Pastor Mark's Blog

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.

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.