Mother Hubbard's Cupboard

Win Some and Lose Some

2009-06-17T00:57:00.000-07:00

Hey all. It's been a long time since I've posted anything of substance, so I'm going to give a general update.

First year at seminary went fine. I mostly got A's, but I was a little disappointed with my Gospels I, II grades, which were both B's. However, I managed to get an A from Dr. Nordling (I think the only one he's given since he's been at Concordia) on my paper regarding the Words of Institution in Matthew's Gospel. I also got B's in Hebrew I and II. Aside from that, I loved my history and exegetics classes. I was a little disappointed by the systematic and liturgical classes though.

However, after my first year of seminary, I've come to the conclusion that ordination is not for me. I've begun the process of switching out of the MDiv program and pursuing academic interests in historical theology. As a result I'll graduate next year with an MA in Religion. Due to some recent discussions with Calvinists, I'm anxious to work on the theology of the sixth ecumenical council and St. Maximus the Confessor. I've become convinced that at times when referring to the natures of Christ, Calvinists tend to the Nestorian, but when it comes to the will, they are Monothelites, which is itself an extension of Monophysitism and ultimately a form of Apolinarianism.

I met a lot of good people at seminary, but sadly, two of my close friends are doing years in the study abroad program. Matt Moss will be in England and Travis Berg will be in Germany. Mike Miller gets married this Summer (though since I can't find a job to save my life I don't know if I'll be able to make it). I reconnected with a friend from University who teaches Paleontology at Duke in Oklahoma, and he ardently discusses the creation/evolution debate.

Aside from theological discoveries, I have to admit that aside from Christology, I'm not learning a whole lot about systematics (even in that class a lot was review for me). I learned more systematics in church history I.

This Summer, if I can't find a job, I'll be reading and reviewing my languages and history, but also making movies on youtube...especially since I've found a text-to-speech program that lets you make 6 minute cartoons in less than an hour. I'm in the middle of doing a series on the history of Christology, aimed at explaining to Calvinists why some of us accuse them of Christological difficulties at times.

The only thing I'm going to ask for prayer is for a family member very close to me that has cancer. We've caught it early, but prayer is always good in this situation.

Glory to God for all things.

Sermon for Christmas Eve Midnight

2009-01-19T16:08:00.000-08:00

No, I didn't deliver it to a congregation, just Homiletics I.

Text: Isaiah 7:10-14
Psalm 110:1-4, Antiphon 2a
1 John 4:7-16
Matthew 1:18-25
Hymn of the Day: Lo, how a rose e'er blooming

Grace, mercy, and peace be unto you from God our Father, and our enfleshed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen. Our Gospel text is an unusual one if you stop and think about it. Here we have a dream announcement to a man named Joseph, as if that idea doesn’t ring any bells from the book of Genesis. We have an unnamed angel who pretty much catches Joseph by surprise, and a message that has a reference to a passage from Isaiah, which we heard earlier tonight. This text seems to have something to do with tonight, but why does Matthew not record the birth of Jesus or the events leading up to it in Bethlehem? This is most of the setup for the birth, which is passed over relatively quickly. Rather than look to the events of tonight, this text is forward looking to the ultimate reason for the season, and the true reason Our Lord became man. This is not the “Peanuts Christmas Special” Gospel text of Luke 2 which we all know and love. There are no shepherds, no inn, no Caesar Augustus, no census, not even a choir of angels singing, “Gloria in excelsis!” One almost gets the idea from reading Luke’s Gospel, that everyone was happy that Jesus was born, and that Caesar himself would enter the manger right behind the shepherds. Everything is just peachy keen. But in Matthew, there is but one angel and St. Joseph the stepfather and guardian of Jesus.
Matthew’s Gospel portrays a darker Christmas story. One almost gets the impression that time is running out, and that this is completely unexpected by anyone. Joseph is thinking of divorcing his “virgin” wife whom he suspects of coming together with another man, he and Mary run from Herod into Egypt, and there is the awful slaughter of the holy innocents of Bethlehem. There is even a nice touch of pagan astrology where magi follow a star and show up the Jews who have the authoritative Scriptures and prophecies from God. No, this Gospel is gritty, and desperate. Yet God is still in control. As Joseph debates how to divorce his wife quietly in order not to “put her to shame” – that is, to avoid her being stoned to death for adultery according to Jewish law – he is visited by an angel in a dream. He is told that Mary is still a virgin, and her child is conceived by the Holy Spirit. After being told to name the child Jesus, he awakes, and with no hint of questioning, he goes off to do as he was told. In fact, Joseph says absolutely nothing in the entire Bible. All dialogue between Jesus and His earthly parents are with His mother, and her alone. Joseph is so seemingly unimportant, that his death during the life of Jesus is not recorded by any Gospel, nor spoken of much in the various traditions of the church. It is almost as if he doesn’t even exist. This event seemingly is quite unimportant in general, except that it seems to alleviate Joseph’s fears regarding his betrothed. He is a side character to this cosmic drama, and he does as he is told in a dream. This man, who is the stepfather of Jesus listens and does what most of us would think foolish, for how many of us do what our dreams tell us?
So, with no birth, one angel, and a dream, what are we to make of this text for Christmas? Well, we find the reason given for Christ’s coming; He is to save us from our sins. He is to save us not only from our acts of lust, greed, idleness, lewdness, and our acts of omission with regard to our parents, bosses, and governmental authority, but He frees us from the sin of our first parents which enslaves us and leads us to death and damnation. He comes to save us from ourselves and we don’t even know how to welcome Him. He is the rose to blossom from the dead stem of Jesse. He is the one the prophets foretold and who kings and peasants alike in Israel had believed in. He is their king and God. He is Immanuel, “God with us.” And just as He was with them, so He is with us as king and Lord.
This Gospel does nothing, but look forward, not to tonight, but to the cross, and the awaiting of His return following His resurrection and ascension. The psalm of the day we read earlier goes hand in hand with explaining that this annunciation at Christmas-time, is actually a Good Friday and Easter text. As the Psalmist says, He has taken the right hand of God until His enemies are made His footstool. He began His reign on earth amidst His enemies on the cross, between two thieves. He came from Mt. Zion and His trial. He was crowned with thorns and welcomed in true royal regalia of whips and spit. He ascended His throne with shouts of “crucify Him,” and He still saves them from their sins by asking His father to forgive them all. Because of His work on our behalf, we are free to be His people. We are free from death, sin, and the cause of our fall, the Devil. He gives us a share in His glory and might. He gives us the right to be born again and to be adopted as God’s sons. We join His kingdom through Holy Baptism, where we are given the white robes of His righteousness and become born again from the “womb of the morning,” that is the resurrection. We are fed at the glorious banquet of Heaven by His body while we wander through this desert on the way to our final Heavenly promised land, just as He benevolently fed the Jews in the wilderness with manna that fell like dew.
But we still have a tendency to let this all pass by unnoticed at Christmas. We shop and spend time with our relatives and only vaguely catch a glimpse of the star and the figurine of the young girl and shepherds looking intently into a manger with awe and wonder. We get so caught up in the trimmings of the season; the decorating, the cooking, the driving, that we ignore what is bigger than the turkey, goose, ham, or pudding. We get so caught up in what we have to do for ourselves and others, that often this season is one of darkness and despair, and we are blinded by this darkness to the true light. This season is filled with so many responsibilities to neighbors and relatives that we lose sight of the fact that God became our brother in order to die in our place and take us from darkness into light by His resurrection from death. We are too busy figuring out what gift to buy our loved ones, that Christmas passes by and we often completely forget that God sent His only Son to us as an ultimate gift of love, or at best, we mark off one church service and a quick prayer before we gorge at the feast. We are in such a hurry to get done with food, and turn on the television where we are treated to all manner of Christmas stories and shows, including ones that are idolatrous, elevating family, or an idea of love, in place of the child who sleeps in the manger. We are confronted by red suits that show a marred image of St. Nicholas, who would be appalled by how most of us spend this season. But how does Joseph spend this night?
If we return briefly to our text, and the similarity to the Joseph in Genesis, we see this point beautifully illustrated. Joseph awakens from sleep after a vision, says nothing but trusts that it is from God, he goes into Egypt, and he watches his son grow. Matthew intends for us to see this as, in some way, the Joseph from the Old Testament, who again goes to Egypt, where he welcomes and takes care of His Son, the king of the new Israel. Jesus comes to Joseph as a son, and saves him as well, making peace with him by the forgiving of his sins, just the opposite of the Genesis story, where Joseph forgave his brothers whom he protected. He is a silent witness that God fulfilled His promises to the patriarchs of the Old Testament, just as He will fulfill His promises to us.
So even though we are still mired by sin and love either ourselves or someone else more than God, we can still live with the knowledge that God loves us, and His love can overcome any sin we have. It was meant to. Even one drop of Christ’s blood is enough to forgive the sins of all mankind, many times over. His blood that would be shed for us and which we will drink here tonight is the blood of the Son of God Himself, who comes to claim us and make us the Father’s children. He is the king of glory that came to die and rise again to forgive you all of your sins. He is the king of glory who comes tonight from the womb of a young virgin. He is the king of glory who is still with us and who saves us from our sins. He is the king of glory whose announcing wakes us from our sleep of soul and fleshly idleness. He is the king of glory who gives Himself to us as a gift, from the true Father Christmas, God. Let us then, with thankfulness, be silent as Joseph, and bask in the goodness of our newborn king, Jesus, who in His weakness saves us in a way that we, His people, with all our strength, and might cannot.

And now, may the peace which passes all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the savior born this day, who is Christ the Lord. Amen.

"For Dust You Are and to Dust You Shall Return" Ash Wednesday - Anno Domini 2007

2007-02-21T21:58:00.000-08:00

Daily Scripture Readings:

Genesis 1:1-19

Mark 1:1-13

Icon of the Day: The Prodigal Son, illustrating repentence and forgiveness.

Saint for February 21st: Patriarch John Scholasticus

Ash Wednesday marks the beginning of the western church's movement into Lent, the season of penance, fasting, and preparation for the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ Jesus. The ashes placed on the forehead is a sign of repentance. It is also interesting that the sign of the cross is made on the forehead also during Holy Baptism, an act which in traditional Christianity connects the water and the Word to work repentance and faith by the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit, completely independent of the mental and physical state of the person being baptized. I had always relegated the concept of infant baptism to a minor debate, one where it really doesn't matter what you believe on the issue. Perhaps mainline Protestants were correct in that faith was only an intellectual assent to a revealed fact/truth. Perhaps Protestants were correct that only a confessing believer should be baptized as the Ethiopian Eunuch was because, after all, water would only be a symbol, not an active object involved in some sort of "Sacrament." That minor debate became a major reality when our church recently burried a six year old, mentally handicapped young boy who died on Valentine's Day. Scripture clearly teaches that through Adam all have sinned, and all fall short of the glory of God, that includes children. However, if faith is an intellectual assent....how could a six year old child who had mental problems grasp the concept of the atonement and the Gospel message....probably not even as well as I understood it mentally at that age.

What do you tell the boy's family? "Sorry, he didn't make a public statement of faith and give a salvation experience." "Too bad he didn't make it to an age where he would have been able to make a public testimony of salvation." "Because he didn't give a public testimony, we must leave this in God's hands....remember, God is sovereign." No, you don't say any of these things, because these things would revolve around a picture of a Christ who doesn't tell us how He cares for young children. But that is not what Scripture tells us at all. Christ chided the disciplesfor barring the young children from coming to Him and said that the kingdom of Heaven was for such as those (Matt 19:13-14). In such a way, now, Protestants withold infant baptism because of a view on faith that allienates those who have no mental capacity and those whom God came in the form of at Christmas through the Blessed Virgin. What this fact teaches is that Holy Baptism is a supreme gift of water and the Word that works faith in the heart and gives the Holy Spirit to those who do not understand what it "means." This teaching of infant baptism indicates to me that faith is not ours to have without the grace of Christ, and that the faith is rooted in our heart, not our minds. Unless I can be convinced by their theologians who use Scripture to reconcile God's mercy and grace for children (Luke 10:21) and His justice to punish all men for the state of sin that we are all conceived in (Rom. 3:23), I must declare those who teach this vile and damning doctrine, antichrists.

The kingdom of Heaven was made for the little children (Acts 2:38-39). We are to have faith as little children. As the sermon at Trinity today for Ash Wednesday said, "blessed are the poor in Spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matt. 5:3). In this season, we should focus not on what we do for God, but for what God has done for us in Jesus Christ and reflect on why God sent His only Son into the world ultimately to die on the cross. That message of full and unfailing agape love is what should bring us to sorrow during this season. Because we were sinners, we were enemies of God, truly hating Him, but because of His mercy and love He sent His Son for us (Rom. 5:8).

Glory be to the Father and to the Son + and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning is now and shall be forever, Amen.

February 23 - Feast of St. Polycarp

2007-02-24T00:16:00.000-08:00

FEAST OF ST. POLYCARP - Martyr

Scripture For the Day: Old Testament - Job 18:1-21

New Testament - Holy Gospel according to St. John 7:32-53

Psalms - Morning - Psalm 22

Evening -Psalms 107 & 130

Icon for the Season of Lent: Lent is Prayer, Fasting, and Charity

Life of St. Polycarp: St. Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna, in what is now Turkey. Not much survives of his writings, but we know he was a disciple of St. John (most likely the St. John who wrote the Gospel and Apocalypse). It was accepted by Eusebius of Caesarea that he was martyred during the reign of Marcus Arelius by being burned at the stake. His followers collected his remains and held special services over them. According to the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, he told the proconsul who was questioning him in front of the crowd that Christians are to be submissive to human authority unless it compromises them and their faith. He also forewarned the proconsul that he was not afraid of the fire which burned for a time, but the fire which the pagan didn't know about which would consume the wicked for all eternity. He then gave thanks for the Son, gave honor and glory to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and finally gave himself up as a sacrifice to the Divine Will and plan. His only surviving work is the Letter to the Phillipians.

Sola Fide.........Right?

2007-03-05T23:14:00.000-08:00

Funny Links of the Day:

Light Sabre Fight of the Year!

Halo 300

High Mullet

Cat on a Keyboard vs. Howard Dean Fighters

Let's thank Jesus that He didn't allow this game to be made.

Final Mullet

Ah Dilbert, how true to life you are.

Holy Scripture of the Day: Old Testament - Job 34:10-33

New Testament - Gospel According to St. John 11:17-37

Psalm - Morning: 119:73-80

Evening: 121:6

Icon of the Day: Adam naming the Animals

Justification, what's the big deal?: Many might wonder what the big deal is....in fact many might wonder what justification even is. The fact remains that we are saved from eternal death and hell (separation from God, the source of life and light) by being justified (we are made "right in the eyes of God") by faith alone. What other options are there? The only way mankind can be saved is to obey the law, and since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, no one can keep the law perfectly because of Adam's Original Sin (Romans 3:22-24, 5:12-13). The good news though, in fact, the Gospel itself, is that the second person of the Holy Trinity, God the Son, came down and became man in the form of Jesus Christ (or in the Hebrew Yeshua Messiah), born of the most blessed Virgin Mary, lived a perfect life, suffered through beatings, mockery, betrayal, and eventual crucifixion. But after he was laid in a tomb, God the Father rose Jesus from the dead.

Because of Christ's sinless life, sacrificial death, and resurrection, forgiveness of all of our sins is made available for ALL mankind. However, it is not applied to all mankind without faith. Now some would argue that faith alone is not what saved us, but works inspired by faith and the grace of God are what saves us (i.e. Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics). While this view is incorrect, it is not nearly as horrific as those who feel they have to do good works to earn God's favor and forgiveness, for even the best Roman Catholics will argue that even the good works we do are totally by the grace of God and they would not agree (at least today) with sola gratia. A common Scripture cited is in James where the people who do not do good works are admonished that faith which does not lead to works does not justify them. But in the context of other letters focusing on faith alone as justifying (i.e. Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, etc.) the author is pointing to the lack of fruit as being indicative of dead faith. True saving faith will lead to works, all by the grace of God. Remember, grace is "getting what you don't deserve" (conversely, mercy is defined as "NOT getting what you deserve"), and we deserve nothing more than to understand that because of sin, we are separated from the most Holy God and justly deserve nothing but eternal damnation for our unholiness. However, because of God's love, He took the punishment for us on the cross.....punishment for ALL of our sins. Now, we only have to deal with the consequence on earth, that is death, but we die to go into eternity in paradise with our Heavenly Father!

In closing, I chose the icon above of the Passover meal to illustrate what two church fathers wrote about salvation (many thanks to what Father Weedon left here, which contains many church father quotes defending the Lutheran solas). St. Basil the Great wrote, "Indeed, this is the perfect and complete glorification of God, when one does not exult in his own righteousness, but recognizing oneself as lacking true righteousness to be justified by faith alone in Christ" (Homily on Humility). St. John Chrysostom wrote, "For you believe the faith; why then do you add other things, as if faith were not sufficient to justify? You make yourselves captive, and you subject yourself to the law" (Epistle to Titus).

In the Passover, the houses that did not have blood on the doorpost lost their firstborn, but when the angel saw the doorposts with blood on it, he passed over them. The blood is the blood of the sinless lamb, which we have an analogue for in Holy Baptism when the blood is covering us (Galatians 3:26-28, 1 Peter 1:18-19). Because of this gift, death does not have victory over us, and we partake of the glorious Holy Eucharist as a victory meal for the Lamb who was slain (Revelation 5:12, 1 Corinthians 11:26)!

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son +, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning is now, and will be forever. Amen.

Salve Regina

2007-03-11T23:45:00.000-07:00

Funny Links of the Day:

-Darwin LOLed!

-Break stride? No, break FACE!

-Sneazing Panda

-Panda gets the check.

-Safety NOT guaranteed....at 88 mph!

-Run for it Marty!

-I'd wake up to if the music was that bad!

-I promise....LAST Back to the Future reference.

-Happy Time Harry!

-Finish Him!

-A Nintendo 64 isn't THAT exciting!

-I smell a (million) heresies :-)!

Scripture of the Day:

Old Testament - Genesis 27:30-45; 28:10-22

New Testament - Gospel According to Saint Mark 9:1-13

Psalms - Morning: Psalm 84

Evening: Psalm 42 and 32

Icon of the Day: The Crowning of the Theotokos (see discussion below).

One major problem in Lutheranism, and in fact most Evangelicalism today is that any reference to the Most Holy Virgin Mary is usually as just some other person in Scripture, maybe some more attention is paid via lip service since she was the vessel that God chose to send His Son to earth through. However, a cohesive Mariology should follow from a cohesive, historical, and Scriptural Christology. Remember, all the saints, particularly Mary are to point us to Christ!

Perhaps a reader could better direct me as to when the title of "Queen of Heaven" was either openly or implicitly denied by the majority of Lutherans. This title seems appropriate, not by treating her as equal to God, but by giving her the position that Revelation gives the woman who gives birth....that of the Queen Mother who had high honor but no real power compared to the king.

To be continued.....!

"Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word"

2007-03-28T22:53:00.000-07:00

Funny Links of the Day:
-The Sentinels have ONE weakness.
-Okay...this is kinda lame.
-Annoying but cool.
-Thankfully he wasn't a St. Louis Cardinal.
-Really cool.......and useless trick.

Scripture of the Day:
Old Testament-Exodus 4:19-31
New Testament-Gospel according to St. Mark 15:16-32
Psalms-Morning: Psalm 38
Evening: Psalm 126 and 102

Icon of the Day: See to the left.

Belated Feast of the Annunciation: This is indeed a time of great joy in the fast of Lent. While we are called to repentence by the sufferings of Christ and his eventual death on a cross (of course, not outside of the context of Easter which all of Lent leads to), it is a nice respite from the focus on Christ's suffering with a preview of his birth! Lo in the season of the remembering of the mystery of Redemption we have a day to think ahead to the season which focuses on the mystery of the Incarnation. The feast is based on the biblical account in the Gospel according to St. Luke 1:28-38 where the archangel St. Gabriel informs the Blessed Virgin Mary that she will become the Theotokos....the mother of God. Her willingness to be submissive to the Father's will is a witness to all of us that while suffering follows from being a Christian, we are redeemed by Christ and take to heart the words St. Peter wrote, "but even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed (1 Peter 3:14)." The feast is usually celebrated on the 25th day of March (9 months before Christmas), but this year it took place on the 26th because (unknown to me before I read Father Weedon's blog) it is a feast of Lent, and Sundays are "in" Lent, not "of" Lent. On those years when the 25th falls on a Sunday, it is moved to the next weekday. Next year I think it takes place on Good Friday.

The prescribed Scriptures for the feast are:
Old Testament-Isaiah 7:10-14
Epistle-Hebrews 10:4-10
Gospel-Gospel according to St. Luke 1:28-38

Seminary Thoughts and Huge Decisions

2007-08-25T08:19:00.000-07:00

Congratulations on acceptance to Seminary McG. God bless!

Funny Video of the Day: Listen to how excited everyone responds with "He is risen indeed, Alleluia." I think I heard a snore in there!

Daily Lectionary: Old Testament-1 Kings 7:51-8:21
New Testament-2 Cor. 3:1-18
Psalms: Morning - 122
Evening - 141, 90

Icon of the Day: The Theotokos Icon where St. Seraphim Sarov prayed for 1000 days.

Good news! My friend Chris McGarvey (McG) left this morning for St. Tikhon's Orthodox Seminary. The icon was the one he gave to a mutual friend of ours who is a Unitarian. Aaron, our Unitarian friend and I grew up together (he lives across the street from me) and he grew up going to a megachurch of the non-denominational tradition. He was very put off by all of it. While talking to McG however, he is growing in his appreciation of traditional Christianity. Perhaps, God willing, he will become a Christian again. McG's mother wants him to accompany us to our Christmas Even candelight and our Good Friday Tenebrae service. McG still loved our Christmas Eve Candelight service, because he and I have gone to church together all of our lives.

On top of that, I have made a decision after much agonizing thought and prayer. I will not finish my M.S. next year. I will take the year and do six hours at a time of philosophy/business/psychology classes at I.C.C. for cheap and will attempt to enter Concordia Theological Seminary next academic year. There was deffinately God working in my decision, as those who disagreed with it became understanding and calm....they didn't flip out on me which I was expecting some to do, primarily my father, who appears to be behind me 100%...or at least 95%. Pray for his salvation. The same goes for my old advisor at Bradley, Dr. Foster. He usually acts very atheistic, yet when I told him my plans he seemed to understand and really respect them. He usually tells you like it is, so I figured he would just be disappointed.

I'm off to see my DCE friend get installed in East Moline! Later.

Thinking Bloggers-Part 3 I Guess

2007-09-17T22:41:00.000-07:00

Cheryl Magness recently said I was a blogger who made her think. The goal of this exercise is that I now nominate five blogs that have not been nominated yet which make ME think. If I call your name, step up and grab a seat on the bench :-). But seriously, if you are nominated, you then have to nominate five blogs that make YOU think and have not been nominated. You also need to link to this post which is the original.

TAG.....YOU'RE IT!

1) Weedon's Blog - 'Nuff said. Really though, Fr. Weedon has some dynomite quotes from the early church fathers and the Lutheran fathers. His original work always makes you question what you took for granted you knew (or thought you did ;-)). I would recommend his blog and his congregation's website to anyone wishing to learn about patristics.

2) Father Hollywood - Father Beane always provides great sermons and his political musings are just funnier than sin....well, it isn't hard to be funnier than sin, but it's the best I have. I highly recommend his blog when it comes to atomic (sorry, dynomite was used above) sermons that hit home the message of God's grace through Christ.

3) House, M Div. - Literally the FUNNIEST blog I have EVER read from a Lutheran pastor. The post on Solomon's Porch is by far my favorite so far.....he's just such a smart alleck!

4) Orthophile - A blog by Cheryl that explores many "darker" areas of Lutheran theology...well, it touches theology that few are brave enough to tread. The best part is that it is biblical and she thinks like a Lutheran! Most of my vocabulary comes from the discussions she has with people in the comments.

5) Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions - A roundtable discussion about the Lutheran Confessions by learned and able pastors who desire a better understanding of what our church teaches about God's Word. Boxing gloves are optional.

Philosophy Discussions at I.C.C. and Some Observations of Sin

2007-09-27T19:21:00.000-07:00

Scripture: Old Testament - Malachi 3:6-4:6

New Testament - Matthew 4:12-25

Psalms: Morning - 116

Evening - 26; 130

Festival: Sts. Cosmos and Damian - martyrs

Today is philosophy day for me. I have Comparative Religions from 11am to 1pm, at 2:30-4pm I have a philosophy discussion group I get extra-credit for attending, and from 6-9pm I'm at Introduction to Philosophy.

Not to talk bad about my comparative religions professor...but there are some things about Christianity he needs to brush up on. Aside from being the butt of innumerable jokes he constantly compares it to the more "inclusive" eastern religions, lauding their ultimate ability to adapt to any new religion that comes in. He even quoted a Hindu philosopher who said that we are all climbing the mountains, and if you run around the base telling others not to climb that path, you aren't climbing your path. This rancor towards Christian ethics shined through when he explained the concept that women are treated as property, and the reason virginity is so prized (which he pointed out conservatives laud) is that it made the girl more valuable for selling. He then went on to say something like, "if you want to build your sexual mores on that, be my guest." Keep this openness about sex and eastern religions in mind, because it comes full circle later on.

For starters, here are some problems with his thesis. Women are seen as even worse in Hinduism (the religion we talked about today). In fact, if you're a woman, you'll be reincarnated again...you did something bad in your previous life that was not in line with your Dharma. Looking at the Bible, we see Jacob getting irate at Laban for giving him Leah. This occurred not because Jacob looked at Rachel as property but he wanted her for his wife because he LOVED her. Women have been treated like second class citizens the world over, and to pin the blame on one religion when a contrary scenario is played out in that religions scripture is dishonest. Even Christianity, which he will paint as patriarchal I'm sure, honors the Theotokos above the rest of mankind. She is the only being to bear God in the flesh and she is the mother of Christians. Yeah, we hate women in Christianity. Even comparing salvation in Christianity shows we are more favorable to women, as women in Christianity can be saved while in Hinduism they must be reborn.

His other problems with Christianity are that it is arrogant to him that we will live forever in Heaven as individuals with our memories, kicking back as the universe experiences heat death. Well that's just ignorance of basic Christian teachings. Christ's return is not just a "good idea," it is fundamental to the resurrection of the dead! We will be not only with Christ, but with all the saints in perfect communion with the Triune God! Of course, we haven't gotten to Christianity yet, but I can already see this as an opportunity to see how well secular scholars really understand Christianity.

Moving from Comparative Religions, I attended a philosophical club debate which had the same guy. The topic of debate was, "is healthcare a right?" Now, very few people said, "yes." What's interesting is that many of the people who actually worked as blue collar workers argued philosophically against having it. The same professor said that the Declaration of Independence was a contract with the nation and the people that they are given those rights. I corrected him in that the Declaration of Independence hinges upon there being a Creator, and that it is He and not the state that gives rights. Now, has anyone here ever heard of the "genetic fallacy" or some such where the origin of a document does not necessarily carry through to its interpretation? That's just ludicrous! That means I can interpret anything I want to any way I want to. Now "Night" by Elie Wiesel is about Elie's latent homosexual tendencies in dealing with his fear of clowns. You see, the Nazi soldiers were the clowns, and his fear of them foreshadowed his latent homosexual tendencies. Of course it's just stupid to think that, but of course, the professor has a different worldview than I do. Can I judge that worldview? He would say, "no," most likely because that would make one of us right and hence one of us is being exclusive, not to an idea, but to a worldview, which postmodernism says is off-limits.

Enter Introduction to Philosophy. First of all, while Irwin is an almost strict Roman Catholic in the vein of St. Thomas Aquinnas, he at least has a good head on his shoulders when it comes to common sense. We both also happen to share the "premodern" view that all western religions have. He showed a video about prostitution in Thailand. The prostitution made such big money that people in poverty stricken villages sold their children into sexual slavery in order to eat. As a result, not only are children forced into horrible and monstrous situations, HIV is rampant and people die everyday from the disease. The point of the video is that your worldview colors your morality. In eastern relgions, especially Dharmatic regligions like Buddhism (an offshoot developmentally from Hinduism), what happens to you in this life is a result of your failure to follow Dharma in your past life. So they have bad Karma and that's why they're suffering. Wow, I'm glad those inclusivist religions have all the answers that prudish Christianity with its high sexual values and equality of women in God's eyes doesn't!

In Irwin's class, he brought up that in the western premodern philosophical mind, what couldn't be put into practical use as philosophy was discarded as worthless. As Christians, we fit this mindset to a degree. Sadly, sin not only causes such problems in Thailand (as in Africa and other places), but the fact that here in America people buy into the notion that we cannot judge other cultures simply because that is their right to behave that way. I don't recall the twelve year old girls getting the option or right to behave in that way. May God open the eyes of the blind and save their souls.

"Almighty God, You have called Your Church to witness that in Christ You have reconciled us to Yourself. Grant that by your Holy Spirit we may proclaim the good news of Your salvation so that all who hear it may receive the gift of salvation; throgh Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."-Intercession for the Mission of the Church, LSB pg. 305

St. Luke, Evangelist

2007-10-18T13:12:00.000-07:00

OLD TESTAMENT: Deuteronomy 17:1-20
NEW TESTAMENT: The Gospel According to St. Matthew 14:1-21
PSALMS: Morning - 97
Evening - 16; 62

A Gentile rather than a Jew, St. Luke was trained as a physician and after he became a Christian wrote the Gospel according to St. Luke and its sequel, the Acts of the Apostles. He also accompanied St. Paul on several of his missionary journeys around the Meditteranean. His Gospel is the only one not written in cycles and is instead a purely historical account. He most likely interviewed many people associated directly with Christ such as the other disciples who were still alive and the Theotokos as well. It is for this reason that his gospel contains the most information of the Blessed Virgin in the early life of Christ. His second work focuses on the early Christian church from its birth at Pentecost until St. Paul preaches in Rome.

It is tradition that he died in his mid eighties. His symbol is the ox or calf, which signifies the priestly aspect of Christ. It is in his Gospel where all of Scripture is told to make sense: "'How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory? ' And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself."-Luke 24:25-27.

Reformation Day and All Saints Day.....A Brief Comment

2007-11-01T20:57:00.000-07:00

Old Testament Reading: Deuteronomy 34:1-12
New Testament Reading: The Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew 21:1-22
All Saints Reading: The Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew 5:1-12
Psalms: Morning - 97
Evening - 16; 62

"Lord God, who after long ages of darkness delivered the Church from the bondage of error, we thank You for those faithful witnesses through whom You restored the Gospel of Christ to men, and we praise You that this blessed light has been preserved for us to this present age. We thank You for making known among us the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make us wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, our only Mediator. Defend your Church against all her foes. Seek and save the lost and all who have gone astray. Prserve among us the pure Word and the holy Sacraments; turn our hearts from false and pernicious doctrine. Direct and strengthen us by Your Holy Spirit that we may abide in the confession of Your Word all the days of our lives and in the end, by Your grace, obtain everlasting life. This I pray in the name of God the Father, the Son (+), and the Holy Spirit. Amen." - Reformation Festival, Lutheran Book of Prayer.

"The glorious company of the apostles praise Thee. The goodly fellowship of the prophets praise Thee. The white-robed army of martyrs praise Thee. All Thy saints and elect with one voice do acknowledge Thee. O Blessed Trinity, one God!" - Taken from the Nov. 1 Antiphon at Lauds, from the Te Deum (http://www.wf-f.org/AllSaints.html)

Today the church celebrates the Festival of All Saints. This is a day when we remember all those saints in the church, named on other days or not. It is fitting today on two counts. On the first, the day follows the Reformation Day Festival, a day when we remember the work of St. Martin Luther and his message of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, for the sake of Christ alone. It is also fitting, because today, one of our older pastors fell asleep and entered the church triumphant. Therefore it is fitting to remember St. William Lange, who was minister to the EMH members at Trinity.

Because of the work of God through St. Luther, we realize that all Christians are saints by the sole virtue of the blood and righteousness of the Word made flesh. Together with all the saints, you should take time today to thank God for the gift of His Son, who brought you into the family of all believers and blessed you, regardless of your failings and sin.

Even though today is All Saints Day, we are want to say nothing else but Soli Deo Gloria!

Theology....It Really is All That and a Bag of Chips

2007-11-14T19:48:00.000-08:00

Old Testament Reading: Jeremiah 29:1-19
New Testament Reading: The Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew 26:36-56
Bonus New Testament Reading: The Revelation to St. John the Apostle 14:1-20
Psalms: Morning - 15
Evening - 48; 4

Really, theology is all that and a bag of chips. Don't believe me? Well, how can I put this? You spend your time thinking and meditating about the Creator of the Universe, the Savior of mankind, and the glue of the church. I think that's pretty dang "bagofchipallicious!"

Seriously though, an update. I haven't had time to think of anything theological for this blog. Instead I've been putting my efforts into reading and preparing for a Comparative Religions paper. More on that as the day for its being due draws near. The professor for that class has a habit of going off on historic Christianity...usually for historical or theological innaccuracies that he just doesn't know any better. However, we are developing a mutual respect for one another...usually because when I respecfully and tacitly correct him, he has a tendency to accept it, and when we debated the omnigod concept in class from Plato with regard to the problem of evil...he didn't really listen to me too carefully. That is however, becauses he jumped around between philosophy and religion as it suited him.

Here is the setup for the discussion. From a PURELY PHILOSOPHICAL viewpoint:
1. God exists.
2. God is omniscient.
3. God is omnipotent.
4. God is omnibenevolent.
5. Evil exists.
In order to logically square one of these, according to philosophy, an adequate response would be to get rid of one of the five options. When I said I would get rid of 4 because I have no evidence to think God actually cares for those on earth from a purely philsophical point of view...he said effectively how I can then worship such a God. To which I responded that faith in a God and belief in a God's existence are two different questions....and again, from a purely PHILOSOPHICAL viewpoint....I have no reason to accept 4.

Isn't that the crux of the matter though? Isn't that why our conscience condemns us when we sin? According to all reason and logic...God could have just ignored us or justly punished us. Instead, He did what our logic says is faulty...and He became man and suffered for us to be free and with Him in eternity.

Philosophy can't answer that or provide that without God telling us in His Word.....anyway, just a side-note.

Really....that's it for right now...I'm tired and I have to work and go to class in the morning. Night.

St. Ambrose of Milan

2007-12-06T22:25:00.000-08:00

Old Testament: Isaiah 24:1-13
New Testament: 1 John 1:1-2:14
Psalms: Morning - 102
Evening - 130; 16

"It is not the ambassador, it is not the messenger, but the Lord Himself that saveth His people. The Lord remaineth alone, for no man can be partner with God in forgiving sins; this office belongs solely to Christ, who taketh away the sins of the world." - St. Ambrose

O Blessed Light, O Trinity (LSB 890) Verse 3:
"All glory be to God above
And to the Son, the Prince of love,
And to the Spirit, One in Three!
We praise You, blessed Trinity. - Text by St. Ambrose

A detailed account of the life and works of the saint can be found here. God gave to him the gift of writing and preaching. Most people in the West know him because he also had a tremendous impact in the life of St. Augustine of Hippo, who through God's grace became a Catholic rather than a Manichaean and became one of the greatest of the Western theologians and fathers of the church. Aside from the hymn quoted above, he also wrote the text for "Saviour of the Nations, Come."

Collect: O God, who graciously gave Your servant Ambrose eloquence to proclaim Your righteousness and fearlessness to bear reproach for the honor of Your Name, mercifully grant to all pastors and overseers such excellence in preaching and faithfulness in ministering Your Word that Your people may be partakers with them of the glory that shall be revealed; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. - Taken from Aardvark Alley :-).

Orthodox Apolyptikion: The truth of things hath revealed thee to thy flock as a rule of faith, an icon of meekness, and a teacher of temperance; for this cause, thou hast achieved the heights by humility, riches by poverty. O Father and Hierarch Ambrose, intercede with Christ God that our souls be saved.

Glory to God in the Highest, and on Earth, Peace; Good Will Among Men!

2007-12-28T15:23:00.000-08:00

The Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord (Christ Mass):

Old Testament: Isaiah 49:1-18

New Testament: The Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew 1:1-17

Psalms: Morning - 2

Evening - 98; 96

The Feast of St. Stephen (Christmas II-Dec. 26):

Old Testament - Isaiah 49:22-26, 50:4-51:8, 12-16

New Testament - The Gospel According to St. Matthew 1:18-25

Festival Reading - The Acts of the Apostles 6:5-7:60

Psalms: Morning - 116

Evening - 119:1-24; 27

The Festival of St. John the Apostle (Christmas III-Dec. 27):

Old Testament - Isaiah 51:17-52:12

New Testament - The Gospel According to St. Matthew 2:1-12

Festival Reading - 1 John 1

Psalms: Morning - 34

Evening - 19; 121

Feast of the Holy Innocents (Christmas IV - Dec. 28):

Old Testament - Isaiah 52:13-54:10

New Testament/Festival Reading - The Gospel According to St. Matthew 2:13-23

Psalms: Morning - 2

Evening - 110; 111

Shocking isn't it? I mean, Christmas is a season of twelve days, and yet it seems right off the bat we remember more people than just Jesus. Shouldn't He be the focus of our attention during this season? Technically, He should be our focus in all seasons. The question is not whether we are looking at Jesus or the Apostle whom He loved...the question for the Christian is, "are we looking at our brothers and sisters and seeing Christ in them?"

Such a question immediately fills us with dread. If we are supposed to be looking for the Holy Son of the Father in our brothers and sisters, that means they should be looking for Christ in us! Now I feel extreme remorse and shame for cutting off the other driver in traffic, or complaining about work! I have failed Jesus! But listen carefully to this fact: you have, but He hasn't. The best thing to remember this season when looking at these martyrs is not that they were excellent models of Christ of their own accord...they weren't. They all were sinners before Christ took them and molded them after His image, repairing the damage the Fall caused them.

Whenever the Scriptures give a commandment, it always seems so hard for us to look at it and follow it. Our sinful nature, the Old Man in us wants desperately to fulfill the Law on our own. It is sin that says, "I can do it!" We then try harder, and fail just the same. It isn't until our sinful self is destroyed by God's grace that we surrender and are broken and rebuilt up. Through faith, God declares us righteous for Christ's sake, but Christ resides in us too. Too often we forget that God hasn't just declared us righteous...He also lives inside of those who are clothed with righteousness, working out His plan for us.

During this season, we see in these martyrs not themselves dying for the faith, but God driving them home in faith. Without Jesus, St. John would be just another fisherman....but with Jesus, he became a Holy Apostle! He had visions, was protected from unnatural death, and taught other Christians about Our Lord! On their own, the Holy Innocents would be just some other Jewish boys, most not likely to be remembered by anyone 100 years after their death. With Christ, they are in glory in Heaven and are remembered by the church universal almost 2000 years after their deaths!

So remember this season, when you fail to fulfill the law, maybe it's because you are trying too hard...for no sinner is made righteous by following the law. Maybe you need to surrender to God's will and humble yourself and worship something as small as the Christ-child...God made flesh. Humble yourself to recognize in innocence and weakness the Immortal God who became a simple child to simple parents and who would one day suffer torture and crucifixion all for the sins of every man, woman, and child who ever lived. God humbled himself to die! Can we then this season and beyond humble ourselves and recognize God in our brothers and sisters by their acts of love, and not hold their sins against them.

I find it interesting how some modern theologians try to put the focus on us and not God. In his movie "Dust," Rob Bell said that it wasn't so important that you believe in God, but that you realize that He believes in you! What tripe! If God believed in us He would not have come down from Heaven and tell us that we must be reborn of water and the Word?! It is because God knows that we have no hope to come to Him alone that He dips down and picks us up and takes us up to Him.

What all the martyrs had is what we must have by God's grace alone...humility to realize that we can't do it alone...we need the help of Christ. As St. Athanasius said, "God became man, so that man may become god." Let us humble ourselves so Christ can make us into His image and let His light shine through us to those who know Him not!

"The Light Eternal, breaking through, Made the world to gleam anew; His beams have pierced the core of night, He makes us children of the light. Alleluia!" - We Praise You, Jesus, at Your Birth (LSB 382:4)

Way of the Huh? - NYG 2007 Visited by Surveys!

2008-01-10T22:03:00.001-08:00

For Friday January 11th,
FRIDAY OF THE OCTAVE OF EPIPHANY:
Festival of St. Hygenius - Martyr (from http://www.lexorandi.org/)
Old Testament - Ezekiel 33:1-20
New Testament - Romans 3:1-18
Psalms - Morning: 51
Evening: 142; 65

I just learned this by scanning the archives at http://www.wayofthemasterradio.org/! Apparently at the 2007 NYG in Orlando, FL which my church attended in force (and yes, they trusted me as an adult...gulp!), there were surveys asked of the youth. For a conservative Lutheran synod...both Todd Friel AND myself were shocked! The whole event is right after the news on hour 2 for January 8th (http://www.wayofthemasterradio.com/podcast/2008/01/10/january-10-2008-hour-2/) for those who wish to hear it.

Apparently only ~39% of the youth could finish the doxology, "Praise God from Whom all blessings flow," which Todd thought is somewhat a surprise since we're so good with liturgy. It wasn't until I realized that it was the synodically approved NYG....so it's not too surprising that most of the kids were unfamiliar with liturgy...precious few of our churches even teach what it means anymore.

The real kicker is that only about 68.5% of the kids thought homosexuality was always wrong....what's going on with that other 31.5%????!!!! This isn't asking the kids to explain the term "hypostatic union," it's simply asking them to say homosexuality is always wrong! This makes me weep inside!

Seminary is a Go!

2008-01-10T22:20:00.000-08:00

I was just approved for Ft. Wayne entrance...I'm looking forward to it.

Born to Hell....Called in Christ

2008-02-18T20:13:00.000-08:00

Old Testament: Job 13:13-28
New Testament: The Holy Gospel According to St. John 6:22-40
Psalms: Morning - 119:73-80
Evening - 121; 6

This entry is not made to be a treatise on Predestination and Free Will. This is simply to put an idea out into the public sphere for discussion. As I know there are Lutherans, Calvinists, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic who may perchance happen to read this blog, this could be a good place to throw around commentary on my idea (or perhaps understanding).

First of all...because of some debate which eventually involved Dr. James White on You Tube (it was very brief...I will post my responses to him here soon), I have become increasingly interested in the discussion of how the change John Calvin did to the person of Christ (denying the Communicatio Idiomatum - specifically that the divine nature of Christ can communicate divine attributes to the human nature of Christ) and how this affects both the sacraments and the paradox between predestination and free will.

My understanding thus far is that God does indeed have just wrath towards the sin of mankind, yet He also loves us because we are creations in His image and we were supposed to be His children. The Father sends Christ, who calls ALL men to repentence and salvation through His incarnation, perfect life, death, and resurrection. Both send the Spirit who makes the call and atonement of Christ effectual in those whom He calls. God calls through means (preaching of the Gospel, Absolution, Baptism, and the Eucharist) and in this manner He "elects" those who are given these means. Those who are not brought to faith do not do so, not because God genuinely desires that they be saved, but because He does not force them to love Him. The salvation of the person who faith is made in does not choose Christ (though I know that McG has brought up that St. Gregory of Nyssa mentions in a catechetical writing that our rebirth in Christ is the choice we DO get, if McG or Fr. Weedon if he is familiar with it [or anyone else for that matter] could elucidate and provide their thoughts, it would be helpful).

Mainly...my point is this: God earnestly desires all to be saved. God earnestly gives grace to all so that all may come to Christ who are called by the Spirit through the means of grace. Those who are saved are saved purely out of God's grace (including the psychological experience of "choice-making" we experience), while those who are condemned are condemned because they rejected the call/election. This involves what the Orthodox Study Bible calls a paradox of God's sovereignty with man's will (Romans 9:19-21f). Once we become Christians, our will becomes free because in the person of Christ...the human nature is total including the flesh, soul, and will....following the Cappadocian Fathers ("what is not assumed is not redeemed").

Alright...I just want to toss that out there for some thoughts....from a Lutheran standpoint are there any improvements with how I could say it? From a Calvinist perspective...am I missing something that Calvin might actually teach concerning the nature of the atonement or the person and work of Christ? From the Orthodox/Roman Catholic perspective....comments?

Mysticism and the Emergent Church - Or, What I Did NOT Say Against WOTMR

2008-02-26T12:28:00.001-08:00

Festival of St. Dionysius (martyred ~303AD): First Bishop of Augsburg, Germany

Old Testament: Job 21:1-21

New Testament: The Gospel According to St. John 8:39-59

Psalms: Morning - 34

Evening - 25; 91

"At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely: "In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written 'he who through faith is righteous shall live." There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, "He who through faith is righteous shall live." Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered Paradise itself through open gates." - Martin Luther

Alright. For the record: Here are some things directed towards WOTMR which I did NOT say with regard to mysticism. I did not give assent to all forms of mysticism and decry all forms of rationalism. Such was not and was never my intention. Let me be, perhaps, more clear. We cannot use our reason to know God, we know God through our faith. To confuse the two is to confuse gnosis and pistis. Too often I hear (or have heard) statements from not just Mr. Todd Friel and WOTMR, but from many Evangelicals who think that there is a certain amount you have to "know" to be saved, or some amount of concret knowledge. Why? If you can learn and are not mentally retarded, an infant, or elderly and infirm, you should learn about God because that is one of the things your brain was designed for. However, the problem comes into play with regard to this confusion of pistis and gnosis in Evangelical circles. We are to have faith like a child and as such, children are to grow, but does this mean that you are saved by spiritual puberty???

Here is an example of what I mean: Billy and Jean have a child. The child lives till the age of 2 when suddenly he dies of a genetic malady. You as a pastor tell the parents that the child is in Heaven, because he was not yet at the "age of accountability"(apparently God's justice and the child's original sin are inconsequential). Being a solid Sola Scriptura Bible-believing church, your members are keen to ask you great questions...Billy asks you where in the Bible the "age of accountability" is. What do you tell him? It of course, is not in the Bible (at least not explicitly), and thus is a matter of tradition, particularly western rationalism. You have no way of assuring Billy and Jean their child is in Heaven because you as a solid Bible-believing church do not practice infant baptism because it is not clear in Scripture. ISSUES FOR EVANGELICALS: Why did you trust the "age of accountability" tradition and not the "infant baptism" tradition?

Another example: Your high school youth group is learning about the Bible and one of your bright students asks why you don't take the Words of Institution literally. Being a solid Sola Scriptura Bible-believing church, you have no room for pesky grammatical nonsense in God's Word that contradicts plain reason, so you explain, in a manner that would make John Locke proud, that the "finite cannot contain the infinite." ISSUES FOR EVANGELICALS: Is John Calvin the 13th Apostle? How does his view of the incarnation seem to match in idea (though not necessarily in wording) the doctrines of the heresiarch Nestorius? Why did the church condemn his teachings in 431AD? Are you basically limiting God's omnipotence to enter into His creation?

Another example: Francine has had an abortion, and has been devastated by the experience. She comes to you, the pastor, with tears in her eyes and sorrow in her heart. She asks how she can be sure God has forgiven her. Being a solid Sola Scriptura Bible-believing REFORMED church, you have no guarantee for her forgiveness, because you cannot be sure she is in the elect (in fact, her teen pregnancy would be a sign of sin, and a shunnin' would be in order). Because of her sinful actions, you are almost certain that she is not in the elect, and therefore you preach to her, but wonder if such would do any good as she has attended your church all of her young life. ISSUES FOR EVANGELICALS: How can you wish her the peace of Christ? How are the actions of a merciful God apparent if an act of extreme sin indicates that someone who has been under the continual influence of the Gospel is not actually saved by your theology? How does this square with how Christ treats those who have sorrow for their sin, regardless of whether they know the truth or not? Is your attitude of justice with little compassion towards those who sin a possible reason she got the abortion in the first place (don't laugh this last one off, I think you'll find it occurs in these situations).

All three of these examples demonstrate a fundamental point in my last post. All three deal with ways Christians mystically interact with God by faith. The first deals with Holy Baptism, the second with Holy Communion, and the third with Holy Absolution. Such actions are mystical rites that are done by the whole church in communion with one another. Simultaneously, there are other, appropriate mystical and ascetical practices Christians can and should do. What do I mean by this? If mysticism is the interaction with that which is ultimately mystery, than anything involving interaction with God is mysticism. Prayer is itself mystical....why? I know a Christian's prayer is answered by God and that He hears it....why? The Holy Spirit intercedes for me....why? "He just does." That "He just does" is itself a silent assertion of a mystery (in other words, you aren't going to figure it out with your gray matter) which we interact with as Christians...and is hence, "mysticism." An ascetic practice which has become quite big in the Evangelical churches is fasting practices. Fasting though is something that the "Roman Catholic" or "Eastern Orthodox" churches do...hence they are bad because they are works righteousness. If that is your attitude, such shows your utter inability to actually use the reason you would esteem so highly, as Christ Himself says that it is not if you fast but WHEN you fast (Matthew 6:16-17)

The fact is that for many Evangelicals, the quote I used from the "Berean Call" in my last post emphasizes a fundamental point. God is transcendant (true) and totally "separate from His finite creation" (there are those interesting words "separate" and "finite" again), which is only a

half-truth. In actuality God is transcendant and separate with regard to His essence...but He shares His energy with His finite creation in the Godman Jesus Christ. This same Christ we are connected to by faith and whose blood we find the forgiveness of sins in. To view this any differently is to see God as a judge in eternity deciding who He will have mercy on and who He will consign to Hell....since we have no free will in spiritual matters before conversion, your lot in eternity is a crapshoot with the majority of mankind burning in Hell for eternity all because God decided to be merciful to only a few...so much for a loving God whose glory is shown in salvation! In all, such a view is similar to Zeus who has human passions and foibles, yet who is random in who he favors. If you're a Hercules...you're set...if your a Promethius, watch out!

Such views of God as an angry judge are what drove St. Martin Luther to desperation amidst the works righteousness of the Middle Ages which saw God as completely unmerciful....even Jesus Christ was an awful judge with no mercy...to get to Him you had to go through the Virgin who had to appease her angry son. Such a view of both God and the Virgin are appalling when you stop and think about it. Yet without the Virgin's role in prayer in Evangelicalism (who say they honor her yet I've seen Judas get more mention)....you still have the view of God as an angry judge who is wrathful towards sin and who shows mercy on those who either are in the elect or who please Him by their actions (depending on which heretical view you go with). What, are Protestants afraid that if we focus on God's love first and His wrath towards sin second that people will go around being hippies? I'd rather have someone who is confident in God's love as revealed at the cross than I would with a return to the superstitious Medieval theology of God's tempertantrum and unmerciful nature.

Similarly though...what I said was not a defense of the Emergent Church. The Emergents pursue mysticism with little or no insight into the nature or theology of the mysticism they

embrace. They use the eastern liturgy...but do they acknowledge the Real Presence or a clergy?

If not, then they're being illogical and are only doing it to emotionally "feel" God...not mystically

or "sacramentally" feel or feed on God. They use lectio divina, but do they know the ultimate meaning of the text in the reference to Christ, or is it still about "what God is telling me?"

It somewhat surprises me that Christian universalism is not rampant within Emergent circles...though I could be wrong about this. The problem with them is two-fold: 1. They lack a clear confession of doctrine within the historic framework of the church. and 2. They are political or ideological and they bring this to Christianity which they thus change so that suddenly Christ has absolutely no justice with regard to sin...but He'll punish those hateful Republicans between bong puffs.

Both extremes of Christianity are bad...if I had to take my pick, I'd be an atheist! On the one hand Protestantism generally pushes for fundamentalism...a view of Scripture as the literal Word of God (funny, I thought Jesus was the Word of God...should I worship my Bible??) and thus place scripture on a pedestal even the Reformers weren't willing to give it....that of being above God. Of course a general background in the history of the canon and our tranlsations somewhat shoots down the idea of fundamentalism...but hey, it's all they have since they reject the efficacy of the sacraments! For fundamentalists Sola Scriptura is the sole source and norm for doctrine (with reason thrown in there to, though not mentioned explicitly) and anathema to all tradition, because tradition is Roman Catholic, and that means funny hats, and hence, evil (come on, the Pope wears a hat INDOORS!). On the other hand you have the Emergents who are the blind trying to drive the racecar during the Indie 500...devoid of direction or goal, they wander aimlessly, using jargon from philosophy or politics that sounds snazzy. They'll use rhetoric while the Evangelical Protestants use logic....neither, when taken to their extremes are good for Christians who are supposed to live with paradoxes (i.e. God is three in one, Jesus is true God and true man, etc.).

The Real Presence in the Fathers...Dr. White Still Can't Get it

2008-02-27T11:20:00.001-08:00

Festival: St. Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria (d. 326AD) (from 1731 Lutheran Almanac)
Writing of St. Alexander: Epistles on Arianism and the Deposition of Arius
Old Testament: Job 30:16-31
New Testament: The Holy Gospel According to St. John 9:1-23
Psalms: Morning - 5
Evening - 27; 51

My video responses to Dr. James White on St. Augustine not withstanding, it seems as though he is intent on ignoring what his Roman Catholic opponent William Albrecht is saying with regard to St. Ignatius of Antioch and his view of the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. I am pretty sure I have heard William mention that he is defending the Eucharist (meaning the Real Presence) with regard to the writings of St. Ignatius....and explicitly that he is NOT defending transubstantiation. Dr. White has, however, ignored when William has said this and explicitly mocks William in his "Dividing Line" (found here) by saying something along the lines of, "Ignatius believes as I do, that means he was Roman Catholic and accepted transubstantiation." Of course, such is utter nonsense.

Let us set the record straight. What were the Father's views on the Eucharist? Let us let the late and sainted Jaroslav Pelikan speak on the issue: "Yet it does seem 'express and clear' that no orthodox father of the second or third century of whom we have record either declared the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be no more than symbolic (although Clement and Origen came close to doing so) or specified a process of substantial change by which the presence was effected (although Ignatius and Justin came close to doing so). Within the limits of those excluded extremes was the doctrine of the REAL PRESENCE (emphasis mine). Fundamental to the doctrine was the liturgical recollection (anamnesis - transliteration from Greek) of Christ. It was, according to Justin Martyr, a 'recollection of [Christ's] being made flesh for the sake of those who believe in him' and of 'the suffering which he underwent' to deliver men from their sins and from the power of evil. But in the act of remembrance the worshipping congregation believed Christ himself to be present among them. That he was also present among them apart from the Eucharist, they affirmed on the basis of such promises as Matthew 18:20, which Clement of Alexandria applied to matrimony, an Matthew 28:20, which Origen cited against Celsus as proof that the presence of God and of Christ was not spatial. Yet the adoration of Christ in the Eucharist through the words and actions of the liturgy seems to have presupposed that this was a special presence, neither distinct from nor merely illustrative of his presence in the church. In some early Christian writers that presupposition was expressed in strikingly realisting language. Ignatius called the Eucharist 'the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins,' asserting the reality of Christ's presence in the Eucharist against the Docetists, who regarded his flesh as a phantasm both in the incarnation and in the Eucharist; Ignatius comined the realism of his eucharistic doctrine with a symbolic implication when he equated the 'bread of God' with 'the flesh of Jesus Christ,' but went on to equate 'his blood' with 'incorruptible love (emphasis mine).'" Jaroslav Pelikan, "The Christian Tradition Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), pp. 167-168.

It seems to me that to say that Ignatius was being symbolic in his view of the body and blood of Christ in his letter to the Romans is to miss the point in his letter to the Smyrnaeans where he is QUITE explicit: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (7:1)."

In fact it is interesting that Docetism is the order of the day where this quote comes up. Clearly Dr. White accepts the incarnation of God in the person of Jesus Christ. Why then would a real physical presence be out of the ordinary? Oh wait...Jesus COULDN'T have possibly meant that the bread was literally His flesh and the wine literally His blood, because He was right there giving it to them. Of course...getting back to my rant against WOTMR on mysticism: if you think that the finite cannot contain the infinite you will ultimately fail to fully appreciate the incarnation, the Sacraments, and salvation in general. Everything becomes purely intellectual...Jesus is only figuratively God....the Sacraments are merely physical ordinances with no mystical tie to God.....Christianity pushes the 3rd use of the law over the Gospel.....did I miss the Gnostic memo here? Who's calling who "docetic?"

Well, Dr. White claimed that Roman Catholics are somewhat docetic for holding doctrines initially espoused by docetists....the one he brought up was the ever virginity of the Virgin Mary. Of course, the fact that early orthodox fathers held to that as well is inconsequential to this discussion...or the fact that most if not all of the Reformation fathers (even Calvin!) accepted it (as well as the title Mother of God - there's that pesky incarnational consistency thing again)....and even interpretations of Ezekiel 44:1-3 indicate that the Virgin had only one child. Of course, there's also the point that Christ gave the care of His mother (type of the church) to the Apostle St. John (type of the Apostolic teachings) which would have been unheard of if she had other children by Joseph....but hey, Jesus must have been a rebel!

All I can say is...thank God for the Eucharist and that taste of Heaven which it brings us!

"For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." - 1 Cor. 11:23-26 NIV

"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" - St. Augustine, Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10.

Closet Romanists - Attack of the Catholic Lutherans

2008-02-27T21:11:00.000-08:00

Let's face it....I have no life. Because I have no life, I tend to spend my time being a dork. Being a dork, I tend to spend time cruising the internet looking up interesting topics. Today, I spent some time looking up the Society of St. Polycarp and several of its members on google. What I found, to be frank, urined me off. Here is why:

The Society is seen often as a "Romanizing" movement within Lutheranism. I have a theory about that. 1. Those Lutherans who call it Romanizing don't bother turning the mirror of logic back onto themselves and think, "hey, maybe I'm a crypto-Calvinist/crypto-Evangelical!" 2. Reading is not a gift when they analyze the rule of the Society. 3. High Church worship and practices are seen as legalistic because they have too many rules. And my favorite, 4. The Confessions obviously say ___________(fill in the blank) and therefore their rule is wrong in their opinions.

I will analyze each point in turn, after a general comment. Yes, it is true that many members of the society leave and join the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church. Yes it is true that we are high church and proud of it. Yes it is true we focus our attention on those who have gone before us in the faith. If you see anything in these last two points that is not Lutheran or a mark of a free Christian, you need to do a bit more meditating on this issue. It is not that cut and dry. Why some leave Lutheranism is beyond me to some extent. To say, however, that they must not think justification is not important is just absurd. Many times they have understood the broader meaning of salvation and communal rconciliation which even we confess, but don't have the "stones" to actually say (or for that matter, act on it). One could also ask the question, "hey, maybe if we didn't have our heads in our respective crevasses, we might have actually been able to understand one another before they left....no, I'm right and they're wrong!" If it sounds like I'm being a little snippy...I am. For too long have I read many people's blatanly ignorant opinions with regard to their brothers' and sisters' actions with narry a thought to analyzing our own little opinions and actions with such severity. Truly we are all Christians....we treat even those in our own Confession as potential heretics!

Thus, my first point begins: 1. The term "closet Romanist" is a loaded term, implying and assuming several things, namely; A. Rome (or the East) is inherently evil. B. Many of Rome's teachings are unbiblical and hence, not to be practiced (true, yet debatable). C. The Papacy is the office of the Antichrist. Several problems with point 1: A. Nonsense, it is inherently Christian even though it has its faults, just like any other denomination, even faults which are quite major (the muddling of justification - leading to Purgatory and Rome's version of invocation, the altered nature of the Ecclesium, the application of Aristotelian logic to areas it doesn't belong, etc.). B. See A...one could (and I have and will) argue that some of Rome's practices are actually good and acceptable (or matters of opinion), but their understanding and confession of them is wrong. The East's understanding and confession is difficult to grasp, but their practices and understandings are quite similar to ours (which is an opinion I know many don't share with me...but it's my opinion and I can defend it, so there :-P). Our problem is that we often use reason with regard to comparing Confessional statements and think if a word doesn't mean the exact same thing, they're heretics...way to pit rather than atually compare two differing ideas and concepts, hence bringing in western reasoning of paired opposites (and we chide the Protestants and Rome for doing the same thing!). With this reasoning, Alexandria OR Antioch would have been the order of the day in the ancient Christological controversies...not an agreement between the two, so there is precedent for actually comparing and synthesizing rather than ripping apart and overlaying. C. The Papacy is indeed an office of the antichrist...though last year on Ash Wednesday (or around that time), I wrote a piece where I slammed those Christians who didn't accept infant baptism (and hence properly understand grace) as antichrists. Going to either extreme never helps....and simply identifying the spirit of the antichrist in their doctrines doesn't mean everything they say is evil or bad...Satan would have no followers if he worked this way (no, I'm not saying other Christians aren't saved, I'm saying that through sin guided by his infernal nastiness, doctrines have differed and thus there is truth muddled with error)!

My point 2: Our rule is clearly posted and referenced, yet complete noobs have mis-read it and misapplied it MANY times over. Even the WELS have misread, or attempted to mislead a questioner with regard to our society (even deigning to put the question under "Romanizing Lutherans," how "Reformed" of them :-D). First and foremost, I do not speak for our society. I speak for myself and myself alone. To be in the society one must accept a quia subscription to the Lutheran Confessions. Section 7 of our rule simply says that the Virgin Mary is to be recognized as the Ever Virgin Mother of God (it was brought to my attention by a Lutheran vicar that technically Mary is not referred to as Ever Virgin in the German translation which is what Pastors are to accept...I guess we get extra credit points ;-D) and recognize that she prays for the church. It DOES NOT FOLLOW that we advocate that we are to invoke her, and anyone who says this is completely overextending the meaning of the section in our rule. It basically is there to see whether or not you think the church dropped the ball on the Virgin for nearly 1800 years. If your confident that we know better, now, be my guest. I like to think I'm not smarter than the church fathers. Now, while I DO invoke her and the other saints, I have a clear and Confessional (and several other Lutherans do, or at least bandy the idea about) understanding of such an invocation. Again...the society does not endorse my view....but what allows me to have that view will be discussed later in this post. Maybe when we decide to seriously analyze our Romophobia (or Orthophobia) we can actually figure out what is going on with the doctrine in Scripture, tradition, our Confessions, and against denominational lines. IN SHORT - if you have trouble reading our rule properly I will have trouble caring about your response.

My point 3: Depending on if you think the Holy Spirit dropped the ball throughout the history of the church, your opinion will be different here (yes, I am implying that those who advocate against high church liturgy and ecclesiology are denying that fundamental aspect of the faith...those who advocate for low church or a change in church practice are not necessarily in this camp....I have more respect for the latter). We retain the high church view, because again, if you think you're smarter than St. Gregory the Great, St. Basil the Great, etc., show us that you can contribute as much to our practice and tradition and we'll make you St. _____________ the Great! Could these "the Greats" been wrong? Yes, in some things (Fr. Weedon mentioned on his blog that St. Gregory the Great argued against venerating icons...personally I would say he erred there), but wholesale no. Could you be right? Yes...but now the tricky thing is arguing for it and letting the Holy Spirit convict if you are right. To simply throw out liturgy and the church's tradition is basically to say to the church triumphant that what they did and thought was good for them, but we've got contemporary music and 45 minute - 60 sermons now that deal with how to live my best life now or how to have a better sex life in my marriage (how often to you hear the Trinity invoked in these churches btw? You often don't...you hear "God" and "Jesus," but usually only when there's a gospel presentation with an altar call, with the occassional smattering of the "Holy Spirit"), and also to tell the Holy Spirit that organic growth and change are not hip or cool anymore...we want punctuated equilibrium!

And finally, my point 4: Many people know what the Book of Concord says. Really? Why then do I commonly read that it condemns prayers for the dead...when it actually doesn't (Ap. XXIV [XII] p. 96)? Many people think that the church triumphant doesn't pray for the church on earth. Really? VERY WRONG. The problem with this one is that there are discrepencies between how certain Luther and Melancthan are. Luther is somewhat skeptical in the Smalcald Articles (Part II, Article II, p. 26), while Melancthan grants its certainty in the Augsburg Confession (Article XXI). In fact...Luther goes on to say in paragraph 26 that we should not hold fast and feast days for the saints........except we do have feast days for them! What is going on here? Historically speaking, the practice of invoking the saints is quite ancient (a history channel show I saw one night indicated that it existed in Judaism at the time of Christ - if this is true, it would most likey have been a pharisaical practice as they would have been trying to defend the resurrection of the dead against the Saducess) and is present in softcore form in the OT (the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), as well as being present in the Shepherd of Hermas and Tobit(with reference to angels being invoked). Luther is CLEARLY DEFINING THE GOSPEL. In his clear deffinition he is showing us what to do when someone says YOU MUST practice adiaphora for your salvation, namely, to take the complete opposite position. ALSO, the doctrine of invocation in the west became extremely heretical when the treasury of merit for the saints was developed to deal with those Christians suffering for the temporal price for their sins in Purgatory...and this is why in the Apology Melancthan jumps into discussing the ATONEMENT and therefore, in that context, 1 Timothy 2:5 is indeed violated. However, for simple prayer (i.e. the older form of invocation), no such atonement context exists....so the use of 1 Timothy 2:5 in discussion as a response is just silly. Of course it could be brought up that we're not sure the saints hear us in Heaven....to which I respond, "yes, Melancthan is trying to argue against the invocation of Rome because of the mingling of the atonement with the practice." Melancthan, as a trained Scholastic would use this reasoning and try to go as counter to his opponents as possible...that is a common philosophical tactic (and who says Lutherans don't use reason ;-)). Also, one could argue that because it doesn't have the promise of Scripture, we cannot be sure of it, hence it does not come from faith, and hence, is a sin....again, see the previous answer. If it is not clear in Scripture and is a "practice," then it falls under Adiaphora....so if you say I can't do it...I'm going to say I can as my Christian duty because it does not conflict with the chief article (Justification) if properly understood....the gate swings both ways.

Another example for point 4: The Lutheran Confessions are against monasticism, since monastics are "works righteous." Well so are Protestants who think their works please God by virtue of them doing them (thus again, confusing grace and the idea that God is pleased with you as a Christian because you are being conformed into the image and likeness of His Son, not because you've done something sanctimonious and cool)....what's your point? In actuality the Confessions defend monasteries when properly understood. Perhaps in our sex-crazed society, we should be advocating a form of monastic life to our young kids, more of whom than not I think you'll find are (to quote Emerging pastor Mark Driscoll) "bangin their girlfriends." A close reading of the Confessions show that it isn't as cut and dry as we like to think it is....in fact, what it really means to even have a quia subscription to them is in question. Here's what I mean: We are to accept that the Confessions are a faithful exposition of the Scriptures....I do. Does this mean though we are to accept the historical assertions with regard to the fathers? Does this mean we are to accept the thinly veiled opinions of the writers? Does this mean I am to be a "Confessional fundamentalist" even though, I Lutherans are not "Scriptural fundamentalists?" Does this mean I have to accept the reasoning for doctrines if understood in the context above (Melancthan grants the saints pray for us on the basis of 2 Maccabees 15:14 which he regards as Scripture, and doesn't mention Revelation!!!)? What is the relation of the 7 Ecumenical Councils to the Book of Concord...and are we bound to them over the Confessions?

To conclude: STOP throwing around the term "Romanizing Lutherans" as if it is necessarily a bad thing (after all, Rome reads the Scriptures and places great emphasis on the Eucharist, albeit with a false understanding...therefore, am I "Romanizing" if I do this in my church? Absurd!). It is a label meant to incite terror in the hearts of people who might actually listen to people like us. Come let us reason together and stop acting as though we're trying to sheep steal from each other...we're in the SAME SYNOD FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! We are saying nothing contrary to the Scriptures or the Confessions, and if we are, in love, let us discuss these issues as Christians, not bitter enemies. Save your wrath for Satan, not your brothers and sisters who might disagree with you in Christian freedom. However, to make dogmatic statements about matters which can actually be argued several ways from Scripture, are not central to the chief article, the Trinity, or the Sacraments, and are not fully supportive of your position from the Confessions is dishonest or ignorant, and hence, if you say that in matters of adiaphora I am bound to accept one way or else I'm "not Lutheran," then I believe I will go against your view on the basis of my Christian duty (and with "real Lutheran" precedence).

I know, I've probably ticked off some people....if you got ticked off, you should actually think about why you got ticked off...you may not like WHY you got ticked off on careful analysis. If you want to discuss WHETHER something I have mentioned is NOT adiaphora (invocation of saints, worship - there are Lutherans who hold that worship is not adiaphora, etc.), fine! Let's do it without the barstools in the backs. Let us discuss such matters in Christian love and humility, particularly during this season of Lent which focuses the church's minds on the foundation of our faith....the Passion of Our Lord and our delivery from the bondage of sin and death.

Connecting to God With All the Senses

2008-03-03T21:34:00.000-08:00

March 3rd - Old Testament: Job 34:10-33
New Testament: The Holy Gospel According to St. John 11:17-37
Psalms: Morning - 119:73-80
Evening - 121; 6

March 4th - Old Testament: Job 36:1-21
New Testament: The Holy Gospel According to St. John 11:38-57
Psalms: Morning - 34
Evening - 25; 91

"I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die." - John 11:25-26 ESV

The title is somewhat ridiculous isn't it? We are connected to God through faith! Alas, such a simple answer, so complicated and wonderful a topic. We are connected through Word and Sacrament, yet what is that Word? The Word is the proclomation of the forgiveness of sins in Christ Jesus. So how is this Word transmitted to us? Ah, now there's the interesting part!

Very often in the West we tend to think of the Word simply as the Bible...but alas, while the Sacred Scriptures can convey that grace of forgiveness, this is not necessarily always the case. If one reads the Scriptures with the eye of "what must I do," then you will see only law, and will ultimately be condemned. If you know what to look for, or you happen to read a blatant section of Gospel, then the story is different. We treasure and guard the Scriptures because they are a testimony of salvation through Christ that God has given to the church. Such a blessing is worthy of study, daily reading, and is the source for our dogma and preachment. This Word of forgiveness however has different means that may transmit the message of forgiveness....ways that make use of more than just our ability to read. These are:

1. The preaching of the law and Gospel (aural) - That which the priest proclaims in the service to the congregation based upon the readings of the day or the festival of the day.
2. The music & hymns which worship the Triune God and focus upon the Godman Jesus (aural and vocal).
3. The incense which reminds us of the sweetness of salvation and the promise of our prayers ascending to God - a thanks is due to Fr. Beane, whose story of the dead rat catalyzed this thought somewhat (olfactory).
4. The symbolism of the architecture and geometry of the church - this includes the shape of the traditional sanctuary as a cross with the altar at the head with the dome at the top for the incense to rise to God and return to us in answered prayer (visual and olfactory).
5. The icons and statuary of the church (visual) - these rich and full images can convey the Gospel and point us to those who have gone before us, to even the smallest child as well as remind the oldest Christian what the Gospel is about.....that St. Luther himself used a crucifix and an image of the Theotokos in his daily devotions speaks volumes of this form of transmission of the Word that is sadly lacking in many of our Lutheran churches.
6. Liturgical action and words (visual, physical, responsive, vocal) - Responding to God by praying the Psalms or another action as a church is the congregation's ultimate confession of unity and community. To cross one's self or bow, to genuflect and follow the processional cross, etc. is a way of reminding ourselves that our life in Christ is total and that we are to become living sacrifices to God as we are made into the image and likeness of His Son. The Christian life is one of worship and is therefore not a spectator sport! Making the sign of the cross as is suggested in the Small Catechism (a matter of adiaphora pushed by Luther!)...it's not just for Roman Catholics anymore ;-).
Finally there are the Sacraments: 1. Holy Absolution (aural) - the speaking of the Words, "you are forgiven," with the faith that while the priest is saying these words, Christ is speaking directly to you.
2. Holy Baptism (touch, aural) - Burried with Chist and risen to life! A rite that is done once but a sacrament that lasts and is returned to until the day you join the Church Triumphant!
3. The Holy Eucharist (taste, touch) - "Take eat, this is My body which is given for you....take drink, this is My blood shed for you." You don't get a higher connection to the Gospel than union with Christ Himself!

I point this out here because at times, many Lutherans and Lutheran churches to some extent or another, neglect all of these things. Many times it is because they are too Roman Catholic looking, yet in reality what is being done is that ways of communicating the Gospel are rejected. Now, it is not that these need be at every service, but one should begin to emphasize these in the lives of Christians so that they are surrounded and immersed in the message of Christ....I know I need more than just a ten minute devotion daily to remain in the Word....I can see the crucifix in my room every time I get up from my desk. If I'm reading and my screensaver comes on, I see icons of Christ, the Theotokos, and the saints. If I am driving to school or work, I listen to my ipod which has classes from the Seminary or programs from Issues Etc., WOTMR, and Ancient Faith Radio. The more I see simply a cross or hear someone talk about God, the more I realize how much MORE I need it. In times of boredom or if I don't need to use too much brainpower at work I can silently pray the Jesus Prayer, Lord's Prayer, or Hail Mary and instantly realize that I am a part of God's family in Christ who never leaves me and who draws me closer to Him.

Quick News: What I find utterly amazing is how God works through my fears of public speaking to allow me to talk to many people about Christ. I have shared the Gospel with at least three people at school, two of whom were already Christians, the third an agnostic/atheist. For some reason they are open to it, and I am glad for that. Pray for them.

Secondly, my friend Pat has bought quite a bit of pricey computer, audio, and video equipment with a vision of an online radio and blog ministry (that's what "Average Joes with Bibles" is). We'll basically be an evangelism/doctrinal discussion/apologetics ministry....I'm there as the "Lutheran/tradition guy"....probably to keep the Catholic bashing at acceptable levels :-D.

Also, I meet Fr. Braaten on Monday at University Lutheran in Champaign...I don't know exactly what we'll be talking about....but the Sem. days are coming!...yay.

Quae Facta Sunt A Me Omnia Ob Te

2008-03-06T20:27:00.000-08:00

Old Testament: Job 38:1-18
New Testament: The Holy Gospel According to St. John 12:20-36a
Psalms: Morning - 38
Evening - 126; 102

A gentleman need not know Latin, but he should at least have forgotten it. ~Brander Matthews

I'm happy to say I can sympathize with Brander :-(. The loose Bryan Adam's quote in the title is somewhat a fun poke at classical education. Now don't get me wrong....I'm not bashing it. In fact, I'm going to make the case for classical education....well, okay, that's too broad and it's way to late for me to do that.

At our Student Philosophical Association meeting on Wednesday, the topic was "Should all American students be required to learn Spanish." Some said, "yes," and others were vociferously against it. I had a third idea...require at least one secondary language starting when the child is in early elementary school. Teach grammer more often and earlier, and stay off the cutesy crap that causes their minds to jump from one subject to another with such rapidity that they aren't forced to develop patience. Also, synthesize what they learn in one class by bringing it up in another class. For example, if you teach science, bring math into the mix more often. If you teach history, bring up theology or philosophy or art. If you teach literature, bring up history and political science.

What langauge should they learn? I don't know...I suggested three and for two good reasons:
1. English is the primary language as it is what is spoken in the home...this fact as well as the fact that our laws are in English means...we should just stop fooling ourselves by acting dumb and say English is our official language.
2. Mandarin Chinese - It stands to reason that this will be the next Lingua Franca, and it would behoove us to learn it for that reason, as well as the fact that it uses a vastly different alphabet and rules from Western languages...it would really help our children's brains to develop useful skills.
3. Latin and Ancient Greek - The past Lingua Francae will enable the students to read anything from the past with at least some competence, and when they get to high school, they could decide if they want to continue in those languages, or move on to other Romance languages like French and Spanish, or begin to engage German...or even Russian, making use of some of their Greek skills.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we shouldn't do math and science either. Our problem is that other nations think (and rightly so) that we're lazy. Two guys who were in the meeting are from foreign countries, and both speak three languages fluently. One guy was from Latvia and spoke Latvian, Russian, and English. The other guy, Fred, whose father was an ambassador, spoke French, English, and Swahili. Yet another guy in the room had a father who was Lebanese and a mother who was Mexican...so he could partially speak Arabic and Spanish on top of English!

Couple this with the fact that our writing ability in schools is a joke, it means we are falling dangerously behind in our ability to use the portion of the brain involved in languages. I have an idea...and I know it sounds crazy, but bring back classical education and stop focusing so much on sports. Sports are important for discipline, friendship, fitness, and physical development, but we focus so much time on it.

Can someone think of a potentially non-demanding schedule for Junior High and High School students that would allow them to have some free time, but would cover:
1. The classical languages
2. Religious education and theology
3. Philosophy and reasoning
4. Mathematics
5. Both the life and physical sciences with fundamental distinction in education
6. Art and drama (including music)
7. Literature and grammer (as separate courses...why high school just had "English" which only did literature I'll never know).
8. Mandatory sport

Such a school I think would be demanding on young kids, but well worth it in the long run, as the more you have to do when you are younger with regards to learning and education, the less hard you'll have to work when you get older.

Augustana Ministerium on Eastern Orthodoxy - and Ecumenical Dialogue With McG

2008-03-13T19:16:00.001-07:00

Old Testament: Exodus 4:19-31
New Testament: The Holy Gospel According to St. Mark 15:16-32
Psalms: Morning - 38
Evening - 126; 102

WARNING: The discussion you will read about is true. The names have been referenced in case I get everything wrong. Cue: Dragnet music.

At McG's blog, he and I have begun a series of discussions (3 as of this date: 1, 2, 3) regarding Eastern Orthodoxy and Lutheranism. I am arguing that there is much more in common than either of us realize, and he is listening and thoughtfully digesting what is said. I am hoping to do the same.

He references a series of talks given by the Augustana Ministerium. While I have not listened to all three, I have listened once to the talk of Fr. Rutowicz, and twice to the talk of Fr. Juhl. In both talks, one could hear Fr. Weedon chime in (and timely I might add) to clarify a point or to give a suggestion. The problem was (at least in these two talks), I think Fr. Weedon was largely ignored or not fully understood (and indeed, if I have done the same here Fr. Weedon I beg forgiveness). He seemed to have suggested several times, particularly within Fr. Juhl's talk, that we in the Lutheran church are thinking too often in terms of "either/or," when the answer could potentially be "both/and" (I would argue that it does seem that Eastern apologists can seem to talk this way as well, thus perhaps showing a certain "infection" of Western philosophy and rhetoric gained during the period of "Catholic captivity" or simply due to the large impact the Western world had on the East even if they choose to ignore it or treat it negatively).

I would highly recommend one listen to the talks.....SEVERAL times. Listen carefully to the questions and comments as well. The comment in Fr. Rutowicz's talk that really aggrivated McG was, "Irenaeus could sure use a Pelagian controversy because the way he talks about free will, I think, is at the root of the Eastern view of original sin.....the way he [St. Irenaeus of Lyons] talks about free will, I think, is at the root of the Eastern view of original sin." McG went on to say that such a comment shows the pre-reflective committment to St. Augustine which the Lutheran father brought into the statement (McG's comments of free will and Augustine's arguments not-withstanding, which I disagree with).

To an extent, McG is right. Even though I understand what this Lutheran priest said, for he is echoing an opinion regarding heresy and the growth of doctrinal elloquence Fr. Burnell Eckardt had mentioned (the exact context of the quote escapse me...so I apologize), I would agree that the statement is somewhat irresponsible. However, I don't think either group is fully appreciating the differences (or similarities) of free will and original sin that both groups possess.

Here is what I have taken from the talks so far:
Lutherans - 1. Need to realize that the inversion of the "catholic principle" found in the Lutheran Confessions (not defined by that name, but present particularly in the Formula on "Adiaphora") is hurting us in terms of both ecumenical dialogue and internal issues regarding worship and ecumenism with those who use Scripture WITHOUT tradition. Here is an essay by two former LCMS priests who joined the Orthodox Church. Here is a response from CAT 41.
2. Need to stop always thinking in terms of "either/or" and begin using "both/and." The East's theology focuses on making "things" persons or energies (Fr. Weedon aptly pointed out that because grace is uncreated, the Orthodox have the propensity to effectively treat grace as the Holy Spirit...a point emphasized in a podcast of "Faith and Philosophy" - though I cannot remember what the podcast was), relationships, and eschatological goals with a focus on the process of getting there.
3. Begin to look into the fact that we actually do have a tradition that makes use of BOTH Greek and Latin fathers. I swear when I heard who Patriarch Jeremiah II cited against the Lutheran scholars of Tubingen I about laughed....with the exception of Augustine, most were GREEK fathers. Such shows a fundamental thought process of looking primarily to the Greek/Eastern fathers in the Eastern church.
4. Study the issue better and REALLY look at Orthodoxy on their terms, THEN come to the Lutheran Confessions and the Western tradition to see if there is a true contradiction or disagreement.
5. Continue to use Scripture, but also stress patristics as a source of our own authority. The Confessions don't make the statement that we have not deviated from the church catholic because it sounded cool at the time!

Orthodox - 1. Need to realize that post-modernism has demonstrated that no one, including the "traditionless Lutherans" brings no tradition into their reading/interpretation of anything. Our tradition is based on the Lutheran Reformers who were in turn trained as Scholastics and well versed in the Latin (and I'm sure not too shabby in the Greek fathers as well)...thus, we operate with a Western tradition which views most things theologically in terms of objects, deffinite beginnings and systematics.
2. Need to look into the Latin fathers critically and not just accept what you have been taught regarding the unanimity of the church based on Theologoumena. If the west are still Christians, why has the Holy Spirit not worked through them as well? It seems to me like the West has the better grasp of the true nature of the theologoumena, even though we don't always emphasize the Greek fathers (sometimes to our loss, but often just because they don't speak to our heresies and issues per se).
3. Appreciate our having to deal with heresies. Lutherans respect the 7th ecumenical council even though our use of icons is somewhat stagnant. We don't say, "we don't see what all the fuss was about." Please don't do the same to justification and divine monergism, particularly after you look at our theological and historical baggage. The presentation of the Augsburg Confession to Emperor Charles V is our version of the "triumph of Orthodoxy."
4. Need to come to grips with the fact that the West deals with theological topics that "you don't like to mention." Fr. Juhl pointed out that Bishop Kalistos Ware in "How are We Saved" says that the Orthodox repudiate Augustinian original guilt (which he means as "imputation of guilt," something that is anti-Scriptural [Ezekiel 18:20, Christ does not answer directly the question about the blind man sinning or his parents sinning being the cause of his malady - John 9:2], the "guilt" is our own but is still dependent on the presence of original sin..or our "inborn corruption" and spiritual death)...yet later Bishop Ware says that to an extent we did have a part in Adam's sin....huh??? Similarly Bishop Ware says that the Orthodox "do not feel at home" with "imputation" nor do you like talking about "substitution." Sorry, but not liking something doesn't give you an excuse to deny the work other theologians and church fathers have done. Scripture is still clear that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us (Ezekiel 18:20) and that a substitution is necessary for the forgiveness of sin (Hebrews 9:22). In essence, I'm saying not to simply dismiss the Lutheran theological positions because the Greek fathers don't get into much detail with it or don't feel comfortable discussing it....that is not a strong argument at all!
5. The fathers' interpretation of Scripture is still seen as almost irreproachable, and their closeness to the Apostles is almost seen as a trump card, yet if this were such a strong argument, WHY did Irenaeus need to write his whole book explaining why the heretics were wrong...he could have said all that paper and just said, "I heard Polycarp who was taught by John the Apostle....you didn't, therefore, you suck and I win." That also might work 200 years after the fact but it gets a little hard to believe 2000 years after the fact, particularly when the blemishless church has its own internal issues (on both sides). Christ and His church may be infallible, but I'm willing to bet that to say the church is one visible ecclesial communion on church today is a bit naive. We have Scripture interpreting Scripture....200 years between Irenaeus and the apostles is a long time for the same words to change meaning (i.e. gay now and gay 50 years ago)....thus you are left to explain why the same criteria of hermeneutics we use to interpret and understand Scripture doesn't seem to be used on the fathers. Thus the church becomes solely the consensus opinion of the fathers....I recall a certain Second Council of Ephesus that acted the same way, before it was recalled.

Both sides need to stop the "pissing match" (yes, one of the pastors said it in the audience...and I was thinking it too), realize this is primarily about "East vs. West" and ask whether or not we are in different communions makes a whole Hell of a lot of difference when we are talking about fathers and doctrine that fundamentally developed prior to the Schism in 1054...thus they were part of the same ecclesial communion. I think if both sides swallowed their pride, pulled the 4x4 beam out of their eyes that reaches the moon, be nice to one another and not get super-pissed when one priest goes from the Missouri Synod to the East (or vice-versa), and MAYBE we can start to act like the spotless bride of Christ.

R.I.P. Issues Etc...You Will Be Missed.

2008-03-18T13:19:00.000-07:00

Holy Tuesday - Old Testament: Exodus 9:29-10:20

New Testament: Hebrews 3:1-19

Psalms: Morning - 34

Evening - 25; 91

Issues, Etc. - 9 year life is done. Thanks to the faithful proclomation of God's Word and message of salvation which has helped many renew their faith in Lutheranism and the historic doctrines of the church (I am one such example), Fr. Todd Wilken and the other hard workers in the program have done Our Lord a tremendously effective service. Through his program I heard Fr. Weedon give a 10 part series on the historic liturgy that completely changed my outlook on worship, heard Dr. Scaer talk about the sacraments, heard Dr. James White talk about Sola Scriptura, etc.

No reason was given as to why the show was canceled at the last minute. Calling the Synod and KFUOAM would possibly bring this issue to the forefront of their attention. Pray for Fr. Wilken and the families (his included) of those affected by this turn of events. If it is money, pray that the LCMS will be able front some cash to keep a radio program going which could have been an effective tool of Ablaze(tm)!, bringing many into the fold of salvation. In all things, God's Will be done. As St. Patrick of Ireland did, so must we in proclaiming the Gospel...let us pray some miracles happen here.

Many faithful Lutherans (and others) are grieved by this loss...I pray this isn't the start of something bigger.

Soli Deo Gloria!