Contented Nihilism?

So, we live in a Post-Modern, Post-Christian age. The Church has tried to respond to this reality in many and various ways. Some have tried to embrace it, maintaining that "Post-Moderns" are at least open to spirituality, if not tradition. Others have determined to "ride it out", planting their feet firmly in tradition and reassuring themselves by the timeless promises of Christ to those who persevere. While others, still, try to ignore or deny our Post-Modern culture.

While I was never in favor of embracing the Post-Modern philosophy and/or worldview, I once thought that the Church could take advantage of the seeming openness of Post-Moderns to spirituality. I don't think that any longer. While we cannot ignore or deny the Post-Modern worldview, we can neither embrace it. It's like the cliche that I'm now infamous for saying in my congregation: "If you dance with the devil, pretty soon he's going to take the lead."

What I observe today is a sort of contented nihilism. People, young people especially, seem to not really believe in any sort of existence after death -- and they're content, happy, with that. There's no concern, no despair, just..... nothing. It seems to me that eastern philosophy has finally impregnated western culture and given birth. This is Star Wars Buddhism at its worst. The following are lyrics from a song I actually enjoy very much which capture this contented nihilism of which I'm writing:

Death Cab for Cutie
"I Will Follow You Into the Dark"

Love of mine some day you will die
But I'll be close behind
I'll follow you into the dark

No blinding light or tunnels to gates of white
Just our hands clasped so tight
Waiting for the hint of a spark
If heaven and hell decide
That they both are satisfied
Illuminate the no's on their vacancy signs

If there's no one beside you
When your soul embarks
Then I'll follow you into the dark



This sweet sounding little song expresses a sentiment of jaded hopelessness -- at the best, purgatory; at the worst, kind of a melancholy death wish akin to many Romantic Period British poets. It seems that non-existence is preferable, for many Post-Moderns, to any kind of religious, spiritual belief in an after-life. Perhaps non-existence is preferable to existence, now!

The same band, on the same album, expresses this sentiment: "Love is watching someone die." Now, to be fair, that lyric is from a song called "What Sarah said", and it's really quite a nice, meaningful song about a man who is dying and appreciates the love that his wife shows him by waiting, watching, and ministering to him as he dies. At the end of the song he laments "Who's going to watch you die?", because he will be gone. But even with that poignant sentiment, there's no sense of a life after death of any kind, not the least a Christian understanding of eternal life.

I'm not optimistic about the potential to reach Post-Modern youth. To use Marx's phrase today, Post-Modernism is the "opiate of the masses". Our youth are on philosophical drugs. They are so thoroughly saturated by and under the influence of this Neo-Relativism that, not only are they incapable of seeing the truth, they don't care to see it or even believe that there is such a thing. God help them. Only He can.

A Singular Gift

The picture is of my, now departed, Lucy. I loved that cat. She had such a personality. Now, my other siamese, Maddie, is near the end of her run. So, here I am thinking about death. And life. And love. And why. And... . Anyway, when Lucy died, three years ago, I wrote the following prose-poem. Again, it is deeply personal, so I beg your pardon and ask that you oblige me, or, simply, don't read it if you are repulsed by such sentimentality. But, I think that this poem succinctly confesses my understanding of man's relationship with the animal world, and with nature in general, that is why I share it with you.

A Singular Gift

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth’.” Genesis 1:27-28

Lucy, you were, and are, a precious gift of God.
You were preparation for a child when I was childless.
You were a reflection, a dim, but true, shadow of unconditional love and child-like faith.
God gave you to me, a gift, to love and to care for; you gave back to me, a gift, His love.
Your simple trust, innocence, and contentment are, for me, a symbol of the faith that God desires: simple, unencumbered, prepared to receive, content.

Nothing made you happier than to be with me, to knead your paws upon my middle.
Your eyes would close in blissful contentment and your purr would rumble from the depths of your happy heart.
You were gentle, loving, and gregarious beyond expectation of your breed.
You were a friend and a companion honest and true.

You did not withhold yourself from me, and, for six years, I did not withhold from you.
When the children came, you took a diminished place, as was proper and necessary.
Yet, in the quiet times, you were always ready to share time with me when I would share it with you.

Temptation to mourn the brevity of your life arises, naturally – but, what could that mean?
The time we had was the time that was given, and there is no other.
You were a gift, a singular gift – not even the most important gift – but a gift, nonetheless.
I thank my Father for you – for the time, and now, for the memories.
And I hope, that, in some unknown way, I was a gift of God to you.
I will remember you with tearful joy.
I love you, my Lu.

War and Canon for M.L.E.

The following is a prose-poem I wrote when my father died almost twenty years past. I was nineteen. He is buried in the town of his birth, Ada, Minnesota, in the northwest corner of the state, just east of the border with North Dakota, the Red River Valley. My father used to repeat a number of humorous cliches, one of which was "What do you know about war? You never fired a cannon." This is a deeply personal poem, but I share it with any who care to read it because I am intrigued by my young, naive, theological thoughts, blended, as they were, with philosophy, and even pagan ideas. I was trying to work those things out. I guess I still am. Anyway, maybe you'll find it interesting too.

War & Canon for M. L. E.

I don't know much about war and
I've never fired a cannon, but
I know what it is to be 19 and
to lose a man I did not realize that
I was just beginning to want to know.

Often required is just such a shot straight
between the eyes to wake the dead;
it is a most unoriginal theme, after all, death
giving rise to life.
It took your death to begin my life;
I did not want it to happen, yet I have benefited.
Shall I be thankful?

Where is my family? Scattered south, west;
scattered.
You have made your home in Northern Ground.
I would not pretense nor blaspheme that
your voice is heard in the whispering of wild rice;
but what is it that sombers my soul driving
north highway nine?
For, now I am drawn.
To my father, yes, but to my father's land.
I find no physical footing upon where I stand;
I am drawn to a spiritual footing in this Northern Land.

Mother is fine. She has found second love and another
in her.
Second love, less not than first, nevertheless, second.
Happy, now, and complete.
Your children struggle. Yet, this is good.
Your firstborn is successful, a wonderful mother with
two marvelous children.
I know not her struggle, yet, she grows and learns,
possible not without struggle.
Your second lives struggle and struggle has lived her.
At times it seems she has not been dealt a fair hand
in life; she does not complain or ask for pity,
she is strong.
I am your youngest, the one who knew you least.
I struggle mostly with myself.
Childhood was pleasant and without incident;
highschool was not as bad as it might have seemed.
But I was dead.
God shot me straight between the eyes and woke me up!
You died, and now I live.
Am I thankful?
I thank God that His mysterious will is done.
Thank you.

What have you taught me; to be a lover and not
a fighter? I am neither.
Yet, I do love, and passionately. Patience, gentleness;
thine virtues, now mine. Thank you.
I have neither your work nor your strength yet,
I have my mind because of your work
and your strength.
I have your will, now, to love God;
His gift to us both.
Yet, still, I know little about war and
I've never fired a cannon.

I Am No Protestant!

I have always had a certain revulsion to the word ‘Protestant’ and have even taken quiet offense when the title was assigned to me personally. “I am no Protestant,” I would protest (pun intended!), “I am an Evangelical (Reformed) Catholic!” And then I would argue that “Martin Luther did not wish to leave his beloved Mother Church, but to correct the errors with which sinful men had shackled Her.” Luther is likely rolling over in his grave to know that those influenced by him boastfully bear the name ‘Protestant’ as a badge of honor, and even more that the church of the Reformation bears his name.

The word ‘Protestant’ today is linked with countless beliefs and practices that are in blatant opposition to the principles of the Reformation, indeed, to the teachings of Scripture: the disposal of the historic liturgy, the introduction of ‘praise band’ led contemporary worship, an improper emphasis on the third person of the Holy Trinity, contempt for the Office of the Holy Ministry, disdain for the Sacraments, a confusion of the roles of men and women, a covetous acquiescence to the world and popular culture, an emphasis on works, a theology of glory aimed solely at quantitative growth in membership and finances, rampant Gospel reductionism, the teaching that the Muslim god (or any other god) is the One True God, the teaching that homosexuality and homosexual unions (civil or otherwise) are not sinful and detestable in the sight of God, the defense of abortion and of scientific research that would encourage abortion, etc., etc., ad nauseum. To this we must boldly say, “We are no Protestants!”

However, the word ‘Protestant’ has undergone a radical shift in meaning since the time of the Reformation. Luther and the Reformers did not choose this title for themselves, but it was placed upon them by the Papists. The desire of the Reformers was simply to correct the doctrinal and practical errors of the Church; the Papists indicted the Reformers as protestors set fully against Mother Church. And so, the Reformers did indeed become protestors, not against Mother Church, but protestors against the corrupt leaders who had hijacked the Church and had stolen away the Gospel. Luther plead to the Lord for assistance in “a children’s hymn, to be sung against the two arch-enemies of Christ and His holy Church, the Pope and the Turk”: Lord, keep us steadfast in Thy Word; curb those who fain by craft and sword would wrest the Kingdom from Thy Son and set at naught all He hath done.

The Latin proverb “Ecclesia semper reformanda”, the church is always being reformed, is certainly true today. Today our own Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod has been hijacked by those who boastfully bear the name ‘Protestant’. However, today’s ‘Protestants’ are not the Reformers of the 16^th century but are more akin to the Papists.

The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod had long been viewed by other church bodies, either in reassuring hopefulness or in bitter disdain, as the last stronghold of Confessional Lutheranism. Indeed, all seemingly wait to see what will happen to Missouri. Will She remain steadfast in the Word of God and Her Confession, or will She capitulate to the popular culture and its gods and the overwhelming tide of the apostate church? This much is certain, in the end only one thing will save the Missouri Synod and make her suitable as a vehicle for the preservation of the pure Lutheran Confession – the Word. Lord, keep us steadfast in Thy Word.

In many ways, the challenges facing the Church today are the same as those at the time of the Reformation; indeed, Ecclesia semper reformanda. “Let us be clear. Our battle today is over the Gospel; it always is. The struggles of the church militant are always about the Gospel. And this means that our desire to see the Missouri Synod remain faithful to our historic doctrine and practice is not simply so that our own members will continue to hear God’s truth and be saved by it. Surely we wish this. But it is also so that those who do not know God’s love and grace in Christ His Son will also be able to hear it.”

“A church without a confession is no church at all and that a Lutheran church without a truly Lutheran confession has no right to call itself Lutheran. The Missouri Synod has begun to walk in the same direction as the more liberal American Lutheran churches. And what will the result be if Missouri continues in that direction? Surely those whose objective is the visible unity of world Christianity would see such a course as a good thing for it would probably lead to the eventual merger of the Missouri Synod with the rest of American Lutheranism. And that would lead to a worldwide Lutheran Church without a confession. The churches of the left and the middle are still waiting for Missouri. Everything is still waiting for the fall of Missouri. Then the way would finally be open for a Lutheran world church without a confession.”

The Church of Christ is always the Church Militant, the Church at war – at war against the world, at war against the popular culture, at war against false doctrine and heresy, at war against the devil. The Word of God is the first and foremost weapon that the Church wields and by it alone are doctrines judged and errors revealed and corrected. Lord, keep us steadfast in Thy Word.

It was to the Word that Luther turned in the Church’s dark hour of the soul: The righteous shall live by faith (Romans 1:17). It is to the Word that the Church must turn and cling in these dark times. “Let us hope and pray that God will deliver our Synod from doctrinal confusion and contradiction and will restore to us the undeserved gift of His truth and of true unity in it. Only He can!"

Quotes from: Marquart, Kurt, “The Future of Confessional Lutheranism: A Summary”, delivered at Confession and Christ’s Mission: Challenges to the Future of the LCMS, October 21, 2004, Melrose Park, IL.

Not Like Us

Let’s just face the facts: God is NOT like us. Truly, He became one of us, taking upon Himself our human flesh, in the incarnation of His Son, Jesus Christ, born of Mary, but He is not like us. His ways are not our ways; His wisdom seems like foolishness to us when, in truth, it is the other way around. We expect God to act in powerful, glorious ways: packed churches, incredible emotional experiences, voices, visions, and mysterious utterances, miraculous healings on the spot, “My God is an awesome God!” But He chooses to hide Himself in common, humble, ordinary things and people. He comes to us with His gifts of salvation and forgiveness through His Word, spoken, read, and preached. He comes to us in common and tasteless bread and inexpensive wine. He comes to us in plain, ordinary tap water that many of us refuse to drink. And through these ordinary, common means He does extraordinary and uncommon miracles. Stony hearts are plowed and broken by the power of His Word of Law and Gospel and the seed of faith is planted and nurtured. Our rebellious, sinful spirits are drowned, and a new holy spirit is given and raised in us. Common and ordinary bread and wine are also the true body and blood of Jesus that we may eat and drink and have a union with God that our human marriages are but a dim and broken reflection of. No, God is not like us; His ways are not our ways.

This paradox is a central tenant of our Lutheran confession of faith. Historically it is described in terms of the theology of the cross (God’s way) and the theology of glory (our way). One theologian has expressed the difference between these two theologies in this way:

The theology of glory seeks to know God directly in his obviously divine power, wisdom, and glory; whereas the theology of the cross paradoxically recognizes him precisely where he has hidden himself, in his sufferings and in all that which the theology of glory considers to be weakness and foolishness. The theology of glory leads humans to stand before God and strike a bargain on the basis of his or her ethical achievement in fulfilling the Law, whereas the theology of the cross views humans as being called to suffer. The cross of humans destroys their self-confidence so that now, instead of wanting to do something, they allow God to do everything for them. Such a person has been led from moralistic activism to pure receptivity.

Several questions are bound up in this distinction between the theology of the cross and a theology of glory: Where can I find God? How do I know if God is present and acting in my life? Why is there suffering in the world? Is God present and acting in my life even when I don’t feel that He is? My church doesn’t seem to be growing; are we doing something wrong, has God abandoned us? These are common questions, and perhaps you have asked them yourself. The theology of the cross assures us that God is present and acting for our good in the ways and places that He has promised to – in His Word, His Baptism, and His Supper. The efficacy of these means do not depend upon us: they do not depend upon how good or bad we have been, upon the strength of our faith, nor upon our emotions or how we feel. The Means of Grace (Word and Sacraments) depend upon God’s Word and promise alone; they accomplish that for which God instituted them and that which He promised because of Him and His promise alone, and that fully despite ourselves. The theology of the cross is an altogether different paradigm for how we view God and His work. It is altogether unlike that which we humans would think. The answer to these questions is always a paradox. God hides Himself in humble, common, weak, and foolish means and persons so that He might reveal Himself to us as a God of deep, profound and perfect sacrificial love, mercy, and forgiveness.

Christians are tempted to force God into compliance with our (fallen) expectations. In effect, we are guilty of the First Commandment, of setting up for ourselves (creating) an idol, a false god, whom we call the true God, a God that conforms to our expectations. We think that a church where God is present must be large and full and rich in programs and money and that a small, struggling church that remains steadfast to unpopular, but faithful, biblical doctrines (that homosexuality, abortion, sex outside of marriage, women’s ordination, works righteousness are sinful and wrong) is surely a church that God has abandoned. We think that we must experience and feel God present in us and in our worship in order to be certain that He is present, while God calls us to trust that He is present and working for our good, not because of our emotions, but because of His promise alone. We think that bread and wine, water, and word are nice traditions, if you like that sort of thing, but believe that God must be accessible in other, more impressive ways, and not confined to only these unimpressive and seemingly dead rites. Indeed, no man can confine God, but God confines Himself to Word and Sacraments, not to limit Himself, but to assure us, unconditionally, that He is truly present with His gifts of forgiveness, life and salvation that we may not search around aimlessly, but receive them in all confidence, boldness, and certainty. Repent. The attitudes and outlooks here described were the same held by those who rejected God’s plan of salvation in Jesus Christ so long ago, and they are held by those reject it still today.

In complete contrast to the theologian of Glory, the theologian of the Cross believes that:

1. God’s ways are paradoxical and hidden to human reason;

2. God’s favor is manifested in Jesus, in particular, His suffering, death and resurrection;

3. God is pleased only by Jesus.

The theology of Glory and the theology of the Cross are mutually exclusive. They are two completely different ways of understanding God. One is false, the other is true. One leads to death, the other to life. Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matthew 16:24-25). Ultimately, the theology of the cross is about sacrifice, humility, and a complete emptying of one’s self. This is what God displayed in His sacrificial giving of Himself, the body and blood of His Son Jesus, on the cross. By losing His life, He saved it, for us. We, as God’s dear children, are called to sacrifice ourselves, our selfish wants and desires, and our self-righteousness – to crucify our selves and die, that we might receive God’s gift of life and salvation in Jesus Christ. It’s all about Him (theology of the cross). It’s not about us (theology of glory).

God is truly worshiped and praised when we receive, accept, and believe what He has done and is doing in His way, not our way, and empty ourselves, sacrifice ourselves for others, and therefore, for Him. We worship God in humble submission to His ways, confessing our sins and receiving His gifts in Word and Sacraments. We praise and glorify God, not in words and hymns that bespeak our expectation of how glorious, awesome, and mighty He is, but in words and songs that proclaim His glory in His ways, though humility, sacrifice, and self-giving love.

Indeed, our God is an awesome God – just, not in the way we sinful men would think. Let us take up our crosses and follow Him in His Way, which is also Life and Truth, His sacrificial, Suffering Servant and Son, Jesus Christ. To God alone be all glory, power, and honor in and through Jesus Christ.

My 15 Minutes - Focus Group Recap

So, it's been about two and a half weeks since I went to NYC to participate in a Fox News focus group. It was my intention to post a recap immediately, however something called Advent and then Christmas came to pass. So, today I return to the blogosphere.

I did not actually sign anything prohibiting me from writing about my experience, though, I suppose that by participating I demonstrated consent to the statement that appeared in the initial e-mail I received from the Luntz group. Regardless, I don't intend to write anything that would discourage people from trusting the research conducted by Luntz nor to discourage people from participating in focus groups.

I took the train from Southeast (about 9 miles south of Pawling) direct to Grand Central Terminal. I could have taken the train directly from the Village of Pawling, but the Southeast station provides me a more flexible schedule. The travel time to Grand Central is about 1 hr. 15 min. It's a reasonably relaxing ride providing me time to do some reading -- at that time "God Is Not Great" by renowned atheist Christopher Hitchens. From Grand Central it was about 3 blocks west and 5 blocks north to Fox News studios (just west and south of Rockefeller Center). If you know NYC, then you know that these are long, very congested blocks. It probably only took me about 20 mins, but I was winded when I got to the studios. There's really no excuse for anyone working or living in Manhattan to be overweight or out of shape!

At the studio, after showing ID, I was whisked away with three other groupies who had arrived at the same time to a hallway several floors underground. There was set up a curtain partition behind which was a long table with folding chairs with several people sitting around it. There was a small (maybe 25") standard tv at the end tuned to the History Channel. There was a lunch selection of sandwiches and cookies. None of us had any idea what to expect. Many were wondering if this was where we were going to watch the debate.

After lunch we were handed some questionnaires to fill out asking us to rank the Republican candidates in many and various ways and then to do the same concerning some of the important and controversial issues at hand. Then we were taken upstairs, outside, across a plaza of sorts into another part of the building to the studio. This not very large room was, apparently, the set for a number of programs. There was a neon sign overhead that said "The Mike & Juliet Show". The backdrop was all Hannity & Colmes, though it was obvious that this was not their primary set. Frank Luntz the pollster was our host from this point on. Frank appears on Hannity & Colmes and other Fox News programs regularly. Frank welcomed us and explained what would be happening that day. One thing that would be unique for this focus group is that each of us (28 Republican voters, both conservative and moderate) would use a meter of sorts throughout the debate to register our real time approval or disapproval of what the candidate speaking was saying or doing. The results would appear as a graph on tv. Then he ran us through a test round of questions to demonstrate what we would be doing live immediately following the debate. The questions were provocative and generated a great deal of comments. One question was "How important is religious faith in making your decision to support a candidate?" A related question was raised concerning Mitt Romney and his Mormon faith -- was that an issue of concern? During this period I contributed a couple of times as this is a topic that I have some strong opinions about. Of course, the cameras were not rolling, live or tape, at that time.

Then we went live, still prior to the debate. Martha MacCullum, entered to anchor "Live Desk", a general Fox News live news program. She interviewed Frank who explained that our focus group would be watching the debate live and would be registering our real time opinion via the meters. The camera flashed to our group. Throughout the program the group's response - chuckling, groaning, etc. - could be heard in the background as they did not tell us to be silent.

We watched the debate in the same studio on a large (maybe 42") flat panel tv. The meters were interesting. After a candidate responded to a question and our group responded via the meters, a stage hand would yell out "Back to 50", meaning that we were supposed to return our meter dials back to a neutral position before the next candidate responded. It was funny that when Allan Keyes - who came off like a raving lunatic - spoke, and the stage hand yelled "Back to 50", everybody chuckled because nobody had really even moved their dials.

If you saw the debate then you no doubt observed two things: 1) The moderator was terrible -- she was combative and asked bad questions. 2) The debate overall was dull and rarely provocative. At the end of the debate, the first question that we were asked was "Who do you think won the debate?" Almost unanimously we said Mitt Romney. Now, at the beginning of the day, when asked how many supported Romney, only a few hands went up. But, clearly, in this particular debate, Mitt came off looking and sounding the best -- that does not mean that anyone changed their opinion concerning their support for Romney, only that he won that debate. Huckabee came into the debate the frontrunner, he had the most to lose or gain. Huckabee held his own, but Mitt came out looking and sounding better, more "Presidential". I was seen several times on camera during the live Q&A following the debate, but I did not say anything during this time. Because the debate was so dull and unprovocative -- they really did not address religion, Mormonism, illegal immigrants, or the war -- the Q&A was more focused on who looked and sounded the best, leadership, and a little bit on taxation and fiscal conservatism. These are not areas in which I really have strong opinions. Father Grams got himself on tv making a comment, though I can't remember on what point.

After the live segment, we taped about another 30 mins of Q&A that would be used on Hannity & Colmes that evening and other times throughout the following several days. During this time I did make a comment concerning the "Huckaboom" and Hucabee's potential to go all the way to the White House. I said something to the effect of this: "The 'Huckaboom' was really a media boom. Today we saw the real Huckabee. He simply doesn't have what it takes to go all the way." But I have never seen this aired.

At the end of it all we each were given $100 cash and sent on our way. All in all, it was an interesting experience and I would probably do it again some time. I was disappointed that we didn't get to meet Sean Hannity, though I had thought that would be unlikely since he was on the radio during most of that time.

To sum up where I'm at on the candidates: I hope and agree with Father Grams that John McCain makes a resurgence. He has the most experience, is a veteran politician with wartime experience, he has likely been the most consistent on his positions throughout his career, he is thoroughly pro-life, and he has a proven track-record of bipartisanship - for good or for bad. I think that, though not the best imaginable choice, he may be the best available choice for the time and situation in which our nation exists today. He has the strength, wisdom, and experience to face the difficulties of our world today, and he has the conciliatory ability to bring disparate factions together. He may not accomplish much during his presidency, and he may be a one-term president, but I think he may represent our best hope at bringing a little healing while remaining strong on defense. My 2 cents, and I'm allowed to flip-flop. I like a lot of what Fred Thompson has to say, but I am concerned about his experience and his intelligence/wisdom. Besides, I don't believe that he'll make it past New Hampshire. Huckabee, probably not. Romney, I like a lot of what he says, but I don't trust him -- not simply, but mostly(!), because he's a high-ranking Mormon, but because he comes off like a slick, polished salesman -- and because he's from Massachusetts. (The focus group mostly felt this way as well!)

Well, there you go - there's my recap. That's really all I care to write about it. It was interesting. It was fun. It was no big deal at all. Try it, if you get the chance. You only live once (this side of heaven).

I got back to Pawling around 7pm, just in time to pray Vespers at 7:30pm. I got a substitute to teach confirmation and missed choir practice. And that's my 15 minutes.

Land of Opportunities

It's pretty cool living near New York City. There are so many opportunities and so many interesting and wonderful things to do and see.

I was notified this week that I have been selected to participate in a televised debate focus group on the Fox News Channel on Wednesday, December 12, 2007. I will watch the Republican Debate (from Iowa) in the FNC Studio with others in the focus group and then will comment on the debate. From what I can tell now, the debate will be broadcast live on FNC beginning at 2pm EST. I have been told that the focus group will also appear on Hannity and Colmes Wednesday evening. I really enjoy Sean Hannity's radio program and listen to it quite regularly. The Hannity and Colmes TV show is not as enjoyable, too much arguing.

Anyway, my good friend and colleague Fr. Daniel Grams has also been selected. Imagine that! Two LCMS pastors appearing in a focus group on FNC! The agreement that I will have to sign states that I cannot "post or publish any information online or in print about the contents and experience of this focus group", but I'm hoping to be able to post a link to some video footage of what is actually broadcast after the fact. Very exciting!

Freedom & Choice Revisited

A (the?) fundamental principle that divides the body of Christ, the Church, concerns the extent to which a human being is capable of exercising freedom of the will and/or freedom of choice. This principle underlies seemingly more obvious issues like the role of human works in salvation and the nature of original sin.

Lutherans, I believe, are unique in their view that, post-fall, human volition is in "bondage" to sin, e.g. St. Paul's confession that the good he would will to do he does not do, but the evil that he would will not to do he finds himself doing. Note that "that which has volition, that which wills", i.e. the "New Man, or New Spirit", is not corrupted essentially, but is in bondage to sin, the flesh -- thus St. Paul asks "Who will save me from this body of death?"

But, what about before the fall into sin? Did Adam and Eve have freedom of the will or freedom of choice before the fall? Well, yes, and no. They could exercise a certain freedom, yes, but that freedom to will or to choose could only be sin. Our first parents, before the fall, were they to exercise free will or free choice, could only choose to disobey God or to rebel against God. Otherwise, their wills and choices were in perfect alignment with God's own will, to the extent that they were doing and desiring what God willed, and not essentially the will of our first parents. We confess this truth in the Lord's Prayer: Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, not our will. Man's will and man's choice, before, and after the fall, are free only to sin. The difference, before and after the fall, is that, after the fall man's will is truly in bondage to sin so that even assent to God's will is impaired, corrupted by sin (concupiscence) so that, on our own, we can do no good or righteous thing in the eyes of God, nothing truly righteous and in accord with God's will.

What this means is that, before the fall, love and obedience to God was not really a choice at all, but was the natural disposition of God's creatures toward their Creator. Upon man's first exercise of free will, man's first choice, sin and rebellion occurred and death entered the world. No longer was man's natural disposition toward God in accord with His will. Upon conversion, in contrition and repentance, the old rebellious man is drowned and a New Man is raised up whose nature, once again, is disposed to love and obey God in accord with His will. However, the New Man is in bondage to sin and the flesh, e.g. St. Paul once again. Through daily contrition and repentance this Old Man drowning, New Man rising cycle is repeated again and again. Man is constantly being realigned with God, his will with His will.

One significant way in which our understanding of the freedom, or lack thereof, of human volition and choice divides the Church is in the nature of conversion. Decision Theology teaches that one must choose to invite Jesus into the heart or make a decision for Jesus - the idea being that Jesus has prepared all things for your salvation and is standing, knocking at your door, but you must open the door and let Him in. This, of course, is synergism, Pelagianism. Our Lord Himself, however, has said most clearly, "You did not choose me, but I chose you." Countless images in the Scriptures relate man's condition before the action of the Holy Spirit through the Word to that of a dead man (Lazarus) or to dead lifeless bones (Ezekiel). As there was nothing that Lazarus, dead in the tomb four days - he stinketh! -, or those dried out bones stripped through time and predators of all flesh and tendons, could do to change their dead, lifeless conditions, neither is it possible for men, dead in the spirit and without the life that is the Lord, to do anything to change their condition, let alone choose to believe, to accept, to invite, or to live rather than remain dead.

In fact, we do not, we cannot, choose to believe anything! Yes, we talk this way, because it seems that we make free choices, even choosing to believe in something or not. But if you only would sit back and honestly think about it for a moment, it is obvious that we do not choose our beliefs - in fact, the idea of choosing what to believe or not is fundamentally contrary to what it means to believe. E.g., you do not choose to believe that the light will come on when you flip the switch in your bedroom. You believe this because your experience leads you to believe this - your experience (and the experience of many others both contemporary and antecedent) informs you that this has consistently been the case; if the light does not come on then there is a problem either with the bulb or with the current. Belief could be defined as "having a firm conviction in the truth of something which cannot be known for certain." Here I will be criticized, for most people would say that we know the light will come on when we flip the switch; this is how we commonly talk. However, we do not know that the light will come on; the two scenarios of the burned out bulb or an interruption in current should suffice to demonstrate that. Sure, there is a 5,000 year old philosophical debate concerning what constitutes knowledge called Epistemology, but that will have to be another post. My point now is this: our would be free will and free choice is in bondage to sin and the flesh so that we cannot choose to change our sinful and spiritually dead condition. Further, it is logically and linguistically impossible to choose to believe in Jesus, or in anything. Thanks be to God that He acts upon us: Jesus calls us by the Holy Spirit through the Word. The Holy Spirit, through the Word, blows upon us and through us, enlivening us, resurrecting us. The Holy Spirit gives us faith, as a free gift, and it is faith that believes, that has a firm conviction in the Truth that cannot be known for certain.

I thank God that He chose me, because I never would have chosen Him - I couldn't have chosen Him. That is why my favorite verse in the Scriptures is the confession of the Centurion, "Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief." And regarding the freedom of the will and freedom of choice Jesus has said, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

William Butler Yeats (1865-1939) - The Second Coming

On this Last Sunday of the Church Year (Sunday of the Fulfillment) I am reminded of a favorite and perplexing poem by Yeats, The Second Coming. This poem means many things to many people -- that's what I love most about poetry --, but it seems to describe this age very well. Today I am especially moved by the relevancy of these words: The ceremony of innocence is drowned; the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in the sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

I, Sectarian

Reflecting over the past six or seven years, I have made the unsettling observation that in my striving to remain faithful I find myself potentially associating with an increasingly smaller and smaller number of colleagues and laity. Indeed the Lord has said that He will divide households, and so He has. Potentially dividing doctrines abound including the relationship between doctrine and practice, the role and work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of God's children, the nature of the Office of the Holy Ministry, etc. Even amongst those I consider my brothers, friends, and colleagues, a distressingly small group, I see more than the seeds of division already planted and growing. Does faithfulness necessarily lead to sectarianism?

Lurking on discussion lists of supposed like-minded brethren I am often reminded of the coliseum scene in Monty Python's - The Life of Brian: (click on the wanker above to see video)

REG: Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.

FRANCIS:Wankers.

BRIAN: Can I... join your group?

REG:No. Piss off.

REG: Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.

BRIAN:I do!

REG:Oh, yeah? How much?

BRIAN: A lot!

REG:Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the f*#%#g Judean People's Front.

P.F.J.: Yeah...

JUDITH: Splitters.

P.F.J.: Splitters...

FRANCIS:And the Judean Popular People's Front.

P.F.J.:Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...

LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea.

P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...

REG: What?

LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.

REG: We're the People's Front of Judea!

LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.

REG: People's Front! C-huh.

FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?

REG: He's over there.

P.F.J.: Splitter!

The saddening thing about this is that I love the Church catholic! I don't want to see Her shattered, split, and splintered. I believe whole-heartedly in the one body of Christ, His Bride, consisting of all believers of all times and all places. And I certainly do not wish to contribute in any way to Her fracture. So, on the one hand, the Lord has told His Bride this would happen, and would continue to happen until the parousia, but on the other, we are to live together in the bond of peace as one body, breaking one bread and drinking one cup.

Lately some earnest Lutherans have taken to interpreting the Ignatian model for the Church (Bishop - Eucharist - Congregation) in terms of the Orthodox and, perhaps, Roman communion's ecclessiology: where the Bishop is not the parish pastor / priest, but an ecclessial higher rank. This is foreign to Lutheran ecclessiology and the doctrine of the OHM which states that there is but one Holy Office ordained for the purpose of preaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments. These earstwhile proponents of episcopacy share with me a love for the Bride of Christ, His Blessed Sacraments, the Divine Liturgy, an understanding of the value of tradition, and a high view of the OHM, understanding ordaination as a Sacrament (or, at the very least, sacramental). In comparisson to the rest of the c(C)hurch we would be seen as being in near complete agreement. Yet, this issue of ecclessiology is a seed of division planted deep in fertile soil.

The problem lies in the interpretation of Ignatius' use of the title "bishop". The Lutheran church has traditionally understood bishop to mean the called and ordained pastor of the church. The Orthodox and Roman communions understand the bishop to be the pastor of pastors, or, a higher ranking ecclessial supervisor, himself serving as pastor. According to the latter interpretation, only the bishop is rightly said to serve "in the stead of" Christ. The parish pastor, then, stands in the stead of the bishop. According to the Lutheran interpretation, each called and ordained pastor - common parish or otherwise - stands in the stead of Christ to adminster His Sacraments and proclaim the Gospel to the congregation of His call. Common Lutheran pastors I know have, tongue firmly planted in cheek, called themselves bishop of (insert name of town or village), recognizing that there is but one ordained OHM.

It is distressing that by simply, faithfully, remaining steadfast in the confession and faith I vowed to uphold, preach, teach, and confess in my ordaination vows, I am potentially being pushed further into seeming sectarianism. Perhaps those who view things differently will abandon the Lutheran confession of the faith; perhaps they will change the church body who holds to that confession. Either way, I, sectarian.