Reformation Sunday 2017: Sermon & Cantata of the Week

Lutherstadt Wittenberg. Photo by Neuwieser

Reformation Sunday 2017
Sermon & Cantata of the Week

On this historic Sunday, I am actually preaching one of Martin Luther’s sermons (edited). I will be preaching the second “Invocavit” sermon, from March 10, 1522. See the history of these sermons below. It comes from a critical time in the Reformation, about a year after the Diet of Worms, when Wittenberg was experiencing a lot of disturbance because leaders had come in while Luther was in exile at Wartburg and had started making changes in the mass and teaching lots of new doctrines. The people, not having had good instruction, became stirred up, often in ways that were not peaceable and conducive to the true freedom of the gospel. Luther returned from exile to teach order, love and concern for the weak, and the true nature of freedom in Christ.

Following this sermon, my all-time favorite piece by Bach. Just because it’s such a special day.

• • •

Introduction to the Invocavit Sermons

On Invocavit Sunday (the First Sunday in Lent), 1522, Martin Luther began a series of eight short sermons in which he taught the people of Wittenberg how the reformation of the Church should be carried out. It must be based on God’s clear Word and it must care for the conscience of the Christian.

About a year earlier, Luther had stood before the Emperor at the Diet of Worms. This was the famous event when he refused to recant and boldly confessed, “Here I stand. God help me.” Martin Luther had become the voice of truth, the inspiring leader of the Reformation. But following Worms, Luther had to be hidden away Wartburg Castle for his safety. Exiled from Wittenberg, he was unable to oversee what was happening in Wittenberg. While he was hidden away, his colleagues in the town pushed forward with their ideas for change.

Their efforts caused a lot of chaos and confusion throughout the year, including disturbances with mobs that became violent. When Luther heard about these troubles he was shocked. While he didn’t object in principle to most of the changes that had been advocated, he seriously objected to the spirit in which they were carried out. He rejected the use of coercion and saw in these measures the beginning of a new legalism. While Luther desired to throw off the shackles of papal tyranny, he would fight any attempt from his “own side” to set up new man-made laws. The Gospel and its gifts are free and they create freedom.

So, eventually Luther saw the need to return to Wittenberg and by mid-February he City Council asked him to do so. On Invocavit Sunday, the first Sunday in Lent, Martin Luther began a series of sermons that he preached each day for a week. He called the people of Wittenberg to repentance for their rash acts, and he instructed their consciences from the Word of God about the proper way of letting God bring about reform without them going overboard and creating an even worse situation.

Luther’s Second Sermon, Monday after Invocavit (March 10, 1522)

[Edited for Preaching on Reformation Sunday 2017]

We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

Dear friends, you know the chief characteristics of Christians, that their whole life and being is faith and love. Faith is directed toward God, love toward others and one’s neighbor. This consists in such love and service for the other as we have received from God without our work and merit. Love must deal with our neighbor in the same manner as God has dealt with us; it must walk the straight road, straying neither to the left nor to the right.

In the things which are “musts” and are matters of necessity, such as believing in Christ, love nevertheless never uses force or undue constraint.

Now I say that the mass is an evil thing, and God is displeased with it, because the way it is being performed these days it is as if it were a sacrifice and work of merit. Therefore it must be abolished. Here there can be no question or doubt, any more than you should ask whether you should worship God. Here we are entirely agreed: the private masses must be abolished. As I have said in my writings, I wish they would be abolished everywhere and only the ordinary evangelical mass be retained. Yet, even though this is needful, Christian love should not employ harshness here nor force the matter.

It certainly should be preached and taught with tongue and pen that to hold mass in such a manner is sinful. However, no one should be dragged away from it by the hair! It should be left to God, and his Word should be allowed to work alone, without our work or interference. Why? Because it is not in my power or hand to fashion the hearts of men as the potter molds the clay and fashion them at my pleasure. I can get no farther than their ears; their hearts I cannot reach. And since I cannot pour faith into their hearts, I cannot, nor should I, force anyone to have faith. That is God’s work alone, which causes faith to live in the heart. Therefore we should give free course to the Word and not add our works to it. We have the jus verbi [the right to speak] but not the executio [the power to accomplish]. We should preach the Word, but the results must be left solely to God’s good pleasure.

Now if I should rush in and abolish it by force, there are many who would be compelled to consent to it and yet not know where they stand, whether it is right or wrong, and they would say: I do not know if it is right or wrong, I do not know where I stand, I was compelled by force to submit to the majority. And such compelling and commanding results in a mere mockery: an external show, fools-play, human ordinances, sham-saints, and hypocrites.

For where the heart is not good, I care nothing at all for the work. We must first win the hearts of the people. But that is done when I teach only the Word of God, preach the gospel, and say: Dear lords or pastors, abandon the mass, it is not right, you are sinning when you do it. But I would not make it a commandment for them, nor urge a general law. He who would follow me could do so, and he who refused would remain outside. In the latter case the Word would sink into the heart and do its work. Thus he would become convinced and acknowledge his error, and fall away from the mass; tomorrow another would do the same, and thus God would accomplish more with his Word than if you and I were to merge all our power into one heap.

You see, when you have won the heart, you have won the man — and that is the only way the thing will finally fall of its own weight and come to an end. If the hearts and minds of all are agreed and united, abolish it. But if all are not heart and soul for its abolishment — leave it in God’s hands, I beseech you, otherwise the result will not be good. Faith must not be chained and imprisoned, nor bound by an ordinance to any work. This is the principle by which you must be governed. Instead, simply keep your faith in God, pure and strong, so that this thing cannot hurt you.

Love, therefore, demands that you have compassion on the weak, as all the apostles had. In short, I will preach God’s Word, teach it and write it, but I will constrain no one by force, for faith must come freely without compulsion.

Take myself as an example. I opposed indulgences and all those who supported the corrupt practices of the Church, but never with force. I simply taught, preached, and wrote God’s Word; otherwise I did nothing. And while I slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with my friends Philip and Amsdorf, the Word so greatly weakened the papacy that no prince or emperor ever inflicted such losses upon it! I did nothing; the Word did everything. Had I desired to foment trouble, I could have brought great bloodshed upon Germany; indeed, I could have started such a game that even the emperor would not have been safe. But what would it have been? Mere fool’s play. I did nothing; I let the Word do its work.

What do you suppose is Satan’s thought when one tries to do something by kicking up a row? He sits back in hell and thinks: “Oh, what a fine game the poor fools are up to now!” But when we spread the Word alone and let it alone do the work, that distresses him. For God’s Word is almighty. It takes captive people’s hearts, and when their hearts are captured the work will fall of itself.

Let me cite a simple instance. In the days of the apostles there were Jewish and Gentile Christians, differing on the law of Moses with respect to circumcision. The former wanted to keep it, the latter did not. Then came Paul and preached that it might be kept or not. It was of no consequence. They should not make a “must” of it, but leave it to the choice of the individual; to keep it or not was immaterial. He did not issue a commandment.

So it was up to the time of Jerome, who came and wanted to make a “must” out of it, desiring to make it an ordinance and a law prohibiting circumcision. Then St. Augustine came and he was of the same opinion as St. Paul: it might be kept or not, as one wished. Ultimately, St. Jerome was successful in having it prohibited. After that came the popes, who also wanted to add something and they, too, made laws. Thus out of the making of one law grew a thousand laws. And now they have completely buried us under laws! And this is what will happen here, too; one law will soon make two, two will increase to three, and so forth.

So then, let us constrain no one by force, even concerning things that are necessary. Let us beware lest we lead astray those of weak conscience. Let us spread the Word alone and let it alone do its work. Let us seek to win hearts, not chain them down and burden them with laws and commandments.

• • •

Zion hears the watchmen sing,
her heart leaps for joy within her,
she wakens and hastily arises.
Her glorious Friend comes from heaven,
strong in mercy, powerful in truth,
her light becomes bright, her star rises.
Now come, precious crown,
Lord Jesus, the Son of God!
Hosanna!
We all follow to the hall of joy
and hold the evening meal together.

• • •

Photo by Neuwieser at Flickr. Creative Commons License

Saturday Brunch, October 28, 2017 — List Edition

Hello, friends, and welcome to the weekend. I hope it’s a good one. Shall we start it with some brunch?

That’s a rhetorical question; we ARE having brunch!

I thought we might mix it up this week with a “list” edition. That is, we can make some nice lists that we can nicely argue over in the nice comments section. Why not start with brunch itself? Here my list of the best brunch foods:

  1. Bacon
  2. Waffles
  3. Fruit
  4. Roast Beef
  5. Cinnamon rolls
  6. Okra smoothie
  7. More Bacon
  8. Crepes
  9. Ham
  10. Crumpets

Halloween is coming up in a few days, of course. So why not have a list of the best treats to get in your bag:

  1. Reeses
  2. Snickers
  3. Twix
  4. Junior Mints
  5. Kitkat

Bottom Five:

  1. Licorice
  2. Tootsie rolls
  3. Circus peanuts
  4. Wax coke bottles
  5. Mike and Ike

Also, let’s talk about Halloween costumes. Can we please, please stop with all the “sexy” costumes? I mean, yeah the sexy cop outfit kinda worked. But you can now be everything from sexy corn to a sexy dinosaur to a sexy crayon to a sexy Trump:

You thought I was kidding, didn’t ya?

At least this can inspire another inspiring list. A list of things that just never, ever belong in the same sentence as “sexy”. Things even less sexy than corn. Here I present the least plausible”sexy” outfits.

  • Sexy Stalin
  • Sexy Ebola
  • Sexy toe-jam
  • Sexy Chaplain Mike
  • Sexy Presbyterian

On Wednesday, Saudi Arabia granted citizenship to a robot. Sophie the Robot was created last year by Hanson Robotics, but made her first public appearance in the Saudi Arabian city of Riyadh on Monday. Sophia was such a hit she was immediately given Saudi citizenship in front of hundreds of delegates at the Future Investment Initiative in Riyadh. Of course, Sophie being a woman and Saudi Arabia being Saudi Arabia, she still doesn’t have any rights.

Sophie then made the round of talk shows. Here she is on a U.K. show:

Hanson Robotics hails it as “the most beautiful and celebrated robot,” and goes on to lavish gendered compliments on its object of affection, admiring its “porcelain skin,” “slender nose” and “intriguing smile”, sentiments that seem to ensure our future non-human counterparts will be just as sexually objectified as their blood and flesh foremothers.

Slightly disturbing: when Sophia was unveiled last year by her creator David Hanson, he asked her “Do you want to destroy humans?…Please say no.” But, much to his worry, Sophia responded: “OK. I will destroy humans.”

On a related note, last week Slate reported on two significant advances in artificial intelligence:

On Monday, researchers announced that Google’s project AutoML had successfully taught itself to program machine learning software on its own. While it’s limited to basic programming tasks, the code AutoML created was, in some cases, better than the code written by its human counterparts.

On Wednesday, in a paper published in the journal Nature, DeepMind researchers revealed another remarkable achievement. The newest version of its Go-playing algorithm, dubbed AlphaGo Zero, was not only better than the original AlphaGo, which defeated the world’s best human player in May. This version had taught itself how to play the game. All on its own, given only thebasic rules of the game. (The original, by comparison, learned from a database of 100,000 Go games.) According to Google’s researchers, AlphaGo Zero has achieved superhuman-level performance: It won 100–0 against its champion predecessor, AlphaGo.

The significance here is not that Google wants to really, really dominate at playing Go. The significance is  that, previously, AIs have largely relied on learning from vast data sets. The bigger the data set, the better. What these new developments prove is that a successful AI doesn’t necessarily need those human-supplied data sets—it can teach itself.

“By not using human data—by not using human expertise in any fashion—we’ve actually removed the constraints of human knowledge,” AlphaGo Zero’s lead programmer, David Silver, said at a press conference.

What could go wrong?

Image result for skynet

And…that inspires a list: The top-five existential threats to man-kind:

  1. Nuclear war
  2. Really big, nasty meteorite
  3. AI turns on us
  4. Climate change run amuck
  5. Aliens

Well, that was a little depressing. How about something lighter? In honor of reformation week, let’s have a list of the most “earthy” Martin Luther quotes:

  1. “Almost every night when I wake up the devil is there and wants to dispute with me. I have come to this conclusion: When the argument that the Christian is without the law and above the law doesn’t help, I instantly chase him away with a fart.”
  2. “I was frightened and thought I was dreaming, it was such a thunderclap, such a great horrid fart did the papal ass let go here! He certainly pressed with great might to let out such a thunderous fart—it is a wonder that it did not tear his hole and belly apart!
  3. “I’m fed up with the world, and it is fed up with me. I’m quite content with that. The world thinks that if it is only rid of me everything will be fine, and it will accomplish this. After all, it’s as I’ve often said: I’m like a ripe stool and the world’s like a gigantic anus, and so we’re about to let go of each other.”
  4. in discussing an illustrative conversation he had with the Devil (which took place on a toilet), “I am cleansing my bowels and worshipping God Almighty; You deserve what descends and God what ascends.”
  5. “If I fart in Wittenberg they smell it in Rome.”

Is the transgender movement anti-woman? This writer argues the case:

I Yesterday the Sunday Times reported that in its submission on proposed amendments to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Foreign Office suggested the term ‘pregnant women’ might be offensive to ‘transgender people who have given birth’.

Here’s the thing, possibly the uncomfortable thing, but the thing nonetheless: if you are pregnant, you are a woman. Biologically, physically, factually. Your pregnancy is proof of your womanhood. (Of course women do not need to get pregnant to prove they are women.) You can identify as a man, of course. People should have the right to identify as anything they like. But in reality, in the world of flesh and hormones and common understanding, you are a woman. Men cannot get pregnant. The spat over ‘pregnant people’ cuts to the heart of a discussion very few people want to have: about how self-identification is all well and good but it does not, and cannot, override physical and cultural reality.

So feverish is the obsession with avoiding giving offence to trans people that society is now happy to lie to itself. Frontpage headlines declare, ‘MAN HAS BABY’ and ‘Baby joy of first British man to give birth’. Media outlets inform us that ‘Statistics reveal men have given birth to 54 babies in Australia’ and ‘Pregnant British man gives birth to daughter’. We know all of this is untrue. Don’t we? We know that no man, anywhere, has ever given birth. We know that’s impossible. What they really mean is that women who identify as men gave birth. But if you say that — if you say, ‘They must be women, because they gave birth’ — you will be branded transphobic. It is a hate crime to say men cannot get pregnant.

We are living through a collapse of the most basic moral and biological categories of speech and understanding. Avoiding offence is now prized more highly than physical reality and truth. And one of the worst consequences of this rush to institute trans terminology — above the heads of a mostly bamboozled populace — is the erasure of womanhood. The very term ‘women’ is in serious danger.

And if the government’s proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act are successful — so that anyone could legally identify as any gender they like, without having to undergo any kind of procedure — women’s spaces will effectively be obliterated. Women-only shortlists in politics, women’s institutions, women’s sports teams — all could potentially be intruded upon by men who identify as woman but who are, to most of us, transwomen, not women. There is a difference. Isn’t there?

The idea of womanhood, the terminology of womanhood, is being erased from public life. We are effectively saying there is nothing special or distinctive about being a woman. Anyone can be a woman, simply by declaring it. We can dress this up as much as we like in the language of tolerance and open-mindedness but it strikes me as plain old misogyny to treat womanhood as such a casual, easily achieved thing. In the name of PC, we risk downgrading the status of women, and women themselves.

Top ten jokes from the late night shows:

  1. I don’t know if you’re paying attention, but internal strife is tearing the Republican Party apart at the seams. It’s like a new Civil War, only neither side is trying to help black people. (Steve Colbert)
  2. This is the Dodgers’ first World Series in almost 30 years. Since 1988. It is a tough ticket to come by. The average ticket price for Game 1 was about $1,300. To put that in perspective, right now a ticket to the World Series is worth more than the Weinstein Company. (Jimmy Kimmel).
  3. I read about a woman in Pennsylvania who celebrated her 94th birthday by jumping out of a plane. She thought she was just walking into the bathroom — but still, good for her to just experience that! (Jimmy Fallen)
  4. First lady Melania Trump visited a middle school in Detroit today where she began her anti-bullying campaign by speaking to the students and joining them for lunch. Meanwhile Donald Trump had lunch in the White House cafeteria and clapped when someone dropped their tray. (Seth Meyers)
  5. Foreign policy experts say that the president of China is now the world’s most powerful person. As you can imagine, that came as quite a shock to Beyoncé. (Conan O’Brien)
  6. President Trump and Republican Sen. Bob Corker have now re-ignited their feud. In an interview this morning, Corker slammed Trump and his foreign policy. President Trump, of course, responded on Twitter. In a series of tweets, Trump called Corker a “lightweight,” he called him “incompetent,” and he mocked his height by once again calling him “Liddle Bob Corker.” So, looks like the first lady’s anti-bullying initiative still has a ways to go. (James Corden)
  7. There is a major scandal in the world of the Iditarod. It turns out some of the dogs in the race are on drugs. Dogs belonging to the four-time musher tested positive for a banned substance. Officials became suspicious when one of the dogs stood on its hind legs and lifted the sled over its head in celebration. (Jimmy Kimmel)
  8.  Snoop Dogg has taken aim at the president once again in his new single called ”Make America Crip Again.” A representative of Snoop explained that with “Make America Crip Again,” Snoop’s intention is to, quote, “unite, not divide.” Because what organization could be more unifying than the South Central L.A. street gang the Crips. (James Corden)
  9. A Japanese company created a $150 noise-canceling ramen fork to cover up slurping noises. So, if you’ve got 150 bucks to spend on a fork — why are you eating ramen? (Jimmy Fallon)
  10. In the past week, several prominent men have been fired for sexual harassment and it’s being called “The Harvey Effect.” Of course, none of them will see any jail time and that’s being called “The Cosby Effect.” (Conan O Brien)

Callista Gingrich, the third wife of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, has been confirmed as the U.S. ambassador to the Vatican in a 70-23 Senate vote that included backing from key Democrats. President Trump announced her nomination in May.The Catholic News Agency writes:

“[Callista Gingrich] is also a long-time member of the choir at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C.

Newt and Callista married in 2000, after having a six-year affair while Newt was married to his previous wife. Newt converted to Catholicism in 2009 and explained, in an interview that year with Deal Hudson at InsideCatholic.com, how Callista’s witness as a Catholic brought him towards the faith.

So, the new ambassador to the Vatican’s main claim to fame is that her six-year affair with a married man eventually resulted in his conversion? Sounds legit…

Hey, how about a visual list of the funniest tombstones?

Walking Through A Cemetery When All Of A Sudden...

If You Can Read This

I Was Hoping For A Pyramid

Visiting My Grandma's Grave And Found This On A Tombstone Nearby

Pardon For Not Rising

A woman has ‘married’ a train station after claiming they have spent the past 36 years in love with one another. Carol Santa Fe, 45, from San Diego, California, says she has been in love with Santa Fe train station (yes, she took its last name; tradition and all that) since she was nine years old. The volunteer support worker takes a 45 minute bus ride to the station every day to spend time with the building.

Although their marriage is not legally binding, she ‘tied the knot’ with the building in 2015 and celebrated their one year anniversary last Christmas. The 45-year-old identifies herself as an objectum sexual – a person who is sexually attracted to inanimate objects and structures,and says she has ‘sex’ with the building mentally.

IT WAS TIME FOR THOMAS TO LEAVE HE HAD SEEN EVERYTHING | made w/ Imgflip meme maker

It might have taken 7 years longer than planned, and it might have cost ten times more than the original budget, but  Hamburg’s new concert hall was definitely worth the wait. The hall, called the Elbphilharmonie, can seat 2,100 people and cost a whopping $843 million USD. The designers used algorithms to create the auditorium’s 10,000 unique acoustic panels.

Made from gypsum fiber, each panel contains one million “cells” which line the ceilings, walls and balustrades of the central auditorium. When sound waves hit these panels, the “cells” help to shape the sound by either absorbing the waves or causing them to reverberate throughout the hall. No two panels absorb or scatter the sound waves in the same way, but together they create a perfectly balanced audio that can be heard from every corner of the auditorium. And it is perhaps the most beautiful auditorium in the world. Don’t believe me? Check it out for yourself:

Oh, yeah. One more thing: the outside of the building can do THIS!!!

Top five over-rated songs in the history of the universe:

  1. Imagine by John Lennon
  2. Imagine by John Lennon
  3. Imagine by John Lennon
  4. Imagine by John Lennon
  5. Anything by Madonna

Well, that’s it for this week, friends. Have a great day!

Reformation 500:The Hiddeness of God in Luther’s Theological Method

In few areas did Martin Luther break more cleanly from the Roman Church than in his outright rejection of scholastic theology. This was not a superficial revision of certain scholastic abuses, but a full-blown condemnation of the heart of scholastic thought. Perhaps this is most clearly seen in his radical departure from the prevailing theological methodologies of his days. Luther’s controlling principle he called the “theology of the cross”, and both he and his successors found it fruitful. Yet, especially when expressed in his formula of the “hidden God”, it also wrought some vexing problems.

Luther formulated his notion of a “theology of the cross” as early as the Heidelberg disputation of 1518. Here he contrasts his approach to the scholastic approach, which he labeled a “theology of glory”. While, of course, this method had many facets, what Luther found objectionable was that it attempted to build a system of objective truths about God. It attempts, through reason, to comprehend God as He is in Himself. For Luther, only through the cross do we have true knowledge of God. There is no objective truth for the theologian. To speak of God apart from his affects is to wrongfully objectify the faith.

Walther Von Loewenich, in his excellent monogram, notes, the theology of the cross “is not a chapter in theology, but a specific kind of theology. The cross of Christ is significant here not only for the questions concerning redemption and the certainty of salvation, but is the center that provides perspectives for all theological statements.”

One idea central to his  theology of the cross is Luther’s notion of the “hidden God” (Deus absconditus) as opposed to the “revealed God”. The revealed God is God for us. It is God as we find in Christ, the God who becomes incarnate and suffers a humiliating death. This directly relates to the theology of the cross, for it is only on the cross that we see the God with which we must deal. Only the preached God, the revealed God, the God as seen in the Word, is of concern to us: “Now, God in his own nature and majesty is to be left alone; in this regard, we have nothing to do with Him, nor does He wish to deal with us. We have to do with Him as clothed and displayed in His Word, by which He presents himself to us.”

Why is it that God can only be seen in this way? Luther gives two reasons. First, because God in his essence is too overwhelming for fallen man; it is incomprehensible to him. Thus, God must “cover” Himself in order to come to man. Perhaps Adam might have been able to approach God before the fall, but now our sinful nature is “so depraved and utterly corrupted that it cannot recognize God or comprehend His nature without a covering. It is for this reason that those coverings are necessary.

The second reason God must be “clothed” is based on Luther’s understanding of faith. In his bondage of the Will he wrote, “Faith has to do with things which are not seen (Heb.11:1). Thus, that there may be room for faith, everything which is believed must be concealed;” Thus, even when God is revealed, He must be hidden. The revealed God is hidden in the humanity of Christ. This means we should seek to know God not as He is in his majesty, but as He is revealed in Christ.

Therefore begin where Christ began–in the Virgin’s Womb, in the manger, and at his mother’s breasts. For this purpose He came down, was crucified, and died, so that in every possible way He might present Himself to our sight. He wanted to fix the gaze of our hearts upon Himself and thus to prevent us from clambering into heaven and speculating about the Divine Majesty.

Or, as he elsewhere asserts: “The incarnate son of Man, is therefore, the covering which the Divine majesty presents himself to us with all of His gifts…”

Thus, we find in Luther a theology controlled by Christology. When we see Christ, we see God. The revealed God is also the hidden God. He is hidden in the baby nursing in common barn, and He is hidden in the “king” riding an ignoble donkey. Most of all, He is hidden in the cross.

There is, however, another aspect to Luther’s exposition of the hiddeness of God. While he primarily emphasized the hiddeness of God in revelation (God hidden in Christ) he also talked about a hiddeness of God outside His revelation (A God who cannot be seen or known, and whose decrees seem to contradict the will of the revealed God). This is easily confused with the emphasis of hiddeness within revelation, since Luther used the same terminology, but the concepts are quite different in effect. So different, in fact, that some theologians have attempted to distinguish the concepts by different terminologies. Brunner held that Luther’s God who is hidden in revelation should be called the “veiled God” to distinguish Him from the God hidden outside revelation. Paul Althaus prefers the term “mystery of god” for the first concept.  B. A. Gerrish has distinguished the hiddeness of God in his revelation as hiddeness I and the hiddeness of God outside his revelation as hiddeness II. He notes that while the first of these has been found theologically fruitful in recent years, the second “has been found something of an embarrassment.” It will soon be apparent why.

It is not insignificant that the notion of hiddeness II should find its first and only full treatment in The Bondage of the  Will. The basis for the hiddeness of God is determinism.

Luther was responding to the The Freedom of the Will by Erasmus, who at one point used Ezek. 18:23 to support his position of free will. The text asks the rhetorical question, “Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?” Of course, other passages could also be cited to show that God does not want people to die in their sins, perhaps none more graphic than the picture of the the Son weeping over Jerusalem’s rejection of Him.

Erasmus makes his point as follows: If God grieves over the sinner’s death, than he cannot be the one who caused it. Therefore, God did not plan their death, but their free will caused it.

Since Luther was arguing against free will (and seems to have believed in double predestination), Erasmus’ argument is cogent.  Without free human will, only God’s will is in play. But how can God not will the eternal death of those whom He alone willed to eternally die?

It is here that Luther turns to the notion of God’s hiddeness.  As Von Loewenich says, “Luther has recourse to the doctrine of the hidden God in an exegetical predicament. From a purely exegetical point of view Erasmus is obviously in a much more favorable position.”

I reply, as I have already said: we must discuss God, or the will of God, preached, revealed, offered to us, and worshiped by us, in one way, and God not preached nor revealed, nor offered to us, nor worshiped by us in another way. Wherever God hides Himself, and wills to be unknown to us, there we have no concern. Here that sentiment: “What is above us does not concern us”, really holds good. Lest any should think that this distinction is my own, I am following Paul, who writes to the Thessalonians of the Antichrist that he should “exalt himself above all that is God preached and worshiped, (II Thes. 2:4); clearly intimating that a man can be exalted above God as He is preached and worshiped, that is, above the word and worship of God, by which He is known to us and has dealings with us.

Beyond the questionable application of the passage, this is a remarkable rhetorical move. Luther seems to be drawing a real dichotomy (not just an epistemological one) between the God who is preached and worshiped and God as He is in Himself.  To remove all doubt, he goes on to say, “God preached (or revealed) works to the end that sin and death may be taken away, and we may be saved….But God hidden in majesty neither deplores nor takes away death, but works life, and death, and all in all…”. And again, “God wills many things which he does not in His word show us that He wills. Thus, He does not will the death of a sinner- that is, in His Word; but He wills it by His inscrutable will.” As Gerrish notes here, “And the Incarnate son must weep as the Hidden God consigns a portion of mankind to perdition.”

What strikes one, of course,  is the difference between the two Gods. We must discuss them in different ways, he tells us. Erasmus is charged with ignorance for not observing this distinction. As Marc Lienhard notes, “One is struck by the force with which Luther distinguishes the two wills of God, even puts them in opposition to each other, and to a certain extant introduces a double reality in God.” This does seem to be the case, especially when Luther talks of the revealed God and the Hidden God having opposite wills on the salvation of man. Even Von Loewenich admits that “the hidden and revealed God are sharply differentiated. One cannot affirm of the former what applies to the latter.”

What are we to think of this odd dualism? How does it fit in the rest of Luther’s theology? In particular, the real area of concern is how Luther’s portrait of the hidden God here harmonizes with the revealed God, the one who is revealed. Luther’s whole Christology is at stake, and with it his whole theology (since it is all based on Christology). B. A. Gerrish notes, “The image of God does not, after all, fully coincide with the picture of Jesus…It is surely clear enough that “Father of our Lord Jesus Christ does not exhaust Luther’s conception of God. It is but one side of it.”

This may be only a theological, not practical, concern if indeed we have nothing at all to do with the hidden God (as he sometimes suggests) but is not helpful if it is ultimately to this God we must give account and worship. Even Luther said that we must “fear and adore” this hidden God.

Does this damage Luther’s Christology? Yes. Luther made it clear that Christ is the exact picture of God. It is through Him that we have saving knowledge of God.  As Ian Siggins puts it, “That Christ has revealed the Father, that He is the very image of God, the abyss of His nature and godly will, and that faith in God and in Christ is one faith-this is the Kern and Ausbend of Luther’s gospel.”

Luther himself distinguished Christ as God’s image as different from a painting or sculpture being a man’s image: The work of art is only a replica of a different substance, while Christ is the very substance of God. A crucifix is wooden image of Christ, But Christ is a “god-den” image of God.

But clearly this is contradicted when Luther says that “He does not will the death of the sinner- that is, in His Word (Christ); but He wills it by His inscrutable will.” The God who weeps over the destruction of Jerusalem is not the same God who predestines its destruction solely because He wants to.

Thus, Luther gives us a Christology based on Christ being God’s image, yet also tells us that Christ and the Hidden God may be at odds. Here Gerrish notes, “And the question seems inescapable which Luther elsewhere rejects as misguided and wrong headed: Granted that Christ speaks nothing but comfort to the troubled conscience, who knows how it stands between me and God in Heaven?”

Is there a way out? Some scholars have tried to hold that the difference is only epistemological. This seems, however, to confuse Hiddeness II with Hiddeness I. By now Lienhard’s observation seems obvious: “One cannot in effect deny that the concept of Deus absconditus bears a different significance here from that in the theology of the cross.”

Most scholars sympathetic to Luther hold it out as a mystery of the faith. This seems to be the approach Luther took as well. He tells his readers that the question of why God does not save all “touches on the secrets of His Majesty, where His judgments are past finding out. It is not for us to inquire into these mysteries, but to adore them.” In the same way, “God in his nature and majesty is to be left alone.” These quotes do not explicitly declare that  the relationship itself between the Hidden and Revealed God is a mystery, but that seems to be implicit.

Luther gave an analogy of this mystery. He notes that the prosperity of the wicked, to the natural eye, seems to indicate that there is no God or that God is unjust, for a just God would reward the good and punish the wicked. Yet this problem, which vexed Aristotle, Pliny and even the Prophets, is instantly cleared up by the light of the gospel and the knowledge of grace. For now we see that there is a life after this life, and the ledger will be balanced there.

This illustrates how things that are mysteries now will be cleared up with the light of glory; heaven will reveal them. “Do you not think,” he asks” that the light of glory will be able with the greatest ease to solve problems that are insoluble in the light of the word and Grace…? As the light of the gospel solved in an instant the problem of the prosperity of the wicked, so will glory make evident that God’s justice is most righteous – provided only that in the meanwhile we believe it..”.

Is leaving it to a mystery satisfying? Undoubtedly that will depend on the reader. What seems clear, however is that it weakens Luther’s basic Christological approach. He regards Christ and the cross as the basic epistemological sources for understanding all of theology, yet leaves it extremely unclear exactly how the Son, the revealed God, relates to the Father, the Hidden God.

Thus, the notion of God hidden outside His revelation causes problems for Luther’s methodology. Perhaps he realized this but felt it was worth it in order to defend his view of man as without free will and totally passive in salvation. If so we have an example of his anthropology dictating his Christology. The example may be instructive.

Evolution: Scripture and Nature say Yes!  Chapter 3- Terms that Begin to Free Us

Evolution: Scripture and Nature Say Yes  Chapter 3- Terms that Begin to Free Us

By Denis O. Lamoureux

To begin Chapter 3- Terms that Begin to Free Us, Denis makes the point that the origins debate is fueled by conflation of ideas.  For most people today, the word “evolution” is conflated with a godless and purposeless view of the world.  The conflation leads to believing it is impossible to believe in God, particularly the God of Christianity, and evolution at the same time.  Similarly, the term “creation” is conflated with the so-called “literal” interpretation of Genesis 1.  And the extremist proponents of either side love to drive these conflation of terms to their logical conclusions of absolute dichotomy.  You know the battle cries- “God’s infallible inerrant word vs. man’s fallen and errant word”, or “No reasonable educated person would choose ancient myths over settled science”.  As frequent Imonk commenter, Headless Unicorn Guy, says; Richard Dawkins and Ken Ham are fun-house mirror images of each other.  They remind me of the ridiculous 1997 movie “Face/Off”  where hambone over-actors Nicholas Cage and John Travolta exchange faces to foil each other… or something…  something.

Which one is Ham, which one is Dawkins, you can’t tell, can you?

Anyway, Denis tries to un-conflate (deflate?) the terms “Creation” and “Evolution”.  As he says:

Let me suggest that to define the term “creation”, we should consider the way theologians use it in their day-to-day work.  They emphasize that this word is a religious idea and not a scientific concept.  More precisely, it a religious belief and refers only to the things God made.  Someone who is a “creationist” is a person who simply believes in a Creator and that the entire world is his creation.  Theologians are interested in how the world originated, but they know that science is not their area of expertise.  Therefore it is important for them to have trusted Christians who are scientists to help them understand the Lord’s creative method.

So, according to theologians, the doctrine of creation according to the Bible, has little to do with the material mechanics, but concerns the following basic religious beliefs:

  • The creation is completely separate from the Creator (Gen 1:1, John 1:1-3)
  • The creation is totally dependent on the Creator (Acts 17:24-28)
  • The creation was made out of nothing (Col 1:16-17, Heb 11:3)
  • The creation had a beginning (Gen 1:1, Heb 1:10) and an end (Heb 1:11-12, 2 Pet 3:10-13). The Creator not only made the physical world but created time.  Therefore, the present universe has not always existed, nor is it going to last forever.  Only God is eternal.
  • The creation declares the existence of the Creator (Ps 19:1, Rom 1:19-20)
  • The creation is very good. (Gen 1:31)
  • The creation features humans who are created in the image of God. (Gen 1:26-27)

Likewise, the word “evolution” has been conflated with a process of blind, purposeless chance.  From this perspective, there is no place for God, and our existence has no ultimate meaning or purpose.  Furthermore, this conflation of evolution with atheism is assumed to be the official view of modern science and some claim a real scientist has to be an atheist, just like the Hamites claiming that only creationists are the real true Christians.  But evolution, in the simplest terms that scientists use it, is the physical, material processes by which the universe and its life arose.  There is no mention of whether these processes are created by, or directed by God; because science deals only with physical reality and not spiritual reality.

Denis identifies three basic evolutionary sciences.

  • Cosmological Evolution examines the origin of stars, planets, and all astronomical phenomena. The current theory is the universe as we know it started with a small singularity, then inflated over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.
  • Geological Evolution investigates the formation of the earth. The geological history of Earth follows the major events in Earth’s past based on the geologic time scale, a system of chronological measurement based on the study of the planet’s rock layers (stratigraphy). Earth formed about 4.54 billion years ago by accretion from the solar nebula, a disk-shaped mass of dust and gas left over from the formation of the Sun, which also created the rest of the Solar System.
  • Biological Evolution explains the origin of living organisms. Fossils found in rock layers of the earth reveal a pattern that shows how plants and animals gradually transformed over time into entirely new species.

Denis uses the following analogy to explain his viewpoint of creation through evolutionary processes:

Imagine God’s creative action is like the stroke of a pool cue in a game of billiards.  Divide and label the balls into three groups using the words “heavens”, “earth”, and “living organisms”, and let the eight ball represent humans.  In depicting the origin of the world, a six day creationist sees the Creator making single shot after single shot with no miscues until all the balls are off the table.  No doubt about it, that’s impressive.

However, as a Christian evolutionist, I picture God using only one stroke of his cue representing the Big Bang.  His opening shot is so incredibly precise that not only are all the balls sunk but they drop in order.  The balls labelled “heavens” fall first, then “earth” followed by “living organisms”, and finally the eight ball- the most important ball in billiards- signifying human beings.  To complete the analogy, the Lord pulls this last ball out of the pocket and holds it to his heart to indicate his personal relationship with men and women.

Isn’t the Creator who uses just a single stroke to sink all the balls infinitely more amazing that the God of the six day creationists who takes shot, after shot, after shot?  I believe that the Lord’s eternal power and unfathomable foresight is best illustrated by creating through an evolutionary process that he set in motion with the single miraculous event of the Big Bang.  Just think about it.  God with only one creative act set up the laws of nature for everything in the entire world to self-assemble through evolution.

Denis then introduces the terms “teleology” and “dystelology”.  Teleology is the belief that there is an ultimate purpose and plan for our existence and that we are moving toward an end and final goal.  Dystelology, in opposition, is the belief that there is no meaning or purpose to the universe.  As Richard Dawkins in River out of Eden says:

“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

Denis notes that most people today are indoctrinated by both the church and secular society into believing that evolution is by necessity dysteleological.   They assume evolution has to be an unplanned and purposeless natural process driven only by blind chance.  Denis believes this is another notorious conflation.  He then brings up intelligent design which he says is a belief that the world’s beauty, complexity, and functionality point toward an Intelligent Designer.  He contrasts that with “Intelligent Design Theory”, propounded by people like Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, William Dembski and Stephen Meyer, who claim that design in nature is scientifically detectable.  Denis co-authored a book with Phillip Johnson called Darwinism Defeated?  in which they debate biological origins.  Denis does not believe in the “Intelligent Design Theory” of Johnson, Behe, Meyer, and others; rather he believes design is discerned and induced philosophically and religiously.

Denis introduces his “Metaphysics-Physics Principle” as illustrated by his Figure 3-2.  From his perspective Christianity and science are “complementary”; each adding something that is lacking in the other which leads us to a fulfilling, unified, and whole understanding of creation and its Creator.  Science only deals with physical reality, but it leads us to think about the reality “beyond”, “behind”, and “after” the physical world.  Hence the term “metaphysics” from the Greek meta; “beyond”, “behind”, and “after” and phusis (physics)—nature.  Everyone takes a step of faith upward from the physical evidence to come to their metaphysical belief.  There is no direct connection or mathematical formula to move from physics to metaphysics or vice versa.  Whether one sees teleology or dystelology; it is a matter of personal perspective and metaphysical assumption.

As Denis has noted, “scientific concordance” is the idea that God revealed some basic scientific facts in the Bible thousands of years before their discovery by modern science.  In the upper half of Figure 3-3, he introduces the term “spiritual correspondence” which is the belief that statements about spirituality in the Bible align with spiritual reality, or, to put it another way, the belief that the personal God of Christianity communicates spiritual truths to men and women through Scripture.  Denis says:

You will notice in Figure 3-3 that the issue of origins in the Bible features an overlapping area between statements about spirituality and statements about nature.  In my opinion, this is where the greatest challenge appears in attempting to develop our view of origins.  To explain what I mean, consider an issue that is often debated among Christians.

Genesis 1 refers ten times to God creating living organisms “according to their kinds”.  Is this a scientific statement about how he actually made different types of plants, birds, sea creatures, and land animals?  Many Christian ant-evolutionists claim that this phrase is biblical proof that the Creator did not employ evolution to create life.  They contend that God used miraculous interventions to create separate “kinds” or groups of creatures individually (e.g. all dogs as a kind).  However, other Christians like me suggest that Genesis 1 does not reveal how the Lord created living creatures.  Instead this creation account reveals who made plants, animals, and humans—the God of Christianity.

Here are a few ideas I would like you to consider regarding scientific concordism and spiritual correspondence.  Is it possible that statements about nature in Scripture do not align with the physical world because God accommodated and allowed the biblical writers to use the science-of-the-day?  More specifically, did he communicate timeless spiritual truths by using an ancient understanding of origins as a vessel to deliver them?  In other words, is it reasonable to reject scientific concordism, but to accept spiritual correspondence?

Before you jump into too severe a critique of what Denis is saying in this chapter, bear in mind the audience he is writing for.  As he said, this is the book he wish he had when he went from his sheltered home life to the big bad wild world of the university.  I think it is also obvious he is writing specifically to evangelicals who have been brined in the pickling juice of “choosing God’s infallible and inerrant word over the fallible and atheistic word of scientific man”.   I think it is a useful endeavor to try and correct this thought process.  This thought process is part of the reason that 81% of evangelicals voted for a man for president who rejects evolution, vaccination, and climate change.  Anyone who has ever cooked and eaten country ham knows how difficult it is to remove a brine and how worthwhile the final result of that endeavor is.

Senator Flake’s Luther Moment

Senator Flake’s Luther Moment

When we remain silent and fail to act when we know that that silence and inaction is the wrong thing to do — because of political considerations, because we might make enemies, because we might alienate the base, because we might provoke a primary challenge, because ad infinitum, ad nauseam — when we succumb to those considerations in spite of what should be greater considerations and imperatives in defense of the institutions of our liberty, then we dishonor our principles and forsake our obligations. Those things are far more important than politics.

• Senator Jeff Flake

• • •

We celebrate Martin Luther this week as one of history’s greatest examples of someone standing up publicly and saying, “The emperor has no clothes.” Soon many joined him in decrying the corruption and false doctrines being tolerated and promulgated by the Church in their day.

In our own country, many have been shy to speak the unvarnished truth about how our current leaders and politicians have abandoned any pretense of virtue and public service to advance themselves and made winning and holding power the be-all and end-all of political ambition.

Now, a small group of Republicans is beginning to speak out. And the most impressive has been Jeff Flake, senator from Arizona. Flake told the country yesterday that he won’t be running in the next election, embedding his announcement in a remarkable speech that speaks plain truth with moral authority to power. Though some have criticized him for leaving the battlefield, HERE is an article that takes a different viewpoint. At any rate, in my opinion this extraordinary moment in U.S. history should be captured, and so I give you his speech today.

Here is what Senator Flake said on the Senate floor yesterday.

Mr. President, I rise today to address a matter that has been much on my mind, at a moment when it seems that our democracy is more defined by our discord and our dysfunction than it is by our values and our principles. Let me begin by noting a somewhat obvious point that these offices that we hold are not ours to hold indefinitely. We are not here simply to mark time. Sustained incumbency is certainly not the point of seeking office. And there are times when we must risk our careers in favor of our principles.

Now is such a time.

It must also be said that I rise today with no small measure of regret. Regret, because of the state of our disunion, regret because of the disrepair and destructiveness of our politics, regret because of the indecency of our discourse, regret because of the coarseness of our leadership, regret for the compromise of our moral authority, and by our — all of our — complicity in this alarming and dangerous state of affairs. It is time for our complicity and our accommodation of the unacceptable to end.

In this century, a new phrase has entered the language to describe the accommodation of a new and undesirable order — that phrase being “the new normal.” But we must never adjust to the present coarseness of our national dialogue — with the tone set at the top.

We must never regard as “normal” the regular and casual undermining of our democratic norms and ideals. We must never meekly accept the daily sundering of our country — the personal attacks, the threats against principles, freedoms, and institutions, the flagrant disregard for truth or decency, the reckless provocations, most often for the pettiest and most personal reasons, reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the fortunes of the people that we have all been elected to serve.

None of these appalling features of our current politics should ever be regarded as normal. We must never allow ourselves to lapse into thinking that this is just the way things are now. If we simply become inured to this condition, thinking that this is just politics as usual, then heaven help us. Without fear of the consequences, and without consideration of the rules of what is politically safe or palatable, we must stop pretending that the degradation of our politics and the conduct of some in our executive branch are normal. They are not normal.

Reckless, outrageous, and undignified behavior has become excused and countenanced as “telling it like it is,” when it is actually just reckless, outrageous and undignified.

And when such behavior emanates from the top of our government, it is something else: It is dangerous to a democracy. Such behavior does not project strength — because our strength comes from our values. It instead projects a corruption of the spirit, and weakness.

It is often said that children are watching. Well, they are. And what are we going to do about that? When the next generation asks us, “Why didn’t you do something? Why didn’t you speak up?” — what are we going to say?

Mr. President, I rise today to say: Enough. We must dedicate ourselves to making sure that the anomalous never becomes normal. With respect and humility, I must say that we have fooled ourselves for long enough that a pivot to governing is right around the corner, a return to civility and stability right behind it. We know better than that. By now, we all know better than that.

Here, today, I stand to say that we would better serve the country and better fulfill our obligations under the constitution by adhering to our Article 1 “old normal” — Mr. Madison’s doctrine of the separation of powers. This genius innovation which affirms Madison’s status as a true visionary and for which Madison argued in Federalist 51 — held that the equal branches of our government would balance and counteract each other when necessary. “Ambition counteracts ambition,” he wrote.

But what happens if ambition fails to counteract ambition? What happens if stability fails to assert itself in the face of chaos and instability? If decency fails to call out indecency? Were the shoe on the other foot, would we Republicans meekly accept such behavior on display from dominant Democrats? Of course not, and we would be wrong if we did.

When we remain silent and fail to act when we know that that silence and inaction is the wrong thing to do — because of political considerations, because we might make enemies, because we might alienate the base, because we might provoke a primary challenge, because ad infinitum, ad nauseam — when we succumb to those considerations in spite of what should be greater considerations and imperatives in defense of the institutions of our liberty, then we dishonor our principles and forsake our obligations. Those things are far more important than politics.

Now, I am aware that more politically savvy people than I caution against such talk. I am aware that a segment of my party believes that anything short of complete and unquestioning loyalty to a president who belongs to my party is unacceptable and suspect.

If I have been critical, it not because I relish criticizing the behavior of the president of the United States. If I have been critical, it is because I believe that it is my obligation to do so, as a matter of duty and conscience.The notion that one should stay silent as the norms and values that keep America strong are undermined and as the alliances and agreements that ensure the stability of the entire world are routinely threatened by the level of thought that goes into 140 characters — the notion that one should say and do nothing in the face of such mercurial behavior is ahistoric and, I believe, profoundly misguided.

A Republican president named Roosevelt had this to say about the president and a citizen’s relationship to the office:

“The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile.” President Roosevelt continued. “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

Acting on conscience and principle is the manner in which we express our moral selves, and as such, loyalty to conscience and principle should supersede loyalty to any man or party. We can all be forgiven for failing in that measure from time to time. I certainly put myself at the top of the list of those who fall short in that regard. I am holier-than-none. But too often, we rush not to salvage principle but to forgive and excuse our failures so that we might accommodate them and go right on failing — until the accommodation itself becomes our principle.

In that way and over time, we can justify almost any behavior and sacrifice almost any principle. I’m afraid that is where we now find ourselves.

When a leader correctly identifies real hurt and insecurity in our country and instead of addressing it goes looking for somebody to blame, there is perhaps nothing more devastating to a pluralistic society. Leadership knows that most often a good place to start in assigning blame is to first look somewhat closer to home. Leadership knows where the buck stops. Humility helps. Character counts. Leadership does not knowingly encourage or feed ugly and debased appetites in us.

Leadership lives by the American creed: E Pluribus Unum. From many, one. American leadership looks to the world, and just as Lincoln did, sees the family of man. Humanity is not a zero-sum game. When we have been at our most prosperous, we have also been at our most principled. And when we do well, the rest of the world also does well.

These articles of civic faith have been central to the American identity for as long as we have all been alive. They are our birthright and our obligation. We must guard them jealously and pass them on for as long as the calendar has days. To betray them, or to be unserious in their defense is a betrayal of the fundamental obligations of American leadership. And to behave as if they don’t matter is simply not who we are.

Now, the efficacy of American leadership around the globe has come into question. When the United States emerged from World War II we contributed about half of the world’s economic activity. It would have been easy to secure our dominance, keeping the countries that had been defeated or greatly weakened during the war in their place. We didn’t do that. It would have been easy to focus inward. We resisted those impulses. Instead, we financed reconstruction of shattered countries and created international organizations and institutions that have helped provide security and foster prosperity around the world for more than 70 years.

Now, it seems that we, the architects of this visionary rules-based world order that has brought so much freedom and prosperity, are the ones most eager to abandon it.

The implications of this abandonment are profound. And the beneficiaries of this rather radical departure in the American approach to the world are the ideological enemies of our values. Despotism loves a vacuum. And our allies are now looking elsewhere for leadership. Why are they doing this? None of this is normal.And what do we as United States Senators have to say about it?

The principles that underlie our politics, the values of our founding, are too vital to our identity and to our survival to allow them to be compromised by the requirements of politics. Because politics can make us silent when we should speak, and silence can equal complicity.

I have children and grandchildren to answer to, and so, Mr. President, I will not be complicit.

I have decided that I will be better able to represent the people of Arizona and to better serve my country and my conscience by freeing myself from the political considerations that consume far too much bandwidth and would cause me to compromise far too many principles.

To that end, I am announcing today that my service in the Senate will conclude at the end of my term in early January 2019.

It is clear at this moment that a traditional conservative who believes in limited government and free markets, who is devoted to free trade, and who is pro-immigration, has a narrower and narrower path to nomination in the Republican Party — the party that for so long has defined itself by belief in those things. It is also clear to me for the moment we have given in or given up on those core principles in favor of the more viscerally satisfying anger and resentment. To be clear, the anger and resentment that the people feel at the royal mess we have created are justified. But anger and resentment are not a governing philosophy.

There is an undeniable potency to a populist appeal — but mischaracterizing or misunderstanding our problems and giving in to the impulse to scapegoat and belittle threatens to turn us into a fearful, backward-looking people. In the case of the Republican Party, those things also threaten to turn us into a fearful, backward-looking minority party.

We were not made great as a country by indulging or even exalting our worst impulses, turning against ourselves, glorying in the things which divide us, and calling fake things true and true things fake. And we did not become the beacon of freedom in the darkest corners of the world by flouting our institutions and failing to understand just how hard-won and vulnerable they are.

This spell will eventually break. That is my belief. We will return to ourselves once more, and I say the sooner the better. Because to have a healthy government we must have healthy and functioning parties. We must respect each other again in an atmosphere of shared facts and shared values, comity and good faith. We must argue our positions fervently and never be afraid to compromise. We must assume the best of our fellow man and always look for the good. Until that days comes, we must be unafraid to stand up and speak out as if our country depends on it. Because it does.

I plan to spend the remaining 14 months of my Senate term doing just that.

Mr. President, the graveyard is full of indispensable men and women — none of us here is indispensable. Nor were even the great figures from history who toiled at these very desks in this very chamber to shape this country that we have inherited. What is indispensable are the values that they consecrated in Philadelphiaand in this place, values which have endured and will endure for so long as men and women wish to remain free. What is indispensable is what we do here in defense of those values. A political career doesn’t mean much if we are complicit in undermining those values.

I thank my colleagues for indulging me here today and will close by borrowing the words of President Lincoln, who knew more about healing enmity and preserving our founding values than any other American who has ever lived. His words from his first inaugural were a prayer in his time, and are no less so in ours:

“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

iMonk Classic: A Reformation Day Meditation

Rocky Hill Church (KY). Photo by Jimmy Emerson, DVM

From Oct. 31, 2005.

“Behold, the days are coming,” declares the Lord GOD, “when I will send a famine on the land- not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD. They shall wander from sea to sea, and from north to east; they shall run to and fro, to seek the word of the LORD, but they shall not find it.

• Amos 8:11-12

On the way to preach at the evening chapel service, I drove past a church building here in our little village. There were probably 30 cars out front, a good crowd on Sunday nights here in the mountains of southeast Kentucky, but especially good because, just a few weeks ago, this building was empty. A few families have left a large Church of God down the road and come down here to start services in this building. Now they appeared to be up to probably 50 people or so. A quick start.

The church that had worshipped in this building before had grown from nothing to several hundred in just a few years. Now they have moved into an elementary school that the board of education vacated, and I expect they may be the largest church in the county right now. The “First Baptist” Church in the county seat runs about 150 on Sunday mornings. This is easily twice that and growing rapidly.

Pentecostal/Holiness churches dominate our county. I’ve never been entirely clear as to how they got such a foothold in such a short time, but they are the clear winners to appeal to this culture. I know that, at one time, Baptist and Presbyterian churches were strong, but in the last 50 years, the Presbyterians have almost vanished and the Baptists have barely held their ground. Pentecostals, Holiness and various kinds of Charismatic, non-denominational churches have flourished and multiplied. I work at a Baptist school, but probably a third of our staff goes to some variety of a non-Baptist, usually Pentecostal-Holiness, church.

It doesn’t take a lot of research to know what is going on in those churches. It is impossible to miss them. They are all over the television and the radio. Our cable system has 6 religious channels, all generously populated with local church and religious programming. The weekend radio is wall to wall Pentecostals and Holiness “worship” and preaching. I’ve visited the local Church of God and the local Charismatic Church several times. None of it is any surprise to me anymore.

You see, this morning, at my Presbyterian Church, I preached to 12 people. That’s not unusual. Several of my folks weren’t there, but I rarely preach to more than 25. We have a Reformed worship service that does everything we believe is important in a God-centered, God-honoring service of public worship. We are a Bible-saturated church. We read it. We sing it. We say it. We pray it. I preach it from lectionary texts and in verse by verse exposition. You’d have to drive a long way around here to find someone more committed to serious reformed worship and preaching than I am.

We don’t have a band. We don’t anoint with oil. We don’t shout. We don’t fall over in worship. We don’t speak in tongues. We don’t clap and jump. My preaching is intelligible, organized and earnest. I apply the message. I am careful to preach the gospel. There are no strange prophecies or emotion-laden prayer groups. We worship decently and in order. We do the Christian year. We say the creeds. I teach the confession.

I’m pretty sure that our church will die in a few years. I’m just as sure that most of the churches in our community that don’t embrace the Pentecostal-Charismatic style of worship will decline, and that many of the Pentecostal/Charismatic/Holiness churches will grow and prosper. I am certain that Biblical preaching means less and less to the average Christian every week in our community. It is a famine, and I am watching it happen in my lifetime.

The average Pentecostal-Charismatic preacher/pastor in our community has no education at all, and it shows very obviously and quickly. Ignorance is not a problem here. Being unintelligible, even bizarrely, dangerously ignorant of the Bible or Christian doctrine is not an issues. What matters is if you have the Spirit, at least as it’s judged here. I am not being prejudicial or bitter when I say that nothing approaching the Gospel is preached in most of these churches. The messages do not understand or beging to explain salvation by grace through faith by Christ. It is not a matter of a distorted or incomplete Gospel. It is religion without the Gospel. It is emotion that is genuine, and communal life that makes life easier in a hard place, but the Gospel, as a message and a truth to be believed, is almost never heard.

You hear a lot about prayer and what it can do. You hear a lot about repentance. There is a call to be holy and to live different. There are many warnings about the devil. You’ll hear assurances that God is on your side and that the Lord can give you the victory. Everything that God wants to do for you will happen at the altar when the Holy Spirit gets ahold of you. There is much said about family. Demons and spirits are very real. Emotionalism is encouraged, but the Gospel and the faith are almost never taught.

Faith? You’ll hear Kenneth Hagin and Oral Roberts’ version of faith, but you won’t hear sola fide anywhere. The Gospel of grace? If you are lucky, and find your way into one of the Baptist or Presbyterian or Methodist churches, you will hear about a gracious God who saves us in Jesus, but this is only a handful of churches. In the majority- the Holiness/Pentecostal/Charismatic majority- the Gospel of Grace is no more likely to be heard than a review of Russian novels.

You will hear the Christian’s responsibility to change the moral condition of society. Our community has a lot of anti-drug crusading going on these days, and the churches are very involved. Our local churches love the Ten Commandments fight, the prayer in schools fight, and the gay marriage fight. Mobilizing these churches for conservative political causes is easy work. They are ready to vote against alcohol and they are ready to march against drugs. If reforming society by getting Christians to vote and march is your passion, the churches here are wonderful.

In these churches, most of what you will hear that is worth believing about Jesus will be in the music. There’s music everywhere. Contemporary worship choruses. Mountain bluegrass. Country gospel. It’s on the television, on the radio and in every church. It seems that every church has 4 or 5 musical groups that love to sing. Music touches mountain people, there is no doubt about that. I’m not immune to it. I enjoy much of the mountain music, even as I recognize the uneven truths of the Gospel in it. The music is full of songs about heaven, mama and the need to repent. I am grateful for the times the Gospel shows up in some of this old music, however, because it is frequently more clearly stated in some of those songs than in the pulpit.

You can hear the Gospel preached clearly if you know where to look. There are national radio ministries that reach into our county from another county. (Thank God for them.) Of course, there are the usual con-artists and charlatans from the Word-faith side of the fence. Some of the Baptist ministers here have discovered John Piper and are reading and preaching the Gospel more clearly. We have some good men here in some churches that have little interest in a true Biblical ministry. Pastoral turnover is very, very high. Mountain people want their preaching to be emotional and confrontational. They don’t like a paid, professional ministry and they are suspicious of education. They hardly recognize the power of the Gospel as it is presented in Romans. They value authenticity, but they do not recognize the Biblical deficiencies in their definitions of it.

An educated ministry has a hard time relating to an uneducated culture. I’ve learned this many times. This is a place where feelings and emotions are the currency of religion, and the minister who seeks to emulate Spurgeon or Lloyd-Jones will have a difficult time. What works at Piper’s church or Dever’s church won’t work here.

The parking lot of the Pentecostal Church reminds me that I live in the midst of a famine of the Word of God. Like Luther’s time, the truth of the Gospel has been lost under the rubbish heap of mountain religion. The decline of a culture often catches the church asleep, and before you know it, the ability to even explain the Gospel is in perilous distress.

I have friends- good, educated, Biblically committed friends- who go to these churches. They are well aware that they seldom hear the Gospel and almost never hear Biblical messages. They go for the music, the children’s programs and the atmosphere of believing that God can and does act in people’s lives. They have adjusted just fine to sitting under a ministry that has little need for the Gospel or Biblical preaching.

It is discouraging. I drive past that parking lot- a scene that is repeated all the time in our community- and I wonder if I live in an anomoly or in the beginnings of the end of a kind of Biblical Christianity in our culture. While I know there will always be places where the Word and the Gospel are loved and valued, I am living in a place where the truth is dying, and what is replacing it is not the Gospel at all.

I often wonder if I should change? Should I embrace the local culture somehow and try to find a “reformed” mountain Christianity. So far, it stifles me. I cannot see where to start. Maybe it is right in front of me, and I am just afraid. Maybe I and other pastors here are carrying the light until another generation can take it up and shine it brighter in this place.

As it is, Reformation Day has come and gone, and the parking lot at the newest Pentecostal church in our county is full, while my church grows emptier.

Am I to blame? I end this Reformation Day wondering if I have furthered the famine or if I have done the best I can do to ease it. I do not know. God will have to be my judge. I dream of a church that is full, but every time we sing a reformed hymn, I am looking at faces that want to be elsewhere where the songs are recognizable and the atmosphere is familiar and informal. A few years ago a new family came with relatives to our church . They tried. I tried. We simply couldn’t keep them. I couldn’t be that mountain preacher. They couldn’t be those reformed Christians. There was a Charismatic church that suited them. It was a sad day when they left, particularly because they left me not with certainties, but with doubts.

“We long to see your churches full” wrote the hymnwriter. That is my desire, and as my time in ministry grows shorter, I want to see the Gospel loved and the Word of God hungered for among God’s people. I pray that I see a Reformation Day when there is evidence that the famine is lifting, and God’s Word is doing its work once more.

• • •

Photo by Jimmy Emerson, DVM at Flickr. Creative Commons License

Reformation 500: Luther’s Prayers

Some Prayers of Martin Luther

One of Martin Luther’s tasks in reforming the church and raising the level of faith among the people was helping them learn to pray. For example, in his greatest work, The Small Catechism, he encouraged families to have morning and evening prayers together.

How the head of the family should teach his household to pray morning and evening

Morning Prayer.

1] In the morning, when you rise, you shall bless yourself with the holy cross and say:

In the name of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen.

2] Then, kneeling or standing, repeat the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. If you choose, you may, in addition, say this little prayer:

I thank Thee, my Heavenly Father, through Jesus Christ, Thy dear Son, that Thou hast kept me this night from all harm and danger; and I pray Thee to keep me this day also from sin and all evil, that all my doings and life may please Thee. For into Thy hands I commend myself, my body and soul, and all things. Let Thy holy angel be with me, that the Wicked Foe may have no power over me. Amen.

3] Then go to your work with joy, singing a hymn, as the Ten Commandments, or what your devotion may suggest.

Evening Prayer.

4] In the evening, when you go to bed, you shall bless yourself with the holy cross and say:

In the name of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen.

5] Then, kneeling or standing, repeat the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. If you choose, you may, in addition, say this little prayer:

I thank Thee, my Heavenly Father, through Jesus Christ, Thy dear Son, that Thou hast graciously kept me this day, and I pray Thee to forgive me all my sins, where I have done wrong, and graciously keep me this night. For into Thy hands I commend myself, my body and soul, and all things. Let Thy holy angel be with me, that the Wicked Foe may have no power over me. Amen.

Then go to sleep promptly and cheerfully.

Here are some other prayers of Luther for various occasions. I chose some that I find particularly instructive and insightful, and hope that they might prove useful for our iMonk community. These are taken from a collection called Luther’s Prayers, edited by Herbert F. Brokering.

• • •

Prayer Before the Sermon

Eternal God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, give us your Holy Spirit who writes the preached Word into our hearts. May we receive and believe it and be cheered and comforted by it in eternity. Glorify your Word in our hearts and make it so bright and warm that we may find pleasure in it, through your Holy Spirit think what is right, and by your power fulfill the Word, for the sake of Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord. Amen.

Prayer After the Sermon

Dear Lord Christ, you have enlightened my heart with your truth. Grant me your Spirit and the power to do and not to do whatever pleases your gracious will. Amen.

A Prayer for Strengthened Faith

Almighty God, through the death of your Son you have destroyed sin and death. Through his resurrection you have restored innocence and eternal life. We who are delivered from the power of the devil may live in your kingdom. Give us grace that we may believe this with our whole heart. Enable us, always, to steadfastly praise and thank you in this faith, through your Son Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.

A Prayer After Communion

We thank you, almighty Lord God, that you have refreshed us with this precious gift, and we ask for your mercy that you would let it nurture in us strong faith toward you and intensive love among us all, through Jesus Christ, your Son our Lord. Amen.

A Prayer for Lasting Peace

Dear God, give us peaceful hearts and a right courage in the confusion and strife against the devil. And so may we not only endure and finally triumph, but also have peace in the midst of the struggle. May we praise and thank you and not complain or become impatient against your divine will. Let peace win the victory in our hearts, that we may never through impatience initiate anything against you, our God, or our neighbors. May we remain quiet and peaceable toward God and toward other people, both inwardly and outwardly, until the final and eternal peace shall come. Amen.

A Pastor’s Prayer for Guidance

Dear heavenly Father, say something. I will gladly remain silent and be a child and learner. If I should rule the church with my own knowledge, wisdom, and understanding, I would have been sunk long ago. Therefore, dear God, you guide and direct it. I will gladly forsake my point of view and understanding and let you rule alone through your Word. Amen.

A Prayer for Relief from Misery

Lord, misery and misfortune annoy me and oppress me. I long to be rid of them. You have said, Ask and it will be given you. So I come and ask. Amen.

A Prayer for Love toward Others

Dear Father in heaven, for the sake of your dear Son Jesus Christ grant us your Holy Spirit, that we may be true learners of Christ, and therefore acquire a heart with a never-ceasing fountain of love. Amen.

Reformation 500: Sermon on Conversion (1Thess 1:1-10)

Sermon: Conversion (1 Thess 1:1-10)
Reformation Principles in 1Thessalonians

Introduction

One of life’s most difficult realities is change. Most of us have a way of doing things, a pattern of life, habits, routines; and we find it hard to adjust those or go in different directions. We have proverbs that talk about how we get “set in our ways,” about how you “can’t teach an old dog new tricks,” and so on.

Psychologists tell us that studies have show that people after their 20s are not as open to change, at least until their 60s. That is probably because the demands of adult responsibilities that come upon us in our middle adult years make it increasingly difficult to change. Once a family and career are in place, novelty and change may not longer be as welcome. So most people may dream of taking adventures and making big life changes, but in the end most of us hold fast to the familiar.

Our brain also works against us making big changes. It is always trying to automate things and create habits that give off a sense of pleasure and accomplishment. When we hold to the tried and the true, we get feelings of security, safety, and competence, and our fear of the future and of failure are reduced.

Many of us do however entertain unrealistic expectations about what change is possible. There’s even a name for it: False Hope Syndrome. We envision big changes and try to do too much too fast. The result it that we get disappointed time and time again by our inability to maintain the change. New Year’s Resolutions, anyone? Better to think of making regular small adjustments than a total overhaul.

When we get to about age 60, however, we become more open to change, as the nest empties and we approach the end of our work careers, and we have fulfilled other life obligations. But even then, researchers have found, it is hard to make fundamental changes in our lives.

We have to face these tendencies in ourselves straight up. It is hard to change. It is difficult to change course. It is hard to replace bad habits with good ones, to alter our attitudes, to change our ways of thinking, to follow different patterns in our daily lives.

Nevertheless, one of the things the Reformation teaches us is that we must be people who are open to change. The first Reformation principle I would like to talk about from this first letter of Paul to the Thessalonians is CONVERSION. To convert is to to change, to turn around and go a different direction, to adjust your course, to choose a different way than the one you’re going on. Conversion involves changing our minds, changing our attitudes, changing our feelings, changing our actions, and changing our habits. Converted people think differently, feel differently, talk differently, and act differently than they did before they were converted.

Martin Luther became converted when God’s Word came to him in power, showed him the futility of the path he was on, revealed a new path to him, and gave him the desire and strength to get up and walk on that new path. That is why the first thesis he posted on the Wittenberg door was this: The Christian life is a life of continual repentance, another word for conversion. In other words, he was saying that Christians are converted people who are always and ever being converted, or changed, by God.

If we are true Reformation believers, we are always changing, always growing, always dying to the old life and being raised to walk in the new life. We are always listening to God’s Word, which tells us which way to go and which way not to go. We are always being led by the Spirit, who shows us how to avoid the ways of darkness and seek the paths of light. Yes, we believe that God accepts us as we are, that he loves us and welcomes us even though we sin and fail and mess up. But in that process of being welcomed, new desires to change and grow and develop are born in us. We enter a new life of adventures, of new paths, of faith instead of self-righteousness, of hope instead of mere existence, of love instead of self-absorption. We don’t seek change because we’re afraid of God but because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts and it is our joy and ultimate fulfillment to learn to walk in his ways.

You see, when a person is converted, he/she receives new life, the life of Christ himself. We are joined to Jesus and we share in all that belongs to him — all of his righteousness, all of his goodness, all of his wisdom, all of his love. Life becomes a daily adventure of discovering more and more about the treasures we have received in him and then sharing those gifts with others.

This is what Paul wrote to the Thessalonians here in chapter one. He gives thanks when he thinks of them because, in them, he sees wonderful examples of converted Christians who are on the paths of ongoing conversion and transformation. He sees in them an ongoing “work of faith and labor of love and stead-fastness of hope.” He notes how God’s Word came to them “in power and in the Holy Spirit and with great conviction.” He rejoices in how they imitated the Lord and the apostles, even though they had to endure suffering because of it. They were converted so soundly and continued in daily conversion so steadfastly that they became an example to other believers all around the region. Everyone could see how they had “turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven.”

In the Small Catechism, Martin Luther wrote that one of the best ways to enter into the practice of daily conversion is to remember our baptism each and every day.

What does such baptizing with water signify?

—Answer. It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.

Where is this written?

—Answer. St. Paul says Romans, chapter 6: We are buried with Christ by Baptism into death, that, like as He was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

You know Gospel examples of people like Zaccheus, who made his living extorting money from others. He was converted and began living a life of justice and generosity. Or Peter and John, who exchanged fishing for the life of discipleship with Jesus. Or Paul, whom Jesus confronted on the Damascus Road and turned his life around. Or the people who came to John the Baptist, confessed their sins, were baptized in the Jordan, and began looking for the Messiah. I myself had a major conversion experience when I was a teenager, a spiritual awakening that turned my life around and led me into ministry. Martin Luther had several, from the thunderstorm which caused him to become a monk, to the Tower experience when he was reading Romans and it suddenly became clear to him that “the just shall live by faith.”

But I want to emphasize that conversion need not be a big, life-changing, dramatic thing. The most important conversion happens every day, when we die to sin and rise to walk in newness of life in the midst of our families, our neighbors, and our community.

Martin Luther’s first thesis of the 95 was: “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ‘Repent’, he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.” This turning around, this changing direction, is also known as conversion, and it is the first mark of Reformation Christians.

19th Sunday after Trinity: Pic & Cantata of the Week

French Fishing Vessel ‘Alf’ in the Irish Sea. Photo by Defence Images

(Click on picture to see larger image)

This article describes the metaphorical world Bach creates in today’s rich solo bass cantata, BWV 56, “Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen” (I will gladly carry the cross)”.

Cantata 56 was written for the 19th Sunday after Trinity in 1726 (October 27 that year). The Gospel reading for that day mentions a voyage in a ship over the sea; the storms encountered on such a journey are related to the burden of carrying the cross and living with all of life’s obstacles. It is ultimately a metaphor for sailing life’s journey to reach heaven (Robertson, The Church Cantatas of J.S. Bach, p. 298). The text, whose author remains anonymous, makes numerous references to the sea, to ships, and to a journey throughout, making both overt and subtle ties to the Gospel of the day.

My pilgrimage in the world
is like a sea voyage:
trouble, suffering, and anguish
are the waves that cover me
and to death itself
daily terrify me;
my anchor however, which holds me firm,
is mercy,
with which my God often appeases me.
He calls thus to me:
I am with you,
I will not forsake you or abandon you!
And when the raging torrents
are come to an end,
then I will step off the ship into my city,
which is the kingdom of heaven,
where with the righteous
I will emerge out of many troubles.

Finally, finally my yoke
must fall away from me.
Then will I fight with the Lord’s strength,
then I will have an eagle’s power,
then I will journey from this earth
and run without becoming fatigued.
O let it happen today!

• • •

Photo by Defence Images at Flickr. Creative Commons License

Reformation 500: What I Like about Lutheran Baptism

What I Like about Lutheran Baptism

I had the privilege of baptizing two little girls this morning, and it reminded me that one of the stumbling blocks I had to get over as a post-evangelical was the issue of baptism. For most of my pastoral career I was a credo-baptist, that is, I practiced “believer’s baptism,” holding that the only candidates suitable for baptism were those who were able to verbally confess their faith in Jesus and be baptized as a sign of their commitment to Christ. The churches I served all practiced believer’s baptism — we baptized those who professed faith by means of immersion. Baptism was a public testimony of faith in Christ; a sign, a visual demonstration of dying to the old life, and rising to walk in newness of life. Some of the churches theoretically accepted the idea of infant baptism as well, but in the years I was there never performed the rite in public worship. I myself was open to the idea of infant baptism, particularly as it was explained in the Reformed tradition.

When we joined the Lutheran church, we didn’t spend much time discussing the subject of baptism, considering it a lesser issue than some of the other ecclesiological matters that drew us there. However, as I have taken part in the congregation and have read and thought about this subject, I have become more and more impressed with the Lutheran understanding.

First, let’s define what Lutherans believe. Here is Luther’s Smaller Catechism on holy baptism…

What is Baptism?
Baptism is not simple water only, but it is the water comprehended in God’s command and connected with God’s Word.

Which is that word of God?
Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Matthew: Go ye into all the world and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

What does Baptism give or profit?
It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.

Which are such words and promises of God?
Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Mark: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

How can water do such great things?
It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.

What does such baptizing with water signify?
It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.

Where is this written?
St. Paul says Romans, chapter 6: We are buried with Christ by Baptism into death, that, like as He was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

I like the Lutheran view because it understands baptism as God’s act, not a human act. It’s primarily about grace, not faith. It is done to us in God’s name (that is, as an act of God performed by his representative), we do not do it to ourselves. It is not the sign of my response to God, it is the sign and seal of what God has done for me.

I like the Lutheran view because it emphasizes the Word of God. When God’s Word of promise and salvation is spoken at baptism, ordinary water becomes a means of grace to sinners. Lutherans do not emphasize the water apart from the Word, nor do they worry so much about how much water is used, or by what method the water is applied. The key is that the simple, ordinary element of water is combined with the all-important Word of salvation.

I like the Lutheran view because it appropriately broadens our understanding of the Great Commission. Many who argue against baptizing infants appeal to the Book of Acts, where believer’s baptism is the common practice. However, they forget that Acts describes mainly first-generation believers. Lutherans have no problem with baptizing believers who have received the Gospel (nor does any Christian denomination that practices baptism). What the N.T. does not exemplify so clearly is what should happen with second-generation believers. When does the child of Christian parents start becoming a disciple of Christ? That process begins when the child is born, and therefore it is appropriate to baptize the child and begin teaching him/her to obey what Christ has commanded from the beginning of life.

I like the Lutheran view because it enlightens us about the true nature of faith. In evangelicalism, faith is usually described as my decision, my willful choice to follow Christ. Lutherans understand that faith is more mysterious and often less conscious than that. Infants exemplify this broader understanding. Does an infant choose to be conceived or born? Does an infant decide to bond in trustful repose upon its mother’s breast? Does the infant intelligently weigh its options and determine to choose life and love? No, the infant’s new life begins solely by the will of others, when they come together in an act of love. Then the incomprehensible life force one day moves the baby to enter the world, breathe, and respond to those who love her. Even so, God, through Word and Sacrament, works faith and spiritual life into those who receive his promise.

I like the Lutheran view because it emphasizes the ongoing significance of baptism. Since evangelicalism views baptism as a one-time initiatory act that communicates a singular message about conversion, those who practice believer’s baptism don’t bring up the subject again in the course of the Christian life. However, Lutherans (following Luther himself) see baptism as an ongoing object lesson of the Christian life that we must remember and reenact every day. We practice our baptism daily by repenting (dying to the old life) and rising to walk in new life.

So hear ye all, and well perceive
What God doth call baptism,
And what a Christian should believe
Who error shuns and schism:
That we should water use, the Lord
Declareth it his pleasure;
Not simple water, but the Word
And Spirit without measure;
He is the true Baptizer.

• Hymn XXXIV from “The Hymns of Martin Luther”