On the Wittenberg Trail

Three fifths of what?

2011-09-22T06:11:00.009-05:00

The infamous three-fifths clause of the U.S. Constitution is often invoked to prove that the Founding Fathers did not believe their own immortal words in the Declaration of Independence, when they said, "all men are created equal." At the very least they would have you believe that the three-fifths clause is prima facie evidence (evidence needing no further support or argument) that the essential equality of all human beings is not the bedrock principle on which this nation was established. It seems like a slam dunk. After all, does it not say that black people in the United States are to be counted as three fifths of a person?

Actually... No, it does not. The U.S. Constitution never said anything at all in reference to people of color. Those who would prove that our nation was not founded on the conviction that all men are created equal must carry their argument quite a bit further.

What the Constitution said was that for purposes of apportionment the population of the States would be determined by "adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

As pernicious as these words sound in our ears today, it is astonishing that this compromise was established (1) without any reference to race, (2) without any reference to slaves or slavery, and (3) without conceding that slaves were anything other than "Persons."

Let no one deny that racism was alive and well in the United States during the time our nation was born (c. 1774-1801), but it was not black people who were to be counted as three fifths. It was Persons who were (a) not free, who were (b) not bound to their masters for a finite term of service, and who were (c) not Indians. This applied only to slaves, and it just so happened, due to circumstances beyond the control of the federal government, that virtually all slaves were black. Nevertheless, the Framers of the Constitution were very careful in their phrasing of this provision to avoid giving the impression that black people are somehow inherently inferior. They did not want to repudiate the words of our founding document: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." They understood that the doctrine this nation was founded on, applied to black people as well as to white.

The Framers not only wanted to avoid any appearance of racism, but they also wanted to avoid giving any explicit sanction to the institution of slavery by naming it in their document. This provision and the one in Article IV, Section 2 dealing with fugitive slaves scrupulously avoid referring to anyone as a slave. Today we tend to regard this as willful blindness and rank hypocrisy, but we do not have an appreciation for the contingencies these men were facing. We do not understand how critically important it was for the security of all to perfect a Union of all the thirteen States. We do not understand how essential these two compromises were to the accomplishment of that goal. There would have been no Constitution, no Civil War, and no emancipation of Southern slaves without those compromises in the original charter. It was a remarkable accomplishment that those provisions were included in the document without explicitly naming the institution itself. Had it been named it would have been sanctioned, and that would have made it much harder for Americans in later generations to take up and advance the cause of abolition.

Finally, we need to recognize that in its opaque references to slaves the United States Constitution never calls them anything other than "Persons." Remember, it was the South that wanted to count slaves as whole persons. To do so would greatly increase their representation in the new Congress and give them a much greater say in the election of future Presidents. But the North recognized a fundamental injustice in denying slaves the unalienable Rights naturally belonging to all men. The North recognized the fundamental inconsistency between treating slaves like chattel on the one hand (that is to say, like sub-human creatures), and then calling them citizens for the purposes of the census. The North wanted the slaves to be counted in the same way as Indians who had not been assimilated. Indians were not counted at all unless they were tax paying members of the civil society being formed under the new Constitution. The North was saying to the South: until you admit these slaves to full membership in the human race and in the civil society of your States (as you must eventually do), it would be wrong to count them as citizens and so give the slave masters more power in the new government.

Today, we read the three fifths compromise as though it were a grotesque denial of the humanity of the slaves. Nothing could be further from the truth. The three fifths clause is in the Constitution precisely because both sections of the country understood (a) the full humanity of the persons being held in slavery, and (b) the inherent, unnatural injustice of the institution.

X Marks the Discipled

2011-09-01T20:52:00.002-05:00

I have been discussing baptism on another blog, and one of the anonymous the adversaries engaging me on that site is now citing Josh Dryer as an authority on the interpretation of Matthew 28:19. I will only note in passing that Mr. Dryer's credentials at the time he wrote this paper were in the field of aeronautics and the source he cites for his understanding of the Greek in the Matthew text is... Strong's Concordance. Um, yeah... I rest my case.

This is how a shepherd, who reads and understands the Greek language, opens that text to the English-speaking world.

Testing video posts, laying foundations

2011-09-01T13:53:00.004-05:00

"If you want to build a tower, you have to lay the foundation; and the foundation for a dialogue between the Reformed and the Lutherans begins with the Reformed admitting that the Lutherans are not the Reformed." - Rev. Jonathan Fisk

At first glance this seems self-evident and stupid. What person doesn't know that the Lutherans are not the Reformed? But is it as obvious as it seems? I have hardly ever met a Protestant who is reluctant to celebrate the heroism of Martin Luther, and there is hardly any Protestant who will not try to trade on that heroism by quoting Luther whenever he finds it advantageous to his cause. The Reformed are particularly susceptible to this because they imagine that Luther is really in their camp when it comes to the construction they put on election, and it is the Lutherans who somehow failed to follow their own leader into the light of the truth.

In this video Pastor Fisk explains how there are really four fellowships within the Christian Church as a whole. They are 1) the Eastern Orthodox, 2) the Roman Catholics, 3) the Lutherans, and 4) the Reformed (which is essentially every form of Protestant that is not Lutheran). Having this foundational understanding will be particularly helpful, I think, in understanding how I will discuss certain topics in the future on this blog. Lutherans aren't the Reformed. It's not just that we have an incrementally higher view of the sacraments and a marginally more reverent and formal style of worship than the Reformed have. It is that we have an altogether different view of the sacraments and worship than every other Protestant group on the planet.

Baptism is not our own work

2011-08-24T08:08:00.003-05:00

Those opposing the biblical doctrine of baptismal regeneration have a very simple argument: "We are saved by grace, and not by works. Baptism is a work; therefore, Baptism contributes nothing to our salvation." Simplicity is a virtue, and the argument seems sound; but is it? There is an assumption built into the syllogism that needs more scrutiny. It is the idea that Baptism is a work.

Is Baptism a work? There is more to that assumption than meets the eye. Let's suppose for a moment that Jesus himself is standing in the water at the font. Looking directly in your eye, He invites you to come and and receive Baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Do you hesitate? Do you say, "Lord, water can't wash away my sins"? Clearly, we would be fools to reject that kind of invitation, but this exercise in imagination uncovers the rest of the assumption. It is not merely that Baptism is a work. They are taking it one step further, and assuming that Baptism is man's work -- ALONE.

What does the Bible say about that?

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in (or into) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:16-20)

The person who came to baptize you was sent by the One to whom "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given." Looking more carefully we see that the command was not, "Go baptize." The command was, "Go make disciples." Jesus presents Baptism to His apostles as a means to an end. What is that end? The making of disciples.

When we observe Baptism taking place, we see that it is not the work of the one who receives it. It is the work of the one who gives it. And when we look at Matthew 28 we see that it is not the work of the one who administers the water, but the work of the One who sent him. This Jesus is not an earthly king who can have you bathed and nothing more. He is the reigning Heavenly King, who, with one word (Gen.1:1-3), can make His Baptism a washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5), of rebirth (John 3:5), of re-creation (2 Peter 3:5).

Has Jesus given that word?

And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16)

Baptism, which corresponds to [God's saving of eight persons in Noah's ark], now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 3:21).

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:1-4)

My Road to Wittenberg: In Need of Forgiveness

2011-07-14T06:24:00.010-05:00

I grew up in a charismatic church. In December 2001 it was over. I had to move on.

About three years prior to that I had started listening regularly to R.C. Sproul on the radio during my drive home from work. Dr. Sproul opened the Scriptures in a way that I had never heard before. He taught with the authority of one who had spent many years studying the texts in their original languages, and his teaching was firmly grounded in the history of the church. He wasn't only pointing out the errors of the past. He was explaining the tremendous continuity of the faith over the centuries, and using that as a secondary source of authority for his doctrine. Over time I gained a new perspective on the depths of human depravity and the overwhelming magnificence of God's unconditional grace. I came to believe that worship is better expressed in reverence than in unbridled freedom and emotional expression. But the teaching from Dr. Sproul that really shook me was on the subject of infant baptism. He was the first person to tell me that there is a Biblical case to be made for the practice.

I had never even considered the possibility that such a thing might exist. You may ask, "Given the fact that infant baptism is the practice of most Christians in the world today, and has been from the beginning of the Church, wouldn't you just assume that there was a Biblical foundation for it?" Well... No. In the first place, charismatics put even less emphasis on Baptism than Baptists do. Water baptism was just assumed. It was a given. Every church practiced it in one form or another. "Spirit baptism" was the new thing God was doing in the earth. It was the thing we had to constantly contend for. So, growing up I heard a great deal about "Spirit baptism," and almost nothing about water baptism -- except that the two were not the same. Strange as it may seem, I didn't know that infant baptism is and always has been the practice of most Christians in the world. We were taught that it was an old church tradition, introduced by superstitious Catholics sometime in the second or third century, and cleansed back out of the true church during the Reformation. Obviously (cough... choke... hack), no one in the Bible was ever baptized as an infant, and there is no verse telling us to baptize babies, so how could it possibly be biblical? As I was growing up, if it was acknowledged at all, infant baptism was treated with a quiet and polite form of scorn or derision -- as you might treat your neighbor if he thought his backyard was a foreign country. In public teaching it was not given any serious rebuttal.

To hear Dr. Sproul present a Biblical case for the practice of infant baptism was nothing short of stunning. From my perspective this was truly impossible, and yet... There it was. In listening to Dr. Sproul, I didn't run into a wall of internal conflict. It kind of took my breath away, but I never had much doubt that his position was correct. His style of teaching was so markedly different from what I was accustomed to in my upbringing -- where the Bible had often been merely a prop for whatever theme or message the minister wanted to convey. Sproul seemed more than willing to let the text speak for itself. The difference was so remarkable that I had come to place a very high degree of trust in him as a teacher. So when he spoke on Baptism -- when he opened the Scriptures on this new topic -- what he said was a surprise, but I never really doubted him.

One of the things Dr. Sproul said in his discussion was that Baptism is not our sign, it is God's. This, he said, is the reason that the practice of re-baptizing Christians is wrong. If Baptism were our work, then maybe we could ask for a redo. We could assume our effort was somehow inadequate, and that we need to take another swing at the ball, so to speak. But Baptism is God's work and God's sign -- a sign God puts on us through the hands of the pastor and the institution of the Church. It would be profoundly irreverent to suggest that God didn't do it right the first time. It would be irreverent to say, "Lord, I wasn't really paying attention the first time..." or, "Lord, I was just a baby the first time, and even though I know you baptized me, I don't really remember what happened, so, could you please repeat it just one more time?"

That hit home with me. Most of the youngsters baptized in our charismatic church were baptized only once, but I had been baptized as a baby in my grandmother's Lutheran church. I had committed the sin Dr. Sproul was describing. I had presumed to tell the God of the universe that he could have a mulligan!

As strange as it may seem, I think this issue of Baptism became the straw that broke the camel's back. Yes, I had adopted Sproul's views on predestination, and quite vigorously argued for the Five Points of Calvinism in private conversation and in correspondence. I had been displaced from my spot on the worship team, and I was pretty disgusted with the undisguised effort to manipulate the emotional response of the congregation during worship anyway. It wasn't something I wanted to continue leading. So I was experiencing more and more alienation from several different directions. But the differences over Calvinism were essentially an abstraction, and there is a certain relativity and subjectivity involved when you begin looking for more reverence in worship. Most importantly, I did not have a strong sense of having sinned in those areas. Those were areas of disagreement and disharmony, but they didn't seem like matters of sin and guilt. The baptism issue was different. It was much more personal, and completely objective. You either get re-baptized or you don't. I had done it. I had sinned, and I could hardly even talk about it with the people around me. In a sense, they were guilty too, but they didn't see it. They wouldn't see it. For them, even entertaining the thought that what had happened back there was wrong would begin jeopardize their entire identity as "Spirit-filled" Christians. It wasn't going to happen.

So there I was, with guilty conscience, and nowhere to turn for consolation, much less forgiveness.

It was time to look for a new home...

Lamentations for Holy Week

2011-04-21T07:29:00.002-05:00

At first I thought it strange that my main devotional resource, Treasury of Daily Prayer, would recommend additional readings in the book of Lamentations during Holy Week, but I have come to appreciate it. Lamentations is the prophet Jeremiah's description of Judah's destruction at the hands of the Babylonian empire. It is grim and often grusome. With brief and beautiful verses expressing faith and hope in God, most of the book describes an outpouring of God's wrath that is almost painful to read. That is, I think, what makes it an appropriate reading for Holy Week.

As Christians we become accustomed to the wrath of God taking one particular cruciform shape. We see God's wrath poured out on our Savior at the cross, and we say to ourselves, "God, in His mercy, has saved me from that." Very true. But as we see God's wrath in the same form and the same shape week after week, year after year, the danger is that it can become almost tame to us. In a way we are tempted to domesticate the cross. In Lamentations we have the opportunity to see the fury of God's wrath in another form -- in a form that more closely resembles the sort of depravations that even people in our own generation have suffered. There, in the writings of Jeremiah, we have the opportunity to bow our heads and say, "Christ suffered this in my place." He drank to the dregs the cup of God's furious anger against my sin. In God's great mercy, my sin has been entirely forgiven. Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, now and and forever!

Priceless

2011-03-08T10:21:00.002-06:00

We don't need it.

2011-02-14T12:18:00.007-06:00

Dave Ramsey likes to talk about the importance of rediscovering the "ancient word," NO. But it isn't a word to be thrown around willy-nilly. Instead it should be attached to a consideration of our needs. Is this thing we want to pay for essential and necessary, or is it a discretionary item that can be cut because we need to clean up our mess right now?

Despite it's illiberal tendencies NPR has a good product. (You heard me right... I like NPR.) But spending money on public media is clearly not among the enumerated powers of federal government in our Constitution (yes, that DOES matter), and the treasury is more than empty. The amount spent on public broadcasting may be small in the grand scheme of things (minuscule actually), but it is obviously non-essential as well. The mortgage usually isn't the item that sinks the family budget. It's the cable bill, the cell phone, the Internet, and all the various media subscriptions added together -- it's the discretionary items we attach to our incomes without much thought, because taken individually they are all so small. I like NPR and I hope it stays around, but IT IS TIME TO LET TAXPAYERS OFF THE HOOK.

Where have the preachers gone?

2010-10-07T09:55:00.002-05:00

I've been listening to podcasts of a sermon series from a local church. Two of the three sermons have included invitations to "receive Christ" as Savior. One has to wonder... WHY?

Our problem, according to the preacher, is that we are "directionally challenged." We have trouble making decisions, and we need God's biblical principles to guide us. Did Jesus die to give us wisdom, or did He die for our sins? Did He send this preacher to convey useful information, or did He send him to tell us of God's gracious provision for our salvation in Jesus' own death and resurrection?

Leadership and Love

2010-06-25T10:15:00.004-05:00

I have been highly critical of this guy and some of his friends, but this is a quotable excerpt...

Hierarchy is the only way churches survive where there is no love to speak of – only irresolvable conflicts, continual transience, and hopelessly shallow relationships...

Love is the alternative. But it is impossible. We can attempt a gradual move away from hierarchy to covenant, but don’t expect a pure utopia. Some level of hierarchy, formal or informal is inevitable for human social relationships to survive – until a people learn to love.

-- Kevin Swanson, Generations with Vision

Now, isn't that exactly what we see in the church growth movement? To advance the enterprise of "drawing people" into the organization we develop "hopelessly shallow relationships" around a portfolio of programs, and hang it all on the skeleton of a dedicated cadre of "church leaders." (Listen to Pastor Burnell Eckhardt, Jr. discussing "Leadership" on Issues Etc. 6/9/10)

That is not a church. I'm sorry, it just isn't. There might be a church hidden somewhere within that mess, but the institution itself isn't functioning as a church is called to function... and if the word "Lutheran" is somewhere on the sign out front, the organization is without excuse. The Lutheran Confessions, I think, are pretty clear.

HT: Persevero!

The Relationship between Doctrine and Practice is more Organic than Artificial

2010-06-23T06:54:00.004-05:00

Please read this very short, but excellent article from Pastor William Weedon.

A Thesis for Moving Beyond the Limitations of a Quia Argument

It provides a very good insight on the method LCMS Lutherans are using to negate or deconstruct the Lutheran Confessions and liberate themselves from what they would otherwise consider highly restrictive limitations.

I find it interesting because I have seen it in practice.

Lutherans in the Missouri Synod are all too quick to acknowledge and profess agreement with everything in the Book of Concord (often without spending much time reading it), but it is their supposed commitment to the doctrine of the church that (in their own minds) frees them to pursue whatever practice their heart desires. They may even recognize that there is a real connection between what a Christian believes and how a Christian worships, but that connection is considered essentially artificial -- that is to say, the worshiper (each one) determines what that connection will be. Each worshiper simply decides to connect whatever practice he or she may choose to whatever doctrine he or she may believe. Voila! There you have it... perfect freedom! But... No, this is actually unrestrained license masquerading as Christian freedom.

The connection between doctrine and practice is more organic than artificial -- it is more natural than contrived. We cannot simply make a practice suit any doctrine by fiat. For example, in the contemporary service at my former church they receive Holy Communion by walking forward toward the altar. There in front of the altar the pastor distributes the bread. Slightly behind him on his left and right, one elder holds the chalice and another the tray of individual cups (wine and grape juice). The communicant moves from pastor to elder receiving the entire meal while standing. Then he or she has the option to kneel in prayer at the altar rail, or simply return to the pew. Kneeling is a posture of prayer and humility assumed by the lesser in the presence of the greater. In this practice the kneeling does not occur at the point of contact between the worshiper and his God... or does it? Either way, this practice confesses doctrine in a manner the worshiper cannot control or contrive. There is an objective reality that is more organic than artificial.

For me, the thing that finally alienated me from my former church was not so much the bevy of contemporary practices confessing foreign doctrines; it was this notion that practice is a wax nose that can be fitted to whatever doctrine we may choose.

Modern and Post-Modern

2010-06-22T12:36:00.006-05:00

Where did we ever get the crazy idea that faith makes something true? That's idiotic. That's so un-biblical you can call it heresy.

God does not use faith to create truth; He uses truth through the Holy Spirit to create faith.

-- Josh McDowell quoted on Fighting for the Faith (6/7/10)

Wow!

That right there is the heart of the difference between modern and post-modern. It is the heart of the difference between contemporary worship, driven as it is by the response it seeks in the heart of the believer; and traditional worship, driven by the objective truth it is intended to convey through word and sacrament. As we seek ways to communicate timeless truth in post-modern categories, we inevitably find ourselves accommodating a way of thinking that is fundamentally at war with the very notion that truth exists. We must communicate with our post-modern culture, to some degree, by standing apart from it -- not in an arrogant or snobbish fashion, but in an uncompromising commitment to the notion that truth is objective -- truth is outside of us.

Why did He wash me with water?

2010-06-01T00:00:00.003-05:00

In a previous post we talked about how God Himself is doing the work of baptizing us in the water of Holy Baptism, and how we know from God's Word that this is true. So...

WHY would God send someone to give you a bath in His name -- on His behalf?

Admit it... many of you still have trouble believing that God did any such thing. It's so un-spiritual. It's so mundane. And even if God Himself were to do this, what good would it be? What is the value of getting a bath from God? It's still just a bath, right?

Glad you asked! I think the Holy Spirit through St. Peter answers that question very well in this verse...

"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 3:21)

Practicing good hygiene is a wonderful way to serve your neighbor, but that's not what God is doing when He washes you in the water of baptism. He is providing for you the "appeal to God for a good conscience." Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (which is your resurrection "by baptism" -- see Romans 6:4) you have been given a clean conscience washed (Titus 3:5, Eph. 5:26) whiter than snow.

When God sends His servant to wash your body with water, it's not your body God is working on. He's working on your conscience. He is attacking and putting to death the old Adam in your soul. That is how God wants you to see and understand your water baptism.

I don't get it...

2010-05-28T00:00:00.003-05:00

In Matthew 28 Jesus tells His disciples to make more disciples by baptizing and teaching all nations. Jesus says, "[Baptize] them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

What does it mean to do something "in the name of" someone else? It means that this thing is being done by one person on behalf of another -- on behalf of the one in whose name it is being done. And when a pastor says, "I baptize you in the name of..." we are supposed to understand that he is not the principal actor in this drama. Instead, he is doing the work God sent Him to do on God's behalf. In other words, the Word of God tells us in no uncertain terms that we are to receive baptism as if God himself had come to us in His flesh and applied the water with His own two nail-scarred hands.

Many of you think of your baptism as a God-given means whereby you confessed your faith in Christ. Where do you get that idea, and how do you reconcile it with Matthew 28:19? When God so clearly says that baptism is an instrument He places in the hands of His disciples to use on His behalf, how do you turn it into an instrument of your own?

From Babel to Pentecost

2010-05-24T10:12:00.003-05:00

Yesterday at church we skipped the Old Testament reading for Pentecost Sunday. For those unfamiliar with the lectionary, that is the story of the Tower of Babel. I appreciate the Old Testament reading on this day because it keeps Pentecost anchored in the events of the ancient past. Without Babel we can sometimes get caught up in the Pentecost moment, and see the coming of the Holy Spirit as this entirely new thing -- a forward-looking thing, without reference to any prior point in history. And yet the miracle of languages at Pentecost is firmly rooted in the work of the Holy Trinity at Babel. In His great mercy, at Babel, God tore the human family apart; but in Jerusalem, at Pentecost, God by His grace begins to bring that family back together. And on the Last Day He will complete that work when every nation worships with one voice -- and, I believe, with one language -- around the throne of God.

Ascension Day

2010-05-13T00:01:00.000-05:00

The Day of Christ's Ascension can be perplexing. Although He promised to be with us always, He is no longer here in the same way that our neighbors are present on earth. So we stand with the first disciples gazing up into heaven, wondering where Jesus has gone, wondering when He might come back, and wondering where we might find Him in the interim.

Growing up in the charismatic movement, the highest virtue among us was a passionate pursuit of the presence of the Lord. But we flatly rejected and ultimately despised the Word of God concerning the Sacraments. Seeing, we did not see, and hearing we did not hear. God was coming to us in water and word, bread and wine; and like the pitiful, blinded dwarfs in C.S. Lewis' Last Battle, we missed it. Refusing to believe God's Word, we were longing for some other manifestation of His presence -- a manifestation attested as true by nothing but our own subjective, internal sense of it. This was not just a shame or a pity, it was a sin -- despising the gift of God and working to find something more worthy than these lowly elements could possibly convey.

God did not abandon the Church on Ascension Day. We do not need to work our way into His presence. We do not need to wonder whether this "manifestation" or that is valid and true. God told us exactly where to find Him. Wherever two or three are gathered in His name, wherever repentance and the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed, wherever the washing of regeneration is poured out, wherever Christ's body and blood are received for the forgiveness of sins -- the Holy Trinity is truly present -- without the slightest hint of uncertainty, no matter how well or how poorly we sense it.

_____________________________________________

God has given us Baptism, the Sacrament of the Altar, and absolution to bring Christ very close to us, so that we can have Him not only in our heart but also on our tongue, so that we can feel Him, grasp Him, and touch Him. God did all this for the sake of those shameful spirits who seek God according to their own pleasure, with their reason and their own ideas and dreams.

To make it possible for us to recognize Him, God presents Himself to us perceptively and clearly in signs. But we do not accept these; nor are we concerned about the divine Word, although Christ the Lord Himself says: "The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own authority, but the Father who dwells in Me does His works" (John 14:10); again: "He who hear you hears Me" (Luke 10:16); and again: "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation; he who believes the Word of God and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:15-16). But we utterly disregard such words of the Gospel as well as absolution...

At all times God has so governed His people that He could also be recognized visibly by them, lest they say: "If it were possible to find God, we would roam to the ends of the earth in search of Him." If you had ears to hear, it would be needless to wander far in search of God. For He wants to come to you, plant Himself before your eyes, press Himself into your hands, and say: "Just listen to Me and take hold of Me, give Me eye and ear; there you have Baptism and the Sacrament of the Altar. Open your mouth, let Me place My hand on your head. I give you this water which I sprinkle over your head."

-- Martin Luther

________________________________

"And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

-- Jesus, Son of God, Son of Mary

Yes, Americans are bad at math... but can we not count?

2010-04-22T09:46:00.006-05:00

When Republicans complain about our present state of affairs, the response quickly comes back, "You had six years to fix it." NOT TRUE. Republicans controlled "everything" for only four years (2003-2007) -- a time when Iraq completely dominated Washington politics.

People forget that after the 2000 elections the U.S. Senate was divided 50-50. Even though the vice-presidency technically gave Republicans "control" of the Senate and the committee chairmanships; with Senators like Susan Collins, Arlen Spector, and Lincoln Chafee in the Republican caucus, the Senate was far to the left of the House and the President. Then in May 2001 jumpin' Jim Jeffords, Republican Senator from Vermont, made his leap to "independence" and began caucusing with the Democrats. From then until January 2003 the Democrats were in charge of the U.S. Senate. And when Republicans did regain control they still had all those R.I.N.O.'s (Republicans in name only) putting a damper on conservative initiatives.

I am not saying that Republican stewardship of the country during those four years was a success, or giving them a free pass for its disappointments. Iraq consumed far too much time and attention, and the effort to reform Social Security was a failure -- almost from the moment it was first launched. One of the more significant "achievements" during those years was a massive expansion of the welfare state in the form of new prescription drug entitlements. How Republican is that? But people do need to be reminded that there was no "six years." Even some Republicans in Congress need to be reminded that this "six years" never happened. It is a figment of the popular imagination.

Thoughts from Financial Peace University

2010-04-15T06:36:00.004-05:00

At Dave Ramsey's Financial Peace University the other night, a young man earnestly asked, "If I payoff all my debt and quit using credit and lose my credit score [which is the Dave Ramsey plan], and then later I have an emergency that consumes my entire emergency fund [of three to six months' expenses], how will I be able to live without credit?" He asked this in our small group setting, but it came up as the session was ending and the entire class was coming back together, so the small group did not have the opportunity to discuss it. As we were walking away a couple of verses came to mind.

I have been young, and now am old;

Yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken,

Nor his descendants begging bread.

He is ever merciful, and lends;

And his descendants are blessed.

- Psalm 37:25, 26 (NKJV)

And he said:

"Naked I came from my mother's womb,

And naked shall I return there.

The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away;

Blessed be the name of the LORD."

- Job 1:21

It was a sincere and difficult question this young man was asking. The "emergency" he had in mind was a extended job loss of six months or more. But, for me, any answer has to have its roots in the realization that God loves his children and amply provides for all their needs. And even if His "provision" comes to carry us through a valley of Job-like poverty and desolation -- even if it is God's will to bring us to the end of our days in that condition -- the LORD is still good, and His name is Blessed.

Having said that, when you stop borrowing money, you don't have nearly as much strain on your cash flow and you would be surprised how far you could stretch "an amount equal to about three to six months of expenses." If you have been debt free for some time, and have been saving money faithfully, you may find yourself with resources that far exceed the amount that you have designated for emergencies. And when you are debt free you can live on less. This gives you a great deal of freedom in selecting employment. Nobody wants to live on $10/hour, but if you have no debt, and you can't find anything else, even $10/hour may be sufficient for a season. You don't need the "big bucks." You don't have to play an "all-or-nothing" game.

As Dave says over and over again... when you find "financial peace" you don't go to sales meetings (if you are in sales) or job interviews (if you are looking for employment) with an oder of desperation hanging all over you. This is a game changer, and it will help effect positive outcomes. But even if it doesn't... even if you go to the grave in poverty... in the resurrection the baptized child of God will find life and peace and joy in Christ Jesus. Ultimately financial peace has to come from the only place where any real peace can be found.

Risk Management

2010-02-17T09:40:00.004-06:00

Mark Steyn's "Happy Warrior" column in a recent issue of National Review was a humorous retelling of a personal encounter with English pallbearers who were not allowed to bear palls. Seems the British have a Health & Safety bureaucracy and nanny-state politicians who forbid anything from garden gnomes to fire extinguishers on the grounds that they present safety risks. (The home owner might trip on her gnomes while fleeing her home in the event it caught fire, and the fire extinguishers might cause someone to fight a fire instead of running for safety. Both of these offending items were removed by government mandate.) Even though pallbearers had been carrying coffins into this particular church for more than 1,000 years, the Health & Safety authorities had decided to require the use of a cart -- in case someone tripped on the uneven path or flagstones.

The cart was unacceptable to the family (of which Mr. Steyn was a member), who determined to carry the deceased into the worship service themselves. In the end the pallbearers agreed to bear the coffin on the condition that the family members help out -- not because they needed help, but because they wanted to be able to tell the tinpot bureaucrats in a plausible fashion that the family forced them to violate regulations. Mr. Steyn concluded the column saying that assessing risks and making decisions on how to address them is an integral part of being human. The government cannot ensure our safety by legislating risk out of existence, but they can and will destroy huge swaths of personal freedom in the effort.

To be sure, this is the greatest problem with the Democrats' proposed government intervention in health care. As the state more and more fully assumes the right to pay for your health care from cradle to grave, it will inevitably assume more and more responsibility for telling you how you must manage life's daily risks.

Where is it written?

2010-02-16T15:59:00.004-06:00

Does this sound familiar?

"We believe by water baptism a believer is publicly identified with his Savior and that infants of believing parents may be dedicated to the Lord but should not be baptized until they can personally articulate their faith and the purpose of baptism."

This comes from a local church website. I have quoted the entire segment on Baptism verbatim, without removing any details or Scripture references.

Sadly, this particular formulation is vague and ambiguous on the most crucial detail... who is identifying the believer with his Savior? The standard Bible-Belt response would be, the believer. It is the person being baptized who is identifying himself with Christ and with the Christian faith.

If you share that conviction, where does it come from? What is the basis of that belief? Where is it written in the Word of God that the "purpose of baptism" (as this church puts it) is to give the believer an opportunity to confess his faith in Christ?

Born of water and the Spirit

2010-02-09T06:37:00.005-06:00

John 3:1-15

Nicodemus, though "the teacher of Israel," shows that he cannot comprehend the Spirit's miraculous work of new birth through Baptism. Human reason, darkened by sin, cannot accept that God can (and does) grant spiritual rebirth through ordinary water used with His Word. But such a great promise has come from none other than the Son of Man, lifted up on the cross for our salvation!

HT: The Lutheran Study Bible

One might ask, "Eric, do you believe in baptismal regeneration?" Although it is no easy thing to believe or accept, I have no choice in the matter. I cannot do otherwise. My conscience is captive to the Word of God.

A little exercise in theology and rhetoric

2010-02-02T06:44:00.008-06:00

When Martin Luther sets out to address the issue of infant baptism in his Larger Catechism, he begins in a somewhat strange place. Instead of starting with Scripture, he begins with reason and argues that infant baptism is attested by God because He has poured out the Holy Spirit on so many who were baptized as babies. He says, essentially, that the church would not exist if God had not blessed the practice of infant baptism. Almost every Christian who had ever lived up to that point in time was baptized in infancy. (For that matter, most Christians born since have been too!) Luther was saying, the fact that these babies grow up to confess the Christian faith, in word and deed, Spirit and truth, shows that they received the Holy Spirit; and to his way of thinking that gift is given in the water of baptism.

It seems like a curious starting point because that sword might cut both ways. If the Christian confession of someone who was baptized as a baby proves the Divine blessing of the practice, what do we do with all the baptized babies who grow up to live perfectly heathen lives? Don't they demonstrate God's disfavor and judgment against infant baptism?

Why do you think Luther starts here? Why do you suppose he is so unconcerned about the counter-argument on the flip side of his own?

If you were defending the practice, where would you start? What if you were opposing it? What would your first argument be? Try to answer the question from the other point of view. If you are against infant baptism, what is the best argument for it? If you are for it, what is the most convincing argument against it?

Notable Quotable

2010-02-01T07:18:00.001-06:00

But if the blood [of Old Testament sacrifices] was but a type and had such power, if death so shuddered at the shadow, tell me how would it not have dreaded the very reality? The blood [of Christ, shed on the cross and received in the cup of the Lord's Table,] is the salvation of our souls. By it the soul is washed, is beautiful, and is inflamed! This blood causes our understanding to be more bright than fire and our soul more beaming than gold. This blood was poured forth and opened heaven. -- St. John Chrysostom (c.345 - 407 A.D.)

They didn't call him "golden-mouthed" for nothing!

HT: Treasury of Daily Prayer

Noteworthy

2010-01-28T12:14:00.002-06:00

For the mainstream press this story may not merit any coverage, but it should leave normal folks gaping in astonishment. Forget about the particulars of the case and consider only this: the United States of America on January 26, 2010 granted political asylum to immigrants from Germany... yes, GERMANY!

Agree or disagree, how can that bit of news be anything less than noteworthy? Isn't asylum something that usually goes to refugees running from tin-horn dictators?

Wow!

HT: The Practical Theonomist

No distractions, please!

2010-01-26T09:42:00.009-06:00

...or, "Has anyone seen my brain?"

It is a familiar refrain for anyone riding DART Light Rail.

"Please report any suspicious activity or unattended property to the train operator, DART police, or other DART personnel."

This morning I got a good ten paces away from the TRE before noticing that my lunch bag was not in my hand.

Oops! I've never done that before.

Thankfully I was able to jump back on the train before the doors closed, return to my former seat, and find my lunch just where I left it. For the kind lady who was sitting across the aisle and one row back, my apologies. I assure you there was never anything more sinister in that parcel than a turkey sandwich!

In the same category... I did once take my usual spot on the platform without purchasing a fare, but thankfully I remembered before boarding. It hasn't happened yet, but someday, I'm sure, I will get on without a ticket.

DART = Dallas Area Rapid Transit
Light Rail = small trains running on electric power
TRE = Trinity Railway Express, a commuter line between Dallas and Fort Worth

Remembrance

2010-01-22T09:24:00.004-06:00

As I picked up my train ticket this morning and read the date stamped on the bottom, it immediately hit me that this is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Which anniversary? For me, that is never hard to remember. Whatever age I will attain on my next birthday, that's how many years it has been since Roe v. Wade. I will be 37 this year.

Of course, my first thought is... WOW! That's a long time. I'm getting old! But then something else struck me. From January 22, 1973 to May 1, 1973 I could have been killed, and there would have been no consequences before the law for anyone culpable in that murder... my murder.

Had such a killing taken place between the time of my conception and January 21, 1973 there would have been, in theory, some repercussions for whomever the law held responsible. I realize the Roe case was already in litigation, and enforcement had probably been suspended pending the outcome; but the outcome was uncertain and the law, if upheld, protected me from about August 1972 until January 22, 1973. After that there was a substantial window of opportunity when killing Eric Matthaei would have been perfectly legal.

I realize many millions of Americans endured a similar jeopardy during the entire period of their gestation. But I think the profound significance of this landmark decision is perhaps more dramatically illustrated by the handful of Americans who were in the womb at the time the verdict was handed down. One moment we were protected by the law. The next moment that protection was entirely removed. Although a just decision by the Supreme Court would not have saved all the unborn children murdered since then, their unjust and immoral decision most certainly cost many millions upon millions the opportunity merely to be born. It is a staggering evil that tragically endures.

Lord, have mercy! Christ, have mercy!

A Question

2010-01-22T06:21:00.003-06:00

In devotions this morning I was reading through Romans 9 and carefully studying all the notes in The Lutheran Study Bible. Beginning in verse 19 Paul addresses the objection some may have that God is unjust in judging anyone whom he has "hardened" (v.18). He introduces the analogy of the potter and the clay, saying that God "has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (v.22)

During my sojourn in Geneva (figuratively speaking) I took the phrase "prepared for destruction" to mean that the vessels had been created for that very purpose. They were foreordained for destruction, and nothing anyone could do, not even Christ himself would or could change this divine ordinance. Perhaps I was misunderstanding Calvinist doctrine. I am not trying to cast aspersion on them, but this was my understanding of that phrase.

The note in The Lutheran Study Bible says that word "implies readiness for (as in 'ripe for') destruction, not irreversibly foreordained destruction." That may not be the first definition of "prepared" that comes to mind, but any English speaking person will quickly recognize that this is a valid meaning for the English word, "prepared."

My question is for anyone who has a firm grasp of Greek. (I know at least a couple of pastors read this blog pretty regularly.) Is that consistent with the Greek? Does the Greek expression have the same flexibility -- where it can imply either "intended purpose" or "readiness"? Why do we get the word "prepared" in English, instead of the word "ready"?

Thank you in advance for your reply.

Read Watersblogged!

2010-01-19T14:54:00.004-06:00

I don't know if I'm reading it through exactly the right lens, but this short article from Pastor Bob Waters strikes me as an excellent example of a proper understanding of the Two Kingdoms. We honor the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for the great contributions he made to the development of our nation and society, but don't we don't turn him into a saint or a martyr because he was not a Christian.

Too often we demonize those we don't like politically while canonizing those we love. We classify our historical figures as either good or bad. As a result, when we know that someone was not a Christian, we can find all sorts of problems with their public service. And yet, if we are already enamored with an individual's accomplishments for the good of society, we often rush to portray that person as a genuine Christian. I don't get it. Christ is at work in His Right Hand Kingdom through the Means of Grace, and He is at work in His Left Hand Kingdom through the gifts He gave each us -- Christian and non-Christian -- including great men like Martin Luther King, Jr., George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln. From my reading of history it appears as though none of these men trusted Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and while that it truly sad, it doesn't make them any less remarkable in the context of our nation's history.

Aggies and Longhorns (Basketball Edition)

2010-01-16T22:00:00.004-06:00

I don't know anything about tonight's Texas-Texas A&M game other than what was said in the brief Sports Center recap on the ESPN website, but there are a couple of thoughts that immediately come to mind. (The Aggies lost in overtime, by the way.)

For the Aggies to come back just days after getting blown out at Kansas State (doesn't that phrase have a familiar ring!), and push the undefeated Longhorns to overtime in Austin is impressive and totally unexpected.
The fact that the game went to overtime tied at 60 suggests that the defensive-minded Aggies were setting the tempo in this contest. The Longhorns are a more offensive minded program averaging about 88 points per game (without OT).
The fact that Aggies were able to play that kind basketball without the best defensive player in the Big 12, Derrick Roland, bodes well for the rest of the season.

Gig'em Aggies

White Christmas

2009-12-25T08:41:00.001-06:00

My thirty-seventh Christmas is my first one!

Heisman Watch

2009-12-08T15:09:00.011-06:00

As we wait for the upcoming announcement of a Heisman Trophy winner, an argument has been made in favor of Colt McCoy. It seems some folks think he deserves a bigger chunk of the credit for his team's success than the other candidates do for the success of their respective teams.

Quarterbacks are always the most critical component in any offense, and only one other Heisman finalist is a quarterback -- Tim Tebow of Florida. Tebow is a very important part of the Florida offense, but Florida was forced to win without him this season (due to injury) and they were able to do it. Texas never won a game without Colt McCoy. But Texas was never tested in that way either. It never had to go win a game without McCoy, so who can say they would not have been able to do it?

Running backs are almost never as critical to offensive success as quarterbacks, except, perhaps, when the offense has an underclassman at quarterback -- like Stanford did in Freshman Andrew Luck. However, Stanford's Heisman Finalist, Toby Gerhart, is representing an 8-4 squad. Mark Ingrahm is representing an undefeated team, and had more yards on fewer rushing attempts. Mark Ingrahm also contributed more than half the rushing yards on a very balanced offense. Did Colt McCoy contribute more to his team's success than Mark Ingrahm did to his? Who can say? But it seems to me that Alabama would not be undefeated but for the balanced attack of its offense, and Mark Ingrahm certainly played a crucial role in that balance.

That brings us to Nebraska and Ndamukong Suh. Nebraska's deffense was ranked No. 6 in passing yards per attempt. It was ranked No. 8 in rushing yards per attempt. Nebraska sacked opposing quarterbacks 42 times for a total loss of 292 yards, earning them a No. 2 ranking in both categories. Ndamukong Suh was the critical component in that success. He was double-teamed on almost every play and still caused chaos in opposing teams' backfields. The word, "dominant," gets thrown around a lot in the world of sports, but this guy was. There is no other way to describe him.

And if Ndamukong Suh was the key to the success of the Nebraska defense, the Nebraska defense was certainly the reason the team was a winner. Nebraska's offense was unbelievably bad this year. In Big 12 games only Baylor scored fewer points than Nebraska, and no team in the entire league gained fewer yards. In conference play, two of the three best games for the Nebraska offense in terms of yards gained turned out to be its only two regular season conference losses (Texas Tech and Iowa State). The worst game of the year, by far, for Nebraska's offense came against Texas in the Big 12 Championship game, and still the Longhorns needed two penalty flags and an extra second (all correct calls from the officials, by the way) to beat Ndamukong Suh and Nebraska's defense.

Colt McCoy made a tremendous contribution to the success of the Texas Longhorns this season. My Aggies would have surely beaten them on Thanksgiving if Colt McCoy had not been at the helm. But this was not always the case in close games for Texas this year. In games decided by 10 points or less (Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and Nebraska), Colt McCoy made better-than-average contributions in only one (Texas A&M). Against the other three opponents he threw 6 interceptions and produced only 3 touchdowns. Against Texas Tech and Oklahoma his contribution to the team's total yardage was well below average. Against Nebraska and Oklahoma the team gained only 202 and 269 yards respectively, as compared to the season average of 433. And on his final play against a Big 12 opponent, his failure to recognize the amount of time left on the game clock very nearly cost his team everything they had worked all season to achieve.

Colt McCoy is a good kid and a great football player, but his contribution to his team was not nearly as great as Ndamukong Suh's contribution to his team. If that consideration is a significant part of the Heisman Trophy's selection criteria, then I believe the trophy should be presented to Mr. Suh.

A few thoughts on suffering

2009-12-03T06:11:00.004-06:00

It is often said that there can be no courage without fear, for the very nature of courage is that it overcomes fear. Martin Luther had something similar to say about the holy Gospel.

"When faith begins, God does not forsake it; He lays the holy cross on our backs to strengthen us and to make faith powerful in us. The holy Gospel is a powerful Word. Therefore it cannot do its work without trials, and only he who tastes it is aware that it has such power. Where suffering and the cross are found, there the Gospel can show and exercise its power. It is a Word of life. Therefore it must exercise all its power in death. In the absence of dying and death it can do nothing, and no one can become aware that it has such power and is stronger than sin and death."

Perhaps Luther is echoing and expanding on the words St. Paul wrote by divine inspiration... "His strength is made perfect in weakness."

Personally, when I am caught in the momentary suffering of an illness such as a cold or flu, my thoughts almost invariably turn to the unfairness of my plight. I do not count it joy to suffer. My head reminds me that I am a sinner, and there is nothing I suffer unfairly; but my heart complains bitterly (with many a Psalmist), "Why me?"

Death is an alien invader in our world. It is not supposed to be here, but it is constantly and everywhere around us. We see it in the empty eyes of the poor and homeless. We see it in the ailments of our elderly friends and relations. We find it even in our own bodies as we age and periodically suffer sickness. Death is a product of sin, and it should serve as a constant reminder that we have turned against our loving Creator in hatred and rebellion. It should also remind us that in His divine strength and human weakness our Lord Jesus Christ bore our sorrows and suffered death for all of us -- for the world! Suffering, in whatever variety, is an opportunity to cling to the Savior and to His holy cross.

HT - The Treasury of Daily Prayer

The Challenges of Church Growth

2009-11-30T12:19:00.004-06:00

Please allow me to recommend this blog post. It is written by a Baptist preacher whose church is trying to figure out how to handle the tremendous blessing of growth in numbers. They looked at four options, and will endeavor to implement the one which appears to be the least practical of all. The options considered were:

Multiple Services
Bigger Building
Sattelite Services
Church Planting

The analysis presented in the article is most fascinating. They rejected the first three options because they believed those possibilities were inconsistent with their theology. How great is that! The author is gracious in acknowledging that not everyone would agree with their analysis, and not everyone would share their theology, and even some who share their theology would find it impossible to implement the fourth option -- as they also might find in the coming weeks and months. But you have to admire them for taking a careful inventory of what they believe, and making an effort to travel the road most consistent with those doctrines, even though they know it will be the most difficult.

From the Treasury of Daily Prayer

2009-11-24T08:25:00.003-06:00

This morning's "Writing" was an excellent excerpt from C.F.W. Walther on the magnificence of Holy Baptism. It was coupled with a passage from Revelation 21:5-8 also touching on that subject.

Some may marvel that we Lutherans find so many references to Baptism in places where they see none for themselves. This passage from Revelation 21 is a fine example. It reads: "And he who was seated on the throne said, 'Behold, I am making all things new.' Also he said, 'Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.' And he said to me, 'It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.'"

How can you make that water into the water of Baptism? It is given to the thirsty, so it must be water for drinking and not water for bathing, right?

The focus, the emphasis in this passage is not on how the water is used, but on who gives it, who receives it, and what it is. It is the water of life given by the One who was seated on the throne to those who are thirsty. And so we find Baptism in this passage because all those things taken together so perfectly describe what Holy Baptism actually is. Baptism is the water of life -- the washing of regeneration and water of rebirth. Baptism is not a work of our own hands by which we confess our own faith, but it is a gift of God whereby he buries us with Christ into his death and makes us alive again in his resurrection. And Baptism is freely and graciously given, "without payment" to those who are in need.

"Oh, so do not let your Baptism be taken away! It is your greatest treasure! It is a ship that shall never be wrecked, which leads you into a heavenly harbor." (C.F.W. Walther)

From the Treasury of Daily Prayer

2009-11-20T06:35:00.002-06:00

Just a quick question from today's reading in the Treasury...

Did St. Jerome reject infant baptism?

If not, why did he write concerning Matthew 28:19, "First they teach all nations; then they baptize those they have taught with water, for the body is not able to receive the sacrament of baptism before the soul has received the truth of the faith"? And again, "What a marvelous sequence this is. He commanded the apostles first to teach all nations and then to baptize them in the sacrament of faith and then, after faith and baptism, to teach them to observe all that he had commanded."

If so, why was he selected to expound on this passage in the Treasury of Daily Prayer?

Der Katastrophe: Hamburg 1943

2009-11-18T10:04:00.009-06:00

I've started reading my 23rd book of this year. With any luck and a bit of extra effort I should be able to finish 25 before the calendar turns at the end of next month, and I'll be pretty happy with that number. Others may laugh, but it is a fine accomplishment for me.

I'm currently reading The Battle of Hamburg by Martin Middlebrook. It is an obscure book, currently out of print. I found it and bought it because my family (my grandparents, an aunt, an uncle, a great-uncle, and, at three weeks of age, my father) were all involved on the ground in that conflagration. The pictures above show the home they lost in the raids.

The Nazis called it a terror attack, and when you look carefully at what actually took place... that's not too far off the mark. The British had a different way of putting it. They were trying to undermine the morale of the civilian population. This is the sort of book that helps the reader appreciate the complexities of warfare and wartime decision making. If it is so obviously wrong to target civilians (and it is), what caused the British to do exactly that? Were they simply barbarians? Well, no... it's a good deal more complicated than that.

So far this is a good book with excellent details on every group involved in this event.

Where's the water?

2009-11-13T09:31:00.006-06:00

Yesterday I finished reading John MacArthur's book The Fulfilled Family: God's Design for Your Home (Nelson Books, 2005). I'm not crazy about the title, but the book isn't half bad. Dr. MacArthur leads the reader through an exposition of many Scripture passages related to family, hearth and home. When he came to Ephesians 5:26, however, he left something out entirely... you guessed it, BAPTISM. He floated around this verse in many parts of the book, but in the following excerpt he discusses its content most directly and fully.

Notice the primary way Christ maintains the purity of the church: "with the washing of water by the word" (Eph. 5:26) [KJV]. Husbands have a duty to ensure that their wives are regularly exposed to the cleansing and purifying effect of the Word of God. The husband is to be the spiritual leader and priestly guardian of the home. It is his duty to make sure the Word of God is at the center of the home and family. Of course he ought to lead his family in participation in a church where the Word of God is revered and obeyed. But above all, he himself needs to be devoted to the Word of God and proficient enough in handling the Scriptures that he can be the true spiritual head in the marrage (see also 1 Cor. 14:34-35). (pp. 65-66)

What are we to make of the water, Dr. MacArthur? It's there, isn't it? It's in this Scripture passage. In fact, it is described by the Holy Spirit as an agent of sanctification. Jesus cleanses the church "by the washing of water with the word" (ESV). In Dr. MacArthur's exegesis the water is entirely left out. We read, "Word of God," "Word of God," "Word of God," "Word of God," not once or twice, but four times. Not a single mention of the water. The Word of God has a cleansing and purifying effect, but the cleansing and purifying of the water is left out. The Word of God is supposed to be at the center of home and family, but the water is not mentioned. The Word of God should be revered and obeyed in the church the husband chooses, but is there no need for water in this congregation? The husband should be devoted to God's Word and proficient in handling it, but what of his knowledge of and devotion to the "washing of regeneration"? Dr. MacArthur, you are forgetting the water!

As a husband and father serves his wife and children as the spiritual leader and priestly guardian of the home, he must lead them into an incarnational and sacramental faith -- a faith that holds as one of its highest affirmations the truth that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, saves us in both body and soul by putting his word in our ears, his water on our bodies, and his food and drink in our mouths. Jesus does all this to assure us that our sins are his, and his righteousness is ours... forever!

Thanks be to God.

Got Relevance?

2009-11-04T06:19:00.005-06:00

What dusty old confessional statement is more practical and relevant today than the Lutheran Confessions?

If we must speak of outward appearances, Church attendance among us is better than among the adversaries [advocates of the papacy]. The audiences are held by useful and clear sermons. (Neither the people nor the teachers have ever understood the doctrine of the adversaries.) The true adornment of the churches is godly, useful, and clear doctrine, the devout use of the Sacraments, fervent prayer, and the like. Candles, golden vessels, [Vacation Bible School programs, Soccer Camps, Pan American Fairs, Services of Blessing] and similar adornments are fitting, but they are not the specifically unique adornment belonging to the Church. If the adversaries make these things the focus of worship [Christian living], and not the preaching of the Gospel, in faith (and the struggles of faith) they are to be numbered among those whom Daniel describes as worshiping their god with gold and silver (Daniel 11:38).

-- Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article XXIV (XII), The Mass

Thoughts on a Devotional Reading

2009-10-31T08:12:00.004-05:00

From the Book of Concord reading yesterday in the Treasury of Daily Prayer...

A Sacrament is a ceremony or work in which God presents to us what the promise of the ceremony offers. Baptism is not a work that we offer to God. It is a work in which God baptizes us. In other words, a minister baptizes us on God's behalf. God here offers and presents the forgiveness of sins, and so forth, according to the promise "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16). A sacrifice, on the contrary, is a ceremony or work that we give to God in order to provide Him honor. -- Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article XXIV (XII) "The Mass" 18

This was written to support an argument against a missuse of the term "sacrifice" in the Roman church's teaching about the Mass. But it also identifies the thing that sets credo-baptists apart from the rest of Christendom. It is not the relatively trivial matter of refusing to baptize infant children that sets them apart, nor is it the completely trivial matter of how much water is applied, in what manner (pouring or "sprinkling" vs. immersion). No, these are merely the outward, visible differences. The substantial difference is contained in the answer to this question, WHO IS DOING THE DOING?

For credo-baptists, if God has any role at all in the Sacraments, it is secondary. It does not go much beyond God's sanctioning the ceremony for us then to observe according to His command or "ordinance." And when we observe it, according to the credo-baptists, we are the ones doing the doing. This is simply wrong -- whether you are a Roman Catholic priest offering the body and blood of Christ as an atoning sacrifice to God in the mass, or a Baptist minister baptizing a person "upon this your confession of faith." In either case the Sacrament is missused, abused and grossly violated because the recipient has been turned into the principal actor.

The refusal to baptize infants is merely the outward symptom of this underlying disease. Because the person receiving the sign is the principal actor in the Sacrament, babies cannot be baptized. They do not have the capacity to actively participate. But if God is the principal actor in this drama -- in both the Sacrament and in the actual saving of lost souls -- then credo-baptist objections to infant baptism are as doomed as a ship with a broken keel. The foundation has been destroyed and rendered useless in supporting the structure.

I can't look! WE'RE GOING TO CRASH!

2009-10-27T10:35:00.002-05:00

Whatever...

(Actually, someone is playing peekaboo in this picture.)

Is this chair big enough for both of us?

2009-10-27T10:24:00.003-05:00

Texas Aggie Football

2009-10-17T20:04:00.003-05:00

When you have the ball 1st and 10 with 0:57 seconds left in the 2nd quarter, and you can't get to the locker room without giving the other team 7 more points, you are officially, without any doubt, THE WORST TEAM IN FOOTBALL!!!

Open Discussion Points

2009-10-13T07:01:00.006-05:00

Are churches using the Great Commission to answer man's deep longing for purpose? If so, is that not an adulteration of the commandment? Is this passage used lawfully when it becomes the basis for injecting a sense of mission into an organization and for providing individuals within that organization a sense of meaning and purpose in their lives?

Sacrificing Unity to Obscure the Gospel

2009-10-09T13:27:00.003-05:00

Over the last week or so, The Treasury of Daily Prayer took its readers through Article XV (VIII) of the Apology to the Augsburg Confession. It is interesting that throughout this article Melanchthon stresses again and again the two great aims of the Lutheran Reformers. In the first place, the Reformers want to conserve as many "ecclesiastical rites" and "human traditions" as can be preserved without sin. And the sin that most concerns the Reformers is that of obscuring the Gospel.

Today LCMS churches face intense pressure from within (some members of the laity) and without (most synodical leaders) to exchange old, established "ecclesiastical rites" and "human traditions" for new ones. The argument for this transformation of congregations is based on the premise that society has changed in such a way and to such an extent that old ways of communicating the Gospel cannot penetrate the hearts and minds of those who need to receive it. And so, the argument goes, the Gospel is still the power of God unto salvation, but our presentation of that Gospel could use a new coat of sugar... if we want people to accept it.

Perhaps this is a bit of a stretch, but it seems to me that Augustana XV is remarkably relevant for our situation today. Where the Reformers were eager to preserve ecclesiastical rites and human traditions for the sake of peace and unity, we have decided that old rites and traditions are an impediment to growth. Growth is considered more important than peace and unity. We think new traditions and rites can spur growth, and so we override any concern for unity and bring the new traditions into our sanctuaries by whatever means necessary. Where the Reformers were willing to sacrifice unity to preserve the Gospel, it is ironic that today's sacrifice of unity has the opposite effect.

Whether we are borrowing our new traditions from generic evangelical churches or making them up ourselves, traditions and rites developed for the purpose of attracting growth will always obscure the Gospel. That is a very broad statement, but I believe it is essentially biblical. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God and wisdom of God. (1 Cor. 1:18, 24) Fools don't gather crowds, unless they are hilariously funny and willing to be laughed at. The Gospel isn't exactly a laughing matter, and Christians cannot help but be sincere in their presentation of it. Sincere foolishness doesn't sell too well, and so we try to hide some of the foolishness of the cross. We give the audience Jesus, but it is Jesus hidden under the veil of friendship, community and, most of all, purpose.

The new ecclesiastical rites and human traditions we are adopting at the expense of peace and unity obscure the Way of the cross. How is that not a complete and total rejection of Augustana XV?

Thoughts on Texas Aggie Football: Week 5

2009-10-09T10:42:00.005-05:00

So the Aggies are beginning Big 12 play against an Oklahoma State team that, even without Dez Bryant, should be favored to win. The Aggie defense has looked solid this year... against New Mexico and UAB. But it got pounded by Arkansas and forced its offense to play from behind for much of the first half against hapless Utah State.

Against Arkansas, the Aggies had lots of trouble making open-field tackles. Whenever a runner got up a head of steam rumbling through the secondary, there was a pretty good chance that player was going all the way to pay dirt. Oklahoma State, if anything, ought to be better than Arkansas at finding those opportunities against this defense.

The absence of Dez Bryant means OSU must rely on younger, more inexperienced receivers. There will be a higher number of dropped passes for the Cowboys. This will bring up plenty of 3rd and long situations. Those can spell doom for teams not playing the Aggies, but over the last four years or so Aggie opponents haven't needed to worry much about 3rd and long. It's manageable. And when an offense converts a few of those on a scoring drive it sucks the life right out of the defense and the home crowd -- yes, even the legendary 12th Man at Kyle Field can be silenced by a long string of third down conversions.

The interesting test for the Aggies will be to see if they can keep the offense humming. After getting pummeled with a 3-and-out series, can they come back and put together a drive? When OSU takes a lead can they stay patient and chip away at the lead one yard at a time? Can they distribute the ball in quick and creative ways that will force the defense to react and keep the pressure off Jerrod Johnson? OSU has only seven sacks this season, but so does Arkansas. It doesn't mean they will have a hard time getting to the Aggie quarterback. The only way this offensive line will be able to protect their quarterback is if the play calling takes some of the weight off their shoulders.

Last week Jerrod Johnson fumbled the ball twice. One went for a touchdown, and another came with two seconds left on the game clock, and may have been a blown call since the fumble appeared to be caused by the ground. (Do they still have that rule?) When he throws the ball Johnson is making very good decisions. He has not thrown an interception all year. For the Aggies to win they will need to protect the ball and win the turnover battle. OSU is pretty soft on turnovers, giving the ball away 10 times in the first four games. That would be good for the Aggies, but they will have to earn any advantage they get in turnovers.

What will happen? My heart says last week was a fluke. My heart says the Aggie defense can tackle, and the offensive line can protect the quarterback. My head says, "Show me." Please, let me be wrong this week...

Oklahoma State 41, Texas A&M 30

Consider declining it, Mr. President

2009-10-09T09:36:00.005-05:00

Diane Meyer at Respublica chronicled a few media responses to the stunning news of President Obama's receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. She also had some sagacious advice for our Commander-In-Chief: Decline it. The fact that the Nobel committee has given the world another reason to doubt and mock its political acumen does not mean that the President of the United States is required to participate in their madness -- even if it is personally flattering to him.

My favorite response, from Georgetown University's Professor Randy Barnett on Politico, "What's next, the Heisman?" Why not? He done just as much to earn that as this!

Now Offering Family Portraits During Sunday Worship

2009-10-02T09:09:00.003-05:00

At the invitation of some friends our family went to a fall festival at a local Roman Catholic church. It was a Sunday afternoon, we were trying to juggle other things in our schedule, and we wound up getting there late in the day, about an hour before they shut things down. At that point there was really nothing much to see or do. Many booths were being disassembled. But the parking lot was packed. Why? There was a mass being celebrated.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but that just strikes me as odd. Why would a church schedule a community outreach activity at the same time as a worship service? Why would they encourage some members to skip worship in order to sell entertainment, arts and crafts, turkey legs and beer to non-members? I don't mean to be too critical, but I just don't get it. How is this serving the Body of Christ or the surrounding community?

Our own church does exactly the same thing, and I still don't get it. Every six weeks or so the Carter Bloodcare bus shows up in the church parking lot about an hour before the first service, and throughout the day people are encouraged to come and make donations. It's a good cause, but it takes people out of Divine Service and out of Sunday School. Another community activity that draws members away from worship is the occasional youth group car wash. When I was a teenager we did car washes too... ON SATURDAYS! But at this church (and other Lutheran congregations I've seen around town) the car wash is more likely to be scheduled for Sunday morning.

Our church is currently trying to put together a photo directory of members. It's a great idea. Let's help everyone put names with those faces. But it was recently announced that the photographers have opened up an upcoming Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. for appointments. There's worship services and Sunday School instruction going on during pretty much that entire time period. But, hey, why should that interfere with your worship? Just schedule your appointment during someone else's worship service!

When I was growing up our charismatic church had three services every week, and members were expected to attend all of them. The Lutherans and the Catholics have three services every Sunday, and nobody is expected to attend more than one. You attend the one that is most convenient for your schedule. You attend the one that features the sort of music you like to hear in church. All the variety we provide in the times and styles of worship is designed to make your life easier and more enjoyable. So when we schedule non-worship activities during worship services we are simply being faithful to our highest and most sacred ideal -- convenience and accessibility for the consumer.

I don't have a big problem with photographers on-site on a given Sunday, but when they are working during worship services it strikes me as being symptomatic of a larger illness.

Thoughts on Texas Aggie Football: Week 4

2009-09-30T10:50:00.004-05:00

Of course, I want the Aggies to win this Saturday, but I don't think my team has as much riding on this game as Arkansas. In the Big 12 there is not such a disproportionately huge sense of pride in the conference as there is in the SEC. There is this notion in the southeastern sections of the United States that every team in their conference, except maybe Vanderbilt and Mississippi State, should be favored to beat any team in the Big 12, except maybe Texas and Oklahoma, on any given day. In fact, Arkansas left the Southwest Conference to play in the Southeast Conference after winning two consecutive conference championships (1988-89) and convincing themselves that there wasn't a school in Texas that could keep pace with them anymore. Of course, Arkansas played two more seasons in the Southwest Conference and graciously allowed Texas and Texas A&M to win the conference championships in 1990 and 1991 respectively.

Enough history...

Texas A&M comes into this game 3-0, but after beating up on three cream puff opponents Arkansas offers the first opportunity for this team to test its level of progress from last season. But if the Aggies play well and lose, what difference does it make? If they play poorly and lose badly, what difference does it make? Will anybody be shocked or even very much surprised? I don't think so. The whole country is drinking the SEC kool-aid. We all think it is the fastest, best football conference in the nation. The ninth best team from the SEC should beat the ninth best team from the Big 12 9.5 times out of every 10 games they play, right? So there really isn't much downside if the Aggies blow it and lose this game. They will have to buckle down, take care of business against the three teams they ought to beat (Iowa State, Colorado, and Baylor), play hard and hope to steal a game against three teams where they might have half a chance to win (Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Texas Tech), and leave everything on the field against Oklahoma and Texas. Let the chips fall where they may. Win or lose against Arkansas on Saturday, this team should at least be bowl eligible at the end of the season.

If they win, the upside is huge. It gives a young team all sorts of energy and confidence. It puts the team just two wins away from bowl eligibility with three games they should be favored to win. It might make a young team more vulnerable the following weekend against Oklahoma State, but it would help them in the next two contests on the road against Kansas State and Texas Tech.

I don't have a prediction for the game. It could be a blowout in either direction. It could be a close, but high-scoring game. I just hope the Aggies go out and play loose. Have fun. At 1-2 the Razorbacks have a lot more riding on this game than the Aggies. Use that to your advantage, Army!

Thoughts on Texas Aggie Football: Week 2

2009-09-18T11:32:00.004-05:00

Have you placed a bet on the Aggies for tomorrow's game? I've heard it's 100% sure thing. Somebody's Aggies are going to win.

It's always tough to gage sports teams on the basis of how they played against a particular opponent. This is especially true in college sports. Texas A&M looked very good in their opener against New Mexico, but the Lobos are obviously struggling with limited talent under a first-year coach and his new system. The Aggies haven't played anyone else, but the Lobos went out the following week and lost to Tulsa with a score almost identical to week one. At first glance, Aggie fans might moan and groan: "Tulsa? Well, I suppose our beating New Mexico was pretty meaningless." But Tulsa has a fairly good program for a non-BCS conference. They can't be mentioned in the same breath as Utah or TCU or BYU, but they are moving up.

The thing is, Texas A&M played a very strong game against an inferior opponent. That's what they were supposed to do. It is hard to ask for anything more.

The Utah State Aggies played a good game against Utah and lost. Most people would say that Utah has a better team than the Texas Aggies. So if the Utes struggled against Utah State, the Texas Aggies will do the same, right? Nobody should be worrying about any of that. Let's hope our team brings their best game. If they do, everything should turn out alright.

I think the Texas Aggies will win by about two scores in a moderately high-scoring game. I will be most interested to see if the Texas Aggies' highly touted defensive back, Coryell Judie, gets any playing time on defense, and how that goes against the pass-happy offense the Utah State Aggies are likely to bring. Other than that I just want to see a team that plays hard, makes fewer mistakes than the opponent, and gets to the ball quicker on defense. But please don't take this opponent for granted. With the exception of a few sky-high programs (and even those can sometimes stumble), the growing parity in college football is very real.

Health Care Rationing

2009-09-16T21:27:00.004-05:00

How can anyone argue with the fact that there will be rationing in whatever health care system emerges from this debate on "Health Care Reform"? We're talking about economics in this health care debate, not health care per se. Economics is about how we apply finite resources to a nearly infinite range of wants and needs.

If a person has no insurance, and thus is responsible for all her health care costs, she will have to choose wisely and at some point, if she becomes seriously ill, she will run out of resources. If a person has insurance the coverage is only as good as the insurance company. If the company miscalculates its premiums or an epidemic hits and too many people get sick, there is no real guarantee of coverage because the company's resources are finite just like the individual's.

Guess what?

The same is true for nations and their governments. We have rationing now. We have had rationing at every point in our past, and we will have rationing forever in our future. The only question is when and where and by whom will those rationing decisions be made?

Why?

2009-09-02T11:08:00.002-05:00

Have you ever heard of Advent Film Group? On their website they say they are "an independent film production and distribution group established to create excellent Christian films by raising up excellent Christian filmmakers." They go on to ask: "Why is it that Amazing Grace and Chronicles of Narnia were 'Directed By' secular filmmakers? What if We Could Change this?"

Why should we?

Why is that necessary or even desirable?

Obviously there is much to quibble with in any film project based on a book or the life of an historical figure, and there is much that one with a Christian perspective could contribute to the telling of these stories; but how and why would those movies necessarily be better if they were produced by professing Christians or even "excellent" Christians?

The goal appears to be to develop enough movie-making talent among "excellent" Christians that we can develop our film making projects without the help of "secular" filmmakers, thus sanctifying the film industry -- or, at least, our little corner of it. I'm all for Christians getting involved in film making. Let's get after it! But the idea that a film has to be made by Christians in order to be Christian draws some unfavorable parallels with the Donatist controversy in the early church.

You remember that one, don't you? During the last great period of intense Roman persecution a number of priests fell from the faith -- they denied their Savior when faced with torturous deaths. After the persecution was ended Christians began to wonder whether they were baptized. There was no question that these individuals had received the sacrament. But can that sacrament be valid when it is received through the hands of a minister who is not now, and may not have ever been, a Christian? The resolution (and the proper one, in my view) was that those Christians were in fact baptized, even though the priest may not have been a Christian. It is the word and promise of God that makes Baptism an efficacious, life-giving, soul-saving bath. A lack of faith on the part of the minister cannot nullify or invalidate the promise of God.

If a false Christian -- a non-Christian -- can administer the sacraments of the Church with due effect, how are we to believe that Christian filmmakers are a necessary prerequisite for the production of Christian films?

While we are at it, the distinction between what is "Christian" versus what is "secular" is not rightly applied to individuals. It is simply incorrect to say, "This is a Christian policeman, but that is a secular policeman." The office of law enforcement is a secular calling that can be performed to the glory of God by Christians or by non-Christians. In the same way it is wrong to say, "This is a Christian filmmaker, but that is a secular filmmaker." No, the office of filmmaker is a secular calling that can be performed to the glory of God by Christians or by non-Christians. Conversely these vocations can be abused by Christians or by non-Christians. One of the ways a Christian could abuse and fall short of his calling as a filmmaker is to commit himself to work only on projects with an explicitly "Christian" message, with a cast and crew that is only comprised of "excellent" Christians.

"That's your Bible, Daddy!"

2009-09-02T09:59:00.003-05:00

My favorite Bible (pending future acquisition of The Lutheran Study Bible) is The Reformation Study Bible (ESV) from Ligonier Ministries. This morning my three-year-old son was leafing through his mother's Tabletalk magazine, where he saw a full-page ad featuring a photo of the same Bible. He went and showed his mother first, and then me. "That's Daddy's Bible!"

I guess that means we are pulling it out at least often enough for him to recognize the Ligonier emblem on the cover, and reading it often enough for him to know what it's called. So, in the mornings, when I think he is just eating his breakfast, he is actually listening to family devotions. This morning all three boys joined in to sing the hymn with mouths full of cantelope!

All this warms a father's heart. And in a strange way, even though I'm somewhat proud of my boys this morning, it all works together to keep me humble and fearful. This is my vocation. Lord, help me walk in it faithfully.

I got it back!

2009-09-01T13:53:00.004-05:00

Because I couldn't read it all in the three weeks originally allotted by the library, I had to return Michael Horton's book, A Better Way, unfinished. I got it back yesterday, and this morning I enjoyed reading some of his thoughts on the effect eschatology has on the way Christians worship. There may or may not be more blog posts on this book; but either way, it belongs on your reading list.

By the way, if you are the person who put this book on hold at the Irving Public Library so that I was unable to renew it about 3 weeks ago, drop me a line. I would be especially interested in your thoughts on it.

Aggie Football

2009-08-21T16:18:00.006-05:00

Call me a cynic, but this is the best time of year to be a football fan, especially if your team wears maroon and white and plays in College Station, Texas. I love the Aggies. I love the things I'm reading about the development of the players in the off season -- especially quarterback, Jerrod Johnson. I expect those players to produce some magic moments this season, and I can't wait for the games to begin...

...but I am expecting a lot of losses this year, so August optimism may be the best part of the season. On the other hand, aren't we overdue for a few pleasant surprises?

Texas Politics

2009-08-20T10:23:00.004-05:00

The headline and teaser on the Dallas Business Journal's RSS feed reads: "43% of Texans identify as 'conservative': Texas' identity as a 'red' state is unlikely to change anytime soon."

Don't let that headline fool you. Both of the leading GOP candidates for next year's governor's race will be at a decided disadvantage against likely Democratic challenger and Bush-buddy Tom Schieffer in the one category that probably matters most with the average voter -- overall likeability. This will be doubly true after Perry and Hutchison finish their bruising primary bout against one another. The bottom line... our first Democratic governor in Texas in 16 years is a very real possibility come next November, regardless of how "red" this state might be.

(For better access to the Gallup Poll underlying the DBJ article, visit this blog article at All In Faber. While you're there check out the video of the dog that won't accept a treat from Barack Obama. It's not a fluke. That's one smart, well-trained dog!)

Why Celebrate John Calvin?

2009-08-14T10:11:00.006-05:00

Pastor Paul McCain of Concordia Publishing House wrote an excellent blog article a couple of days ago on the subject of the 500th anniversary of John Calvin's birth. Here's an excerpt. If it makes you mad, go read the rest of what he wrote.

I consider it a great tragedy that John Calvin did so much to corrupt the genuine evangelical Reformation of the Western Church. The errors that flow from Calvin’s theology of a limited atonement, an irresistible grace and a predestination of some to hell, are a corruption of the Scriptures and the Gospel of Christ. Calvin and those that followed him, taught that the atonement of Christ is limited only to those who are saved, thus robbing everyone of the comfort of the Gospel promise that Christ died for all, not simply for some. Calvin’s errors on the atonement and predestination come from Calvinism’s erroneous use of reason, and its penchant to try to construct an ex post facto explanation of why some are saved and not others. Calvin also corrupted the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper and in spite of lofty claims about the Eucharist, Calvin does not confess that Christ actually gives His body to communicants, but rather communicants in receiving bread, ascend to heaven with their souls and there feed on Christ by faith. It is an empty shell of a supper that Calvin would have us receive in Holy Communion.

Notice that Pastor McCain says the doctrine of "limited atonement" (or "definite atonement" as some prefer to call it) robs "EVERYONE" of the comfort of the Gospel promise. When my eyes first ran across that line, I thought, "My Calvinist friends think they have the comfort of the Gospel. They will assume Pastor McCain is speaking of unbelievers when he refers to 'everyone.'" I have not asked Pastor McCain, but I suspect that is not the case. Unbelievers deny their sinfulness, and because they do not recognize their need they cannot recognize their Savior. Unbelievers are in no position to benefit from Gospel promises. It is everyone, but it is most specifically the Christian who loses the comfort of the Gospel when he abandons God's Word in favor of Calvin's "erroneous use of reason."

Divisions in the Local Church

2009-08-09T08:05:00.005-05:00

I am particularly interested in how members of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church in Irving, Texas might respond to this post, but it is open for anyone to comment.

Why is it okay for a Christian congregation to have more than one "main" service on a Sunday morning? I have been a member of Our Redeemer for just over seven years now. During that entire time the church has always had at least two worship services. I never thought about it much. It was the status quo, and it was just fine -- or so I thought. But why? Why is it ever "just fine" for a congregation to divide itself into more than one Sunday morning service? Why is it not instead a cause for mourning, or at the very least, distress? We have always treated multiple services like an asset, but when the Body of Christ is divided in this manner shouldn't we regard it as an ailment instead?

Style is Never Neutral

2009-07-29T06:11:00.007-05:00

In Sunday School this week I heard someone say something like, "It's not how we worship that matters, but who we worship." As I was reading Michael Horton's book, A Better Way: Rediscovering the Drama of God-Centered Worship, this morning he had something to say about that.

The assumption these days often seems to be that God has not said anything about how we should worship him. For instance, some have argued that a weekly service need not include the preaching of the Word, as God can speak his Word through a variety of other instruments: drama, liturgical dance, poetry, and so on. Repeatedly, worship is reduced to a matter of consumer tastes. One person prefers guitars, another prefers organs: Isn't that all this debate is about? It might seem so at first glance, but as the theme develops, I hope we will see that it's not just about taste, much less about guitars versus organs. I will argue the case that style is never neutral and that whether we sing "Shine, Jesus, Shine!" or "O Sacred Head Now Wounded" or, for that matter, Psalm 23, style is never merely a matter of preference. Nevertheless, we have to develop a theology of worship that avoids biblicism on one hand (i.e., the tendency to "free" oneself of the theology of Scripture by limiting its normativity to explicit proof-texts) and on the other hand a dogmatic traditionalism that justifies its positions by saying, "That's the way we've always done it."

Why do we gather for worship?

2009-07-28T07:33:00.005-05:00

Here is an excerpt from the latest book on my reading list.

Whenever we gather for public worship, it is because we have been summoned. That is what "church" means: ekklesia, "called out." It is not a voluntary society of those whose chief concern is to share, to build community, to enjoy fellowship, to have moral instruction for their children, and so forth. Rather, it is a society of those who have been chosen, redeemed, called, justified, and are being sanctified until one day they will finally be glorified in heaven. We gather each Lord's Day not merely out of habit, social custom, or felt needs but because God has chosen this weekly festival as a foretaste of the everlasting Sabbath day that will be enjoyed fully at the marriage supper of the Lamb. God has called us out of the world and into his marvelous light: That is why we gather.

It could be added that this why our worship ought to seem more than a little peculiar to the rest of the world. If "seekers" can come into a "worship service" and feel comfortable because the experience so closely resembles previous experiences at music concerts, then we have failed to provide a sanctuary or to establish much of a worship environment.

Self-Imposed Separation

2009-07-27T14:02:00.002-05:00

Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one… I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.

In this passage of Scripture Jesus prays for the unity of the Church, and it has been a grievous reminder of our failings almost from the very beginning of the Church's existence. We do not experience the fullness of the unity Jesus prayed for. We have barely even tasted it.

There was once a time when Christians saw their denominational differences as an occasion for grief. Churches on opposite sides of the same street corner would preach from the same Bible, sing at least a few of the same songs, and pray to the same God, but share no fellowship with the Christians on the other side of the road. This was thought to be a tragedy. Today a preacher might still call that a tragedy, but he will be saying it more than once on a given Sunday because his church offers more than one service. Churches everywhere are bringing the denominational division of God’s people into their own sanctuaries, and giving it a home as if it were a cherished pet.

Last Friday I took a walk past First Baptist Church in Dallas. The movie-poster placards along the outside of the building advertised the various worship opportunities inside. It was typical of the buffet-style catering you can find at just about any church in town. Don’t like those wild drums and hyped-up praise music? Try our traditional service. Have trouble following the notes in the hymnal? You might like our contemporary service. You don’t have to sing along until you get comfortable with music, and even that is totally optional. Can’t stand the sight of Sister Susie? Well you need to pray about that; but in the meantime, she attends the first service and you don’t have to.

We are a nation of shoppers, and Christians are all too happy to accommodate different styles so as to offer a more attractive variety of choices under one roof. As a result, an estrangement, not unlike the old one between Christians on opposite sides of the street, is now found between Christians in the same pew at voters’ assembly or elders meeting. It’s not exactly the same, but it is eerily similar. Is this a good thing? Should we try to accommodate a maximum number of tastes in the few short hours of Sunday morning? How does that reflect the unity that the Son of God enjoys with His Father? How does that bear witness to the fact that the Father sent the Son into the world to bear the sins of His people?

Free markets will not save us from stupidity... They are not supposed to

2009-07-24T10:20:00.004-05:00

This piece by Professor Steven G. Medema of the University of Colorado - Denver was posted on the Wall Street Journal's Real Time Economics blog. The title suggests that Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" has functioned fairly well throughout our current economic crisis. This paragraph is especially valuable...

I would argue that the market performed beautifully here. People respond to incentives in rather predictable ways, and if the market environment sets up incentives for absurd behaviors, people will behave absurdly. The invisible hand does not suggest that all will be well when a bunch of people making $50,000 per year and loaded down with credit card debt buy $300,000 houses with no money down, that making the loans to facilitate this will be profitable in the long run, or that the rest of society will be insulated from the consequences of these actions. The market has done a masterful job of channeling self-interest in socially useful directions for all manner of goods, including housing, for a very long time. But it does not insulate individuals or nations from the effects of stupidity.

Stop "public option" health care "reform"

2009-07-23T11:37:00.003-05:00

In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal explained in a very easily understood manner the reason I oppose any "Health Care Reform" that includes a so-called "public option" (i.e. government insurance plan). I hope the House of Representatives, despite the efforts of its leadership to the contrary, will do the same.

Mr. Obama doggedly promises that if you like your (private) health-care coverage now, you can keep it. That promise is hollow, because the Democrats’ reforms are designed to push an ever-increasing number of Americans into a government-run health-care plan.

If a so-called public option is part of health-care reform, the Lewin Group study estimates over 100 million Americans may leave private plans for government-run health care. Any government plan will benefit from taxpayer subsidies and be able to operate at a financial loss—competing unfairly in the marketplace until private plans are driven out of business. The government plan will become so large that it will set, rather than negotiate, prices. This will inevitably lead to monopoly, with a resulting threat to the quality of our health care.

This "public option" is nationalized socialist healthcare pushed through the back door. The president has demonstrated in public remarks that he knows this is the case. Numerous legislators have made similar public remarks before smaller and friendlier constituencies. But when the glare of the cameras becomes particularly intense they all pretend that their Health Care Reform will hardly change a thing. The only difference is that everyone will pay less and more people will get coverage. And they will (supposedly) accomplish this by telling everyone involved in the business of healthcare how much money they can charge for their services, and telling everyone else that their failure to obtain some kind of insurance coverage is a violation of Federal Law.

Any way you peel this apple, the meat of it is downright scary.

Here's an interesting segment from Issues Etc. on this topic...

More Historical Revisionism from Doug Phillips

2009-07-15T10:50:00.005-05:00

Historically speaking this image is highly deceptive; for it presents George Washington praying as a modern evangelical might pray (note the clenched fist) to a God in whom George Washington did not believe -- i.e. the Holy Trinity (assuming, of course, that this is the God worshiped by the organizers of the recent "Reformation 500" conference in Boston, Massachusetts; and assuming further that they projected their own faith into the Washington of this re-enactment).

Reformation and Baptism

2009-07-13T21:25:00.006-05:00

Kelly Klages was interviewed on Issues Etc. this afternoon and she did an excellent job discussing Holy Baptism. The podcast is posted below.

On a somewhat related note, in the comments to a post on Calvin's birthday at the weblog "The Old Adam Lives!" someone by the name of "Larry" made a rather interesting observation. He said, "There is no such thing as a Lutheran Baptist." This is interesting, of course, because there are numerous "Reformed Baptists" staking a claim to Calvin's legacy in the Reformation. As a Lutheran, I would consider it a blessing that there are no Lutheran Baptists. It's not something I've given much thought, but if it is true (and I'm not entirely sure that it is) it is a remarkable and remarkably wonderful thing. Naturally, some would disagree, considering it a failure in the Lutheran Reformation -- a failure to consistently follow through on the principles of grace alone, faith alone, and scripture alone?

What do you think, and why?

John Calvin's Birthday

2009-07-09T19:38:00.006-05:00

Today is the 500th anniversary of John Calvin's birth, and I would hate to let the day pass without a tribute of some sort. Regrettably do not admire Calvin to the extent that I used to. Although he was certainly a man of remarkable gifts and a tremendous intellect, as a theologian he left something to be desired. So in marking this day please allow me to present a short excerpt from Pastor Daniel Preus' book, Why I Am a Lutheran: Jesus at the Center.

But it is easy to rob Jesus of His incarnation. John Calvin (1509-1564), another contemporary of Luther, denied the real presence [of Christ's true body and blood in Communion] because he taught that though we receive Jesus' body and blood in the Lord's Supper, we do not receive it with our mouths. Rather, Calvin said that in the Lord's Supper faith ascends to heaven where Jesus' body is now confined. There faith feeds on Jesus' body and blood. Unfortunately, Calvin ignored the scriptural teaching that reconciliation between God and man never occurs because we ascend to God but always and only because God descends to us. Calvin's position asks people to do what sinful people have never been able to do: Ascend into heaven and grasp God there. To be saved, God must come to us, which He does in the incarnation. Therefore, Jesus with His body and blood is the one at the center of the Sacrament. It is not about our piety, our love, our dedication, or our commitment. It is about Jesus and His love, His dedication, and His commitment to us.

Christian Unity in the Local Congregation

2009-06-30T06:23:00.010-05:00

I take it for granted that there are bad reasons for a local church to have more than one service -- reasons which any ordinary Christian, considering them objectively, would admit are wrong and should not be allowed to break the church into separate congregations. For example, some members can't stand organ music, while others cannot bear to have worship without it; so the church decides to offer one service accompanied by organ and another with piano. I think any ordinary Christian looking at that situation from a distance would admit it is not good. It is a failure to walk together in a manner worthy of the calling to which Christians have been called. It is a failure to bear with one another in love. It is a failure to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Given the nature of the disagreement, I think we can all see that.

Another example of a bad reason for breaking up the local congregation -- one that applies specifically to our Lutheran experience -- would be a situation where one part of the congregation loves the third setting of the Divine Service and another part prefers the first setting. It would be a poor example of sincere brotherly love from a pure heart if that church decided to break into separate congregations so each part could worship in the manner they like best, and I think most Christians -- indeed most people -- would easily recognize that.

What if one part of the congregation wanted to worship at 9 a.m. and the other part is not willing to worship any earlier in the morning than 10:30 a.m.? Is it okay to offer services at both times simply to avoid a split? Are you kidding? The solution only sanctions the problem!

On the other hand, although my personal bias leans against it, I take it for granted that there may be good reasons for a church to have more than one service. Perhaps a large portion of the community surrounding the church does not speak the language of the congregation. In an effort to provide a Christian witness to those speaking the other language, the local church decides to provide a worship service in that language. That could be a good reason for more than one service. Or, perhaps, the congregation has more members than the fire marshall will allow in the sanctuary at any one time, and the church does not have the resources to build a new sanctuary. Such a church might need to have more than one service -- at least for a period of time, until a more permanent solution can be found.

Is the number of services in a local church adiaphora? Strictly speaking, perhaps so. There is no divine command that we divide a congregation in this way, and there is no divine prohibition against it. But if we are going to take that point of view it needs to come with at least two words of caution.

First, adiaphora is, and ought to be, more narrowly applied than we might like. Take for example the issue of infant baptism. Can you find in Scripture any divine command that infants be baptized? No. Is there any divine prohibition against it? No. Does that make infant baptism adiaphora? From a Lutheran perspective, it most certainly does not; and yet it meets the same standard by which we are so quick to assert our freedom in the matter of multiple services.

Second, any decision regarding multiple services needs to be deliberated with the clear understanding that Christian congregations worship together; and those that do not worship together -- for whatever reason(s) -- have effectively formed a second (or third, or fourth) congregation, even if they share the same pastor or government or facility.

I know of a pastor in Minnesota who serves two congregations in two different towns. No one says that they are one church with two services simply because they share a pastor. There is a Baptist church around the corner from my house with signs indicating that it is also the meeting place for St. Thomas Evangelical Church (apparently an Indian congregation otherwise unrelated to the congregation that owns the building). No one would say that they are one church with two services simply because they happen to meet in the same location. Why do churches all around this city and in every part of the country think they can offer one service on Saturday night and three more on Sunday morning, while acting like all the people in these different services form a single congregation? What makes them one? If you say it is the ministry of Word and Sacrament, how does the first service have more communion with the second service than it has with a church in the same denomination on the far side of town?

The notion that a local church can be one congregation with multiple services is not even contemplated in the Scripture, nor does it stand up to the scrutiny of God's Word, the Lutheran Confessions, or plain old common sense. So, if we are going to have multiple services let's do it with our eyes open to the fact that we are dividing ourselves into multiple congregations. Then, and only then, will we be able to discuss and deliberate as we should the reasons compelling us to the seperation.

Expecting an Economic Recovery? ...Maybe Not!

2009-06-27T07:26:00.006-05:00

It is strange and unfortunate that the House Republicans were able to vote with complete unity against the stimulus bill back in February, but on the climate change bill yesterday eight Republican Representatives made passage of the bill possible in a 219-212 vote. The stimulus was a bill that would do no good. It has not and will not aid in economic recovery. The climate change bill will actually damage -- it will cause harm to -- the American economy, and now Democrats can claim that it was a "bipartisan" effort.

A pollster called me a couple of days ago and asked me whether I was generally optimistic or pessimistic about economic recovery. I said, generally optimistic. That is usually the case. I tend to believe the American economy can survive and thrive despite most of the stupid stuff Congress does. If that pollster would, please call me back. I would like to change my answer! Although its effects may be a bit more gradual, this bill will ultimately be more disasterous to the American economy than Jefferson's trade embargo.

The Senate is working on its own version of this legislation. You can read an analysis of one proposal here. At first glance it might look like a tiresome read, but given the complexity of the 1,200-page bill it is a very concise and readable piece of work.

Congratulations "Junior"!

2009-06-26T12:47:00.005-05:00

There are very few teams in all of professional sports I like less than the LA Lakers. That may have to change after they drafted Chinemelu Elonu last night. A physical, hard working power forward, he was perhaps my favorite player on the only college basketball team that matters -- Texas A&M. I wish he had gone back to Aggieland for his senior year. Normally when someone skips out like that you figure he can't make the grades academically. Not so in this case. He picked up his bachelor's degree in May. Way to go, Elonu!

By the way, this makes Texas A&M the only team in the Big 12 to have a player drafted into the NBA in each of the last three years.

Nourishing Hope

2009-06-26T06:57:00.007-05:00

As Christians we have the hope of salvation, but hope has to be nourished. As Lutherans we have long emphasized the fact that the Gospel not only makes us Christians, but it also sustains us in the faith. So we need the Gospel more than once. We need it regularly or our faith and hope will starve to death.

This morning I read a column in the Wall Street Journal from Peggy Noonan, and I commend it to you; because, although she is criticizing President Obama, the criticism is driven by the hope that he will become a great president. She is presenting her case with more than mere civility or respect. While pointing out present flaws in the Administration's approach to our various crises, she is nurturing the hope that President Obama will meet the challenges of our moment and achieve greatness -- something we should all want for him. To some extent every American feels that way on Innauguration Day, but for those of us on the opposite side of the partisan divide that feeling quickly fades and eventually dies as we are disappointed time and time again by the things the president does. Hope has to be nourished, and I think Peggy Noonan has done us all a favor in that regard.

Christian Unity in the Local Congregation

2009-06-25T11:13:00.010-05:00

I've addressed this subject on the blog before, but I recently offered my opinion to our congregation's Board of Elders. I do not believe our church should have two worship services for our English-speaking members. We have more than enough space to accomodate all our English-speakers in one service. When local churches refuse to worship together on the basis of preferences for different liturgical styles, or different worship times, etc. the local church is essentially refusing to walk in Christian unity one with another. Or, at the very least, they have developed a form of unity based on something other than the preaching of the pure Gospel and an administration of the sacraments according to the Gospel. It may be shared facilities, or government, or community outreach programs, or whatever else -- all potentially good things in themselves. But those things are not the Gospel, they are not the calling with which we were all alike called into the Christian faith. And so they should not be the things that make us one body.

This (above) is what I, personally, believe and wrestle with.

Here is the entire text of my email. I presented my opinion in the context of a discussion among the Elders (I am a member of that Board) regarding the possibility of changing our worship schedule. The email message:

I really cannot contribute much to a discussion of service times, because I don’t believe we should have as many services as we do.

Unless and until we run out of space in our sanctuary (at which time we ought to plant another church), we should have ONE SERVICE for our English-speaking members. Whatever trials we might face in the process of reconciliation, they should be much preferred to maintaining the status quo. I believe our present division is incompatible with the concept of “true unity” presented in Article VII of the Augsburg Confession, and a restoration of Christian unity should be negotiated graciously and soon.

In response, a very dear friend and brother mentioned (among many other good and gracious things) that "some of the most ardent Confessional Lutherans... have multiple worship services in their own congregations." He went on to mention by name several pastors and congregations in Texas. Although I appreciate much of his response, I was surprised and dismayed by this blatent appeal to partisanship. It would seem as though he is hoping to persuade me to change my mind by saying essentially, "Look, various highly-esteemed leaders of your own party obviously disagree with you on this." I am happy to call myself a "Confessional Lutheran," but my opinion on this matter is not at all the result of any partisan affinity or affiliation. I know that a great many "Confessional" pastors and congregations have multiple worship services, and I would gladly present the same argument to each and every one of them.

Perhaps it is only an unattainable ideal, but LOCAL CHURCHES OUGHT TO WORSHIP TOGETHER -- AS ONE BODY.

I share this without any malice for any of the people involved. It is simply an illustration at the local level of what our Synod President is apparently describing as a "spirit of distrust," which he, counterintuitively, claims is present despite an "exceptional" unity in doctrine. (HT: Scott Diekmann)

Go read this...

2009-06-25T09:10:00.004-05:00

In honor of this, the 479th anniversary of the presentation of the Augsburg Confession, Pastor Paul T. McCain has posted an excellent (and lengthy) article on the significance and present relevance of this most blessed occasion. Specifically, he addresses the question, "Does being Lutheran still matter?"

Check it out.

Government and the Sanctity of Marriage

2009-06-25T06:38:00.010-05:00

I had an interesting exchange yesterday with another reader at DallasNews.com about the government's role in protecting the sanctity of marriage. It is a subject worth considering, and that reader made a couple of points I would like to address further.

He/she said that it was not the responsibility of any government to protect the sanctity of marriage. This person seems to be advocating a strict libertarian view on the subject -- government should not be involved at all.

If government is not involved in marriage, what institution is going to issue marriage licenses? Marriage licenses perform a crucial role in society, one that rarely comes to mind. They establish a record of people who are married. Without licenses a person might claim to be married to another, and that other person might try to deny it. The license, and the register created from it, definitively settle that dispute. No other institution can provide this necessary function as efficiently as the government.

If the government is not involved in marriage, what institution is going to issue divorce? Marriage is more than merely a formal recognition of an ooey gooey feeling two people have for each other. It is a covenant and a contract. As such marriage needs an arbiter, and one with the power and authority to enforce its decisions. The government has that power and authority -- the power of the sword.

Since the government will be involved in marriage, there must be laws governing that involvement. Should those laws be built on the principle that marriage can be abrogated without cause, or should they be built on the principle that marriage needs to be somewhat more permanent than a Netflix membership. As one moves in the direction of permanence on that question, he moves in the direction of protecting the sanctity of marriage.

The other reader also said that people who are married should protect the sanctity of marriage, and "the scope of their protection should go no further than their own marriage."

Although I appreciate this person's desire to "mind his own business" and keep government out of our personal lives as much as possible, I cannot take this view on marriage. It is precisely because I want to protect the sanctity of my marriage, that I want to protect the sanctity of marriage generally. We live together in this society, and our decisions affect one another. More specifically, if my neighbor is striving to preserve a marriage -- maybe a marriage that has encountered difficult circumstances, and I throw my own marriage away on a whim; I am saying to him and to everyone else that marriage isn't worth the paper (or hard disk space) it's recorded on. The decision to end a marriage is not merely a reflection on the spouses involved. It says something about the transience of the institution in general -- particularly if the persons involved have not fought with all their might to preserve the marriage, but even (to a lesser extent) if they have.

Whether we like it not -- whether we understand it or not -- marriage is not only a personal relationship, it is also a societal institution. As we interact with our spouse and other members of our own family, we are also engaged in a relationship with the broader community. How we conduct ourselves in that one relationship affects far more people than we know.

Christian Politics?

2009-06-13T07:48:00.007-05:00

In his book, The Case for Civility, Os Guinness sharply criticizes the Religious Right for playing the victim card. “Do they not know that those who portray themselves as victims come to perceive themselves as victims and then to paralyze themselves as victims?”

How do Christian Conservatives take upon themselves the role of victim?

Yesterday I was cleaning out my attic and I came across a book title by Gary DeMar purporting to tell “the untold story of America’s Christian history.” Countless men and “ministries” attempt to do the same, and it is a form of victim-playing. David Barton and his Wall Builders, Doug Phillips and his Vision Forum, Peter Marshall and David Manuel in their book The Light and the Glory, and late preachers Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy all present a distorted view of history in which the goal of our nation’s founders was essentially to create a Christian nation. They are saying, in effect, “This is the glorious Christian heritage you have, but our political enemies -- the liberal elites in academia, in the media, in the bureaucracy, and elsewhere -- are deliberately hiding it from you and from your children, so that they can advance their godless socialism instead!” What does this mean? It means YOU, dear Christian, have been robbed. You are a victim! ...or, so they would say.

“What’s so bad about that?” you might ask. Well, it’s not so much that they are factually wrong -- although they are. The problem is that they are promoting their politics through an appeal to raw resentment. As Os Guinness points out in his book, playing the victim is sub-Christian. It is a violation of Christian integrity.

How so? Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, came to us in the form of the Suffering Servant. He came for no other purpose than to suffer and die at the hands of sinful men, so that He could redeem those very men and the whole world from sin, death, and the devil. Jesus is THE VICTIM, and He set the ideal example by suffering in silence. The appeal to resentment is an appeal for the restoration of what has allegedly been lost. It is an assertion of our rights. Men like David Barton, Doug Phillips, Gary DeMar, et al. are saying that Christianity deserves a privileged place in the public square because that was the original intent of our founding fathers. Even if their history were factually true (and it is not), as Christians it is more than merely unseemly for us to lay claim to this position of privilege. Since we have now become servants of all, it is (or should be) contrary to our new nature as Christians. It should strike our souls as fingnails on a chalkboard strike our ears.

The book by Os Guinness is very good. For more information on the book and its author, listen to the interview below from the May 4, 2009 edition of Issues, Etc.

Idolatry Makes Slaves

2009-06-04T06:57:00.004-05:00

I grew up in a church that made an idol out evangelism, and this, in turn, made everyone there a slave. You might say it was its own unique form of "Babylonian Captivity." So I recommend for your consideration Frank Gillespie's recent thoughts on the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod's Ablaze! movement/program.

Unbelievable

2009-06-04T06:43:00.006-05:00

Doug Phillips continues to make a very bad impression on me. It was good that he waited almost two days before saying anything on the murder of George Tiller, but when he did it came in the form of: I said it before, and I'll say it again... Then he followed that self-serving article with a synopsis of what people said in response to his own sagacity. Wow! Is there anything that happens in this world that isn't all about Doug Phillips?

http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2009/06/5273.aspx

http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/life/george_tiller_is_dead_for_whom.xml

http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2009/06/5276.aspx

In the News

2009-05-31T16:33:00.003-05:00

This was posted just about an hour ago on DallasNews.com.

Abortionist George Tiller was apparently shot and killed this morning at Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas.

Update:

In reading the various comments made on the Internet about this event I am most impressed with Frank Gillespie who wrote, "Like so many unborn babies he killed in their mothers' wombs, Dr. George Tiller was himself killed in a place where he should not have feared for his life, the lobby of his church. In the place where poor miserable sinners should only hear the peace that passes all understanding, the Gospel of Jesus and His cross, they heard gunfire." He went on to describe how "dangerously harmful" the actions of Tiller's murderer will likely be to those who profess to be Christian. He points out that it is already "in vogue" to hold Christians in contempt for their beliefs on homosexuality and abortion. This event will only make such hatred all the more fashionable. Brace yourselves.

I also appreciate Scott's comment, where he wrote, "I don't see any equivalence between this murder and any attempted assassinations of Adolf Hitler during World War II. While Tiller bragged that he performed up to 100 abortions a week, he was not the government, as Hitler was." For some people the murder of George Tiller is simply not all that bad because he was such a wicked man, "...as evil as Hitler," they would say. In effect they are admitting that the murder of Hitler would not have been a bad thing, and this is because he was such an evil man. And some who refuse to condone yesterday's killer are saying, in effect, "No matter how bad George Tiller was, he was no Adolf Hitler." I think this comparison is unkind to Hitler. Hitler might have murdered (I think it was) his niece, with whom he was involved in a lurid relationship. Beyond that he is not (to my knowledge) suspected of killing any human being with his own hands. George Tiller by some estimations killed more than 60,000 people with his own hands. The vast majority of Hitler's victims (and he is responsible for the heinous crimes committed in his name) were fully capable adults, who in some sense had the ability to speak and fight in their own defense. None of George Tillers victims had this ability. I say this not to exonerate Hitler or Tiller's murderer by any means! But on the whole we seem to have the presence of mind to treat Dr. Tiller's death as a tragedy, and we should; but we find no similar sympathy for Hitler whose crimes by some measures were not as grievous as Dr. Tiller's. Whether it is Hitler or Tiller there should not be any member of the human race whose death we feel fully justified in celebrating. So, I appreciate the fact that Scott justifies the attempted assassinations of Hitler, not by appealing to the gravity of Hitler's sins, but by pointing out that those living under his "government" had no other lawful or civil course of action available to them.

Grace in Tulsa

2009-05-31T11:43:00.005-05:00

A video from Grace Lutheran Church in Tulsa, Oklahoma has been going around the Lutheran blogosphere. It is very good, and seems to be the composite culmination of three (or more?) smaller videos. I like this one.

Around the 40th second you get my favorite part. The different members of Grace have been talking about the culture shock they experienced when they first came to the church. Pastor Mason Beecroft says, "Well [the historic liturgy] is a foreign language, and the church has its own language. And so, rather than change that language to something that might be easier to understand, I would rather wrestle with that language so that we can learn it, and that we could be formed by that language."

Wow! What a refreshing repudiation of the "different-strokes-for-different-folks" philosophy that seems to dominate so many churches. Watch all four videos and read their website page on "Dancing at Grace." I'm with Pastor Weedon. I'm ready to move to Tulsa.

BTW... the former pastor of Grace is presently serving my parents' congregation in central Texas, and has been a tremendous blessing to them.

The Indispensible Key to a Right Understanding and Reception of the Sacraments

2009-05-31T06:35:00.004-05:00

For in consecrating and administering (the Sacrament of the Altar), the priests are our servants. Through them we are not offering a good work or communicating something in an active sense. Rather, we are receiving through them the promises and the sign; we are being communicated unto in the passive sense.

- Martin Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church

Food for Thought

2009-05-28T18:53:00.007-05:00

Over at Winging It, Stan wrote an interesting article asking good questions about how the qualifications for elder established by the Holy Spirit through Paul in his epistles to Timothy and Titus ought to apply to us today. In particular (among other things), Stan questions the legitimacy of electing elders given that Paul so very clearly said they ought to be appointed.

Now the counter-pietism unit at AC 24 has published a little article on the subject of elections in the church. The "Rt. Rev. Jack Bauer" sums it up this way. "In the church, neither majorities nor minorities rule, but only faith and love. Faith is governed solely by God's Word. Therefore faith does not yield to love, but love yields to faith. Everything else yields to love." Either God's Word speaks clearly to an issue (i.e. only men may serve as elders) or it does not (i.e. John Doe is called to serve in the ministry of Word and Sacrament). If God's Word speaks clearly it must be followed, if it does not then "everything else yields to love."

Martin Luther on Mega-churches?

2009-05-21T10:26:00.009-05:00

My current reading project is Three Treatises by Martin Luther. These treatises are: To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation; The Babylonian Captivity of the Church; and The Freedom of a Christian. I am still working on the first.

This morning I came to the place where Luther denounces the multiplication of churches and chapels in wood and field. You might ask, "What's wrong with a chapel in the woods?" Well, apparently the bishops and prelates of the Roman Catholic Church had developed a habit of setting these things up around some dubious "miracle" or relic. The goal was to draw pilgrims. Luther mentions five of these in Germany. One had three hosts (Communion bread) that had reportedly survived a fire that had destroyed the church. The hosts were only singed around the edges and there was a red spot in the center of each, taken to be the blood of Christ. When they were moved to another church they were said to have become fiery and luminous without being burned. So the bishop erected a grand church around those wafers, and the pilgrims came in droves. The other chapels had similar attractions.

Luther wrote: "But what shall I say now? Every bishop thinks only of how he can set up and maintain such a place of pilgrimage in his diocese. He is not at all concerned that people believe and live aright. The rulers are just like the people. The blind lead the blind. In fact, where pilgrimages do not catch on, they set to work to canonize the saints, not to honor the saints, who would be honored enough without being canonized, but to draw the crowds and bring in the money.

Is there a parallel phenomenon in our culture today? Many people still go running off to the nearest apparition of the Virgin Mary, but that doesn't have much appeal for most Americans. Still, churches (especially in urban centers, I think) make a maximum effort to draw maximum crowds. Professional musicians, light shows, dance productions, and celebrity preachers are drawing hundreds and thousands of people to one place or another. What's the point? Why are they doing this? I won't deny that in many cases, perhaps most, there is some spark of a genuine desire to tell people about Jesus. But celebrities and their production managers know that wherever people are drawn to a good show, spiritual or otherwise, they tend to bring their money with them.

What is Luther's advice? Let the saints canonize themselves. "And let every man stay in his own parish; there he will find more than in all the shrines [and mega-churches] even if they were all rolled into one. In your own parish you find baptism, the sacrament, preaching, and your neighbor, and these things are greater than all the [entertainments and outreach programs, not to mention the very] saints in heaven, for all of them were made saints by God's word and sacrament. As long as we esteem such wonderful things so little, God is just in his wrathful condemnation in allowing the devil to lead us where he likes..."

What do you think? Is this an example of Luther saying something "relevant"?

Curious Indeed!

2009-05-12T11:06:00.006-05:00

Okay... it's a conspiracy theory, and the author freely admits it.

But at least it is interesting.

If the Air Force was taking publicity photos of presidential airplanes in the infamous incident a few weeks ago in Manhattan, why is that they are unwilling or unable to produce even a SINGLE high caliber, publicity-quality photograph? Why are they giving us only a snapshot taken from inside the cockpit of the F-16 escort?

For that matter, why did they pick a day with such crummy weather conditions? The Air Force does have some pretty decent meteorologists at its disposal.

Was somebody joy-riding in a presidential 747?

If so, who?

HT: Evan at The Bi-Coloured-Python-Rock-Snake

On another note... I tried to get this photograph straight from the source. I went to the White House website and did a search for "Air Force One publicity photo." This brought me to a page with no search results -- there was only a box requesting (requiring) an email address and ZIP code. Big brother, apparently, wants to know who you are before he gives you access to information. So I backed out of this page and tried the search again. I got search results this time, but nothing related to this specific embarrassing incident. I did find the same photograph posted on the Christian Science Monitor website with a White House credit.

News of the Extended Family

2009-05-11T10:04:00.006-05:00

We are all very proud of my little brother. He was recently accepted at a major, state-run institution of higher learning here in Texas. For the record, this is NOT the same institution as mine, but we are proud of him nonetheless.

It is worth mentioning, however, that in presenting him with a letter and a certificate of acceptance this OTHER school consistently addressed him by his full name, which they consistently misrepresented, using a lower-case letter at the beginning of his middle name -- that's right -- on BOTH documents!

My brother could neither confirm nor deny that this error was a faithful reproduction of the name he presented to the university on his application. For now, the investigation will continue.

In the meantime, the family would like to reassure said brother that he will be allowed to eat brauts and drink beer at the lake this summer no matter what school colors he happens to wearing next fall.

A Comment on Embryonic Stem-Cell Research

2009-05-07T16:19:00.001-05:00

It is deeply disturbing to find such uninhibited hostility to religious faith in the comments attached to this story.

I am a Christian, and I am opposed to embryonic stem-cell research. Even if there were some reason to believe embryonic stem-cell research could produce the astonishing cures its proponents promise, I would remain opposed. THIS IS NOT A FAITH-BASED POSITION (except in a subjective, secondary sense). Scientific evidence, not to mention common sense, would seem to suggest that a human embryo is a human being. It is not turkey or a dog. It is not a human egg or human sperm. It is a PERSON, at a very early stage of development. It is essentially the same as you and I were at that age.

Now, having come to the (scientific) conclusion that the embryo is a human being, I have a religious conviction that says I am not supposed to hurt or harm my neighbor in his body. I freely admit this is a religious conviction, but only because I happen to be a religious person whose religion happens to say something on the subject of murder. There are many non-religious people who believe murder is evil and they are able to rationally apply that ethical principle to human embryos as well as any religious person.

I am NOT saying that proponents of embryonic stem-cell research have no scruples about murder. But the embryos, who are the subjects of these science experiments, are virtually invisible and the trumped up promises of embryonic stem-cell research are so dazzling, that well-intentioned people of good-faith fail to recognize how their moral principles ought to be applied to this issue.

Read Kelly's Blog

2009-05-05T11:47:00.006-05:00

Kelly posted a recommendation of Pastor Bill Cwirla's thoughts on perfection, as well as her own gentle critique of The Rebelution -- a Christian youth movement very much in need of criticism.

Her conclusion?

With a Jesus-centered approach to “be ye perfect” instead of a Pharasaical approach, we find the Law much harder than “Do Hard Things” would lead us to believe, and the Gospel much more powerful.

Amen!

The "Do Hard Things" approach is centered on -- focused on -- the Christian. Jesus is an important part of the formula, but His importance is in a peripheral role. Jesus is an indispensable accessory to the individual who is committed to doing "Hard Things." This is a formula that ultimately fails to produce its intended outcome.

Thanks for the post, Kelly.

Swine Flu and Common Cup Communion on Issues, Etc.

2009-05-05T11:12:00.004-05:00

I wish I had been listening to the first hour of Issues Etc. yesterday. They had an "open lines" segment on the subject of Swine Flu precautions in church. You can listen by clicking the icon below. You might want to skip the first 20 minutes of the segment. That's where Pastor Todd is begging the audience for input, and getting only a little. (I wish I had been tuned in!) But at about the 20-minute mark Pastor Todd begins sharing his own thoughts on the subject, and they are very good.

Just a note of clarification. In this post last week I said, "What [our Lord] gives us can do us no harm!" By using the phrase, "no harm," I did NOT mean to suggest that it is impossible for someone to get sick by way of common cup communion; but to express my personal confidence that if I do get sick, my Father in heaven is working all things together for my good -- and sickness or no sickness, the cup contains life and salvation and blessing, which I am determined to receive with thanksgiving. Pastor Todd addresses that issue in his remarks, and I am in complete agreement with what he says.

Is anything sacred?

2009-05-04T10:43:00.004-05:00

I’ve got at least one more thing to say about swine flu and the common cup. Without divulging who said what, let me just say that some well-intentioned individuals in our congregation wanted to celebrate Communion yesterday without the common cup. With three posts in three business days, you know I found this very disappointing.

Why, Eric? What difference does it make?

Well… That’s it. That’s precisely the problem. The culture of the world around us holds nothing sacred, and that mentality is alive and well in the church too. It’s not merely the common cup. In our congregation pastoral vestments are dispensable. There is not a crucifix in our sanctuary. What passes for a crucifix is a cross with a Chi Ro symbol affixed to it. Sharing the peace is optional. Wine is optional. The common cup is optional. Observing the feasts of the church is optional. Indeed, the entire liturgy is optional. Is anything sacred?

Along comes a rumor – and it was only a rumor – that “various health bodies” were recommending against using the common cup; and in an abundance of caution, with hardly a moment’s hesitation, we are talking about putting the common cup into the trash bin marked “Adiaphora,” where virtually every other element of our liturgy already lies. To say that this was disappointing hardly begins to describe it.

"Adiaphora" is not a synonym for "insignificant," nor does it mean "dispensable."

Unhappy McAfee Customer

2009-05-02T10:16:00.002-05:00

Maybe I'm just having trouble navigating their website, but let me see if I've got this straight...

I purchased virus protection software from McAfee, installed it on my home computer; and now, when I think this same home computer may be infected with a virus, I'm supposed to plunk down another $90 ($89.95) so that they can fix the problem? Even if there were no inherent ethical dilema in that proposition (a conflict of interest on McAfee's part), there would still be a crisis of confidence. How can I trust the company, whose virus software failed to detect and prevent the infection, to clean it up after the fact? And if I come back in a week with the same problems, will they classify it as a second "episode" and extract an additional $90 fee?

I think I'll pass.

It looks like I'll be shopping for a new Internet security provider. Any suggestions?

Compliance

2009-05-01T17:47:00.007-05:00

Yesterday I posted an article suggesting that because of swine flu Dallas/Fort Worth health officials have been advising local churches to withhold the common cup in their celebrations of Communion this Sunday. This was based on a report from a friend, who said that he heard it on the news. I have not been able to find any independent confirmation of this report. When this information was brought to the attention of the Board of Elders in our congregation, there was a discussion of whether or not the common cup should be made available this coming Sunday. From my perspective the fact that we would consider this for even a moment is cause for some alarm.

Imagine for a moment that, in some bizarre world, wine –- the kind with alcohol –- was found to be carrying a disease. I know some will argue that this is actually true, but let’s leave arguments about the evils of alcohol and alcoholism aside. In this exercise we are suspending disbelief to imagine that some sort of deadly, infectious bacterial or viral disease is being spread by way of wine consumption. Grape juice is okay. Pasteurization takes care of this disease, but it thrives in normal table wine and some varieties of port. If, under these circumstances, health officials asked or advised churches to stop using wine in Holy Communion, would we or should we do so? I put it to you this way, because for some people receiving Christ’s blood in a common cup is every bit as essential to the celebration of Holy Communion as receiving it in the form of wine is essential to others. For some it simply is not the Lord’s Supper if it does not come to them in these forms.

Now, I realize health officials do not usually have nefarious, anti-Christian motives for expressing concerns, but the motive does not matter. The government would be asking us to change some aspect of the most significant thing Christians regularly do in worship. Today the government might make a request or a recommendation, tomorrow it could assert the authority to issue orders. If, in an abundance of prudence, we submit to the government’s request today, will we have any reasonable grounds for resisting coercion when the request turns into a command tomorrow?

As leaders in our congregation we have an obligation to respectfully refuse to comply with this recommendation, or any government request that would tamper with the gifts Christ distributes from the altar or the pulpit -- no matter how benign or well-intentioned those requests may be. We are the church –- the Bride of Christ! What our Bride Groom gives us can do us no harm!

By the way... we did eventually come to that decision. There will be a common cup at our church on Sunday.

Holy Baptism

2009-04-30T18:13:00.005-05:00

It's too late to vote but...

THIS

...should be the Issues Etc. soundbite of the week!

Since I'm almost exlusively an on-demand listener, I won't know until tomorrow how many people agreed with me. Can't wait to hear that segment of the show!

If you notice, my profile begins with the statement, "I am baptized." Through the use of analogy, Pastor Mark Nebel explains why it should not be normal for us to say, "I was baptized," as if it were just something that happened to us once upon a time in our past. Like marriage, baptism is something that transforms us, and goes on to define who we are... forever. Great analogy! I could go on, but you should just listen to clip. It's only a about a minute long.

Swine Flu and the Common Cup

2009-04-30T12:42:00.011-05:00

"Beginning January 1, 1960, communion was celebrated the first Sunday of every month and remains that way to this day. Until the mid-1960's, the only type of communion offered to members was the Common Cup; everyone drank the wine from the same silver chalice. At this time, an individual communion set was purchased. It included small, individual glass cups given to each communicant. The change was mainly for health reasons."

The statement above was found on the website of a Lutheran church somewhere in rural Texas. It makes me wonder, what were those health reasons? Were the members of this congregation frequently falling ill? Were these illnesses somehow traced back to the Communion chalice?

Apparently, because of concerns related to recent cases of swine flu, Dallas/Fort Worth health officials are advising churches to withhold the common cup in their celebrations of Holy Communion this Sunday. What are they saying? If you choose to receive Communion in the manner that the Lord Jesus Christ gave it to you, BE AFRAID! And when a church acquieses to this voice of prudence, what is it saying? You know, our government ministers could be right! We could get sick if we commune from a common cup!

I realize that there may be good reasons to be more afraid of swine flu than other types of illness; but if swine flu can be transmitted on the common cup, so can a whole host of other diseases floating around on any given Sunday morning. Should we cower in fear and transform the historic practice of Holy Communion into something entirely new and different on account of these germs? Let my vote, for what it's worth, be against that sort of thing.

The statement on that church website would probably be more accurate if it changed "health reasons" to "health concerns." At some point in the not too distant past, Christians learned just enough about microbiology to get concerned. As a result in all too many churches, the cup of the new covenant in Christ's blood is no longer a sacrament we share together. Now we share it separately. We are being driven by a fear of what might happen in the future. In a way, that's precisely the sort of thing that Communion is supposed to inoculate us against.

Wow!

2009-04-29T13:14:00.003-05:00

Cross swords with Doug Phillips, and his entourage might post a few choice words for you!

"Doug Phillips Responds to the Child-Hating Enemies of God"
(actual blog post title, 4/29/09 ~1:00 PM CDT)

Nothing to see here, folks. Just another day at Vision Forum Ministries. Don't forget to put a check in the plate as you walk out the door.

For the record, I tend to agree with Vision Forum's critique of the prevailing culture's attitude towards children and families that have a bunch of them. The book that sparked this verbal onslaught is probably scurilous. That doesn't make the organization's response any less over-the-top. Here we have an organization that presents itself as a Christian ministry. But is it really? In His Passion our Lord cried out, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!" In its moment of distress Vision Forum and friends run to the Internet screaming, "Those who revile me are child-hating enemies of God!" I suppose they might find some precedent for this behavior in the Psalms, but the Psalms are a collection of prayers and hymns -- cries to God; not attacks against particular foes.

The response from Vision Forum just isn't right.

I’m still a bit discouraged today…

2009-04-27T18:23:00.003-05:00

Have you ever been sitting in church listening to a sermon, while a knot keeps growing in the pit of your stomach?

When I was growing up in a charismatic church, a tremendous emphasis was placed on the fact that every Sunday is Easter Sunday, and we should celebrate all of them with the same measure of enthusiasm and joy as we demonstrate and experience on that one incomparable day. Is it true? Is it possible to maintain the Easter experience throughout the year? Is it even desirable to do so? No, no, and most emphatically, NO! What am I saying, that we should we be somber, dour and dull the rest of the year? No, of course not! We should live everyday in the joy of the Resurrection, but we should not expect that joy to have an Easter glow every time we gather for worship. Back in my charismatic days this perpetual bliss was presented as a necessary prerequisite for effective evangelism. But believe me, if you try to maintain that experience throughout the year, the result will be anything but attractive and winsome. It produces impossible expectations, robs your congregation and your worship team of joy, and ultimately makes your church as phony as a three dollar bill.

Both of these themes (1. maintain-the-joy, because 2. you-will-get-an-empty-church-without-it) were presented by a visiting pastor in our English-language services yesterday. For me, it was a very discouraging, what-am-I-doing-here sort of moment.

Recommended (Blog) Reading

2009-04-27T06:38:00.010-05:00

Stan, at Winging It, has written an outstanding article on the subject of why the term "sodomite" may not be the most appropriate, the most accurate, nor even biblical. Yes, that's right! Perhaps you have read the term in your Authorized Version or some other translation, but "sodomite" actually encompasses a good deal more than the underlying Hebrew and Greek terms it was intended to translate. It is therefore a poor and inaccurate translation -- not a solid biblical term.

I tend to believe the term is used, as often as not, as a euphemism for "fag." We want to say something hateful, and hurtful. We want to shock and offend, but we are too clean and pure to use vulgar, venacular terms. So, in this case, we find a word in the Bible and use it as a sanitized substitute, knowing full well that it will have same intended effect.

Stan doesn't rule out the possibility that causing offense might sometimes be useful and necessary. John the Baptist called a certain group of people, "brood of vipers" -- how unkind! Jesus called the same group, "whitewashed sepulchres" -- ouch! But they weren't using this language every day in every public pronouncement or private interaction with Pharisees. This sort of rhetoric was used selectively.

Anyway... it was an excellent blog post. You should read it. Thanks Stan. Great work!

Prosecuting Past Administrations

2009-04-23T09:41:00.006-05:00

If waterboarding is potentially a crime, what is killing human embryos for the purpose of conducting science experiments on their bodies?

When Jesus broke up the vigilante justice that was going to kill the woman caught in adultery it wasn't because she was innocent, and it wasn't because He truly lacked the authority to sit in judgment (although His earthly vocation did not grant that authority). It was because in their zeal to get Jesus this posse had gone mad. They were not pursuing justice, they were trying to vindicate themselves and justify their hatred of Jesus. They were willing to destroy a woman -- a human being! -- to prove their own righteousness; and Jesus, in miraculous fashion, saved those men from themselves.

This is not a defense of waterboarding. I am inclined to believe it was unnecessary and inhumane for our government to take up that practice against enemy combatants in its custody. I don't know; perhaps it was even illegal. But I tend to see more than a hint of self-righteous zealotry in the calls we are now hearing for prosecution -- calls often coming from people looking for ways to justify their immense, irrational hatred of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. As they say, "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones!" It may not be possible to govern an empire without getting one's hands dirty. For those currently possessing that immense responsibility, it is something they should carefully and humbly consider.

In any case, paying for embryonic stem cell research is such a barbaric crime, it makes waterboarding seem somewhat tame in comparison.

Media Savy

2009-04-20T13:34:00.013-05:00

President Barack Obama is making a news splash with his first official Cabinet meeting. According to anonymous sources (anonymous sources always make a bigger news splash), the first topic on the "secret" closed-doors agenda will a budget slashing directive. The President is giving his Cabinet 90 days to cut $100 million dollars from the federal budget.

On the 28th day of his first term President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. In it our government found a way to spend $787 billion.

The red sliver on the pie chart below represents today's $100 million in savings in relation to the $787 billion.

What?!? You don't see a red sliver? Well, of course you don't! One hundred million dollars represents less than 0.02% of seven hundred and eighty seven billion. This $100 million the White House is aiming to save the public treasury will "recover" roughly one and one quarter penny (0.0127) of every one hundred dollars ($0.01 of every $100.00) spent in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Oh... and he is giving his Cabinet more than 3 times as much time to find this invisible $100 million savings as he gave Congress to fork over the $787 billion (90 days vs. 28 days).

On the evening news tonight there will be clips of President Obama speaking in very somber and determined tones about the need for fiscal responsibility. But let his actions speak louder than his words. The president doesn't really believe we need fiscal responsibility. He does believe the American public will be impressed when he talks about saving one hundred million dollars. He's being as phony as a cheap date -- talking big to impress the swooning girl on his arm.

What do you mean when you say, "bow"?

2009-04-07T10:03:00.006-05:00

Rachel and I have been away visiting family for the last few days and we are somewhat "out-of-the-loop" on certain current events. Last night my Dad was telling me that President Obama "bowed" to the king of Saudi Arabia. What?

What do you mean when you say "bow"?

There are different ways of bowing. There is a bowing that is nothing more than a polite way of saying, "Hello." It is the sort of bowing practiced in Japan, and it has about the same significance in that culture as the double kiss greeting ritual used in other parts of the world. Then there is real bowing. Bowing that says you are a king and I am your subject. Without any indication to the contrary I am inclined to believe that Obama made a polite bend at the waste while shaking the king's hand, or something of that nature.

This morning I saw this photograph on the Jihad Watch blog.

Would someone please tell me that this photo has been doctored! Did our president, the President of the United States, actually bend his knee before a king?

I also heard that Michelle Obama hugged Queen Elizabeth II. Well, at least she didn't fall on her face and kiss the royal toes! What bothers me about the many protocol gaffes is the incredible indifference on the part of the Obamas. I mean, are we really supposed to believe that there was no one in the executive branch of the United States government who could have suggested a more appropriate gift for the British Prime Minister, or the Queen than the DVDs and iPod they respectively received? Was there no one who could have told Mrs. Obama that it is never appropriate to hug the Queen of England? Was there no one who could have briefed the President of the United States on how to greet the king of Saudi Arabia?

I am sure that during her 8 years in the White House Laura Bush met the Queen of England. I am pretty sure that she did not hug her. I am also pretty sure that they don't teach etiquette of that sort in the public schools of Midland, Texas. If Laura Bush displayed proper etiquette with the Queen it was because she bothered to find someone who could instruct her on what is polite in such company.

The Obamas seem to be winging it, and I cannot think of any reason for it other than a casual, careless, self-inflicted disregard for learning good manners. They don't seem to think it is important or necessary to make a good effort on matters of personal deportment. Whatever the reason, their conduct is reflecting poorly on all of us.

Do we really want to do this?

2009-03-19T14:18:00.006-05:00

The House of Representatives passed a bill this afternoon imposing 90% taxes on employee bonuses from firms bailed out by taxpayers. Regardless of the propriety of the AIG bonuses, it is a terribly fearsome thing to watch 535 legislators wielding the nation's tax code against such a small handful of individuals in such a hasty, self-righteous manner. Who will be the next target of our wrath?

An Anniversary Not Soon Forgotten

2009-03-18T09:08:00.006-05:00

Let us pause for a moment of silence...

On this day, one year ago, LCMS, Inc., by an action it could not be troubled to truthfully explain (the improper termination of a called and ordained pastor, and the unconscionable termination of his assistant in an hour of tremendous personal strain and need), plainly demonstrated that its devotion to the nihilistic fads of American evangelicalism will take precedence over its devotion to the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions for as long as the current administration endures... unless God in his mercy grants its chief executive officer the gift of repentance.

Perhaps I am trying to express this in an interesting way, but I am also trying to avoid too much drama. For myself and (I suspect) for many others, this is the day the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod died.

There can be absolutely no doubt that the firings and the cancellation of Issues Etc. were ideologically (theologically) motivated. The fact that the authorities in LCMS headquarters remain unwilling to admit this, and refuse to defend their actions on those grounds, only compounds the sin. On the program Pastor Todd Wilken and producer Jeff Schwarz frequently criticized the means and methods of the church growth movement. President Kieschnick is a patient man, but he could only take so much of this “incessant purification.” Gerald Kieschnick and many LCMS congregations are knee-deep in the church growth movement. By his actions he defended these “new methods” – and make no mistake, even though he insulated himself procedurally from the deed, Dr. Kieschnick is responsible for what happened that day. For me, personally, he demonstrated that the LCMS is as soulless as any other American corporation, and I no longer feel any great affinity for or loyalty to LCMS, Inc.

...come to think of it, that’s not entirely a bad thing.

Who are we hiding from?

2009-03-10T11:44:00.005-05:00

For quite some time our congregation's website has featured an unlinked "Members Only" page. It has been a place to spotlight various ministries and activities taking place in and around the local church. Our members receive an email with a link to this page, but as late as last week anyone who knew it was there could visit. You simply had to have the correct URL. No more! It is now password protected.

Why the secrecy?

I know there is a copy of the church directory on this page, and it is probably a good idea to protect that information. But what else on this page needs to be hidden from public view?

What about you and your church? Do you have hidden or protected web pages? What sorts of things are in there? Why is it appropriate (or not) to hide or protect this information?

Tourney Time!

2009-03-09T14:12:00.006-05:00

So... what got into those Missouri Kittens last Saturday down in College Station? If there's a rematch (and I'm not taking that for granted), will the Aggies be able to put on another defensive clinic like the last one?