Pastor Mark's Blog

People like to talk about saints in the church. People also like to name churches after saints, for example a catchy name for a Lutheran Church might be St. Luke’s. The same applies for Roman Catholic and churches of other denominations. The process of selecting and naming churches and feast days to commemorate saints arose in the early church as a way to mark individuals who where believed to have had particularly devout lives or had done miraculously things. Many of the stories about ancient saints, unfortunately, have rather uncertain histories and often seem steeped more in folklore than in fact. In the Roman Church today there are criteria for accessing whether one should be granted sainthood or not, i.e., to get it right, but is that system at all right?

At the time of the Reformation, the Roman Church’s understanding of saints was replaced for a variety of reasons.

First, the saints were often viewed as intermediaries between humans and a God who could not be approached directly just like a commoner could not pop into the palace to visit the king. In a way they are right. We sinners cannot come to God by our own efforts. So, God sent Jesus to be our mediator. Therefore, we Protestants do not need saints to approach God or to play heavenly pass the parcel or any other games on our behalf. Jesus came to us to be our direct connection as God.

Second, the saints were often viewed as having done particularly good or miraculous things. Therefore, being made a saint was a type of reward for extremely good behaviour which served as an example to motivate regular christians to lead pious and holy lives, thus improving their chances of salvation on judgement day. Without the saints, people would be getting out of hand and causing all manner of problems. For Protestants, however, even the most “saintly” member of the church is still a sinner. Such “holy” notions of saintliness actually detract from Jesus’ holiness who came to make us holy because our best efforts to do so would never mend our broken relationship with God. So, Jesus came to make us saints not by our works but by faith in his word, life, death and resurrection.

Third, it is still taught by the Roman Church today that the saints’ good works contribute to a heavenly bank account of righteousness deeds upon which sinners can draw in the form of indulgences to reduce their time in purgatory. Since Protestants believe in neither, this supposed purpose of saints is completely redundant. Furthermore, this idea also implies that Jesus did not do enough to address human sin by his death on the cross. Who knows, maybe Judas got his 30 pieces of silver from the same “heavenly bank.”

One of the problems with St. Valentine’s Day nowadays is that there is apparently more than one St. Valentine. Whereas one of them seems to have had something to do with marriage, that notion does not resemble how St. Valentine’s Day is marked today with cards, candy, and flowers for all and sundry. It is hard to see what is “saintly” about any of that either in a Roman or Reformation sense.

In another sense, St. Valentine’s Day does have important religious implications. The themes around love and relationships reflect a basic human need. The idea of having a “saint” involved indicates that we all know that the faultiness and fickleness of human love and relationships often leave us worse for wear rather than better for care. Finally, St. Valentine’s Day reminds us that we all too frequently look for love “in all the wrong places” rather than in the God who “so loved the world that he gave,” not cards and candy, but “his only begotten son” for the salvation of the world (John 3:16).

Maybe this St. Valentine’s Day we could give something relating to God that reflects what he has given us in his word. So, this year instead of a card or some candy, give someone you love (or hate) a new study Bible or send a donation to the Gideons International so that they can give new Bibles to many people of all manner of languages and cultures around the globe. Whether individually or collectively, such efforts and gifts really communicate how much God so loved and still so loves the world full of sinners waiting to hear of his salvation given to us in his son, Jesus Christ, our Lord.

A new year is upon us. Whereas people often think of New Years as a time to make new beginnings in life, as Christians we know that each day we are called to remember our baptism, to die to our sinful selves, and to be raised to newness of life. Daily means daily, but generally, we wake up and go about our same old routines in our same old ways as our same old selves, even if we are not old.

The same is true in the church, and although Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8), God does not want us to be the same because being the same means being lost in sin and death, alienated from God, each other, and ourselves. Sin manifests itself in all manner of overt and covert ways, but creating divisions in the body of Christ is a most recognizable way. Paradoxically, despite all the talk nowadays about ecumenism and church unity, the ways in which most “churches” attempt “unity” is contrary to the gospel because they seek unity through legalistic contracts rather than relying on the unity which already exists in Christ.

Luther writes:

It is enough now that we know that a Christian people is undivided, without any distinctions of sects or persons, a people among whom there is to be no layman, no cleric, no monk, no nun—no differences at all, all being married or celibate as each one pleases. There is also no essential difference between bishops, elders, and priests on the one hand and laymen on the other, nothing to distinguish them from other Christians except that the one has a different office which is entrusted to him, namely, to preach the Word of God and to administer the sacraments; just as a mayor or judge is distinguished from other citizens by nothing except that the governing of the city is entrusted to him. The same persons who have introduced such sects among the Christian people and divided them into clergy and laity so that some are tonsured and some are not, and the tonsured are partly monks and partly priests, and the monks are even divided among themselves according to a variety of garbs and diets; the same persons who invented these things have severed and cut to pieces the unity of the Christian people (LW 36:159).

In short, divisions often happen in the church, too frequently for seemingly good or religious reasons. Our human sin works in such insidious ways that we ourselves are unaware that our “good intentions” might not be as good as we think, and sometimes they are not good at all, except to us. Recall that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which St. Luke’s left, engages in all manner of chicanery in the name of God, except that God does not need underhanded ecumenical accords or other shenanigans to accomplish his will, to unite his people, or to advance his mission. In fact, such deeds are contrary to all three.

Whether national church or local church, however, sin works the same. To help ensure that we sinners at St. Luke’s work together as harmoniously as possible, we seek to create constitutionally sound system for decision making with checks and balances in order to make our decisions together and to move forward together. In other words, my mantra of “no unnecessary conflict” is not just a buzz phrase. Sometimes conflict is necessary, and times arise when doctrinal issues regarding salvation are at stake. Most other “human” concerns are in comparison completely irrelevant. Jesus did not die on a cross for church social activities, personal preferences, decor, flags, etc., etc., etc., He died to set us free from sin and death. Until we are dead in the flesh, however, our sin can make such mundane things very divisive and destructive to the church. As Luther reminds us, we all want God not to be God and want ourselves to be God.

To help avoid such divisions, we have both regular council and congregational meetings. We seek as many solutions to concerns as possible from the congregation to draw upon the expertise of our members. We collect and pass ideas around for questions, consultation, and critique. All of this is important not simply for interpersonal peace. St. Luke’s mission depends to a considerable degree on our ability to live the life of the gospel which we deliver in so many ways to the community. Conversely, a harmonious congregation is both a place and an environment where people can find “sanctuary” from the toil, trauma, and tribulations which so often divide our lives, families, and society.

Unity and harmony in a church is built upon the unity and harmony of our relationship with God in Christ. So, how do we seek to strengthen that? Quite simply, we are called to hear God’s word as often as possible. So, at the beginning of a new year, ask yourself a few questions? Do you read your Bible every day? Are you a member of a weekly or monthly Bible study? Did you know that you can learn biblical material by being in the choir? Are you aware that being a Sunday School teacher is also a great way to learn the Bible? Have you attended one of St. Luke’s Theological Academy’s courses? When was the last time that you attended adult Sunday School? As the new year begins, turn a new leaf in that same old Bible, each and everyday. It is part of remembering our baptism daily. Happy New Year!

The Advent season begins on the last Sunday of the month, 29 November. The overlap between the Gregorian calendar and the liturgical calendar symbolically represents that an end time is also a beginning time. Whereas we human beings look forward to the end of some things, like the work day, an illness, the sermon, or some other arduous aspect of life, we Christians generally do not look forward to the end of temporal life, even when life is filled with adversity. In contrast thereto, our neo-pagan society places very little value on life apart from one’s own disposition and selfish desires. This disregard for life seems particularly acute toward people at either end of the age spectrum.

Placing ultimate value on the temporal pursuits of oneself until that pursuit becomes unavoidably unpleasant is perhaps best described as narcissistic nihilism: narcissism, after the mythological figure Narcissus who was enamored with himself, and nihilism, derived from the Latin word nihil meaning nothing. So, narcissistic nihilism would be valuing the self above all else until even the self is deemed (or doomed) to have lost its value. Theologically, narcissistic nihilism is both a manifestation and an avoidance mechanism of that human condition known as Sin.

When Adam and Eve listened to the voice which told them that they “will be like God, knowing good and evil,” if they ate of the fruit of a certain tree (Genesis 3:5), they believed that voice to be true, and sinful humanity today still does too. Human understanding of what is good and what is evil, however, is so self-contradictory and confused as to defy not only cogent reason but also credible belief. In other words, human conduct, ethics, and morality contradict not only basic, reasoned logic but also the word and thus the will of the God who entrusted humanity with life in his image. Rather than destroy all sinful human beings, as they had destroyed his image given them, God the Father sent his Son, Jesus the Christ, to rectify and to save sinful humanity.

The liturgical season of Advent marks both the first and the final coming of Christ, the celebration of his nativity and of his final consummation of all time. Scripture’s portrayal of that final advent entails spectacular events when the Son of Man appears in all his glory to judge the living and the dead. Until that time, Christians find themselves similarly in a spiritual and cosmic overlap of time – created through baptism – between their end on the cross and their resurrection to newness of life in Christ.

Throughout the overlapping times between Christ’s first and final advent, mirrored in the Christian life, no shortage of individuals and groups have tried to foretell when the end will actually arrive. The book of Revelation, like its forefather the book of Daniel, provides ample material for vivid, various, and varied opinions on the matter. In both books, God’s faithful, namely God’s saints, find themselves at odds with the unbelievers all around them.

Given this dynamic, believers have thus throughout history found themselves the target of non-believers’ displeasure and disdain. Perhaps even worse, many faithful Christians also find themselves the disdainful target of other Christians, particularly those “enlightened” by societal unbelief. Whereas end-time prophets typically place the times of persecution and great tribulation for the faithful far out into the future, the battle between belief and non-belief is always and actually at hand, hear and now, each and every day that a Christian is alive in this life.

Still in bondage to human sin, i.e. under the sway of narcissistic nihilism, many Christians mistakenly believe that they are the center of the target of such persecution. Some of these Christians, self-assuredly “knowing good and evil,” even relegate to themselves the power to speculate who will be saved and who will be “left behind” at the end of time. In other words, from the time of Adam and Eve until the end of time, sinful human beings have misused and will continue to misuse God’s word as a means for to try to save their own skins while defying God. That happened in the garden and happened on the cross. Contradicting God is the nature of sin.

The battle against sin, however, is not a human battle which humanity can wage while under  the power of sin. Similarly, the persecution which Christians have faced, do face, and will face due to their sin is not primarily about them or their future, no matter how much they may feel targeted. Instead, the battle against sin is God’s battle against all the enticing voices and charming manifestations of unbelief. That battle is not fought with traditional weapons of warfare but with the word of God in both law and gospel. As theologian, Andrew E. Steinmann, aptly puts it,

“This means that the kind of persecution that is most dangerous for the saints is not some future worldwide political ruler who could deprive them of earthly goods, limit commerce, require a numerical mark on their bodies, or even take their physical lives. Instead, the most dangerous persecution is the insidious corruption of the Gospel of justification through Christ alone and its replacement by a false gospel that mixes faith with works and false spirituality. It is this kind of spiritual warfare that can cause saints to shift their trust from the atonement of Christ to themselves and human or demonic teachings. If they compromise the exclusive claims of God in Christ in order to accommodate other religions, they will lose their relationship with the loving, merciful God who accomplished their full redemption in Jesus Christ” (Daniel, Concordia Commentaries [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2008], 382-383).

Fortunately, the time is always nigh. Jesus Christ comes to us (advent) wherever and whenever the gospel is purely proclaimed and the sacraments are administered according to the gospel. In so doing, God promises to be with his saints (his believers) amidst all the forces of unbelief which threaten them and their relationship with God, from without and from within. In that light, i.e. in the light of the gospel, Advent is not just a particular liturgical season to be signified with blue (or purple) paraments. Instead, Advent is the nature of the gospel itself coming here and now to save us from the most insidious corruption of the gospel, namely from ourselves wanting “to be like God” in defiance and contradiction of the one true God who revealed and reveals his love for sinful humanity in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

As most Lutherans are aware, the Reformation began quietly and unofficially on 31 October 1517 when Luther published his “Ninety-five Theses,” also known as the “Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences.” These brief statements initiated a cascade of publications which would rock the church into the present day. The main theological issue then, as now, is the doctrine of justification by faith alone. In other words, one either receives salvation as a free gift from God won on the cross through Christ alone through faith, or one contributes in some way to one’s salvation through merit-earning good works. In other words, either Christ has done enough or he had not for our salvation.

In the Roman Church’s teaching, souls which are not “pure enough” for entry into heaven upon death are sent to Purgatory (from word “to purge”) to have their sins removed through fiery torment. To shorten one’s time in Purgatory, the Pope can issue special reprieves, called Indulgences. Neither Purgatory or Indulgences has any biblical foundation.

As many recall, in 1999 the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) and the Vatican signed the so-called “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.” Through this sham document, many claim that Lutherans and Catholics now have basic agreement on justification by faith. Since 1999, however, the Vatican has issued many Indulgences. Furthermore, in 2017, many LWF member churches plan to celebrate the Reformation with the Roman Church, which still condemns Luther as a heretic.

In the meantime, the Vatican’s Apostolic Penitentiary officially continues to issue Indulgences. The latest Indulgence can be obtained from the First Sunday in Advent 2014 until 02 February 2016. The whole text of this Indulgence is as follows. Note that this Indulgence can be applied to souls in Purgatory.

URBIS ET ORBIS

Decree
by which are established the works to be performed in order to obtain the gift of Indulgences on the occasion of the Year of Consecrated Life

The Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, having requested that this Apostolic Penitentiary duly determine the conditions to obtain the gift of Indulgences with which the Holy Father Francis, on the occasion of the forthcoming Year of Consecrated Life, intends to extend for the spiritual renewal of religious Institutes, with the utmost fidelity to the charism of the founder, and in order to offer to the faithful of the whole world a joyful occasion to confirm Faith, Hope, and Charity in communion with Holy Roman Church, under the most special mandate of the Roman Pontiff, this Apostolic Penitentiary willingly grants Plenary Indulgence, under the usual conditions (Sacramental Confession, Eucharistic Communion, and prayer for the intentions of the Holy Father), to all the individual members of Institutes of Consecrated Life, and to the other faithful truly contrite and moved by the spirit of charity, to be obtained from the First Sunday in Advent of the current year until 2 February 2016, that can be also applied as suffrage for the souls in Purgatory:

a) In Rome, every time they take part in International Meetings and celebrations on the calendar established by the Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, and for an appropriate amount of time, dedicate themselves to pious thoughts, concluding with the Our Father, the Profession of Faith in any legitimately approved form, and pious invocations to the Blessed Virgin Mary;

b) In all Particular Churches, at each time in which, on the diocesan days dedicated to consecrated life and in the diocesan celebrations set for the Year of Consecrated Life, they piously visit the Cathedral or another holy place designated and approved by the local Ordinary, or a conventual church, or an oratory of a Cloistered Monastery, and there recite publicly the Liturgy of the Hours or, for an appropriate amount of time, dedicate themselves to pious thoughts, concluding with the Our Father, the Profession of Faith in any legitimately approved form, and pious invocations to the Blessed Virgin Mary;

Members of Institutes of Consecrated Life who, due to illness of other grave cause, are prevented from visiting these holy places can equally obtain the Plenary Indulgence if, with complete detachment from any sin and with the intention of accomplishing as soon as possible the three usual conditions, accomplish a spiritual visit with deep desire and offer the infirmities and pain of their own life to the Merciful God through Mary, with the addition of prayers as indicated above.

In order that access to the attainment of this divine grace through the keys of the Church, may more easily be obtained through pastoral charity, this Penitentiary diligently exhorts the Canon Penitentiaries, capitularies, the priests of the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies for Apostolic Life and all those duly authorized to hear confessions, offer themselves readily and with a generous spirit to celebrate in the Sacrament of Penance and administer Holy Communion to the sick often.

The present Decree is valid for the Year of Consecrated Life. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary.

Promulgated in Rome, at the Apostolic Penitentiary, 23 November 2014, the Solemnity of Christ, King of the Universe.

Cardinal Mauro Piacenza
Major Penitentiary

Msgr Krzysztof Nykiel
Regent

[Maybe the Vatican will issue a special Reformation Indulgence for the Lutheran World Federation in 2017!]

The final verse in the book of Judges in the Old Testament states, “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25 – ESV). Regardless of any given form of governance, the concluding sentence of this book written so long ago still describes much of human existence ever since, i.e. everyone does what is right in his or her own eyes. On one hand, this sentiment is often portrayed as the exercise of individual rights in a free society, and some judges today seem to support this. On the other, such sentiments simply express narcissism. Either way, what should happen if two or more individuals hold opposite positions regarding what is right in their own eyes? Who, then, is right? Does “might make right”? The potential for violent conflict is probably why humanity still has so many judges.

Within the multitude of varying perspectives, each human being is aware to some degree, despite “doing what is right in one’s own eyes,” that one has “blind spots.” Sometimes those blind spots are larger, and sometimes they are smaller. Blind spots can be particularly insidious because they may often be patently blatant to others, perhaps particularly so when we paradoxically try to conceal our blind spots. Theologically, such blinds spots both conceal and reveal the nature of human sin. Sin hides us from sinful ourselves and yet exposes us for our sinful nature. This dynamic is further complicated and exacerbated by the vast individuality of our communal sinfulness where millions are doing chiefly what they think is right in their own eyes.

The inclination of each sinful person continuing to do “what is right in his own eyes,” stems from our innate inability to do what is right in God’s sight, namely to trust him in every aspect of life. As the history of the Old Testament portrays, even the kings could not stop people from doing what was right from their own sinful perspective because the kings themselves were no better. So, if the nation’s leaders were blind to their own sinning, or worse, were willing to cover their sin up and punish or kill those who would expose it, who could truly be judged to be right?

Human beings spending their days doing only what they see to be right, aware or unaware of their personal blind spots, not to mention their blinding sinfulness, is what Jesus came to confront with his life, death, and resurrection. Fully aware of humanity’s sinfulness, Jesus came to enlighten the world regarding the blinding darkness of its sin and death. Humanity’s willingness to blot Jesus out of its sinful reality is the ultimate revelation of sin’s rebelliousness against God’s law and God’s love.

The false gospel that sinners are right in their own eyes and that God is wrong has ominously taken on new vigour and virulence in western societies because this disposition has become the mantra of the media. Rather than being censored by an oppressive regime of one sort or another, the modern media has declared for itself the right to censor through personal attack and vilification, i.e. crucifixion by media mob rule, anyone who does not adhere to its public proclamation of rebellion against God and God’s believers. The media’s false gospel is founded upon a modernized expression of a pantheon of paganistic powers which promises the exoneration of sinners and of all their sins by declaring there to be no sin, except for the “sin” of faith in the one true God revealed to humanity in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

In contrast to the media’s false gospel, the church is nonetheless called to proclaim the one true gospel. As St. Paul wrote so long ago, “For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:22-26).

Whose eyes would we prefer to behold us, those of the paganistic, lynch mob media or those of the one Mediator between God and humanity, Jesus Christ?

If you could go to any place in the world at any time in history, where and when would it be? Pictures of different places and different times in books, travel brochures, and on the internet often look inviting. How nice it would be to “get away from it all,” as the phrase goes. Most of us know, however, that doing so is not as easy as it sounds. Besides the problems of where and when to go, we also need to decide who will take care of things while we are gone. Who will watch over our dwelling, feed the pets (if we have them), pay the bills when they come due, make sure that our offerings are made at church, and so forth? Even with all that sorted, think of all that will need to be done when we return; the mail to sort, the calls to return, the late payments to negotiate, to name a few.

If “getting away from it all” is not possible, then getting away from some of it may be the solution. Weekend excursions and “staycations” are very popular. They involve less time away, less expense, and less hassle upon return. Perhaps the best way to minimize the problems of “getting away from it all” is not to get away at all. That idea means that it is very important to make the place where we live someplace special. The same applies for our church home.

Every home or every family has a history of good and bad times, dynamics, and relations. In all the sociology and psychology of families, rarely discussed is the role and place of sin. Whereas the family, and thus the home, is often depicted as a or the foundation of society, a bulwark of security, reality is often much different. If Adam and Eve were created in the image of God, then their progeny and all of humanity since then have been born in sin. Our fallenness and brokenness are not only something in which we are conceived, but they are also something in which we begin our days in our families or in other circumstances. Even with our best efforts, families often find themselves in difficult circumstances created not just by chance but by and due to themselves. The results are what psychologists and sociologists study and what the church often poorly understands and handles not only pastorally but also theologically.

The same applies in churches as families. Although we are reborn through baptism, dying to our sinful selves and being raised to a new life in Christ, we bring ourselves to church in the sinful flesh of our temporal birth. That flesh brings with it not only its own sin but the sin into which we were born and raised in our own families. Because of this sin, church family life can at times be fraught with dysfunctional dynamics and distress, and occasionally self-destruction and death.

In the midst of our human sin, however, stands the reason for our gathering together as a church family adopted as sons and daughters to receive an inheritance not our own. This person is, of course, Jesus Christ. His father is our father who sent his son, Jesus, to take our sin and death upon himself in exchange for his righteousness and the gift of eternal life. In other words, when we gather around Jesus in his word, in baptism, and in his supper, we come to let him take our sin away so that in his presence as part of his body we become someplace special. Take time to reflect on how Jesus Christ by grace alone makes sinners like us someplace special and, in turn, how being someplace special can be part of our congregation’s life and mission for families also looking for a special place to be their church home.

After considerable changes in the parish due to new church affiliation, to internal reorganization, and to various types of renovation, St. Luke’s also has a new constitution. Most noticeable in this document is a church council structure that is designed to enhance the mission of the parish. In that spirit, the first non-executive position added to the church council is that of parish education.

The duties of the chair for parish education are not yet firmly defined. On one hand, we have our own Sunday school curriculum, a steady Vacation Bible School programme, Sunday and Wednesday Bible studies, and a growing theological academy. In other words, we have many things in place. On the other, do any of us know all there is to know about the Bible or the Lutheran confessional writings or … Even what we do know is given new insights with further study. So, why has the congregation placed parish education as its first priority?

First and foremost, the church is a creature of the word. In other words (slight pun intended), the word of God creates the church like it has created everything else. According to Article VII of the Augsburg Confession (a Lutheran confessional writing), the church “is the assembly of all believers among who the Gospel is preached in its purity and the holy sacraments are administered according to the Gospel.” What does this mean and why is it important?

The word of God as gospel create the faith which justifies sinners and thus makes them Christian. Gathering together doing religious things does not make a church. All religions, Christian or otherwise, gather and do religious things. Likewise, hearing sermons does not make a church. All religions, Christian or otherwise, have public teaching and preaching of some sort, but that does not make them church. The gospel is the good news that through Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, sinners are justified by faith alone as a pure gift of God’s grace. That message to those gathered around it makes the church. While we are gathered, however, we expand that message in liturgy, prayer, and song. Without this gospel purely proclaimed, none of this would be Christian, just religion.

Secondly, if the church is those who are gathered around the gospel purely proclaimed, then it is incumbent not only on the preacher but also on the hearers to ensure that they are receiving a purely proclaimed gospel. Part of being able to ensure this is comes through parish education, i.e. gathering together to study scripture, the Lutheran confessions, and other theological items. How prepared are we as a parish to do this? Some of our members are extremely prepared and able. Others are not. So, why are they not?

The most important group who is not prepared are our children. Baptism grants forgiveness of sin but does not bestow knowledge of who forgives and why. That needs to be taught, over and over again until we are no longer able to learn. In other words, because we are all made children of God through baptism, being a Christian means continually learning and studying for our own faith development and for our mission as a church. So, are you a member because you are on the books or because you are in the Book? What are your learning goals for this year?

Some decades ago, Coca Cola’s self-descriptive advertising slogan was “Coke. It’s the real thing.” Shortly thereafter, someone modified the slogan, “God / Jesus is like Coke. He’s the real thing.” No shortage of other religiously altered (altared?) advertising slogans also exist, such as, Jesus is: (1) like “Ford… He’s got a better idea,” (2) like “All State Insurance… You’re in good hands with him,” (3) like “Tide… He gets the stains out that others leave behind,” (4) like “Dial Soap… Aren’t you glad you have Him? Don’t you wish everybody did?” and (5) like “Maxwell House… Good to the very last drop.” Out of curiosity, how often have you dropped Jesus?

So, is Jesus a thing or an idea or a stain remover or what? What do we make of such slogans borrowed from secular advertising? Why do we use them? Are they effective? What might Jesus make of them? Apply this to yourself. Are you “like Coke” or “like Tide” or “like Dial Soap” or “like Maxwell House”?

Apart from the application, what about the substance of such claims. What is “real” about Coke? What is the maximum number of times that one can drop you and from which height? If not physically dropped then perhaps relationally dropped. If people drop Jesus from their lives, how many drops can Jesus withstand? If Jesus is good to the last drop, then what happens to those who drop him for the final time?

Presumably, people take such phrases about Jesus or God seriously, at least at some level, or they would not propagate them. Perhaps more important than the slogans’ contents, what do such slogans say about those who use them? Caution! You are now entering a critical thinking zone!

Christian witness and Christian mission often leave Christians feeling perplexed and inadequate and exposed and vulnerable and fearful. On one hand, Christ has become an or the most important aspect of one’s life. On the other hand, one is often at a loss for words as to what that really means and how to communicate that to others. In a market driven society, like in any day and age, one is often tempted to borrow from the secular to advance the religious. To what extent one should do this, if at all? This question is and has been a matter of debate amongst Christians from its earliest days. Jesus himself frequently used parables, “The kingdom of God is like …” So, what do we do, or not do, and why?

Very often, we use analogies and metaphors to assist communication. Comparing something new to something old or familiar seeks to tap into an existing point of contact or conceptual framework in order to facilitate communication and understanding for the new. So, if you are “like Coke,” are you “the real thing” or are you really “carbonated water, sugar (sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup depending on country of origin), colour (caramel E150d), phosphoric acid, natural flavourings including caffeine”? Can you be “the real thing” and all that other questionably nutritious stuff? How does Coke mix with Jesus? In an effort to make Jesus (more) palatable, perhaps churches could offer “Rum and Jesus” instead of communion. Is that idea any more or less accurate or offensive than borrowing a secular advertising slogan? If so, why?

So, what is the point of contact between God and fallen humanity? What do sinners, who have lost the image and likeness of God (see Genesis 1:26) possess which could serve as a point of contact with God? Succinctly put, sinful humanity has no inherent point of contact with God. That is our problem. The relationship our side is completely broken, and all attempts by sinful humanity to create points of contact with the divine do little more than make for great or ghastly religions. Do those religions, however, make any difference in humanity’s relationship with God? The Bible say, “No.”

So, what are we to do to win God’s favour? The answer is: Nothing! There is nothing that we can do. No-thing, no “good” work, no slogan, no analogy, no anything at all will or can do it, no matter how hard we try. Instead, God did it and does it, by grace alone. God in Jesus Christ is the only point of contact between the justifying God and us lamentable sinners. By being both truly divine and truly human, Jesus comes to us outside of ourselves and apart from our efforts to be the only point of contact between God and us. This is so because Jesus

“… who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of human beings. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:7-9)

When sinful humanity killed Christ with more than vacuous slogans, the Father raised his Son from the dead, again by grace alone, to create an indestructible and indefeasible point of contact with himself beyond our powers of death. By grace alone, God seeks to bring us into a new, living relationship with him through the word alone and through faith alone solely in Jesus Christ.

In that light, God’s light, there is absolutely nothing and no one to which or to whom we can compare Jesus without diminishing or denigrating both his divinity and his humanity. With respect to witness and mission, the Father did not send his Son to find points of contact in us sinful human beings. Instead, the Father sent his Son to refashion sinful human beings through his justifying gospel into the body of Christ to be his living, verbal points of contact to those who do not yet believe. That is our baptismal calling and commission. That is our life of faith. Together, that is our congregational mission without comparison or compromise.

Last month’s contribution, namely offering the suggestion that we forego Lenten soup suppers for Bible study, produced some interesting comments and a few interesting discussions. While some were supportive of the idea, others took offense. Frankly, I was surprised that anyone voiced any support for the idea at all.

The phrase “in the soup” is sometimes used by pilots to describe flying in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). This does not pertain to taking a trumpet or clarinet into an airplane to toot at the passing clouds. Rather, it refers to flying through weather conditions where one does not have outside visual references, i.e. one flies by navigational instruments and radio aids in the cockpit, as well as help from air traffic control, in order to fly through fog, mist, clouds, and so forth. Commercial airliners routinely fly on instrument flight plans regardless of the weather conditions. In short, when one is “in the soup” one needs additional and outside aids to arrive at one’s destination safely. The food service, often curtailed or discontinued by the airlines, has nothing to do with arriving at one’s destination in a safe or timely manner.

Apart from my suggestion of substituting Bible study for soup suppers, the Bible itself is full of ideas and comments from God also challenging our assumptions, perceptions, and decisions, not to mention our “thoughts, words, and deeds,” as we often confess. In addition to verses like, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4 ESV), one also finds passages as follows, “And the whole congregation of the people of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness, and the people of Israel said to them, ‘Would that we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the meat pots and ate bread to the full, for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger’” (Exod. 16:2-3).

To this, Jesus might reply, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied” (Matt 5:6). To those whom Jesus did feed, he said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal” (John 6:26-27).

Fortunately, or not, human beings are not made of tummies alone. We have hearts, minds, and souls with which we are commanded to love God with all our strength. That means that we have much more to loose than a few calories once a week for the six weeks of Lent. Jesus says, “So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 10:32-33). Likewise, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Matt. 16:24). Alas, however, “After saying these things, Jesus was troubled in his spirit, and testified, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me. … It is he to whom I will give this morsel of bread when I have dipped it.’ So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. Then after Judas had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him” (John 13:21, 26-27).

A pilot in the soup has no outside visual references. Nearly 90% of the time, when accidently flying from visual meteorological conditions (VMC) into instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) untrained pilots find the ground at a fatal velocity. A trained instrument-rated pilot, however, is guided through the soup not by somatic sensations but by reading the instruments and by listening to air traffic controllers. Likewise, as St. Paul reminds, Christians “walk by faith, not by sight” (II Cor. 5:7), and as Jesus said, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29).

So, what do we make of soup suppers? Scripture says, “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food,” and God will destroy both one and the other” (I Cor. 6:13) and also, “‘All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever.’ And this word is the good news that was preached to you” (I Pet. 1:24-25). It is not clear how many people are for or against the notion of replacing soup suppers with Bible study. What is clear, however, is that restaurants are in business to serve food, and churches are in business to serve the good news, meaning both to serve it as the word of God and to serve it as the word of God to others.

Whether in the cockpit or in church, being “in the soup” is neither here nor there for those listening to the guidance communicated by navigational instruments, necessary charts, and air traffic controllers, or scripture and God respectively. Listening to that voice of guidance in both instances is a matter of life and death.

How often each day do we procure, prepare, and partake of food? In comparison, how often each day do we partake of the word of God? As the old saying goes, “One is what one eats” (Man ist, was man isst). So, to whom shall we listen – the grumbling of our tummies, the grumbling of the congregation, or the gift of the one who says, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4 ESV)? More pointedly and more graciously, which of these offers himself through the cross and resurrection to you in the supper at his table?

The season of Lent is often associated with various references in the Bible to 40 days, a time reference which generally means “a long time.” In Christian times, Jesus’ journey in the desert is sometimes cited as providing the rationale for the length of the Lenten season:

“Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. And the tempter came and said to him, ‘If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.’” (Mt 4:1-3 – ESV)

Jesus did not allow himself to be tempted by the devil. Likewise, he would not have allowed himself to be caught “loafing” during his time of fasting. While in the desert, perhaps the devil also tempted Jesus to create some dessert. All hot-cross-buns and half-baked puns aside, what do we make of Lent?

The word “Lent” refers to the “lengthening” of days or springtime. Thus, “Lent” did not originally have a religious connotation. Although customs vary, the early church tended to celebrate the resurrection every Sunday with a fast day on the preceding Friday to mark Jesus’ crucifixion. In the course of time, however, a particular “holy day” or holiday for celebrating Easter developed, and correspondingly the single, preparatory fast day was extended to many days just preceding Easter, which we now call Holy Week. This penitential period itself was then preceded with a “longer” fasting time of varying degrees and days numbering 40, as cited from Matthew above. Because Easter is celebrated in the springtime, the “lengthening” of days or Lent acquired new meaning, literally. So, if Lent is a manufactured season of questionable origins and purpose and if Luther was happy to dispense with Ash Wednesday, what do we make of Lent?

Traditionally, taking its cue from the passage cited above, Lent has been observed as a time of fasting. In German, Lent is called die Fastenzeit, the time of fasting, a name which readily denotes the reason for the season. The word Lent, however, does not convey the same meaning, and often means nothing to many people today, whether understood as “lengthening” or “fasting,” although some might give up fuzz for lint.

Some decades ago, it became fashionable in Lutheran churches to have Lenten soup suppers. Presumably, soup signifies a light meal, i.e., doing with less. Also, adding soup suppers to a midweek Lenten service would most likely boost attendance in a secular age when religious practices in an affluent society, especially fasting, are definitely not in vogue. Paradoxically, however, a hearty soup supper of seemingly unlimited servings can prove more filling than one’s regular evening meal at home! Similarly, if one needs to throw on food to help boost attendance during the “fasting time,” then in both cases something is very much amiss. So, what do we make of Lent and why have we added soup suppers?

In reply to the tempter, Jesus said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God’” (Mt 4:4).

So, why in Lent do we make such a fuss, or not, of foregoing some element of food or some supposed luxury or excess, when doing so does absolutely nothing to strengthen our understanding of God or God’s word? Why do we pay attention to Matthew 4:1-3 and seem to overlook Matthew 4:4? What do we say about our faith in and devotion to the word of God when we feel obliged to provide soup to entice people to midweek Lenten services?

As with so many activities in “the church,” we are often long on doing but short on theological rationale for our doings. In other words, we go to great lengths to devise ways to show our religiosity, but when all is said and done we sinners have said and done little in relation to what God’s word revealed in Christ and Scripture says and does to us. Instead of soup suppers, what if we met for Bible study before our midweek Lenten services? Would our response be, “Bon appétit” or “Fastenzeit”?