As you have probably noticed, most of my blog entries are about something that I am confused about or am questioning. Like always, I shall do the same in this blog entry. Of course, we would hate to break the tradition. Also, like always, I will be complaining although I can assure you I’m not really this annoying in reality. The only times I feel inspired to write on my blog are usually when I find something that I am really moved by. And because I am a cynical teenaged girl, I am only ever moved by things that I find unjust or bizarrely horrible. Anyways, unless this paragraph has already put you off of reading further, lets continue with the blog entry…

I am writing about anti-Semitism in this entry. Not because it is particularly enjoyable – which it definitely isn’t – but because it seems very important and no one seems to think too deeply about it. What’s ridiculous is that anti-Semitism seems to be one of the oldest and most extreme prejudices to live in Western society.

1. In Clifford’s Tower in York, between 150 and 500 Jews committed suicide after being chased from their homes in York in 1190. The few that didn’t commit suicide were murdered by the mob which had forced them to the tower.
2. In 1290, King Edward I removed all the Jews from England and they were not let back in the country until 1656. During this time, several other European countries also created a ban on Jews.
3. In the mid-14th century, 900 Jews were burnt alive in Strasbourg in France because they were accused of poisoning wells which spread the Black Death.
4. Martin Luther, the creator of Protestantism, thought that synagogues should be burnt and Jews’ possessions stolen, in the early-16th century.
5. In the late-18th century, Catherine the Great of Russia encouraged Europeans (mainly Germans) to move to Russia to farm (some of these people being my ancestors) but would not allow Jews.
6. The Ku Klux Klan have vocally hated Jews since the hate group was originally formed and lynched Leo Frank, a Jew in 1915.
7. In the first half of the 20th century, Jews were discriminated against in employment in the US.
8. Possibly the most infamous anti-Semitic crime is the Holocaust in Nazi Europe. Six million Jews were killed.
9. Mary Ann Van Hoof believed she had been given anti-Semitic visions from the Virgin Mary telling her that a prominent Jewish banking family were mongrels who were trying to take over the world. This woman managed to make a cult out of her ‘visions’ and I wonder if she realised that the Virgin Mary was a Jew.
10. In a 2005 survey, it was found that 20% of all Europeans (including the British) blamed the death of Jesus on the Jews. I wonder if these people realised Jesus was a Jew. In the same survey, it was found that over 30% of people in Europe believe that Jews have too much power in business.
11. In 2006, Ilan Halimi, a Jew in France was kidnapped by a gang and tortured for three weeks until he died.

The reason I have made a list is because I am trying to prove that anti-Semitism is far too common and people need to be aware that it happens. I’m not trying to preach to people but it horrifies me that I know so many people who think Jews are not as good as everyone else. I know I’m probably taking this far too seriously but it actually means a lot to me.

I’d love to know why people dislike Jews. Why have Jews always been the people to put the blame on? Is it because there aren’t many of them compared to everyone else? Or is it because they are described as the Holy People in the Bible? I don’t honestly know but I’m kind of glad I’m not one.

I really can’t think of anything else to say because I think the above list speaks for itself. There are so many more incidents that I could probably triple the length of the list but I don’t have the time.

Today I responded to another blogger who wrote an article entitled “Are Faith and Works Inseperable?”

This was my response to him. It is not meant to be exhaustive by any means;however, it does cover the groundwork of what believers in Reformed Circles do with these two topics. Here was my response.

Faith and Works haven’t been discarded in reformed circles as many have wrote concerning this. Your statement here is without suffficient ground or warrant. Dr. Norman Shepherd (formally from Westminster Seminary), John MacArthur in “The Gospel According to Jesus”, and his “Gospel According to the Apostles.” Earlier, J. Gresham Machen in “What is Faith?” Calvin himself dealt with this topic in his institutes;moreover, so did the Westminster Confession of Faith” Lastly Luther in his Commentary on Romans. This list is not meant to be exhaustive by any means, but to provide a starting point as the backbone of what Reformed Theology represents.

In the Westminster Confession of Faith (hereby referred to as WCF) The larger catechism in Q. 76 asks, “What is repentance unto life?” A. Repentance unto life is a saving grace wrought in the heart of the sinner by the Spirit and the Word of God, whereby, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, and upon the apprehension of God’s mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, he so grieves for and hates his sins…purposing and endeavouring constantly to walk with him in all the ways of new obedience.” See II Cor. 7:11

When you ask are works and faith inseperable, I believe you are contemplating the doctrines of Justification and Sanctification. See WCF Q.77 Wherin do justification and sanctification differ? A. Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ; in sanctification his Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof; in the former sin is pardoned in the other it is subdued….”

Machen in What is Faith pg. 204 wrote “But if the faith regarded insufficient by James is different from the faith commended by Paul, so also the works commended by James are different from the works commended by James are different from the works regarded as inefficacious by Paul. Paul is speaking of the works of the law, he is speaking of works that are intended to acquire merit in order that God’s favor may be earned; James on the other hand is speaking of works like Abraham’s sacrifice of Issac that are the real result of faith and show that faith is real faith.”

The difference of works in reformed thinking is that they establish nor gain any merit in salvation. (This includes initial saving faith.) Pelagian, or semi-Pelagian thought emphasizes works as the basis for salvation. Consequently many falsely assume that the reformers tossed works altogether. Martin Luther flies in the face of this kind of thinking in his commentary of Romans in his introduction pg. 17
“Faith, however is a divine work in us…Oh it is a living busy, active, mighty thing, this faith and so it is impossible for it not to do good works incessantly. It does not ask whether there are good works to do, but before the question rises, it has already done them. He gropes and looks about after faith and good works and knows neither what faith is nor what good works are….it is impossible to seperate works from faith, quite as impossible as to separate heat and light fires. Beware therefore of your own false notions and of the idle talkers who would be wise enough to make decisions about faith and good works, and yet are the greatest fools. Pray God to work faith in yo; else you will remain forever without faith, whatever you think or do.”

Calvin discussing James 2:21-22 (see MacArthur Faith Works pg. 92) wrote this “It appears that he is speaking of the manifestation, not of the imputation of righteousness, as if he had said, Those who are justified by ture faith prove their justification by obedience and good works…And as Paul contends that men are justified without the aid of works, so James will not allow any to be regarded as justified who are destitute of good works. Due attention to the scope will thus disentangle every doubt; for the error of our opponents lies chiefly in this, that they think James is defining the mode of justification, whereas his only object is to destroy the depraved security of those who vainly pretended faith as an excuse for the contempt of good works.Therefore let them twist the words of James as they may, they will never extract out of them more than the two propositions: That an empty phantom of faith does not justify, and taht the believer, not contented with such an imagination, manifests his justification with good works.”

In addition it is absolutely essential to understand that justification is by faith alone. Works merely illustrate that truth. The WCF mentions that justification and sanctification are inseperable. I urge you kindly not to say this topic has been discarded by people of the Reformed Faith. This is a gross misunderstanding on your part. In response to it needing additional research, I can kindly assure you that a multitude of articles in Theological Journals like JETS, WTJ and practically every Puritan wrote on this topic. I hope you find this helpful.

Respectfully Tom Michnay

Today marks the first day of the new Christian year, the first day of Advent. This has never been a big deal in my life since it was never taught in church or school. Christmas…it was the 25th with a candlelight service on the 24th. Done. Many times there might be a sermon series that would flow through December but there was never an Advent connection. In public school there was little talk from the few practicing Catholics about what was going on but it was always vague.

When speaking to many who have grown up in US Evangelicalism, I hear the very same story. We have no understanding of the Christian calendar or what it represents. This has led me to start learning about the organization of the calendar year and what the historical church has taught regarding how we worship God in the midst of the seasons. There are many babies that have been thrown out while dumping the water over the previous centuries and one of those has been the Christian calendar.

As for me and my house…I want this to change.

There is much to be learned from history. There is much to be learned from those who have gone before and who have been proven worthy of our respect and honor. I know that idea scares many of us but we need to look to these people who have gone before and look to them for wisdom. This wisdom is not of their own but from God and we do not worship Him when we do not honor them.

 I’m always having discussions with myself as to what Luther, Calvin and others would think of Christians of today. This is not to say that I wear a WWLutherD bracelet but I do wonder what he would say. Would he even recognize our gathered worship services? What would he say about our daily Scripture intake?

Today is the first Sunday of Advent. Try following the Christian calendar for one year and see what happens. Today is the day to begin. Let us look forward to Christ.

-Cheers

The answer is Psalm 118, of which Luther wrote,

“This is my own beloved Psalm. Although the entire Psalter and all of Holy Scripture are dear to me as my only comfort and source of life, I fell in love with this psalm especially. Therefore I call it my own. When emperors and kings, the wise and the learned, and even the saints could not aid me, this psalm proved a friend and helped me out of many great troubles. As a result, it is dearer to me than all the wealth, honor, and power of the pope, the Turk, and the emperor. I would be most unwilling to trade this psalm for all of it.”

Vorbind despre personalitatile care au scris istoria omenirii, obisnuim sa le asezam pe un piedestal, atribuindu-le puteri uluitoare. Dar  chiar si aceste individualitati cvasisacrosancte au fost, in viata particulara, oameni obisnuiti, cu bunele si relele lor. Au avut si ei slabiciuni si vicii, ba au dovedit, uneori, comportamente scandaloase, ascunse cu grija de ochii opiniei publice. Insa adevarul, mai devreme sau mai tarziu, a iesit la iveala, stirbind intrucatva poleiala gloriei lor…

Churchill si „sinistra confederatie evreiasca”

Calitatile sale de politician si orator au fost unanim recunoscute si nu-i de mirare ca, intr-un sondaj realizat de BBC, Winston Churchill a fost declarat „cel mai mare britanic al secolului XX”. Nu exista nici un dubiu ca retorica sa, cultura sa vasta, il situeaza deasupra oricarui alt politician contemporan si multi cunosc cel putin doua dintre nenumaratele sale vorbe de duh. Si totusi, acest laureat al premiului Nobel pentru Literatura, acest eliberator al popoarelor de sub opresiunea hitlerista sau japoneza, nu a fost cu nimic mai putin rasist decat marele sau dusman, Hitler. „Nu admit ca pieilor rosii din America sau populatiei negroide din Australia li s-ar fi facut un mare rau din cauza ca o rasa superioara, cea alba, le-a luat locul”.

Nu, nu este un fragment din Mein Kampf, ci declaratia lui Churchill la lucrarile Comisiei Regale asupra Palestinei, din 1937. Ca presedinte al Consiliului Aviatiei, el era si mai transant: „Nu inteleg discutiile despre folosirea gazelor de lupta. Sunt total de acord cu folosirea gazelor toxice impotriva unor triburi de salbatici.” In fine, o declaratie care l-ar fi putut trimite la Nürnberg, daca s-ar fi aflat de partea gresita a baricadei: „Evreii, patrunzand in orice tara din lume, intra in viata sociala a acesteia si se considera cetateni ai ei. Dar exista o Internationala evreiasca, o sinistra confederatie formata din evrei persecutati in tarile unde au crescut. Acesti oameni si-au uitat propria religie si conspira pentru distrugerea civilizatiei iar conspiratia lor mondiala nu inceteaza sa se dezvolte”, scria el, referindu-se la evreii din conducerea URSS, in primul rand la Trotki, in articolul „Sionism contra bolsevism”, publicat in Illustrated Sunday Herald, in februarie 1920.

Luther, antisemit avant la lettre

Martin Luther, faimosul calugar care a declansat Reforma protestanta, este considerat un erou, pentru ca a rezistat cu succes exceselor Vaticanului, din acea perioada. Dar ceea ce putini oameni stiu e faptul ca el era un violent antisemit. In 1543 el a scris o brosura intitulata „Despre evrei si minciunile lor”, in care recomanda ca evreii sa fie deposedati de bani, drepturi civile, invataturi religioase si educatie si sa fie obligati sa munceasca pamantul, in caz contrar trebuind exilati sau ucisi. El ii caracteriza astfel pe urmasii lui Moise: „Un neam josnic, ticalos, care nu este nicidecum poporul ales de Dumnezeu. Legile si obiceiul lor de taiere imprejur sunt o murdarie iar sinagogile lor niste tarfe incorigibile care trebuie arse din temelii. Daca vrem sa ne spalam pe maini de blasfemiile evreiesti si sa nu ne facem partasi la pacatele lor, trebuie sa-i alungam din tara noastra, ca pe niste caini turbati”.

Hitler, un gainar pus pe capatuiala

Cercetari recente efectuate in arhivele germane demonstreaza ca Adolf Hitler, „politicianul incoruptibil” si considerat deasupra oricarui interes material, in dorinta lui de a asigura suprematia ariana, „vizionarul” macinat de patima pentru implinirea unui ideal (absurd, de altfel), a fost in realitate un gainar marunt, care se bucura ori de cate ori avea prilejul sa puna ceva bani deoparte, pacalind statul. Astfel, pana sa devina cancelar al Germaniei, el avea la fisc o datorie de 405,500 milioane marci (circa 6,3 milioane dolari la paritatea de azi). Din fericire pentru el, atunci cand a devenit cel mai puternic om din stat, datoriile i s-au sters, ca prin farmec. Autorul acestei scapari a fost un functionar care s-a facut ca „uita” sa-l mai scrie in registrul datornicilor. Omisiunea i-a fost rasplatita cum se cuvine: pe tot timpul regimului hitlerist si multi ani dupa aceea, pana cand s-a descoperit frauda, el a primit o pensie speciala, de 2000 marci pe luna (o suma uriasa, daca avem in vedere ca un profesor era platit cu 400 marci pe luna!

Cum se „perfectiona” Gandhi

La varsta de 36 de ani, Gandhi, om casatorit pe atunci, a decis sa devina un celibatar total, pentru a atinge iluminarea, prin intermediul religiei hinduse. Dar, pe masura ce imbatranea, el devenea tot mai fascinat de sex, pana acolo incat, dupa non-violenta, acesta era cel de-al doilea subiect preferat, in discutiile sale. Pentru a-si „perfectiona” celibatul, Gandhi obisnuia sa doarma gol, alaturi de tinere goale. Una dintre acestea era sotia nepotului sau, Kanu Gandhi. Atunci cand a dorit sa imparta patul cu nepoata sa, Manu, de 19 ani, venerabilul intelept i-a cerut acordul tatalui acesteia, pretinzand ca vrea sa corecteze „pozitia de dormit” a tinerei. Cand stenograful sau, R.P. Parasuram, l-a vazut dormind gol langa Manu, a fost atat de dezgustat ca si-a prezentat pe loc demisia.

Vicii la Casa Alba

Ipocrizia a constituit un defect de care Thomas Jefferson, renumitul om politic american, n-a fost strain. El tuna si fulgera impotriva casatoriilor dintre albi si negri dar asta nu l-a impiedicat sa faca mai multi copii cu o superba mulatra – despre legatura lor scandaloasa ati putut citi de altfel chiar in paginile revistei noastre. „Amestecul de negri si albi produce o degradare morala pe care nici un patriot adevarat, nici un iubitor al virtutilor neamului omenesc, nu o poate accepta”, sustinea Jefferson, in vreme ce era indragostit lulea de sclava sa de culoare, Sally Hemings, sora vitrega a raposatei lui sotii.

Desigur, politicianul a negat tot timpul zvonurile legate de aceasta relatie nepotrivita, ca pe niste minciuni ale adversarilor sai din Congres, dar in zilele noastre, testele ADN au demonstrat ca cel putin doi dintre copiii nascuti de Sally erau ai lui Jefferson. La fel de scandalos a fost comportamentul unui alt presedinte american, Andrew Johnson. Vicepresedinte in timpul mandatului lui Abraham Lincoln, el era de origine umila si ii dispretuia profund pe membrii „aristocrati” ai Congresului, multi latifundiari bogati din Sud, carora le reamintea mereu ca-si datoreaza averea muncii oamenilor simpli, din randurile carora facea parte si familia lui. Prieten devotat al paharului, Johnson a depus juramantul ca presedinte, dupa asasinarea lui Lincoln, desi era beat crita. Din cauza comportamentului lui scandalos, Congresul a incercat sa-l demita in doua randuri, dar a esuat. Lui „dabaliu” nu i-a pus nimeni fiola…

Don Juan si relativitatea

Cine ar putea contesta faptul ca Einstein a fost cea mai stralucita minte a secolului XX si poate chiar a tuturor timpurilor? Ceea ce este la fel de cert este ca lui nu-i fugea mintea doar la energie si viteza luminii ci si la femei. Toata viata lui, marele savant a fost un afemeiat cum rar se poate vedea, un Don Juan aflat permanent in cautare de aventuri erotice. Dupa ce a divortat de prima sotie, din cauza infidelitatii lui, el s-a casatorit cu verisoara sa, Elsa. Curand insa va incepe o relatie cu secretara lui, Betty Neumann. Potrivit unor scrisori aflate in custodia Universitatii Evreiesti din Ierusalim, recent date publicitatii, el recunostea ca intretinea, in acelasi timp, legaturi amoroase cu sase femei, de la care primea adesea daruri, desi era casatorit cu Elsa!

GABRIEL TUDOR

Auf den Spuren Luthers sind wir heute unterwegs in Wittenberg mit Studenten der Theologischen Fakultät von Halle. Eine nette Idee meiner Freunde, mich im Gepäck da mitzunehmen. Vorbei am breiten Elbestrom, die Türme der Schlosskirche grüßen von weitem. Die erste Etappe das Lutherhaus. Hier gibt es eine interessante Führung durch alle Räume treppauf und treppab. An den Wänden alte Bilder, der Fußboden knarrt unter unseren Schritten, Butzenscheiben in den Fenstern, altes Mobiliar, Bücher. Nur der Hausherr scheint gerade ausgegangen zu sein. Immer wieder erscheint er aber in den zahlreichen Andenkenläden als Wein, Schnaps, Keramik und mehr. Wittenberg weiß, was es an dem Reformator hat. Touristenströme pilgern von einer Sehenswürdigkeit zur nächsten, das Gold klingelt in den Kassen der Stadt. Dazwischen eine Geschäftsmeile mit auffällig vielen Multi-Kulti-läden. Einen großen Eindruck hinterließ auf mich die kerzenbeleuchtete Stadtkirche, leise Musik erklang vom band. Besinnung, zu sich kommen ab vom Trubel des weihnachtsmarkttollen Ortes. Gesänge von Taizé im Kirchenraum. Blick auf den alten Lucas Cranach Altar. Aber erschüttert war ich doch, dass diese alten Gemälde nicht richtig geschützt werden und Spuren von Vandalismus aufweisen. Einzelne Studenten hielten kleine Vorträge zu verschiedenen Themen. Und obwohl ich letzte Nacht nur 3 Stunden Schlaf fand, fehlte es nicht an Konzentration. Meinen Freunden Christian und Nicole bin ich sehr dankbar für diesen beschaulichen, interessanten Exkursionstag nach der Lutherstadt Wittenberg.

Ein Lutherwort, das mir sehr gefällt ist folgendes: „Und wenn morgen die Welt untergänge, würde ich heute noch ein Apfelbäumchen pflanzen.“ – Wie wahr!

Grüße von MuseSuse

The Gospel: The Main Thing

“The gospel cannot be preached enough and heard enough, for it cannot be grasped well enough.” -Martin Luther

One of the most difficult conundrums for a writer is to know what to write and when to write it. The precise words, analogies and/or allegories are secondary, but what should be paramount are the most significant statements, which need to be promulgated. Ones perception of audience reception peels into insignificance when considerable time is used in musing and reflecting. The importance of such statements are realised, and then propelled into the forefront of ones writing.

Here is what Paul says to his readers, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures…” (1) My point of significant statements that need to be promulgated is what Paul refers to as “of first importance.” The Gospel of Jesus Christ, his death, burial and resurrection is, and should always be, the most important thing within the Christian worldview. Our lives should be Gospel centred. Our speech, our writing, our walk, should show that we have, through the Spirit of God, received this glorious news. It should drive us.

Unfortunately there are, within Christianity, egregious liars. False teachers and false prophets, stiff-necked individuals who through trickery persuade people to assume that the Gospel is not sufficient. It is not as Paul said “of first importance.” But it is sidelined, or even worse, removed from sermon notes, articles, and song lyrics. The supposition is simple: there is something other than the Gospel that is more important and needs to be proclaimed. Watch out for them as you peruse through ‘Christian television.’ As they do telethons, preying and collecting money from people that should know better. The Bible declares that we should have nothing to do with them, and even goes as far to suggest that we partake in their wicked ways if we refuse to follow this command. (2)

What should our attitude be? The answer is straightforward, “Maintain keeping the Gospel the main thing.” For Paul the Gospel was “a doctrine of the first rank, a most necessary truth, That Christ died for our sins, and was buried, and rose again: or, in other words, that he was delivered for our offences and rose again for our justification (Rom. 4:25), that he was offered in sacrifice for our sins, and rose again, to show that he had procured forgiveness for them, and was accepted of God in this offering…Christ’s death and resurrection are the very sum and substance of evangelical truth.”(3) We cannot begin with the Gospel and think we can continue with something else. The Christian life is one that is continually strengthened by the Gospel. In the Gospel we see our plight, we see the Divine Dilemma, His Son crushed, His love, His holiness, His judgement, and much more. We can never outgrow this, and nor can we have too much of it. Let us not think as the arrogant do. All true Christian doctrines and virtues are firstly rooted in the Gospel; let us also be rooted in it.

______________

(1) 1 Cor 15:3-4

(2) 2 John 9-11

(3) Matthew Henry Commentary on 1 Corinthians 15

This is my absolute opinion: he that will maintain that man’s free-will is able to do or work anything in spiritual cases be they never so small, denies Christ.

From his Table Talk, in the section on free-will.

(See also The Bondage of the Will.)

Jag älskar tempuren. På allvar.

Sovmorgon. Ledig dag. Frukost och sen tillbaka till sängen. Jag, Lillefnuff, Lantliv och Sköna Hem. Kuddar och täcken, tekopp och choklad.

Går upp tre timmar senare för att kolla i kylen. Väder som kan få en död att gråta blod. Tänder stjärnor och ljus. Kroppen värker och jag längtar efter Mannen.

Tror jag tar min nya bok och kryper i säng igen. Luther kan dra dit pepparn växer.

Han skulle verkligen behöva mysa till det. Surputten.

So I’ve been thinking a fair bit about possibly the central thing we do as pastors – at least in terms of time spent on any single thing (research, preparation and delivery). We would take a half-day as a preaching team to work through a message, then I would take a day to write it and then about another half day spent marinating on it before delivery. So all up we’re looking at about fifteen hours of preparation and delivery for one message. Which I think is probably about average.

Recently I read Pagan Christianity by Viola and Barna, which was a really good read and instrumental in helping the church move beyond its institutionalization. They claim that preaching was never central to the church until a couple hundred years after Christ and really came into primacy with Luther who claimed it was the central part of the sunday service. He changed the term “priest” to “preacher”. Understandably preaching the word for Luther, who was putting reformed theology into the hands of hungry hordes of protesting catholics departing the catholic church in utter ignorance, was of utmost importance.

Viola claims that preaching in the NT was only done by apostles – church planters/workers in the process of establishing churches and on special occasions (Solomon’s temple etc.). They also claim that the office of Pastor is not an office, but a function and pastors didn’t preach.

I kinda disagree. I think pastors did preach because I believe Timothy was a pastor (Viola suggests he was “apostolic” because he obviously wasn’t an apostle, but his theory about pastors would fall over) and Timothy was urged by Paul to preach. Furthermore in Acts where it says the early disciples met from house to house and in the temple, would suggest it was a weekly occurrence.

Here’s where I get really creative now. Try and keep up.

Public teaching was done in the synagogue for centuries, so was embedded in Jewish culture. Furthermore, rhetoric was one of the most popular of entertainment of the day among the Greeks. Rhetoricians were public speakers who became famous and well paid for speaking eloquently (subject matter was inconsequential). So culturally in Judea, public speaking was the best form of communication and entertainment – infotainment would be a good word to describe it in today’s parlance. So it seems Jesus and his followers were using the best and most modern forms of communication that was most effective for their culture and the people of the day – preaching and teaching.

Translate that into today’s culture which is neither Greek nor Jewish. Preaching like we live in 100 A.D. in Judea simply isn’t cutting it. I even had trouble remembering what I preached the week before let alone thinking anyone else remembered (and I’m a good preacher). Which is why I resorted to The Big Idea which is simply one singular idea that I wanted people to leave the building with (there were other reasons to adopt it, primarily to use a preaching team and being able to keep a multi-site church moving in the same direction). I mean, how many sermons have you heard and actually implemented? It’s a completely modernist idea to think that simply giving people information will change their lives. We all know it doesn’t work like that, yet we continue doing it because it’s part of the consumer contract we have with our congregants (search this blog for consumerism).

Researchers on adult eduction have found that while teaching children “by rote” – in other words, I tell-you listen-you learn works, it doesn’t work with adults. And because preachers have all been to school and know nothing about educating adults, we use the only model we’ve known. Adult education doesn’t work like that. In fact when it comes down to it, experts concede that adult educators can only “facilitate” another adults learning. I won’t go into all the reasons for that. But bottom line, you can’t teach someone anything until they are ready to learn it. Kinda sounds like that old chinese saying “when the student is ready, the master will appear” – except we’re not masters… but you get the point.

The other thing that complicates the issue is that we live in the information age. No-one knows how vast the internet is. It’s not measurable. That’s how much information is out there. I can download the best preachers in the world hours after they deliver the sermon. And they’re way better communicators that you or I. I can download theology, christian books, magazines and blogs. I can even check the lexicons and commentaries while you’re preaching to see if your exegesis and hermeneutics are up to scratch. So that’s what we’re up against. So if we’re going to trade in information, I guarantee you, your congregation can get better information any day of the week.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us reaching for the best communication forms available to us for today’s culture and not simply dishing out information because adults don’t learn like that (and neither do you by the way so don’t be surprised that no-one else does either), but rather facilitating an experience. How’s that for radical? I’ll let you think about that for a bit, and I’ll unpack my conclusions later.

Die Grundthese der “New Perspective on Paul” lautet: Luther hat Paulus mit anderen Fragen und Anliegen gelesen, als dieser selbst seine Briefe verfasst hat (z.B. den Fragen eines geplagten, spätmittelalterlichen Mönches). Hinter dieser These stehen aber, so mein Eindruck, sehr häufig Erfahrungen mit einer sozial desinteressierten Gnadentheologie: “Ich und mein ewiges Heil, was interessiert mich die Welt und ihre Probleme?”

Die evangelische Frömmigkeit mag diese Einstellung tatsächlich häufig ausgeprägt haben. Damit ist jedoch noch nicht gesagt, dass dies mehr als eine Karikatur der Theologie Luthers darstellt. Vielmehr Luther selbst:

Wenn du aber [in den Evangelien] siehst, wie [Christus] wirkt und jedermann hilft, zu dem er kommt und der zu ihm gebracht wird, sollst du wissen, daß der Glaube solches in dir wirke und Christus deiner Seele eben diese Hilfe und Güte durchs Evangelium anbietet. Hältst du hier still und läßt dir Gutes tun (…), so hast du es gewiß, so ist Christus dein und dir als Gabe geschenkt.

Danach ist’s nötig, daß du ein Vorbild daraus machst und deinem Nächsten auch so hilfst und tust, auch ihm als Gabe und Vorbild gegeben bist. (…)

Diese zwiefachen Güter sind die zwei Stücke in Christus: Gabe und Vorbild.

(Ein kleiner Unterricht, was man in den Evangelien suchen und erwarten soll, in: Luther, Ausgewählte Schriften, Bd. 2, 202f.)

Ist dies einmal verstanden und ernst genommen, dass Luther – bei aller Vorordnung der Gnade – die Ethik tatsächlich und wirklich als innere Konsequenz, nicht nur als müden Wurmfortsatz der Gnade beschreibt, dann erledigt sich m.E. so manches Abgrenzungspathos zur Reformation.

Über exegetische Einzelfragen kann und soll man dann wunderbar streiten – dann aber im Bewusstsein, dass “billige Gnade” bei Luther so wenig wie bei Paulus zu haben ist.

Over the past year, I’ve had several people ask me why I am reformed in my beliefs. I just wanted to give a general reply using some very basic reasons I became reformed in my theology this year.

I started pondering the Grace of God shortly after I left a local emergent church called NewSpring Church in Greenville, South Carolina. I always considered myself a non-Calvinist because I thought it was up to us to choose when we accept Christ. After sitting in this false church watching hundreds of people profess the name Jesus, the Holy Spirit started working on my heart about what I was observing at this church. I admit that when I was attending this Seeker Sensitive Purpose Driven Church for the Carnal Nature of Mankind that I was out of the will of God and rebellious in my life. I knew better than to be at this church because of my fundamental background, but I wanted change and a new way to reach people that the traditional church had thrown away. With this thought and logic, my journey into the Emergent Church began. Little did I know that my carnal desires would lead me to a place where I would become Reformed. When I repented of my rebellion, I took my family out of this church. I started pondering the Grace of God and how God’s Grace saves us. I could not get the images of people simply repeating the name Jesus out of my head. I could not find peace until I prayed and started studying the Scriptures concerning our sinful nature and the saving Grace of God. I kept pondering how repentance from sin was not explained and how I watched people being compelled to profess Jesus with little or no clear Gospel message being taught. I thought about the numbers game and how numbers were used by Perry Noble and his staff as a benchmark for God’s blessing. For months I kept digging and seeking God’s Will for my life and asking for a deeper understanding of my carnal nature and His Grace. I thought about the altar calls from other churches I visited and attended over the years past. I pondered and prayed asking God to give me peace and answers.

I am Reformed in my beliefs because:

I believe in the power of God to save and God alone (1 John 4:10). We do not seek God (Romans 3:10-12). God draws us to Him because we cannot come to God by our own merits (1 Corinthians 2:13-15 ,Romans 10:17).

I know there are more verses I could list concerning this subject. I just wanted to share a little about my experiences and why I am Reformed in my beliefs.

Free At Last…….Free At Last……..Thank God Almighty we are free at last.
Yes yes I know these lines are not actually mine but who the hell cares!The point is that We….Are….Free …..At…..Last….
Woohoo………..(no offence Mr.Martin Luther King! Sorry for stealing your lines but I have been through hell in the last couple of months
so cut me some slack here,okay!)

Now,where was I? Oh yeah ,the exams………
*shudders*

Man seriously,becoming a doctor is sooooooooo not worth all this crap.All the sleepless nights,the bouts of anxiety and the constant fear
of these stupid exams which went on and on and on have really taken a toll on me.Even thinking about it makes me want to
puke my guts out.And to add insult to injury,the “witty brains” at the beloved U.H.S came up with the ingenious idea of postponing
our vivas for another  whole month,like we hadn’t been through enough already.(You suck Taliban!!!! If I fail,I am holding you responsible ).Anyway,boy was I the happiest person on the surface of the earth
when I walked out of the Pathology department today after giving my last viva!!!

I remember while I was in my high school  my mom often said,and i am paraphrasing here,”BETA BAS YEHI DO SAAL HAIN.IN
MAI PARH LO BAS.AIK DAFAA MEDICAL COLLEGE MAI ADMISSION HO JAYE TO AAGE AYASHI HI AYASHI HOTI
HAI”.Boy how stupid and naive I was to believe that.Little did I know what hell was in store for me in this NOBLE profession of AMMI
and ABBU Jee.

But the good news is that me and our gang have successfuly managed to get it over with.I am so sick of  this exam fever that I swear to
God the first thing i am gonna do when the result gets announced is to burn my Forensic text book(the same thing I did with my Biochemistry
text book).

The last couple of months have been the most boring and monotonous months of my already very boring and monotonous life which
explains how dull  things have been for me lately.I hope things shape up nicely for me in the future cuz if they don’t,i am pretty sure my name would turn up in medicine books as well i.e; THE FIRST PERSON TO ACTUALLY DIE OF BOREDOM.

But enough of the cynicism…..I am sure this is going to be the end of this bland saga.Hoping for a better tomorrow and the day after………

Now back to “THE SIMPSONS”

PEACE

2009년 9월 20일 부터 10월 21일 까지 약 한달간 8명이 모여 준비했던 발제입니다.

마르틴 루터의 생애와 사상 – 특히 두 왕국론에서 나타나는 그의 현실주의적 기독교 윤리를 도출하는 시도입니다.

루터에게서 나타나는 현실주의적 윤리로 농민혁명에 대한 그의 이중적인 모습을 분석해보기도 하였습니다.

도출하기 위한 도구로는 리처드 니버의 현실주의적 윤리체계를 사용하였습니다.

다운로드 :
루터와 현실주의적 윤리.

While many of us are familiar with the Protestant Reformation that began with Martin Luther in the first half of the 16th century, there was another reformation of sorts that took place three hundred years earlier in Japan of which many of us have not heard.  Shinran (1173-1263), and perhaps to an equal extant his predecessor Honen (1133-1212), struggled to institute reforms into Buddhism which reflected his personal beliefs in the context of a wider movement in the Kamakura period that brought great change to Buddhism and its role among both common people and the nobility in Japan.  What is remarkable about the two different reformations in which Luther and Shinran participated is the number of parallels surrounding their efforts to change the religious landscape of their respective times and places.  While the depth to which these parallels reach is a matter for religious scholars to debate, a cursory look at these similarities raised an important question in my mind that I will get to shortly.  Before that question is posed, however, let’s look at what Luther and Shinran shared in common:

1. Both Shinran and Luther rejected the idea that good works proved effective towards reaching salvation.  While there are differences, obviously, between Shinran’s belief in the Pure Land and Luther’s belief in heaven, both men held that humans lack the capacity for pure spiritual practice.  Shinran believed that we reach the Pure Land completely by results of Amida Buddha’s Primal Vow and the accumulated merit of Amida’s religious practices while still the Bodhisattva Dharmakara.  Luther subscribed to the doctrine of Sola fide, or “faith alone,” which states that the granting of salvation is entirely dependent upon whether or not one has faith in God, not by one’s acting “good” in order to deserve such salvation.  Ironically enough, Shinran would often refer those who had questions regarding his beliefs to a work by a priest named Seikaku entitled, “Essentials of Faith Alone.”  Something important to keep in mind when discussing these parallels is that you can’t simply swap out God for Amida Buddha, or heaven with the Pure Land as if they are perfect analogs for one another.  Lutheranism is not simply a Christianized version of Pure Land Buddhism, nor is Pure Land Buddhism a version of Protestantism differing only in visuals and terminology.  Pure Land Buddhists are notoriously defensive when it comes to comparisons drawn between their beliefs and those of Protestant Christianity, at times going to absurd intellectual lengths trying to refute what similarities both traditions undeniably share.  On the other hand, in the defense of Pure Land believers, specifically those of Shinran’s Jodo Shinshu school, they do have a few hundred years’ worth of dibs on those similarities versus Protestants.

2. Both had anti-clerical beliefs.  Shinran and Luther both held that rigid religious hierarchies and institutions were corrupt and unnecessary.  Because the source of salvation in their respective systems originates from outside of the believer, there is no differentiation amongst followers according to their levels of spiritual attainment, and thus both traditions were created along more egalitarian lines in respect to members of their religious communities.

3. Both married, discarding the tradition of celibacy.  Luther married Katharina von Bora while Shinran married Eshinni.  According to both men, religious vows were of no value in attaining salvation.  During their times, this was considered a radical stance and at least Shinran is credited as the first Japanese priest to openly marry.

4. Both changed original readings of texts.  A charge leveled against Luther in his translation of the Bible into German was that he was not absolutely faithful to the text, adding words to passages to give them meanings more compatible with his beliefs.  The same accusations were made against Shinran (rightly so), his renderings of certain passages of Pure Land sutras leading critics to question whether or not he fully understood the classical Chinese in which Buddhist texts were written then.

5. Both began in and eventually broke from the major religious centers of their day.  Luther broke with the Catholic church while Shinran broke with Mt. Hiei and the Tendai school of Buddhism.

Now, after having briefly glimpsed at these similarities, especially number five, the question that arose in my mind was, “Why does anyone become a preacher or philosopher?”  Leading up to their break with their institutions, both Shinran and Luther went through a period of isolation, study and despair in response to the failure of their sincere efforts to find peace through the standard monastic course of religious devotion set before them.  They were sincere in their desires, not for fame or wealth, but for real spiritual fulfillment.  Their struggles were individual ones, concerned for their own spirits and removed from a context of political or economic circumstances - men set on their courses, answering only to themselves and their own sense of attainment of their goals.  These paths led them to break with the institutions which set out the beliefs and practices that shaped their conceptions of religious life – for Luther that institution was the Catholic church, while in Shinran’s case it was the Tendai school of Mt. Hiei.

At some point, though, this intense and personal struggle changed from an inward concern, that of personal salvation, to an outward one, preoccupied with teaching others.  What is it that brings about this turn?  How was it that these men began to view their personal problems and the solutions to them as universal?  My initial answer was that it could only be ego which could make a person think he or she was in a position to tell others how they should view the efficacy and validity of one religious path or practice versus another.   In the case of philosophy, as well – as Nietzsche pointed out – most philosophers’ philosophical output comes as a sort of confession to the issues that plague them personally.

To make the leap from the thought, “I have found something which has benefited me,” to “I have found something which will benefit a great number of others,” requires, in my mind, an impetus that supersedes a humble desire just to be of service to others.  It is in this context that I understand Johannes de silentio’s words in Fear and Trembling, “As for the knight of faith, he is assigned to himself alone, he has the pain of being unable to make himself intelligible to others but feels no vain desire to show others the way.  The pain is the assurance, vain desires are unknown to him, his mind is too serious for that.  The false knight readily betrays himself by this instantly acquired proficiency; he just doesn’t grasp the point that if another individual is to walk the same path he has to be just as much the individual and is therefor in no need of guidance, least of all from someone anxious to press his services upon others.  Here again, people unable to bear the martyrdom of unintelligibility jump off the path, and choose instead, conveniently enough, the world’s admiration of their proficiency.  The true knight of faith is a witness, never a teacher, and in this lies the deep humanity in him which is worth more than this foolish concern for others’ weal and woe which is honoured under the name of sympathy, but which is really nothing but vanity.  A person who wants only to be a witness confesses thereby that no one, not even the least, needs another person’s sympathy, or is to be put down so another can raise himself up.  But because what he himself won he did not win on the cheap, so neither does he sell it on the cheap; he is not so pitiable as to accept people’s admiration and pay for it with silent contempt; he knows that whatever truly is great is available equally for all.”

I don’t mean to say that I view Luther or Shinran as frauds – by no measure.  But I wonder what turns that individual concern outwards.  What makes anyone have confidence that what works for him or her will work for another – and even if it did work, what makes anyone think, as de silentio points out, that a person can be led down that same path to reach the same results?  After all, the solution at which you arrive in response to your own troubles was arrived at in the context of solitude and struggle.  Remove that solitude and struggle from the process, don’t you also remove the necessity, the key component which spurred you to your solution and which allowed the solution to actually work?  The individual component of struggle, the fiercely personal nature of it is what causes us the most despair – but it also gives us the opportunity to overcome – to achieve something truly difficult and transcend one’s limits.

What I believe up to this point is that one person’s revelation in response to whatever crisis he or she may face in life is personal to him or her alone – it can’t be of use to another because the process of searching for and discovering an answer is replaced by a devotion to routines which worked for another person.  I don’t mean that we shouldn’t study the thoughts of others, or that we shouldn’t belong to religious organizations, but that we shouldn’t view that study or that membership as taking the place of our own spiritual or intellectual work.  Everything must come down to the personal level where you struggle with your own hands to work out things for yourself – no mode of thought, no matter how relevant it is to you can take the place of your own effort and thought.

My cubicle is situated in a unique location. It is right at the intersection of three hallways, as if I am the defacto hall monitor. Since I have my back to the opening, I have a rear view mirror mounted on the shelf above my monitor. That lets me see who comes in through the door, and to occasionally peek at those who are having an extended conversation out in the hallway. I overhear a lot of things.

Sometimes, there is flirting going on. We have one person who makes the rounds, flirting with the eligible, and not so eligible, men nearby. Then there are the sales dudes who just have to stand at the doorway to the rest of the plant talking on their cell phone. A lot of what I hear is funny. Most is boring. Today, I heard something that was troubling.

To guys who go to a local church were discussing trouble they were having with hymnals in a contemporary worship service. They were complaining about all of the fumbling around they have to do between the hymnal and the bulletin, and how it is so unfair to have to put up with a hymnal just to please a bunch of old people. Their parting comment was the most troubling to me, however, when one exclaimed to the other, “Well, just wait 20 years until they all die off, and then they can just do away with that service”.

I could have ignored comments about the hymnals being old and the songs being boring. What bothered me, I guess, was the calloused attitude toward older saints. It’s as if they were being held back somehow by the elderly, unable to worship in they way that wanted. I have heard this same attitude expressed in evangelical churches, so it’s not really anything I haven’t heard before. It was just the way they were joking about someone who belongs to the same congregation that they do and wanting them to be dead. Wanting me to be dead. You see, I too like the Lutheran Hymnal.

The two “gentlemen” in question attend the same church that I do. I have seen them there before, many times, and have even greeted them in church. So I find it a little disturbing to hear that kind of thing come out of their mouths. I know that I should not be surprised since we are all sinners, and I know that I am not any less guilty for some of the things that I have said the very same day. But I am still bothered by it.

Maybe it’s because I witnessed someone close die not to long ago. Or maybe it’s because they hit a pet peeve of mine. I have long been saddened by the mindset so often evident in contemporary worship circles that says that anything old is bad, and anything new is automatically good. Rarely do any of these people take the time to read and understand the old hymns. They are deemed to be worthless simply because they are old. Just like the people who like to sing them I guess.

I fear that appreciation for the liturgy has gone the same route. Most who are critical of it simply do not take the time to understand the “why” of it. The same is true for our hymns. Tradition, whatever the form, is bad. Upbeat and light is good, no matter how vacuous. I guess that is why Joel Osteen sells books.

So, my experience is that this attitude is not really confined to the evangelical church, but is part and parcel to the contemporary model of worship. Making fun of old people is bad form at the least, but wishing they were dead and gone so you don’t have to fumble around with a hymnal is just plain callous and stupid.

Luther is teaching me that all of life is a life of repentance. Tonight, as I repent of my own callousness, I will be thinking of those two brothers and praying that God would work in their heart, and mine, and the heart of the church, to help us all appreciate our older saints and what they contribute to our life together in Christ.

Peace,
Doug

What really is a Lutheran? This is a question which has not only perplexed non-Lutherans who have observed Lutherans in our country and all over the world split into a confusing plethora of territorial churches and synods; but the question is asked, and very sincerely, by more and more Lutherans who are distressed over the disunity so apparent the world over. It is surely a valid question, and vital for millions who studied and believe Luther’s Small Catechism and wish to remain faithful to its teachings and to their confirmation vow. And it is a question, ironically, which is really quite simple to answer.

This is a question that is of importance for Lutheran lay people and anyone else who is interested in understanding better what, exactly, a Lutheran is.

The answer is simple because we Lutherans for over 400 years have been guided in our belief and teaching and preaching by a number of Confessions which are collected together in one volume called the Book of Concord.

This Book of Concord contains a quite divergent assortment of creeds and formal confessions which have one thing in common, a doctrinal unity, a united commitment to the teaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In this book are the ecumenical creeds, developed and written from the second to the sixth century, long before the Reformation. Included also are Luther’s Small Catechism and his Large Catechism (1529),which were not originally intended to be confessions at all in the usual sense, but were written for children and ordinary adults to summarize the Christian faith and the way of salvation for them. Perhaps the most important confession included in our Book of Concord is the Augsburg Confession (1530), written by Philip Melanchthon and presented on behalf of the Lutheran princes of the day at a very important meeting with the emperor to testify to the world exactly what the Protestant churches in their lands taught about the Christian religion and the Gospel. A year later (1531), Melanchthon wrote a defense of this great confession called the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, a very lengthy treatise in which he defends the theology of the Augsburg Confession, especially on such crucial issues of the Reformation as justification by faith, the importance of good works, the work of Christ, repentance, and the like.

In 1537, Luther was asked to write a confession for a church council the pope suggested he might hold but which never came about. It was written at a little town called Smalcald and is called the Smalcald Articles. It is a bold and militant document, but at the same time exhibits Luther’s great heart and concern for the Gospel and for the church, and it wins the reader by its sincerity and conviction. Later in the same year Melanchthon wrote a short Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope because Luther had seemingly not said enough about this in his Smalcald Articles. This too was included in our Book of Concord.

After Luther died in 1546, all kinds of controversies and misunderstandings broke out among the Lutherans in Germany. After years of debate and monumental attempts at settling the doctrinal issues the Formula of Concord was written in 1577. This was a joint undertaking of a great many Lutheran theologians who wanted only to settle the disputes and remain faithful to their Lutheran heritage. They were eminently successful. The Formula of Concord was signed by thousands of Lutheran pastors in the German empire; at a later date the Lutheran Church in Sweden and in Hungary also signed this document. Now peace (concordia) was established. The Reformation and the cause of the Gospel went on, uninhibited by doctrinal controversy.

In 1580 all these creeds and confessions were incorporated into the Book of Concord, which Lutheran pastors subscribe and pledge themselves today because they are a pure exposition of the Word of God. Although the Book of Concord contains documents written over 400 years ago, what is taught in these documents is precisely, or ought to be, what is believed and taught and confessed by every Lutheran pastor, and layman today.

No collection of books or statement has so adequately, so accurately, so comfortingly reflected and exhibited the Biblical Gospel as do the Lutheran Confessions.

Soli Deo gloria: to God alone the glory!

From:

Getting into The Theology of Concord by Robert D. Preus

(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1977), pgs.7-10.

To order a copy of this book call 800-325-3040

Martin Luther:

Therefore, he who would correctly and profitably reads Scripture should see to it that he finds Christ in it; then he finds life eternal without fail. On the other hand, if I do not so study and understand Moses and the prophets as to find that Christ came from heaven for the sake of my salvation, became man, suffered, died, was buried, rose, and ascended into heaven so that through him I enjoy reconciliation with God, forgiveness of all my sins, grace, righteousness, and life eternal, then my reading in Scripture is of no help whatsoever to my salvation.

Via: The Resurgence

“He who would correctly and profitably reads Scripture should see to it that he finds Christ in it; then he finds life eternal without fail. On the other hand, if I do not so study and understand Moses and the prophets as to find that Christ came from heaven for the sake of my salvation, became man, suffered, died, was buried, rose, and ascended into heaven so that through him I enjoy reconciliation with God, forgiveness of all my sins, grace, righteousness, and life eternal, then my reading in Scripture is of no help whatsoever to my salvation.

I may, of course, become a learned man by reading and studying Scripture and preach what I have acquired; yet all this would do me no good whatever.”  Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Weimar Edition

(HT:the Resurgence, Martin Luther Says Scripture Is All About Jesus)

The Sunny crew has given us a straight-to-video special episode titled “A Very Sunny Christmas,” and what a Sunny Christmas it is.

I love the Christmas holiday, but I love Christmas-themed films and television episodes more because many get you into the holiday spirit, even if you are feeling blue. Well, you can add “A Very Sunny Christmas” to the list of those that do.

The premise of the episode is as follows: Dennis and Dee are sick of Frank being Scrooge-like to them every Christmas, moreso during their childhood, so they set out to try and change him, while Mac and Charlie try to capture the holiday spirit.

When I say that “A Very Sunny Christmas” brings the funny, I absolutely mean it. The entire episode is packed with humor; the opening scene alone should be enough to keep you interested, unlike some of season five’s wretched episodes. During the episode we learn about the characters’ Christmas pasts and how it affects them now and it is hilarious to watch. There is even a parody of A Christmas Carol. What makes the humor work is that the gags do not seem forced. The writers stepped up their game for this special and it really shows.

The entire cast produces laughs, but it is Frank and Charlie who come out on top. Frank is hysterical and he has a shocking scene that most certainly would not make it on television. The same goes for Charlie as well; his best scene in the episode would not get past network executives. David Huddleston, of The Big Lebowski fame, guest stars as Frank’s ex-business partner, who has seen the error of his ways. He is tasked to help Sweet Dee and Dennis. Mac’s mother and father make a small appearance and so does Charlie’s mom.

“A Very Sunny Christmas” is a step above all of season five’s current episodes. It is a sight to behold, a joy to watch, and it should put you in the Christmas spirit, even though it is only mid November. Remember, if you saw Santa Clause coming into your house when you were a child, he may not be there to cheer your mother up.