Pastor Mark's Blog

In chapter eight of Mark’s Gospel, Jesus asks his students two questions, Generally, he asks, “Who do the people say that I am?” Then, turning to his students, he probes, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter replies, “You are the Christ” (Mark 8:27, 29).

Then, later in chapter 13, Jesus says, “And if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ Do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, even the elect” (Mark 13:21-22). So, whom should one believe when asked questions about Jesus; perhaps Peter telling folks who the Christ is or Jesus telling folks to not believe people telling folks who the Christ is?

This apparent dilemma has befuddled the followers of Jesus since his earthly lifetime. For Martin Luther, the problem became particularly acute at the time of the Reformation. It then exploded exponentially among all so-called Protestants. So, what is the nature of this dilemma?

Obviously, the dilemma itself predates the Reformation and Jesus’ earthly life, stretching all the way back to the beginning of humanity when Adam and Eve started listening to and trusting other voices than God’s. This resultant lack of trust in God alone theologians call sin, a condition in which all humanity is trapped. In short, human sin is simply but devastatingly unbelief in the one true God. The First of the Ten Commandment seeks to address this problem, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3). Although this commandment likewise seems a simple solution, human beings by their nature fail to honour this commandment. Consequently, the remaining nine commandments also cannot be fully honoured.

So, where is the problem if Christians all purport to observe the First Commandment by believing in Jesus Christ? Like all laws, their application is open to interpretation, with lawyers arguing their points and judges making determinations. Since judgements at various levels are often contradictory or overturned, most countries have some form of high or supreme court to make final adjudication. Christians believe that too, namely in Jesus, whom they confess in Apostles’ Creed to be the judge of the living and the dead!

Until that final judgement, however, Christians languish seemingly at the level of adversarial lawyers offering diverse opinions, which tend to fall into two main categories. The first says that there is only one God portrayed by differing but equally valid interpretations or perspectives. The second says that there is only one true God with all other deific manifestations being rightly called false gods or idols, and even false christs. Whereas the biblical witness favours the latter position, unfortunately Christians in practice tend to clamour to the first. This explains the theological and denominational differences which bedevil Christianity and also explains why substantive discussion of God has practically vanished from recent ecumenical endeavours. God is simply too divisive for ecclesial unity!

How does this work in real life? Take a difference between the Roman Church and Baptists. The Roman Church baptizes infants, and Baptists generally do not. So, who is right? The answer depends upon one’s understanding of God. According to the first view above, these two churches have merely differing opinions on the same God, i.e. God recognizes infant baptisms in one church but not the other, but what kind of a sacrament is that? What kind of a god is that? According to the second view, one is confronted with two different “gods” because God either does or does not allow and recognize infant baptism. This, however, would necessarily mean that one church is wrong. So, is God wishy-washy on baptism or are human beings awash with sincere belief in false christs? Which is right?

At the time of the Reformation, Luther, following Jesus’ lead, advocated the exclusive understanding of one true God over against the myriad of false gods, christs, and prophets which the sinful, human imagination continually invents. In his interpretation of the First Commandment in his Large Catechism, Luther states, “If your faith and trust are right, then your God is the true God. On the other hand, if your trust is false and wrong, then you have not the true God.” So, how does one know whether one believes in the one “true God” or not? Is this not sinful subjectivism run amok?

No, it is the reality of the gospel purely proclaimed or not.

Because of our human sin, churches always face the same dilemma; they either confess and preach salvation in the one true Christ alone (by grace alone received through faith alone created by the word alone), or they offer their adherents a pseudo-christ or pseudo-christs of their own ecclesial imagination. Purely proclaiming the one true Christ is not a matter of subjective opinion or ecclesial tradition or denominational determination. Instead, it is the word and work of the Holy Spirit who “calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith,” as Luther would say in his Small Catechism.

With that in mind, are we at St. Luke’s Lutheran Church able and willing with the Holy Spirit’s leading to engage with Scripture in order to teach and preach the one true crucified and resurrected Jesus Christ as purely as possible, or do we prefer to shy away from our vocation by offering our own personal perspectives informed by our sin-cere and quasi-religious imaginations? In other words, as a church are we theologically prepared to undertake our calling with clarity and conviction? If so, how do we know?

Christians always face a dilemma. What to do about the church? Followed by much ado about the church. So, what is the church? What are its “marks,” as theologians phrase it? How is it made? What can we do to build it? Which part of the Bible gives us the definitive answers?

These questions have literally bedeviled Christians since the inception of the church, whenever that was, and theologians, church historians, and denominational leaders expend no shortage of time and energy fighting about such things. These disputes help to create the divisions in the church, and attempted resolution of these disputes (institutional ecumenism) paradoxically creates even more divisions in the church. Nonetheless, we sinful human beings relentlessly think that if we get the form or formula just right, then the church will simply fall into place.

Historically, and still today, some say that the church is built on a pope who is necessary for unity (Roman Catholics). Some say that the church is structured around bishops in so-called “historic succession” (Episcopalians). Others say that only “adults” believe enough to be baptized (Baptists). Others yet structure their church around the leadership of “elders” (Presbyterians). Some expect a methodological expression of the “holy life” (Methodists). Still others throw their hands into the air, avoid contrived structures, and leave it up to the Holy Spirit (Pentecostalists). The variations on these various streams of Christianity seem innumerable. So, who is getting it right?

In apparent contrast to mainline churches, modern attempts to get the church “right” are less denominationally definable. These approaches study sociological trends and research, employ secular marketing techniques, and adopt social/societal dynamics and the like to make the church “relevant” to potentially religious consumers. These secular approaches are typically dressed up in religious language and often fitted with biblical paradigms to lend them “credibility” (credo, creed).

The institutional ecumenists, perhaps best termed ecclesial elitists, summon all Christians to “head home to Rome.” The modernists, perhaps best called ecclesial entrepreneurs, seek to capitalize on the untapped (unchurched) religious market through secular means. Although seemingly diametrically opposed to each other, both approaches are essentially the same. They both advocate forms or formulas, if done properly, which will get the church “just right.” Unfortunately, Lutherans both within and between their various denominations often find themselves sharply divided between these two trends.

So, why is the biblical message, the gospel of Jesus Christ, in and of itself apparently not enough for large swaths of “Christianity”? Why does the word of God, by which God created everything, apparently need denominational or secular crutches to gain and maintain a foothold in the world? What has gone wrong?

In 1531, Luther wrote, “I wanted to say this in rebuttal to those stiff-necked boasters who constantly chatter about the church, the church, the church, although they do not know what the church or its holiness is. They simply pass over that and make the church so holy that Christ has to become a liar on account of it, and his words are robbed of all their validity.”

When sinful human beings state, act, or imply in any way, formula, or form that the word of God, the gospel of Jesus Christ properly differentiated from the law, is not sufficient to create the faith alone by which sinners are “made right” (justified) before God, then they truly rob Christ’s words of their validity. Sinners, by their sinful nature, are not meet, right, and salutary. They are wrong and can only be made right (justified) by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. When God gathers these justified sinners together through the pure proclamation of his gospel, then Christ alone through the promises in his crucifixion and resurrection makes the church happen, brings the priesthood of all believers into action, and makes it “just right,” i.e. holy and righteous before God, apart from any human work.

Luther continues, “Against this, we in turn must shout exultantly, ‘Say what you will about the church, let it be as holy as you please, still Christ cannot become a liar on that account.’ In its teaching, praying, and believing the church confesses that it is a sinner before God and that it often errs and sins; but Christ is truth itself and can neither lie nor sin. Therefore, insofar as the church lives and speaks in the Word and faith of Christ, it is holy and (as St. Paul says [I Cor. 7:34]) righteous in spirit. And insofar as it acts and speaks without Christ’s word and faith, it errs and sins. But whoever makes an article of faith out of the sinful deed and word of the church defames both church and Christ as liars” (Luther’s Works, 34:76-77).

As sinners, we cannot create faith or holiness, i.e. make Christians or disciples. Instead, we can only preach and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ as purely as possible whereby Christ creates the faith which justifies sinners into his church. That is why the doctrine of justification by faith alone is the article by which the church stands or falls (articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae). In other words, all the ecclesial forms and formulas of sinful human beings rightly cause the church to fall everywhere but into place. Only the word of God, however, raises the body of Christ, the priesthood of all believers, from the power of sin and death to live its mission of communicating the gospel of its head, its lord and saviour, to all the world, soli Deo gloria.

Summer is officially here. School is out for most children. Consequently, summertime is the time when most people take a vacation, as we Americans call it. Other strands of the English language describe such events as “going on holiday,” from the old usage of refraining from work on a religious “holy day” observed at various points in the church calendar year.

Being somewhat more secular from its inception, however, in American one does not “go on holiday” but rather one “takes a vacation.” A vacation, taken from the Latin verb vacare, means “to leave empty,” and when Americans go “on vacation,” they often leave their places of employment, their homes, and their seats (and offering plates) in church empty. Despite this “negative” connotation, most Americans think positively of vacation, of this “leaving empty,” as an opportunity for rest, relaxation, or adventure. For some, this often means that vacation is filled with all manner of “unholy” activities both day and night.

To combine the notions of “holiday” and “vacation” more constructively, Christians are reminded of the centerpiece of our faith, namely the event of Easter Sunday. On that day, Jesus created a holiday (holy day) by leaving his tomb empty! Human sin and death were transformed into divine righteousness and eternal life so that through faith alone sinful human beings might live with God, holy forever.

To continue this linguistic game on a more mundane plane, what should we make of the concept “Vacation Bible School” (VBS)? On one hand, VBS takes place during “vacation” when Americans leave work and school. Such “vacation,” as mentioned, provides an opportunity for rest, relaxation, and even adventure. Nowadays, adventure, whether biblical or even quasi-biblical, seems to be a necessary ingredient for VBS.

On the other hand, many people are left empty by the term “Vacation Bible School.” Although VBS was originally directed at children and their parents whose lives were actually or effectively empty of the Bible, one needs to ask, who really wants to go to “school” during vacation? Also, despite attempts to make VBS into an adventure of biblical proportions, most VBS curricula seem empty compared to modern fantasy adventures of video games, multimedia entertainment, and theme parks. What can an old book about long forgotten times say to tech savvy people today?

Perhaps we need to reassess our questioning. Why did Jesus vacate the tomb into which he had been laid? How did he get into that tomb in the first place? Why was he here in human time and space at all?

Since creation, humanity has been dogged by the fact that it has left itself empty of faith in God’s word and work. When it vacated God’s word, humanity was forced to vacate the Garden of Eden. Ever since then, human history tells the story of people desperately trying to fill the voids in their lives with any and every means possible, whether constructive or not. As modern advertising shows, people are enticed to spend their money to spend their waking moments trying to fill their stomachs, senses, needs, desires, and so forth with all and sundry in order to stave off preoccupation with our eventual full-time occupation of those empty places called graves.

So, in answer to our questions about Jesus above, St. Paul wrote words long ago which continue to speak to humanity in every day and age:

“So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any incentive of love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:1-11).

As the son of God, Jesus vacated himself in order that we might be filled with the spirit of his word and work, all active through faith alone granted in Christ alone as communicated to us in scripture alone. Thus, for us Christians, everyday filled with Christ and his word is a lesson in vacation Bible school, looking not to our own interests and needs but to the interests and needs of other sinners. Living with this mind of Christ, we too are called to empty ourselves in order that through the gospel of Jesus Christ those whom we encounter might live wholly and holy in him forever.

In July, Americans observe the Fourth of the month as our national Day of Independence.  If any of us know any wording from the Declaration of Independence, signed on July 4^th, it is typically the phrase, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Our nation’s founding fathers were much better politicians and diplomats than they were theologians.  Scripture talks plenty of life and of liberty (or freedom), but the “pursuit of Happiness” is sorely lacking in biblical support.  Thomas Jefferson never explained why he inserted this phrase, coined in 1759 by Samuel Johnson, into the Declaration of Independence.  The idea “pursuit of Happiness” is not only bad theology, but it causes no end of trouble for the human race as a whole.

The “pursuit of Happiness” would be a grand ideal if it were not for the reality of human sin.  If we read scripture, even not so carefully, we nearly always find that the “pursuit of Happiness” guided by human sin leads us not only away from God but also leads us into all kinds of trouble.  “Pursuing” something implies that we do not already have something, as if God will not provide for us.  Pursuing what makes “us” happy makes “us” the point of reference for our lives when that reference point should be God.  Were not Adam and Eve “pursuing Happiness” when they grabbed a hold of the forbidden fruit?

Nonetheless, we as Americans (and as sinners worldwide) think that we have a God-given right to be happy.  We even demand that God must make “us” happy.  In that same vein, those called formally to service in the church, however that is defined, must also make “us” happy.  If they do not, there is often hell to pay!  How much of our “church shopping” in the USA is based on feeling good rather than on finding good theology?

From a biblical perspective, because sinners have continually pursued their own happiness, God has throughout history pursued sinners precisely in order to liberate them from this dead end venture.  Jesus gave up his divine freedom and eternal life not to make us happy but to call us holy.  God knows when he has deemed us holy (trusting in Christ) that we are truly liberated for life.  Is there any greater happiness than being united with Christ by faith alone now and into all eternity?

While the rest of the country and the world is vainly seeking their happiness in sinful pursuits, let us trust and bear witness that our true independence comes from our total dependence upon the God who have his son on a cross to make us free (eleutheros in Greek) and thus Lutheran (see John 8:31-38).  Scripture calls persons set free by faith alone in Jesus Christ “holy ones.”  If we are not totally happy with that, then we have missed the point of the Christian faith.

We sometimes use the phrase that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” when we try, somewhat cynically, to find the good in someone’s actions which have somehow not met (our) expectations, or worse, which have actually caused more harm than good. This common phrase is more poignant theologically than would appear at first or even second glance.

Paradoxically, the phrase itself, “good intentions” seems to contradict the notion of “hell,” no matter how we might define both terms. Should not good intentions of themselves produce good? More forcefully, how can good intentions not effect good? Furthermore, if good intentions are reflections of the persons so acting, would it not be problematic to insinuate that such persons are wittingly or unwitting leading folks to hell?

So, how do sinners know what a good intention is, let alone decide what a whole host of good intentions are? What is our reference point? What criteria are fitting? If a traditional definition of sin is being turned in upon our selves (incurvatus in se), then sinners by nature use themselves as their reference point for their good intentions. In that light, how can the “good intentions” of sinners lead anywhere else but away from God, i.e. to hell?

The only phrase in the Apostles’ Creed lacking explicit biblical support is the notion that Jesus “descended into hell.” Based on the prevailing judgement of the religious leaders of his day, and the crowds and the Roman authorities, Jesus was scourged and crucified out of the best of intentions. According to John’s gospel, Caiaphas explains “that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed” (John 11:50). When Jesus “descended into hell” he descended into the midst of our personal, social, religious, and political good intentions. Incuravatus in se is a very vicious circle.

If the road to hell is figuratively and literally paved with our good intentions, then how is the road to heaven constructed? How is it recognized, and how do we know when we are on it? The word for road or way in (biblical) Greek is odos (for example, an odometer measures how far we have travelled along the road or on our way). According to St. John, Jesus describes himself as “the way [odos] the truth and the life” (John 14:6), and St. Matthew writes, “For the gate is narrow and the road [odos] is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matthew 7:14).

Churches of all denominations view themselves as having a mission. That mission is reflected in the theology, leadership, and people of each denominational persuasion. Those churches most likely have more good intentions than they do people, and St. Luke’s is no exception. This means also for us that exercising our individual and communal good intentions runs the risk at every turn (in upon ourselves) of undermining the mission inaugurated in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. What a quandary we face!

Apart from his crucifixion, what have we sinful human beings contributed to Jesus Christ being and creating both the way of life and the way that leads to life? If we have not had and do not have anything constructive to contribute in God’s soulful endeavour in Christ, then why do Christians continually use ourselves and our experiences as the points of reference for the churches’ mission and actions?

St. Paul writes, “When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: ‘Death is swallowed up in victory.’ ‘O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?’ The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain” (I Corinthians 15:54-58).

By raising Jesus Christ from the dead, God has made us sinners the point of reference for his salvific work as a pure gift of grace. Not our sin, but instead our justification by faith alone is the way in which Christ leads and carries us through life and into eternal life. How can we at St. Luke’s Lutheran Church best reflect and communicate this gift of God’s justifying grace in all our words and works?