Christian, Lutheran, Whatever, What ARE You?

A blog that I sometimes visit is Worldview Everlasting.  When I first stumbled upon this blog I was fascinated by it.  Over time I became aware of the cause of my uneasiness with this “Lutheran” and his “style” and the compendium of topics and contributors.  Now I visit the site occasionally just to see whether things have moved in a more helpful direction.  My visits are becoming less and less frequent, due to the continual disappointment.

One of the recent video posts is All Ur Labels R Belong to Us.

The very title, with its world-mimicking bad grammar and style, makes me squirm.  It immediately sets off the holy alarms in my spirit and soul.  It is akin to the feeling of having a caterpillar or other creature crawling down my neck inside the back of my shirt.  Sometimes this sense is more like the feeling of having bird poop fall on me from overhead.  Other times it is like the sense of feeling my foot slip when I step upon a fresh pile of doggy poop in someone’s back yard.

The immediate sense is that something is not right.  Something is out of place.

Such senses should not be ignored in life.  The warnings are genuine.  They are signals that one should be alert and on guard.

These uneasy sensations are the natural response to things that do not fit, things that are not honest and true.

In the case of these titles of video posts, they do not fit with the manner of what the blogger claims to represent.  This is not the norm for the one holy catholic Church that is called, gathered, enlightened, and sanctified by the Holy Spirit and kept with Jesus Christ in the one true faith.  This simply is not the way of those who are called out of the world to stand apart from the world.  This is not the way of those who live in the world but are not of the world.

Read the Scriptures and see.  Does the Lord conform Himself and His ministry and preaching to the style and manner of the world?  Do His apostles preach or write in this way?  Do they try to incorporate the modern lingo and mannerisms so as to try to make themselves more appealing?

The Scriptures do speak of those who use this approach.  What the Scriptures say concerning this way is not flattering.

In the video post listed above, All Ur Labels R Belong to Us, the content matches the style.  It is consistent with the overall approach of the web site.  It tries to blend the world’s view of reality or the “worldview” with the view of the Church with the catchy title of “Worldview Everlasting.”  It sounds very spiritual.  It sounds very “other-worldly.”  But it is really very worldly in the end.  It is a reduction of “the things above” to acceptance in terms of things below.

This is demonstrated powerfully in the following portions of this video post.

On the time line, at 4:16, a question from a commentator is shared.



At 4:26, Fisk addresses this.



Here Fisk identifies the problem with Lutheranism, including his definition of Lutheranism.  The problem is one of dishonesty and total lack of integrity.

Notice the statement in the center of this where Fisk replies, saying:

     You are not a Lutheran - which is fine, so long as you are honest about it.

This is a recurring doctrine throughout this video post.  It flows throughout the entire blog and its many posts.

At 5:14 Fisk says in this video,

     Be what you are.  Love what you are.  If you believe something, embrace it. . . . I’m not trying to put you in a hole, I’m just trying to get you to, you know, enjoy what you actually think.  Embrace it!

Is this what the Lord Jesus teaches?  Is this even remotely like what the apostles teach?  Do the Scriptures ever say this?  Or do the Scriptures actually declare that we should hear the truth and be turned from what we are and what we think and what we construct for ourselves?

Do the Scriptures ever declare that it is OK to believe what we want so long as we listen to what others say and accept them for who they are?

Is this the way of the Holy Scriptures?  Is this what is exposed in the “Lutheran Confessions” that Fisk claims to believe and confess and teach?

Do the Lutheran Confessions say that it is OK to love and embrace the ways of Wesleyan Baptist theology and practice?

At 9:12 Fisk says:

     But if your ism happens to be Lutheranism, which basically has six chief things, there’s like six things that make a Lutheran, we call them the six chief parts, and we believe they’re actually six things that make you a Christian, too, although you can be a Christian without believing everything about every piece of the chief parts, but they are the fullness of Christianity and they all point you back to Christ and the cross, but pretty much to deny any of these six things, I mean, it’s not like it’s this big giant list somewhere, it’s six stinkin things, right, you believe these six things and you are a Lutheran.  You don’t believe these six things and you’re not a Lutheran.  We call these six things the Small Catechism, because it is rather small, and catechism means: “teaching.”  It is just the small list of teaching that actually makes you Lutheran.

     I don’t define this.  I mean, where do you get off accusing me of that?  As if it is my idea.  You think I’m making this stuff up?  You think it’s about me?  If you think it’s about me, you just got to watch these videos a lot more, because you know, go back and watch the old ones.  This sucker aint about me man, this sucker’s about the Word of God.

Do people who speak this way ever even listen to themselves so as to hear the amount of double-mindedness that is expressed in their preaching?

For openers, where does Lutheran doctrine ever speak of Lutheran Christianity?

Hmm?

Where do the Lutheran Confessions ever speak of anything other than the one holy catholic/universal/Christian Church?

How can Fisk say, “they’re actually six things that make you a Christian, too, although you can be a Christian without believing everything about every piece of the chief parts”?

How can he say two diametrically opposing things within the same sentence and not hear the fallacy?

How can people listen to this and accept this as genuine?

How can he furthermore refer to the six chief parts of the one true faith by which God’s grace is declared and taught and imparted as “six stinkin things”?

Is this the way of someone whose first thought is to proclaim the truth of God’s Word, or is it the way of someone who is more concerned about sounding cool?

If these six chief parts are what make a person a Christian, how is it possible not to believe everything about them without losing one’s Christianity?

Does a baker accept this notion regarding the ingredients for a cake or a loaf of bread?  Does a mechanic say this regarding the parts of an engine that is being reassembled?  Does an electrician say this concerning the wiring of a house?

Would you trust any of these if they did?

How can Fisk make such statements while demanding integrity and honesty of others?

How can Lutherans in general follow this way as most do today?

The answer rests at least in part with the rest of what Fisk says about these six chief parts.  He says that we call them the Small Catechism.  He makes this false statement because he is falsely focusing upon the “smallness” of the essential and necessary parts of the Christian faith.  He is attempting to minimize the content of the doctrine that must stand as what is believed.

What does Luther and the catholic Church call these six chief parts?

The Catechism, is what they are called.

The so-called Small Catechism is the smaller and more concise of Luther’s explanations of the Catechism.  Luther wrote a Small Catechism in which the six chief parts are briefly explained so that the simple and young could understand them.

Luther also wrote a Larger Catechism in which he expanded his explanations of the Catechism or the Six Chief Parts more extensively.

Something that Luther does not say concerning these six chief parts is that anyone ever may dare to deny them in any part.  To deny these in any way, to reject so as not to believe any portion of these, is to deny the Word of God Himself, to deny Jesus, and to lose one’s salvation.

Luther treats this very seriously.  He never speaks of those who reject the efficacious nature of Baptism as true Christians.  He never speaks of those who deny the body and blood of Jesus in the Sacrament as true Christians.  Rather, he warns them against eating and drinking judgement upon themselves and cutting themselves off from God’s Holy Communion.

But Fisk and nearly every Lutheran today mocks this, saying that a person can be a Christian while denying and refusing to believe what Jesus and His apostles plainly declare.

The Christian faith, the faith by which salvation is imparted by God to those who stand desperately in need of being saved, is an “All or Nothing” faith.  It cannot be divided into portions that are necessary and unnecessary or even less necessary.

As an arborist who climbs trees using ropes for my own positioning and safety as well as for securing and lowering tree limbs and controlling the felling of trees in dangerous situations, I have come to value a saying by Clifford Ashely:

     A knot is never nearly right; it is either exactly right or it is hopelessly wrong, one or the other; there is nothing in between.

This saying is exemplified in the following explanation from “Tie, Dress, and Set (TDS)” in “The Tree Climber’s Companion.”

     Tying knots involves more than just making the “rabbit come out of the hole, go around the tree, and back in the hole” as with the Bowline. A properly tied knot must also be finished properly by dressing it and setting it. Dressing the knot means properly aligning, arranging, or straightening all the parts of the knot so it matches the description and picture in the book. Knot and rope strength can be significantly reduced if the knot is dressed improperly.

     Setting the knot involves tightening all its parts so they properly touch, grab, and press against each other. This creates friction on the rope—the reason a knot works.  A knot that is loosely tied could “capsize” and come untied when a load is applied.  It is good practice to periodically inspect knots while in use to ensure they remain tied.  New knots should never be employed aloft until they can be skillfully tied, dressed, and set (TDS) while on the ground.

From this it is easy to recognize the absolute importance of 100% accuracy in the doctrine of knot tying.  It also is easy to see that one must believe all aspects of this in order for the doctrine to have its effect in practice.

For example, a knot that is tied correctly will not hold if the person does not believe that it must be properly set and therefore skips this absolutely necessary step.

The same is true concerning the Six Chief Parts of Christian doctrine.

No part can be ignored or rejected if the doctrine is to be effective.

God does not give His doctrine without purpose.  He does not teach things that are not necessary.  All aspects of the truth are necessary.  Any departure from the truth is a departure from the truth.

This should be committed to heart, mind and soul.

Any departure from the truth is a departure from the truth.

If one does not hold to this, what difference does it make whether or not one is “honest” about being a Lutheran?  What does it matter if the article of doctrine concerning Baptism can be rejected and one can still be Christian?

The reason that the many imagined Lutherans think that it is important to be Lutheran is that they are actually promoting themselves.

One of Shakespeare’s famous quotations is from Hamlet:

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Lutherans often fall into this category, as Fisk seems to protest too much when he says,

     I don’t define this.  I mean, where do you get off accusing me of that?  As if it is my idea.  You think I’m making this stuff up?  You think it’s about me?  If you think it’s about me, you just got to watch these videos a lot more, because you know, go back and watch the old ones.  This sucker aint about me man, this sucker’s about the Word of God.

If it is not about “being Lutheran,” why do they protest so much?  Why do they not simply proclaim the doctrine of the true faith as absolutely necessary and stand upon this?  Why do they insist on the name of “Lutheranism” and their church bodies?

God says many times and in various ways, both through the ministry of His Son and through the ministry of His apostles, “Baptism saves you.”  (For example: 1 Peter 3:19-21)

If someone says that this is not true, what does that person say of God, of God’s Word, of the Scriptures, of the faith declared in the Scriptures, of the Holy Spirit who inspired men to write these Scriptures, of the men who wrote them and proclaimed them, and of the Church?

If one says that what God says is true but that one can be a Christian while saying that what God says is not true, what does this mean?

Why even bother preaching and teaching concerning these things at all?

Unless of course, it really is about you after all.

Whose word really matters?  In whose words do you really trust?

Hmm?

Romans 3:4

+ + +

Václav Havel's View

I found an article regarding the recently deceased Czech leader, entitled, Living Responsibly: Václav Havel's View, an article that I found very informative and interesting.

Frankly, until today, I was ignorant of this man and his role in the struggle of mankind for knowing the truth and for understanding who we are. I saw some blog posts contrasting this man and the recently deceased ruler of North Korea. This motivated me to study more.

What I learned about Kim Jong-il is horrifying. What I have learned of Václav Havel is truly a contrast.

Two places where I learned of Kim Jong-il and his so-called leadership are: On the Death of A Diabolical Dictator – North Korea’s Killing Fields and Kim Jong-il, North Korean leader, dies. Both of these have videos that reveal the dreadful ways of those who promote themselves as saviors, in the stead of the one who gives Himself as Savior, whose great gift to the world we celebrate Sunday. The videos at “The Guardian” show how powerfully the people of North Korea, or at least the ones shown in the videos, were persuaded by the closed and controlled state media.

Truly the man Václav Havel stands in contrast to this. I find it amazing how American he is, unlike most of us who have enjoyed the freedoms afforded to “real Americans.” He offers a strong warning to America, to Western Civilization, and to the world.

Havel stands as an example of how even one who does not believe in the God who reveals Himself in the Bible can still benefit temporally from the statutes, commandments, precepts, and judgments therein recorded. Havel himself received these temporal benefits, and through his belief in the high morals and ideals many others benefitted as well.

It is sad, though, very sad indeed, to realize that temporal benefits do not equal everlasting benefits. For this man openly declared concerning the rumor that he had become a Christian: “genuine conversion, as I understand it, would mean replacing an uncertain ‘something’ with a completely unambiguous personal God, and fully, inwardly, to accept Christ as the Son of God.… And I have not taken that step.”

This means that he will be standing with Kim Jong-il forevermore. He will not suffer as greatly as the monstrous dictator, but he did reject the life of everlasting blessedness that the Lord Jesus purchased for him.

And this is the so-called Church’s fault. For where would he turn to hear the unadulterated Gospel today? Where would he look to see the holy catholic Church standing in perfect unity of doctrine? Where are the means of grace administered today in accord with Christ’s ordinance? And yet all of these divisive heretics (opinion holders) say that these divisive self held opinion promoters are the Church and are saved. Why then would someone like Havel be inclined to believe in “a completely unambiguous personal God”? From whom would he even hear of such a God so as to believe in Him?

Sadly, frighteningly, poor Mr. Havel is not alone in this confusion that fills the world through the so-called Church of tolerant deviance. When one considers how many victims this view of Christianity claims, who is the more monstrous tyrant, the little ruler of North Korea, or the pastors and other leaders who deny the efficacy of the means of grace and the true unity of the Church of God on earth? And of those who deny the efficacy of the means of grace and the true unity of the Church, who does it most powerfully, those who outright deny that God works salvation through these, or those who teach that they are true means of salvation but then allow that salvation can be received while rejecting them (and thereby the One who ordained them)?

The warning that Mr. Havel spoke to America, to Western civilization, and to the world certainly should be taken seriously by those who call themselves Church. Moreover, if Mr. Havel were able so to do, he would, like the rich man who called out to Abraham in whose bosom Lazarus rested, surely he would call out to the Church unitedly and honestly to warn his brothers concerning who Jesus really is and what Jesus has accomplished for us all.

Christmas, that is, the Christ Mass, is this Sunday. Never mind what this means TO the world. Isn’t it time that Christians first acknowledge what this means FOR the Church so as then also to be able to proclaim what it means FOR the world?

Is it possible that in spite of the infidelity of those who claim to be the Church that somehow, even with the lack of clarity and honesty of their preaching and practice, that somehow the Lord miraculously brought Mr. Havel into the true faith so that he also rests in the bosom of Abraham? This is a question that we have no business asking, for the Lord has nowhere given such a promise. Mr. Havel most certainly could have been converted in his last moments. But this is not our concern. Our concern is that he did not hear it from us! Furthermore, our concern is whether or not we will hear God calling us to repentance ourselves.

Throughout the world people will be singing:

Oh, come, all ye faithful, triumphantly sing:
Come see in the manger our Savior and King!

Where has He promised to be found? Where has He declared His manger to be? How has He said that sinners are to come to Him? Through what means has He said that sinners enter into the kingdom of God? John 3 How does His apostle say that sinners are empowered to be born as sons of God? It is through a decision? Is it through bloodline and heritage? John 1:12-13 How does He say that His blood of forgiveness is given and received? Matthew 26:27-28 Oh that together with one voice and as one true body the Church would gather for the Christ Mass and sing:

To Bethlehem hasten with joyful accord;
Oh, come let us adore Him, Oh, come let us adore Him,
Oh come let us adore Him, Christ the Lord!

+ + +

And on the Seventh Day

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. (Genesis 2:2-3)

Is it not amazing to see how God made the second work of creation to be like the first? On the first day everything was in chaos, without order, and God called forth the light to shine and established order to the world. After working all week to establish His order to His creation, having completed His creative work, He rested from all of His work. On the eighth day the new life that He created and established continued under His blessing and care.

Is it not marvelous to see how He did the same in His work of redemption and recreation? He called forth light and order out of the world’s chaos with His entrance on Palm Sunday, the first day of the week. He worked all week cleansing the temple and preaching and proclaiming sound doctrine. He brought the Old Testament to a close and instituted the New Testament in His blood, then faced the mock trial and the slander and the torture and the crucifixion, bringing to completion the work of redemption and recreation. He was buried before the beginning of the Sabbath Day and He rested from all of His work of recreation, rising again on the eighth day to rule over the world with His blessing and care.

† † †

Alleluia in Lent

“Not saying Alleluia during Lent is stupid!” This very bold statement is from a post entitled even more audaciously, Not Saying Alleluia During Lent is Stupid (Sure to Cause Apoplexy Among High Church Purists) at Paul T. McCain’s Cyberbrethren.

A response to this is posted at Gaba’s Notebook entitled Stupid Rubrics.

From a certain perspective I have to agree with McCain. It is actually the opposite of his intention, but I nevertheless must say from the proper perspective that “not saying Alleluia during Lent is stupid.” I don’t actually agree with McCain at all, but rather with Saint Paul’s statement concerning the Moron of God, in the 1 Corinthians 1:25 context.

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (1 Corinthians 1:18-25)

The Moron of God or the Foolishness of God is wiser than men. Yet to sinful man, to the sinful flesh and the Old Adam, the wisdom of God appears as foolishness, and those who follow the way of God appear as morons.

From this perspective I relate to McCain. As the season of Advent approached, as the season of Trinity drew closer and closer to the close of the cycle of the Church year, I began to dread the advent of Advent. I dreaded Advent’s advent because I knew that soon I would no longer be singing the Gloria in Excelsis. It seemed to me that the season of Advent would be stealing away from me the joyous privilege of singing the song of the heralding angels. The Gloria in Excelsis is the preaching of what the Christ Mass really is. Thus, I dreaded the loss of the privilege of singing it and hearing it.

However, after the season began and the full measure of the awareness of the “why” settled over me again, I began to give thanks for this robbery. This was especially true when the season of Christmas had arrived and the exquisite joy of hearing the Gloria in Excelsis was restored after its absence had been felt in my heart and soul during the four weeks of Advent.

After pondering McCain’s outburst concerning the Alleluia not being sung during Lent, especially in observing the clear and deliberate quote from Luther both divorced from its context as well as in deliberate contradiction of its context, I realized more fully the source of my resistance to this ancient liturgical practice.

The source is the sinful flesh and the Old Adam. According to my sinful flesh, according to my sinful nature that is mine by inheritance from Adam, I do not want to face the truth. The truth is that I am unworthy of speaking or singing Alleluia. Alleluia is not truly the possession of the Church on earth. It is ours here on earth only as those who await the redemption of our body:

For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only —they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. (Romans 8:19-23)

The singing of the Alleluia is the possession of the Church on earth in keeping with the rest of the passage quoted above, where St. Paul further explains:

For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. (Romans 8:24-27)

And also,

If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. (Colossians 3:1-4)

I don’t want to let go of my imagined “right” to sing Alleluia!

I very much prefer the theology of glory, at least according to my fleshly nature. I want to imagine that my singing of Alleluia will loft its way heavenward and fill heaven with joy. I want to imagine that Alleluia is my right as a Christian!

But according to the new man, the one that rises up from the water where the Old Adam is washed away, according to the good conscience of the resurrection afforded me in Baptism (1 Peter 3:21), I thank God for the wisdom of the season of Lent. To the Old Adam, who tries to tread the water of the flood so as to shout his praises heavenward, this wisdom seems moronic. But the new man walks according to spirit and finds that the means of grace are the true means of praise. The new man is happy to be on his knees receiving the glory of God administered in bread and wine for his forgiveness and restoration to the fullness of God’s Holy Communion.

The new man realizes that there is a reason that the Alleluia is not found in the Scriptures of the New Testament until the revelation of the songs of the saints in heaven in Revelation 19. In the Scriptures of the New Testament the Alleluia is only hinted at through admonitions concerning regular use of the Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs and in Old Testament quotations such as Romans 15:11 where St. Paul quotes Psalm 117 but not using Hallel. But the word Alleluia is not actually recorded until it is heard in Revelation 19.

In the accounts of the New Testament a very different language of praise is recorded. Instead of Alleluia we hear “Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” We also hear, “Kyrie Eleison!” (Hosanna = save now & eleison = have mercy.) Sometimes we only hear the sobs of a woman anointing the feet of her Lord and God with perfume and washing His feet with her tears and drying them with her hair. We hear the pitiful cry of the publican in the temple, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” and of the repentant thief on the cross, “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.”

This is not the audacious language of the sinful nature. Not at all! This is the humble and contrite language of repentance. This is the language of John the Baptist and of Jesus: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” Interestingly, neither John nor Jesus stood in the temple shouting “Alleluia!” They did not stand in the temple and call the people to join in praising God. Rather, they went out into the wilderness, where the people would have to abandon all of their lofty praises and be humbled by the harshness of the curse in the world to sit on grass and rocks and soil and to be quiet and listen. For this is the nature of true worship: not to speak and sing the praises of God, but to listen and to hear and to receive the Gospel through the means of grace.

Alleluia is not truly ours to sing at all. Rather, it is the response that God works in us through the seemingly common elements of water and bread and wine. Thus the meal of Thanksgiving is held before us as the showing of the Lord’s death till He comes. It is to this awareness that the season of Lent draws us. It is for this reason that we are urged for a season to set aside our audacious presumptions of Alleluias as our right so that we may again learn to acknowledge them as God’s gifts that have been purchased for us at the cost of the suffering and death of Jesus. Then the Old Adam has no claim on us and is no longer able to puff us up with empty and imaginary rights of our own to praise God. Then we humbly bow before our God and Savior to receive the worthiness of His glory, born of the Virgin, to suffer and die our miserable death for us so that by His glorious merits we are declared righteous to come into the holiness of God and receive the praises that fill us until we overflow with them in our lives and in our worship.

Palm Sunday: Entrance to Holy Week

Palmarum - Palm Sunday is the entrance into Holy Week. With the Lord’s entrance into Jerusalem He set into play the events that would finalize the salvation for which He was born into the world as a man. The Lord Jesus was received on this day by the multitudes as the Promised One, the Messiah or Christ, the Anointed of the Lord. Yet very few understood what this meant.

The Lord Jesus most assuredly knew. It was for this reason that He took on human flesh and a human spirit. As the eternal Son of God, the Logos, the King of Glory, He came to Jerusalem on an ass, a lowly beast of burden.

After the Sunday service, we always reflect upon the pericopal readings, the liturgy, the hymns, and the sermon. After preaching the sermon I realized more fully the point of the Epistle reading and the point of Palm Sunday. St. Paul declares that the saints are to be united by the mind of Christ which is the mind of God.

And what is the mind or the way of thinking of God? He is the King of Glory who according to His very being serves. God is a servant King. From the beginning, He is a servant. Everything in the accounts of creation shows us this. God is love. He acts in love. He created the cosmos for the sake of humans. He created humans and placed us over the entire creation to enjoy all that He had created.

The mind of God is the way of providing for His beloved children whom He created in His own image. From the beginning He established all things for our sake. Knowing what would be and the choices that we would make, He established our redemption even as He created us and the world for us.

Palm Sunday is the entrance into knowing the mind of God. By His entrance into His Holy city He publicly displayed His mind toward us. He came lowly and riding on an ass, the foal of an ass. He came not to be served, but to serve and to give Himself as a ransom for many.

When He speaks of our service to Him, what does He require? His definition of service to Him is that we hear His loving voice and live in accord with the good life that He has established for us. His definition of service to Him is that we receive from Him in faith the good things that He gives for us. In other words, His definition of our service to Him is that we acknowledge His loving and fatherly desire to serve us and to receive His loving service in His love together. Service to God is simply acknowledging Him as our loving God who establishes His Holy Communion for us to enjoy together with Him and one another.

Sunday’s sermon is Philippians 2:5-11 — “This Mind Be In You”.

Presidents’ Day

     Today is a national holiday, a day set aside for holy things, a holy day. Hmm. President’s Day, what is holy about this day?

     That very likely depends upon one’s perspective.

     But what do we celebrate on this day? What does the office of President set before us as a people?

     The prescribed Presidential Oath of Office is recorded in the last paragraph of Section I of Article II of the Constitution of the United States of America:

     Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

     The text for the oath can be also be seen at Presidential Oaths of Office and the text of the Constitution here.

     Our most recently elected and sworn in president stumbled at the misdirection of the administrator of the oath, Chief Justice Roberts. The oath was administered a second time, as is reported here. The chief justice administered the oath from memory, and when the President Elect did not follow completely, without the written words the chief justice’s lead became confused. Therefore, to be certain that no question would be raised later regarding the legitimacy of the ceremony, the oath was re-administered.

     The Constitution prescribes these words as THE oath that must be taken before a president elect can enter on the execution of his office. Even though it may seem a small matter to move the word faithfully to the end rather than the beginning of the phrase, it does actually change the emphasis of the oath and thereby changes the oath prescribed by the Constitution. Certainly it is right that the oath be administered again correctly.

     Is this really so important? Why did this become an issue at all?

     Why did the chief justice not bring a written copy of the oath that he was to administer to the president elect? Was it arrogance? Was it pride?

     In this age of public media in visual and audio format that is broadcast live to all the world, concern over perception of personality often supplants concern over faithfulness. If Faithfulness had been the concern of the chief justice and of the president elect, they both would have brought written copies and used them. At the very least, both men would have made certain that the chief justice used a written copy.

     This brings us back to the original question regarding Presidents’ Day. Faithfulness flows from a proper sense of what is holy. That which is holy has been set apart or sanctified. The office of President has indeed been set apart, both by men and by God. Men wrote the Constitution and established the specific offices prescribed for the governing of the United States. God established that such governance is necessary for good order and has given His blessing to this authority among men. It is absolutely necessary for good order that both those governed and those appointed to govern remain mindful of the holiness of the office. It should be held to the very highest expectations.

     Indeed, Presidents’ Day is a true holiday. Do we still hold to it faithfully? Do we even still know what this means?

The Image of God

Included in discussions of Original Sin and the loss of original righteousness is an explanation of the image of God and what was lost to mankind with the loss of the image of God. Growing up with the LC-MS Synodical Catechism, the following explanations were taught to me:

+ + + + +

113. What was the image of God?

The image of God consisted in this —

A. That man knew God and was perfectly happy in such knowledge.
B. That man was perfectly holy and blessed.

114. Does man still bear the image of God?

Man lost the image of God when he fell into sin. In believers, a beginning of its renewal is made. Only in heaven, however, will this image be fully restored.

+ + + + +

A fuller explanation is given in Article II of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession translated in the Concordia Triglotta, pp. 110-11:

+ + + + +

15] Neither have we said anything new. The ancient definition understood aright expresses precisely the same thing when it says: “Original sin is the absence of original righteousness” [a lack of the first purity and righteousness in Paradise]. But what is righteousness? Here the scholastics wrangle about dialectic questions; they do not explain what original righteousness is. 16] Now in the Scriptures, righteousness comprises not only the second table of the Decalog [regarding good works in serving our fellow-man], but the first also, which teaches concerning 17] the fear of God, concerning faith, concerning the love of God. Therefore original righteousness was to embrace not only an even temperament of the bodily qualities [perfect health and, in all respects, pure blood, unimpaired powers of the body, as they contend], but also these gifts, namely, a quite certain knowledge of God, fear of God, confidence in God, or certainly 18] the rectitude and power to yield these affections [but the greatest feature in that noble first creature was a bright light in the heart to know God and His work, etc.]. And Scripture testifies to this, when it says, Gen. 1, 27, that man was fashioned in the image and likeness of God. What else is this than that there were embodied in man such wisdom and righteousness as apprehended God, and in which God was reflected, i.e., to man there were given the gifts of the knowledge of God, the fear of God, confidence in God, and the like? 19] For thus Irenaeus and Ambrose interpret the likeness to God, the latter of whom not only says many things to this effect, but especially declares: That soul is not, therefore, in the image of God, in which God is not at all times. 20] And Paul shows in the Epistles to the Ephesians, 5, 9, and Colossians, 3, 10, that the image of God is the knowledge of God, righteousness, and truth. 21] Nor does Longobard fear to say that original righteousness is the very likeness to God which God implanted in man. 22] We recount the opinions of the ancients, which in no way interfere with Augustine’s interpretation of the image.

+ + + + +


Since Melanchthon, on behalf of all of the Lutheran Confessors, was giving a response to the Papal attacks against them regarding their straightforward confession of the total depravity of man according to the fallen sinful nature, he either did not take the opportunity or did not see the opportunity to explain this in all of its glory. He does, however, quote Ambrose, who says it quite magnificently with these words:

That soul is not, therefore, in the image of God, in which God is not at all times.

This is a very rich and marvelous explanation, stated from the negative in response to the need to explain the sinful condition of man.

Today I wish to expound this same understanding from the positive.

The image of God is Christ. He is what was lost to mankind and is restored again through Baptism. In Baptism, the Word, that is, Christ, is given physically to the one who is baptized. With the gift of Christ, the Holy Spirit also is given. And where Christ and the Holy Spirit are, so is the Father. Thus the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is commanded to be used and given in Baptism.

With the restoration of Christ to the person, the person is restored in the image of God, that is, in Christ. Thus, since Christ is declared in the Scriptures to be the very righteousness of God, the perfect righteousness of God is restored to the baptized person who is regenerated in the Faith worked by the Holy Spirit. Communion with God is restored in Christ, the image of God.

This is the knowledge of God, knowing Christ. Through Baptism, God restores us to His knowledge, knowing Him as our loving God and Father.

Having been restored to God’s Holy Communion through the restoration of the image of God dwelling in the baptized believer, now the person can continue in this restored communion. Now the person can come to the Feast of Christ and eat and drink with God, again receiving Christ, the Word, bodily. Conjoined with Christ in His body, the person eats with the Word laden bread the body of the Holy Communion and drinks with the Word laden wine the blood of forgiveness given in the cup of the New Testament.

This is the restoration of the Image of God to man. This is the life that God causes us to be regenerated to enjoy.

At the Last Day, the Old sinful nature will be separated from us forever so that this restored image may be enjoyed fully. For now we constantly face the juxtaposition of simul iustus et peccator. This will continue for as long as God has reserved for the time of preaching the Gospel for the salvation of lost souls. When no more souls remain who will receive God’s restored image, then the end will come and the separation of the saint from the sinner shall be made complete. The saints will be gathered to the right hand and the sinners to the left. Those in whom Christ has been restored will never again face the juxtaposition. Nor more simul will exist. All that will remain is the unity that is restored in Christ.

Is this not a rich and wonderful message? Is this not cause for rejoicing and coming forward eagerly to partake of the Eucharist, that is, the Thanksgiving of our Lord’s Holy Communion? Is it not right that we sing with angels and archangels and with all the company of heaven?

Is this not the perfect image to behold?

---

Technorati Tags: +Image of God, perfect image, simul iustus et peccator, juxtaposition, Eucharist, Holy Communion