Pastor Mark's Blog

Who can reserve for him- or herself proper justification to make judgements for justice? After a long discourse on law and judgement, both human and divine, St. Paul writes in his letter to the Romans,

“But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for fall 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 3:21-16 – ESV).

Christianity has been in a quandary since the resurrection of Christ. When sinful humanity crucified the Son of God according to its misinterpretation and misuse of the law, even divine law, it demonstrated its fatally flawed understanding of judgement and justice. Nonetheless, God revealed his judgement against humanity by demonstrating his righteousness. How? Apart from the law! How? By putting Christ Jesus forward as a propitiation for sin (place of sacrifice and atonement) by his blood! How? To be received by faith alone!

In other words, God has reserved judgement for himself, and such judgement is not exercised according to human expectations or standards. By faith alone, God declares sinners to be righteous. What kind of judgement is that? It is God’s judgement. What kind of justice is that? It is God’s justice.

Well, what about all those sinners who are sinning in a world full of sin? Does not such “justice” also effectively mean that God is declared powerless and thus useless, especially against human sin? Has not the notion that God justifies sinners apart from the law led sinful human beings to believe that they paradoxically can and should employ the law to justify their own godlessness and ungodliness? If that is the case, what should we make of human sin?

For better or worse, those are not quite the right questions. The perhaps more correctly posed question is: What does our human sin make of us? Quite simply, it makes hypocritical judges of us unable to differentiate between good and evil according to the law, even divine law. Knowledge and realization of this disability comes, likewise, not through the law but only through faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus, apart from the gospel, sinful human beings legalize each other to death. From whom, however, does humanity receive the gospel?

Martin Luther’s posting of his 95 Theses Against Indulgences on All Hallows’ Eve (31 October 1517) was a bold attempt to communicate to the church and to the world that our human sin is too deep and too vast for humanity to handle alone. Our human sin and its deleterious effects cannot be addressed or redressed by human efforts, either by the law or exemptions from it, and certainly not by contrivances like papal indulgences. Furthermore, our own reliance upon our own efforts leads only and inextricably to our own self-righteousness which is the antithesis of the godly life. Thus, Luther began his 95 Theses by stating, “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ‘Repent’ [Matt. 4:17], he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.”

The judgement and justice of our world and of ourselves cannot save us from our sin nor help us in anyway in our relationship to God. By calling us to repent, Christ calls us to be turned away from our self-righteousness by being grasp solely by the word of his cross as vivified in the power of his resurrection. His voice comes thereby to us in law and in gospel through holy scripture, through Christian teaching, and through Christian preaching. With each new day, Christ calls us through the waters of Holy Baptism to die to our sinful selves and to be raised to newness of life. Christ then calls us to gather in Holy Communion where he puts himself forward by his promise as the forgiveness of sin for those who partake of his body and his blood.

In, with, and under the power of Christ’s word, God calls penitent sinners to belief and thereby to be saints, to be given an alien righteous from God alone as a gift of his grace. In that light, All Hallows’ Eve gives way every day to All Saints Day. So, how do we communicate this good news to the unbelieving world which surrounds us?

On 31 October, Protestants, particularly Lutherans, celebrate Reformation Day. The 31st of October is also known as All Hallows’ Eve, the day preceding All Saints Day on 01 November. That is why most Americans know 31 October as Halloween.

As Lutherans are generally aware, on 31 October 1517, Martin Luther published his 95 Theses Against Indulgences. Indulgences are an invention of the Roman Church designed to shorten one’s time in an invented place called purgatory. Purgatory is conceived as a place like hell where one is “purged” of one’s remaining sin in order to be purified for admittance into heaven. This past summer, Pope Francis issued yet another indulgence in connection with World Youth Day held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, last July. To keep up with the times, this indulgence could be obtained in part by following the pope on Twitter!

In Luther’s day, indulgences were sold with the motto, “As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs.” Nowadays, the motto might be, “When the Pope on the internet tweets, purgatory-bound souls get treats!” As the 31 October is both Reformation Day and Halloween, are indulgences a trick or a treat? Luther would say that they are a trick. The pope would say a treat. Who is right?

When tempting Adam and Eve to take and taste the fruit from the tree in the midst of the garden, the serpent said, “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5 – ESV). This empty promise is full of subtle irony. In order to be like God, knowing good and evil, Adam and Eve would first disregard God and his word, would then disobey God, and would finally do evil against God. Since then, sinful humanity has not changed much, continually carrying on the same way deluded into believing that we are “like God, knowing good and evil.” Such is the nature and reality of human sin.

With such inborn propensity to be wholly unlike God, how can sinful human beings know the difference between good and evil at all? How can any of us judge what is right and what is wrong, and more personally, who is right and who is wrong. In relation to the church and its proclamation and practices, what in the name of God is a trick and what is a treat and who is right?

Rightly (or wrongly), to make a distinction between good and evil, one needs to make judgements. Being judged and judging are inescapable realities of human life. People make decisions for, about, and against us long before we can make our own judgements and decisions. With time, we either enjoy the benefits or suffer the consequences of our own judgements and decisions. Complicating matters further is the fact that the results and repercussions of our judgements and decisions are either not immediate or sometimes remain unknown to us. When known, what often seemed good or evil at one time can later be perceived as exactly the opposite, as Adam and Eve learned all to well for the rest of humanity.

In western culture, particularly where Christendom once held sway, the world’s mores are in disarray. Religious humanists are at odds with religious fundamentalists of all stripes. Secularists dispute the right and rights of faith-based approaches to societal structures and dynamics. Modern Christians, caught and confused in such complexities, scrambling for clarity and security, find themselves not only at odds with members of other denominations but also with members of their own denominations.

As a result, Christians today are often more divided by culture than by theological confession. For example, is prayer in schools right or wrong? Is abortion right or wrong? Is same-sex “marriage” right or wrong? While stating that church teaching is clear on such matters, even Pope Francis is reported as saying that he cannot judge. In contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court has made judgements on such matters but by whose standards?

In his book Kingdom of God in America published in 1937, H. Richard Niebuhr summed the overall modern situation as such, “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross” (193). Today, unfortunately, even this insightful assessment about “men” might be judged to be “too sexist” to gain a rightful hearing.

For better or for worse, Niebuhr’s portrayal of modern humanity’s vacuous understanding of “God’s righteousness” is a far cry from Luther’s experience prior to his Reformation discovery of a wrathful God raking souls over the coals of hell and purgatory. Reflecting upon his Reformation discovery, Luther described his religious life so,

“Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God, and said, ‘As if, indeed, it is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the decalogue, without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with his righteousness and wrath!’ Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience” (Luther’s Works, 34:336-337).

What accounts for this monumental shift in perspective of both God and humanity between Luther’s day and secularized Christianity today? Could one not justifiably argue that Luther’s rediscovery of justification by faith alone (apart from works of the law) itself has led incrementally to modernity’s emasculation and evisceration of God and God’s law? Figuratively, is this not why Halloween (and bobbing for apples) has effectively supplanted nearly all cognizance of Reformation Day? Even the U.S. Supreme Court would not hazard an opinion on this matter. So, who is right and who is wrong? What is good and what is evil? Who can reserve for him- or herself proper justification to make judgements for justice? (Part II in November)

Over the past few decades, many church-related individuals and groups have been talking more and more about “spirituality” or “spiritual direction” or “spiritual formation.” In contrast, some religious leaders have described themselves as religious but not very spiritual. Perhaps most surprisingly, or not, some US courts are inclined to classify atheism as a religion.

In all this confusion, seminaries and theological faculties of various denominations are increasingly requiring trainee pastors to undertake some sort of training in “spiritual” activities, and to accommodate this many groups and institutions offer courses and certificates in such activities or studies. Much of this “training” is assumed to be basically “Christian,” but if so, how?

The current attention to matters “spiritual” is nothing new. Throughout church history, such movements crop up when the church apparently becomes ossified through tradition or bureaucracy or some other stagnating phenomena. When people think that churches are not “going places,” they implement all manner of changes “led by the spirit” to make worship or congregational life more “spiritual” or “relevant” or “experiential.” In Lutheran history, German figures such as Philipp Jakob Spener (1635-1705) and August Hermann Francke (1663-1727) were very influential starting pietistic renewals. Hans Nielsen Hauge (1771-1824), a Norwegian, lead movements to revitalize the church which amounted to “church within the church.” Likewise, in the 18th century, Charles and John Wesley led similar movements in the Church of England which eventually gave rise to the Methodist churches. In one way or another, consciously or not, all these have influenced American Lutheranism.

Taken as a whole, these movements share notions of “spiritual formation” as a means to help people develop their relationship with God through various “disciplines” or “practices.” Admittedly, it is hard to find “fault” with many of these disciplines or practices, such as prayer or reading sacred texts or confession or fasting or … Predating Protestant manifestations, such activities were and are very prevalent in the “religious life” of nuns and monks both Christian and non-Christian alike. So, how does a Buddhist monk’s prayer, chanting, meditation, fasting and such differ from a Christian monk’s prayer, chanting, mediation, fasting and so forth? To take a non-religious example, if everyone is eating ice-cream, does it matter which flavour one chooses as long as one is eating ice-cream? Taking a religious example, if churches consume liquids during worship does it matter that some consume wine or grape juice or poisoned punch, like in Jonestown, Guyana? What credentials (from Latin credo = I believe) should “spiritual directors” possess, and what “possesses” them to become spiritual directors in the first place? Even if they have credentials from a religious organization or group, how do such people differ from “personal trainers” found at the local gym in terms of being part of a “team” or body of believers as are Christians in the body of Christ?

Well acquainted with the intricacies of the religious life, Martin Luther recalls his “tower experience” in the Preface to his Latin Writings,

“Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction… 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. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me. Thereupon I ran through the Scriptures from memory. I also found in other terms an analogy, as, the work of God, that is, what God does in us, the power of God, with which he makes us strong, the wisdom of God, with which he makes us wise, the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God” (LW 34:336-337).

Likewise in his explanation to the third article of the creed in his Small Catechism, Luther writes,

“I believe that by my own reason or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to him. But the Holy Spirit has called me through the Gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, and sanctified and preserved me in true faith, just as he calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth and preserves it in union with Jesus Christ in the one true faith. In this Christian church he daily and abundantly forgives all my sins, and the sins of all believers, and on the last day he will raise me and all the dead and will grant eternal life to me and to all who believe in Christ. This is most certainly true.”

As both scripture and our confessional writings show, nothing within our sinful human power or determination or effort, whether “spiritual” or “religious” or “religiously spiritual” or even “religiously atheistic” can foster, fabricate, or fix our broken relationship with God. In fact, such attempts to make our sinful flesh more religious are, in fact, not spiritual because they actually lead us away from the God who comes to us. To think or believe otherwise, sadly, disavows Christ’s incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection.

Viewed rightly then, “spiritual direction” in the Christian faith manifests itself as God’s word and sacraments coming “extra nos” (outside ourselves) to us to lead us lost sinners out of and away from the powers of sinful flesh and death to be “altogether born again to enter paradise itself through open gates,” as Luther states. This is the work of the Holy Spirit solely through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

So, take some time to stand or sit still for a sermon or for Sunday School or to read your Bible or to pray. In other words, stop moving the target so that God can come directly to you as directly as possible to you so that you will then be directed by his word to bear his word to others. That is what it means for us to be “called as a community of Christians saved by grace – through faith alone in Jesus Christ – to spread the Holy Gospel in word, sacrament and action soli deo gloria,” as St. Luke’s mission statement declares.

Theology in the modern age is in disarray. Theology in most ages has been in disarray. The reason for such confusion in theology is the confusion which human sin brings into the divine-human relationship. That confusion arose when human beings threatened to “be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5). For sinful human beings, however, being like God was not enough. As Luther writes in the seventeenth of his Ninety-seven Theses Against Scholastic Theology, “Man is by nature unable to want God to be God. Indeed, he himself wants to be God, and does not want God to be God” (LW 31:10). In that light, theology has been in disarray since Adam and Eve went out on a limb and so fruitfully plunged humanity into enmity with God in order to take the place of God.

In the New Testament, St. Paul describes this confusion and rebellion as the mixing of the flesh with the spirit. As he writes in chapter five of his letter to the church in Galatia (RSV),

“[16] But I say, walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. [17] For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would. [18] But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law. [19] Now the works of the flesh are plain: unchastity (porneia), impurity, licentiousness, [20] idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, [21] envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. [22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, [23] gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law. [24] And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. [25] If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.”

Looking at the lists of characteristics of the flesh and the spirit, sinful humanity not only indulges in but also glorifies the life of the flesh. Everywhere one turns in society, the intemperate exercise of the destructive nature of the flesh is hailed as freedom and individual human rights. In other words, what the world often says is “right” Scripture says is “wrong” because the practice of such wrong prevents inheritance of the kingdom of God. Thus, Luther insightfully writes, “Reason and the wisdom of our flesh condemns the wisdom of the Word of God” (LW 12:343).

At the time of the Reformation, Luther and colleagues stressed this dichotomy and called the church away from the flesh and forward to the spirit, away from self-justification by the law and forward to the salvific gospel, away from human works of the flesh and forward to justification by grace alone through faith alone. Being set free (eleutheros in Greek – Lutheran) from the powers of sin, death, and the devil (the domain of the flesh) was and always is a spiritual event effected by the pure proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Again, as Paul states, “Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.” Unfortunately, the church in western society has not been and is still not immune from the mixing and thus the dissolution of the flesh-spirit dichotomy.

The enmity of the spirit against the flesh and the flesh against the spirit never has been a matter of personal piety or denominational identity or cultural conditioning. It represents the difference between the demonic and the divine, between the temporal life which ends in death and the certainty of faith which promises to grant eternal life. As the spirit of atheism has grown ever stronger in western society, the flesh-spirit dichotomy has been torn apart, allowing the once forbidden or illegal exercising of the flesh not only tacit tolerance but even open acceptance and celebration, paradoxically sometimes in the name of God.

Plainly, secular atheists who live in the flesh fail to understand this and thus truly view Christianity and its crucifixion of the flesh as a personal, religious, and cultural threat. Their flesh is all that they have, and when it is dead, they are dead. So, they celebrate the carnal life with gusto! As St. Paul writes, “If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die’” (I Cor 15:32). Consequently, even a Christian’s sincere concern for the salvation of their carnal brothers and sisters is necessarily interpreted and resisted as a threat to their (fleshly) life and livelihood.

In western countries in recent decades, the political power of the flesh has flexed its muscle in very insidious ways. The notion of separation of church and state has merely been a ruse for the expulsion of God and thus the divinely spiritual from society. This manifests itself through the sinful misapplication of the law to discredit and demonize the gospel. Consequently, what lends the impression of legally protecting an area of societal neutrality has, in fact, been an attack on the divinely spiritual. In the war between the flesh and the spirit, there is no neutral ground, no amicable armistice. In this battle, the cross of Christ reveals the destructive reality of sinful, human flesh in all its glory.

Cristina Odone, in her Daily Telegraph blog wrote on 07 July 2013,

“The American street preacher [Mr Tony Miano] had been arrested outside Centre Court shopping centre in Wimbledon on July 1. He had been reading from St Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians, which condemns homosexuality. A passer-by called the police. Three officers arrived and arrested Mr Miano, a retired deputy sheriff from California, for disorderly conduct.

The irony of being marched to the Wimbledon nick after having spent 20 years as a law enforcer was not lost on Mr Miano. He told me over the phone: ‘The booking process held no surprises.’ He had his DNA and fingerprints taken (and was relieved of his wedding ring) and was then locked up in a small cell for seven hours.

In the police station, he was granted his request for a Bible and for a lawyer from Christian Concern, a group that fights cases involving religious freedom. Then the police asked if he’d ever feed a homosexual, or do them a favour.

‘I said yes, of course: the Bible taught that I should love my neighbour as myself,’ Mr Miano told me. ‘The policeman asked if I believed homosexuality was a sin and I realised that I was not only being interrogated about what had happened but about what I believed.’”*

The flesh-spirit dichotomy resides at the heart of the Christian message where the cross and resurrection meet in Christ Jesus. This dichotomy also resides at the heart of the biblical understanding of baptism by which sinners are freed from sin and death. Societies, whether secular or religious, which fear the Bible and persecute its adherents, however, cannot tolerate the freedoms of being Christian. They also cannot countenance ideals like “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth,” as Abraham Lincoln stated in his Gettysburg Address. Instead, they have aligned themselves to the tyrannical slavery of unbridled gratification and glorification of the desires of their flesh. Such uncontrolled narcissism “is by nature unable to want God to be God. Indeed, [it] wants to be God, and does not want God to be God.”

In the face of such hostility, let us let the fruit of the Spirit radiate brightly into the world around us and allow God to make us into a community of Christians saved by grace – through faith alone in Jesus Christ – to spread the Holy Gospel in word, sacrament and action soli deo gloria.

*http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100225249/banning-the-term-gay-is-an-insult-to-free-speech/    [Mr Miano also preached against pornography and slushy novels, but such things apparently have little political power.]

Article V of the Augsburg Confession, a chief Lutheran statement of faith written in 1530, states,

“In order to obtain such faith God instituted the office of preaching, giving the gospel and the sacraments. Through these, as through means, he gives the Holy Spirit who produces faith, where and when he wills, in those who hear the gospel. It teaches that we have a gracious God, not by our own merit but through Christ’s merit, when we so believe.”

One might ask, “In order to obtain what faith?” The preceding section, Article IV of the Augsburg Confession, provides the answer by describing what kind of faith, namely the faith by which sinners are justified. So, in order to obtain justifying faith, God instituted the office of preaching, which is the giving of the gospel and the sacraments. In short, faith is created in the events of preaching and teaching the gospel and administering the sacraments of holy baptism and holy communion in accordance with the gospel.

If that is the case, then all we as a congregation need to do is to find the right technique of delivery or the right marketing formula or the most pleasing appeal to society, and then the church will be full of believers, right? Undoubtedly, many pastors and parishioners alike believe this. Unfortunately, or fortunately, Article V has more to say. The proclamation of the gospel in word and sacrament is the means by which the Holy Spirit produces faith “where and when he wills, in those who hear the gospel.” Well, that complicates things a bit, doesn’t it?

If the Holy Spirit produces faith at his discretion, then that means that we are not in charge, and we have no control over the creation of faith in others. If we have no control over this “process,” then what are we doing in church? Are we not just wasting our time with Bible study, Sunday School, Catechism Class, Vacation Bible School, and so forth? What is the point of making such an effort if the Holy Spirit decides, unbeknownst to us, to create faith or, alternatively, to take the day off, or the year off, or simply decides to withdraw himself for the remainder a congregation’s ever shortening life span? What are we to do?

That is precisely the worry, but why do we worry? Does not such worry express our own lack of faith in God’s desire and ability to complete the salvation that he has effected? Put differently, despite our best intentions and efforts, our own doubt, i.e. our own sin, undermines our efforts at evangelism. So, what are we to do?

As the creation of faith in others is beyond our control, then equally the creation and continuance of faith in ourselves is also beyond our control. As the gospel is the “good news” that we sinners are justified by faith alone in the word of Christ alone by his grace alone, then part of that “good news” is the reality that we are not responsible FOR the gospel, even though we are responsible TO the gospel. So, if we are not in control of church, then what is the point of being in church, especially of the Holy Spirit creates faith where and when he will?

Look again at Article V. The Holy Spirit creates faith as he deems fit in those who hear the gospel. Where will sinners hear the gospel? That is our cue. Our mission as a church is to be inspired by Scripture through the Holy Spirit in order to communicate the gospel of Jesus Christ as clearly and as purely as possible. In short, in order to obtain such faith God has made us missionaries in the priesthood of all believers to proclaim his justifying-faith creating gospel where and when we are called to do so. So, let us be faithfully instrumental in communicating the gospel of Jesus Christ which the Holy Spirit employs to create justifying faith in Christ alone for the salvation of our fallen humanity.

If all Christians claim the Bible as the word of God, then why are there so many denominations and churches? Some denominations and churches say that the Bible is “inerrant” and “infallible,” and some do not. Some think that all parts of the Bible are equal, and others do not. Some claim that the Bible contains extra books called the Apocrypha, and others do not.

Even if Christian opinion were uniform and united about the canon of Scripture, which church or denomination would have the correct interpretation? Protestants generally believe that everyone can and should interpret Scripture. If that is the case, what if people in the same denomination or congregation disagree? In the Roman church, it is taught that academic scholars may have varied, scholarly opinions about the Bible, but only “the Church” can offer the correct interpretation of Scripture.

So, who is right?

When people approach any object or situation, they view and interact therewith from their own perspective. If someone asks, “How does the rose smell?” Whose nose would any of us use to smell the rose? If someone inquires, “What do you think of this colour?” Whose eyes would any of us use to view the hue? Using ourselves and our experience, i.e. being self-referential, seems perfectly natural, and for most of our everyday experiences, it simply is! Being self-referential can, however, also lead to many ill-perceptions and false assumptions, which can have effects from harmless to the disastrous.

In relation to God, our natural, self-referential way of being is always disastrous because it means that we are by nature turned away from God and turned in on ourselves. Following on from the understanding of “iniquity” meaning “bent,” St. Augustine characterized such turning in on ourselves as the nature of human sin. So, if we cannot smell a rose or view a colour with someone else’s nose or eyes, how can we even imagine approaching, studying, and living from Scripture as the word of God from God’s intended perspective?

Despite knowing that we cannot smell a rose with someone else’s nose or view the hues with someone else’s baby blues, we sinful human beings not only believe ourselves to possess but also relegate to ourselves an uncanny, if not infallible ability to view and hear Scripture from God’s vantage point! Why does this come so naturally to us? Simply put, our nature as sinners spinning out of control in on ourselves makes us into little diabolical dust devils, so to speak, arrogating God’s word and thus God’s reality to ourselves.

God’s word and our encounter with it, however, are not only beyond our control but also beyond our sinful comprehension. When God’s word engages our lives as sinners, it touches our sinful hearts and minds with laws of reality which stop us literally and metaphorically dead in our tracks. Then, the gospel of Jesus Christ comes to raise us up to be new creations of God’s word. Luther describes it this way:

In relation to Psalm 68:13, Luther writes, “And note that the strength of Scripture is this: that it is not changed into him who studies it, but that it transforms its lover into itself and its strengths. … Because you will not change me into what you are (as heretics do), but you will be changed into what I am” (LW 10:332-333).

Further, in relation to Romans 1:17 and 4:5, Luther states, “He [God] justifies, overcomes, in His Word when He makes us to be like His Word, that is, righteous, true, wise, etc. And He thus changes us into His Word, but not His Word into us” (LW 25:211).

Christianity is littered with seemingly innumerable groups, denominations, and churches because Christianity is inhabited by people of all type and stripe who in the name of God interpret Scripture from their own inward, sinful perspective. It is, of course, the natural thing to do. Thankfully, in sharp contrast thereto, God does not look upon groups, denominations, or churches. Instead, God looks into our hearts and allows Scripture to recreate us into God’s word in the same way that God’s promises to turn water, bread, and wine into the sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion. It is, so to speak, God’s supernatural thing to do.

So, if reading ever more scripture transforms us ever more into the word of God, then why do we not have a Bible in our hands every minute that the hands spin around the clock?

Prefaced by a passage from I Corinthians, the following three paragraphs quote some of Martin Luther’s thoughts on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Read, enjoy, and be inspired to proclaim the gospel of given to us at Easter.

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. Then He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles” (I Corinthians 15:3–7).

“With these words St. Paul explains and repeats the essence of His Gospel, which he preached to them, the Gospel in which they stand and by which they must be saved. Thus he composes a whole sermon on the resurrection of Christ, which might well be read and discussed on the Day of Easter. For from this flow the basis and the reason of this article on the resurrection of the dead which he is elaborating. And his sermon substantiates this doctrine most forcefully, both by proof from Scripture and by the witness of many living people, etc. He wishes to say: “I gave you nothing but what I myself received, nor do I know anything else to proclaim as the basis of our salvation than the Lord Jesus Christ, as He most certainly both truly died and also rose again from the dead. That is the content and the sum and substance of my Gospel, on which you and I were baptized and in which we stand. Thus I did not steal anything, nor did I spin a yarn, nor did I dream this up; no, I received it from Christ Himself.” With this he pricks those false teachers. It is as though he were to say: “If they proclaim something different, they cannot have received it from Christ. It must represent their own dreams and phantasy. For they obviously did not receive it from us nor from other apostles (since we all agree and are in accord with our message), much less from Christ. Therefore it must be sheer seduction and deception. Thus Paul also boasts in Gal. 1:11, 12, 17 over against the false apostles that he did not receive this doctrine from man nor from the apostles themselves, and that his proclamation was not derived from human reason or wisdom, that no man had invented it or contrived it of himself, but that it was a message which he had to receive through divine revelation. That was something those people could not boast of or maintain. Indeed, his own reason had contributed absolutely nothing to this, nor had he striven to obtain it. In fact, he had once persecuted it and raged against it like a raving, silly dog. God’s Word is so far beyond all reason, also beyond the apostles’ own knowledge or wisdom, that no one can attain it by his own power or understanding, to say nothing of contriving or devising anything better, as those people among the Corinthians alleged to be able to do.

“Paul adduces two kinds of proof (in refutation of their false teaching) in support of his message, or Gospel, which he has preached concerning Christ’s resurrection. First, he points out that he took this from Scripture and that he proves this with Scripture. In the second place, he cites his own experience and that of many others who saw the resurrected Christ. For it is the mark of a fair man to prove and attest what he proclaims and says, not only with words but also with deed and example both of himself and others. And thus Paul enumerates the eyewitnesses of Christ’s resurrection; first, Cephas, or Peter, then the Twelve, to whom Christ showed Himself alive, so that they heard and saw Him and associated with Him in His external, physical essence. Later He was seen by more than five hundred brethren who were assembled together, then separately by James, and finally by all the apostles. Here Paul calls all those apostles (different from the Twelve) who were sent out by Christ to preach. For He selected the Twelve especially (as something more than plain apostles, or messengers) to be His witnesses not only of the resurrection but also of His entire life, of His words and deeds heard and seen by them, so that they might disseminate the Gospel after Christ. “All of these are, in addition to me, reliable witnesses of what we saw and experienced, carried out as foretold in Scripture. …

“Therefore we must accept these words of St. Paul as an admonition to adhere firmly to this doctrine and proclamation, for which we have both reliable Scripture and also reliable experience. These are to be two proofs, just like two touchstones of the true doctrine. Now, whoever refuses to believe these two and still looks for something else or, finding nothing of the kind, clings to still others, deserves to be deceived. And yet this was all of no avail, nor does it avail today, with the multitude. They want to be deceived and misled. They pay heed only when someone presents something novel and embellishes this prettily. But he who will be taught and not err must watch for these two points: who can adduce testimony for his doctrine from Scripture and from reliable experience. We are able to prove our doctrine and proclamation. I, too—praise God—can proclaim from experience that no works are able to help or comfort me against sin and God’s judgment but that Christ alone can still and console my heart and my conscience. For this I have the testimony of all of Scripture and the example of many pious people, who say the same and have experienced it. In contrast, all the factions can prove or attest nothing from their own experience or from that of others. Finally we must also note here how St. Paul describes and defines his Gospel, namely, as a proclamation from which we learn that Christ died for our sin and that He rose again. And he proves both from Scripture. There you have everything in a nutshell, and yet it is stated clearly. Accordingly, you may judge all doctrine and life and know that whoever presents anything else as the doctrine of the Gospel and adds some of our own deeds and holiness surely misleads the people. You hear no mention of any works here, and nothing is said of what I must do or not do to atone for, or to remove, sin and to be justified before God, etc., but only what Christ did to that end, namely, that He died and rose again. After all, those are not my works or those of a saint or of all the people on earth. But how do I bring it about that this helps me and avails for me? Not otherwise than by faith. Paul declares that the Corinthians received this by faith, that they stand in it, and that they are saved by it. And a little later (v. 11) he will say again: “So we preach and so you believed.” Thus he impresses these two points everywhere as the chief article and the epitome of the Gospel, by which we become Christians and are saved, if we retain it and adhere to it firmly and not let it be preached in vain, as I have said often and in much greater detail” (Luther’s Works 28:75-76, 81-82).

Christianity, and particularly much of Lutheran Christianity, has taken some pretty interesting twists and turns in recent years. Not limited to the United States, but perhaps more endemic here than elsewhere, the past four to five decades have seen a wholesale abandonment of doctrines of the Christian faith in favour of a number of false gospels and false religions masquerading as Christian love.

On one end of the spectrum, much of mainline Christianity has collapsed into being a social or socialistic religion of love, as nebulously defined as possible. On the other end, American Evangelicalism has marketed an individualistic idea of love represented by the demand, if not command, to have a “personal relationship” with Jesus Christ, as if the second person of the Trinity incarnate could be anything but personal. By merely praying to “accept Jesus into your heart,” whatever that might entail, one is supposedly saved, and another notch is made on the tally board after the altar call. What, however, do those individuals “accepting” Jesus really know about Jesus, and which Jesus are they finding so acceptable? In this blind date, blind faith relationship, what differentiates a “personal relationship” from a “designer relationship” with Jesus?

In either direction, love seems to lead the charge to marginalize sound theological teaching (doctrine) in favour of social or individual interpersonal goodwill. Thus, one frequently hears phrases like, “It does not matter what the denomination teaches as long as they go to church.” Similarly, “There is only one God, just different ways to get to him (or her or it).” Also, “God is love. The best way to serve God is just to be loving.” Perhaps worst of all, “COEXIST.”

With this mind set, well-intentioned “churches” compete to make the Christian faith as bland as possible, paradoxically, to attract people to the Christian faith! Rather than offer the Christian faith, however, what people get is little more than a “warm-funzy” religious experience called Christian worship. According to this philosophy, by “dumbing down” the Bible and sound doctrine and meaningful worship, somehow church will magically become not only attractive but also acceptable to non-believers! Consequently, such “loving” intentions leave the church, its message, and its worship to be defined not by God and his word but rather by what church leaders think nominal Christians and even non-Christians want! Making Christian mission into non-Christian mission, all in the name of love and religious good works, could hardly be more backwards.

What might Luther make of such ideas? He would call them a heinous crime. In fact, for Luther violating the worship of God, and the sound doctrine behind it, is a greater crime “than murder, adultery, or another crime.” In his commentary on Deuteronomy, Luther writes,

“For to sin against the worship of God is to sin against faith and the Word. Here one should give no heed to love or sympathy, since by it God is offended and lost, together with the Word, which is the leader, light, teaching, and rule of the whole life and of all works; when you have lost it, no work can be guided, no life established. When you sin against love, but the Word and doctrine remain intact meanwhile, only the work is lost, and it can be restored and repaired according to the rule of the Word. So immeasurable is the distance that separates a sin against faith and the Word from a sin against love and works. For love bears all, endures all (1 Cor. 13:7). Faith bears nothing, and the Word endures nothing; the Word must be perfectly pure, and doctrine must always be thoroughly sound, that it may be the goal of life and the guide for works. Love can be infirm and impure, and must be daily increased and made perfect” (Luther’s Works, 9:166).

In that light, if we really loved our neighbours, then more than anything else we should and would want to give them the perfect gift, namely the pure Word of God. By giving them the pure Word of God we are giving them the pure love of God (John 1:1-18, 3:16), which makes our sinful ideations of love pale into insignificance. In this time of Lent, how prepared and able is St. Luke’s, individually and collectively, to offer the pure Word of God and thus the pure love of God to those for whom Christ, the word of God incarnate, died?

The word “crisis” comes from the Greek meaning a time of decision. More commonly, we often think of a crisis as a major problem or as some type of disaster. Often in emergency situations, a decision is needed quickly, and this often plays into the perception of crisis being an eventful, perhaps even traumatic affair.

Over the past few years, we at St. Luke’s Lutheran Church have had to make a few decisions or have decided not to make decisions. What should we do with the pastor? Should we change our worship services, or not? How many worship services should we have? At what times should we have services and Sunday School? What type of budget can we afford? How do we help visitors feel welcomed enough to return? Should we leave our denomination and join another? Should we remodel some or all of our fellowship spaces?

The life of a congregation is full if decisions. Some of them are indeed filled with excitement. Others are accompanied by frustration, anger, and disillusionment. Because of these emotions, a time of decision can be a crisis in the common sense of the word.

In the coming year, we will continue to face more decisions. How will we weather the loss of many of our dearest members? Will we have enough people to assist with the various tasks at church, from preparing Sunday refreshments, to setting up the church for special occasions, to assisting visitors and newer members to feel comfortable increasing their participation in congregational life? Should we extend our interim constitution or draft another to replace it? The expected and the unexpected will arise and will demand us to make decisions, perhaps in ways which we might experience as a crisis.

As already indicated, change and crisis (making decisions) seem to go hand in hand. Most of us do not relish change. Some of us avoid change at almost any cost. New Year’s resolutions speak of change, but we often realize that such changes are only cosmetic and fleeting in nature. We say, “This year I will attend church more often,” or “I would like to increase my offering.” Then, we realize that Little Freddie needs to attend a sporting event on Sundays. Sadly, those bills from our “real” daily life hardly seem to get any smaller. Worse yet, we realize that no one named Little Freddie lives in our home!

From the perspective of having to make decisions, we human beings are always in crisis, except in our relationship to God. On the one hand, in our sin and its associated self-centeredness, we have to make decisions in our daily lives, even our church lives. On the other hand, in relation to God we do not and cannot make the right decisions because we are trapped in our sin. This “bondage to sin” from which we cannot free ourselves, then, affects how we make decisions in relation to ourselves, to our lives, and to our church and its mission. When not taken in relation to God’s decision for us and our salvation in Christ Jesus, “our” decisions become a compounded crisis either in our personal lives or in our church life or both.

In this crisis situation, what are we to do? In short, there is nothing that we can do. God has made the decision. In the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God has decided for us! By the promise of his word made flesh dwelling among us, God has decided to love and to accept and to forgive and to renew and to heal and to do wonderful things in our lives and our church life. These gifts from God we cannot rightfully do ourselves. We can only share them with others as God has graciously given them to us.

As we venture into 2013, let us live together in the treasured gift of God’s word in Christ Jesus, our Lord, and thereby strive together in and with that same word to make our decisions together in the knowledge and faith that God’s word will create for us our fellowship and our future.

Many parishes in the Roman Church are named Church of the Assumption or sometimes Church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This name is derived from the notion, originating in the fourth century, that Mary was “assumed” (Latin, assumptio = taken up) into heaven at the end of her life. Pope Benedict XIV (1675-1758) asserted that denial of this notion was impious and blasphemous. On 01 November 1950, Pope Pius XII declared this notion to be infallible doctrine. Later, the Second Vatican Council affirmed that “the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things” (Lumen Gentium, n. 59). Importantly, the phrase “when her earthly life was over” leaves the question open whether Mary actually died or not.

Unfortunately, the “assumption of Mary” has no biblical foundation and no historical facticity. Like the idea that Mary was conceived “immaculately” (without sin), the assumed doctrine of her heavenly assumption draws her earthly life to a close in a seemingly wondrous and yet truly nebulous way. Is such doctrine, however, actually Christian?

For Protestants, such teachings about Mary are not only improbable but seem themselves to be impious and blasphemous. Contrary to its intent, the assumed doctrine of Mary’s “immaculate conception” can neither shield nor protect her son from sin. Instead, it intentionally aborts Jesus as the saviour of the world. Since a truly gracious God would extend sinless conceptions beyond Mary to cover all humanity, this misconceived doctrine effectively empties Jesus of any significance. Consequently, Mary’s immaculate womb becomes Jesus’ nativity tomb, and her assumption into heavenly glory renders his resurrection a vacuous story.

Like the assumption of Mary, every church denomination conceives and harbours misconceptions about the Christian faith which are often believed without scriptural and rational basis. These assumptions are conceived because human beings actively seek answers and explanations to life’s experiences. Simply put, if human beings do not know an answer when perplexed, they will invent one! Once an invented answer takes root in human minds and societies, it often becomes difficult, if not impossible to dispel. Recall how long the church itself not only fought to maintain the assumption that the world was flat and the universe revolved around the earth but also persecuted those who knew these misconceptions to be false.

So, what happens when sinful human beings with all manner of individual and communal, religious and non-religious assumptions gather together? The answer is a congregation. Unfortunately, every member of any congregation, brings her or his sinful, assumptive imagination into a religious setting, ready and willing to bestow his or her opinionated answers to the meaning of life, the world, and everything on those assembled. Unfortunately, sinners assume that scripture and reason will certainly agree with their assumptions.

For example, because some people call themselves Lutheran, they frequently assume that whatever they think, feel, or say must indeed be Lutheran, regardless of what Christ, scripture, and the Lutheran confessions may say to the contrary. Likewise, those who interpret scripture based on their subjective sinfulness, rather than in relation to the living word of God, namely Jesus Christ, spend most of their lives using the Bible as a proof-text for their own self-righteousness. Even more mundane, how often do church leaders and members forego feigning theology altogether in favour of propagating gossip? If Christians spread the gospel as fast as gossip, Christ’s second coming would have taken place before his ascension!

Assumptions become dangerous, even fatal, when their accompanying expectations go unfulfilled. Jesus’ disciples, his church leaders, his king, and the imperial governor occupying his homeland all made assumptions about Jesus, his mission, and his kingdom. When Jesus failed to fulfil their assumptions, they conceived an immaculate plot to assume his heavenly glory by nailing him to a tree and stuffing him in the ground. Tragically, each succeeding generation in the Church of the Assumption assembles itself to do the same.

In stark contradiction thereto, the word of the cross raises the church of Jesus Christ into life in order to proclaim him alone as the way and the truth and the life (John 14:6). This Christian church “is the assembly of all believers among whom the gospel is purely preached and the holy sacraments are administered according to the gospel. For this is enough for the true unity of the Christian church that there the gospel is preached harmoniously according to a pure understanding and the sacraments are administered in conformity with the divine Word …” (Article VII, Augsburg Confession, Tappert, 43).

Through the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ is calling us to abandon the Church of the Assumption and to assert the pure proclamation of his gospel as the “soul” power of God by which believing sinners are justified by faith solely in Jesus Christ.