tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29784857503904550252024-03-13T19:59:17.300-04:00Abide in My WordOur Lord Jesus Christ says, "If you abide in my word, you are my disciples indeed. You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free" (John 8:31-32).Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.comBlogger759125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-60228228677189217392014-09-26T22:39:00.000-04:002014-09-26T22:39:48.609-04:00Haters Gonna Hate (from their moms' basements, in their beds, which are lined with Star Wars sheets)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2BrmrFnNE_C1iQwV-gL07BhoSJGzgXoToSD1qT88DKZGpApOSgUIZLzt_d2oa_R91IM6B2HfuTrxJ0ADHAtfs3-0_5wj1mDvpPq7MfnD53b45Kz2cJOVuuzxAvBfUcXij0uraN8qQmiE/s1600/wiki+14+haters+gonna+hate.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2BrmrFnNE_C1iQwV-gL07BhoSJGzgXoToSD1qT88DKZGpApOSgUIZLzt_d2oa_R91IM6B2HfuTrxJ0ADHAtfs3-0_5wj1mDvpPq7MfnD53b45Kz2cJOVuuzxAvBfUcXij0uraN8qQmiE/s1600/wiki+14+haters+gonna+hate.png" height="275" width="400" /></a></div>
I don't live in my mom's basement, although when I go down to pay my folks a visit, I do sleep in their basement. They have a lovely little living room down there with a pull-out bed and a big, flat screen TV. It's very cozy. Plus, it's at least 65 degrees cooler down there, since they keep their thermostat somewhere around 122 degrees. But, I don't live there. That would be really weird. I'm married and have four children, the youngest of which is a senior in high school. <br />
<br />
Also, the bed I sleep on when I visit doesn't have <i>Star Wars</i> sheets, but that would be totally cool, and I would not at all be opposed to that. <i>Star Wars</i> rocks! I still have fond memories of the first time my parents ever took me to the drive-in (Fort George in Southgate, MI, may it rest in peace!), and the double feature that night was <i>Grease </i>and <i>Star Wars</i>. Great night! I love me some <i>Star Wars</i>.<br />
<br />
Anyway, contrary to the assumptions of a couple speakers (and their tweeting supporters) at the <b><a href="http://www.fivetwo.com/">FiveTwo</a></b> <b><a href="http://new.livestream.com/fivetwo/wiki14">Wiki14 Conference</a></b>, I don't live in my mom's basement and I don't sleep on <i>Star Wars</i> sheets. But, I am a hater, at least according to their definition, which, as far as I can tell, is defined as "anyone who disagrees with, or criticizes, us." That's definitely me. I'm a hater and, well, haters gonna hate. And, that's okay, according to the FiveTwo WikiFolks, who "share their love for Jesus" by exhorting/coaching their followers to "ignore the haters," and encouraging their haters to "hate on," since "we're not listening to you" and "we'll just keep doing what we're doing." Can you feel the <b><a href="http://markjunkans.com/blog/2014/9/26/wiki2014?utm_content=buffere4029&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer">WikiLove</a></b>?<br />
<br />
Seriously, this is all just so ridiculous. The FiveTwo WikiFolk know full well what they're doing. They know that they're presenting "new stuff" (which isn't actually new, but they think it is) and that it will upset their brothers and sisters in Christ in their so-called "tribe," who still cling to an old, worn-out, 16th-century book, which is a correct exposition of an even older, more worn-out Book. But, they don't care. Really, they don't. Their "mission" is far too important to care about the "neoconservatives . . . who are extremely uncomfortable with anything that departs from their very narrow understanding of church and ministry," and who "can't stand to see anyone deviate from their ecclesio-cultural tradition," and who, "if allowed, would keep purifying the ranks until only a select few remain" (seriously, that there is some serious "sacramental entrepreneurship" happening, ain't it?). They lovingly shove their "new stuff" in their haters' faces, and then cry foul and play the martyr when their haters respond. It's all so predictable and sad, but when you don't have a theological leg to stand on, you pull out the "haters gonna hate" cliche and talk about moms and basements and <i>Star Wars</i> sheets.<br />
<br />
But, as ridiculous as all of that is, what is even more ridiculous is that nearly a third of the LCMS' District Presidents attended the FiveTwo Wiki14 Conference, neither to correct the smorgasbord of false doctrine dished out, nor to rebuke the false teachers serving it up, but to support and cheer it on. I've heard from a few friends today, who have informed me of emails and messages their District Presidents sent out to them praising the Conference. My own District President, Rev. David Maier (Michigan District), retweeted fourteen #wiki14 tweets, showing his support. These are our Ecclesiastical Supervisors? Really?<br />
<br />
You need not have an advanced theological degree to spot the plethora of non-Lutheran teachings on display at the Wiki14 Conference. Any mildly-catechized Lutheran (actually catechized from the Small Catechism/Book of Concord) can listen to, and watch, what transpired there and know that it wasn't Lutheran doctrine being taught and practiced, which, like, totally makes sense, since the majority of the keynote speakers weren't Lutherans. Duh! <br />
<br />
I mean, when a Lutheran hears someone say that "Us mainline sacramental folk" includes "Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Anglicans, and Lutherans," the little false doctrine, heresy-hunting buzzer in their heads has to immediately start buzzing, no? And this was from the first keynote speaker, Rev. Bill Woolsey, who is an LCMS pastor and the Founder/President of FiveTwo. I watched his entire presentation and took me some notes. I was going to include a whole series of lengthy quotes, but this blog post (which, according to the WikiFolk, in another one of of their "sharing-the-love-of-Jesus, sacramental" outbursts, "will only be read by my mom and me") would get too long. So, I'll just summarize a few of the most troubling things about his very non-Lutheran presentation.<br />
<br />
First, the fact that he refers to "mainline sacramental folk" as including those who aren't very "sacramental" at all is a tad bit troubling (and by "tad bit," I mean "extremely"). But, this does clue you in on what he's talking about with the whole "sacramental entrepreneur" thing, which may be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard from anyone in any of the Church Growth Movement (CGM), Emergent, Missional, Seeker crowds, and that's saying something. As you listen to him talk, you very quickly come to learn that when he says "sacramental entrepreneurs," he's definitely not referring to being "stewards of the mysteries of God." Even if you're a little slow to discern what he means, it becomes vividly clear by the end of his presentation, which he concludes with the exhortation, "Be Jesus' sacraments to the world" (you know, "little 's' sacraments," as he says a few times throughout his presentation, whatever those are). That simply cannot mean the Holy Sacraments of our Lord, which you learned about when you went through the Small Catechism with your pastor (hopefully!). You can't BE the Holy Sacraments. How absurd! Scripture would become a little weird if that were true: "You now saves you" and "Take, eat, this is you" (or would it be "I take and eat my body"? - so confusing) and "I forgive me all my sins"? Um, no.<br />
<br />
Here's what he means: "Each one of you, Jesus has poured into a very unique expression of his sacramental presence, and he desires that that unique expression of Jesus that lives in you would live also in the people around you." I know, I know, if you're an actual Lutheran, this still doesn't clear things up, since Jesus hasn't poured into each one of us a very unique expression of His Sacramental Presence at all. Rather, we all receive the same grace, mercy, forgiveness, love, life, light, and peace via our Lord's Holy Sacraments. It's what makes us One, and all that. Lutheranism 101 stuff. Really, this stuff isn't hard at all. What he means is something that's impossible. We cannot pour the grace of Jesus into others "sacramentally"; those others need to be brought to where Jesus Is and where He washes them clean of all sin in Holy Baptism, absolves them in Holy Absolution, feeds them upon His Word in Holy Preaching, and His very Body and Blood in the Holy Supper. <br />
<br />
Besides all the Buddhist-like "sacramental" stuff, which is nothing but an attempt to gussie up old CGM stuff in churchly guise, Rev. Woolsey is sure to get in a few shots about those stodgy, unbending liturgical folk, making fun of their "worship form" by describing it as "Germanic, emotionless ritual that communicates God at a distance, making you think maybe we're in the holies of holies [sic] with his high priest and I'm out schlepping in the Gentile court." In its place, he suggests we "change our strategy and allow our worship forms to embrace the language and the nuance of the culture." In fact, he thinks we should "take into account the people that God is literally parachuting into our communities" (literally?) and "let them drive" what we do (I've said it before and I'll say it again now: There is nothing more Satanic than to shape what you do in the church according to the wants and desires of the unbelieving world; I mean, that should go without saying, shouldn't it? #israelandjudahlearnedthehardway). <br />
<br />
Anyone who has studied the Classic CGM can identify its principles coming through loudly and clearly here. It's a mult-level marketing plan dressed up in churchly language. Throw the words "sacramental" and "holy" and "mystical" around all you want (oh, and don't forget "missional" - we must never forget "missional"!), but what you are actually advocating is a business plan, based on secular business principles, not God's Word. What you've done is turned God's ways and thoughts into your ways and thoughts. In so doing, the unchurched (i.e., unbelievers) are the customers, the Gospel is the product, the church members are your downline, and the worship service is the weekly motivational meeting, where you encourage your downline (sacramental entrepreneurs) to get out there and "be the unique, sacramental presence of Jesus" to others, so that the downline may grow.<br />
<br />
What must inevitably follow in this approach is to tear down any, and all, barriers that get in the way of the customers-turned-members (downline), so that they will keep coming back and keep recruiting. Emotional manipulation works well as a tool. Make the worship as emotionally-manipulative as you can. It helps if your "worship leader" can whisper sweet nothings ever so softly in between songs and your preacher (motivational speaker) can tell some touching stories, a few jokes, and sprinkle Jesus' name and some other churchly language in there for good measure; maybe have a few props for object lessons or touching segments of video to accompany the message. Have big screens on display, sell some coffee, have a book store on the premises, a big stage to house the "show," and comfortable seating (very important!). And then, when people have been sufficiently manipulated emotionally, remind them that what they are feeling is the "unique sacramental presence of Jesus" and how it's all so "holy and mystical," and how they should go share that with others, so that they can feel it, too.<br />
<br />
And, perhaps most importantly - and, really, this was the main theme that ran throughout all the Wiki14 presentations I watched - erect a barrier between the clergy and the laity and then tear it down for all to see (it must be artificially erected, because it really doesn't exist). You're not like those other clergy, after all, with their "legalistic checklists for pure doctrine, pure worship, and pure pastors." Yes sir, you're nothing at all like those nasty pastors. You reject their "clergification" (not sure if that's how it's spelled, but does it really matter how you spell made-up-out-of-thin-air words?), where they go about doing all the doing and oppressing the lowly laity under their reign. They wear their "old uniforms," those silly vestments, which are a visible representation of the separation between them and the lowly, common folk, and they insist on leading the Service. Those "Doers and Oppressors" even think they should be the ones to preach and administer the Sacraments every week. We must do away with this madness!<br />
<br />
And so you have. You've shifted from being a "Doer and Oppressor" to being an "Equipper and Overseer." Your job is not to preach the Gospel, administer the Sacraments, catechize the young and old, pray for the flock you serve, and visit the sick and shut-in, but to equip the laity to do all those things, while you oversee them. They are co-laborers with you. Everyone is a minister. Everyone does the ministry. Everyone is a missionary. Everyone does the mission. And, really, let's just go ahead and take it a step further: Everyone is Jesus; everyone is the Gospel; everyone is the Sacraments. Totally rad, bro!<br />
<br />
All of this, too, is straight out of the Classic CGM playbook. It's just warmed-over, repackaged stuff Lutherans started borrowing and trying to use back in the 1970s, which lead to bringing contemporary worship and Americanized Evangelical "evangelism" programs into the congregations of our synod, catching on in the 1980s. It's based on a decidedly non-Lutheran hermeneutical approach to Scripture, where many popular passages that are directed toward the men called and ordained to serve Christ's Church in His stead and by His command are redirected toward all Christians. It's embarrassing to see those who have supposedly been trained to be Lutheran pastors pedaling this stuff, but then I'm one of those "Doers and Oppressors" (you know, one of those "customer service-type pastors," as another Wiki14 presenter put it), so consider the source, I guess. Remember, haters gonna hate.<br />
<br />
And all of this is approved by many of our Ecclesiastical Supervisors, who were "so blessed to attend the Wiki14 Conference." Rev. Woolsey just came right out and said that he allows several laymen in his congregation to preach, and encouraged the pastors and "leaders" there to go back home and do this, too, because that's how you "start new to reach new," by giving "permission and protection" to laypeople to do what they have not been called to do. Out loud, he said this. In front of nine or ten LCMS District Presidents, according to #wiki14 tweets. Publicly. Online. And not a single public rebuke from a District President is heard.<br />
<br />
That's disconcerting, even as it's not all that shocking. It just shows that the LCMS hasn't changed much, even with actual Lutherans at the helm. You can just publicly thumb your nose at AC V and XIV right in front of several Ecclesiastical Supervisors, and they go home and tell everyone how blessed they were.<br />
<br />
But, as disconcerting as all of the above is, what is especially troubling (this is where many of my pals abandon ship) is that <a href="http://wmltblog.org/2014/09/we-are-brothers-and-sisters-in-christ-part-one/"><b>the response from our Synod leaders</b></a> is for us to shut up about it. The WikiFolk put on a three-day display of non-Lutheran doctrine and practice (I've only scratched the surface here), which causes many actual Lutherans to respond, and we have the 8th Commandment thrown at us as a hammer, just as was done under the previous synod administration. On one hand, the WikiFolk call us haters and tell us to "hate on"; on the other hand, our synod leaders treat us as though we are the haters we're accused of being. Some things never change, I guess.<br />
<br />
Here's an idea: How about our synod leaders put half as much effort into addressing the issues we have inside of the church as they do addressing issues outside of the church. As a dear brother pastor put it recently, "<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".b3.1:3:1:$comment656313104466073_656314304465953:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".b3.1:3:1:$comment656313104466073_656314304465953:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".b3.1:3:1:$comment656313104466073_656314304465953:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$4:0">The
prophetic voice veritably thunders on Capitol Hill where it costs
nothing. It has gone silent on Mount Zion where it costs souls." If the WikiFolk were promoting abortion or gay marriage, or infringing upon our freedom of religion as Americans, would it merit a response? What if they said they were taking a special offering to support the campaign of a Democratic politician? Did we elect theologians and churchmen or political activists to lead our synod? (And, no, I'm not saying that addressing some of our social ills is unimportant, just that maybe we ought to be paying some attention to our synod ills, too - here's where I'm reminded of the Koinonia Project and how things take time, etc.). </span></span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".b3.1:3:1:$comment656313104466073_656314304465953:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".b3.1:3:1:$comment656313104466073_656314304465953:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".b3.1:3:1:$comment656313104466073_656314304465953:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$4:0"><br /></span></span></span>
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".b3.1:3:1:$comment656313104466073_656314304465953:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".b3.1:3:1:$comment656313104466073_656314304465953:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".b3.1:3:1:$comment656313104466073_656314304465953:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$4:0">In the last few days, I've heard from several laypeople in our synod, many of whom came out of Protestant and Reformed traditions, leaving behind all the nonsense promoted by the WikiFolk and approved by several of our District Presidents, because they fell in love with our Lutheran confession of the faith. Contrary to District Presidents and Synod blogs, what upsets them is not the "bickering" over this they see in social media and around the blogosphere, but the fact that this kind of thing goes on in our synod with the approval and endorsement of our Ecclesiastical Supervisors, who should know better. I know how they feel.</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".b3.1:3:1:$comment656313104466073_656314304465953:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".b3.1:3:1:$comment656313104466073_656314304465953:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".b3.1:3:1:$comment656313104466073_656314304465953:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$4:0">But, what does a hater like me know? I'm no entrepreneur, who is interested in "doing new - new thinking, new acting." I'm no "risk-taker, who's not afraid to push the edges and get outside the old confines of my ecclesiastical tribe." I'm no "vision-caster, who can figure out new places where the Spirit is moving and jump on for the ride." I'm just a Lutheran, who actually thinks that the "high walls and deep moats" of our Lutheran Confessions ought to guide everything I do as Lutheran pastor, per the ordination vows I took. You know, a hater. </span></span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".b3.1:3:1:$comment656313104466073_656314304465953:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".b3.1:3:1:$comment656313104466073_656314304465953:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".b3.1:3:1:$comment656313104466073_656314304465953:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$4:0"><br /></span></span></span>
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".b3.1:3:1:$comment656313104466073_656314304465953:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".b3.1:3:1:$comment656313104466073_656314304465953:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0"><span data-reactid=".b3.1:3:1:$comment656313104466073_656314304465953:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$4:0">(Hope you made it all the way to the end, mom. Please have my <i>Star Wars</i> sheets washed when I come down to visit Sunday. Love ya!)</span></span></span>Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-41084494993625412382014-04-26T18:40:00.000-04:002014-04-26T19:06:13.977-04:00A "Christian" Is Not a Christian<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtfguc2QOjhu4nf5FafYl1q_CgVLrhGbIdFRwdDEzw8ntB_W0Sz0Jg84bVg2azNHOx-7cMfgGoPjYmIZfAQhQvmJ3CEZBu340GOwFlgB7rirAjdBWUVNmUxgTJ_VZG4lYaZ6KY23_HGDY/s1600/progressive+christian+soup.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtfguc2QOjhu4nf5FafYl1q_CgVLrhGbIdFRwdDEzw8ntB_W0Sz0Jg84bVg2azNHOx-7cMfgGoPjYmIZfAQhQvmJ3CEZBu340GOwFlgB7rirAjdBWUVNmUxgTJ_VZG4lYaZ6KY23_HGDY/s1600/progressive+christian+soup.jpg" height="317" width="400" /></a></div>
A friend of mine shared <a href="http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2014/04/24/why-i-want-to-be-culturally-evangelical/31805"><b>this blog post</b></a> with me a couple days ago. The author, a young man named Michael Harris, wants to keep the heritage of his Evangelical upbringing, but without all the doctrinal baggage. He wants to be "Culturally Evangelical" in the same way that many Jewish people are "Culturally Jewish," i.e., still remaining "in the community" and retaining the "label," but without actually buying into the belief system and all the doctrinal stuff of the community. He writes,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Even though I’m no longer a Christian by doctrine, I’m proud of much of
my heritage. But the world’s largest religion doesn’t yet have a
category for people like me — you’re either an actual believer or you’re
just a lukewarm Christian, and that's the kind of Christian God spits out of his mouth.<span style="color: black;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" target="_blank"><br /></a></span></i></blockquote>
He goes on to give a brief synopsis of his Evangelical upbringing, how he bought into it all growing up, but then went to Oral Roberts University straight out of high school and came "back home really (really) pissed." He couldn't believe that he had not only accepted, but also promoted, all the zany doctrinal stuff of his childhood. He was ashamed that he had been spreading what he now understood to be the unreasonable, archaic, out-dated, and bigoted teachings of "Christian Fundamentalism." He had been "brainwashed with extremism," but no more. His eyes were now open and he has no desire to go back.<br />
<br />
At the same time, he still loves much of his Evangelical upbringing. He doesn't want to give it up wholesale. He still thinks there is much about Jesus that is pretty cool, too, even though he no longer considers Him to be the way, the truth, and the life. That rising from the tomb business is really no different than the silliness of "speaking in tongues" or the "faith-healing" nonsense he knew growing up, but experienced in full at Oral Roberts University. Jesus is just one of many teachers throughout history to be celebrated and admired. Christianity is fine, so long as it is stripped of its exclusive claims and supposed bigoted doctrines, and is whittled down to a philosophy or way of life that you can define for yourself. <br />
<br />
What I want to say to this young man is:<br />
<br />
Congratulations! What you've just described is the vast majority of what passes for Christianity in America today. You are not alone. There is no need to whine and moan, as if you have no place to call home. You don't even need to add the word "Culturally" before "Evangelical." Just call yourself an "Evangelical." It's all good. Most people who have likewise abandoned, or never really knew, the Christian doctrines taught in Holy Scripture (not exactly the same as what you grew up with in Evangelicalism, but that's for another blog post) just call themselves "Christians." It's just a label. Nobody really cares. Don't fret. Go ahead and use the label. Everybody's doing it. And, if you do feel some sense of guilt for using the label "Christian" or "Evangelical" to describe yourself, since you're no longer a Christian by doctrine, my advice would be to just add the word "Progressive" before either of those words. I mean, why reinvent the wheel here? "Progressive" Christianity is all the rage these days, and they would welcome you home to their "doctrine-less" version of "Christianity" with as much vigor and joy as the father welcomed the prodigal son in that one Bible story I'm sure you know. Heck, given your testimony and ability to write, I have no doubt that you would be eagerly welcomed to become one of their "preachers." So, again, don't fret. There is plenty of room for you in Americanized "Christianity" today. You are in the majority, by far.<br />
<br />
But, no, you are not a Christian. You are a "Christian." You are wrong in thinking that the world's largest religion doesn't yet have a category for people like you. It does. It always has. That category is heretic or unbeliever or pagan (take your pick). I know, I know, those are deemed words of hate and intolerance today, and we can't have any of that. But, the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church is not interested in how the world defines hate and intolerance. She is also not interested in what culture decides is good and bad, right and wrong, righteous and evil, and so forth. And, she doesn't really care about your views or opinions on this, that, or the other thing any more than she cares about mine or anyone else's. Instead, she confesses the <a href="http://bookofconcord.org/creeds.php"><b>Three Ecumenical Creeds</b></a> (Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian) and minces no words in saying, "Whoever desires to be saved must, above all, hold the catholic faith. Whoever does not keep it whole and undefiled will without doubt perish eternally." Call it hate or intolerance or bigotry, if you like. She's used to being called names. <br />
<br />
So, yes, you can label yourself however you like. You will find many friends. 78% of Americans still claim to be Christian, but the vast majority of them are "Christian," like you. It's just a label. It doesn't really mean anything to them. And, you can find "Christians" across denominational lines, so that there are plenty of "Catholics" and "Lutherans" and "Baptists" and "Methodists" and "Pentecostals" and "Non-Denominationals," etc., to join you "Evangelicals" in the melting pot of today's "Progressive Christianity." <br />
<br />
But, no, you can't really have your cake and eat it, too. You can't be a Christian on your own terms. It doesn't work that way. You don't get to pick and choose which Christian doctrines you want to keep and which you want to discard. You don't get to cast aside any of the core Christian doctrines confessed in the Creeds, mentioned above, and remain a Christian. Jesus is not just one in a long line of spiritual gurus and Christianity is not your pet philosophy to meld according to your views and opinions. Either you're in or you're out. It is all or nothing. You're right about that. There is no middle ground. That doctrine doesn't come from "misusing or overemphasizing strange verses like Rev. 3:16," as you imagine; it is the doctrine taught in Scripture from beginning to end, which testifies of the Jesus Christ confessed in the Creeds. Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-4448420956549122652014-04-21T14:49:00.002-04:002014-04-21T14:49:52.206-04:00. . . But Confirmation Ain't One!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw8jqKz_WQ4cpF9dzSc57Huprz-ht-SBtit8afhN5SZglAilJzQnYUIjIFf48CpfTbD9DmrpnkM4XtQOFjPCtCWqAv2JnZYJrP9HJadL7gn_P6vPmv6nntYjkE_0dGytkgMG8lG0J_8OQ/s1600/but+confirmation+ain%27t+one.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw8jqKz_WQ4cpF9dzSc57Huprz-ht-SBtit8afhN5SZglAilJzQnYUIjIFf48CpfTbD9DmrpnkM4XtQOFjPCtCWqAv2JnZYJrP9HJadL7gn_P6vPmv6nntYjkE_0dGytkgMG8lG0J_8OQ/s1600/but+confirmation+ain't+one.png" height="400" width="276" /></a></div>
It's right there in the <i>LSB Agenda</i> (pp. 25-27). Pastors aren't making this up. They're not "doing their own thing." This is a recognized and authorized Rite we have agreed upon as a synod. The practice of <i>First Communion Prior to Confirmation</i> is not "sectarian." Heck, there's even a section in the <i>LSB Pastoral Care Companion</i> (pp. 664-670) with guidelines for pastoral examination before the <i>Rite of First Communion</i>.<br />
<br />
And yet, many a Lutheran pastor continues to rant against this practice (even some on the confessional side of the aisle, amazingly). They tell their brother pastors that they're wrong for instituting this practice where they serve, either because they think the practice itself is wrong or because they believe it will cause confusion and shouldn't be practiced until we have greater consensus about it in the synod.<br />
<br />
The first reason lacks any semblance of truth. There is not a thing wrong with this practice. You will not find anything in Scripture or our Lutheran Confessions that would support the notion that bringing children to the Sacrament at a young age, prior to Confirmation, is wrong. In fact, neither Scripture nor our Lutheran Confessions recognize Confirmation as necessary. Scripture never mentions it at all and the only references to Confirmation in our Confessions are negative in connotation. Lutherans do not recognize Confirmation as a Sacrament (except that, sadly, we kind of do - more on that below). <br />
<br />
The second reason also must be rejected, regardless of how appealing it may sound. We already have consensus. Again, it's in our official Agenda. We have a Rite for it. We have guidelines for pastoral examination for it. It's approved. Sanctioned. Good to go. As well it should be, since the most common practice among us of making our children wait until they're teenagers before receiving the Holy Sacrament of our Lord's Body and Blood is just plain wrong. That was most definitely not the practice of our Lutheran Fathers. It's most definitely not the practice described in our Confessions. It's a practice that developed over the years due to the influence of pietism and rationalism. It's wrong. It needs to change. Now. Not later, now.<br />
<br />
That change will not happen if we wait for some mysterious "greater consensus" in the synod. That change will happen one pastor and congregation at a time moving forward now. We should already be united in the desire to bring this change about. If we're not, then many need to dust off their copies of the Book of Concord, study what we believe, teach, and confess about what is necessary for admission to the Sacrament, and get on board. But, the rest of us are not waiting for you to do so. We're moving forward, with or without you. We desire to follow the practice described in our Confessions, admitting our baptized children to the Sacrament when they have learned the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer, been instructed in the Gospel and Sacraments, examined and absolved by the pastor, and desire to receive the Supper for the forgiveness of their sins and strengthening of their faith, regardless of age. <br />
<br />
Will this cause confusion in the synod? Good Lord, I hope so! We need this confusion in a bad way, since this confusion will provide us with an opportunity to catechize our people away from the many misconceptions they have regarding the Sacrament, who should be admitted to it and why, and Confirmation. In the process, we'll have to apologize to them, for they are simply holding to these erroneous beliefs because that's what they were taught.<br />
<br />
They were taught that children must not be admitted to the Sacrament because they're too young and lack the cognitive ability to understand what it is. They were taught that children couldn't possibly understand what it means to examine themselves and receive absolution. They were taught that children were ill-equipped to have faith in these words: "Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins." They were taught that admission to the Sacrament is something that must be earned by going through two years of Confirmation classes and passing all the quizzes, tests, and the public questioning, which has made the Sacrament a sort-of prize for jumping through all the necessary hoops. They were taught that the really big thing - the really important thing - is Confirmation itself, as if Confirmation is a means of grace that delivers forgiveness, life, and salvation to their teenaged children (you know, like a sacrament). They were taught, in short, that the Holy Supper was only for those who had reached some arbitrary "age of reason/discretion" (you know, like Baptists, etc.).<br />
<br />
According to the Roman Catholic Church, "Confirmation is a true sacrament instituted by Christ and different from baptism." Our Lutheran Confessions say, "Hogwash! Nowhere does Christ institute Confirmation as a sacrament. You're making that up, Rome" (I'm paraphrasing). And yet, according to the most common practice among us in our synod, you could make that Roman Catholic statement in many of our congregations and people would nod their heads in agreement. Practice teaches. Our most common practice of withholding the Sacrament from our children until they are teenagers has taught people all the things mentioned above. If you don't believe me, just ask people why we don't admit younger children to the Sacrament. You'll see.<br />
<br />
Besides all that, it must be noted that we would not be witnessing the great shift toward every Sunday Communion that has been occurring among us over the past couple/few decades had we followed this "wait for greater consensus among us" approach. That shift has come about one pastor and congregation at a time moving forward now in the desire to bring their practice in line with our Confessions, which state, "Masses are celebrated among us every Lord's Day and on the other festivals" (Ap. XXIV:1). Some of us have even worked toward celebrating Masses "on the other festivals" where we serve. While that hasn't yet picked up the steam moving toward "every Lord's Day" has, it's a start. In any event, the point is that it's hard enough for Lutherans to bring about change (you all know the joke), since it's nearly impossible for us to ever admit we've been wrong about something (have we ever passed a synodical resolution admitting we were wrong about anything?), so these sorts of salutary changes among us can only be achieved incrementally over time, which, again, happens one pastor and congregation at a time moving forward now.<br />
<br />
Confirmation is not a sacrament. It isn't necessary. It was not instituted by Christ. It has no promises from God's Word attached to it. It is not a means of grace. We have two (or three, or four, depending on how we define things) sacraments, but Confirmation ain't one.<br />
<br />
Confirmation is not a prerequisite for admittance to the Lord's Supper, either. Baptism is. Instruction, examination, and absolution is. But, not Confirmation.<br />
<br />
Confirmation is a humanly ordained, public Rite in the Church, wherein baptized children (and adults) publicly confess the faith bestowed to them at Baptism. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.<br />
<br />
I have nary a problem with Confirmation correctly defined and practiced. There is nothing wrong with the Church establishing a public Rite like this to have her catechumens (whether children or adult) publicly confess their faith before the congregation. Heck, I'm all for throwing a party, eating cake, and giving gifts, too. Nothing wrong with celebrating this. That's a good thing.<br />
<br />
But, I am opposed to what our understanding of Confirmation has become and how we have tied the admission to our Lord's Table to it as a sort-of prize or diploma or something. We should have never allowed that to happen. Dr. Luther would assuredly throw a major tantrum about it were he alive today. I dare say that his comments in the Preface to his Small Catechism would seem rather tame compared to what he would say about making our children wait until they are thirteen or fourteen years old to receive the Supper.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, while I can certainly understand why the people we serve are confused about this and why many of them reflexively object to changing things, there is simply no excuse for my brother pastors to be confused about this or object to changing things. I have been majorly disappointed and, to be perfectly blunt and honest, more than a little ticked, that some of my brother pastors not only object to this, but have even seen fit to run their mouths to my visiting parishioners about how wrong this is and how they can't believe that their pastor (me) would be allowing their small children to commune. It doesn't matter that the said children can recite the Ten Commandments, Creed, and Lord's Prayer from memory right there on the spot, or that they can tell these pastors what they believe about the Lord's Supper and why they want to receive it, all of which is more than probably 87.6% of the adults they'll be communing that day can do, by the way. Nope, doesn't matter. It's just immediately absurd to these guys that these children would be admitted to the altar, which is bad enough, but the fact that some of them also feel compelled to lecture my visiting parishioners about it, as if they've been duped by me into participating in some great heresy or something, is way over the line. If you won't commune these children, who have been instructed, examined, absolved, and admitted by me, then just say no and shut up about it, because the comments you make to them only reveal your ignorance in the matter.<br />
<br />
For my part, I simply don't understand how brother pastors in the same synod would refuse to commune visiting children who have been admitted to the altar in their home congregations. Before we adopted the practice of <i>First Communion Prior to Confirmation</i> where I serve, there were several times when we had visiting children who had been admitted to the altar prior to the "sacred age of 13 or 14," and the possibility of refusing to commune them never entered my thinking. Who am I to excommunicate these children? Their pastor had instructed, examined, absolved, and admitted them, and I'm going to say, "Sorry, no Supper for you"? I don't think so. How absurd!<br />
<br />
And, yes, I know the "but my people will be confused and maybe even scandalized if I communed the young children from your congregation" argument. I don't buy it. First, what would probably happen is that no one would even notice. Second, even if they did and asked you about it, you could simply say, "These children have been admitted to the altar at their home congregation, and I don't think it's right for me to excommunicate them." Third, what a golden opportunity for you to use this to catechize your flock; you're welcome (unless, of course, you're perfectly content with the practice of withholding the Sacrament from children until they're teenagers, which, if you deny visiting youngsters the Sacrament, you probably are, so just scratch this point, I guess). Fourth, do you not think that it's laughably absurd that you deny children who stand before you ready to confess their faith and be examined by you, but readily admit to the Supper any and every visiting older child or adult without batting an eye simply because they belong to another LCMS congregation? In the words of Everett in <i>O Brother, Where Art Thou?</i>, "I don't get it, Big Dan." <br />
<br />
It's right there in the <i>LSB Agenda</i> (pp. 25-27). Check it out. It's approved. Sanctioned. Good to go. As well it should be. Please, for the love of all things sacred, stop acting like it's not. Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-60181765900421864722014-04-05T19:05:00.003-04:002014-04-05T19:05:40.942-04:00Lutheran to Americanized Protestant, Step-by-Step<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhksTCjRd6RvPlB8A5ehcPg3I6H67SBZih60cM18e1t8g5XgOWWC3IbvRIYREoXeyGgyt7jLkg0G5hx2tMZordUFZiRW9dvtNMUU-y67YiERk8D31pqSKCHzePzg6gUlp0ooOoSS9t6Tvw/s1600/praise+band+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhksTCjRd6RvPlB8A5ehcPg3I6H67SBZih60cM18e1t8g5XgOWWC3IbvRIYREoXeyGgyt7jLkg0G5hx2tMZordUFZiRW9dvtNMUU-y67YiERk8D31pqSKCHzePzg6gUlp0ooOoSS9t6Tvw/s1600/praise+band+2.jpg" height="266" width="400" /> </a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b>Step 1</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i>"Ceremonies don't have to be the same everywhere."</i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b>Step 2</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i>"It's all adiaphora."</i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b>Step 3</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i>"God doesn't tell us how to worship."</i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b>Step 4</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i>"Worship should appeal to the unchurched."</i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b>Step 5</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b> </b><i> </i><b> </b><i> "Yes, I'll accept the nomination for District President."</i><b> </b><i> </i><b> </b><i> </i><b> </b> </div>
Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-69850966484294131072014-02-06T13:19:00.000-05:002014-02-06T13:19:43.730-05:00Ken Ham Won<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRQ64YeHyORprvFka4KcZ8j2MjTZ84WFGETp3O908sw0Yloex6NoLNOcL_JyRR78I9PIGlmiOaIdc0drkBqnM4iC9iGUYaqVh0SIiUFUG6xr4eWysJA5iJfUQj0Ov4HW23sTAvOJeRPlA/s1600/Ham-Nye+Debate+pic.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRQ64YeHyORprvFka4KcZ8j2MjTZ84WFGETp3O908sw0Yloex6NoLNOcL_JyRR78I9PIGlmiOaIdc0drkBqnM4iC9iGUYaqVh0SIiUFUG6xr4eWysJA5iJfUQj0Ov4HW23sTAvOJeRPlA/s1600/Ham-Nye+Debate+pic.png" height="428" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
I was finally able to finish watching the debate between Bill Nye the Science Guy and Ken Ham the Creationist Man, which aired live Tuesday night, and can be viewed <a href="http://debatelive.org/"><b>here</b></a>. Ken Ham won. Period. No two ways about it. He was the clear winner of that debate. It really wasn't even close. <br />
<br />
Now, you're going to say, "Well, yeah, you're a pastor, who believes in the Biblical account of Creation, so of course you're going to declare your guy the winner. You're biased!"<br />
<br />
True. I will not even attempt to deny that. I do believe in the Biblical account of Creation. I believe what God reveals to us in Genesis. I am a young-earth Creationist. So, yes, I am biased. <br />
<br />
But, even though you won't believe me, that's not why I'm declaring Ken Ham the clear and decisive winner of the debate. In fact, I don't think he proved his position anymore than Bill Nye proved his, which is understandable, since neither can actually prove his position. I doubt that Mr. Ham changed a lot of minds. At best, he simply held his ground and presented his case. So did Bill Nye. The debate itself was a little disappointing, since it wasn't really a debate, but a mere presentation of positions that are already well known. I would have liked to have seen the two men actually debate one another in a back-and-forth series of questions and answers to one another, which would have been far more interesting.<br />
<br />
Even so, Ken Ham won. Period. No two ways about it.<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
Two reasons:<br />
<br />
1) Mr. Ham knows Mr. Nye's position. He has studied it for years. He knows the ins and outs of the theory of Evolution, where it came from, how it's changed over the years, what's happening now in the secular scientific community, and so on. He is a scientist himself. He knows what Mr. Nye believes, where he's coming from, and why he argues what he argues. <br />
<br />
Mr. Nye, on the other hand, showed very clearly during the debate that he hasn't the first clue what Mr. Ham's position actually is, what he believes, where he's coming from, or why he argues what he argues. Further, he doesn't appear to have the first inkling of interest in learning any of that. He simply dismisses it all out of hand as unreasonable and ignorant, which is par-for-the-course within the secular scientific community today, along with its devoted followers in the liberal media, most of whom couldn't give you a summary overview of what the theory of Evolution actually entails, but never tire of insisting that anyone who doesn't accept it as fact is ignorant and/or insane. <br />
<br />
That reason alone is enough to declare Mr. Ham the winner. You cannot honestly engage in actual debate with a person whose position you don't know, and don't even care to learn. But, that's precisely what Mr. Nye tried to do.<br />
<br />
To his credit, he readily admitted, "I'm no theologian," although making that admission was wholly unnecessary, since it was made painfully obvious every time he opened his mouth about anything Biblical or theological. He kept repeating, as a sort of mantra, "the bible as translated into American English over thirty centuries," evidently believing this to be the spurious and ridiculous basis upon which believers like Mr. Ham base their beliefs. In fact, at one point, he even referenced the old game "Telephone" to poke fun of those who believe in "the bible as translated into American English over thirty centuries," which only really served to poke major fun at himself, since it showed his utter ignorance regarding the mountains of manuscript evidence we have for the Bible, as well as the scientific process involved in producing a Bible today that is extraordinarily accurate (does Mr. Nye not understand that we possess thousands of manuscripts written in the original languages?). His suggestion that Mr. Ham and other believers are trusting a book that has gone through translation after translation after translation, so that, like in the game "Telephone," the message has been altered and changed and is no longer reliable, is something he could have easily avoided had he spent just a wee bit of time researching this before the debate. As it is, he sounded like a pimply-faced teenaged atheist with a blog. It was less than sophomoric.<br />
<br />
The same is true of other statements he made, like when he claimed that referencing the New Testament was "out of the box," since the Creationist position is "based on the Old Testament," further showing his utter ignorance about the Bible. Or like when he asked Mr. Ham if the fish and other animals sinned, since the fossil record shows evidence that some were afflicted with disease and so forth, clearly revealing that he hasn't the first clue regarding the Christian doctrine of the Fall, as recorded in Scripture. Or like when he compared Mr. Ham's recognition that the Bible contains different genres of literature (narrative prose, poetry, prophecy, etc.) to "picking and choosing which parts of the bible to take literally," which doesn't really show a further ignorance of the Bible, but an ignorance of language itself. It was all rather embarrassing. <br />
<br />
In short, what I witnessed in Mr. Nye during this debate was a man completely disinterested in trying to even begin the process of learning where a person like Mr. Ham is coming from, why he believes what he believes and argues what he argues. It seemed like his sole purpose for participating in the debate was to try to highlight how ignorant he believes people like Mr. Ham are, and how dangerous it would be for our country if we didn't abandon wholesale the Creation model espoused by him. Indeed, he kept repeating how voters and citizens in Kentucky and around the country needed to recognize that America would fall behind economically and lose its ranking as a world power if it didn't do so (yeah, he said that - many times!), but it was an epic fail, for the only thing he really accomplished was further proving that secular scientists like him haven't the first clue what Creationists actually believe and, again, aren't the least bit interested in learning what they believe. <br />
<br />
2) Mr. Ham readily admitted several times that he cannot prove his position regarding the origin of the universe. Mr. Nye, not so much. There were a couple of occasions where Mr. Nye admitted that he didn't know something. When asked where the atoms came from that caused the Big Bang, or where consciousness comes from, he said he didn't know, giving the impression that he believes science will one day reveal those answers to us. But, as far as everything having to do with the modern incarnation of the theory of Evolution, he gave the impression throughout the debate that it's all based on scientific fact.<br />
<br />
Mr. Ham pushed the point that there is a difference between observational science done in the present and historical science dealing with the past, but Mr. Nye refused to differentiate between the two. For him, science is science. What we observe today tells us everything we need to know about the past - well, everything but where the atoms came from that caused the Big Bang and where consciousness comes from. But, we can confidently date the age of the earth, know with certainty that all life evolved from some primordial form, and so forth. It's all so neat and clean and factual. Except, it's not.<br />
<br />
There are plenty of secular scientists who believe wholeheartedly in the theory of Evolution, but who readily admit that it's not actually verifiable and provable. In fact, most of them would readily admit that. If they're actual scientists - real, true-blue scientists - they must admit that. And, most do. But, you don't hear about them. They're unnamed. They remain behind the scenes, since they don't write books claiming that anyone who doesn't believe as they do are ignorant and not worthy of attention. They don't appear on television shows pushing political agendas and attacking the beliefs of others regarding the origin of the universe. They're not the Richard Dawkins and Bill Nye types. They're honest scientists, who recognize that science has its limits when it comes to answering questions regarding the origin of the universe. So, they postulate, guess, estimate, and theorize, based on what can be scientifically observed, but they go no further than that in their conclusions. That's not to say that they're not convinced of their conclusions. They are. They would vehemently disagree with Mr. Ham that present-day observational science cannot be extrapolated to explain the past. They would vehemently disagree with Mr. Ham that many of the dating methods they use are unreliable. They would posit confidently that the evidence suggests that the universe is billions of years old, and so forth, but, in the end, they would acknowledge that they cannot prove that their extrapolated conclusions are facts, since, well, they're not facts. They're best guesses and theories and postulations based on multiple assumptions. <br />
<br />
At the end of the day, that's the truth that is being ever more suppressed by the public face of the secular scientific community, supported as they are by the liberal media. The theory of Evolution is no longer presented as a theory, but as established fact, and if you're not hip to jump on that bandwagon, you're a problem. <br />
<br />
So, Mr. Ham won. Not because he put forth more convincing arguments (even though I think he did). Not because he believes what I believe. Not because he did a better job at presenting his position. Not because he tore apart Mr. Nye's arguments (there were many times when I was hoping he would challenge Mr. Nye regarding his obvious ignorance of the Bible, theology, and the actual position of Creationists, but he seemed content to stick pretty close to the vest and simply present his case). Not because he was more engaging with the audience (I actually think Mr. Nye was more engaging). But, solely because he knew his opponent's position and was honest about not being able to prove his own, in direct contrast to his opponent, which would have been blatantly obvious to anyone familiar with both sides of the debate. <br />
<br />
All of that said, I do think Mr. Ham stumbled a bit during the questions from the audience part at the end, especially when asked, "What, if anything, would ever change your mind?" He answered that by saying that he's a Christian and that no one is ever going to convince him that the Word of God is wrong. In his defense, that is an answer to the question, since it included, "if anything." His answer was basically that there isn't anything that would change his mind. Fine. But, as I listened to this, I couldn't help but think that this would have been the perfect time to say, "Show me Jesus' remains. That would change my mind. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, my faith is futile" (1 Cor. 15:12-34). It was the perfect time to launch into the best historical defense we have for our Christian faith - the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ - and to challenge Mr. Nye about it.<br />
<br />
It was a missed opportunity, which was made even more evident when Mr. Nye answered the question masterfully and without hesitation, citing a litany of things that would change him immediately if evidence was provided, and then challenged Mr. Ham to tell him what he can prove. I think it was both Mr. Ham's worst moment and Mr. Nye's best moments of the night.<br />
<br />
Oh well. Can't win 'em all, and it's easy to play Thursday morning quarterback, I suppose. But, it doesn't change the fact that Ken Ham won. Period. No two ways about it.<br />
<br />
Unless you ask Lawrence O'Donnell over at MSNBC, who not only thought Bill Nye was the decisive victor, but was absolutely baffled as to how he kept his composure in the presence of someone as ignorant as Ken Ham:<br />
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/D8fPLitlcr8?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
<br />
Of course, Mr. O'Donnell knows even less than Mr. Nye does about the Bible, Christian theology, and the actual position of Creationists like Mr. Ham. That, and he probably couldn't pass a junior high quiz on the theory of Evolution. So, I'm thinking he might not be the best judge of things here.<br />
<br />
A while back, I had a family member ask me why I had so many Evolution textbooks on my bookshelf in my home study. My answer was that I cannot intelligently speak against something that I don't understand, so I've spent time reading and studying what Evolutionists believe over the years, and still do. Had I seen this debate prior to being asked that question, my response would have been, "I don't want to be like Bill Nye." Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-16778858329860182752013-09-14T13:11:00.002-04:002013-09-14T13:21:39.772-04:00Let's Throw the Baby Into the Dirty Bathwater<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgA1y6TkljBnVAS53zahmGGD73MTStXDG1cm9fGuDhl3DKhfPGez8FFNAs1H1TKxInJj9dkvT1-SpHL9KhVQjTq-iLUq7tHNV8xWzTTEEUEkKY2OUW6Ytp5GnhTXvTkeltdtmT9Wkh6OfM/s1600/baby-with-the-bathwater.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="271" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgA1y6TkljBnVAS53zahmGGD73MTStXDG1cm9fGuDhl3DKhfPGez8FFNAs1H1TKxInJj9dkvT1-SpHL9KhVQjTq-iLUq7tHNV8xWzTTEEUEkKY2OUW6Ytp5GnhTXvTkeltdtmT9Wkh6OfM/s320/baby-with-the-bathwater.png" width="320" /></a></div>
"Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater" is, according to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throw_out_the_baby_with_the_bath_water"><b>Wikipedia</b></a>, <i>"an idiomatic expression and a concept used to suggest an avoidable error in which something good is eliminated when trying to get rid of something bad, or in other words, rejecting the essential along with the inessential."</i><br />
<br />
Fine. That makes sense. We probably should be careful not to eliminate something good when trying to get rid of something bad. I mean, I'm all for protecting babies from being thrown out with the bathwater. But, as is the case with all such idiomatic expressions, this one, cute as it is, often gets mega-abused, especially within the church.<br />
<br />
This expression gets abused because many assume that every resource advertised as Christian contains a baby, no matter how dirty the bathwater may be. But, this is simply not true. Often, such resources are completely baby-less and filled with nothing but dirty bathwater.<br />
<br />
I heard this expression a lot a decade ago when Rick Warren came out with his, "The Purpose Driven Life," which was quickly followed upon with, "The Purpose Driven Church," and several other "Purpose Driven" resources. Many pastors and congregations in the LCMS promoted Warren's resources (some still do), claiming that there's good stuff in there amidst all the bad stuff, i.e., we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.<br />
<br />
To this day, I can't find a baby anywhere in the dirty bathwater of Warren's "Purpose Driven" nonsense. It's all just dirty bathwater, from beginning to end. The baby some LCMS pastors and congregations claim to find in Warren's nonsense doesn't actually exist. If their use of Warren's resources actually produces a baby of some kind, it is because they themselves added the baby when they magically "Lutheranized" Warren's stuff. But, that is quite a different thing altogether, isn't it? That's not avoiding throwing out the baby with the bathwater; that's throwing a baby into the filthy bathwater. And, that's gross. I mean, really, who would support throwing a nice, clean, cute, cuddly, beautiful baby into a bathtub filled with filthy, disgusting water?<br />
<br />
The same could be said about most of the resources produced by pop-American "Christian preachers," writers, leaders, etc. There's no baby in Joel Osteen's stuff, or Joyce Meyer's stuff, or Rob Bell's stuff, or Beth Moore's stuff, or most of the emerging-emergents of our day and age. In fact, I know it sounds awful, but the vast majority of resources one finds lining the shelves of Christian bookstores today are baby-less, filled with nothing more than dirty bathwater. We might manage to find a pacifier or rubber ducky or two as we sift through the filthy bathwater, but we'll not find a baby there, unless we so twist and distort these resources in such a way as to throw a baby in there ourselves. But, again, who would support such an atrocity?<br />
<br />
All of that said, there is certainly a place for this idiomatic expression within the church. I mean, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater here. There are many serious theological resources which are not wholly orthodox, but have much in them worthwhile and edifying. I have a plethora of such resources in my own library, even as I have a section in my library of nothing-but-dirty-bathwater resources, as I think it's important to know the nonsense being marketed as "Christian" out there today, so that I might warn the flock entrusted to my care about it.<br />
<br />
But, my point here is that too often this phrase is used to support the promotion and use of resources that are completely baby-less. It doesn't always apply. Those who support the promotion and use of such baby-less resources can scream "Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater!" till their blue in the face, but what they really mean is, "Let's throw the baby into the dirty bathwater."<br />
<br />
Let's not. Please.<br />
<br />
That's really, really gross! Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-14821741720405376152013-08-02T17:33:00.000-04:002013-08-02T17:33:00.306-04:00A Clergy Optional Church?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGkFCtDLI5ySNZJJd9fMy86Mnfzwfbcr_CA8DonETsmtm1OyR_Io0WTpGml6nfO5AE4ZWMgek14jVam8ccqQVpEP920Bk2Dcsv5PhHDTrFVCzGcmbWrOWtFJgf3y_HSw-pJKvPdLfFy9M/s1600/equipping+the+saints.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="226" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGkFCtDLI5ySNZJJd9fMy86Mnfzwfbcr_CA8DonETsmtm1OyR_Io0WTpGml6nfO5AE4ZWMgek14jVam8ccqQVpEP920Bk2Dcsv5PhHDTrFVCzGcmbWrOWtFJgf3y_HSw-pJKvPdLfFy9M/s400/equipping+the+saints.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
In a <a href="http://jerrykieschnick.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/121/"><b>blog post yesterday</b></a>, former LCMS President Jerry Kieschnick opined that some in our synod "seem intent on moving us toward a clergy dominated church." He provides three examples for why he has arrived at this opinion: 1) the abundance of black shirts and white collars at the recent LCMS Convention, 2) the exclusion of laity from consideration for positions of significant leadership in our church body, and 3) a discernible aloofness and even pharisaical demeanor exhibited by some
pastors, obvious during worship services and in pastoral ministry
functions as well, which telegraphs a "holier than thou" attitude.<br />
<br />
On his first example, I'm not sure which Convention Jerry attended a couple weeks back. I watched a great deal of the Convention via online streaming and I certainly did not see an abundance of black shirts and white collars. In fact, the black shirts and white collars were few and far between. The overwhelming majority of pastoral delegates in attendance were not clad in clergy attire. A few were; most were not. Same with the Council of Presidents. Some wore black; most didn't. Thus, if the prevalence of black shirts and white collars was an actual indicator of some sort of shift toward a clergy dominated LCMS, any objective observer would have to conclude that Jerry has nothing to fear. Of course, this is not an actual indicator of any such thing, and it's beyond silly to pretend as though it is. But, again, if it was an indicator, it would indicate the exact opposite of what Jerry is contending. Doesn't he realize that?<br />
<br />
The second example Jerry puts forth is as mind-boggling as the first, given the fact that laity have always been excluded from consideration for certain positions of significant leadership in our church body. The unknowing reader of Jerry's blog post might get the impression that drastic changes were made at our most recent Convention, which resulted in new exclusions of laity serving in leadership positions in our church body. Um, that did not happen. Of course, Jerry doesn't actually point his readers to any actual changes that have been made here. He just sort of throws this out there and leaves it to the imaginations of his readers. I guess we're just supposed to make our own assumptions and draw our own conclusions as to what he's trying to say, which I think is purposeful on his part. This is called fear-mongering. I think we're going to see a lot of this from Jerry and some of his pals on the Council of Presidents over the next triennium, just as we saw some of this from them in the weeks leading up to the Convention a couple weeks back. Fear-mongering is an oft-used tactic in secular politics, but it's a shame when it is a tactic employed by leaders, and former leaders, in a church body. But, hey, desperate times call for desperate measures, I guess.<br />
<br />
The worst of the three examples Jerry provides is the third. What does he mean by "discernible aloofness" and "pharisaical demeanor"? Does it bother him when pastors conduct themselves in a reverent fashion as they lead worship or perform other pastoral duties? Would he be happier if pastors wore t-shirts and performed their duties in a nonchalant, informal manner, as though they were not serving in the actual Presence of their Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? Actually, based on years of listening to Jerry's thoughts on this issue, I think he would be happier were that the case. After all, during his tenure as our synodical president, he never tired of highlighting pastors and congregations in our synod whose worship practices emulated the worship practices of the Americanized Protestants, who do not believe Jesus is Present during worship. He even had a link in the President's section of our synod's website devoted to highlighting such pastors and congregations. And, as he wrote in an email missive last year (March 1, 2012), which is referenced in a blog post I wrote <a href="http://abideinmyword.blogspot.com/2012/03/dignified-informality.html"><b>here</b></a>, his opinion is that "to the greatest extent possible, pastors and other worship leaders do
well to design and conduct services that . . . are conducted in what
might be called a spirit of dignified informality." Evidently, if pastors conduct themselves in a spirit of dignified formality, they exhibit a "discernible aloofness" and "pharisaical demeanor." I mean, God forbid that pastors actually behave as though they believe they're in the actual Presence of Jesus, and that reverence and awe are in order because of that. If they behave that way, the laity might start believing that stuff, too. We can't have that. That would take all the fun and entertainment out of worship, and we've been trying really hard since the 1980s to show the world that Lutheran worship can be just as fun and entertaining as the worship of the non-denominational mega-church down the road. Sigh.<br />
<br />
Besides the fact that Jerry's "dignified informality" position is oxymoronic, as I point out in the blog post linked above, I hasten to point out that his inclusion of this third example in yesterday's blog post reeks of a "holier than thou" attitude on his part. Not only that, but, given that he makes this observation in light of our recent Convention, he seems to be slamming Pastors William Weedon and Ben Ball, who were the Chaplains during the Convention and lead the worship services. No doubt it irked Jerry when he saw both of these fine, faithful pastors conduct themselves with dignified formality, rather than the dignified informality he prefers. I can only imagine his angst when he saw them bow at the Name of the Holy Trinity or hold their hands together when reading God's Holy Word, etc. Oh, what discernible aloofness and pharisaical demeanor they displayed! Sigh (again).<br />
<br />
None of the three examples Jerry puts forth supports his conclusion that we're moving in the direction of being a clergy dominated church. All three are examples of fear-mongering. Nothing more and nothing less. What Jerry and his pals are really worried about is the sense they have that their "Everyone a Minister" theology, which they spent so much effort introducing among us, is beginning to fizzle away. They are worried that our Lutheran theology of the Office of the Holy Ministry, which in no way dishonors our theology of the priesthood of all believers, is beginning to resurface among us. They are worried that their faulty view and understanding of the so-called "Great Commission," which comes not from our Lutheran theology, but from the theology and principles advanced by the proponents of the Church Growth Movement, will be shown to be faulty (for an excellent summary of the popular, but faulty, view and understanding of the so-called "Great Commission," see Pr. Todd Wilken's two-part article in the <a href="http://issuesetc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/JOURNAL-SUMMER-11a.pdf"><b>Summer 2011</b></a> and <a href="http://issuesetc.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/JOURNAL-FALL-11.pdf"><b>Fall 2011</b></a> "Issues, Etc. Journal"). They are worried that the clergy optional church they've been championing for years will be shown to be incompatible with our Lutheran confession of the faith.<br />
<br />
Make no mistake, the "Everyone a Minister" theology adhered to by Jerry and friends does lead to a Clergy Optional Church. It posits that pastors are nice and all, but they aren't necessary. Anyone who is "lead by the Spirit" can preach or baptize or administer communion, according to this theology. In fact, the main purpose of pastors or "any spirit-lead church leaders," according to this theology, is to "equip the laity to do the Ministry." We're all in this together, after all, clergy and laity alike - it's our joint mission to save the lost and make disciples of Jesus.<br />
<br />
The main Biblical texts used to support this theology are Matthew 28:18-20 (the so-called "Great Commission" text) and Ephesians 4:11-12, quoted by Jerry in his blog post. Again, see Pr. Wilken's fine, two-part article linked above regarding the so-called "Great Commission" text. Just as that text does not support the "Everyone a Minister" theology, neither does the text from Ephesians 4, contrary to Jerry's assertion otherwise.<br />
<br />
Now, I understand Jerry's confusion on this one, to be sure. Most modern English translations render Eph. 4:12 in such a way as to have the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers of verse 11 "equipping the saints for the work of ministry." Indeed, translated this way, Eph. 4:12 has become a <i>sedes doctrinae</i> for the "Everyone a Minister" theology that rules Americanized Protestantism. The apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers exist to equip the saints, the people, the laity, to do the work of the ministry. The ministry and mission of the Church is done by the people out in the world; the purpose of the Church's leaders, whatever they may be called, is to train and equip the people to get out there and get that work done. So, yes, I understand Jerry's confusion. He's just parroting the popular understanding of this controverted verse, much as he does with the so-called "Great Commission" text, as well as that ever-so-popular "all things to all people" text (1 Cor. 9:22), which is often proudly marshaled out by those defending contemporary worship and the dignified informality Jerry prefers, because, you know, that's what St. Paul meant by that verse . . . not. But, I digress.<br />
<br />
The problem for Jerry is that his understanding of Eph. 4:11-12, while certainly in line with Americanized Protestantism, and with the principles of the Church Growth Movement, is not consistent with our Lutheran confession of the faith, or with the way these verses have been traditionally translated and interpreted throughout the history of the church catholic. The controversy over the translation of Eph. 4:12, which has to do with how that verse should be punctuated, has produced much ink over the past couple centuries, but, prior to that, the controversy simply didn't exist. The traditional understanding of these controverted verses, and the one our own Lutheran forefathers held, was that the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers of verse 11, all of which belong to the One Office of the Holy Ministry, are given to the Church "to perfect the saints, for the work of the Ministry, and for the edifying (building up) of the Body of Christ." In other words, the three prepositional phrases of verse 12 are functions performed by our Lord Jesus Christ through the men He calls into His Office of the Holy Ministry.<br />
<br />
Of course, my pointing this out will just add fuel to Jerry's fears, setting them ablaze (see what I did there?). I'm a black-shirt, white-collar wearing clergy type, after all. What's worse, I'm one of those "holier than thou" types, who conducts the Divine Service in a spirit not of dignified informality, but of reverent formality. I make the sign of the cross, bow, elevate, genuflect, chant, preach Law and Gospel, and hold my hands just so, and not out of some "unintended byproduct of a deep and sincere piety," which Jerry may find in his heart to excuse, but in an intended, deliberate, ceremonial fashion, so as to teach the saints I'm blessed to serve that our Lord Jesus Christ is Present among us and that, because of that glorious reality, reverence and awe are certainly in order, which Jerry would not excuse, but identify as "discernible aloofness" and "pharisaical demeanor." It's guys like me that Jerry's warning you about. But, I'm okay with that. Really, I am.<br />
<br />
People in the Missouri Synod can rest easy. We're not moving in the direction of becoming some fearful, clergy dominated church body. We're rediscovering our Lutheran confession of the faith, and that's a wonderful thing, for our Lutheran confession of the faith does not pit clergy against laity, as the fear-mongerers among us will continue to suggest, but rather maintains the Biblical and Confessional distinction between them, without elevating one over the other. Luther himself is the champion <i>par excellance</i> of the priesthood of all believers theology, but he would have some pretty choice words to express in opposition to the popular "Everyone a Minister" theology so prevalent today, which has bewitched our own synod into forsaking AC XIV (and, really, AC V, along with it), something that a great many of us, clergy and laity alike, are prayerfully hoping will soon be corrected.<br />
<br />
At the end of the day, Jerry's argument is not with our current synodical administration or with pastors like me, but with Christ Himself, who created the Office of the Holy Ministry, and distinguished this Office from the priesthood of all believers, giving this Office the task of preaching repentance and the forgiveness of sins in His Name; of baptizing and catechizing the saints and leading them to the Holy Altar, where He fulfills His promise to be with His Church always. Contrary to the clergy optional, "Everyone a Minister" theology, the making of disciples - the Ministry and Mission of Christ's Holy Church - is fulfilled at the font, pulpit, and altar in the Church, not out in the neighborhoods by the saints "equipped to do the Ministry." The saints are not equipped to do the Ministry, but are blessed recipients of the Ministry. They do not go out into the world as missionaries and evangelists, but as baptized believers in Christ, who live out their Holy Spirit-given faith within their God-given vocations. Should they always be ready to provide a defense for the hope that they have in Jesus? Sure. But, to pretend as though they are Ministers or Missionaries, equipped and sent out to do the work of the Ministry, is to completely misunderstand both the Office of the Holy Ministry and the priesthood of all believers. Not only that, but it places an unnecessary burden upon the laity that our Lord Himself did not place upon them. They need not worry themselves over whether or not they're doing their part to reach and save the lost; it's not given them to reach and save the lost. In fact, that's not even given to the men who bear the yoke of the stole in Christ's Office. Christ Himself will reach and save all the lost who will be reached and saved. It's His Ministry and Mission, and He will fulfill it perfectly, even while using imperfect people, both clergy and laity, each in their distinctive roles, to do so.<br />
<br />
A Clergy Dominated Church? No, not at all. A Clergy Optional Church? Nope, not that either. Christ's Holy Church, made up of all believers in Him, where He fulfills His Ministry and Mission in the manner He Himself has established? Amen. Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-43499202673262703232013-07-11T14:57:00.000-04:002013-07-11T14:57:45.488-04:00AC XIV or Not? <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9C6QbzNRyfchQGCr-m1C5YAapNEVVPyIP1ima5hfT5BWIGHfEGDHM6t3WMaqOG5IK4jhjD4_4g4X-JkvSyNhz8-ko2K6rxP7goyNkLKeE73AnzWuXruq9Zf1ZxD2BuZ-C3c4lao1Yh_I/s1600/No+AC+XIV.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9C6QbzNRyfchQGCr-m1C5YAapNEVVPyIP1ima5hfT5BWIGHfEGDHM6t3WMaqOG5IK4jhjD4_4g4X-JkvSyNhz8-ko2K6rxP7goyNkLKeE73AnzWuXruq9Zf1ZxD2BuZ-C3c4lao1Yh_I/s320/No+AC+XIV.jpg" width="303" /></a></div>
Article XIV of the Augsburg Confession (AC XIV) states: <i>"Of
Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly
teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be
regularly called." </i><br />
<br />
It's right there in black-and-white for all Lutherans to read. You can't miss it. Neither can you magically try to make it mean something other than what it says, although countless people have tried to do just that.<br />
<br />
What you can do is ignore it or just strike it from the record, pretending that it either never existed or that it no longer applies to Lutherans today. That's what the LCMS did during its Convention in Wichita back in 1989. Ever since then, AC XIV has read like this in the LCMS:<br />
<br />
<i><strike>"Of
Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly
teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be
regularly called."</strike></i><br />
<br />
<i><strike> </strike></i><br />
AC XIV is meaningless in our synod today. It's been struck out, abolished, replaced by this:<br />
<br />
<i>"Of
Ecclesiastical Order WE teach that no one should publicly
teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be
regularly called, or unless he or she is licensed to do so without a regular call by one of our Districts."</i><br />
<br />
Or, to summarize it even further: <i>"Of Ecclesiastical Order WE teach that everyone is a minister," </i>since, let's face it, the "everyone a minister" principle of the Church Growth Movement is really what prompted our synod to abolish AC XIV, and still has a bewitching effect on those among us who continue to defend our doing away with that Article. <br />
<br />
Now, arguments could be made to show how the LCMS has also abandoned other Articles of the Augsburg Confession, but, as far as I'm aware, AC XIV is the only one that it has *officially* discarded as meaningless. Of the other Articles that could be questioned, the LCMS still at least pretends to take them seriously and abide by them on paper, even if they have become as meaningless in practice as has AC XIV (AC V, XI, and XXIV come to mind here).<br />
<br />
This summer's LCMS Convention will be the eighth Convention since our synod abolished AC XIV in 1989. In every Convention since then, this issue has come up in one way or another, but it's never been resolved. Evey attempt to cover up the sin of abolishing one of the Articles of our Chief Confession has been as futile as the fig leaves employed by Adam and Eve in the Garden. We've had this or that program introduced that brought hope to those who realize our synodical sin, but they've all failed. They have resulted in nothing more than adding an additional fig leaf or two. The same is true of the latest hope-inducing program, introduced into our midst at the 2007 Convention, the Specific Ministry Pastor program (SMP). It's just another fig leaf. Nothing more.<br />
<br />
In fact, what many seem to forget, or just don't know, is that the real reason the SMP was initiated by the previous synodical administration had to do with the delusions of grandeur they had about creating 2,000 new LCMS congregations by 2017, as part of their Ablaze!(tm) program, movement, or whatever they called it. The idea was that we needed to find a way to fast-track men toward ordination, since there were going to be all these new congregations planted. These men would be under the supervision of the pastor(s) of the congregations that would plant these new congregations, or satellites, or whatever, and thus would only be ordained to be pastors in the specific contexts of these new church plants.<br />
<br />
Of course, that has all changed now. The SMP program is much broader than that today. It has become just another alternate route among us to the Office of the Holy Ministry, and many who take this route are ordained not to serve new church plants, but to serve within existing congregations as assistant, or associate, pastors of this or that "ministry" (youth pastor, evangelism pastor, etc.). Many among us, who were not keen on the SMP program, embraced it, hoping that it would be a way to phase out the various deacon and lay ministry programs many of our districts have in place, so that we could finally restore AC XIV within our synod. But, that hasn't happened. The various deacon and lay programs many of our districts have remain in place, and are being vigorously defended by their districts, many of which passed resolutions at their district conventions last summer to commend their programs, as a sort-of warning shot across the bow of synod announcing that they won't go down without a fight.<br />
<br />
So, here we stand on the brink of another LCMS Convention. Several overtures were submitted to address this issue, the vast majority of which resolved to rescind 1989 Res. 3-05B, which brought about the abolishing of AC XIV in our synod. In fact, only three of the fourteen or so overtures sent in on this subject resolved to affirm 1989 Res. 3-05B (those overtures were sent in by the Pacific Southwest, Northwest, and Mid-South Districts). All of this produced Resolution 4-06, "To Address Questions re Service Apart from AC XIV," which will be brought to the floor for consideration at our Convention in less than two weeks.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, Res. 4-06 merely resolves to catechize on this issue, study this issue, and appoint a task force to develop a plan to address this issue, which, if passed, will be reported to the 2016 Convention. This means that we will continue to live as a Lutheran synod who has abolished one of the Articles of our Chief Confession for at least another three years. But, hey, we have been living that way for twenty-four years already, so what's another three years among friends?<br />
<br />
Seriously, I hope and pray that Res. 4-06 passes and that a plan is developed to phase out deacon and lay ministry in our synod by 2016, although I am always a bit befuddled by the necessity of task forces and years of study for issues like this, which couldn't be anymore black-and-white. I mean <i>"Of
Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly
teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be
regularly called" </i>seems pretty straight forward to me. Am I missing something? Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-51214854882692755922013-06-21T11:30:00.001-04:002013-06-21T11:30:25.830-04:00Jerry's Suggestion<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQ8Llxp01scZHYsnyG6Gm0IZWEoqM9kxl339GKD5rNopAwZih-9K9j_h7phNcqNl1w2aLcuc5EZKnFKzAm0R14pbnPk_X4SmznSHiJVMYBTI5g8Gu5s2yvshHXf2zoGizDtdsOcGzEWGw/s1600/jerry+kieschnick.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQ8Llxp01scZHYsnyG6Gm0IZWEoqM9kxl339GKD5rNopAwZih-9K9j_h7phNcqNl1w2aLcuc5EZKnFKzAm0R14pbnPk_X4SmznSHiJVMYBTI5g8Gu5s2yvshHXf2zoGizDtdsOcGzEWGw/s1600/jerry+kieschnick.jpg" /></a></div>
In his <a href="http://jerrykieschnick.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/76/"><b>weekly missive yesterday</b></a>, former synodical president, Jerry Kieschnick, chimed in on the upcoming election for LCMS president, which will take place online, beginning tomorrow, June 22, and concluding on June 25. In his missive, he writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Here’s my suggestion, humbly and respectfully offered. Ask your district
president for his counsel. Unless the pastoral and lay delegates from
your congregation did not attend last year’s triennial district
convention, your congregation participated in your district president’s
election. He is a trusted leader in your midst. And he knows all three
nominees for LCMS president.</i></blockquote>
Evidently, Jerry missed the memo. As we have seen, some of the district presidents aren't waiting around for delegates to seek their counsel, but have already <a href="http://abideinmyword.blogspot.com/2013/06/cops-gone-wild.html"><b>sent out campaign letters</b></a> in the hope of swaying delegates to vote for the candidate of their choice. Or, maybe Jerry didn't miss the memo at all, and this is his way of offering his "humble and respectful" support to those district presidents, who have already chimed in, while encouraging delegates from other districts to contact their district presidents, who haven't sent out campaign letters, for whatever reason (maybe, hopefully, out of a sense of decency and ecclesiastical tact). Whatever the case, the message from Jerry is clear: District presidents know best, and they should play a significant role in the process of electing our synodical president. After all, these dudes have been elected to serve their districts, so they must be trusted leaders in our midst.<br />
<br />
It's kind of ironic, isn't it? Three years ago, Jerry was soundly defeated in his bid to be reelected as synodical president, as Matthew Harrison was elected on the first ballot by a pretty significant margin, as far as LCMS presidential elections have gone in the past decades. Shouldn't that make him a trusted leader in our midst? Maybe we should just forgo asking our district presidents for their counsel and ask Harrison for his.<br />
<br />
What a grand idea! Thanks, Jerry. President Harrison is a trusted leader in our midst. He knows all three nominees for LCMS president. I'm going to ask him, and I humbly and respectfully advise all delegates to do the same: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Dear President Harrison,</i><br />
<br />
<i>You were elected to serve as our synodical president in July, 2010, which makes you a trusted leader among us. I am writing to seek your counsel in regard to the upcoming election for synodical president. You know all three candidates. For whom do you think I should vote?</i><br />
<br />
<i>Sincerely,</i><br />
<i>In Christ,</i><br />
<i>Rev. Thomas C. Messer</i><br />
<i>Peace Lutheran Church, Alma, MI</i></blockquote>
Okay, so, no, I'm not really going to send that inquiry to President Harrison, and neither do I really advise delegates to do so. I'm just trying to highlight the irony and absurdity of Jerry's "humble and respectful" suggestion here, especially the bit about our district presidents being "trusted leaders" by virtue of being elected. If we have learned anything of late, the district presidents who have chosen to forsake all sense of decency and engage in electioneering have proven themselves to be anything but "trusted leaders." <br />
<br />
That Jerry Kieschnick would send out this suggestive missive just a few days before the polls open is not surprising, given the fact that he has seen fit to offer his own not-so-humble and disrespectful commentary and criticism regarding our current synodical president, jumping on the bandwagon of the criticism heaped upon our synod and its president a few months back. He even sent out an <a href="http://gottesdienstonline.blogspot.com/2013/02/who-isnt-ashamed-of-gospel.html"><b>"Early Edition" of his "Perspectives" back on February 11</b></a>, which included a section sub-titled "People are asking . . .," wherein he noted that lots of people were asking him whether or not he'd be willing to serve again as our synodical president, how he was humbled by that, how he has always believed that the office should seek the man and not the man the office, which was followed up by a reminder that the deadline for nominations was quickly approaching and seemed to be the reason for the "Early Edition" of his "Perspectives," even though he was totally not seeking the office in any way - totally. So, not surprising at all. This is the same sort of "Ecclesiastical-ness" we all grew so fond of during Jerry's tenure as our synodical president, where churchly matters were often handled behind the locked doors of Executive Sessions, and where lawyers, bylaws, and CCM opinions were consulted before, or even in lieu of, Holy Scripture and our Lutheran Confessions, and where the ends always justified the means, so that the circling of the wagons was always employed to protect the institution of Synod, Inc. and we never heard any repentant apologies from our "trusted leaders" about anything (if I'm wrong about that, show me). Nothing says "Ecclesiastical" like Executive Sessions, lawyers, bylaws, CCM opinions, and the circling of the wagons. If that's your bag, by all means, contact your district presidents for counsel. <br />
<br />
As for me, as soon as the polls open and I can cast my vote, I will do so for President Harrison, as will the lay delegate of the congregation I am blessed to serve. And, amazingly, we will be able to do so without having contacted our district president for his counsel. Go figure! We will do so not because President Harrison has the right vision or is trodding the right path, or because he's just more awesomer than the other candidates. We will do so simply because he shares our confession of the faith, promotes that confession, and desires to live and lead by that confession, which includes his ready admission that he is a sinner in need of Jesus Christ. He's transparent, unafraid to speak his mind or answer questions directly put to him in a direct manner (rather than screening questions in advance to formulate the best political answer), an excellent theologian, has a true pastor's heart, and will readily admit when he's wrong, repent, and seek forgiveness - you know, like a Lutheran. <br />
<br />
So, thanks for the "humble and respectful" suggestion, Jerry, but I'm good. Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-44437634477320753142013-06-20T12:06:00.000-04:002013-06-21T11:36:06.810-04:00COPs Gone Wild<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOffSIou0XUgEfXOjzXK6GaUSWnvf5InBPPpTMscnX93IZg4ZFVMCYL-ChhNKbo-y5oRKkJ-m7lKbHNL4yFpA6I45K6UyHq7fmPKC7HayYKeIouRF2yC81SJqXFadsNHxt7AxOxLPMguk/s1600/Corrupt+Cop.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOffSIou0XUgEfXOjzXK6GaUSWnvf5InBPPpTMscnX93IZg4ZFVMCYL-ChhNKbo-y5oRKkJ-m7lKbHNL4yFpA6I45K6UyHq7fmPKC7HayYKeIouRF2yC81SJqXFadsNHxt7AxOxLPMguk/s400/Corrupt+Cop.jpg" width="266" /></a></div>
The LCMS Council of Presidents (COPs) have often been referred to as the "8th Commandment Police," which is a nickname that only slightly edges out the other nickname by which they are also affectionately known: the "Blogging Police."<br />
<br />
They have come to be known by these nicknames because some of the COPs have often issued missives, either in written or oral form, decrying what they deem to be crass violations of the 8th Commandment among the Lutherans they serve, especially within the crotchety realm of the Lutheran blogosphere. In fact, word has it that portions of COPs meetings have been devoted to addressing this issue, so concerned are some who belong to that high and venerable Council about this.<br />
<br />
But, one wonders where the COPs are now? Some of their own venerable members have taken a liking to trampling all over the 8th Commandment lately, but not a peep of concern has been heard (at least, publicly) from any of the other members. Strange, that. Even stranger is the fact that those intent on setting the 8th Commandment aside in the attempt to score political points are among the loudest voices on the COPs decrying 8th Commandment violations, especially in the Lutheran blogosphere.<br />
<br />
I guess the lesson we are to learn from this is that the COPs are above reproach. What is good for the goose is not good for the gander, since not all geese are equal in our synod. The 8th Commandment simply doesn't apply to certain Geese, who reside in certain, plush District offices. They are above the Law (hey, wasn't that a Steven Seagal movie?). For them, the end justifies the means. If the 8th Commandment must be obliterated in order to accomplish some self-perceived "higher good," so be it.<br />
<br />
The first member of the COPs to forsake all sense of decency and use the power and resources of his office to do some dirty electioneering was Paul Linnemann, District President of the Northwest District of the LCMS. He sent out <a href="http://thebarebulb.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/dp-email.pdf"><b>an email to voting delegates</b></a> in his District to tell them about the two distinct paths he has witnessed forming in our synod. It is obvious to anyone reading his email that he is a big fan of the second path he describes, which, according to him, is being trod by his fellow District President, David Maier. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Linnemann sent this email out to voting delegates in his District to campaign for Maier. And, if one didn't know any better, one might be swayed by what Linnemann writes, for golly gee willickers, who would want a synodical president like Matt Harrison, who is "seeking to concentrate the activity and authority in the church in the office of pastor," and who doesn't want to engage the culture in which we live with the Gospel, but follows "a paradigm of limitation"? I mean, Harrison sounds like a big, fat jerk, especially when compared to how Linnemann describes Maier: "As the leader of the largest District in the LCMS, he has fostered a spirit of collegiality and trust among the people of his District." That sounds wonderful. I'll take two of those, please.<br />
<br />
But, Linnemann's distasteful 8th-Commandment-Be-Damned politickin' was rather tame in comparison to the most recent diatribe from another one of the above-the-law COPs, Robert "call me Bob" Newton, District President of the California-Nevada-Hawaii District of the LCMS. There is no subtlety to <a href="http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1100453991997-1932/Letter+to+Presidental+Voters.pdf"><b>Bob's campaign email he sent to delegates</b></a> in his district. He just comes right out and slams Harrison, taking <a href="http://witness.lcms.org/pages/wPage.asp?ContentID=1347&IssueID=77"><b>a quote from him in the May issue of <i>The Lutheran Witness</i></b></a> completely out of context in the attempt to convince voting delegates in his district that Harrison believes the preaching of the Gospel should only happen within the walls of our churches and be kept "far from the earshot of those who have not yet heard." Yeah, because a) that is an accurate description of the dude who happens to be the first LCMS President to testify before a congressional hearing in D.C., and b) that is totally what Harrison was saying in that article - totally.<br />
<br />
Another member of the 8th-Commandment-Breaking 8th Commandment Police Squad, Chris Wicher, District President of the Eastern District of the LCMS, said the heck with sending out an email to voting delegates in his District limited to campaigning for Maier's election as synodical president. He went a step further and sent out <a href="http://steadfastlutherans.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Missional-List.pdf"><b>a "Missional List"</b></a> with suggested candidates for many of the elections to be conducted at our upcoming Synodical Convention. I mean, why limit your electioneering to the highest office in the synod when you can use the power and resources of your District office to go ahead and endorse a whole slate of candidates? <br />
<br />
So much for fearing and loving God so that we do not tell lies about our neighbor, betray him, slander him, or hurt his reputation, but defend him, speak well of him, and explain everything in the kindest way. There's an election at stake here! We cannot let something like the 8th Commandment get in the way of our very important campaign. The future of our synod depends on this, after all! Harrison must be ousted. If we reelect him, he might pass some edict from on high which prevents us from ever saying anything about Jesus anywhere at any time, except within the confines of our churches, of course.<br />
<br />
What a joke these men and their letters are - a disgraceful, disgusting, sickening joke! And, what hypocrisy! The "8th Commandment Police" doing such violence to the 8th Commandment themselves is like the corrupt cop who takes money from the mob, but pretends to be a cop on the up-and-up, or who, like in the pic above, claims to protect and serve citizens, while using every opportunity he can to beat the crap out of them in the name of performing his duties.<br />
<br />
Not all cops are corrupt, of course. Neither are all COPs. Which is why it surprises me that none of the other COPs have issued public statements of concern over the unprecedented and disgraceful electioneering of their brother COPs. Will none of the other COPs speak up in defense of Harrison's reputation being damaged by these renegades? Is this just the preview of things to come in future elections, where the COPs will become the political activists in our synod, using the power and resources of their District offices to disparage other COPs in order to campaign for their preferred candidate?<br />
<br />
I wonder how these renegade COPs would feel about President Harrison sending out an email to all the delegates in their Districts prior to their own elections in a couple of years, campaigning against them by twisting their words, misrepresenting their positions, and endorsing one of the candidates running against them. Oh, wait, never mind. These guys believe that what is good for the goose is not good for the gander, as mentioned above. They would most certainly cry "Foul!" were someone to have the audacity to send their delegates an email campaigning against them, just as they decry all the 8th-Commandment-Breaking in the Lutheran blogosphere, but have no problem breaking it themselves.<br />
<br />
Of course, these renegade COPs have nothing to worry about here, as President Harrison wouldn't stoop to their level and use the power and resources of his office to actively campaign against them in their own Districts. I think they know that, which is why they don't fear putting aside all decency and engaging in such disgraceful electioneering. But, can't any of the other COPs chime in and call these renegades out on their despicable behavior?<br />
<br />
And, what is the theme song for these renegade COPs? I think it's something like:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
"Bad Prez, Bad Prez,</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Whatcha gonna do?</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Whatcha gonna do</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
When we come for you?"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
These are a few of your Ecclesiastical Supervisors, O Lutherans. Kind of changes the meaning of "ecclesiastical," doesn't it? <br />
<br />
UPDATE: Since posting this yesterday, it was pointed out that the Florida-Georgia District had sent out a campaign letter, which you can read <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20004420/Voting%20Delegate%20Letter.pdf"><b>here</b></a>. So, for those keeping score at home, please add that district to the list of those engaging in shameful and disgraceful electioneering. </div>
Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-909887698725921902013-06-05T13:57:00.002-04:002013-06-05T17:26:32.422-04:00Our Synod's Biggest Challenge?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWqAZeNd82n1zsoty2dSe1RGjyuHScQDkRogScgEL_1aeI92XP6gJxCB-TjsuU5OfyGs19sCXm6Ej603xuuvOLid_2rhI3osT077bZv2UZrTLoIjtCeHYX_bZDdUSklBnJwnJS_pTJjbQ/s1600/David+Maier+quote.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="364" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWqAZeNd82n1zsoty2dSe1RGjyuHScQDkRogScgEL_1aeI92XP6gJxCB-TjsuU5OfyGs19sCXm6Ej603xuuvOLid_2rhI3osT077bZv2UZrTLoIjtCeHYX_bZDdUSklBnJwnJS_pTJjbQ/s640/David+Maier+quote.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
On the Friends of David Maier Facebook page, the following was shared today:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We like this response that David Maier gave to the Florida Georgia District when asked various questions.<br />
<br />
(See if there is something you can do today to encourage others to support David Maier for Synod president.)<br />
<br />
How would you describe the biggest challenge facing the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod today?<br />
<br />
I’d like to answer that question by telling this brief story I remember
reading or hearing. The story was about 2 brothers who each had a son.
For their sons Spring Break they decided to go fishing at their
favorite summer fishing hole in north Texas. To make it more fun the
four of them decided to also camp in the camper on the rear of the truck
of one of the brothers. Everything was fine and dandy until rising
early the next morning with the expectation of a full day of fishing
ahead them, they opened the camper door and experienced an early north
Texas spring storm with snow and 30 MPH winds. They closed the camper
door and decided to play cards the rest of the day. The also did a
little bit of drinking to pass the time. It wasn't an all-bad day,
talking about fishing and how they would rather be on the water. The
next morning the weather was just as bad with a little snow and a whole
lot of rain. They spent their time like the previous day playing cards,
doing a little reading, getting on each other’s nerves all the more.
By supper that night, with the wind a little warmer but still howling,
they not only stayed inside and didn't fish, but jabbed at each other
with cutting comments and sarcasm and began “fighting.” So they packed
up and went home. <br />
<br />
The "moral" of the story was, "When you don't fish, you fight." <br />
<br />
We’ve to stop fighting each other. God has called us to "fish," to
take the truths of Scripture, especially that God loves the world - God
loves sinners (even a one like me), to take that Gospel message - which
is still the power of God unto salvation – and declare it to the world.
To be sure doctrine is important. Our Synod’s first President, C.F.W.
Walther, recognized good doctrine as tantamount to a farmer having and
sowing good seed: it is the only way to ensure a good harvest. BUT,
having good seed, we must sow it (Matthew 28:18-20) – (we must fish),
demonstrating our concern for those who face a Christless eternity! <i><b>I
believe that God wants us to spend more time finding better methods for
equipping, encouraging, and supporting our laity in the mission work
within our neighborhoods and communities – especially as we face the
rise of secularism and Islam – and less time examining the doctrinal
purity and practice of others.</b></i> How we relate to one another says much
about our theology, our God, and our relevance to the world. (Cf.1 John
4:7-16) [Emphasis mine]</blockquote>
Wait, what? Did nominee Maier just describe the biggest challenge facing the LCMS with a story about a Spring Break fishing trip with two fathers and their two sons? Seriously? Call me dense, but wasn't it the weather that prevented the fathers and sons from being able to fish? Shouldn't the "moral" of the story be, "When the weather's bad, you can't fish"? I mean, the "moral" that nominee Maier shares doesn't make a bit of sense. Is he trying to suggest that two fathers and their two sons will necessarily start fighting if the weather prevents them from fishing? My best friend and his son spent a week with my son and me a few years back at my parents' cottage fishing and hanging out. There were a couple of days when the weather prevented us from fishing. We didn't fight. So much for the "moral" of the story.<br />
<br />
But, worse than the silly story with its silly "moral" is the fact that nominee Maier believes that the biggest challenge facing the LCMS is that we're not spending enough time "finding better methods for equipping, encouraging, and supporting our laity in the mission work within our neighborhoods and communities" and too much time "examining the doctrinal purity and practice of others." Amazingly, he uses C.F.W. Walther, our Synod's first President, to give the impression that he understands that doctrine is important, but then he does the VERY THING Walther himself already warned our Synod about in his day, as he goes on to state that our problem is too much focus on doctrine and not enough focus on reaching the lost. One wonders if nominee Maier has actually read what Walther had to say on this issue, because he couldn't possibly butcher our first President's position on this any more than he has here. <br />
<br />
Here are a few quotes from C.F.W. Walther related to this issue:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Many say, 'Instead of disputing over doctrine so much, we should much
rather be concerned with souls and with leading them to Christ.' But all
who speak in this way do not really know what they are saying or what
they are doing. As foolish as it would be to scold a farmer for being
concerned about sowing good seed and to demand of him simply to be
concerned about a good harvest, so foolish it is to scold those who are
concerned first and foremost with the doctrine, and to demand of them
that they should rather seek to rescue souls. For just as the farmer
who wants a good crop must first of all be concerned about good seed, so
the church must above all be concerned about right doctrine if it would
save souls. - C.F. W. Walther, "Our Common Task: the Saving of
Souls" 1872<br />
<br />
Whether our Synod gains friends or makes enemies, wins honor or invites
disgrace, grows or declines in numbers, brings peace or incites enmity,
all this must be unimportant to us-just so our Synod may keep the jewel
of purity of doctrine and knowledge. However, should our Synod ever grow
indifferent toward purity of doctrine, through ingratitude forget this
prize, or betray or barter it away to the false church, then let our
church body perish and the name <i>Missourian </i>decay in disgrace. - C.F.W. Walther, "First Sermon Delivered at the Opening of Synod" (1 Cor. 1:4-5).<br />
<br />
Oh my dear friends of the Lutheran faith, confession, and conflict, do
not be misled when today those are everywhere accused of lovelessness
who still do not give up the battle for pure doctrine in our Church. . .
. Oh my dear friends, let us indeed sorrow and lament over this: that
false teachers constantly assail the pure doctrine in our Church and
thus are at fault for the conflict and strife in the Church. However,
let us never lament but rather extol and praise God that he always
awakens men who fight against those false teachers, for, I repeat, this
pertains to "the common salvation." . . . This conflict is one commanded
us by God and is therefore certainly one blessed in time and in
eternity. . . . Oh, therefore, let us never listen to those who praise
and extol the conflict of the Reformation for the pure Gospel but want
to know nothing of a similar conflict in our days. - C. F. W. Walther, "Why Dare and Can We Never Give Up the Church's Struggle for the Pure Doctrine?" 1876</blockquote>
Nominee Maier sounds a LOT like our former Synodical President, Jerry Kieschnick, who never tired of making it known that he believed our synod's biggest problem was that many among us "wasted time on incessant internal purification at the expense of the lost in the world." What he never seemed able to grasp, and what nominee Maier seems equally unable to grasp, is that the biggest problem our Synod faces is that we are NOT united in what we believe, teach, confess, and practice. That doctrinal disunity cannot be swept under the synodical carpet, so that it just magically goes away. You cannot pretend doctrinal disunity away. It needs to be addressed, but both former SP Kieschnick and nominee Maier would have us stop wasting time on trying to address it, something that C.F.W. Walther warned against time and time again. <br />
<br />
Here's a story:<br />
<br />
A woman was being abused by her husband. If she didn't have his socks folded exactly right, he hit her. If she didn't stack the dishes according to his preference, he hit her. If she didn't bow to his every whim, he hit her. Sometimes, he just hit her because he felt like it. He abused her horribly for years. All the while, he presented himself publicly to be a loving, committed husband to the wife he abused, and a loving, dedicated father to their two children. It was a sham, but he pulled it off for years. No one suspected him of being the abusive tyrant he was, and he made it clear to his wife that, if she ever said a word to anyone, the beating he would give her would make all the previous beatings over the years seem like loving hugs. <br />
<br />
Finally, the woman couldn't take it anymore and went to speak with a counselor about this. The counselor told her, "You need to stop complaining about this and focus on all the good things you have with your husband. I know married couples who have bigger problems than you. At least your husband has a good career and provides you with financial security. You have two beautiful children from this marriage, and it sounds like both you and your husband do a pretty good job of keeping from them the ongoing abuse you suffer from your husband. It could be worse. He could be abusing them, too. But, he's not. My advice to you is to stick it out. If you have to take a beating once in a while, that's okay - it pales in comparison to all the good in your marriage. Don't waste your time trying to fix the abuse; instead, focus on being a good mother to your children. Don't make your children suffer by wasting time on incessant internal purification within your marriage. Find better methods to cope with your suffering. Stop being so selfish; this is not about you, but your family." <br />
<br />
The "moral" of the story: "Put up with the abuse for the sake of your family." <br />
<br />
Oh, and about that "equipping the laity in their mission work" thing, in the spirit of Bill Lumbergh, "Um, yeaaahhhhh, I'm going to have to go ahead and ask you to stop butchering that passage from Matthew 28 like that. If you could just go ahead and realize that what you call 'the Great Commision' is about making disciples through baptism, ongoing catechesis, and ongoing reception of the Lord's Supper, where Jesus fulfills His promise to be with us always, and NOT about 'equipping' the laity to be 'missionaries' in their neighborhoods and communities, that would be great. Mmmm Kay? Yeaaaaaahhhh."<br />
<br />
Lastly, about that "finding better methods" thing, C.F.W. Walther and company fought against the "new measures" being everywhere promoted by revivalistic, Americanized Protestants in their day. It seems odd that we would have those claiming to be their spiritual descendants exhorting us to embrace them today. We have the Holy Word and Sacraments; there are no better methods than these - in fact, there are no OTHER methods than these. Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-80750742164316933842013-05-17T12:42:00.001-04:002013-05-17T12:47:49.828-04:00So, Where Do You Keep the Lambs?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjbjxJ-lo-1-rQCHRZTWXKaS8i1czWHu6WTO-sKfY2k7PCJChOeH6aTAquH_lzvcc3vl4_IRzOsTV5MQ_ncCnhY0-fZnM6CgTEbDXsU4RzB4nranuvStw2ExokR3cEYPi5lxagQ0ENzAw/s1600/You+keep+using+the+word+Gospel.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="338" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjbjxJ-lo-1-rQCHRZTWXKaS8i1czWHu6WTO-sKfY2k7PCJChOeH6aTAquH_lzvcc3vl4_IRzOsTV5MQ_ncCnhY0-fZnM6CgTEbDXsU4RzB4nranuvStw2ExokR3cEYPi5lxagQ0ENzAw/s400/You+keep+using+the+word+Gospel.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
Every once in a while, I receive emails or hard copies of letters from individuals or groups, who believe it is their mission to contact pastors and warn them to "preach the one gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." I have no doubt that these people mean well, but it always saddens me to read their stern warnings, wherein they show that they haven't a clue what the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ really is. For them, as evidenced by the most recent warning I received via email this morning, which is posted below, the Gospel is something we must do, which means their Gospel is no Gospel at all, but pure Law. The way they butcher the Scriptures to go out of their way to make sure every last drop of Jesus' Blood becomes meaningless is very depressing.<br />
<br />
Every time I receive one of these, I am reminded of the time I spent interviewing a Seventh Day Adventist preacher for a project I was required to do in one of my classes during my undergraduate work. That project consisted of us having to pick a different denomination, attend a couple of services in a congregation of that denomination, interview the pastor or another leader there, and write a lengthy essay describing the official teachings of the denomination, how those teachings were put into practice, what the pastor or leader emphasized about those teaching during the interview, and where the similarities and differences were between those teachings and practices and our own Lutheran teachings and practices.<br />
<br />
I chose to do my project on Seventh Day Adventists, since, at the time, I didn't know all that much about that denomination. I learned a lot about them in studying their history and official teachings, but even more when attending a couple of services in one of their local congregations, and still more when interviewing the preacher there. I will say this: They are consistent. What I learned in the books was what I saw being practiced. All Law, all the time. The only Gospel heard was when the readers read from the Gospels, but that was quickly taken away by the preacher, who turned that Gospel into Law.<br />
<br />
The preacher was a nice enough guy. He was very cooperative and readily agreed to sit down with me and let me interview him. But, it was sad. Big time sad. The differences between us were astounding. To put it bluntly, His Jesus was really no Savior at all. His Jesus was a stern Law-Giver and Judge. I didn't like his Jesus very much at all. His Jesus scared me to death. If his Jesus was the real Jesus, I was in trouble.<br />
<br />
The interview quickly turned into a back-and-forth, as the preacher not only answered the questions I put to him, but began asking his own of me. He also minced no words in letting me know how wrong he believed us Lutherans to be on just about everything. He didn't yell and scream about it. As I said, he was a nice enough guy. But, he was sure to let me know that we Lutherans were wrong in our belief that Jesus had done everything necessary for our salvation, and how the real "gospel" was about us keeping the Law.<br />
<br />
As you might guess, he was especially adamant about "keeping the Sabbath Day," and how the greatest evil to ever perpetuate the Christian Church was gathering for worship on Sundays. I was prepared for this and had the appropriate Scriptures handy to refute his claims, but he was having none of it. "The Sabbath Day is an everlasting ordinance of the Lord and we are required to keep it," he declared. That whole thing about Jesus being our Sabbath rest didn't matter one bit to him.<br />
<br />
As he continued to thunder away at me - in a nice way - about the Sabbath Day, I finally had a stroke of genius. I don't want to get all hokey about it or anything, but this was definitely one of those "the Holy Spirit will give you the words to say" moments. Out of the blue, I asked, "So, where do you keep the lambs?" This prompted a very puzzled look to come across the preacher's face for a few seconds until he responded, "What do you mean by that?"<br />
<br />
"Well, surely you must keep the Passover in the same literal fashion you keep the Sabbath, right? I mean, our Lord makes it very clear in His Word that the Passover is an everlasting ordinance that we are required to keep. So, where do you keep the lambs? Do you slaughter them outside or inside the church?"<br />
<br />
Crickets. Seriously. Long, awkward silence.<br />
<br />
Of course, I'm not the first one to point out this inconsistency, so it probably wasn't the stroke of genius I'm claiming it to be. Even within their own ranks, Seventh Day Adventists struggle here. How is it that this eternal ordinance must be kept literally, but that one must not be? The "scholarly" attempts to answer this question are as entertaining as they are absurd. So was this preacher's attempt, once he gathered himself and put an end to the long, awkward silence.<br />
<br />
He said, "The Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments; the Passover is not. The Ten Commandments remain divine ordinances we're still obligated to keep, but the Feasts of the Old Testament, like the Passover, have been abolished by the coming of the Messiah. As Jesus tells us, He did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it, and to make it clear that we must fulfill it, too." <br />
<br />
Wait, what?<br />
<br />
I tried to engage him some more on this issue, but he brushed it aside and moved on to enlighten me on their unique, strange, and wholly unbliblical views of the End Times. Amazing stuff, this. They claim to be able to pinpoint exact dates when this or that eschatological happening has occurred, things like when the so-called "Investigative Judgment" began, when Christ cleansed the heavenly sanctuary, etc. But, through all the creative and imaginative twisting of Scripture, which leads to these strange views, it is the same thing driving their eschatology that drives their soteriology: the Law.<br />
<br />
The Law is the "Gospel" for them, and for all those well-meaning, but woefully wrong, individuals and groups who send me messages from time to time, exhorting me to "preach the one gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" (I have never yet received one of these messages that had even a hint of Gospel in them). Jesus has done His part, but now it's up to us to do ours. He fulfilled the Law to show us how we might fulfill it, too. The "gospel" Jesus preaches is conditional and dependent upon our obedience. As you can see below, they produce nice charts and quote many Scripture passages and include many words in their exhortations, but they haven't the first clue what the true Gospel is, which is the sure and certain truth that Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary to live the perfect life we can't live and pay the full price for all of our sins with His sacrificial death on the Cross. He accomplished everything necessary for our salvation. It is finished. There are no conditions on the Gospel. There is not an ounce of obedience left to be fulfilled. There is not an ounce of blood left to be shed. Jesus has done it all. That's the one Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, the one Gospel I am called and ordained to preach, the one Gospel that is truly Good News for sinners in need of a Savior.<br />
<br />
The "gospel" spoken of below is Law, not Gospel, and I am left to keep on asking those who exhort this Law in the name of their false "gospel": So, where <i>do</i> you keep the lambs?<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
Here's the email I received: </div>
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 90%px;"><tbody>
<tr><td colspan="6" style="border: solid white 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 100.0%;" valign="top" width="100%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">Dear Pastor, and fellow labourer of Jesus Christ<span style="color: #1f497d;">,</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">As one who has tasted the power of the age to come , I must write to pastors to warn them that<b> </b>they<b> must preach the one gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. </b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">Throughout the world today<b>, only those churches that obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ</b>, and have rejected the doctrines of men, <b>receive the Spirit of truth, </b>as evidenced by the tongue emitting soun<span style="color: #1f497d;">d.<b> </b>(</span> <span style="color: #001320;">λαλούντων γλώσσαις</span><span style="color: #1f497d;">).</span> (And this is not at all like the movement of the mouth in a prayer language we see on television) </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">The Apostle Paul warned us, that when Jesus returns to gather together His elect<span style="color: #1f497d;">,</span> that <b>those who</b> <b>do not obey the gospel of Jesus Christ</b> will meet the same fate as those who do not know God. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">And I’m worried that many don’t even know what the gospel of Jesus Christ is, </span></b><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">even though the return of Jesus may be very near. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">Jesus gave us His gospel with ten “if not,” conditions<span style="color: #1f497d;">.</span> <span style="color: #1f497d;">(</span><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">ἐὰν</span><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";"> μή)</span><span style="color: #1f497d; font-family: "Cambria","serif";">. </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">Five
of these conditions deal with our heart and our thinking, and the other
five tell us what we must do to receive God’s salvation. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td></tr>
<tr><td style="border-top: none; border: solid white 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 3.9%;" valign="top" width="3%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">1.</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 30.2%;" valign="top" width="30%"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">“<b>No one can come to Me unless</b> the Father who sent Me draws him.”</span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">John 6:44,65</span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 15.38%;" valign="top" width="15%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">We must respond to God, who gave His only Son.</span></i></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 5.02%;" valign="top" width="5%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">6.</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 30.12%;" valign="top" width="30%"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">“The Son can do nothing of Himself, <b>unless</b> it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does <u>in like manner<span style="text-decoration: none;">,,,<b>the</b></span></u><b> Son also gives life to whom He wishes</b>.”</span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">Joh<span style="color: #1f497d;">n </span>5:19-20 NASB</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 15.38%;" valign="top" width="15%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">As sons of God, we must imitate Christ. We begin with His baptism.</span></i></div>
</td></tr>
<tr><td style="border-top: none; border: solid white 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 3.9%;" valign="top" width="3%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">2.</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 30.2%;" valign="top" width="30%"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">“<b>Unless</b> you see signs and wonders, <b>you will by no means believe</b>.”</span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">John<span style="color: #1f497d;"> 4:48</span> (NKJV adds <i>people</i>)</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 15.38%;" valign="top" width="15%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">We must recognize Jesus’ resurrection.</span></i></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 5.02%;" valign="top" width="5%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">7.</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 30.12%;" valign="top" width="30%"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">“<b>Unless</b> one is (born again) born of water and the Spirit, <b>he cannot see the kingdom of God.”</b></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">John 3:3,5</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 15.38%;" valign="top" width="15%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">We must receive Jesus’ baptism of water and Spirit.</span></i></div>
</td></tr>
<tr><td style="border-top: none; border: solid white 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 3.9%;" valign="top" width="3%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">3.</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 30.2%;" valign="top" width="30%"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">“<b>Unless</b> you are converted and become as little children, <b>you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”</b></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">Matthew 18:3</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 15.38%;" valign="top" width="15%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">We must renew our minds and humble our hearts.</span></i></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 5.02%;" valign="top" width="5%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">8.</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 30.12%;" valign="top" width="30%"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">“<b>Unless</b> I wash you,<b> you have no part with Me</b>.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">John 13:8 NIV</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 15.38%;" valign="top" width="15%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">We must allow Christ, the body of Christ, to wash our feet.</span></i></div>
</td></tr>
<tr><td style="border-top: none; border: solid white 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 3.9%;" valign="top" width="3%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">4.</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 30.2%;" valign="top" width="30%"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">“<b>Unless</b>
a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone…He
who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world<b> will keep it for eternal life</b>.”</span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">John 12:24-25</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 15.38%;" valign="top" width="15%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">We must realize this world is passing away.</span></i></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 5.02%;" valign="top" width="5%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">9.</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 30.12%;" valign="top" width="30%"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">“<b>Unless </b>you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. <b>Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day</b>.”</span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">John 6:53-54</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 15.38%;" valign="top" width="15%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">We must remember Jesus’ sacrifice for our sins.</span></i></div>
</td></tr>
<tr><td style="border-top: none; border: solid white 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 3.9%;" valign="top" width="3%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">5.</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 30.2%;" valign="top" width="30%"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">“<b>Unless</b> your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, <b>you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”</b></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">Matthew 5:20</span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 15.38%;" valign="top" width="15%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">We must do the will of God. We cannot enter the kingdom of heaven by the teachings and traditions of men.</span></i></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 5.02%;" valign="top" width="5%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">10.</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 30.12%;" valign="top" width="30%"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">“As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, <b>unless</b> you abide in Me…<b>If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and</b> <b>throw <i>them</i> into the fire, and they are burned</b>.”</span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">John 15:4,6</span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 15.38%;" valign="top" width="15%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">We must abide in the Spirit and body of Christ (His Church).</span></i></div>
</td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="6" style="border-top: none; border: solid white 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 100.0%;" valign="top" width="100%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">And finally,<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>Jesus gave us one more condition of salvation with the expression “if for no.”<span style="color: #1f497d;"> (</span></span>ἐὰν γὰρ μὴ)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td></tr>
<tr><td style="border-top: none; border: solid white 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 3.9%;" valign="top" width="3%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 30.2%;" valign="top" width="30%"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">“<b>Unless </b>you believe that I am, <b>you will die in your sins.”</b></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">John<span style="color: #1f497d;"> 8:24 </span>(NASB adds <i>He)</i></span></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 15.38%;" valign="top" width="15%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt;">We must know that Jesus is God Himself, “I AM,” who appeared to Moses.</span></i></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 5.02%;" valign="top" width="5%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 30.12%;" valign="top" width="30%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid white 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 15.38%;" valign="top" width="15%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="6" style="border-bottom: none; border-left: solid white 1.0pt; border-right: solid white 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 100.0%;" valign="top" width="100%"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">Here are some questions that you may have:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">Is the washing of feet really a salvation condition?</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">Yes
because the Spirit of truth can only be received by those who keep the
commandments of Jesus. And the Holy Spirit is required for salvation.</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">After</span></b><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";"> instructing His disciples in the <b>washing of feet</b> and <b>remembrance of His death</b>, Jesus said to them:</span><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";"> “<b><span style="color: #c00000;">If you love Me</span></b><span style="color: #c00000;">, keep</span></span><sup><span style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Cambria","serif";"> </span></sup><span style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Cambria","serif";">My commandments.</span><span style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Cambria","serif";"> </span><span style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Cambria","serif";">And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever—</span><span style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Cambria","serif";"> <sup> </sup></span><span style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Cambria","serif";">the Spirit of truth…”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">Did the early church practice the washing of feet as a salvation teaching?</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">Yes, the writer of Hebrews lists the elementary salvation teachings of Christ as:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">Faith in God</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">Repentance</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">Instructions about <b>baptisms,</b> and </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">The laying on of hands (for the gift of the Holy Spirit, see Acts 8:17, 19:6)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">Baptisms is plural because the Greek word </span><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">βαπτισμῶν can also refer to religious washings, as in the washing of hands in Luke 11:38.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">What is the meaning of condition number 6 <span style="color: #c00000;">– “in like manner”</span></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #1f497d; font-family: "Cambria","serif";">T</span><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">his has to with the unity of God and man, <span style="color: #c00000;">“that they may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and they in Me…<b>that the world might believe that You sent Me</b>.” </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">As Paul wrote: <b>there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">We observe Jesus’ commandments <b>“<span style="color: #c00000;">in like manner</span>” </b>to Jesus.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">Just as the disciples<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span>broke “one loaf” (1 Cor 10:16-17) of “unleavened bread,” (1 Cor
5:8); they also baptized in “living water,” (John 3:23) bowing their
heads, “in the likeness of His death” (John 19:30, Romans 6:5).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">And of course, the imitation of Christ, <u>being transformed into His image</u> is the goal of our salvation<span style="color: #1f497d;"> -</span> so we begin our faith as we would end it.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">Where are the churches that obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ? </span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">As
far as I know, at the moment, only the True Jesus Church denomination
obeys this gospel, and receives the Spirit of truth as evidenced by the
tongue emitting sound. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">(As different from the movement of the mouth in a prayer language that we see in many churches.)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">There
were other denominations and churches in the past who also received
this Spirit, but they changed their doctrines, adding religious days and
so on, and lost the Spirit.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">The True Jesus Church has the Sabbath Day in its 10 basic beliefs, why is that?</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">This has to do with the salvation condition:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Cambria","serif";">“<b>Unless</b> your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, <b>you will be no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">Jesus did not do away with God’s commandments, but told us that <b>we must keep them, and go beyond them</b>.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">God not only wants us to keep the Sabbath day holy, He wants us to dedicate every day to Him<span style="color: #1f497d;">. </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">That we should worship Him <span style="color: #c00000;">“neither in Jerusalem or on this mountain</span><span style="color: #1f497d;">, </span><b><span style="color: #c00000;">but in Spirit and truth</span></b><span style="color: #c00000;">,” </span>not according to “the basic principles of this world<span style="color: #1f497d;">.</span>” </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">God blessed the Sabbath day in the beginning of creation as a day for rest for man.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">Rest to be shared by Jews and Gentiles</span><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";"> <b>as the commandment says</b> - that man might rest in unity with God and one another.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">The church broke the unity of this day when it changed the day of rest for the Gentiles to Sunday, because of their tradition<span style="color: #1f497d;">.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">And so Jesus said to the Pharisees <span style="color: #c00000;">“in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Cambria","serif";">“<b>Unless</b> your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, <b>you will be no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">God wants us “to remember the Sabbath day,” and rest, if this is not burdensome – “<span style="color: #c00000;">the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath</span>.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">“For this is the love of God, </span></u></b><u><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.” (1 John 5:3)</span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">Almost all of the True Jesus Church members are Asian, does the Bible prophecy this?</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">Ezekiel tell<span style="color: #1f497d;">s</span> us the Spirit and glory of the Lord will come from the east in the last days.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">“And behold the glory of the Lord came from the way of the east. His voice was like the sound of many waters…”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">Ezekiel 43:2</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">The sound of “many waters” is that sound we hear after the fall of that Great Harlot.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">“And I heard, as it were, the voice of many waters…</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">Let us rejoice and be glad and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come,</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">And His wife has made herself ready</span></b><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">Revelation 19:6</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">Paul’s prophecy of lawlessness and the Gospel of Jesus Christ</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">To
fully understand Paul’s meaning, we need to read from the original text
or a more literal version, and understand the background of Paul’s
comments.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">Paul tells us that when Jesus returns, <b>those who do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ</b> will be eternally separated from God, along with those who do not know God.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">“there are some who <b>trouble you</b>
and want to pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ, but even if we, or an
angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have
preached to you, let him be accursed.”<br />Galatians 1:7,8</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">“it is</span></i><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";"> a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who <b>trouble you</b>, and to <i>give</i> you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, <sup> </sup>in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, <u>and on those <b>who do not obey</b> <b>the gospel of our Lord Jesus Chris</b>t</u>. <sup> </sup>These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, <sup> </sup>when He comes, in that Day”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">2 Thessalonians <span style="color: #1f497d;">1</span>:6-9</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";"><br />Paul told us the “mystery of lawlessness” is already at work. And “t</span><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">he coming of the <i>lawless one</i> is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">Jesus told us that <span style="color: #c00000;">“</span></span><span style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Cambria","serif";">false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders <u>to deceive, if possible, even the elect</u>.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">And, <span style="color: #c00000;">“at the end of this age.</span></span><span style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Cambria","serif";"> </span><span style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Cambria","serif";">The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and <u>those who practice lawlessness</u>,</span><span style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Cambria","serif";"> </span><span style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Cambria","serif";">and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.</span><sup><span style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Cambria","serif";"> </span></sup><span style="color: #c00000; font-family: "Cambria","serif";">Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">Matthew 13: 40 -43</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif"; font-size: 16.0pt;">Those who obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ will be saved</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">There is only one gospel by which we receive God’s guarantee of salvation. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">May all glory be to our God who has revealed to us the great mystery of His </span><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">gospel, “the power of salvation to everyone who believes.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";">That all who fear and trust Him might share with Christ all of the riches of His eternal goodness<span style="color: #1f497d;">.</span></span></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-13404811487071270442013-05-07T13:28:00.001-04:002013-05-17T11:47:04.357-04:00I Have a Problem - Or So I'm Told<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSVVl6BEgNdGwRwZerqLOMcMUhdT2mcUNxo7U5DMBE2s2WquWuz_or23r20lXyaBYq_QA9iZKXJ2bEzXXQwZzu3MYco4UpGWBJciqIDsWEUL0aMm3IoNtWyTUKHkOhURFF5ouqlgcOyFc/s1600/I+see+Jesus+everywhere.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="444" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSVVl6BEgNdGwRwZerqLOMcMUhdT2mcUNxo7U5DMBE2s2WquWuz_or23r20lXyaBYq_QA9iZKXJ2bEzXXQwZzu3MYco4UpGWBJciqIDsWEUL0aMm3IoNtWyTUKHkOhURFF5ouqlgcOyFc/s640/I+see+Jesus+everywhere.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
I have a problem. Or so I'm told. Actually, some would probably say that I have many problems, but that's neither here nor there. For the sake of this post, it's just a single problem I have - or so I'm told.<br />
<br />
What's my problem? I see Jesus, His Church, and His Holy Word and Sacraments everywhere in the Old Testament. I see the same story of salvation told over and over again, the story of Jesus living the perfect life in our place, paying for all of our sins with His sacrificial death on the Cross, rising from the tomb on the third day, ascending to reign over all things until He returns in great glory on the Last Day, and how that salvation He accomplishes is applied to sinners through His life-giving and life-sustaining Word and Sacraments. I see that story already in the Garden of Eden, and retold in the stories of Cain and Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings . . . you get the idea. I see Jesus everywhere. I see His Holy Church everywhere. I see His Holy Word and Sacraments everywhere. And, don't even get me started on the Psalms. I know they are supposed to be neatly organized into different categories, one of which is titled, "Messianic Psalms," but, Lord help me, I see every last one of them as Messianic.<br />
<br />
Why do some say that I have a problem here? Because, evidently, I'm only supposed to see Jesus, His Church, and His Holy Word and Sacraments in the Old Testament when the New Testament tells me to see them. For example, it's okay for me to see a type of Holy Baptism in the parting of the Red Sea, since the New Testament tells me to see that (1 Cor. 10:2). But, if there are stories of salvation which include water in the Old Testament that are not specifically mentioned in the New Testament as types of Holy Baptism, I'm not supposed to see those stories as types of Holy Baptism. The same rule applies for the Lord's Supper, the Church, and even for Jesus Himself. In fact, those who say that I have a problem are quick to ridicule me (and others - I'm not the only one who has this problem) by saying, "You absurdly see Baptism in every drop of water and the Lord's Supper in every crumb of bread or drop of wine." I know! I do. I admit it. But, they tell me that the first step to overcoming a problem is to admit that you have one, so maybe there's still hope for me?<br />
<br />
Actually, no, there is no hope for me here. Try as I might, I can't shake it. The more I read the Old Testament, the more my problem increases. I actually see more types of Jesus, His Church, and His Holy Word and Sacraments the more I read and study the Old Testament. Where I didn't see them before, I see them now. They're everywhere!<br />
<br />
Oh well. Some problems are just not meant to be overcome. And, that's okay with me, since the problem I have here is actually a fun problem to have. It makes reading the Old Testament - even the more mundane, drab parts - a blast. In fact, it's so much fun that, while I enjoy all the Bible Studies I have going where I serve, I'd be lying if I didn't say that our Thursday morning Bible Study, where we have been going through the Old Testament chronologically for years now (we began at Genesis and are currently in the midst of 2 Kings), is the most fun, precisely because we keep seeing Jesus, His Church, and His Holy Word and Sacraments popping up everywhere, even in places where you'd least expect them. It could be that we're seeing Jesus, His Church, and His Holy Word and Sacraments simply because we want to see them. Maybe we're forcing things a bit. But, then, I'm not so sure that's as big a problem (if it is a problem at all) as some seem to think, as our Lord did make it clear that these are the Scriptures that testify of Him. Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-1494556019743302322013-04-29T05:05:00.000-04:002013-04-29T05:05:11.427-04:00Cantate (Easter 5) Sermon<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:TargetScreenSize>800x600</o:TargetScreenSize>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" Name="footer"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" Name="page number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">CANTATE</b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">The Fifth Sunday of Easter</b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">28 April Anno + Domini 2013</b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">John 16:5-15 (Isaiah 12:1-6; James 1:16-21)</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">In the Name of the
Father and of the + Son and of the Holy Spirit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Amen.</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></i>He Is Risen!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(He Is Risen Indeed!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Alleluia!)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<i>“You will say in
that day: I will give thanks to you, O L<span style="font-size: 8.0pt;">ORD</span>,
for though you were angry with me, your anger turned away, that you might
comfort me. Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and will not be afraid;
for the L<span style="font-size: 8.0pt;">ORD</span> G<span style="font-size: 8.0pt;">OD</span>
is my strength and my song, and he has become my salvation” (Is. 12:1-2)</i>. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
Thus does Isaiah
prophesy some seven centuries before the day of which he speaks, for the day of
which he speaks is the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. He is prophesying about
you, O Christian. You will say in that day – in this day, the day of our Lord
Jesus Christ – I will give thanks to you, O Lord, for though you were angry
with me, your anger turned away, that you might comfort me. You will say in
that day – in this day, the day of our Lord Jesus Christ – Behold, God is my
salvation. And you do say this in this day, the day of our Lord Jesus Christ,
precisely because it has been to your advantage that Jesus has gone away and
sent the Helper, the Holy Spirit, to you. For no one says, “Jesus is Lord,” but
by the Holy Spirit. No one knows how the Father’s anger toward us for our many
sins has been turned away by the perfect life and sacrificial death of Jesus on
the Cross, but by the Holy Spirit. No one knows how impossible it is for us
sinners to save ourselves, but by the Holy Spirit. And no one knows that our
Lord Jesus Christ has become our salvation, doing what is impossible for us,
fulfilling every perfect command of God’s perfect Law in our place, and paying
for our every failure to keep those perfect commands with His precious blood on
Mount Calvary, but by the Holy Spirit. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
Where the Holy
Spirit is lacking, there is no truth. We see this in every other world
religion, save Christianity, for every other world religion is a religion of
the Law, where the way of salvation, whatever is meant by salvation according
to each particular religion, is left to us. Being good, whatever is meant by
good, is the way to the afterlife in every religion lacking the Holy Spirit. In
these religions, God has not become your salvation, but it is incumbent upon
you to save yourselves, to merit favor with God, whoever God might be, that you
might gain access through your own works to whatever glory there is in whatever
life that follows this one. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
Where the Holy
Spirit is lacking, there is no truth. That is to say, where the Holy Spirit is
lacking, there is no Jesus, for He is the truth. Where there is no Jesus, there
is not only no truth, but neither is there any way to salvation nor the
possibility of eternal life, for Jesus is not only the truth, but also the way
and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Him.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<i>“Sing to the
Lord a new song,”</i> O Christian, <i>“for He has revealed His righteousness in the
sight of the nations” (Ps. 98:1a, 2b)</i>. He has revealed His righteousness to you
by the Holy Spirit. For He has fulfilled His promise to send the Holy Spirit,
and the Holy Spirit has done, and continues to do, in you exactly what Jesus
promised He would do. He convicts you of sin, putting the perfect commands of
God’s Law before you and showing you how miserably you measure up. You have not
loved God as you should. Not even close. And you have not loved your neighbors
as you should. Not even close. Confessing this at the beginning of every Divine
Service is not just some rote ritual in which you participate, but a confession
of the truth. You have sinned. In many and various ways. St. James tells you in
the epistle this morning to <i>“be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger,
for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness that God requires.
Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with
meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls” (James 1:19-21)</i>.
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
He’s talking to
Christians - to you. He’s telling you what you should be striving for as those
who have received the Holy Spirit. And because you have received the Holy
Spirit, you not only know that what St. James tells you is good, but you do
strive to live as he tells you to live, and you know when you haven’t, for when
you haven’t – when you haven’t been quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to
anger, but rather short-tempered and quick to hurl angry insults and hold
grudges and gossip about “those people” – the Holy Spirit convicts you of sin,
and then comes the guilt and shame, for you know you ought not behave like
that. And when you don’t put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness, but either
engage in it or turn a blind eye to it, the Holy Spirit convicts you of sin,
and then comes the guilt and shame, for you know you ought not do this. And
when you do not receive the implanted word, which is Jesus, in meekness and
humility, as one who is desperate for salvation, hungering and thirsting for
righteousness, but rather come to church to just go through the motions or,
worse, skip church altogether to do something else you’d rather be doing, the
Holy Spirit convicts you of sin, and then comes the guilt and shame, for you
know you ought not treat the Gospel so cheaply. Repent! </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
But, the Holy
Spirit is not only sent to you to convict you of sin, but also of righteousness
and judgment. When He has convicted you of sin and lead you to repentance, He
is quick to direct your attention to Jesus, to remind you of all that He has
done, and continues to do, for you; to show you your salvation by taking what
belongs to Jesus – holiness and righteousness – and declaring it to you. Your
sins are taken away by the Lamb of God, in whose holiness and righteousness you
are clothed, not by anything you have done, but by all that Jesus has done, and
continues to do, for you. The Holy Spirit convicts you of righteousness, and
then the guilt and shame of your sins is taken away, covered by the holiness
and righteousness of Jesus. And, as the Holy Spirit convicts you of
righteousness, He also convicts you of judgment, for Satan has been defeated
and his accusations against you for all your sins have been silenced by the
blood of Jesus, who crushed the serpent’s head on the Cross. Satan is defeated,
sin is paid for in full, and death is dead, for Jesus lives and reigns and
intercedes at the right hand of the Father for you. You have been judged and
found not guilty for Jesus’ sake. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
And so, as
strange as it seems, it really is to your advantage that Jesus go away, so that
He might send the Holy Spirit to you. He goes away to the Cross to win your
salvation, and it is from the Cross that He hands over the Spirit of Truth,
that is, His own Spirit, for just as Jesus and the Father are One, so Jesus and
the Holy Spirit are One. On the Cross, Jesus hands over the Spirit of Truth along
with the life-giving and life-sustaining water and blood that pour forth from
His pierced side, for it is through that water and blood that the Holy Spirit
will take what belongs to Jesus and declare it to you, clothing you in Jesus’
perfect holiness and righteousness through the water of Holy Baptism and continually
cleansing your baptismal robes in the Blood of the Lamb distributed to you in
the Holy Supper.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
Isaiah
prophesied about this, too, dear friends. <i>“With joy you will draw water from
the wells of salvation” (Is. 12:3)</i>, and so you have, for, by the Holy Spirit’s
gracious working, you have drawn water from the wells of Jesus’ side. And, you <i>“shout
and sing for you, O inhabitant of Zion, for great in your midst is the Holy One
of Israel” (Is. 12:6)</i>, for, by the Holy Spirit’s gracious working, you believe that
the Holy One of Israel, Jesus Christ, your Lord and Savior, is Bodily Present
upon the holy altar, giving you to eat and to drink of His very Body and Blood
for the forgiveness of your sins and the strengthening and preservation of your
faith.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
What all of this
means, of course, is that, while Jesus has departed to ascend to the Father’s
right hand to be our Mediator, having finished every last work necessary for your
salvation, He is not gone. The Holy Spirit directs you to where He is for you,
to where Jesus continues to Tabernacle among us in His very Flesh and Blood,
here in His Holy Church, at the font, pulpit, and altar. He is your strength
and your song, for He has become your salvation. He is your refuge from the
sorrows that inevitably fill your lives in this vale of tears, the sorrows that
are brought upon you by other sinners and the sorrows you bring upon yourselves
by your own sins. He prepares His Holy Church for you as a blessed oasis in the
desert of this sinful world, a sanctuary, a safe-haven, that you might come and
be fed upon Him, the Word of God that never passes away. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
Oh yes, O
Christian, it is to your advantage that Jesus has gone away, so that He might send
the Spirit of Truth to lead you into all Truth, that is, to lead you into Jesus
and the wells of salvation that never cease flowing from Him. Come, then, at
the gracious invitation of your Savior, which the Holy Spirit opens your ears
to hear, all you who are weary and heavy-laden, and receive rest for your souls.
Receive with meekness and joy the implanted Word, that, filled with Jesus, you
might sing the new song of His revealed righteousness not only with your lips,
but with your lives, <i>“giving thanks to the Lord, calling upon His Name, making
known His deeds among the peoples, proclaiming that His Name is exalted” (Is. 12:4)</i>. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
Lord, grant this
unto us all, in the Name of Jesus, for He Is Risen! (He Is Risen Indeed!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Alleluia!)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">In the Name of the Father and of the + Son and of the Holy Spirit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Amen.</i></div>
Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-43493241056496926382013-04-27T22:16:00.000-04:002013-04-27T22:16:14.967-04:00Let Solemn Awe Possess UsI just finished reading this extraordinary paper, written by Pr. Rick Stuckwisch, which he delivered at the recent ACELC Conference. I have long been an admirer of Pr. Stuckwisch's excellent theological contributions, which I have been blessed to receive in various ways over the years, even in person on a couple of occasions, so I'm used to being wowed by him, but this might be the best thing he's ever written. Simply superb! You should give it a read. Seriously. You should.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="http://s3.amazonaws.com/mychurchwebsite/c2001/let_solemn_awe_possess_us_rick_stuckwisch.pdf"><b>"Let Solemn Awe Possess Us"</b></a></span></div>
Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-30106550978381929712013-04-24T15:16:00.000-04:002013-04-24T15:16:04.277-04:00A More Perfect Form of Love?<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQo8J29sTqq65aUB8BvwmAUYbP_ovtFaz6yUSxRL0qLf3B6G7ROrrnkTrfvgRubOCU2Mm1f6QE79gJ4neps7tqcr5GUtvdB7dolODrHuK2dSSQrxVtwdW6kaW76wyBrbt8FKLcOVJApNQ/s1600/love_hd-normal.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQo8J29sTqq65aUB8BvwmAUYbP_ovtFaz6yUSxRL0qLf3B6G7ROrrnkTrfvgRubOCU2Mm1f6QE79gJ4neps7tqcr5GUtvdB7dolODrHuK2dSSQrxVtwdW6kaW76wyBrbt8FKLcOVJApNQ/s320/love_hd-normal.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
I received the following email four times in the last 24 hours. It seems the LCMS campaign season is now in full swing. Those supporting Rev. David Maier have set up a "Friends of David Maier" FB page and are busy making contacts and sending out emails, like this one. That's fine. They're certainly entitled to campaign for the man they want to be our synodical president. Like it or not, we have a political process in place, and so politics are with us. No use crying about it. It is what it is.<br />
<br />
However, that said, I find it very ironic that the supporters of Rev. David Maier believe "we need a more perfect form of love," but then show a less than perfect form of love in their commentary on the two main issues they believe merit the election of a new synodical president. I'm also left to wonder if they are as woefully naive as they appear to be.<br />
<br />
First, we hear about "fear and suspicion," as we always do when the "silly season" begins. The implication is that electing a new synodical president will alleviate this. It won't. That's because the "fear and suspicion" in our synod does not come from whoever sits on the throne at the IC, but rather from the fact that we have some very real, very serious theological divisions in our synod. Currently, we have a synodical president who recognizes this, and who seeks to lead us in tackling these divisions, so that we might come to greater unity. Prior to him, we had a synodical president who always swept those differences under the synodical carpet, highlighting the fact that he believed we were unified on the things that really mattered, and that all the differences among us were nothing more than differences in practice, which did not affect our unity in doctrine. That dog won't hunt. It never could hunt. It won't start hunting now. You cannot be united in doctrine, but divided in practice. Practice is nothing more than doctrine in action.<br />
<br />
But, that really gets at the heart of what Rev. David Maier's supporters want when they speak of our synod needing "a more perfect form of love." They believe that "a more perfect form of love" would come from us ignoring our very real, very serious theological divisions. We should just trust one another, after all (I heard that sentiment often at last summer's Michigan District Convention), and relegate our differences to nothing more than differences in practice. We're all Lutherans, for Pete's sake! We all believe the same thing. I wrote about this in a blog post last year, as I gave <a href="http://abideinmyword.blogspot.com/2012/06/were-all-lutheran-even-if-were-not-or.html"><b>my review of the Michigan District Convention</b></a>. <br />
<br />
The truth is that we don't all believe the same thing. We're not all Lutherans, just because we all claim the name Lutheran. And, truth be told, that's where the fear and suspicion really originate. I think we all know this, but it is much easier to sweep it under the rug than it is to admit it and work on it. The pastor who leads the "worship experience" in his ripped jeans and t-shirt, removes the altar to make room for the praise band, and preaches self-help, motivational messages does not believe the same thing as this pastor. That should be obvious, and it is obvious. But, what the supporters of Rev. David Maier believe is that me pointing out that obvious fact is the reason that fear and suspicion exists among us. It's not. The reason that fear and suspicion exists among us is that we have pastors doing the things mentioned above. Duh!<br />
<br />
Is it really "a more perfect form of love" to turn a blind eye to our very real, very serious theological divisions and pretend that we have unity? Not at all. In fact, the opposite is true. The loving thing is to be honest about these divisions and seek to address them via serious study of Holy Scripture and our Lutheran Confessions.<br />
<br />
We do need a new Spirit in our synod. Actually, He's not new at all. He's the Holy Spirit, and He's been around since, well, always and eternally. He convicts us of sin, leads us to repentance, and points us to Jesus. He doesn't ever say, "Just trust one another. Ignore your differences. Live and let live." Rather, He directs us to address our differences and strive toward unity around the clear and compelling Word of God.<br />
<br />
Besides all of this, when has a pastor ever began statements at pastoral conferences with, "I am not a heretic, but . . ."? I've never once heard such a thing. Of course, I haven't been to every pastoral conference, so it may have happened. But, I find it hard to believe that it happens "too often." This is just a scare tactic used to get people to buy into the "fear and suspicion" stuff. Scare tactics aren't the most loving things to employ. Just saying.<br />
<br />
But, far worse than the "fear and suspicion" nonsense is the second issue Rev. David Maier's supporters raise as a reason we should elect a new synodical president. Are they serious?! Do they really not know how the "Sandy Hook Controversy" made it to the mainstream media and brought "embarrassment" upon our synod? Here's a clue: It had nothing at all to do with the very churchman-like way President Harrison handled it. Caleb Bell, the reporter for Religious News Service who broke the story that the mainstream media picked up on, didn't just stumble onto the WMLT blog. He was directed to that blog by someone/some people who deliberately wanted to bring shame to our synodical president and scandal to our synod. It was a political move - a vile, despicable political move, the kind of political move that has no business in the church. How do I know this? Because I'm not an idiot, that's how. Well, that, and the fact that the original story provided very little evidence that Mr. Bell had even actually read the letter President Harrison had posted on the WMLT blog. It read more like an interpretation of the letter he was presented with by whoever it was that tipped him off about it. The whole thing was rather sickening, but it's nice to know that "a more perfect form of love" is one in which we reopen old wounds and pour some salt in them, all in the hope that we can win politically.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, it is one thing for the mainstream media to misinterpret things happening in our synod and go nuts about them, frothing at the mouth to accuse us of all sorts of bad things. That happens all the time. If they can sink their teeth into some Christians, they will, since there is hardly anything tastier to them. But, it's quite another for pastors in our own synod to use this as an opportunity to lambaste our synodical president and bring more scandal to our synod - one that was not in any way scandalous to begin with, but was handled in love and faithfulness by those involved.<br />
<br />
And, what of the theological issues at play here? Do they matter? Are the "friends of David Maier" suggesting that he would have given the okay for one of our pastors to participate in the unionistic and syncretistic prayer service held in Sandy Hook? Inquiring minds want to know. Perhaps, if Rev. David Maier's friends are going to bring this up as one of two main issues we should consider electing him, he should make his thoughts known on this. If he has, I haven't seen it. Does he think President Harrison erred in how he addressed the situation? He should go on record, I think, and let us know where he stands.<br />
<br />
But, the worst of all is this: "Why do we insert ourselves into
conversations that aren’t about us? We have done it before, and
without different leadership, we will do it again." First, the fact that they can imagine that one of our pastors participating in a unionistic and syncretistic prayer service has nothing to do with "us" reveals a very strange belief on what it means to belong to a synod in which we claim to be "walking together" in fellowship. Secondly, it is precisely the duties of our synodical president to address matters of doctrine and practice among us, as clearly outlined in our synodical constitution. To suggest that President Harrison should have just minded his own business is to misunderstand what it is our synodical president is to do. I guess we need "different leadership," i.e. a different synodical president who will not perform the very duties outlined for him to perform in our synodical constitution. Otherwise, if we stick with President Harrison, he might actually be a synodical president, and we can't have that.<br />
<br />
Anyway, if what is revealed in this little political missive is "a more perfect form of love," count me out. I'll stick with the supposedly less perfect form of love we have in President Harrison, who is not afraid to admit that he's a sinner and repent of mistakes made, even when those supposed "mistakes" were brought on by those playing nasty politics (you know, the loving sort among us). President Harrison has shown exemplary leadership among us, displaying not only the theological acumen we should all desire in a synodical president, but a true pastor's heart, full of compassion and love for those he serves, and I hope and pray that we will reelect him to serve this year, and in many elections to come.<br />
<br />
Oh, and by the way, St. John means something completely different when he says, "Perfect love drives out all fear," but I'll leave you to study that on your own. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
Here's the email:</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Dear Friends: (Make sure you read down to the action items.)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We
have had an EXCELLENT response from the Church to initial efforts to
lift up David Maier’s candidacy for Synod President. The positive
response (great Facebook activity, many have passed our letters on to
others, many other have contacted us, some have even offered $$
support—so far we have not had to spend any money!) took off quickly and
is growing.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<u>All this supports the notion that electing David Maier this summer is possible</u>! Apathy and inactivity are not allowed.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>WHY DAVID MAIER?<span style="color: #1f497d;"> </span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We need a new spirit in our Synod, a spirit of humility, gentleness, love and faithfulness. Please consider these two issues.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
1.)<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span> The
fear and suspicion pastors experience in our circles is ungodly and
debilitating. Too often pastors begin statements at pastoral
conferences with, “I am not a heretic, but…” Is our Church’s culture so
filled with fear that every statement must begin with an apology?!?
John writes, “<i>Perfect love drives out all fear</i>.” <u>We need a more perfect form of love</u>.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
2.)<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span>The
recent issue with Sandyhook and the apology/non-apology that was in the
news is another sad example that we need a new spirit. There was a
profound tragedy in the town of Newtown, Connecticut, and the next thing
we know our church body began the predictable internecine squabbles
that turned the event into something about us. Charges were lobbed.
Strident online conversations were conducted. A faithful local pastor
was brought under undo Synodwide scrutiny. It was never clear who was
really apologizing for what. People throughout our Synod were
embarrassed. AND IT WASN’T ABOUT US! Why do we insert ourselves into
conversations that aren’t about us? We have done it before, and
without different leadership, we will do it again. We need to break
this long standing pattern. <u>We need a more perfect form of love.</u><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
There
will always be conflicts in the Church that must be handled. We believe
that David Maier will be a leader who can guide us gently,
appropriately, lovingly and faithfully through future conflicts. We
believe David Maier through his leadership, example, team building,
faithfulness to the Word and concentration on first things (Great
Commission and Great Compassion) will help us develop a new spirit and
keep conflicts from becoming problems. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(<i>For more info about David, please see the attachment</i>.)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 1pt 4pt;">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>REGARDING VOTING PROCEDURE</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
ballot for President will have just three nominees. Biographical
information on each candidate will be available in the next Lutheran
Witness. <b>(BE INFORMED)</b> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The voting procedure is described this way on the LCMS website</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Four
(4) weeks prior to the national convention, the Secretary of the Synod,
using lists of delegates in attendance at the prior year’s district
conventions as submitted by the secretaries of the districts, shall
provide, via a secure and verifiable method, opportunity for two (2)
voting delegates from each congregation in attendance at the previous
district conventions who remain members of the congregations they
represented to vote for one (1) of the three (3) candidates for
President. If no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast,
another vote will take place. (For more information on the voting
process, see the 2010 Handbook, Bylaw 3.12.2.3.)</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As you can see in order to vote you: </div>
</div>
<div style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 1pt 4pt;">
1)<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span>had to be a delegate to your 2012 Disctrict Convention. <b>(make sure you were counted)</b><br />
<b>2)<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></b>need to have your email registered with Synod’s secretary, Rev Raymond <b>Hartwig (make sure your email works)</b><br />
<b>3)<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></b>need to vote via the prescribed email method when it is available<b>. ( make sure you vote !!!)</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>ACTION ITEMS:</b></div>
<span style="font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span>If you are an elector, make sure that your email is properly registered with the Synod for voting purposes.<br />
<span style="font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span>Pass this note on to as many people as you can, especially called teachers and official lay electors.<br />
<span style="font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span>Join us on Facebook: <a href="http://www.facebook.com/friendsofdavidmaier" target="_blank">www.facebook.com/<wbr></wbr>friendsofdavidmaier</a><br />
<span style="font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span>Pray for God’s guidance for our Synod.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<i>Friends of David Maier: Rob Appold, Larry Eckart, David Davis</i>Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-78347746914726799032013-04-24T13:22:00.000-04:002013-04-24T13:22:58.086-04:00As the Great Sanctification Debate of 2013 Winds Down . . .Pr. Mark Surburg has written a <strike>blog post</strike> theological treatise over at his blog, sharing his <a href="http://surburg.blogspot.com/2013/04/sanctification-issues-in-question-and.html?spref=fb"><b>final thoughts</b></a> (at least for now) on the Great Sanctification Debate of 2013.<b> </b>But, don't worry. It's not really over. They'll be another Great Sanctification Debate coming to a blogosphere near you sooner than you think. Lutherans can't help themselves. They love arguing with one another. Especially Lutherans of the more "confessional variety," if you get my drift. But, that's a good thing. They argue because they really do care about this stuff. They argue because they really do want to get this stuff right. And, often, their arguing leads them to sharpen not only how they think about this stuff, but also about how they put this stuff into practice and teach others. Iron sharpens iron, and all that. <br />
<br />
According to Pr. Surburg, the issues in the Great Sanctification Debate of 2013, which seems to be winding down, have been centered around 1) confusion and concerns about nomenclature, 2) arguments about whether the new man cooperates in new obedience, 3) disputes about growth and increase in new obedience, 4) some forcing and imposing an extreme form of Law and Gospel on texts of Scripture, and 5) the ever-popular dust-up regarding the third use of the Law (always my personal favorite, and yours, too - admit it!). <br />
<br />
I certainly don't want to make light of Pr. Surburg's fine effort to get to the nitty-gritty here. He has put forth a lot of serious effort in this latest Great Sanctification Debate, and I appreciate his willingness to engage the topic and to identify what he believes to be the points of contention. However, my concern is that he, and others, have chosen to make far more out of all this than is really there. That was my concern in the Great Sanctification Debates of 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and it remains my concern again this year. I really think it's always much ado about not much.<br />
<br />
I could be wrong, of course. Maybe there really are confessional Lutherans among us who really don't believe that the new man cooperates with the Holy Spirit, albeit in great weakness, in new obedience. I've just never met one. Maybe there really are confessional Lutherans who don't believe there is any growth or increase whatsoever in new obedience. I've just never met one. Maybe there are confessional Lutherans who really are too dense to grasp the fact that the apostles of our Lord proclaim the Law not only to convict of sin, but also to encourage holy living. I've just never met one. Maybe there are confessional Lutherans who really don't understand that, for the new man in the Christian, the Law is a good thing in which he delights. I've just never met one.<br />
<br />
I have met confessional Lutheran pastors who may give the impression that they might believe some of these things by over-emphasizing a theological point, usually in reaction to other Lutheran pastors over-emphasizing a different theological point, but, lo and behold, when the smoke clears, both of those pastors actually do believe, teach, and confess the same thing. I've also seen some confessional Lutheran pastors make less than salutary comments either out of frustration or to make a point, which leads others to conclude that they're crass antinomians, who must be dealt with expediently. Or, from the other side, a confessional Lutheran pastor says something that causes others to jump on him for being an obvious pietist, who, again, must be dealt with expediently. Sometimes, we confessional Lutherans can be a little childish. Not me, of course. But, others. And, when we fail to see things for what they really are and end up making mountains out of molehills, the terrorists win. <br />
<br />
And so, while I appreciate Pr. Surburg's attempt to summarize the issues in this latest Great Sanctification Debate, and add my hearty "Amen" to much of what he has written, I take issue with his assertion that there is a "new Lutheran understanding of new obedience/'sanctification'" out there threatening the "traditional Lutheran view," or as Pr. Jordan Cooper put it on FB last week, a "new school of thought" on sanctification, the proponents/students of which he deemed "Radical Lutherans," providing one of my dear seminary professors, the Reverend Professor John Pless, as an example of such. I'm sorry, but that's just crazy talk if ever there were crazy talk. <br />
<br />
None of this is to say that the Great Sanctification Debate of 2013 has been a total waste of time. Some good has come of it. As Pr. Surburg rightly notes, we need to be careful about what nomenclature we employ. When confessional Lutherans start talking about sanctification in a way that doesn't appear all that different from the way in which Americanized Protestants do, other confessional Lutherans are going to get grumpy. Not me, of course. But, others. When confessional Lutherans start talking about "preaching sanctification" as something that Lutheran pastors can deliberately accomplish, other confessional Lutherans are going to lose it. Again, not me, of course. But, others. And, when confessional Lutherans even hint at the suggestion that sanctification is something that comes after Jesus, as if it is not totally wrapped up in Jesus, other confessional Lutherans are going to start throwing things. Not me, of course. But, others.<br />
<br />
In this wrap-up post by Pr. Surburg, he is very careful to make clear what he is and is not saying, and he does his best to put forth what he hears his "opponents" saying. But, I think he still has some more listening to do, as he attributes to them positions they simply do not hold (at least, not the "opponents" of whom I'm aware), as I mentioned above. Furthermore, I'm not sure what he's trying to accomplish in his second-to-last paragraph by noting, <i>"it must of course be
granted that only the Holy Spirit determines how the Law will actually be
applied to the individual.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet this does [not]
remove the fact that the speaker or writer knows the goal he intends to achieve
in the hearer or reader."</i> He goes on to give the example of St. Paul exhorting husbands to love their wives (Eph. 5:25), stating that St. Paul's intention is clear - he wants husbands to love their wives. And?<br />
<br />
This is Pr. Surburg's response to those pastors, like me, who have contended that only the Holy Spirit determines how the Law will actually be applied, and that, at the end of the day, Law is Law, and it is a dangerous thing for pastors to leave their hearers with the Law. Pr. Surburg jumps to the conclusion that this must mean that we are hesitant, or worse, that we refuse, to speak like St. Paul and the other apostles speak, and that, because of this, our theology might need to be reexamined (does he realize that a) this comes off as very condescending, as if he is the only serious theologian in the room, and b) this is a pretty serious charge, one that should not be made unless it can be clearly backed up with supporting evidence?). Of course, this is nonsense. I don't know of any confessional Lutheran pastors, whose theology Pr. Surburg worries might be in need of reexamination, who hesitate or refuse to speak like St. Paul and the other apostles. We're simply stating the truth, which Pr. Surburg nowhere refutes, that the intention of the speaker/writer/preacher, whatever it may be, does not change the fact that speaking/writing/preaching Law is speaking/writing/preaching Law. When St. Paul exhorts husbands to love their wives, even if he does so with a clear intent and in the most pleasant, lovely, non-threatening voice he could manage, it may, in fact, be heard by some husbands as the harshest, most accusatory Law ever. I think we're on extremely thin ice when we start highlighting intentions in relation to preaching the Law. What's that saying about the road to hell?<br />
<br />
I don't think this means that the theology of Pr. Surburg differs from mine, and I'm certainly not going to claim that his theology is in need of reexamination based on this. I think, at the end of the day, we would be in agreement, which leads me back to my assessment above that this is really just another case of different emphases and talking past one another. As I said above, I may be wrong about this. I'm simply basing my assessment on what I've actually seen and heard throughout the various Great Sanctification Debates over the years. I've asked for examples from the confessional Lutherans who make the claims that there is some "new understanding" or "new school of thought" brewing among us, but I've never yet been provided with anything that would lead me to conclude that there actually is. Usually, the examples are nothing more than bad behavior or hyperbolic statements made in response to other hyperbolic statements, and almost always, upon further reflection, the apparent differences turn out to be nothing of the sort (some nuances may remain, but nothing that destroys the confession of the faith both parties hold). Maybe Pr. Surburg will provide some evidence to back up the claims he makes in his post, but until then, I'm inclined to believe that this latest Great Sanctification Debate has really been much ado about not much, as the previous six thousand were. And, I really think we should all try to remember that blog and FB posts are not detailed, theological treatises. They're usually just snippets, and often reactionary. They very rarely reveal the full extent of a pastor's theological understanding of this or that issue, and we should be a little more careful before rushing to conclusions based on them. <br />
<br />
Also, I want to make clear that I definitely do understand that there is a very real tension we confessional Lutherans feel when addressing this issue, which comes from our colorful history. We know that both antinomianism and pietism are bad things we need to avoid, and sometimes we might seek so much to avoid one or the other that we come off as falling into the opposite pit, even if we really haven't. That's one of the reasons these arguments are good; they're reminders to all of us that these dangers still exist and still need to be avoided.<br />
<br />
For a couple of excellent, easy-to-understand articles which bring some much needed clarity to these Great Sanctification Debates, see Pr. Todd Wilken's:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://thebarebulb.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/sheep.pdf"><b>Sheep Don't Keep Track: Stop Measuring Your Moral Progress </b></a> </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
and</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://thebarebulb.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/legalismlicense.pdf"><b>Legalism and License </b></a></div>
<br />
As for another Great Sanctification Debate coming to an end, my closing thoughts (and by closing thoughts, I mean, maybe my closing thoughts; I reserve the right to have future thoughts), which have always been my closing thoughts whenever one of these Great Sanctification Debates comes to an end, are best expressed by this:<br />
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iE0u1Ph3KDk" width="560"></iframe></center>
Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.com37tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-84195478844230242732013-04-23T13:01:00.001-04:002013-04-23T13:01:49.757-04:00Then, I Shut Up<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBbBt95JsPCdXqLmty_S146AhtcwAKxH36wgjmkKJ0MVC5HmvSt8KHCadDCB-WwiAmHFmx12uT9U54y0ofRl0RG7PcqTZLWNXUkOk1nLlPc4IxTiGgkgomevOB9ENldgt_WqF_nmdtKHA/s1600/shut-up.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBbBt95JsPCdXqLmty_S146AhtcwAKxH36wgjmkKJ0MVC5HmvSt8KHCadDCB-WwiAmHFmx12uT9U54y0ofRl0RG7PcqTZLWNXUkOk1nLlPc4IxTiGgkgomevOB9ENldgt_WqF_nmdtKHA/s1600/shut-up.png" /></a></div>
Yes, the Blessed Apostles of our Lord exhort Christians to holy living. They do. Their epistles are filled with such exhortations. They exhort Christians to deny self and live for God and neighbor, to crucify the flesh and its passions, to be sober-minded and self-controlled, to rid themselves of all malice, deceit, envy, greed, lust, and to be loving and generous and kind and . . .<br />
<br />
But, when they do - and this is important, so listen closely - they are proclaiming Law. Not Gospel. Law. Not Sanctification. Law. Not Third Use of the Law. Law.<br />
<br />
It's not a different Law than the Law they proclaim when they remind their hearers that they are sinners who deserve God's temporal and eternal wrath and punishment. They do that, too. In the very same epistles. And, when they do, it is the very same Law as when they exhort Christians to holy living. The Law is the Law.<br />
<br />
Now, I have nary a problem exhorting Christians to holy living. I do it all the time. Every time I preach. Every sermon. I preach the Law. I don't preach the Law as a curb, then as a mirror, and then as a guide. I haven't a clue how to do that. With man, this is impossible, but with God, all things are possible. The Holy Spirit knows how to do that. He takes the Law I preach and applies it when, where, and how He pleases. I just preach the Law. That's all I can do. <br />
<br />
Then, I preach the Gospel.<br />
<br />
Then, I shut up.<br />
<br />
I shut up because I don't have anything else to say. I've said all that's been given me to say. I've preached the Law and the Gospel (repentance and the forgiveness of sins in Christ's Name). What else is there? I'm done.<br />
<br />
Some Lutherans among us seem to be worried about preachers like me shutting up after the Gospel, since they posit that this might lead some people to take the Gospel for granted. It might lead some to treat the Gospel as cheap grace, as it might give the impression that the Gospel gives license to sin boldly and freely and willingly, since, well, they're sinners who are going to sin anyway, so they might as well indulge.<br />
<br />
That's all possible, I suppose. But, then, I don't really worry about that. It's not my job to infiltrate the hearts and minds of the people to whom I preach and apply the Gospel rightly. That's the Holy Spirit's job. Just like it's His job to take the Law I preach and apply it when, where, and how He pleases, so it's His job to take the Gospel I preach and apply it when, where, and how He pleases. My job is to preach the Law and the Gospel, and then shut up.<br />
<br />
But, there's another aspect to this that I think some are missing. If the preacher has truly preached the Law, he has not lead people to take the Gospel for granted or to treat it as cheap grace or license to sin. People may still do that. Such cannot be controlled by the preacher. But, if people do that, it is not because of what the preacher preached, if the preacher has truly preached the Law. <br />
<br />
A preacher who has truly preached the Law has not said, "Don't strive against sin. Live for yourself. Satisfy your desires. Eat, drink, and be merry. You're sinners, after all, and there ain't nothin' you can do about it, so party on. Sin boldly. Be jerks. Jesus will forgive you, so it's all good." On the contrary, a preacher who has truly preached the Law has put forth God's perfect commands before his hearers - the perfect commands that give no points for doing your best or being a little better than "those people"; the perfect commands that must be kept, well, perfectly; the perfect commands which they should be striving to keep, but have not kept. And, because they have not kept those perfect commands of God, they deserve hell. They're doomed on their own. They should be denying themselves and living for God and neighbor, but they've failed to do so in many ways. They should be crucifying their flesh with its passions, but they've failed to do so in many ways. They should be self-controlled and sober-minded, ridding themselves of all malice, deceit, envy, greed, and lust, but they've failed in many ways. They should be loving, generous, kind, etc., but they've failed to be so in many ways. There is only one cure for their ailment, only one solution to their problem, only one Savior who can save them from the hell they deserve. They need Jesus Christ, who lived the perfect life and fulfilled the perfect Law in their place, and who suffered and died on the Cross for all of their sins. <br />
<br />
If people can glean from that sort of Law preaching that it's okey-dokey for them to just revel in sin and go on satisfying their every sinful desire without a care in the world, that's on them, not the preacher. The preacher will not prevent this by going on to preach more Law after the Gospel. They've already been told how they should be living as Christians. That was handled in the preaching of the Law. To tell them again now is not only redundant, but it runs the risk of leading them to doubt and despair, the very thing you just saved them from with Jesus.<br />
<br />
So, for example, this past Sunday, the Epistle in the historic lectionary was 1 Peter 2:11-20, which begins, <i>"Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation." </i>St. Peter goes on to say, <i>"Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor."</i><br />
<br />
Here, St. Peter is proclaiming Law. Not Gospel. Law. Not Sanctification. Law. Not Third Use of the Law. Law. It matters not that St. Peter is writing here to Christians, the "beloved," who are "sojourners and exiles" in this world, "people who are free" in Christ. It's still Law. He's telling Christians how they should be living. That's Law. <br />
<br />
I preached my sermon on the Holy Gospel of the day, which was John 16:16-22. But, I didn't ignore St. Peter. I used his very words to preach the Law. I urged my hearers to live as St. Peter says they should be living. They are baptized children of God, living as exiles in this valley of the shadow of death for the "little while" (from the Gospel) of their earthly pilgrimages, and they should live like it, abstaining from the passions of their flesh, keeping their conduct honorable, not using their freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God, honoring everyone, loving the brotherhood, fearing God, honoring their earthly authorities. Then, I exhorted them to repent, for, truth be told, they haven't lived as they should.<br />
<br />
Then, I proclaimed to them the One who has lived as they should, who resisted all temptation and abstained from the passions of the flesh in their place; the One who kept His conduct honorable at all times; the One who never had a need to cover up evil, for He was without sin; the One who lived as a servant of God every day of the "little while" of His earthly pilgrimage; the One who honored everyone, loved the brotherhood, feared God, and honored the emperor; the One who went to the Cross to take away the sin of the world - even the sins of Christians, who fail to live as they should be living - by covering up, and burying, all sin and evil in His sacrificial death; the One who appeared again to His disciples after the "little while" between Good Friday and Easter evening, just as He promised; the One who died, but is not dead, for He rose and lives; the One who fulfills His promise "to be with us always" in the Divine Service, where His sheep hear His voice and are fed upon the sweet honey of His Word; the One <i></i>who is made known to us in "the breaking of the bread," who gives us to eat and to drink of His very Body and Blood for the forgiveness of our sins and to strengthen and preserve us in the faith, as we make our way through the wilderness of this sinful world during the "little while" of our earthly pilgrimage, until He brings us home to dwell with Him and all His saints and angels in His kingdom, which has no end; the One who fills us with Himself, that His mercy and love might pour forth from us to others in ways that only He knows. I preached Jesus to them.<br />
<br />
Then, I shut up. Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-62313799189679454212013-04-21T14:06:00.000-04:002013-04-21T14:06:03.510-04:00First Communion PicsWe were blessed this morning to welcome five of our children to the holy altar to receive the very Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Supper for the first time via the Rite of First Communion Prior to Confirmation.<br />
<br />
<i>Heavenly Father, whose Son Jesus Christ loved the young and called them to Himself, we ask You to bless Hannah, Noah, Zane, Jack, and Aaron. Strengthen them in the faith through the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood, so that they may grow spiritually and bring forth the fruits of faith in a life of love toward others to the praise and honor of Your holy name; through the same Jesus Christ, our Lord, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.</i> <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
Some pics:</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKjbKoQRZrSUsm39w9-8KkHBq4s1Qd10JM8vyXDbsRH4SCz68bvsYIfIO8Tf1hsVZOGK9OxMOm6OYTH8xTMNEpvPTX499FYaFbVbm5PhvooZANrazK_wLfGa8_YTbVe1cJFq8Xi2rLD4Q/s1600/IMG_3725.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="476" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKjbKoQRZrSUsm39w9-8KkHBq4s1Qd10JM8vyXDbsRH4SCz68bvsYIfIO8Tf1hsVZOGK9OxMOm6OYTH8xTMNEpvPTX499FYaFbVbm5PhvooZANrazK_wLfGa8_YTbVe1cJFq8Xi2rLD4Q/s640/IMG_3725.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlEjGOwcBfC4ipx6uqZ6no_OjnXRKehBIUztP-zjIOh-Yyr8wNwwgONvTQ5sQDPcywHLlipKwY_CiHEmWgnyq9tZc3AZ4QROj3cK-Dafc9wfHmxlEGu8_7MyJR5HTE6WFzvh3Hq0aWX7U/s1600/IMG_3734.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlEjGOwcBfC4ipx6uqZ6no_OjnXRKehBIUztP-zjIOh-Yyr8wNwwgONvTQ5sQDPcywHLlipKwY_CiHEmWgnyq9tZc3AZ4QROj3cK-Dafc9wfHmxlEGu8_7MyJR5HTE6WFzvh3Hq0aWX7U/s640/IMG_3734.JPG" width="478" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0ppe6aMfvJ737D57JcUZ3ONMNryYyrbg2d2omNVD1NrNITHpkpfOInHwhSydueCOLjFVsPDVHq1dHf0zr6D9lTpF5Sa1p74AaDlXQrrdmTIDvOMkTp97O1M1AeFc1KuuS2X9Ez1ZMyPE/s1600/IMG_3754.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0ppe6aMfvJ737D57JcUZ3ONMNryYyrbg2d2omNVD1NrNITHpkpfOInHwhSydueCOLjFVsPDVHq1dHf0zr6D9lTpF5Sa1p74AaDlXQrrdmTIDvOMkTp97O1M1AeFc1KuuS2X9Ez1ZMyPE/s640/IMG_3754.JPG" width="478" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUzDlDW1HvUHQLyB9YfiDf26xi_dG7-Pquj7ey_GZct8vC9hyIOxEF1iLzQMDkcmCK2AWwOuWjjpXY2BuOfdqA3gnUHK1wrVXNSkb8cSQGLrIVmKryddb23GnjCrxFKtAJTGIb0PK83r8/s1600/IMG_3762.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="478" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUzDlDW1HvUHQLyB9YfiDf26xi_dG7-Pquj7ey_GZct8vC9hyIOxEF1iLzQMDkcmCK2AWwOuWjjpXY2BuOfdqA3gnUHK1wrVXNSkb8cSQGLrIVmKryddb23GnjCrxFKtAJTGIb0PK83r8/s640/IMG_3762.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh02jPPE31lmxwfmEeNErE2HaWzoHlv-75GCtpjX_S-IGndV7T9F3bA5jhjsr-bsPD_p5C6Ya3BPKX4clO2zj9Ae_yPdIzCZj8-EppOz-pAYPbfny8ORWexhmwiDwSMh5Y8B1a6qGMaFpM/s1600/IMG_3765.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="478" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh02jPPE31lmxwfmEeNErE2HaWzoHlv-75GCtpjX_S-IGndV7T9F3bA5jhjsr-bsPD_p5C6Ya3BPKX4clO2zj9Ae_yPdIzCZj8-EppOz-pAYPbfny8ORWexhmwiDwSMh5Y8B1a6qGMaFpM/s640/IMG_3765.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
A closer look at the beautiful First Holy Communion crucifix they received:</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxzw5P17NyawIC1BUIJtIZlQI8NLmwYMXeEdsGcWmZP6kVSC3td-gMuyIhwBBX0Etz-sJJcA7ewxwOaglS9Xvkn6xD2EXnn7TFxf75dbLBtVWKFdPuHSuZwjI9BGoAdCP3OcNjH532BHU/s1600/first+holy+communion+crucifix.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxzw5P17NyawIC1BUIJtIZlQI8NLmwYMXeEdsGcWmZP6kVSC3td-gMuyIhwBBX0Etz-sJJcA7ewxwOaglS9Xvkn6xD2EXnn7TFxf75dbLBtVWKFdPuHSuZwjI9BGoAdCP3OcNjH532BHU/s640/first+holy+communion+crucifix.jpg" width="502" /></a></div>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:TargetScreenSize>800x600</o:TargetScreenSize>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-8402109660768357822013-04-17T15:19:00.000-04:002013-04-17T15:19:02.052-04:00Lunatics - Funniest Book Ever!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1ZTNRyZh0r_NZoLBTja7MJHZkoa1VD5iDv2bKufaso51MGGXOzxJS2GZVDndGJXThUlcQFy31dUUg5YbyiWDOEsu0Zb0v25P5oVBas_enRqHo8hvuMQVlmVO8qzeuxyYmc6dH81FcrGg/s1600/Lunatics.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1ZTNRyZh0r_NZoLBTja7MJHZkoa1VD5iDv2bKufaso51MGGXOzxJS2GZVDndGJXThUlcQFy31dUUg5YbyiWDOEsu0Zb0v25P5oVBas_enRqHo8hvuMQVlmVO8qzeuxyYmc6dH81FcrGg/s1600/Lunatics.jpg" /></a></div>
Our Peace Book Club met last night. We laughed. Hard. To the point of tears hard. Then, we laughed again. And again. And again. And again. In fact, I can honestly say that I don't think I've ever laughed so much, or so hard, in my life. But, before I explain the laughter, a little background is in order.<br />
<br />
That background begins with an admission: We are not the most organized book club. That's okay. We don't have to be. What we do works for us. But, it really is important to note this fact, as it is this fact alone that lead to the laugh-fest we enjoyed last night.<br />
<br />
When we met last month, after discussing the novel we had read, we engaged in our usual, disorganized process of deciding upon which book we would read next, which involves us rummaging through our kindles to see what's out there, and what might be of interest to the group. Sometimes, this process takes longer than the discussion we had on the book we just read. Not always, but sometimes. But always, it's disorganized. And, again, that's okay. I'm not complaining. This "fly-by-the-seat-of-our-pants" method works for us. It's fine. Yes, it can be a little annoying at times, but you'll never hear me say that out loud. This is the method the group has decided to use. I'm fine with it. Really, I am. The fact that I've made suggestions on how to make our book club more organized, which have always been summarily shot down by the group, should not in any way give the impression that I'm not totally down with the ridiculous, painstakingly disorganized manner our book club uses to determine what to read. I enjoy the hours of not having a clue what we're going to read next. I think it's great to frantically search through our kindles and read summary after summary of prospective books in the hope that one of them will eventually meet the approval of the club members. I mean, what could be better than that?<br />
<br />
So, we're not the most organized book club. That's okay. We don't have to be. What we do works for us and, as I've made vividly clear in the preceding paragraph, no one could possibly be a bigger fan of our disorganization than yours truly. It's totally awesome. If there was a time when I didn't think our disorganization was totally awesome, and I'm not saying there ever was, I really, truly do believe in that total awesomeness now.<br />
<br />
You see, it was the total awesomeness of our disorganization that led us to choose <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Lunatics-Dave-Barry/dp/0399158693"><b><i>Lunatics</i></b></a> by Dave Barry and Alan Zwiebel as our book this past month, a book we most likely would not have chosen had we been the more organized book club I may have once desired us to be (not that I've ever had such a desire, mind you).<br />
<br />
So, there we were last month rummaging through our kindles. "What about this book?" one member asks, and then reads the summary and some of the reviews. "Meh," the group mumbles. "What about this one?" another member asks, and then reads the summary and some of the reviews. "Meh." And on and on we went for about forty-five hours (by hours, I mean minutes), until finally Sharyn says, rather enthusiastically, "Ooh, Dave Barry has a new book. I used to read his column in the paper all the time. He's hilarious."<br />
<br />
Hilarious sounded pretty good to the group, since we had just read an action/suspense novel that was neither very action-packed nor suspenseful (which is what happens sometimes with our totally awesome disorganized method, but I digress). So, we all in unison directed our kindles to the new Barry book. Upon reading some of the reviews, we noticed that many were saying that this new book was good, but not quite as funny as his previous book, <i>Lunatics</i>. More funny sounded more better to us, so, after something like sixty hours (again, by hours, I mean minutes), we all said, "<i>Lunatics</i> it is!" (The exclamation point is added not because any of us were overly excited about this book, as none of us had any clue what it was or would be about. The exclamation point is added to note the enthusiasm we all had to pick a dang book and go home, as we had been hemming and hawing about what to read next for going on sixty hours [by that I mean, well, you know] at that point. We're not the most organized book club. Did I already say that?).<br />
<br />
So, <i>Lunatics</i> it was. I downloaded the book on my kindle and began reading it a couple days after we had met. Couldn't put the dang thing down. Funniest book I've ever read. By far. In fact, funny seems an inadequate descriptor. To-the-point-of-tears-nearly-pee-your-pants hilarious comes much closer. Barry co-authored this book with Alan Zwiebel, and these two are absolute comic geniuses.<br />
<br />
But, here's the thing: It's not exactly the sort of book one would imagine a church book club would have on its docket. In fact, this is what makes the disorganization of our book club totally awesome, since I'm not sure we would have chosen this book had we known that it would be filled from beginning to end with (how shall I put it?) colorful, adult humor. Not that any of us who belong to our book club are prudes or overly pietistic or anything. We're all adults, who live in the real world, but choosing this book would be like us choosing to show <i>The Hangover</i> at one of our Peace Movie Nights. Actually, that comparison is not really all that accurate, since our book club consists of adults only, whereas our Movie Nights are for the whole congregation, but hopefully you're picking up what I'm laying down (oh, and the inaccuracy of that comparison is also seen by the fact that <i>Lunatics</i> is about seventy zillion times more hilarious than <i>The Hangover</i>, which was pretty funny). So, maybe we would have chosen this book to read, after all, but maybe not. Who knows? It's a moot point now. We chose it. We read it. We laughed hysterically. We gave it a 5 on our 1-5 rating, which is the best rating we can give a book. Of all the books we've read to date, this is only the second 5 we've given and, truth be told, it's more of a 5 than the other book we gave a 5, but we don't have any higher rating, and we can't go changing our rating system now. We're far too organized to do such a thing. <br />
<br />
Barry and Zwiebel write <i>Lunatics</i> in an alternating, chapter-by-chapter manner. The book is about two guys. The first guy is Philip Horkman, who is very clean-cut, moral (but not very religious; you know, more spiritual than religious), and full of politeness and tact, almost to a fault. He loves life. He's a quiet guy. He's an optimistic guy. He runs a pet shop, volunteers to referee girls' soccer games, and loves his wife and children. His dream day would consist of nothing more than taking care of the animals in his pet shop, talking to his kids about their day when he returned home from work, capped off by snuggling up with his wife on the couch to enjoy a glass of wine while watching a Bette Midler movie. <br />
<br />
The other guy is Jeffrey Peckerman, who is completely rude, lewd, and crude, lacking any semblance of having a moral compass or any tact at all. He may be the most obnoxious scumbag ever to set foot on this planet. He's a forensic plumber and thinks that this makes him the most important person in the world. He hates life, largely because every other person on the planet is an a-hole, which happens to be his favorite word. He's loud. He's pessimistic. He's racist, but not in the usual way ignorant people are racist. His racism is much broader than the racism of most, as his discrimination is not limited to this or that segment of humanity, but rather embraces the entire human race, save himself, of course. He has never met another human being who didn't completely annoy him. His dream day would consist of . . . well, I'd rather not go there.<br />
<br />
Horkman meets Peckerman at a soccer field. Horkman is reffing the game in which Peckerman's daughter is playing. Horkman disallows a goal scored by Peckerman's daughter because she was offside. Peckerman screams obscenities at Horkman during and after the game. Horkman takes the criticism in stride and politely responds, acknowledging that he was just calling the play as he saw it. More obscenities from Peckerman.<br />
<br />
By happenstance, Peckerman ends up walking into Horkman's pet shop the next day, thinking that he's going to pick up some wine for his wife, since Horkman's pet shop is named, "The Wine Shop" (you gotta read the book), and this is where the outrageous and hilarious adventure begins, an adventure that has these two polar opposite guys joined together in hilarious happening after even more hilarious happening. <br />
<br />
It is the contrast between the two, as they alternate chapter-to-chapter, each recounting for the reader his interpretation of the hilarious and unbelievable events unfolding throughout the book (Zwiebel writing as Horkman, Barry as Peckerman), that cause you to almost pee yourself with laughter. That's all I'm going to say about it. You'll have to read it for yourself to see what I mean.<br />
<br />
So it was that last night, as we shared our favorite parts of the book (I think we must have actually re-read at least a quarter of it last night), we laughed. Hard. To the point of tears hard. Then, we laughed again. And again. And again. And again. As I said above, I can't ever remember laughing so much, or so hard, in my life. <br />
<br />
And all this because we're not the most organized book club, which really, truly is a totally awesome thing, as I've always known and totally never, ever doubted. Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-35891506508973606532013-04-15T23:38:00.001-04:002013-04-15T23:38:54.671-04:00When "Preaching Sanctification" Hits the Fan<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpmkI8TiylhOrIehFcyDXljtk2CVvv4RwU2vTBk13sILzAwhYVjwJ8BmLH9fIg0QFEFsBPBvHGpUQSfyQBLwXRzzkDNDedaXXKvBerdsG9YC26umH8ySHWpK8QVZ0iOeTiUWFA-SSxE9g/s1600/sanctification1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpmkI8TiylhOrIehFcyDXljtk2CVvv4RwU2vTBk13sILzAwhYVjwJ8BmLH9fIg0QFEFsBPBvHGpUQSfyQBLwXRzzkDNDedaXXKvBerdsG9YC26umH8ySHWpK8QVZ0iOeTiUWFA-SSxE9g/s1600/sanctification1.jpg" /></a></div>
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).<br />
<br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />"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." <br /><br />"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. <br /><br />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.<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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." <br /><br />"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." <br />
<br />In the words of the Church Lady, "Weeeelll, isn't that special?!"<br />
<br />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!"<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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 <i>still</i> have massive student loan debt, but, again, you get the point). <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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." Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-86500371267346458612013-04-10T16:32:00.001-04:002013-04-10T16:32:48.673-04:00What Now? Jesus. That's What.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbIfzFjJN0yhirqlMb6L-bY7npFI0vv551dLOnteafW791Ei_LtITr-7mzzYjrp3SnQbfzjzjkIbc1yMlzoKvAjnXFY8e-gIhyphenhyphen_8RDcWgfdtaHI6H5lkke_i-XxKQDsfvBKr314N2EU-0/s1600/broken.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbIfzFjJN0yhirqlMb6L-bY7npFI0vv551dLOnteafW791Ei_LtITr-7mzzYjrp3SnQbfzjzjkIbc1yMlzoKvAjnXFY8e-gIhyphenhyphen_8RDcWgfdtaHI6H5lkke_i-XxKQDsfvBKr314N2EU-0/s1600/broken.jpg" /></a></div>
It's time to dust off the old blog. <br /><br />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?" <br /><br />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.<br />
<br />
This morning, I read a couple of recently posted reviews of Pr. Jonathan Fisk's excellent book, <i><a href="https://www.cph.org/p-19471-broken-7-christian-rules-that-every-christian-ought-to-break-as-often-as-possible.aspx?SearchTerm=broken"><b>Broken.</b></a></i> The <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/book-reviews/review/broken"><b>first was written by David Snyder</b></a>, 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.<br />
<br />
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! <br /><br />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.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Snyder ends his review by stating, "<i>Broken</i> 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 <i>Broken</i> 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 <i>Broken</i> I read this morning, a review written by Anthony Sacramone <a href="http://strangeherring.com/2013/04/08/a-strange-review-broken/"><b>here</b></a>.<br />
<br />
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 <i>Broken</i>, namely Fisk's failure to answer the question, "What now?" In fact, he finds merit in the criticisms lobbed at Fisk by Snyder.<br />
<br />
Sacramone initially reviewed Snyder's review <a href="http://strangeherring.com/2013/04/07/is-lutheranism-broken/"><b>here</b></a>, 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.<br />
<br />
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. <br /><br />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.<br />
<br />
Sacramone longs for a sequel to <i>Broken</i>. He imagines that Fisk has left us hanging. What now? What comes after the Gospel? He even suggests a title for a sequel: <i>Risen: Living the Gospel Life Like Only a Lutheran Can</i>. 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?<br />
<br />
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 <i>ad nauseum</i> (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?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
But, what about the the Christian life? Silly goose, repentance and faith IS the Christian life.<br /><br />But, don't Christians need to know how to live? Yeah. Repent and believe. Abide in Jesus. He's your only hope. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 <i>Broken</i>. He ends it with Jesus. It is finished. Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-40374265519445645812012-10-03T10:58:00.001-04:002012-10-03T10:58:37.579-04:00The Divine Service - Heaven on Earth<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9q1ksSNIQ_6nIjRqVdgl4CdpDXBxmcSZxLNbryCZ7nWii7su-wpZx1KmKTWptSTL9pHmMqZ8vQHFC9T3OHRsihp6R6LezrIPSdMdOtMY2psWV1b_YxuZKnuJqKQmGqfGBhiMqJ6-N_Jw/s1600/elevation+of+host.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9q1ksSNIQ_6nIjRqVdgl4CdpDXBxmcSZxLNbryCZ7nWii7su-wpZx1KmKTWptSTL9pHmMqZ8vQHFC9T3OHRsihp6R6LezrIPSdMdOtMY2psWV1b_YxuZKnuJqKQmGqfGBhiMqJ6-N_Jw/s640/elevation+of+host.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
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!" :)<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
All of this came to mind when I read the excellent devotion by Rev. Dr. Scott Murray this morning, which you can find <a href="http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Memorial-Moment--Heaven-On-Earth.html?soid=1101459756774&aid=x5vK1fMo72A"><b>here</b></a>. Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-34582542490861513022012-09-21T13:56:00.000-04:002012-09-21T13:56:01.777-04:00Video Message from President Harrison<center><iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AcRMOxdPGj0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>
Thank you, President Harrison. And, Amen!Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2978485750390455025.post-43062335591014539272012-09-21T13:28:00.001-04:002012-09-21T13:36:03.532-04:00Peace Book Club - September 2012<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuTZrCYA51ZhwzBnoUSL7lF-AZ7I2LWo-fyfKM1uEcswgbXzW_j3ONHuy_FrAQarvhOZiA0TPsL40Rq9PUBrR4i2b8dUuB3-lXM71-cLtGMDG3ChT6UeBPYBLHMXVT9wR1Cxgft4ASz7A/s1600/IMG_2281.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="475" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuTZrCYA51ZhwzBnoUSL7lF-AZ7I2LWo-fyfKM1uEcswgbXzW_j3ONHuy_FrAQarvhOZiA0TPsL40Rq9PUBrR4i2b8dUuB3-lXM71-cLtGMDG3ChT6UeBPYBLHMXVT9wR1Cxgft4ASz7A/s640/IMG_2281.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
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.<br />
<br />
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):<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTSQkZSZzRo2WamLo9ycmjJVplHxeLRoJiQ2gUAJcvmVudRJ69D_G8IRwiaYfZPf7rr8EptuNjufC2lJI-EYcZALjfV7erlAPITo8a7xqdFAST64XxS2EWUB_g7RhAQW-FgpYJajcaWfI/s1600/Once+Upon+a+River.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTSQkZSZzRo2WamLo9ycmjJVplHxeLRoJiQ2gUAJcvmVudRJ69D_G8IRwiaYfZPf7rr8EptuNjufC2lJI-EYcZALjfV7erlAPITo8a7xqdFAST64XxS2EWUB_g7RhAQW-FgpYJajcaWfI/s1600/Once+Upon+a+River.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Once-Upon-River-A-Novel/dp/0393079899"><u><b>"Once Upon A River" by Bonnie Jo Campbell</b></u></a></div>
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.<br />
<br />
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!<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Vr28dKT42CynFov3X1U7O_bw2x6vMTkQw5H1WeJ0Kq4Ni6NLLEcAcymy6aq67QMkjpRSPnnXLLnr6lTFnak_91lCkmS8-pjXwt2ityLPq81OxHyyGT8P_TW2nuJw-xmWUIgr2R84YlA/s1600/Mrs.+Kennedy+and+Me.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Vr28dKT42CynFov3X1U7O_bw2x6vMTkQw5H1WeJ0Kq4Ni6NLLEcAcymy6aq67QMkjpRSPnnXLLnr6lTFnak_91lCkmS8-pjXwt2ityLPq81OxHyyGT8P_TW2nuJw-xmWUIgr2R84YlA/s200/Mrs.+Kennedy+and+Me.jpg" width="131" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Mrs-Kennedy-Me-Intimate-Memoir/dp/1451648448"><u><b>"Mrs. Kennedy and Me" by Clint Hill</b></u></a></div>
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?<br />
<br />
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. :) <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAOuflA_llXEttoakUXtIC-d7jcm3Gw5E_Y52k78bfL1Y5dnjeQg5oYcNBGQQo3qxNLJRxBl_g5YsOH6gOCCmZ1dAKtsGCaTims_nC5rStEOeiVxE0An_H9p3Xavlykk8Asf2UN-JD1CY/s1600/The+Constantine+Codex.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAOuflA_llXEttoakUXtIC-d7jcm3Gw5E_Y52k78bfL1Y5dnjeQg5oYcNBGQQo3qxNLJRxBl_g5YsOH6gOCCmZ1dAKtsGCaTims_nC5rStEOeiVxE0An_H9p3Xavlykk8Asf2UN-JD1CY/s1600/The+Constantine+Codex.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Constantine-Codex-Skeleton-Paul-Maier/dp/1414337744"><u><b>"The Constantine Codex" by Paul Maier</b></u></a></div>
This is the third installment in Maier's fictional series featuring Professor Jonathan Weber, the first two being <i>A Skeleton in God's Closet</i> and <i>More Than a Skeleton</i>. Like the first two, this is a fun, quick read that invokes from the reader several "What If's."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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, <i>Jesus of Nazareth</i>, is discovered in the Arabic version. This angers many Muslims and a <i>fatwah</i> 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. <br />
<br />
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 <i>A Skeleton in God's Closet</i> is by far the best of the three books in this series, with <i>The Constantine Codex</i> edging out <i>More Than a Skeleton</i> as second-best. We gave this one a 3 on our rating scale.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJ5TF3VoZDf5fXq5iElsUgBrhRdnsZQyrQBasb51bV7Tgx2FIHDd8hRCfB7hRPU1SF5orbZaESDqiIj4hPTkeBKMOehm97FZWc-cM0FjlapyBkpmDPlyAP-Mk3ZKyTD5ewgeqadfzwcCw/s1600/Unholy+Night.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJ5TF3VoZDf5fXq5iElsUgBrhRdnsZQyrQBasb51bV7Tgx2FIHDd8hRCfB7hRPU1SF5orbZaESDqiIj4hPTkeBKMOehm97FZWc-cM0FjlapyBkpmDPlyAP-Mk3ZKyTD5ewgeqadfzwcCw/s1600/Unholy+Night.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Night-Seth-Grahame-Smith/dp/0446563099"><u><b>"Unholy Night" by Seth Grahame-Smith</b></u></a></div>
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 <i>Unholy Night </i>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. <br />
<br />
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!<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>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><br />
<br />
I laughed out loud. </blockquote>
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. :) <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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, <i>Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter</i>, 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 <i>Unholy Night</i>, I will be ordering that book, as well as his <i>Pride and Prejudice and Zombies</i>, 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 <i>Unholy Night</i>. 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 <i>Unholy Night</i>, and I look forward to seeing how he does it in his other books.<br />
<br />
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 <i>Once Upon a River</i> 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, <i>Unholy Night</i> 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!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWBi3lUF-1NJ5tLpCoqAH4XuQrfmWY5ApVTXHEWtX7E3lM8DRzr2rVC1m7Xd0N6QzovdAidVpn8uPH5BCTb1fGHx58_zJnXsJIcdfeJ8tBjGH3ujIUCwpbhy_NWGG47yyy15iAO_bMEtQ/s1600/Root+of+All+Evil+-+front+cover.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWBi3lUF-1NJ5tLpCoqAH4XuQrfmWY5ApVTXHEWtX7E3lM8DRzr2rVC1m7Xd0N6QzovdAidVpn8uPH5BCTb1fGHx58_zJnXsJIcdfeJ8tBjGH3ujIUCwpbhy_NWGG47yyy15iAO_bMEtQ/s320/Root+of+All+Evil+-+front+cover.jpeg" width="207" /></a></div>
After discussing these four books, we ended up assigning two books to be read over the next couple of months: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Root-All-Evil-Pastor-Stephen/dp/1479112194"><b><i>The Root of All Evil: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel</i></b></a> by Ray Keating and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Pillars-Earth-Ken-Follett/dp/0451166892"><b><i>The Pillars of the Earth</i></b></a> by Ken Follett. Having loved reading <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Warrior-Monk-Pastor-Stephen-Grant/dp/1453801030"><b><i>Warrior Monk</i></b></a> 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 <i>The Root of All Evil</i>. We will discuss <i>The Root of All Evil</i> in October and <i>The Pillars of the Earth</i> in November. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj83KQQ7k9GGwSh813j_Yxa855BpPbm-mjLKQy4V3O2jOsqTvwHk9gnNNObQqkGHzafXPam8PiUQLSlx9tOJlw6zYlKRGpBazlJE6x7F0O1hKfib-FRpPILYpmhBK1HyfK6td8TpKBb-Is/s1600/The+Pillars+of+the+Earth+-+better.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj83KQQ7k9GGwSh813j_Yxa855BpPbm-mjLKQy4V3O2jOsqTvwHk9gnNNObQqkGHzafXPam8PiUQLSlx9tOJlw6zYlKRGpBazlJE6x7F0O1hKfib-FRpPILYpmhBK1HyfK6td8TpKBb-Is/s1600/The+Pillars+of+the+Earth+-+better.jpg" /></a></div>
Rev. Thomas C. Messer, SSPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13740553600700598394noreply@blogger.com0