism" which was detrimental to the growth of the church and of the eight characteristics of a "healthy" church.

The materials quoted by the pastor of the congregation focus on depending on the Word to work all by itself (which is a special phrase in NCD, they call it the "all by itself" principle). The other materials talk about being "scientific" about things. The Holy Spirit is the only one who can make the church grow, but if we get out of the way of the Holy Spirit (by doing things as they ought to be done properly) the church will grow.

The materials tell us that the purpose of the NCD program is not numerical growth or increased money in the coffers. But then the materials go on to say that those churches that have used three or more surveys by the group - and their 'coaches', of course - have a track record of 51% growth in those areas.

I don't want to repeat the eight points of the program. You can search that out for yourself. But a "healthy" church, they report, does not care about "right doctrine". Spiritual worship is "fun" and filled with laughter. And small groups are very important (not "cells", mind you), but their focus is not supposed to be about teaching what the Word of God says. No, "holistic groups . . . go beyond just discussing Bible passages to applying its message to daily life" - whatever that may mean. And the "holistic" group is really focused on reaching out to those who do not belong to the church. "The meaning of the term "discipleship" becomes practical in the context of holistic small groups: the transfer of life, not rote learning of abstract concepts."

Oh, yes, and Evangelism is about meeting needs. "Need-oriented evangelism intentionally cultivates relationships with pre-Christian people". It is to be need-centered, not message centered. "Using appropriate ministries and authentic relationships, believers can guide others into the family of God."

The congregation in whose newsletter I noticed this program is always facing a financial challenge. They operate a day school, K thru 8 -- and it is a good school! I also noticed that the starter kit for this program is $175. Never let an opportunity to make some money slip by!

The program is church growth warmed over and dressed in scientific respectability. It is about butts in the pew and cash in the coffers, not about church or salvation at all. It is like yogurt, you can flavor it any way you want so that it can seem Lutheran, for example, but it is fundamentally guided by those surveys and how your church is or is not meeting the goals and fitting the paradigm of a "healthy" congregation.

The ELCA is all over this program. And now, it seems that the Missouri Synod is awakening to it, too. Pastors beware!

An Old Question Answered

2009-02-13T07:27:00.000-08:00

They asked the question, "How could all those reasonable people have permitted Hitler and the Nazi's to do the atrocious things they did?" Of course, that question has been asked of all of those societies that permitted monstrous evil to walk the streets unchallenged.

Our society is answering that question with a living demonstration. The news media, once responsible, is now demonizing everything they disagree with in the most extreme and irrational ways. Conservative Christianity is caricatured as the cause for the loss of faith. Conservative thought is seriously described as a form of insanity. Conservative religion is styled as "extreme" and "fundamentalistic". Advocates for liberal agendas openly assault institutions that they see as standing in their way - illustrated for us by gay activists interrupting worship services to throw literature and condoms around, and shout epithets at the worshipers.

Because 53 percent of the voters selected a candidate who was openly associated with the cause of the social progressives, those who identify with that cause feel empowered and emboldened to spew their opinions publicly, and the media is reporting it all as though it were important news.

When the extremists have control of the political, and the media give voice only to them and their ilk, you end up with a society doing monstrous things, and pretending it is all so very reasonable. Big Brother has finally arrived, he just got here twenty-five years behind schedule.

God help us, the inmates have taken over the asylum.

I Don't Get It

2009-01-27T12:18:00.001-08:00

My puny portfolio has taken a beating. The value of my home has dropped by approximately 20% -- according to the reports on the financial sites. Jobs are vanishing with a swiftness not seen for seventy-plus years. Things don't look good, and the news media is saying positively that things are bad.

Then I go to the gas station, and although I watch on the internet as crude oil drops day-by-day, my local gas station prices just went up a nickle per. I go to the stores and prices are up for everything. Walmart's prices are up. Even the Subway in Walmart is now charging $1.60 for the bag of popcorn that was just recently one dollar even.

My taxes are bound to go up, seeing as how the new president is doubling down on Mr. Bush's unwise and ineffective approach to the economic woes. Local government is cutting back on services and putting the hourly help on shorter hours (but paying the commissioners and the salaried people - the supervisors - the same money!).

If we are in a recession, shouldn't something other than my income and my investments recede?

Hey business guys! If you want more business from a shrinking money pool, raising your prices is the wrong approach. Try charging less.

Sounding Eerily Familiar

2009-01-26T11:44:00.000-08:00

Drudge Report has a headline story about Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi holding forth on how birth control will help the economy.

It has been clear that the pro-choice lobby is anti-human, and anti-life, but now one of the leading democrats has taken the position that people are a problem, and has come one step closer to government mandated birth control. It is a small step from pointing out how extra children are disadvantageous to the economy and regulating the number of permissible children in a family - as China has done, for example.

Spooky!

Here We Go!

2009-01-24T08:15:00.000-08:00

We have the first signs. The President refuses to answer reporters' questions. His surrogates decline to answer certain questions. The "drive-by" media scarcely takes notice.

Now we have 'The Media' uncritically accepting false claims because they target the right. Right Here. We have a difficult time ahead when the watchdogs are not only asleep, but are helping those they are supposed to be watching.

Welcome to the New World

2009-01-22T07:26:00.001-08:00

I avoided the coverage of the inauguration. I wasn't able to totally avoid it, but most of it passed me by silently. Since then, the little news I have permitted into my world has confirmed my suspicions that what was once called "The News Media" is now simply a propaganda apparatus frantically trying to hide the truth and disguise reality.

I have read several comments about how the election of Obama was the fulfillment of the dream of Martin Luther King, Jr., that a man would be judged by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin. Senator Clair McCaskill of Missouri - a member of the Obama campaign team - even stated that it was denigrating the president to focus on his color or ethnicity. He was elected because of who he is and because of his ideas. Well, at least that was her take on it.

And it was egregiously dishonest. Obama was not elected on the basis of the content of his character. The media did all that it could to hide what little about Obama and his character leaked out. Far from denigrating the president, Obama's identity and chief campaign issue was his race. No one else talked about it, but he was campaigning constantly on the claim that everyone else would talk about it, point to it and try to make the public uneasy. Any debate surrounding the few words that slipped out of Obama's mouth during the campaign was attacked as "racist" by his shills in the party and in the main-stream media.

Everybody says, "give him a chance". Honestly, we don't have any choice there. He is the president. He has at least four years. The first two will be with the most partisan and least rational Democrat majorities in both houses of congress. We will see what he will be. Everyone hopes that he is good for the country - for the economy, for our national security, for our future. I share that hope.

But the man has promised to do things I believe will not work well for our economy, or for our national security, or for our future. My fondest hope is that when Obama has finished his work, the United States is still a free nation, and not a newly minted third-world country with a struggling economy and gravely distressed national security.

Here's to our 44th president, Barack Hussein Obama. God help us, and give him wisdom.

Comforable Illusions

2008-12-30T07:10:00.001-08:00

I watch the news, and I am impressed by the number of notions that we seem to share as a society that are not true.

That this nation is a free country: We have a history of freedom, but our liberties are being taken from us daily by laws regulating behavior which is rightly of no concern to others, and by taxes that seek to impose the values of another on the populace, and by a news media which fails in its duty so abysmally and deliberately.

That 'We, the people' exercise significant political power. That power exists, but it it is muted by politicians who disregard the will of their constituents once they are elected (with the willing complicity of the Media), by politically owned machines that disable the election process - as in Minnesota this year, or Washington state a few years back, and by a double standard of justice which makes what is a scandal for a Republican into a political virtue for a democrat, and always expects morality and decency from one party and excuses the bald lack of it from the other.

That you can depend of the news Media for anything resembling truth or honesty.

That "good people" tend to think alike. The fact is that when most Americans are confronted by the truth, they choose to believe something else - and don't want to know, for fear that it will upset them.

It makes life a challenge. We need to deal with reality as it is, not with myths which put us to sleep.

Amusing

2008-11-25T07:12:00.001-08:00

It is amusing, in a sad and somewhat frightening sort of way, to watch the media fawn over Obama. The Philadelphia Enquirer had posted on-line (but has since corrected) a poll asking which president Obama reminds people of. The choices were JFK, FDR, Lincoln, or Bobby Kennedy! Set aside the fact that Obama isn't President yet, Bobby Kennedy never got there!

Personally, I would have voted for Herbert Hoover.

A Man Without a Country

2008-11-07T15:38:00.001-08:00

Rarely does anything as expected as the Obama election cause so much distress in me as this event has. I am profoundly dispirited by the meaning of the election, as I understand it.

The reality is, as yet, to be revealed. Obama promised a lot of things in his long campaign. His personal history promises many things as well. Nothing he has said clears up the mystery of what he will do, nor reduces the potential misfortune his election presages. The reality awaits. I suspect that it may take a generation of two to fully develop and for the consequences of this election to be fully appreciated - although appreciated is hardly the right connotation to apply.

First, let it be clear that the one factor everyone pretends was a non-factor, and yet is his chief claim to fame (at this point in time) – race – has no part in my reaction to the election. I quit counting race as significant in evaluating a person long ago. In fact, it seems to me that we have fallen far short of Martin Luther King’s dream of the day when we judged a person by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. The most celebrated fact in the news coverage of this election result is that we have elected a black man to the highest office of the land - FINALLY.

The content of his character, however, has been deliberately hidden, covered, and ignored. His personal history, sparse as he has allowed the record to be, is troubling. His philosophical mentor is Saul Alinsky, a communist agitator. His personal hero is Frank Marshal Davis, a communist. His one mistake in the campaign, echoing the Marxist credo with the now famous “redistribution” comments to Joe the Plumber. Programs mentioned during the primary campaign - which largely disappeared from his conversation during the major campaign were frightening: withdrawing our troops immediately from the conflict in Iraq and subsequently in Afghanistan, funding a poverty program for the other nations of the world through the UN, unilaterally disarming our nation, negotiating with those around the world who would like to destroy us simply because we are not Moslem without preconditions, and to the aim of making them more content with us, bankrupting the coal industry, ending the use of oil in this nation within a decade, and declining to increase our use of nuclear fuel - effectively reducing our economy to third-world status.

It comes to mind that Hugo Chavez was elected by popular vote in Venezuela. Adoph Hitler was elected by popular vote in times of severe economic distress in the 1930's in Germany. Given the agenda - murky though it is - which has emanated from the One who has been waiting for himself, the possibilities are troubling. Obama has already thrown newspapers off his campaign plane for failing to endorse him. He does not treasure free speech for those who do not kowtow to his ideas. He has signaled his agreement with eliminating the free expression on the radio by returning to the policies of the “fairness doctrine”. He has given too little information to give any thinking person confidence in what he would not do, and too much for comfort when one ponders what he might attempt.

The President-elect announced in his victory proclamation that now we would begin to change this nation. That agenda tells me that the nation I grew up in, served in the military as my duty, during the Vietnam thing, and have always loved, is soon to be no longer. Something else is to take its place - a changed nation. No longer my America - now just something called the United States, but not the United States of the past.

At the same time, I must admit that my church body has changed too. Once famous for its rock-solid commitment to sound doctrine, our President is now famous for telling us that this is not our grandfather’s church, and he has instituted a program which leads the church body away from its historical practices and commitments. I feel that my church body is no longer the Lutheran Church I grew up in and in which I spoke my vows of ordination.

My country is committed to becoming something else, and my church is committed to becoming something other than it has historically been. I feel like a man without a county!

But I do take comfort in this, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever.”

The Tension Is Almost Unbearable!

2008-11-03T15:12:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow we vote!

Are the polls rights?

What will this nation look like in a year, or three?

Tonight is a time for prayer.

Among the things we can give thanks for is that this endless election cycle is coming to an end . . . just in time for the 2012 presidential election campaign to start!

May God have mercy on us!

Now This Is Funny!

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

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

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

Fascinating!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Meaning of Words

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

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

I must be getting old

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Memories

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hypocrisy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An End to Freedom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Even so, Come Lord Jesus!"

Serendipity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord, have mercy upon us!

Another Start

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

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

So, here we go with another start.

The Wonder of It All

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

Luke 2:1-14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a Thought

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

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

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

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

Hmmmmm.

Preaching

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Age of Unbelief

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

We are living in an age of unbelief.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Old-Fashioned Bully

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

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

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

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

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

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

Early Communion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's my $.02 worth.

Anne Rice

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

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

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

Politics aside, these positions are not intellectually consistent.

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

Spooky!

Defining Don Matzat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romans 1:22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defining Your Opinions

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

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

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

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

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

It Makes Pefect Sense to Me!

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

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

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

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

The Coming Convention of the LCMS

2007-06-28T09:19:00.000-07:00

I have been a delegate to the Convention of the LCMS three times, and have attended two other Conventions as a visitor. My observations at these conventions has made me somewhat cynical about the rationale of some -- particularly Boards and Commissions -- who offer overtures to the Synod. What follows is my take on the coming convention by review of the first issue of Today's Business.

First, most issues are not dealt with by the convention. They are shuffled off, given to some Board of Committee, the conduct of which may have inspired the overture in the first place. A number of overtures are denied simply because the powers that be like things just the way they are, and so the Synod in convention is not going to be allowed to consider them.

What the Synod is allowed to do is consider the resolutions that the administration wants them to consider - not necessarily what the people of they Synod want them to consider.

My observation is that most of what the Convention will spend its time on is not worth the time they will spend. It will not address any substantive issue and it will focus on saying things that don't - or should not - need saying.

My other observation is that the Administration appears to be tightening the reigns and drawing more control and authority into the bureaucracy. The Synod that began as a voluntary association of congregations to work together to accomplish certain things - stuctured with congregations on top and Synod as organization on the bottom - has reversed its understanding of itself and has become a controlling organization which seems to view the congregations as franchisees of the corporate entity known as the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Truth doesn't need - or seek - this sort of power. Error and deception always do. The three stages in the progress of error in the church (from Krauth) seem to apply directly here.

Anyhow, here are select resolutions with my take on them. You may note that I ignore resolutions that seem to be of little value or effect:

LCMS convention resolutions:

MISSIONS

1.03 - New study on the Priesthood of All Believers. appears hostile to the office of the Ministry

1.05 - Make outreach a top priority in worker training. not wise. It forgets the Gospel and sound doctrine.

1.09 - Accounting for the use of Fan into Flames Fund. Probably a good idea.

1.11 - Continue campus ministry in association with the ELCA. Weasel words. Awful repudiation of the late memorial from the Waseca Circuit. They were clear in asking that we dissolve such connections with a church body we have declared heterodox, Seems like a no-brainer to me, but I am not a social progressive bureaucrat.

1.12 - Decline overtures. Facile. RE:1-12 - Denies the Synod the opportunity to debate the theology of Ablaze and of the report on the theology of Ablaze issue by the Synod. Should be defeated.

DISTRICT AND CONGREGATIONAL SERVICES

2.01 - Theological Conferences on Worship. This appears to be an effort to baptize the status quo of diversity and mind-numbing abandonment of historic liturgy. I believe it is a bad idea.

2.02 - To Provide Guidance for the Use of Contemporary Worship Resources. unfortunate resolution

Asserts without foundation that there is a need for contemporary worship songs - does not define what they mean by Contemporary songs for worship or other terms or identify the need which they assert exists. Need and want are two different things, as any parent of teen-agers can clearly tell you.
Asserts that there are pastors and teachers and DCE's throughout the synod who are composing solid Lutheran contemporary worship songs. There is no reference to the not-solid and non-Lutheran junk that is also produced, or how to distinguish between them.
calls for the Synod to do the unnecessary: create a network for dissemination of these resources. A web site created by any interested party could serve. It would not give the Synod more power to do it that way, though.

2.06 - To Promote Relational Vitality in Congregations. This is a bad resolution:

wants to commend those who are charged with dealing with conflict in our congregations in a Biblical manner, but have have failed to faithfully address a great evil in our midst.
heads in the wrong direction for a proper solution to the problem in our Synod - not in the direction of the Word of God.
initiates another bout of bad technical jargon with ambiguous meaning.

2.07 - To Encourage Individual Confession and Absolution. a good resolution. It should not be necessary, but it probably is.

THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

3.01 - Altar and Pulpit Fellowship with AALC. Definitely wrong

the AALC has a long history as a wild-eyed Charismatic Fellowship
the judgment of those in charge (CTCR, particularly the leadership of it) is notoriously suspect in this area.
If we are ready for fellowship with TAALC, I suspect that the change did not happen among them.

3.03 - To Request the CTCR to Develop a Plan for Confessional Leadership. Urges the publishing of a new dogmatics text and appears to want to take Luther Academy's place in arranging and directing Theological Symposia throughout the world. I personally am not tickled with either goal.

3.04 - Call for a Study of the Natural Knowledge of God and it Implications for Public Witness. Stupid. Moves in the wrong direction, away from the Word. Seems to be calculated to please the world.

3.05 - To Provide Further Discussion and Guidance on the Matter of Serial Prayer. Asking the wrong people to talk about theology. Actually dismissing the real question of unionism at Yankee Stadium and similar inter-religion services by focusing on something else.

3.06 - To Assign the CTCR to Address Environmental Issues. Bad idea. We have the Gospel to preach, why do we need to be involved in the debates swirling about in environmentalism as a church body? Although this is better than allowing them to address controversial theological issues.

3.07 - To Study the CTCR Reports Relating to the Service of Women in the Church. The reports are flawed. Maybe we should study Scriptures instead.

3.11 - To Endeavor to Keep the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace. This resolution misunderstands the concept, and asks us to reduce to bare minimums the doctrinal content of "unity". Like putting a loaded gun into the hands of a toddler. Clearly reflects the "new thinking" in Missouri.

PROGRAM AND FINANCE

4.01 - To Plan Summit to Restore Harmony and Trust. The fifth 'whereas' disavows the validity of the concerns which often divide us and lead to distrust. This Summit is dead on arrival.

4.02 - To Begin Stewardship Renewal Through Enhanced Communication. Double talk and gobbledygook. They (the people in the organization's Stewardship department) still do not understand stewardship. They think they can manipulate people into it.

4.03 - To Develop a Program to Emphasize Biblical Whole Life Stewardship. Nice words. Silly resolution. See 4.02 above.

4.09 - To Provide Financial Support and Adopt Funding Models for the Seminaries. That the Synod would take this funding matter over is right. What it will result in may not be so good. The crisis in Seminary funding happened over years as the organization called "Synod" found itself more interested in other things, and allowed the cost of a Seminary education to skyrocket while the Synod's financial support for the Seminaries diminished to nearly nothing. If Synod was willing and able to do this in the first place, we would not have the problems in funding Seminary education we have. When they take it over, we can expect money will control seminary faculties at the behest of the Synod administration. That will teach those uppity confessionals for maintaining a Lutheran presence on at least one campus (sometimes both)!

4.10 - To Encourage Funding for the Center for Hispanic Studies. Well, our nation refuses to control the border, so . . .

except that we probably could get CLEF or LHF to do the needed translation work for us cheaply.

4.12 - To Demonstrate Support for Walking Together. Seeks to encourage greater centralization of Synod resources. The power of the centralization is manipulative over many in Synod now. Going farther suits the Synodical desire for more control but will not serve truth or the Church well.

4.15 - To Decline Overtures. automatic. I list it here to give the example of shallow reasoning for declining to consider an overture.

RE: Ov. 4-36 To Change appointment process. Declined without giving the Synod an opportunity to discuss it or consider another process. Answer reads like, "We will ignore your ideas because we like things the way they are right now." Automatically a bad answer.

SEMINARY AND UNIVERSITY EDUCATION

5.01 - To Establish Specific Ministry Pastor Program. Bad idea just on its face. Opens the door to too many evils to count.

Suggests that not all people need competent and well-trained pastors.
Creates a sub-class of pastors (with sub-standard preparation) which will eventually be regularized, if history is any guide.
begins to open the door to requiring continuing education.
lays the ground work for training specific men for specific places and types of ministry.
adds to the COP's already absurd authority.

5.05 - To Encourage Commitment to Continuing Education for Clergy. A step toward requiring Continuing Education. A Bad thing for the Church. I don't mean that continuing learning is a bad thing, but the requirement to do so under pains of decertification would be abusive and manipulative. This resolution doesn't take us all the way there, but it starts the journey.

HUMAN CARE

6.04 - Ministry to Immigrants - We should be willing to subvert our nations laws to help the poor and needy? The Church as church has no place in this. Individual Christians may, but not the organization called "church".

6.05 - To petition the CTCR to give us theological cover for breaking the law of our nations for the sake of the illegals. Nah.

6.06 - To develop materials about domestic abuse. Yeah, let's leave off all that Gospel talk and do something socially useful.

PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION

(This is the place where the really spooky things start to happen)

7.03 - To Amend Bylaw 3.2.5. Meant to eliminate the presence of those nominated from the floor of a convention from the list to be considered if the board needs to replace someone elected by the convention. Stupid move. Gives extra authority - unwarranted authority - to the nominating committee of the convention.

7.07 - Change bylaw 1.5 and add definitions. This resolutions seeks to establish a conflict of interest policy which would silence dissent.

7.08 - To Add Bylaw re Removal of Individual Members from Board or Commission Memberships. The title itself should give one pause. After 160 years, now, all of a sudden, we need a special resolution to remove those we want to remove? This is clearly about strengthening control.

We cannot make charges of false doctrine work to remove pastors expeditiously, but it is listed here as a reason to remove a Board or Commission member.
We have a District President who was removed for failure to honor and uphold the doctrinal position of Synod and conduct unbecoming a Christian (reasons #2 and #3), yet he was restored by CCM fiat. Clearly these regulations are meant to serve administrative power, not truth or doctrine - nor the well-being of Synod.
"breach of loyalty owed to the board of commission" that will cover any expressed difference of opinion.

Welcome to the police state of LCMS! Big Brother is instituting thought control.

7.09 - To Affirm Use of Synod Dispute Resolution Process. The Dispute Resolution process was devised to sabotage justice and godly resolution of conflict. It has served to manage disputes to the liking of the powers that be. It is abusive to begin with. Now the Synod seeks to silence all opposition by closing the door to "secular remedies" and guarantee injustice, and threatens removal to any and all who disregard this notice. Then we will be treated to pious platitudes about the "procedures for dissent" which are only less effective than shouting into an empty room, and then closing the door quickly and quietly.

7.10 - To Amend Bylaws 1.9 and 3.9.3 Pertaining to Doctrinal Review. Creates a new class of materials which may be disseminated without doctrinal review. Now we can have false doctrine published by Synod and distributed deliberately through official channels as long as it is "study documents" and "exploratory materials" and as long as they are clearly marked as not having been through doctrinal review. The Statement of the 44 in 1945 would have been publishable by the Synod under these rules. Of course, today that document, condemned at the time as containing false doctrine, is held up as our modern orthodoxy. The danger in this resolution is phenomenal.

7.11 - To Improve the Process for Floor Nominations at Synod Conventions. Clearly intended to stop or at least severely restrict the practice. More authority centralized, less ability to work effectively for change given to the members and people of the Synod.

7.13 - To Decline Overtures. Rationale for declining most overtures appears to be, "we like it this way, and we don't want to take the time to talk about it."

SYNOD STRUCTURE AND GOVERNANCE

8.01 - To Adopt Amendments to the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws re Resolution 7-02A. Clarifies the responsibility of the Board of Directors, particularly as it deals with CCM Opinions. That part is good. Then it complicates the issue of review of CCM opinions by the Synod in Convention -- but maintains the pious fiction that we can actually call those things up for review. Furthers the appearance of the Synod as a dictatorship - our own little papacy, with the COP serving as the College of Cardinals.

8.02 - To Affirm Christian Resolution of Disputes. This is a reminder that we are obligated to resolve disputes by this single, unscriptural method.

8.04 - To provide Wording for Congregations' Constitutions and Bylaws. Sadly necessary. A good solution to the problems that prompted it.

8.07 - To Call a Special Convention to Amend Synod Structure and Governance. On its face, it is an attempt to streamline the process of change in structure and governance so the next convention can deal with the changes. It simply means that we need to streamline annd accelerate the transformation of the Missouri Synod into something none of us imagined and something none of us wanted when we joined. This is not your grandfather's Synod! Soon it will not be your father's or your own.

8.08 - To Provide a Process for Reconsideration of CCM Opinions. Adds a step in the process of challenging the CCM opinions, one that is really unlikely to have any success -- but will give the CCM the defense against any challenge to the opinions of the CCM that "we considered this objection, and found it without merit." If Walther could roll over in his grave, by now we could use him to power a high-speed lathe.

8.10 - To Refer for Theological Study CCM Opinions 02-2296, 02-2309, and 02-2320. The resolution begins with the premise that certain opinions"may" have been in error. It continues by suggesting that we have now adjusted our Constitution and Bylaws to fit the erring opinions, so they are no longer in error. It then suggests that the way to answer the theological concerns some have expressed is to let the CTCR take a run at it, and report back in three years. This is how we avoid allowing the Synod to actually review and vote on the opinions themselves in convention. George Orwell would be a prophet in today's church. He simply missed the date by 23 years.

8.11 - To Respectfully Decline Overtures re CCM Opinions. This means, we don't want the Synod to take any action on these.

8.12 - To Respectfully Decline Overtures. Sad.

We cannot reconsider a resolution because they don't want to.
In one case, we maintain the impious fiction that there is actual supervision of the President of Synod. This is, of course, a lie.
In another case, we cannot ask anyone who promotes false doctrine to leave the Synod by convention resolution because we supposedly have process in place to do that - although it only works when the powers that be want it to - while open false teaching is regularly ignored, and complainants about such false teaching are chastised and hounded for not following the correct procedure precisely.

Omnibus Resolutions pass without much controversy - and they serve to keep the convention from thinking too much. Besides, if we considered all of these resolutions, we might have to extend the time of the convention, or reduce the greetings and videos time, and that would tend to make the convention dangerously useful.

Well, there it is. My take on the coming convention. The best result appears to be that the convention does absolutely nothing - except electing new and confessional Lutheran Leadership (which ain't likely).

Typically, a convention automatically approves over 90% of what is presented to it. This could be a disastrous convention for the historic Synod. Probably a refreshing thing for Incumbent President Jerry Keischnick, and the revisionist "Jesus First" types that support him, and support change in the commitments and doctrines of our - should I simply say "the" - Synod.

God help us in these difficult and threatening times. We will need the strength of a faithful church to confront the impending dangers of Islam - and secularism - in our age (although I think militant Islam will simply crush secularism when the two collide). Sadly, we Christians are just too 'nice' for that.

Politics or Gospel?

2007-06-27T11:52:00.000-07:00

Observing the church in today's world, one is prompted to wonder what the church is supposed to be about, politics? Or the Gospel?

In congregation after congregation, pastors are being attacked and forced from office for being too Lutheran. That is never the charge made formally, but time and again, a pastor who endeavors to teach faithfully, and lead his congregation in the historic liturgy is being attacked. The charges are things like "arrogance" for daring to confess that he knows the truth, that faithfulness is more to be desired than novelty, and that, as pastor, he is charged with the responsibility to oversee and guide what is taught in that parish. A host of other charges is usually concocted: the pastor is not "a people person", the pastor does not attend to the "needs" of his people adequately, the pastor is autocratic, and the pastor maintains associations with other, hopelessly old-fashioned, conservative Lutheran pastors.

Let me insert here the comment that in almost every case, if not every single one, the issue is theological. It is about doctrine, not the conduct or the person of the pastor. That is the single issue always denied and steadfastly rejected - and yet it is the issue.

That is a reality of the church in modern times. People don't want to stand on truth, and they expect their church to cater to their fluctuating desire and tastes. This is sad. The reason it raises the question about politics or the gospel is that those elected officials who are charged with preserving the Gospel and justice and the rights of both pastors and congregations usually don't. They count bodies and take the side of the larger number (the the deeper pockets) rather than even making a pass at standing on the truth. They are politicians, not churchmen. Their concern is evidently focused on re-election and organizational continuance than the preservation of the truth and the proclamation of the Gospel.

The same principle can be seen in the rush to the new hymnal. As the pastor of a congregation that still uses the old TLH, I hear from people of every age-group who cannot understand why the new hymnal is being pushed. The Liturgies can be had in the predecessor hymnals. The new hymnal loses some more old favorite hymns, and changes the ones it keeps. The single argument in favor of the change is that some people objected to changes in the past. One man even reports that select members of his congregation remember the same sorts of unhappiness with the issuance of The Lutheran Hymnal back in 1941.

I think the memory of 66 years ago is remarkable. The complaints then, of course, were not the same, since TLH did not change the liturgy from the old green Evangelical Lutheran Hymnal. Most of the hymns were preserved, too. The hardest change back then for most was switching from German to English. TLH was not perfect, but it preserved the liturgy, most hymns in familiar form, and the creeds as spoken for centuries among English speaking Christians.

It is sad when the argument in favor of the new hymnal boils down to the reality that after a generation or two have known nothing but this hymnal, it, too, will become a precious old favorite, to be replaced for publishing house profits - and to feed another worship controversy. It doesn't answer the question asked of why the old, faithful worship is being deliberately displaced, and why the cries of those who wish to cling to the historic worship are being cast aside. The answer, "Because we can" doesn't satisfy.

The question is not, "can the new hymnal be used profitably?", but how does the strongly encouraged change to this new hymnal serve the Gospel? I can illustrate with numerous examples how the constancy of the TLH in the life of Christians has preserved and aided their faith. Those suffering dementia have often demonstrated the value of the long and frequent repetition of the Liturgy, as they cannot remember family and friends, but the prayers and confessions of the liturgy remain. What illustrations are there for the rolling changes -- admittedly reduced somewhat in the liturgical sections -- of a new hymnal serve that purpose?

Change is inevitable, I suppose. The question is, does it serve politics or the gospel?

The Best Laid Plans

2007-06-26T09:52:00.000-07:00

I always have the best intentions of blogging. I get very passionate about things and I think of all the stuff I want to write. Unfortunately, I think of it while I am away from my computer.

Besides, dial-up blogging is so time consuming.

My son, at A Fort Made of Books, tells me just to get on with it, and write something, or people will not come here to read, so I am going to try to put something up with some regularity.

Am I a mouse or am I a man? The answer doesn't matter, because their best laid plans both suffer the same fate.

Humor, arh, arh.

Children

2007-05-14T07:02:00.000-07:00

The controversy blooming on certain sites about a video called "Virgilicious" is nothing if not illustrative of the thought-processes of children.

As a parent, I noted that children tend to confuse communication with capitulation. In other words, if you don't agree with them, and support their ideas, children believe that you could not possibly have heard them. They grow louder and more shrill as any adult -- especially one in authority -- maintains any position but open-hearted acceptance and enthusiastic support for the plans and opinions of the immature. Sadly, congressional politicians emulate this behavior, but that is another blog.

The video controversy demonstrates this characteristic of the immature. The supporters of the video refuse to hear what the critics of it are saying - and while endorsing the free expression of the makers of the video, they totally dismiss the rights and the thoughts of those who might not see things in the same way.

The argument is that this is a multi-layered commentary on society, and possibly the church. Because it is presumably an honest expression of opinion, so the argument goes, it should be not just tolerated but accepted. That line line of reasoning, however, is ignored by the defenders of the video, since those who don't appreciate the video also have an honest opinion, which should therefore not just be tolerated (which it is not) but accepted. It also goes to reason that there is no opinion which ought not be accepted, no presentation which ought to be critiqued, let alone rejected, on the basis that it is obnoxious, offensive, immoral or abhorrent to anyone.

When children rule, there are no standards except their own highly volatile and temporary standards. This condition is best described with the proverb, "the inmates are running the asylum".

Dial-Up

2007-05-14T06:40:00.000-07:00

Blogging would be much more enjoyable if one could afford high-speed internet. Waiting five minutes for the blog page to appear is excruciating. When dial-up makes the internet crawl and everything take three to five times as long as it should, blogging becomes too expensive in terms of minutes in a busy day.

A New Direction

2007-03-15T11:09:00.000-07:00

I humbly offer the Democratic Party a new vision for their policy. Having listened to the anti-war rhetoric of the past couple of months, I suggest the following:

Suspend Homeland security, bring the soldiers home, and disband the military. Take no further action for the ostensible purpose of national security until some enemy perpetrates a truly grievous attack on our nation. Since the 3,000 deaths of 9/11 have been declared to be "not that serious" by spokesmen of the Left, we should establish a "tragedy threshold" of not less than 10,000 deaths in any single attack. We shall not determine the seriousness of the attack by the aggregate of several individual attacks, but only respond to those attacks that kill more than 10,000 Americans at one time. Those interested in terrorism which will not transcend the ordinary law enforcement level of concern should limit their potential targets to 5,000 at at time. Americans, tired of pictures showing human suffering, and unwilling to listen to Democrats whining and demagoguery, can then simply 'soldier on' past insignificant and relatively meaningless assaults which kill mere thousands of people.

Think of the savings! No need for military expenses. Police will probably be unnecessary too, since "merely" 3,000 deaths is not worth our attention, day to day crime, and non-tragedy-level terrorism should not trouble us overly much. The Anti-American elements of our nation will find little to protest, since such policies will certainly end our national existence - and those who take over after the Untied States falls will likely not endure their protests. Then they will have what they long for, and those who find national security too bothersome to pay attention to will find that they will not be bothered by security again for a long time.

And our mainstream news media will be able to celebrate their final victory, which, oddly enough, will also probably result in their demise as free press - the one bright spot in this vision of the future.

Unfortunately, the good, hard-working people who make this nation function would suffer alongside - and probably more than the dysfunctional and disaffected who cannot tolerate prosperity and freedom. I thank God that He does not give us what we deserve (and what many who cannot think clearly seek), but blesses us instead.

The Function of Faith

2007-03-05T07:25:00.000-08:00

One could easily become despondent in modern society. It appears to be managed by the insane. Political leaders, charged with cultivating the political conditions best suited for our collective well-being as a nation - appear to act on the principle of self- aggrandizement and perpetuation of personal power. The news media, often presented as the watchmen of our society, bound to deliver truth to a free people so that they may act in ways congruent with their freedom, behave as advocates for insanity, and clearly oppose freedom for everyone aside from themselves.

We have Global Warming (it MUST be capitalized) as the boogey-man. The science is almost totally absent, but the politics are clear - and the intended effect is the diminution of personal liberty, so it is a media agenda item of first importance, and the darling of the "moonbat" politico's. The nanny state is busy regulating where one may smoke, and which cooking oils may be used, while the fanatics who seek our death and destruction are ignored or coddled - whether from south of the border or the Middle East. Our leaders seem more interested in undoing the marvelous American Experiment in personal liberty by restrictive laws and rising taxes than actually representing the people that elected them. And schools seem more interested in indoctrination in anti-American and anti-capitalistic polemic than education in "the three 'r's".

Faith steps in here - as in any circumstance - to remind us that our hope is not in man but in God, our true home is not in this world but in eternal life with our Lord. "Trust not in princes", so says the Bible. That would include elected officials. Our Hope, our Peace, and our Comfort is not in our circumstances here. He (not "it") is Christ.

That doesn't mean we abandon this world, or the fight in it for freedom and human well-being in the political sense. Those are worthy battles, and the ability to engage in them without the fear of the "knock on the door in the middle of the night" is great gift of God for all in this country. We should take full advantage of the gift and do what we can -- but our peace of mind and true joy come from knowing that God is in charge, that life is never out of His control, however it may seem to us at any particular moment, and that better awaits us ultimately. Faith comforts fear. Faith emboldens us for the daily battle for our neighbor's benefit. Faith enables us to risk, because our battle has already been won decisively - and we have been given a share in His victory!

The Bones of Jesus

2007-03-01T06:39:00.000-08:00

It is Easter in just a few weeks. Naturally, we will be treated to the unbelieving world's freshest attacks on the Christian faith. They are presented as new and TRUE!

A 1980 discovery of ossuaries (bone boxes) from the time of Jesus. The names on the boxes are among the most common names of that time. Add a touch of Hollywood and you have the discovery of the bones of Jesus in his grave just in time for Easter 2007.

Never mind that the discoveries were so unremarkable that NO ONE has tried to suggest that this is actually Jesus Christ's tomb for over twenty-five years (well, there was that one poorly received documentary in England in the 1990's). This is news because the new, slipshod documentary is due out soon. At least it gave a small pause from the wall-to-wall coverage of the Anna Nichole Smith saga.

The answer is very simple. We walk by faith, not by sight. Our authority is Scripture: the very Word of God. If we were going to allow the vacant musings of those known to be hostile to the Christian faith to confirm or deny our faith. there would be no faith left.

Besides, doesn't it make sense that if Jesus were alive after the crucifixion, and lived long enough to marry and raise a son, that someone would have recorded it somewhere? We know the objections the Jews raised to the resurrection both from secular sources and Scripture - and they substantially agree about what the Jews said! If they had Jesus in Jerusalem for years, the Christian faith would not have survived because the Jewish authorities would have been very vocal about His presence.

Give an event the 'patina' of time and you can pretend anything is possible. The medieval church had relics (Luther said that there were enough pieces of the true cross around to build a chapel). The modern "church" of antichristian unbelief has James Cameron - - this year, at least!

Sad

2007-02-17T09:03:00.000-08:00

I can hardly bear to read the news any longer.

Those in charge of preserving justice among us have no interest in justice: see the Justice Department and Scooter Libby.

Those in charge of our national security have no interest in national security: see border control, illegal immigration.

Those in charge of delivering information to us about the world around us are more interested in making the news than reporting it: see any main-stream, drive-by, lap-dog media outlet.

Those in charge of representing the citizens of this country wisely have no interest in representing us, they want to rule us: see the new congress - or almost any other legislative body local, state, or whatever. I mean outlawing foods?? Proposing making opinions illegal and punishable by law?? Hello? Big Brother calling.

Those responsible for preserving the sound doctrine of God's Word among us have no idea what it is about: see any denominational organization - I look at the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod's leadership and see the abdication of doctrine and truth in favor of pandering for the sake of making money.

Come, Lord Jesus!

You Can't Win

2007-02-16T09:26:00.000-08:00

Reading the news today I see that Border Patrol agents go to jail for trying to stop drug smuggling and illegal border crossing - and now they have put a Border Patrol Agent in prison for letting illegals through.

It's so confusing!

No Movie

2007-02-16T09:06:00.000-08:00

Last night I had a strange experience.

I awakened at 5:05 AM, only casually aware of the time because I was really focused on the fact that I could not inhale! I cannot say how long it took me to open my windpipe - it seemed significantly long. It is this flu, and the mucus had congealed in my throat and simply blocked off my air.

I got up, and then sat down again, all the while earnestly trying to inhale. I messaged my throat, and finally I took a drink of ice water (on the bedstand), and that opened enough of a passage (somehow) that I could carefully inhale a lung-full of air to cough the blockage loose. I had pins and needles all over my body. It took about a half-an-hour to return to equilibrium and feel that laying down again was worth the risk.

It was interesting, in an urgent sort of way. I don't recommend trying it out just for the experience, though. My mind does not go to panic in such circumstances - faulty wiring, I suppose. I get real calm and analytical. That is how I thought of the water. I also was contemplating the consequence of failing to find air. I am prepared for that, one day, too, thanks to Jesus showing the way.

But my life never did flash before my eyes. I was a little disappointed. If you're going to take that trip, the least they could do is let you watch the in-flight movie!

Let No Man Speak It's Name

2007-02-15T06:53:00.000-08:00

A couple of months ago, a Moslem drove an SUV into a crowd of Jews. The media - drive-by types - could not imagine how this happened. We were assured that the obvious religious implications were not determinative.

The other day, a Bosnian Muslim went to a shopping mall and began shooting people. The Drive-By's were all in a lather trying to figure out what it was that this young man had in his head before he went into a public place and began to murder innocent strangers. They interviewed his family, who all spoke of what a nice kid the guy was, and who were just as puzzled as could be by his behavior. Oddly, no one, not even the conservative talk-show hosts have thought to use the "Terrorist" title for either of these men. If they had done the same things in Israel, or Iraq, no one would have batted an eye. We are engaged in a war against terrorism, the enemy are Islamic terrorists, but when Muslims (foreign born, no less) kill innocent people here, it appears to be too far a stretch for our media to connect those particular dots.

The Cole, the Khobar Towers, the World Trade Center (twice) - and no one thinks "terrorism" when Muslims murder the innocent in America? Let some yahoo blow up a building in Oklahoma, and they have no problem - but he was white, and non-Muslim. Islamic terrorism must be one of those things that happens somewhere else - not in America - unless Homeland Security says it can.

Weird world, eh?

There Oughta Be a Law!

2007-02-15T06:41:00.000-08:00

I just received an invitation to join a class-action settlement. I am not actually eligible, since this is for people charging things in foreign lands, but it is instructive. I get invited to one or more of these parties every year or two.

What gripes me is that a class-action suit is merely a gimmick for making lawyers rich(er). This one has a settlement pool of 318 million dollars -- of which the lawyers will first extract their "costs" of administering the settlement and notice of the settlement, plus interest. They will also be able to charge for their "expenses" up to a limit of 5 million dollars. Then, out of what remains, they are "requesting" (a euphemism for demanding) 27.5 percent, a piddling $87,450,000.00 (give or take for what they have already withdrawn from the settlement fund).

The last one of these I paid any attention to had a larger settlement pool, and when all was said and done, I got a note saying that my portion worked out to be $.19, which was eaten up in sending me the notice of the settlement distribution.

I think class action lawsuits should either be illegal, or the lawyers should be entitled by law to no more than the average amount received by the members of the settlement class.

Ill Health

2007-02-14T07:45:00.000-08:00

Last Saturday - a week almost - I got this season's crud, flu, or whatever. It comes in waves. I was sicker than the proverbial dog on Saturday, felt better on Sunday, was afraid I was going to live through it on Monday, not too bad on Tuesday, not so good today.

The only thing worse than how I feel is reading about the political jackals that want to see our nation lose a war for their own political advantage. As I work out my tax forms, I wonder why "taxation without representation is tyranny" isn't a legitimate tax deduction. Oh, for a politician with conviction and more concern for our nation than their own political fortunes.

I think I will just go back to bed.

They'll Kill You

2007-02-13T10:08:00.000-08:00

My congregation is small, and so I am required to pursue alternative sources of income from time to time. Right now, that means substitute teaching. I have 'subbed' in high school, elementary, grades 5, 4, & 3, and just recently in Kindergarten!

The toughest by far is the Kindergarten! They will kill you if you are not prepared. Kindergarten Cop (the movie) underplayed the issue - although I felt just like Schwartzenagger looked after his first day. WOW.

They have boundless energy. They have a million questions. They have not quite learned to sit and listen. Some of them are incapable of following directions unless you are standing right over them. It is not that they are not bright - they ARE. The problem is that they haven't learned school yet.

I had one kid I helped find a number on a chart of 100 -- ten rows of tens - 1-10, 11-20, 21-30, and, well you get the idea. This young lady couldn't find 36, so I showed her how to find the six in the top row and trace down the column with her finger to the 36. She did it easily, and was delighted to accomplish the task. I returned to the front of the room and gave them a new number to find, 44. As I led the class through the same series of instructions, find the four in the top row, and trace down to the 44, the young lady couldn't quite get it done. The entire day went like that, with different children having different challenges.

I don't know what they pay the regular Kindergarten teacher, but it isn't nearly what she is worth!

It's a Mental Problem

2007-01-14T09:14:00.000-08:00

I took a few moments to watch TV this morning, having been locked in from church by the ice storm. I caught Juan Williams of NPR on Chris Wallace's show on Fox. I only listened for a moment, but Juan made the entire divide between the "Left" and the "Right" in America clear.

Juan complained that Democrats were boxed into not taking a truly principled stand on the Iraq War by politics, and the need to position themselves competitively for the 2008 elections. They just could not risk voting to defund the troops and end the war, as they had with the Vietnam conflict.

Then Juan proceeded to note that some Republicans were taking stands in opposition to the President and his policy in Iraq. Here there was no notice of political expediency. The occasional Republican that stands against the President must be principled, and certainly cannot be watching polls or trying to position themselves for the 2008 race. Democrats, in the majority, cannot act with principle because of the fear of voters, but any Republican that stands up like a Democrat must, obviously, be doing so because it is just right.

Mr. Williams then went on to rail against the President for not listening to others. He continues to fight "his war" without giving anyone any explanation of what he hopes to accomplish or why we continue to fight. One of the others on the panel, Brit Hume, took issue with that claim, noting the speech the President gave detailing such things, and the Vice-President's appearance on the same network to discuss the Iraq policies. Mr. Williams was unimpressed. The President continues to stand firm - proving that he has not heard anyone. The war was not begun, according to Juan, over WMD's (although many have been found - and others were known to be removed to neighboring countries), not for oil, not for nation building, not for democracy. The President continues to fight, and continues to hide his reasons -- according to Juan Williams.

When my sons were teen-agers, I noted that unless I fervently agreed with whatever nonsense might come out of their mouths at any moment, it was their opinion that I had not 'heard' them. They foolishly identified communication with capitulation, as though I could not have heard their words and disagreed. The Democrats - and others who disagree with the President - have the same immature, childish mindset. The President can answer every question they ask Him, but if they do not agree, he has said nothing. The President can do anything short of capitulation, and it will be caricatured as stubborn, mule headed ignoring of "the will of the people". Leadership for the Democrat is following the polls -- and in their mind, the only way the President can actually demonstrate anything like leadership is by surrendering his policy to their absolute guidance.

You see, it's a mental problem. The President thinks like a leader, and Democrats - an others on the left - think like very immature children.

A Philosophical Quagmire

2006-12-06T07:14:00.000-08:00

Our nation, and western culture in general, is facing and presently losing a challenge from Islam. Our politicians recognize "Islamic Extremism" or "Islamic Terrorism" as the enemy, but the truth is the enemy is Islam. Our generation appears to witnessing the eclipse of the Christian faith by Islam in our times. Men and women committed to Islam may do a great variety of things in their lives, but their religion is in the center of their being and living, even to the point of being willing to strap bombs on their bodies and die for their faith, deliberately. Those who do not die in such a manner are no less focused on their faith, and on this holy battle, in all that they do and say.

There are good reasons for their dedication; all arising from the rules and threats which arise out of their faith. The interesting point is, however, that they are willing to focus their lives, thinking, and behaving on this religion, largely for what they perceive to be a future, other-worldly reward. Christians face no such demands of the law of their faith, except in small and statistically insignificant sects. What is striking in comparison with Islam is how few Christians have their faith, their religion, or their eschatological future at the center of their living or thinking. The war between cultures is being won and lost in the gap that exists between Islam and Christianity in the hearts and minds and lives of the adherents of either.

The Muslim seems to be able to pursue the various tasks and goals of life without losing sight of their religion. They have specific times of prayer, and they stop whatever they are doing and pray according to their custom at set times throughout the day. They plan for it and prepare for it. They treat their holy book with honor - treating it as "holy". They study and they worship regularly, and dress in accord with their understanding of holy modesty. Their speech is conformed to their faith, and their lives are ordered in accord with the teachings of their teachers often unreasonably, in the view of many in our society.

The Christian religion, on the other hand, inspires little, if any, of such devotion, particularly in modern America, or "The West". There is a holy book for Christians, annually a best-seller. Knowledge in the typical Christian concerning the contents and meaning of that book is almost non-existent. The Christian faith has a moral code which is largely ignored or dismissed by individual Christians and usually contradicted and dismissed by so-called Christian denominations. There is no apparent discipline (self- or otherwise) of speech or conduct simply because one is a Christian, no specific times of prayer observed, no required dress-code. And the moral or doctrinal authority of the teachers of the Christian churches, where any would attempt to exercise such authority, is roughly on a par with a suggestion about insignificant, trifling matters.

In other words, the West is losing the battle of religions primarily due to the simple fact that Islam is of critical importance to the Moslem while the Christian faith - the Gospel - is of relative insignificance to the average self-identified Christian. The average Christian, so-called, is not Christian in any meaningful sense of the word. They are traditionally Christian, or culturally Christian, or superficially Christian, but not down-to-the-guts-of-it Christian.

Christianity, where it is faithful, loses something to Islam because there is no law in Christianity which absolutely controls the Christian or defines a Christian outwardly. Islam, a religion of laws, defines itself and its adherents, and their behaviors in quite some detail. Faith, love, hope, and trust are the stuff of the Christian faith. There are no required hours of prayer, ways of worship, restrictions on attire, or universal codes of conduct for Christians, as useful as some of those things might be. The dedication of the Christian must flow out of their faith, for mere mechanical obedience to a code of conduct or order of worship does not mark one as Christian in truth. Where Islam is full of threats and curses for breaches of the most minuscule rules, the Gospel teaches repentance and forgiveness and redemption and love.

Christianity isn't weak, nor does it lose anything to Islam or any other faith where the Christian faith is true and lived out consistently. Where it is plainly nothing more than a polite veneer - and not the organizing truths of life for the believer - it fails to inspire, fails to protect, and cannot win the contest between religions, primarily because it is not permitted in the contest in fact. Christians that set aside worship for personal entertainment, and push prayer and Bible study into the margins of life, rather than into the center of their lives, deny their religion and forsake their God by setting themselves and the busy-ness of their lives in the place of their God and by treating all that their faith holds holy as profane and common and unworthy of their devotion or attention.

It is a small wonder that so few outside of the Christian religion take it seriously when so few within it do. A religion without the authority or power in the lives of its proponents to mark it as worth living for is clearly not worth dying for either. People can see the value placed on the faith by those who profess it. Where they cannot control themselves, conduct their behavior, or shape their speech to conform to their profession of faith, they portray their faith as insignificant, unimportant, and powerless, even over its adherents. A religion of love that practices anger, a religion of holiness that justifies the profane, a religion of truth that abandons doctrine in preference for emotions and religious experience pales in comparison to a religion that inspires - or commands - obedience to rules about prayer, dress, speech, and even moves the ardent to sacrifice themselves - even though the act of the sacrifice seems so foolish - in the name of their faith. A religion worth dying for certainly appears to be potentially worth living for - and the rapid increase in Moslems converts, even in modern America, bears eloquent witness to this truth.

Christian: if your faith isn't worth dying for, it probably isn't really worth living for in your own mind. If your faith isn't worth living for, it probably isn't real. If your faith isn't powerful enough within you to bring you to worship regularly, it isn't powerful enough to raise you from the dead either. How can the death of the living God for your salvation be so lightly esteemed that you stay home from worship because it is your birthday, miss Bible Study and the fellowship of the saints because you stayed out too late last night, or you place attendance at a sporting event, an entertainment venue, or a little "personal time" above receiving the "Medicine of Immortality" and all the proffered gifts of God?

When fitting in with or looking good to those with whom you work or play is more important to you than confessing Christ, who bore your sins to the cross so that you might have everlasting life with Him, how important or real can Christ be to you? Jesus said it in a different way, "Everyone therefore who shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven."

People decorate their houses and their cars with the emblems of their favorite teams. They wear their favorite brand names proudly on their shirts and hats and shoes and coats. They will only drive one kind of auto, even though there may be little difference between makes. They will cling to a computer brand, an operating system, or a software provider when offered other options at better prices. These are their brands, their makes and models, and their teams. It is part of their identity. Then, when it comes to churches and doctrines and faith, their commitments are often less enduring. They will change churches without thought of what makes one church different than the other. They will pursue comfort or convenience rather than faithfulness or truth. They will give attention to every nuance in things that do not matter and discard confessions and hymns and liturgies and the traditions of centuries without a thought because "everyone else is doing it".

In short, we are losing the ground on which we stand to an alien ideology and a pagan religion because Muslims take their religion seriously, and most "Christians" treat their religion as though it were some 'hokey' fable honored by time and society, such as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. We are fading as a nation because our foundation is a religion no longer understood or respected, and whose modern followers regularly do not know it nor count it as true or important. Those who fled Europe to this continent centuries ago did so because their religion was central to their lives. They came and worked, and suffered, and died, and counted it worthwhile because they were free here to follow their faith. Their descendants are jaded by their freedom and uncaring about their faith. Everything else in life is more important. That is a value decision which may well prove more costly, and less worthwhile, than that which their forefathers made in days gone by.

Well Said

2006-11-11T08:24:00.000-08:00

On the issue of Islam - without any reference to the election results - is the telling article in The American Thinker

I strongly recommend you read it - and then factor in the message to Islam communicated by the voting preferences of the election just past.

No Sense of History

2006-11-09T08:52:00.000-08:00

What really fries me is that our pundits and our leaders - and most of the electorate - have no sense of history. They may be able to look back with some skill, but they have no concept - or concern - about what is coming five or ten years down the road.

The Democrats were the voice of Islamic terrorism in America. To stand against the president, which they were determined to do, they had to stand with America's enemies. They brought aid and comfort to the enemy, as Ted Kennedy did by seeking the help of Soviets in obstructing Reagan, when they parroted the terrorist talking points and asked for the sort peace that terrorists want to give, the peace of the submission to our enemies.

The Democratic Party victory in the elections gave all the right signals to our enemies. The people elected have loudly promised negotiation and withdrawal to people who understand those actions as capitulation and defeat. We may or may not suffer immediately. Five or ten years down the road, we will suffer the results of this without a doubt. Our allies know that they cannot trust American resolve to do anything other than imitate the French and run, hands held high in surrender, for the momentary peace of dhimmitude. It is not the ruling class that is responsible for this alone. The voters said, "We don't give a damn what you do, just stop the pictures of destruction and the drumbeat of a failed war."

Funny thing is, the war hasn't failed - isn't failing. We simply voted to quit, and betrayed the Iraq Veterans in precisely the same way as we betrayed the Vietnam Veterans. So, once again, we have snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory -- and just in time!!

Five or ten years from now, allies to fight terror are going to be much harder to find. But the enemy will not be. They know, with absolute empirical certainty, that we will quit, surrender, and give up in the face of prolonged turmoil. The Media will assure it, since they despise our existence, security, and wealth. No one, in their opinion, should have what Americans have in comparison to the rest of the world -- except themselves, perhaps. Democrats, and any other politician who will set personal interest above national security, will seal the deal. And the public that cannot be bothered to know what is actually going on will insist on it.

Reagan's Conservatism may not be dead, but the America he saw; noble, fearless, and just, died over the last six years of Media and Democrat sponsored terrorism against George Bush. The elections were merely the obituary being read. At this point, it really doesn't matter if we recover temporarily or not. We surrendered on Tuesday.

Great cultures and societies inevitably choose their own demise. The Democrats, both in office and in the voting booth, have selected ours.

A Change Comes Sweeping In

2006-11-08T06:41:00.000-08:00

The world ended last night.

Actually just the world as we thought it was came crashing down. The American Public convincingly declared to the world at large that it will not support a war, however decently conducted, however limited in casualties, however essential for our own national security. No allies need be confused by America puffing out its chest and declaring its intentions. We will not stand firm.

The war in Iraq is relatively tame - but the coverage of it is brutal and dishonest. And the voting public has decided that it would rather not deal with reality -- nor face any prolonged effort - even if the effort is for the safety and long-term interests of the nation as a whole.

We might as well disband the military - the only use approved of by our voters is the short-term, social service use -- and gigantic tantrums in those rare moment of national distress.

My prayer last night was that God would give us what we need, not what we deserved. I think God decided to give us what we deserve. My only comfort is that what God ordains is always good, and I firmly believe that God is in charge.

That does not mean, however, that what God has ordained for America is going to be pleasant to live through.

Welcome Back

2006-10-30T08:42:00.000-08:00

In times such as these, when the nation appears to be on the brink of permitting moonbats to return to power, one needs a place to say what needs to be said - or at least what one wants said SOMEWHERE .

I am back. Thanks for letting me return.