When "Preaching Sanctification" Hits the Fan

As part of my Field Work duties during seminary many moons ago, I was called upon to teach public school confirmation classes. As the 8th-graders entered the room on the evening of the first class, one young lady walked in wearing a halter top and short-shorts, much to the delight of the young men in the class, since this young lady had been granted an early and full development, and she was intent on flaunting all that the Lord had given her (technically, I'm not sure if it was a halter top she was wearing, since I'm not sure what a halter top is, but what I do know is that it was mega skimpy, whatever it was).

Realizing right away that this was going to be a severe distraction to the boys, whose ogling eyes were steadfastly fixed upon the young lady's features, and also that, well, young Christian ladies should not be dressing in such a manner (especially during Confirmation Class - does that really need to be said?), I took her out in the hallway before the class began, explained to her that she was dressed inappropriately, and asked her if she had some other clothing in her locker that she could don. She said she didn't. So, I went and retrieved a gown that the acolytes wore at that congregation, had her put it on, told her not to arrive at class in the future dressed in this way, and proceeded with class that evening. The young lady was none too pleased about this.

The next week, this same young lady entered the classroom dressed in the same manner as the previous week, much to my amazement. Before I could approach her, she came up to me and said, rather snottily, "If you have a problem with how I'm dressed, my mom's in the hallway." So, I proceeded to the hallway to chat with mom, the young lady following me with a "Now you're gonna get it!" smirk on her face. In the hallway, there was the angry mom, dressed in the same manner as her snarky daughter (go figure!), ready to give me what for.

"How dare you embarrass my daughter like you did last week! Who the hell do you think you are telling her how she should or should not dress?!" And on and on she went ranting and raving at me, her daughter standing beside her with a big grin (if there was a picture for the phrase, "grinning from ear to ear," this would have been that picture). When she finished her rant, I said, "She's not attending confirmation class dressed as she is. If she wants to come to class, she'll either have to dress appropriately or put on an acolyte gown like she did last week."

"We'll see about that!" she yelled. Then, she and her daughter stormed out of the building, the mother spewing a continuous flow of less-than-desirable comments in my direction. I went back into the classroom and proceeded to teach that evening.

The next day, I was called by my Field Work supervisor (the Administrative Pastor at this congregation), who asked me to come talk with him. I did. Much to my surprise, he told me that my job was simply to teach the catechism, not to play "wardrobe police." He went on to explain how I would learn with experience in the pastoral office which battles were worth fighting, etc. Evidently, this was a battle not worth fighting, since this young lady belonged to a prominent family in the congregation, whose roots went back to the congregation's founding.

After listening to his lengthy lecture, I said, "You began by telling me that my job is to teach the catechism, not to play 'wardrobe police.' I'm confused. I thought I was teaching the catechism by explaining to this young lady that she was dressed inappropriately and that she wasn't going to attend class dressed as she was."

That was a mistake. I know that now. What made it a mistake is that this led to me having to listen to another fifteen-minute lecture about how much I need to learn, and how years of pastoral experience would train me in how to properly deal with these "delicate parish matters." I wanted to interrupt on several occasions and say, "Are you kidding me?!" (actually, truth be told, my word choice would have been to replace "kidding" with a different, more forceful word, but that's neither here nor there). But, I didn't interrupt. I'm a fast learner. Interrupting would have just prolonged the lecture, and you can't have no idea how much I didn't want that. So, I bit my tongue and took the chastisement, which, very interestingly to me, never once addressed the actual issue at hand.

When this second lecture had come to its end, I so wanted to say, "So, what you're saying is that this young lady can dress however she pleases, because this is a 'delicate parish matter' that involves a prominent family in the congregation, and you don't want to do anything to upset that family." But, I didn't. That would have been stupid, and would have negated my statement above about me being a fast learner.

What I did say is this, "I've heard all that you had to say, and I agree that I have much to learn about being a pastor, but I cannot, in good conscience, continue to teach the class if I'm not permitted to address behavior from the catechumens that conflicts with the catechism's teachings. Not only can I not, in good conscience, continue to teach the class, but I will not do so, and I will be more than happy to explain myself to the Field Work Director at the seminary."  

"Oh, there's no need for that," he responded. "I've already decided that you're not going to continue teaching that class. We'll find something else for you to do."

In the words of the Church Lady, "Weeeelll, isn't that special?!"

So, the halter-top, short-shorts wearing mom and daughter team won the day, much to their delight (and much to the delight of the young men in that class, I'm sure). I imagine they were all singing, "Ding dong, the wardrobe p'lice, the wardrobe p'lice, the wardrobe p'lice, ding dong, the wardrobe p'lice is gone!"

At this point, should you be wondering what in the world any of this has to do with the title for this blog post, and I would not blame you at all for wondering such, it is this:

This same Field Work supervisor (the Administrative Pastor at this congregation) often lectured me (and other Field Workers) on how the seminary was doing a great disservice to the synod, because they weren't doing a good enough job of teaching our future pastors how to "preach sanctification." He cited how the last half of the apostles' epistles in the New Testament were about "living the Christian life," and complained that the Law-Gospel preaching formula being taught at the seminary was insufficient and producing antinomian preachers, since it supposedly went out of its way to avoid teaching the Third Use of the Law. If I had a nickel for every time he ranted about this, I'd still have massive student loan debt, but you get my point.

And, he practiced what he thought he preached. In every sermon I heard him preach over the two years of my Field Work, he robbed us of what little Gospel he preached by always giving us lists of what we should be doing as Christians. He even included an outline in the bulletin each time he preached, so that we could write down his pearls of wisdom and work on those things throughout the upcoming week. His preaching was really no different than what one might hear from Joyce Meyer, which, as it turns out, is no coincidence, since he once told me that he thought she was "doing great work for the kingdom" and that "we could learn a lot from her on how to preach sanctification" (this was prior to the "delicate parish matter" mentioned above, so the fact that I spoke up when he said this, which resulted in a fifteen minute lecture about how we shouldn't "throw the baby out with the bath water," does not negate my claim of being a fast learner).

But, here's the deal. For all his efforts to deliberately preach the Third Use of the Law, all he ever really did was preach a watered-down, cheesy version of the Law, which was really no preaching of the Law at all. His preaching formula was supposed to be a sort of "Gospel-Holy Living" formula, but how it played in the pews was "Jesus As Example-Be Like Jesus." His favorite phrase in his preaching was, "We are blessed to be a blessing" (if I had a nickel for every time he uttered that phrase in his preaching, I'd still have massive student loan debt, but, again, you get the point). 

Now, there's certainly nothing inherently wrong with that phrase. We are indeed "blessed to be a blessing." However, "preaching sanctification hits the fan" when the whole point of the sermon is to show us how to be the blessing we are blessed to be, especially when this includes a list of things for us to work on accomplishing throughout the week, until we can get another list of further "how-to-be-the-blessing-we-are-blessed-to-be" things to work on the following week.

What makes this attempt to deliberately preach sanctification worse among Lutherans, no matter how well intentioned it may be, is that we really do know better. Even those among us whose preaching results in nothing more than motivational messages or self-help pep talks still feel the need to try to cram the Gospel into the sermon somewhere (as this preacher did). We gotta say something about what Jesus has done for us, after all. We're Lutherans. A sermon without some reference to the Gospel simply will not do. But, when the Gospel is something that has to be crammed in somewhere, the preaching is not Lutheran at all. Even Joel Osteen will cram the Gospel into his motivational, self-help talks every once in a blue moon.

If preaching is to be Lutheran preaching, the Gospel will not be crammed into a sermon, but will predominate every sermon. And, it will only predominate if the Law is preached in its full sternness. The Gospel is always to be applied as the sweet, healing balm it is to sinners crushed by the Law. This has nothing at all to do with giving more time to the Gospel in the sermon. What is preached determines whether or not the Gospel predominates. The Gospel may still predominate a sermon even if it consists of only two minutes out of a fifteen minute sermon.

Here's the other thing: If you have preached the Law, you have preached the Law. I really don't know what to make of all this talk about deliberately preaching sanctification, by which many seem to mean that we have to make sure to include the preaching of the Third Use of the Law, i.e. the Law as a guide for the Christian. The Law cannot be deliberately compartmentalized and distributed by the preacher, even though the preacher is fully aware of the Law's three Uses. The preacher does not get to decide which Use of the Law he's preaching. He can only preach the Law. If the preacher accuses sinners, he's preached the Law. If the preacher exhorts Christians to holy living, he's preached the Law. The preacher does not preach this or that Use of the Law. He simply preaches the Law. We cannot grab the Holy Spirit by His feathers and manipulate Him as we see fit. All we can do is preach the Law and preach the Gospel. He takes it from there. And, if we have preached the Law and the Gospel, we have preached justification and sanctification. There is not some third thing (or category) we need to preach in order to cram a little sanctification into our sermons. This is as bad, and as ineffectual, I might add, as trying to cram a little Gospel into a motivational, self-help talk.

So it is that there is no such preaching formula as "Law-Gospel-Third Use of the Law." That preaching formula is simply "Law-Gospel-Law." Really. It is. And, when the preacher is so intent on following this preaching formula in a deliberate and intentional manner, because he imagines that doing so will ensure that he has preached sanctification, that's when preaching sanctification hits the fan. Such a preacher is so concerned that he avoid having his hearers treat the Gospel as cheap grace that he runs the risk of robbing them of the Gospel altogether. As someone who has had to suffer through several preachers who had jumped on the "preaching sanctification as Third Use of the Law" bandwagon over the years, I just want to scream: "You had me at the Law and the Gospel! I know you feel this dire need to talk about holy living here at the end, but, as crazy as it seems, you done preached holy living to me when you preached the Law and the Gospel. Really. You did. You were done. That last five minutes about all the things I need to work on was redundant. Not only that, but now the Old Adam in me, which you had successfully slain, has again reared his ugly head and is arguing with the New Man in me, which you had successfully raised, over whether or not the Gospel you preached was really for me, since I'm not so sure the Gospel is shining forth in my life the way you just said the Gospel should be shining forth in my life as a Christian. So, now I'm left crying out to the Lord for mercy, but you're done with the sermon. Bummer, that."

But, you know, maybe that's just me. Maybe I haven't grown in sanctification enough to appreciate a good dose of post-Law-and-Gospel-holy-living-exhortation. What I am pretty sure of, though, is that, if you're going to lecture me about the great need for Lutherans to preach sanctification as some third thing in addition to the preaching of the Law and the Gospel, you would probably be more convincing if you a) didn't act like such an unsanctified puke while doing so, and b) stopped talking about sanctification in a way that isn't totally wrapped up in Jesus.

It would also help if you avoided using Joyce Meyer as an example of how to preach sanctification, and if you didn't turn a blind eye to sin in the name of handling "delicate parish matters." 

What Now? Jesus. That's What.

It's time to dust off the old blog.

Over the past several months, I've started many posts here, but lacked the the desire and stamina to finish and post them. Call it a pessimistic laziness; a combination of "Who cares?" mixed with a heavy dose of "Why bother?"

But, enough of that. I can think of few things more boorish than explanations from a blogger about why he hasn't been blogging. Let's just say that I took a long break, and leave it at that.

This morning, I read a couple of recently posted reviews of Pr. Jonathan Fisk's excellent book, Broken. The first was written by David Snyder, a Southern Baptist. Not surprisingly, Snyder is not a big fan. Besides the obvious, namely that he doesn't "believe in baptismal regeneration, a 'true presence' in the Lord's Supper, or a hard dichotomy between law and gospel," Snyder believes that Fisk fails to develop three topics throughout the book: 1) Empowering Grace, 2) Obedience to Christ, and 3) The Local Church. Um, no. Fisk doesn't fail to develop these topics. He writes against the false understandings people like Synder have of them. It's kind of what the whole book is about. Each of these topics is thoroughly covered in the book.

What Snyder sees as "empowering grace" is mysticism, since he views grace as some sort of infused mystical power in the Christian to stop sinning. He acknowledges that the Christian will always struggle with "indwelling sin" in this life, but God's grace empowers the Christian to grow and give glory to God by exercising his power to refrain from sinning (or, at least, to keep the sin dwelling within to come out). Thus, for Snyder, growth in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ is measured by the Christian's growing ability to keep himself from sinning in this life. Good luck with that!

This mystical and false idea of grace naturally leads Snyder to moralism, which is really what he means by "obedience to Christ." Snyder sees the Christian's obedience to the "moral imperatives" put forth by the apostles as the very mark of being a Christian. When you treat grace as a mystical infused power, this makes perfect sense, of course. Grace supplies the power to obey, and obedience to Christ means one can be sure he is a Christian. The real point, goal, and purpose of the Gospel, then, is to empower Christians to obey. That's Moralism 101 stuff.

Snyder's third criticism, namely that Fisk failed to develop the importance of the "local church," is as silly as it is absurd. I think Synder needs to read again what Fisk wrote. Never does he disparage the local congregation in order to elevate some sort of "nuanced spiritual individualism," as Snyder suggests. I almost spit my coffee out when I read that. Talk about totally missing the point! What Fisk is addressing is the never-ending search for the "Real Church;" the false belief many have that the real, true, authentic Church is lost, but out there somewhere, and, if we can just find her, we'll be unable to handle the innumerable blessings that would flow our way. He's right to address this, since it is this faulty view that dominates most of Americanized Christianity, which is always coming out with the new and greatest claims to have finally found the real Church, only to come out with new and greater claims months later. Fisk's point is that the real, true, authentic Church is not lost, but is readily found, and always present, wherever the Gospel is preached in its purity and the Sacraments are administered to Christ's institution. Far from suggesting some sort of "nuanced spiritual individualism," Fisk directs the reader to the font, pulpit, and altar of local congregations, which bear the marks of the Church. Of course, all of this is lost on Snyder, who doesn't believe in those marks, but, in true Southern Baptist fashion, sees the very organization and structure (polity) of the local congregation as something commanded in Scripture and, thus, to be obeyed. It always comes back to obedience, which leads me to ask: From whence comes this infused mystical power of grace that enables the Christian to stop sinning and to start obeying?

I would imagine that Snyder would answer this question by saying, "The Bible, silly man." As a Southern Baptist, he believes that the Bible is a guidebook, or instruction manual, given to Christians by God Himself to show them how they are to live and obey, i.e. be Christians. And, to be Christians is to be like Christ. Christians are changed people, after all. They have the power of grace now to stop sinning and start obeying. Jesus becomes an example to follow. He did His part; now it's up to you to do yours.

Snyder ends his review by stating, "Broken does a great job of exposing false gospels, but also tends to underestimate the power of the true one." It's sad, really. The poor guy doesn't realize that what he believes to be the true Gospel has been exposed by Fisk in Broken to be a false gospel. His false gospel is a mixture of mysticism, moralism, and pragmatism, all of which flow from his false understanding of grace. Grace is not a mystical infused power; grace is the undeserved favor of God imputed to sinners for the sake of Christ. Grace is the Gospel, not the power to obey. Grace is a Divine Gift, not a Holy Spark to ignite the flame of obedience. Grace is forgiveness, life, and salvation. Grace is undeserving sinners being clothed in the perfect holiness and righteousness of Christ.

From whence does true grace come? From the very means of grace God Himself has established, namely His Holy Word and Sacraments. God delivers His grace to sinners through Holy Baptism, where He washes away all our sin, gives us faith in Christ, adopts us as children into His Divine Family, and clothes us in Christ's perfect holiness and righteousness. That baptismal grace continues to flow from God to us via Holy Absolution, Holy Preaching, and the Holy Supper, as He continually feeds and nourishes us with Christ Himself, that we remain clothed in His holiness and righteousness. Grace is never, ever - no, not ever! - a power infused into us, but always an undeserved gift given to us by God. Grace never stops being grace. It is not as though grace starts out being undeserved favor, but then becomes deserved power. Grace is always grace, and grace is always needed by the Christian this side of glory. Thus, Christian obedience is not the mark of a Christian; Jesus is. A Christian is one who has been, and remains, marked by the sign of the holy cross as one redeemed by Christ the Crucified; one who has received the Seal of the Holy Spirit and remains clothed in Christ.

But, the Gospel is radical stuff. It flies in the face of everything we have come to believe through our sinful human reason and our experience of living in this sinful world. The Old Adam in us hates the Gospel, and is always trying to get in on the act when it comes to our salvation. The Old Adam wants to play a role. He'll settle for a small role, but he will not be shut out completely. So it is that even Lutherans, who should know better, struggle with the Gospel, which brings me to the second review of Fisk's Broken I read this morning, a review written by Anthony Sacramone here.
           
I like funny, and I certainly enjoy a well written anything, what with all the poorly written everything out there today, but Sacramone's humor and writing skills, exemplary as they are, cannot save him from inadvertently expressing his dissatisfaction with the Gospel. Sacramone hones in on what he perceives to be the main deficiency in Broken, namely Fisk's failure to answer the question, "What now?" In fact, he finds merit in the criticisms lobbed at Fisk by Snyder.

Sacramone initially reviewed Snyder's review here, before going on to provide his own review of Fisk's book. In both of these posts, he is very sympathetic to Snyder's discomfort over the radical nature of the Gospel, and uses Synder's conclusions as a spring board to express his own discomfort. Sad, that. I can certainly understand why a Southern Baptist would cringe at our Lutheran understanding of the Gospel (which is the Biblical understanding, by the way), but it is disheartening when I see Lutherans cringing at the same.

The best part of Fisk's book is the way he ends it. What now? Jesus. That's what. End of story. Period. Satis est. Fin.

This longing desire for more than Jesus reveals itself in the various "rules" Fisk does a superb job of tackling throughout the book, all of which are just different guises the devil uses to peddle the same old lie he's been telling since Eden. The old evil foe wants us to want more than Jesus. He knows that, if he can distract our attention away from Jesus and get us to focus on ourselves, we'll start believing that there is something more than Jesus. We'll start believing that the mark of a Christian is obedience. We'll start believing that Jesus did His part and now it's up to us to do our part. We'll start believing that Jesus is nothing more than a mere example to follow, or a life coach or cheerleade rooting us on in our quest to live the truly Christian life.

Sacramone longs for a sequel to Broken. He imagines that Fisk has left us hanging. What now? What comes after the Gospel? He even suggests a title for a sequel: Risen: Living the Gospel Life Like Only a Lutheran Can. Cute and clever (it would have been cuter and cleverer to have "Fixed," instead of "Risen," but I digress), but, given his review, I shudder to think of what one might find in this longed-for sequel. What comes after Jesus? Is there something more?

But, Sacramone is not alone. There are lots of Lutherans today struggling with trying to answer the question, "What now?" There are charges of antinomianism and legalism being hurled to and fro in the never-ending debate of how to deal with this question. Justification and sanctification are pitted against each other in a wrestling match akin to Jacob wrestling the Lord. Dead Lutherans are quoted ad nauseum (and almost always completely out of context) to suggest that our understanding of the Gospel does not match theirs, that when we preach Christ and Him Crucified for sinners, but fail to spur Christians on to holy living through the follow-up of moral imperatives, we are robbing them of the Gospel (or, at least of Gospel living). There is a very real fear that we have an aversion to good works or sanctification, and that many of us are so in love with Romans 7 that we completely ignore Romans 6 and 8. Jesus is not enough for some, it seems. There must be more. We've heard the Gospel. Now what?

Jesus. That's what. More Jesus. Jesus now and always. Only Jesus. Nothing more. Jesus fulfilling the Law and living the perfect life in our place. Jesus bearing our sins all the way to the Cross. Jesus Crucified to pay the full price for all of our sins and finish the work of our salvation. Jesus Resurrected as validation of the victory He won for us on the Cross and as proof positive that He has opened to us the way to everlasting life. Jesus Ascended to be our Mediator, constantly interceding for us before the Father, bearing before Him the holy scars of our salvation. Jesus fulfilling His promise to be with us always in the Divine Service, where the water and blood that poured forth from His pierced side fills our baptismal fonts and chalices. Jesus forgiving our sins in the Holy Absolution. Jesus preaching to us from our pulpits, where His sheep hear the voice of their Good Shepherd. Jesus bestowing His peace and blessing upon us. Jesus strengthening and preserving us through His divine gifts to sustain us as we make our way through the wilderness of this sinful world. Jesus, our holiness and righteousness. Jesus, our justification. Jesus, our sanctification. Jesus, our forgiveness, life, and salvation.

Jesus. He's what sinners need. To preach Jesus rightly is to preach the Law in its full sternness and the Gospel in its epic sweetness. To preach Jesus rightly is to preach repentance and the forgiveness of sins in His Name. To preach Jesus rightly is to preach repentance and faith into sinners. We do not preach about repentance or about faith - we preach repentance and faith.

But, what about the the Christian life? Silly goose, repentance and faith IS the Christian life.

But, don't Christians need to know how to live? Yeah. Repent and believe. Abide in Jesus. He's your only hope.

But, won't Christians become comfortable and lazy if we don't encourage them to holy living? Um, preaching repentance and faith in Christ's Name is holy living encouragement.

Look, I get it. The Gospel is radical stuff. It's downright scandalous. It makes no sense to our sinful human reason. It's completely backwards from our way of thinking, and from the way things work in this sinful world. And, as I mentioned above, the Old Adam in us hates the Gospel. The Gospel is too good to be true. There must be something more. But, there isn't. Adding anything more is a departure from the Gospel. Jesus really has done everything necessary for your salvation. Everything. Not one jot or tittle of anything is left undone. What's more, He does everything necessary to apply the salvation He won to you. It's all His work. You get none of the credit. Sorry. He baptizes you. He absolves you. He feeds you. He blesses you. He brought you into His kingdom and He keeps you in His kingdom. He creates and sustains faith by the power of the Holy Spirit through His means of grace. The Gospel is all about Jesus. He is your justification, and He is your sanctification.

Whoah, whoah, whoah! What about the fact that, after conversion, we cooperate with the Holy Spirit in our sanctification? Yo do. You heed the Holy Spirit's prodding to return to Jesus. You know where to find Him. You know where His voice is heard, where His gifts are distributed, where your faith is sustained and preserved. However, this cooperation comes only through the power of the Holy Spirit, and only as He rules, guides, and leads you to . . . wait for it . . . Jesus. So, yeah, you cooperate with the Holy Spirit after conversion, but you do so in great weakness, because, while you now have a New Man in you, the Old Adam remains. It is no mistake that our Lutheran fathers were sure to include Romans 7 as part of their discussion on cooperating with the Holy Spirit in sanctification. No amoung of "holy living preaching" will ever change the fact that you are, and will remain, at one and the same time, a sinner and saint (sinful and righteous) this side of glory. In fact, "holy living preaching" will always land you back in Romans 7, because the fact is, you both never and always live a holy life. Makes no sense, I know, but 'tis true. The Old Adam in you is 100% sinner. He always hates the Gospel. He wants nothing at all to do with Jesus. He is in constant rebellion, always seeking to rebel against God. The New Man in you is 100% righteous. He loves the Gospel. He wants everything to do with Jesus. He is holy through and through, always seeking to please God. You can tell the Old Adam what to do and what not to do until you're blue in the face. He's not listening. He doesn't care. He's gonna do what he wants to do, and it ain't what you want him to do. He needs to be killed, not coerced. At the same time, you need not tell the New Man what to do and what not to do; he already knows and already does it. He is in Christ, united to Him in a perfect communion.

Your problem is not that you don't know what you should or shouldn't do. Your problem is that you remain infected with sin, so that you do what you know you shouldn't and don't do what you know you should. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. You need Jesus. You needed Jesus before the Holy Spirit worked faith in you, and you need Jesus to sustain you in that faith. Growth in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ is not some sort of progressive growth in sanctification, so that you gradually become less and less sinful and more and more obedient. It is, rather, remaining aware of your sinfulness and need of a Savior through the ongoing preaching of Law and Gospel, rightly divided and proclaimed. A steady diet of slaying your Old Adam and enlivening your New Man keeps you hungering and thirsting for the forgiveness, life, and salvation that comes only through the perfect life and sacrificial death of Jesus. But, even this growth is not measured in some progressive way, as if you will gradually become more and more dependent upon Jesus from infancy to your departure from this veil of tears. You dwell in the valley of the shadow of death, after all. You will experience times of tribulation and times of prosperity, periods of suffering and periods of blessing, defeats and victories, sadness and happiness, etc. So, you will wax and wane. The irony is that when you are weakest, then you are strongest in Christ. When you are brought low, then you are exalted in Christ. It seems backwards, but everything seems backwards in Christ's kingdom, where the first are last and the last are first, the mighty are humbled and the humble are exalted, the wise are foolish and the foolish are wise, the weak are strong and the strong are weak, and so forth. Suffering precedes glory in Christ's kingdom, which is established by a King who wears a crown of thorns and is enthroned on a Cross.

So, what you need, O sinner, now, and for as long as you remain in this sinful world, is Jesus. Do not long for something more. Do not seek after instructions on how to live the Christian life. You already know. Go to where Jesus has promised to be for you. Go to hear your Good Shepherd's voice declare your sins forgiven. Go to hear Him preach His Word to you. Go to where He restores and renews you in the grace you received at Baptism. Go to the Table He has prepared for you and feast on His very Body and Blood, which He Himself distributes to you. This, my friends, is holy living - returning continuously to where Jesus is for you, that you abide in Him and He in you.

What now? Jesus. That's what. Fisk nails it! If he wants to write another book, great. But, he need not write a sequel to Broken. He ends it with Jesus. It is finished.

The Divine Service - Heaven on Earth

You know that old joke where the man is trapped in a flood and water is rising all around him? He climbs up on his roof and prays to God to rescue him. A guy in a raft comes by and implores him to jump in, but the man says, "That's okay, I trust that God will rescue me." Then, a boat comes by and the man refuses to get in, saying the same thing. Finally, as the water is about to overtake him, a helicopter appears and a rope is thrown down to the man, but again the man says, "That's okay, I trust that God will rescue me." The man perishes in the flood. When he gets to heaven, he says to God, "What happened? I prayed to you and trusted that you would rescue me. Why did you let me die?" God says, "Good grief, I sent you a raft, a boat, and a helicopter!" :)

In the same way, many people, even many Christians, fail to realize that our Lord sends us relief and rescue in the Divine Service, where Jesus Himself is Present among us in His Holy Word and Sacraments to deliver to us forgiveness, life, and salvation. In the Divine Service, heaven and earth intersect, as we sing with the angels and archangels and all the company of heaven, "Holy, Holy, Holy," for there is where our Lord Jesus Christ fulfills His promise to be with us always. Right there on the altar. There is Jesus in His very Body and Blood, the Bread of Life given to sustain us as we make our way through the wilderness of this sinful world until we reach the Promised Land of His eternal kingdom.

But, like the man in the joke above, many people, even many Christians, stay away from the Divine Service, thinking, "That's okay, I don't need to go to Church. I pray to God and trust that He will rescue me." They believe they have their own "personal relationship with Jesus" and don't need to go to the very place where Jesus is Present to establish and sustain a relationship with them. But, someday, when the veil is finally lifted and they see things for what they truly are, they'll realize that Jesus had been sending them the raft of Holy Absolution, the boat of Holy Preaching, and the helicopter of the Holy Supper to them all along in the Divine Service.

All of this came to mind when I read the excellent devotion by Rev. Dr. Scott Murray this morning, which you can find here.

Video Message from President Harrison

Thank you, President Harrison. And, Amen!

Peace Book Club - September 2012

Our Peace Book Club met this past Tuesday evening for the first time since May to discuss the four books we tackled over the summer. We had a great discussion on each of those books, while enjoying the wonderful food and beverages prepared by my lovely wife (thanks, Lisa!), and a little Turkish Coffee Annie made for us. A few of our club members couldn't join us, but the six of us who were there had a great time.

What follows is a brief summary of our collective thoughts on the four books we discussed, as well as the rating we gave each (they are presented in the order we discussed them):

"Once Upon A River" by Bonnie Jo Campbell

I think we spent the most time discussing this book, and rightly so. Of the four books we read this summer, this one was by far the meatiest and most substantive. It is genuine literature, reminiscent of classics like those penned by Twain. A tragic and earthy story of a young woman's attempt to figure out how to live after being abandoned by her mother and witnessing her father's death, Campbell's tale cannot help but grab readers by the heart as they follow Margo's journeys up and down the Stark River.

I was surprised at how much I enjoyed this book. I think I read the first four or five pages four or five times over a week or two before finally buckling down and continuing on. It just seemed to start pretty slow for me. But, I'm ever so glad I got past that initial hesitancy and trudged through, for it turned out to be one of the most-thought provoking tales I've digested in some time. There were many nights after reading this book that I was lost in thought for hours, pondering the tragic circumstances that lead this little girl to experience many things no little girl should ever have to endure, and how those experiences informed the choices she made and the path she trod. It's been a couple of months since I've finished the book and I'm still thinking about it!

I heartily recommend this one. It's not a book you can pick up and blaze through. It's a book that requires an investment on the reader's part; a book that gives one furiously to think about how tragic life can be in this fallen world and how those who are less fortunate are forced to find a way to deal with the cards they've been dealt; a book that gives meaning to the saying, "Lo, but by the grace of God go I"; a book that cannot help but make you a little more cautious before passing judgment upon others, not knowing what circumstances may have led to their current lot in life. If you'll make the investment, you'll be the better for it.

After a lengthy and lively discussion, our book club voted and ended up giving this book a 4.5 on our 1-5 rating scale, 5 being the best. 

"Mrs. Kennedy and Me" by Clint Hill

Written by former secret service agent Clint Hill, this is a book containing his memoirs of the years he spent assigned to First Lady Jackie Kennedy. This book surprised me as well. I was sure I wouldn't like it, since, to be perfectly blunt and honest, I really wasn't the least bit interested in reading about the goings on of Mrs. Kennedy and company. But, I was actually intrigued to read Mr. Hill's account of those years and learned a ton not only about what life was like guarding the First Lady, but also about the many sacrifices our country's secret service agents must make in performing their duties. Not only must they be willing to take a bullet for the people they guard, but they also must endure the "bullets" of being away from their families far more than they're with them, hectic and often sleepless schedules, and relative thanklessness and anonymity, not from the people they guard, but from virtually everyone else. Can you name any of the secret service agents guarding our current President or First Lady today? See what I mean?

I think that was the general consensus among us, that we learned a lot that we would have otherwise never known by reading this book, and that's always a good thing. Plus, there are some stunning revelations Mr. Hill springs on you as you travel with him through that time. You get to see a different side of Jackie Kennedy, as Mr. Hill's intimate memoirs reveal much about her that was previously unknown. Oh, and Mr. Hill grew up a Lutheran, so that's a bonus. :)

I'm still not all that interested in the topic itself, but I did enjoy it nonetheless. So did our group. We thought it was good, not great, and so we gave it a 3.

"The Constantine Codex" by Paul Maier

This is the third installment in Maier's fictional series featuring Professor Jonathan Weber, the first two being A Skeleton in God's Closet and More Than a Skeleton. Like the first two, this is a fun, quick read that invokes from the reader several "What If's."

The "What If's" in this one: What if we discovered an authentic manuscript that contained the full, original ending to the Gospel of Mark. What if that same ancient manuscript also contained a Second Acts? What would those texts say? How would Christians react to such a discovery? Would these newly discovered texts be added to the canon? Which Christians would be favorable to those additions and which would reject them? And so on.

The way we eventually get to all those "What If's" is a fun, adventurous ride, as Maier's talent to write a good tale comes to the surface again in this one. Having said that, as we discussed this book, the same criticisms were shared by all in our club, namely that there are some parts of the book that are just too far-fetched. Professor Weber gains worldwide fame after a mistranslation of his recently released book, Jesus of Nazareth, is discovered in the Arabic version. This angers many Muslims and a fatwah is placed upon Weber, requiring him to have around the clock CIA protection. Given what we've witnessed recently in the news, it's not all that unbelievable that such a thing could happen. The far-fetched part comes when, eventually, this leads to a debate between Weber, a Christian, and a Muslim leader named Abbas al-Rashid. Such a debate, in and of itself, is not far-fetched. What is far-fetched is that such a debate would get the attention of the whole world. It wouldn't. Few would care.

Also, there are many happenings in the book that are just a little overly convenient, and other things that are just a little too predictable and seem forced. However, the overall theme of the book, coupled with the adventurous nature of the tale itself, is able to overcome those things and make it a book worth the time. I think we all agreed that A Skeleton in God's Closet is by far the best of the three books in this series, with The Constantine Codex edging out More Than a Skeleton as second-best. We gave this one a 3 on our rating scale.

"Unholy Night" by Seth Grahame-Smith

I was most interested in hearing what the others thought of this one, since I can't remember when I've enjoyed reading a book so much. I was thrilled to find that the others had the same reaction. That may seem odd, since Unholy Night is a fictional tale presenting revisionist history centered upon the Biblical account of the Three Wise Men, who visit the Baby Jesus (of course, as any serious student of the Bible knows, we are not told the number of the magi who followed the star and visited Jesus, but because they offer Him three gifts, the legend of Three Wise Men developed). Actually, it's really a story centering upon just one of these Wise Men, named Balthazar. He is an infamous thief and murderer, who has become widely known throughout the Roman Empire as "The Antioch Ghost." Balthazar meets the other two Wise Men in a prison cell when he is finally captured after years of wreaking havoc and, after the three thieves manage to escape, they wind up stumbling upon the stable in Bethlehem, where they meet Joseph, Mary, and the Baby Jesus. From there, the epic adventure ensues.

It is all so totally ridiculous, and there are a plethora of things that do not even come close to matching the Biblical account, but none of that takes away from the genius of Grahame-Smith's ability to weave an adventurous tale around The Greatest Story Ever Told, while amazingly remaining respectful and avoiding blasphemy as he does it. I absolutely loved it!

We had a blast discussing this book, actually quoting out loud several of our favorite parts. What we all most enjoyed was the hilarious humor Grahame-Smith displays throughout. There are several times in the book when he sets you up for a laugh after letting you into a character's (most often, Balthazar) thinking and then springing the reality on you, which is the opposite of that thinking. To illustrate the way he does this, I'll use myself as an example:

I often find humor in books, but very rarely do I ever laugh out loud while reading. In fact, I can't remember ever doing so. And so, I'm not going to do that now. I don't care how funny I think this part of this book is, I will at most chuckle to myself, but I will definitely not laugh out loud. That's not going to happen. No way. To do so would be silly, and I'm not a silly person. No, there is no way, not a chance, not even a slight chance, that I'm going to laugh out loud.

I laughed out loud. 

Okay, so maybe that's not the best illustration, but hopefully you get the idea. And, it's true. I laughed out loud several times while reading this book. :)

Besides his engaging writing style, ability to make the reader laugh, and unbelievably imaginative story-telling, Grahame-Smith's genius also lies in turning a despicable, vile, selfish character into a genuine hero, but not in a predictable way that insults the reader's intelligence. Balthazar is a ruthless scoundrel, but even ruthless scoundrels have principles. He is a selfish man, hell-bent on revenge and self-preservation, but even selfish, self-preserving men, lustful for vengeance, have a heart. You just can't help but root for this Billy the Kid meets Indiana Jones character, even though he makes you sick at the same time.

I don't want to share any more details about the book, since I don't want to spoil too much for those who may give it a read, but, believe me, there is so much more I could share on this one. I first heard of Grahame-Smith when the film based on his book, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, came out earlier this year. I thought it sounded totally absurd and had no desire to either see the movie or read the book. But, after reading Unholy Night, I will be ordering that book, as well as his Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, soon. Consider me a huge fan; this guy can write! I'm sure his other books are as equally absurd as was this one, but I am intrigued to see how he turns that absurdity into a riveting, awesome tale, as he did with Unholy Night. As one reviewer opined, it is the "brilliant and twisted mind" of Grahame-Smith that enables him "to take a little mystery, bend a little history, and weave an epic tale." That is certainly an accurate description of what he did with Unholy Night, and I look forward to seeing how he does it in his other books.

Anyway, as I said above, we all had very similar reactions to this book and enjoyed it thoroughly. In fact, we gave this book a unanimous 5, which was the first time we have done so since our book club began. A couple of us gave Once Upon a River a 5, too, but most gave it a 4 or 4.5, so it didn't earn the privilege of getting the first 5 among us. But, Unholy Night was well deserving to earn that privilege. I give it my highest recommendation. This book brings to life the saying, "Don't judge a book by its cover." Go and get it now; you won't be disappointed!

After discussing these four books, we ended up assigning two books to be read over the next couple of months: The Root of All Evil: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel by Ray Keating and The Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett. Having loved reading Warrior Monk last summer, we are all eager to see what adventures await us in the life of Pastor Stephen Grant, a truly unforgettable character. But, since we're sure that most of us will get through that one fairly quickly, we assigned Follet's large tome, so that we can begin reading it as soon as we finish The Root of All Evil. We will discuss The Root of All Evil in October and The Pillars of the Earth in November.

God Will Never Give You More Than You Can Handle?

“God Will Never Give You More Than You Can Handle”

(September 2012 Newsletter Article) 

I’m betting that most of you have heard this one before. Perhaps, you’ve even used it yourself at times. A friend or loved one is going through a time of suffering and you seek to comfort that person by saying, “God will never give you more than you can handle.”

I know I’ve heard this one many times. I’ve seen it used on Facebook and in mass emails often, and I’ve even had friends and loved ones say it to me during times of suffering. It is used with the best of intentions, and most people think that it’s a direct quote right from the Bible, or at least a paraphrase of a Biblical verse, but it is neither.

The Biblical verse this cliché is supposed to paraphrase is 1 Corinthians 10:13, where St. Paul writes to the Corinthians, “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.”

To understand what St. Paul means by this, we need to look at the surrounding context. It is clear from that context that he is in the midst of rebuking the Corinthians for a) idolatry, b) sexual immorality, and c) works-righteousness (or, overconfidence in themselves). He reminds them what happened to their fathers in the faith, how they turned away from God after He had rescued them from their bondage in Egypt. God had saved them with His mighty hand and they turned away from Him so that they could indulge their own evil desires. They put God to the test and were overcome by serpents. They didn’t trust God, but grumbled against Him, and most of them perished in the wilderness, never getting to enter the Promised Land. The point St. Paul is making with the Corinthians is summed up in verse 12, the verse immediately preceding the verse quoted above, upon which the cliché in question is supposed to be based, where he says, “Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.” And, this is followed up with the exhortation in verse 14, “Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.” Then, St. Paul points them to an example of the idolatry into which they have fallen, moving into a lengthy discourse on their abuse of the Holy Supper.

Putting all of this together, it should be evident how the popular cliché, “God will never give you more than you can handle,” is a gross misinterpretation of the verse it is supposed to paraphrase. The whole point here is that YOU cannot handle things. It is a rebuke against those who try to handle things themselves, rather than turning to God for rescue. And, it has absolutely nothing to do with the pain and suffering we all endure in this life, whether we bring that upon ourselves or it comes from the outside, which is when the cliché in question is most often invoked. This passage is addressing those who give in to the temptation of the devil, the world, and their own sinful flesh, refuse to turn to God for rescue (“the way of escape”), and think that they’re still standing in the faith.

God will never give you more than you can handle? Nonsense! You cannot handle temptation on your own. You cannot endure the pain and suffering living in this sinful world brings on your own. You cannot handle God’s Law on your own. You cannot remain standing steadfast in the faith on your own. Left on your own, you will most definitely fall. Left on your own, you will follow in the footsteps of the grumbling and idolatrous Israelites who were overcome by serpents in the wilderness. Left on your own, God’s Holy Law will devour you whole. Left on your own, you will fall from grace, lose faith, and have the Holy Spirit depart from you.

Here’s the other reason this popular cliché is so wrongheaded: It suggests that God is the one GIVING you the temptation or the pain and suffering you’re enduring. But, we’re told in Scripture that “God tempts no one” (James 1:13ff.). God is not the author of evil. God is not the source of the pain and suffering you endure in this sinful world. That evil, those temptations, the pain and suffering with which you are afflicted, come from the devil, the world, and your own sinful flesh, NOT from God. It is true that God allows us to experience these things in this life. It is true that God tests and disciplines us at times, just as an earthly father does for his children. It is true that God works all things together (even the temptations, pain, and suffering we endure) for the good of those who love Him and have been called according to His purpose (Rom. 8:28). He is the God who uses what is meant for evil for good. Joseph’s brothers had an evil intent when they sold him into slavery, but God used what they meant for evil to accomplish their salvation. And, of course, the greatest example of this is the Crucifixion of His Son, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The Jewish religious authorities meant that for evil, but God used it to accomplish the greatest good ever known in the world. So, yes, God allows us to be tempted and to endure times of pain and suffering in this life, but it is not true that He gives us these things, as if He is their source and wants to toughen us up so that we can learn how to handle them on our own, which is what the cliché really means. On the contrary, God allows these things to happen in our lives so that we would turn to Him for rescue.

God will never give you more than you can handle? Wrong! You cannot handle things on your own. If you could, God would not have had to send His Son to live and die in your place. If we want to make this cliché Scriptural and true, we would have to say something like, “God will never allow you to suffer more than He can handle.” Now, that is most certainly true, as certain and true as is the fact that you will be tempted and will endure much pain and suffering in this life. But, God will never forsake you. He will always provide the “way of escape,” and the “way of escape” is just another way of saying, “Jesus.” For, Jesus is your way of escape. Jesus is your refuge. Jesus is your rescue. He lived the perfect life you cannot live. He resisted and overcame all the temptations common to man, the temptations to which you have often fallen prey. He endured all the pain and suffering the devil, the world, and sinners could throw at Him and never wavered an inch in faith through it all, as you often do when pain and suffering come upon you. You cannot handle these things on your own, but Jesus has handled them perfectly for you. He is your way of escape. He is your mighty fortress. He is your strength. Flee from yourselves and to Jesus. That’s the whole point St. Paul is making in this oft misunderstood passage.

Do you see, then, why telling people that God will never give them more than they can handle is wrong in so many ways? As I said above, I know that people have the best of intentions when they use this cliché, but good intentions aside, it is a tragically flawed way of trying to get God into the equation somehow. Would that we never uttered this cliché again, but instead pointed our friends and loved ones, who are enduring times of temptation, pain, or suffering, to the One who can handle it all for them, to the One who has already handled it all for them, and who remains available to them to handle whatever the devil, this sinful world, and their own sinful flesh throw their way, even Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. The best advice you can give to such a friend is to direct them to go to where Jesus is for them, namely to the Divine Service in His Holy Church, where He is Truly Present to absolve them of their sins, feed them upon the sweet honey of His Word, cleanse them with the very Body and Blood He gave and shed for them, and bestow His eternal peace upon them as they depart back into the wilderness of this sinful world, where they will inevitably continue to be harassed by its temptations, pain, and suffering.

In this vale of tears, this valley of the shadow of death, you will be confronted with much that you cannot handle, my friends. But, know this: Jesus has handled it all in your place. Flee to Him in times of temptation, pain, and suffering. He will never fail you. He can handle it. He desires that you come to Him, you who are weary and heavy-laden, that He might give you peace. In Him, you have the sure and certain promise that there is coming a Day when you will be tempted no more and never again experience the pain and suffering, trials and tribulations, of living in this sinful world. You will live and reign with Him in the eternal kingdom that has been prepared for you. And, as St. Paul assures you, “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed in us” (Rom. 8:18).

Your servant in Christ,

Pastor Messer

What Happened To Our Referees?

Remember the fact-checking frenzy that was all over the media last week regarding the speech delivered by Rep. Paul Ryan? Every major news outlet was all over it. You couldn't turn on the television or radio, or open a newspaper, without hearing or reading about how Mr. Ryan's speech contained several distortions of the truth, misleading statements, and outright lies.

And, it did. Sorry, Republican faithful. It did. Mr. Ryan's speech was filled with falsehoods. In fact, I'm quite sure he and the Romney/Ryan campaign gurus were well aware of that fact, and they proceeded with the less-than-truthful speech anyway. They are trying to win an election, and winning an election in America these days is far more important than speaking the truth. Winning an election is about carefully selected talking points meant to scratch itching ears that will hopefully lead to votes, the truth be damned. It's about doing whatever needs to be done and saying whatever needs to be said to convince people that your opponent is a villain and you are just what our country needs. Mr. Ryan is a politician. He is playing the game, the goal of which is to win. He cannot be sidetracked by something as insignificant as the truth. It's a game, folks, and it's played by both sides. We all know it. So do the politicians who seek our votes.

So, Mr. Ryan lied. He did. Let's just be honest and admit it. He lied like many of the Obama television ads that have run to date have been proven to be outright lies. He lied like Mitt Romney lied, who lied like President Clinton, Vice President Biden, and President Obama lied at their convention. None of them are even trying to convince you with the truth; they're all simply trying to persuade you to vote for them and will tell you what they think you want to hear, which is determined by their respective think-tanks, in order to accomplish that goal. Lying and deceiving is just a part of the process. You do whatever it takes to win. The truth really has nothing at all to do with it.

The truth is that American politics has become nothing more than a sport. The politicians are the players who play the game; their campaign managers are the head coaches, who consult with their many assistant coaches (political strategists, communications experts, etc.) and develop a game-plan; Fox News is the cheerleading squad for the Republicans, MSNBC for the Democrats; we are the fans. The game is played and we root for our teams. But, where are the referees?

The refs have traditionally been the media, but those days have long since passed us by. It used to be that the networks and major newspapers around our country would report the news and stick to the facts. They used to take pride in leaving their personal biases aside, being careful not to skew their reporting in a way that would reveal their personal endorsements of various political candidates. No, they never did this perfectly (bias would come through here and there), but at least they used to try. Not anymore. We don't get news these days; we get commentary. We don't get facts; we get spin and talking points, and not just from the obvious suspects on Fox and MSNBC, but even from the networks and other supposed-to-be unbiased news outlets.

Case in point: How much did you hear yesterday from the mass media about Sandra Fluke's speech, which she delivered Thursday night, and which you can watch in the video above? Where was the fact-checking frenzy on that one? Ryan stretched the truth and delivered some falsehoods in his speech last week and the media went nuts - and, rightly so! But, where were they yesterday to correct the litany of lies told by Ms. Fluke?

One may argue that this is an unfair comparison, since Ms. Fluke is just a Democrat supporter, while Mr. Ryan is the Republican Vice Presidential candidate.I would buy that, except for the fact that the lies told by Ms. Fluke during her speech are the same lies that have been repeated ad nauseum by the Democrats over the last several months, and the media has done nothing to correct them.

Those lies began earlier this year when the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing and heard from witnesses who believed that the HHS mandate requiring all insurance companies, even those run by religious institutions, to cover contraception, abortifacients, and sterilizations violated their religious freedom. The lying began that very day, as Nancy Pelosi and many other Democrats went before the cameras and falsely claimed that a) the hearing was about contraception, b) no women were allowed on the panel, and c) Ms. Sandra Fluke was shut out by the Republicans. Perhaps you remember all the headlines that appeared the following day: "Where Are the Women?"; "All-Male Birth Control Panel"; "Women Barred from All-Male Panel," etc. Heck, even Saturday Night Live got in the act later that week, doing a sketch that followed the lies told by the Democrats and repeated everywhere in the media.

And so, because these lies were never corrected by the media, Ms. Fluke felt perfectly comfortable taking the stage a couple of nights ago to bring these lies back to the surface. She began her speech by saying,

"Some of you may remember that earlier this year, Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception. In fact, on that panel, they didn’t hear from a single woman, even though they were debating an issue that affects nearly every woman." 

Here, let me do some fact-checking, since the media is not interested in doing so:

Fact-check #1 - The Republicans did not shut Ms. Fluke out of that hearing in February. In fact, the Democrats did not submit her name until well after the deadline had passed to submit potential witnesses. In fact, the Democrats did not submit any names until after the deadline had passed. They did this on purpose. It was strategy. They knew that if they waited until the last minute, until after the deadline had passed, the Republicans would probably deny their witnesses and they could moan about it to the media. Also, while they did not allow Ms. Fluke to testify at the hearing, since a) her name had not been submitted on time and b) she wanted to testify about contraception and had no qualifications to testify about religious freedom, the Republicans did post a lengthy video on this House Committee's website of Ms. Fluke delivering a speech about contraception. Finally, the Republicans did allow another Democratic witness to testify, who was going to testify about religious freedom, even though his name was submitted late as well, but, wonder of wonders, he was a no show.

Fact-check #2 - Ms. Fluke claims that she was shut out of a hearing on contraception. In fact, the hearing was not on contraception; it was on freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. Amazingly, the media never even attempted to correct that, as the headlines noted above show. They still haven't. So, Ms. Fluke can comfortably repeat this lie, knowing that it will not only not be corrected, but will actually be happily repeated by the media.

Fact-check #3 - Ms. Fluke says, "In fact, on that panel, they didn't hear from a single woman, even though they were debating an issue that affects nearly every woman." One wonders if Ms. Fluke understands what the word fact means, since, in actual fact, there were two women who testified at the hearing, Dr. Allison Garrett and Laura Champion, both of whom hold prominent positions at their respective Christian universities. But, again, the media never really did anything to correct this blatant falsehood. They still haven't, not in any meaningful way. And again, the debate that day was not over contraception, but over an issue that affects all Americans, not just "nearly every woman," namely, religious freedom.

Later in her speech, Ms. Fluke said that if Romney and Ryan were elected, "It would be an America in which you have a new vice president who co-sponsored a bill that would allow pregnant women to die preventable deaths in our emergency rooms."

Fact-check #4 - Ms. Fluke is parroting the lie told in December of last year by Nancy Pelosi, who, in referring to the Protect Life Act, which was co-sponsored by Ryan, said that Republicans would be voting "to say that women can die on the floor." That was a bold-faced lie told back then, but, again, the media did nothing to correct it. And so, Ms. Fluke can repeat it without flinching an eye-lash. In fact, if you read that bill, you will see that it does make exceptions in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. So, um, no, the bill in question does not seek to allow pregnant women to die preventable deaths in our emergency rooms. How absurd!

Oh, and while I'm mentioning absurdities, why can't Ms. Fluke and her ilk speak the truth about the choice they want women to retain? They keep saying that women should have the right to choose what they do with their own bodies. I wholeheartedly agree. Who wouldn't agree with that? But, that's NOT what they mean, and they know that. What they mean is that they want women to retain the right to choose to kill the body of a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT HUMAN BEING growing in their womb. Just say that. Just say what you really mean. Just say that you want to be able to make the choice to kill your babies. That's what you want. Let's call that Fact-check #5 - A woman's right to choose is NOT the choice to do what they want with their own bodies, but, in fact, the choice to kill a completely different body.

And, when it comes to the whole contraception thing, quit trying to hide the truth behind emotional appeals to medical necessities. You know full well that religious institutions do not prevent contraceptive coverage for medical necessities. Even those pesky Roman Catholics will make exceptions when such is the case. But, that's a moot point, since what you really want is to be able to have promiscuous sex without the worry of getting pregnant. What you also want is to be able to pop a pill to abort children you didn't want to conceive. And, you want all of that to be paid for by those who do not wish to support your promiscuity and your killing, because such behavior violates their consciences and religious tenets. It's funny, you want those whose consciences and religious tenets do not support your sexual immorality to stay out of your bedrooms and not bother you about your sexual choices, but, at the same time, you want those same people to pay for what you do in your bedrooms. Amazing. 

I could go on, but you get the point. The politicians and their pundits continue their lies and the referees only call fouls on one team. No, it's worse than that. Not only do the referees only call fouls on one team, but they actually repeat and publicize the lies of the other team, giving the impression that those lies are true. And, as any sports fan knows, there's nothing worse than some home-town refs. But, that's exactly what we have with our media today. Mr. Ryan gets butchered; Ms. Fluke gets praised. Pretty sad, that. 

Upon What Authority . . .

. . . do you base your beliefs? That is the question. It's always the question.

So, you're in a debate with a proud atheist, who thinks you are an ignorant fool for believing in what he deems to be a fairy tale, concocted by ignorant, superstitious humans long ago as some sort of psychological or sociological coping mechanism. You quickly recognize the old, worn-out talking points and soundbites he's throwing at you (the Bible is full of contradictions and can't be trusted because it has been translated and copied so many times, etc.; there were many other religions before Christianity came along; why do you eat shellfish and why don't you stone your women for wearing clothing with different fabrics?; if God exists, why is he powerless to stop the many evils and catastrophes that happen in the world?; science has proven that the evolutionary theory is no theory, but fact; the books of your Bible were arbitrarily decided upon by Constantine in the fourth century; there has been more blood shed because of religion than all other causes; we can't even be sure whether this Jesus you believe in even existed; and so forth), and the temptation is to argue with this proud atheist point for point. Don't! To do so would be nothing more than an exercise in futility. It doesn't matter that he's just plain ignorant about many of the things he's simply parroting, having heard them from others. It doesn't matter that he has no clue how to interpret the Bible or what Christianity is. It doesn't matter that he hasn't spent an ounce of time studying textual criticism, the Biblical manuscript evidence, or the historical basis for Christianity. To try to engage him point for point will just further confirm his belief that you are just another in a long line of superstitious humans intent on defending your fairy tale. Ask me how I know.

So, what should you do? Ask him upon what authority he bases his beliefs. You will probably be told that he doesn't have beliefs, but sticks with the facts. Good! This gives opportunity to rephrase the question: Upon what authority do you arrive at your facts? The two most common responses you will hear are 1) Science and 2) Common Sense (human reason, rational thought). If the response is science, ask him which scientific resources he uses as his authority to arrive at his facts. Most often, the proud atheist will stumble here, since most of them haven't really done anything resembling any kind of study or research into any of the supposed facts they readily cite, but are in the happy habit of just aping what they've heard others saying or what they've read on popular atheist websites, and so forth. But, maybe just maybe, he'll provide you with some resources. Good! Ask him which of these resources makes the claim to have proven macroevolution as fact. Remember, he is a proud atheist, who thinks that he doesn't have beliefs, but relies on facts. Ask him to show you those facts. Since he cannot do that, you'll most likely get hit with more soundbites and popular rhetoric. But, hold his feet to the fire. You want facts. You want to know upon what authority those facts are based. Eventually, if you resist the temptation to argue, but continue to press him for the authoritative basis of the supposed facts he so readily cites, he will have to admit that his authority is not so authoritative and his facts not so factual, after all. Either that, or he will call you some names and walk away in disgust. Either way, you will have given this proud atheist much to ponder, which should be your only goal. You will have forced him to actually think about the authority upon which he bases his beliefs facts, which, after all the smoke from the rhetoric fades away, whether he tells you science or common sense initially, is himself. He believes what he believes. He is his own god. He is his own authority.

Of course, were a proud atheist to read what I've written here, he would scream and moan about how off base I am, but, after all that screaming and moaning subsides, the only thing he is really left with is that he believes what he believes. He can no more prove his supposed facts than you can prove the existence of God. He may never admit that, but it is an irrefutable fact, nonetheless. The difference between you and him is not a matter of one of you being able to prove the other wrong; rather, it is simply a matter of the authority upon which each of you bases your beliefs. Your authority is the revealed Word of God in Holy Scripture; his authority is himself. It's really that simple.

A few months back, I ran into a college science professor on a friend's Facebook thread. According to him, I was a superstitious moron because I don't accept the theory of evolution as fact. He thought that meant that I had never studied evolution and had no clue what I was talking about. The temptation was severe to correct that impression by informing him that I have spent countless hours over many years studying evolution (I even have three of the most popular modern college texts on the subject sitting on my bookshelf that I have been reading when time permits), but I resisted that temptation. I simply asked him to point me to the authoritative resource that proves macroevolution as fact. In short fashion, he responded by sending me two different links to 20-page abstracts he had written for his own dissertation on how paired fins evolved over time to form appendages, and so forth, which was supposedly proof for macroevolution. I read both of these abstracts from beginning to end, having to rely on Google to look up several scientific terms along the way. What I found fascinating was that the conclusions in each of these abstracts made it vividly clear that everything proposed was hypothetical theory. Both conclusions admitted that much of the evidence needed to prove the theory is non-existent. So, by the author's own admission, which was in black-and-white for all to read, the whole paper was nothing more than his best guess, which relied upon the presumptions of a series of other best guesses. It was like saying that D is true, if C follows B and B follows A, but we have no evidence that either C, B, or A even exists. It was really quite remarkable, but not surprising, since, at the end of the day, all that such scientists have are presumptions and guesses - having read my share of scientific journals and evolution text books, that is always the case.

Anyway, after carefully reading both of these abstracts, I responded to this science professor by noting what he himself said in the conclusions of both, telling him that he did nothing more than prove my point, which was simply that he couldn't prove macroevolution as fact; that the theory of evolution remains a theory, not fact. He could not do anything to refute my response. He was caught by his own words. He revealed himself and his guesses and theories, which were based on the guesses and theories of others like him, to be the authority upon which he based his beliefs, which were indeed beliefs, not facts. But, rather than receiving an intelligent response, I was called more names and told how ignorant I was. That's fine. I don't mind being called names or being told how ignorant I am by someone who is so delusional that he cannot even accept his own words quoted back at him. But, what scares me is that this dude is teaching kids at the college level that his best guesses and theories are facts, when he himself knows better.

So, what's my point in all this? It's simple: Stop trying to prove you're right when debating proud atheists. Instead, put the onus on them to prove they're right. Ask them upon what authority they base their supposed facts. If you can get them to answer that question honestly, you win, NOT because you have proven your beliefs to be superior than theirs, but simply because you have led them to discover for themselves that their facts are no facts at all, but beliefs, and that the authority upon which those beliefs are held is themselves. You have science on your side in these debates, for science simply does not prove what they think it does, despite all the popular propaganda to the contrary (my favorite little bit of popular propaganda is the saying, "Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory" - cute, but, um, not so much). So, dig beneath the soundbites and propaganda. Get to the authority. Uncover the real facts by getting them to expose their supposed facts as the beliefs they are. This is a much better approach than going into a defensive posture, as tempting as that may be. Besides, there may be time for that later. Once it is an established fact that both sides are dealing in the realm of beliefs, perhaps a discussion can ensue about those beliefs, and the authority upon which those beliefs are held. Or, maybe not. Maybe you'll be called names and your opponent will leave in disgust. So be it. At least you can say that you tried. And, whether or not the proud atheist will ever admit it, you will have given him much to ponder, because, try as he might, he will not be able to find the resource that proves his beliefs to be facts, since no such resource exists. That little nugget of truth simply has to give one furiously to think, which is really all you can hope to accomplish, at least initially.