A favorite conversation topic in recent days is the end of the world.  A man on Family Radio my Father and I call “Ra Ra” (actually Harold Camping at 91.9 FM in Chicago) has been predicting the date of the rapture to be May 21st, 2011, and the subsequent end of the world October 21st of the same year.  The horrible plotline of 2012 and it’s Mayan calendar apocalypse also play off our curiosity concerning the end.  Just a short time ago, many were convinced that the collider in Switzerland would destroy the Earth via the same manner in which Vulcan is annihilated  in JJ Abrams’ Star Trek.

But how is one to prepare for the end?  The Christian response has for centuries been to wait; or to wait with our lamps ready, and to prepare our hearts.

What does that look like?

Well, I think firstly that it’s not the same as cleaning the house.  Some have likened preparation for Jesus’ second coming to that of someone coming to visit your home – you subject your house to a massive cleaning and wait.  But this doesn’t sit right for me, perhaps because of the sitting.  Let me explain:  When we have relatives over for Christmas, we clean and decorate like crazy, and usually finish the day of.  We complete the mammoth task a couple hours early, before the cousins and such come, and we end up sitting around in our good clothes doing nothing.  I thoroughly dislike sitting.  And I think sitting around is not the attitude commanded of us.

I would liken it more to the idea of building a house.  It’s similar, but you keep on building and adding wings as time goes on.

It’s like the parable of the talents, where the master leaves for a bit and dispenses his possessions for his servants to use.  I imagine that the guy with five talents had to work his butt off full-time to double his master’s money.  But imagine if the person with five talents had worked really hard and gotten a little lucky, and had turned those five talents into another five with much time to spare.  If he laid back and relaxed for the remaining time, would his master still be happy?  Perhaps.  But I do not think he would like the character of that servant as much.

How would you act knowing your world would end very soon?  Paul famously states that it is better for people not to get married because the end of the world is near – there’s no point.  But Martin Luther gives a different perspective:  If I knew the world were to end tomorrow, I would still plant my apple tree.

This rocked my brain.  What value is there in planting an apple tree?  You’re not going to get any fruit:  Trees grow slow.  Certainly not in a season; definitely not in a day.  And apple trees are particularly slow.

I still don’t fully comprehend it.  But maybe it has something to do with the value today, twofold:  The balance of urgency and patience, and the value of work which we do not get to reap.

In terms of evangelism, most people are worth more than five minute conversations.  Yet, when I think about the more powerful times of spreading the Gospel in my life, I automatically drift back to Mexico, where we could not build long-term relationships with the people to whom we witnessed.  I think the fact that I don’t think of my close friends to whom I have tried to witness for years really reflects the attitude of my heart.  I have no sense of urgency when it comes to friendship evangelism and being a Christian example.  We need long term urgency.

In the same way, I lo0k at the work I do sowing as opposed to reaping.  The reaping moments are powerful.  When I see the fruit of God’s hands, I’m moved.  Yet, is there that same power when I am planting seeds… is there the same power when I am planting seeds as when I am leading someone in the sinner’s prayer?  I can’t say that there is, or at least cannot say my mind remembers it the same way.  We need urgency when we don’t see the results.

Maybe, the whole point of end-times thinking is that we need to have the urgency to plant an apple tree.

“I wish that the young men might have something to rid them of their love ditties and wanton songs and might instead of these learn wholesome things and thus yield willingly to the good; also, because I am not of the opinion that all the arts shall be crushed to earth and perish through the Gospel, as some bigoted persons pretend, but would willingly see them all, and especially music, servants of Him who gave andcreated them.” ~Martin Luther, in the preface to his 1524 hymnbook, the Wittenberg Gesangbuch

We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the great reformer, Martin Luther, but with all of his accomplishments, his contribution to music and worship is easily overlooked. During the Middle Ages and early Renaissance — a period of nearly a thousand years — it was forbidden for congregations to sing during church services. Whereas for centuries the Roman church had taught that God revealed himself through special revelation only to the priests, Luther and other reformers desired to return to the Biblical teaching of the early church, which taught that all Christians were priests (1 Peter 2:9), and thus had direct access to God through Jesus Christ.  This led to the translation of the Bible into the common languages, and an emphasis on the liberty and dignity of all people.

Luther’s hymnbook, written with the help of his choirmaster, Johann Walther, and friend Conrad Rupff, was intended to help show people that they could have this direct access to God by singing to Him (as opposed to only trained choirs being allowed to do so). The hymns, which included Luther’s most well-known hymn “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” (to which he wrote both the lyrics and music), were designed to convey great Biblical truths about God’s character.

This songbook was completely revolutionary, because it was entirely contradictory to centuries of tradition, both in its lyrical content and congregational participation. It’s impact was profound, and led to the writing and distribution of many great hymns, as well as other forms of music dedicated to God’s glory. Luther had a profound impact on many composers, including George Fredric Handel (composer of the Messiah and friend of hymnist Charles Wesley) and Johann Sebastian Bach, who concluded every work with the initials “S.D.G”, which stood for “Soli Deo Gloria” — To God alone be the Glory!

Thanks be to God for the privilege of singing praises to Him, whether as individuals, worship leaders, or a congregation. We take this for granted, but it is only by the grace of God and the faithfulness of a great cloud of witnesses that we have inherited the right to do this freely and openly. May we never forget this as we worship Him together!

An amazing video has been making the internet rounds recently; I had seen a few links to it, but I just now finally took the time to sit down and watch it. Not that the concept wasn’t compelling, mind you — the Muppets performing Bohemian Rhapsody? Why did I not drop everything and focus on this the moment I became aware of it? Other than my situational ADD, I have absolutely no excuse.

Behold:

It is indeed a think of beauty, although I have to say that I thought Animal’s “Mama” soliloquy went on a bit too long; I would have liked to see other characters come in and do more of the real lyrics during that section. But that’s a nitpick. Animal was always one of my favorite Muppets, along with Beaker. I was very happy to see Rowlf the Dog on piano, and I was especially pleased to see Janice taking the guitar solos. Chicks rule! Especially chicks on guitar!

I couldn’t help but be reminded of another cover of this song, one that was part of a momentous occasion in my life. A classmate of mine at U.C. Berkeley arranged the tune for string quartet, and it was performed on our graduation concert (the same concert where my senior thesis piece was played — yay me! ).

It pains me to admit that all of this took place back in the last century, before YouTube and other assorted digital marvels, (I was a child prodigy, okay? ) so I can’t show you any documentation of it.

But I did find a few things that are in the ballpark, in more ways than one! Click Mr. Readmore to rock out, albeit in rather highbrow fashion!

I was tickled to find the version below, for string quartet plus guitar and rhythm section, because the performance took place at a high school in my hometown of Napa, California. (I was a good little private school gal myself, but I must admit that this public school had a bigger music program than my school — boo hoo!) Good on you, hometown kids!

Still, I wanted to find a version for strings alone, unaugmented by anything amplified.

I found an enticing little sample here:

This outfit, Vitamin Records, has released a number of string quartet rock ‘n’ roll tributes, which is intriguing. However, I was disappointed to find that they don’t identify the performers on the website, other than to say that they’re “the best string players and producers in the business.” I can’t tell if it’s the same performers for each album, or a different pick-up group each time. It’s kinda hard to fangirl that, guys — come on!

I found a couple other versions worth checking out. The Coda String Quartet’s cover uses a drum kit along with the quartet, which is okay I guess, but a purist might argue it’s just admitting defeat.

I’d like to hear the Quartet on the Roof’s version under better conditions than this video provides.

Finally, I found this performance by The Giovanni String Quartet, which comes much closer to what I’m looking for:

My only quibble is with the tempo — a bit too slow and laid back for the ethos of the song.

I have yet to find a version that recreates the energy and excitement of that graduation concert — but of course, that has much to do with the power of the memory for me.

Still, I think there is a take-home lesson here:

Yo, classical musicians — if you’re going to rock out, ROCK OUT! No half-hearted, polite, reserved renditions, please! I think there’s a whiff of transgression around the whole enterprise that causes people to hold back. P’shaw! I’m with Martin Luther on this one — if you’re going to sin, “sin boldly!”

Toisin kuin monet, jotka vielä tahtovat turhassa toivossaan elää, en itse siihen kykenisi, nimittäin siihen, että sanoisin meidän vielä elävän kristillisessä yhteiskunnassa. Länsimainen kulttuuri on jo vaipunut takaisin uuspakanuuteen, ja Suomi on seurannut mukana, niin kuin se aina tekee, väkisinkin. Kuka tietää, milloin tämä vaihe on alkanut, mutta itse pidän sen alkujuuria jo 300-luvulla, jolloin Rooman keisari Konstantinus I:stä tuli ensimmäinen kristitty keisari. Tuolloin kristinusko, siihen asti vielä superstitio illicita ja kaikkea muuta kuin roomalaisten pakanauskonnon mukainen «ideologia/filosofia», integroitiin vahvasti roomalaiseen tosin jo kuolevaan poliittisen instituutioon. Tuolloin kristinuskolle ensimmäistä kertaa annettiin valtaa, ja tuolloin sen valta myös keskitettiin. Roomalais-katolinen kirkko rakennettiin Rooman imperiumin raunioihin, mutta ainakin jossakin määrin imperiumin ideologia ja sen uskonnollinen relativistinen polyteismi jäi elämään juurikin sen “kukistaneeseen” kirkkoon mm. pyhimys- ja Maria-opin muodoissa.

1500-luvulla Luther epäonnistui roomalais-katolisen kirkon reformaatiossaan, ja protestanttinen liike sai syntynsä. Nyt, melkein 500 vuotta myöhemmin, suomalainen evankelis-luterilainen kirkko on vaipumassa ekoevankeliuminsa kanssa takaisin Rooman syliin, kun Suomessa luterilainen jumalanpalvelus on saanut juurikin Reformaattoria kauhistuttaneita ulkokultaisia tunnusmerkkejä, kun taas opillisesti sen on hajottanut baptististen eli vapaiden suuntien räikeä individualistis-relativistinen harhaoppi, joka kitetyy perisynnin kieltämiseen ja kasteen ykseyden ja sen sakramentaalisuuden tuhoamiseen (joka on korvattu ei yhdellä vaan kahdella kasteella: vesikasteella ja Henki-kasteella erikseen). Evankelis-luterilainen kirkko yrittää pysyä ajankohtaisena pohdiskellen homoliittoihin suostumista ja saarnaamalla ei Kristuksen evankeliumia vaan ns. «ekoevankeliumia», jossa painotetaan ei ihmisen syntisyyttä ja Kristuksen sovitustyötä vaan ihmisen pragmaattis-legalistista mentaliteettia Jumalan luoman luomakunnan varjelijana, aivan kuin kasvihuoneilmiön hidastaminen olisi kristitylle se teko, jolla hän «ansaitsee» paikkansa Kristuksen joukossa. Kirkon sisällä vaikuttaa vielä monia Pyhän Hengen armoittamia Kristuksen Sanan saarnaajia, mutta kirkon poliittinen johto on hyljännyt Kristuksen evankeliumin eli Jumalan opin, joka sen sijaan vielä kaikuu Luther-säätiön ja SLEY:n toimesta vielä Suomessa. Myös Kansanlähetys on tehnyt hienoa työtä, mutta sen kyyristely äitikirkon helmassa vaikuttaa epäilyttävältä, ja perimmäisenä syynä sen irtautumista estämässä lienee rahoitus.

Missä ajassa me siis elämme? Syksyn 2009 Italiassa eläneenä roomalais-katolinen kirkko on näyttänyt opillisen raadollisuutensa; sitä ennen Jumala herätti minut monen vuoden helluntaiseurakunnassa käymisen jälkeen kyseisen uskonnon Raamatunvastaiseen kaste- ja syntiopetukseen (silmiäavaava tutkimus aiheesta on kirjoitettu Matti Väisäsen toimesta ja se löytyy nimellä Pyhä Kaste Raamatussa; tutkimuksen jälkimmäinen osa on nimeltään Pyhä Kaste Kirkossa, ja se on nimensä veroisesti kirkkohistoriallinen osa ja paneutuu myös Lutherin kasteteologiaan) ja toi minut takaisin Reformaation löytöjen pariin: mitä on olla syntinen ihminen, vailla mahdollisuutta Jumalan edessä, ja mitä on Jumalan uhraus, kun Hän uhraa itse itsensä, luo uskon meihin Evankeliumin kautta ja ylläpitää sitä oman Henkensä avulla ja lukee meidät vanhurskaiksi Kristuksen tähden? Tässä on meiltä kaikki kerskaus itsessämme otettu pois, sillä eihän usko ole ihmisen teko vaan Jumalan lahja, ja kuten Paavali sanoo, olkoot meidän kerskauksemme Kristus, Jumalan kirkkauden toivo (Rm 5:2): Hän on tehnyt kaiken puolestamme!

Me elämme lopunaikoja. Nämä ajat alkoivat jo Kristuksen ylösnousemuksessa, ja siksi Johannes voi kirjoittaa Ilmestyskirjan alussa, että kaikki tulee tapahtumaan «pian» (Ilm 1:1); Jumalan pelastussuunnitelma on viimeistä huipennusta vailla: Kristuksen toista tulemusta kirkkaudessa ja päivää, joka koituu toisille tuomioksi, toisille armoksi; toisille ikuisuudeksi helvetissä, toisille elämää Jumalan kanssa Uudessa Jerusalemissa. Eksytys ei pelkästään «tule» pian, se on jo lähtenyt liikkeelle, ja se yltyy yltymistään, eksyttäen niin monia, että ellei Herra itse olisi lyhentänyt näiden päivien määrää, jokainen hukkuisi (Mk 13:20).

Me eksymme, jos emme tunne Jumalan Sanaa, ja tähän kaatuu jokainen ihminen, joka on kaatuakseen. Meidän on luettava Sanaa, ja annettava Pyhän Hengen opettaa meitä; Hän tekee kyllä meille tiettäväksi kaiken tarpeellisen, jotta me voimme palvella Häntä kirkkaudessa. Sen sijaan meidän oma vikamme on se, jos emme Hänen apuaan ota vastaan.

Tästä syystä myös Lutherin Kirkkopostilla on kullanarvoinen matkakumppani. Luther on—ja tämä on mielipiteeni siinä missä moni muukin asia, mutta jotakin, jota myös henkeni todistaa—Kristuksen evankeliumin julistaja, ja hän opettaa Pyhän Hengen antamalla arvovallalla. Kirkkopostilla on yksi Lutherin pragmaattisimmista teoksista, jossa ei pelkästään ilmene Kristuksen evankeliumi ja Sanan julistus vaan myös kristityille suunnattu tavoitteellinen opetus ja sen selkeys: se ei ole eksegeettisesti liian vaikea ymmärtää (mutta on hyvä muistaa, ettei ihminen itse kykene ymmärtämään evankeliumia [1Kr 2:14]) vaan se on äärimmäisen taitavasti pedagogisoitu teksti. Onhan se saarnakokoelma, ja tässä myös syy siihen, miksi siihen tutustuminen on tärkeää: se on kirjoitettu juuri sinua varten, silmälläpitäen sitä, että sinä kuulisit sen opetusta.

Tässä blogissa otan siis Lutherin matkakumppanikseni kirkkovuoden ympäri ja konsultoin tiiviisti hänen postillaansa, raportoiden tähän blogiin erinäisiä oivalluksia sekä saarnateksteistä että niiden ulkopuoleltakin. Rukoilen, että myös sinä, joka tänne «eksyt» näitä artikkeleitani lukemaan, voisit nähdä ne hyödyllisinä myös sinun vaelluksellasi tässä maailmassa Kristuksen omana.

Jeesuksen Kristuksen tähden, anna Isä meille nöyrä sydän ja kuuliainen mieli Sinun Pyhän Henkesi kautta, jotta me, Sinun Sanasi edessä, antautuisimme sen voimalle ja sille Totuudelle, joka olet Sinä. Ei ole muuta Jumalaa, ei ketään, joka voisi meitä syntisiä auttaa; Sinä olet pelastanut meidät antamalla itsesi kuolemaan meidän syntiemme tähden, jotta Evankeliumin avulla Henkesi synnyttämän uskon kautta voisimme panna toivomme Jeesukseen Kristukseen, Jumalan ainoaan Poikaan, meidän Herraamme. Anna meille meidän syntimme anteeksi ja ole meille armollinen. Sinun olkoon kirkkaus, kunnia ja voima; Kristuksen Jeesuksen, meidän Herramme, tähden. Amen.

Stuart Olyott has an excellent short article in the December 2009 issue of the Banner of Truth Magazine (information and subscription here – warmly recommended), reflecting on Luther’s retrospective on the progress of the Reformation.  Luther said:

I opposed indulgences and all papists, but never by force. I simply taught, preached, wrote God’s Word: otherwise I did nothing.  And then, while I slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with my Philip of Amsdorf, the Word so greatly weakened the papacy that never a prince or emperor did such damage to it.  I did nothing: the Word did it all.  Had I wanted to start trouble . . . I could have started such a little game at Worms that even the emperor wouldn’t have been safe.  But what would it have been?  A mug’s game.  I did nothing: I left it to the Word.

Stuart is dealing with the error of ‘mediate regeneration’, an error which he perceives gripping a vast swathe of British evangelicalism.  (Incidentally, my interest in this article was piqued because I was thinking of preaching on the Spirit’s illuminating work this Lord’s day – I may not, but I should like to soon.)  Stuart describes this error in this way:

Mediate regeneration teaches that when the Holy Spirit transforms somebody into a new creature in Christ, he uses an instrument to bring this about. That instrument is the Word—the Holy Scriptures. The work of the Spirit is so intimately connected to his instrument, that we can say that the Word of God actually contains the converting power of the Holy Spirit. If you let the Word loose, you are letting the Holy Spirit loose.

To put it another way: the Spirit, or the principle of new life, is shut up in the Word, just as the life-giving germ is shut up in the dry seed. Just sow the seed and people will get converted! If they don’t, it will be because they have persistently resisted the appeals of God’s Spirit coming to them through that Word. His power is resident in the Word, but that power has been resisted. Where the gospel has little success, there is a human explanation.

So Luther should not have baldly said, “I left it to the Word” because the Word, apart from the Spirit (who is not bound to the word in the way wrongly suggested) accomplishes nothing.

Stuart’s point is that the Spirit works with the word (cum verbo) and not simply through the word (per verbo).  While it is and always remains the true Word of the living God, yet without the operation of the Spirit on the heart of the man reading it, it remains as dry as a stick to him.  Regeneration is an immediate operation of the Spirit of Christ on the heart of a man making him spiritually alive and aware, and therefore able to comprehend the truth.  But the Spirit does not use the truth to accomplish that regeneration; the effect of regeneration is spiritual comprehension of the truth.

Isn’t this splitting hairs?  No, says Mr Olyott:

A biblical mind-set ticks completely differently. It goes like this:

• Although the Word can bring a new spiritual life to birth and visibility, it can never bring about the generation of that new life. God himself must do that, by a direct action of his Spirit within the human soul.
• We can preach, teach, persuade and print until we are blue in the face, but nothing will get done unless the Lord himself accompanies the Word. All men and women are spiritually dead, and will remain so for ever, unless the Lord brings them to life.
• It is not enough then to sow the Word, making its meaning plain while we do so. We must have dealings with God, pleading with him to do what only he can do, that is, to work by direct action within people’s souls.

What will be the effect of such a Biblical state of mind?

Where the biblical mind-set rules, you will find preachers who ‘pray through’—men who strive and agonise and prevail in prayer, until the Lord accompanies their preaching in an obvious way.

• Where the biblical mind-set rules, you will find crowded prayer meetings filled with believers who storm the throne of grace, determined that by sheer importunity they will persuade God to accompany the word to be preached.
• Where the biblical mind-set rules, you will find gatherings of Christians beseeching the Lord to pour out his Spirit in awakening power. Of course you will! They understand all too well that no spiritual work will get done anywhere, however much sowing takes place, unless the Lord himself changes rebellious hearts and gives to them spiritual life and appetite.
• But the biblical mind-set does not rule. Most British preachers study more than they pray. Countless believers do not go regularly to church prayer-meetings, or, if they do, fail to plead with God for his blessing upon the preaching. Prayer for revival has almost left us. The error of mediate regeneration is slowly but surely strangling us, and things will go from bad to worse unless we repent.

Stuart is not saying anything new.  The 1689 Confession of Faith contains a chapter on the gospel and its gracious extent.  The fourth paragraph, in its usual pithy and dense fashion, makes the same point as Stuart, which I give in a slightly modernised format:

The gospel is the only outward [external] means of revealing Christ and saving grace, and, as such, is fully sufficient for this purpose.  However, in order that men who are dead in trespasses may be born again, quickened or regenerated, there is also necessary an effectual, insuperable [irresistible] work of the Holy Spirit upon the whole soul to produce in them a new spiritual life.⁸ Without this, no other means will accomplish their conversion unto God.⁹

⁸ Ps 110.3; 1Cor 2.14; Eph 1.19-20  ⁹ Jn 6.44; 2Cor 4.4, 6

I feel the charge of spending more time bending over a commentary than bending my knees in prayer.  I see all around me men and women who have heard and are hearing the truth as it is in Jesus without any spiritual comprehension of that truth, and I see the desperate necessity of a direct work of God’s Spirit upon their hearts if they are to believe.  They are, many of them, competent, intelligent professionals, some eminent in their spheres, but they cannot see the truth.  They never will, unless the Holy Spirit opens their blind eyes.

The story is told of how William Wilberforce once took William Pitt, Britain’s youngest ever Prime Minister, a man of intellectual penetration and brilliance, to hear Richard Cecil, an evangelical minister of the gospel with a reputation for sweetness and clarity.  As the brilliant Pitt came out of the church, having heard the gospel plainly and powerfully declared, he blinked in the sunlight.  “You know, Wilberforce,” he said, “I have not the slightest idea what that man has been talking about.”  What was missing?  The blessing of spiritual enlightenment for which Wilberforce had been praying, a sovereign work of the Holy Spirit enabling even the most humanly brilliant of men to grasp the simple truth of the good news in Jesus Christ.  Truly, the kingdom advances “’Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the Lord of hosts” (Zec 4.6).

Let us not, then, fall into the sterilising error of mediate regeneration, but pray for the Spirit powerfully and savingly to accompany the Word preached.

Kan noen av mine venner i Den norske kirke ta meg i hånden og forklare meg på en god måte hvordan vi kan leve med dette?

For et års tid siden meldte jeg meg inn i Den norske kirke.

Den evangelisk-lutherske statskirken.

Jeg fikk en datter døpt der, men jeg må vel innrømme at jeg ikke har vært av de ivrigste hva angår kirkegang.

Likevel er det et selvstendig poeng for meg å ha en religiøs identitet, og jeg må jo innse at Den norske kirke er blant de få kirker i verden som er til å leve med. Og dessuten: som kan leve med folk som meg.

Dette går fint, tenkte jeg.

Helt til jeg ble sittende og lese litt om den store trosopplæringsreformen som kirkemøtet nettopp har vedtatt. Dette er en plan som sier noe om hvordan kirka sjæl skal gjøre den jobben som man tidligere satte skolen til å gjøre:  å lære døpte barn om Gud og Jesus og sånn.

Allerede i innledningen til planen – under kapittelet formål og oppbygging – leser jeg:

“Om dåpen sier Den norske kirkes bekjennelsesskrifter at den er nødvendig til frelse…”

Ups…

Ja, jeg vet jo at det står der, i bekjennelsesskriftene. Men jeg blir litt tatt på senga av at dette er den ANDRE setningen i dokumentet om trosopplæring. Dette er altså et prioritert poeng.

Og så sier de ikke noe mer, ut over at dåpen er “en forvandlende engangshendelse og den er et livsprogram”.

Deretter siteres Luthers lille katekisme: “Det betyr at den gamle Adam i oss skal druknes ved daglig anger og bot, og dø med alle synder og onde lyster, og at et nytt menneske daglig skal stige fram og leve evig for Gud i rettferd og renhet”.

Sukk…

Dette er innledningen til en trosopplæringsplan som retter seg mot barn. Fra null – 0 – år. Til atten.

Inni meg skriker spørsmålet:

HVORFOR STÅR DET IKKE EN ENESTE SETNING OM UDØPTE BARN, FOR EKSEMPEL I SUDAN ELLER BANGLADESH ELLER ANDRE STEDER, SOM DØR AV MALARIA ELLER FORURENSET DRIKKEVANN UTEN Å HA HATT NUBBESJANS TIL Å BLI DØPT?

Ja, jeg roper nå. Høyst udannet; ha meg unnskyldt.

Hvordan er det mulig å slå fast med en enkelt hovedsetning at “dåpen er nødvendig til frelse”, uten bruke en bisetning på å vise at vi er opptatt av hva dette betyr for de andre? Er de så vant til å fortrenge grusomheten i dette at de ikke lenger legger merke til det?

Og jeg vet jo at masse statskirkefolk jeg kjenner – sågar ordinerte prester – ikke tror på dette selv. Overhodet ikke. Likevel står det der. Hvordan kan DE leve med det?

Som sagt har jeg fått en datter døpt i Den norske kirke. Mener virkelig den samme kirken at min eldste datter – som ikke er døpt i Den norske kirke, men “bare” velsignet i en baptistmenighet – IKKE har del i frelsen dersom hele familien skulle omkomme i et flykræsj i romjula? Hva skal i så fall lillesøster tenke når hun kommer i himmelen? Skal hun sitte i en evighet og savne storesøstra si, eller ordner Gud det slik at søskenrelasjonen ikke betyr noe likevel?

Og hvilken frelse finnes for gatebarna som ble etterlatt der jentene mine kommer fra? Er det ingen frelse for dem heller?

Hvis lutheranerne mener at dette er et sant bilde av Gud og Guds frelsesplan, hvorfor i all verden tilber vi denne guden da? Nøyaktig hva er det meningen at vi skal elske?

Kan noen forklare meg det?

PS: Hvor mange flere saker av denne typen må vi tåle? Ofte blir overgrepssaker hos katolikkene satt i sammenheng med prestenes sølibat. Men kanskje skal vi spørre om det ikke også henger sammen med det synet på barn som ligger under hos kirker som finner det nødvendig å døpe disse korrupte, onde skapningene så fort de er født.

 I was contemplating Galatians 5.17  - For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want  (NRSV) – which brought me to Thomas Watson’s The Godly Man’s Picture.   Watson, in section 19 of the booklet, describes the saint who struggles with sin.  Here are a few of my favorite quotes.

“Though sin lives in him [the godly person], yet he does not live in sin.”

“Though sin is in him, he is troubled at it and would gladly get rid of it. …Sin in a wicked man is delightful, being in its natural place, but sin in a child of God is burdensome and he uses all means to expel it.”

“If we would have peace in our souls, we must maintain a war against our favorite sin and never leave off till it is subdued.”

“Grace and sin may be together, but grace and the love of sin cannot.  Therefore parley [meet] with sin no longer, but with the spear of mortification, spill the heart-blood of every sin.”

“A godly man dare not travel for riches along the devil’s highway.”

So Luther said that the Christian life means a severe struggle which never abates until we leave this world.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Here’s some places a mouse click or two took me this week:

• I really hesitate to post another link to Pete Wilson because every time I do, he writes a personal note of thanks, and he’s a busy guy.  But I couldn’t ignore this one.   Pete had the thrill of baptizing his son Jett last week, and wrote him a note on the blog.    Here’s the part I don’t want you to miss:  “God has an amazing adventure planned for you and I want to encourage you to trust Him at every turn. Over and over again you’ll face situations where you’ll be tempted to give into fear but I pray you’ll choose faith. You’ll be temped to control but remember freedom comes in letting go. You’ll be drawn toward comfort but I pray you’ll choose sacrifice. You will feel all alone but remember God promises that He will never leave you nor forsake you.” Read it all here.
• This video has been up for a year now, but if you missed the Protestant Reformation and want to catch up, this rap video, 95 Theses, should fill you in.   (Click on more info below the advert to see the full lyrics.)  Also available at this homepage.
• Sadly, Philip Yancey marks his final regular column with Christianity Today this week with a look at the Evangelical movement.   “Perhaps we should present an alternative to the prevailing culture rather than simply adopt it. What would a church look like that created space for quietness, that bucked the celebrity trend and unplugged from surrounding media, that actively resisted consumerist culture? What would worship look like if it were directed more toward God than toward our entertainment preferences?”
  
• Jim Henderson, of Jim and Caspar Go To Church fame, has an excellent article on his site, “What The Black Church Has That The White Church Needs.”   He writes, “They’ve never had power or influence over the majority culture; They’ve always had to do more with less;  They have experience with being ignored; They’ve developed practical gospel that brings heaven to humans (as well as humans to heaven); They produced the most significant Christian leader of the 20th Century Martin Luther King Jr… ” You might find it hard to see the first few of those as being things they have.   Read and comment at Off The Map.
• A long time acquaintance of ours, Brian McAuley, has written a book on an encouragement celebration that parents can do with their children.   The Family Gold Plate meal is similar to other red plate rituals some families have, but adds a lot of extra details.   It’s sold as a book only, or with the gold plate itself.    I don’t endorse a lot of commercial ventures on this blog, but am making an exception for this one.   To learn more, click here.   (It’s also linked in this blog’s sidebar from now to year-end.)
  
• USAToday’s religion page notes the proliferation of student atheist groups on college campuses in this article. “At Iowa State, most of the club’s roughly 30 members are “former” somethings, mostly Christians. Many stress that their lives are guided not by anti-religiousness, but belief in science, logic and reason.”
• In a 7-minute video, author Stephen K. Scott, author of The Greatest Words Ever Spoken, discusses The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived.   Scott went from failing in nine jobs to starting over a dozen multi-million dollar companies.   Read the book promotional vid here.
• Time Magazine discusses the “helicopter parent” syndrome in a 4-page online article titled “The Growing Backlash Against Over-parenting.”   Strongly recommended for parents, grandparents, daycare workers, educators, etc.   Click here to read.
• This one’s a bit dangerous, since the website WTFDIB stands for ‘What the Flippity-Flop Do I Believe?’  I know that when most of you see WTF in an acronymn, that’s not the first thing that comes to mind.   That may explain the rather slow traffic on this doctrinal discussion site.  Maybe you can spark a few of the discussions.

HT re. Time Magazine article goes to Zach Neilsen at Take Your Vitamin Z

They’re golfing.  On the Links.   Get it?   Okay, I’ll just put the cat up again next week like we usually do.

It would be hard to find a better description of what life together in the local church ought to look like than Paul’s imperative in Galatians 6:2: “Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” This side of glory, every member of Christ’s church carries a pilgrim’s burdens. Emotionally, physically, and spiritually, we bear the heavy load that is part and parcel of a cosmos under the curse of death. And as we carry these burdens that range from sorrow over a dying family member to loneliness to frustration in the workplace to the perennial problem of our own indwelling sin — oh to have brothers and sisters who pursue this vision with compassionate zeal, who will help us shoulder the load for the journey!

Here’s what Luther had to say about it:

“This is a gentle command with a great commendation attached. “The law of Christ” is the law of love. After Christ had redeemed us, renewed us, and made us his church, he gave us no other law than that of mutual love (John 13:34). To love is not to wish one another well, but to carry one another’s burdens – that is, things that are grievous to us, and that we would not willingly bear. Therefore, Christians must have strong shoulders and mighty bones, so they can carry their brothers’ weaknesses, for Paul says that they have burdens and troubles. Love, therefore, is mild,courteous, and patient, not in receiving but in giving, for it is constrained to wink at many things and to bear them (1 Cor 13:4).

Martin Luther, Galatians. The Crossway Classic Commentaries (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1998), 290.

On this Thanksgiving Eve, I am so grateful for brothers and sisters with strong shoulders and mighty bones, who carry my innumerable weaknesses with such kind forbearance.

I tend to forget how “new” the concept of congregational singing in worship really is.  There’s lots to be said about the history, but part of Martin Luther’s stand against the Catholic church was the initiation of singing in a language that the people understood (the Mass is in Latin, and at that time, most people didn’t speak or understand Latin), but also to include the singing of the people in worship services.  Then again, Martin Luther at the time also thought that organs were basically an instrument of the devil (some would probably still say this is true today!). 

Anyway, John Wesley was actually an important person with the protestant development of congregational singing, and he urged worshipers to stand while they sang hymns.  This was in the 18th century, not really that long ago, in the scope of time.

John Wesley also gave some pointers and guidelines for singing, “Sing lustily and with good courage.  Beware of singing as if you were half dead, or half asleep; but lift up your voice with strength.  Be no more afraid of your voice now, nor more ashamed of its being heard, than when you sung the songs of Satan” -1761.

I’m not sure what he means by the songs of Satan, but maybe we could apply that to secular music today?  Gosh there are LOTS of great songs on the radio that are songs you just sing out without any fear (unless the window in your car is down)… so why should our worship be quiet on Sunday mornings?  And why are we always “half dead or half asleep”?  This is a call to let our praise be loud, exciting, and full of DRUMS I say!  (Interesting but here’s a fact about faster music, “Some churches use drums in worship; a beat slightly faster than of the human heart enlivens a group of people, gets them on their feet, and unites them into one vibrant body” -Gail Ramshaw).

Anyway, just a few thoughts to share with you all.

Hope you have a blessed Thanksgiving!

Madame Sophistry, the clever whore

Martin Luther

Luther, Martin

…the devil’s cunning…if he cannot hurt by persecuting and destroying, he doth it under color of correcting and building up. – Commentary on Galatians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1930), 44.

(10 November 1483, Eisleben, Saxony, Germany – 18 February 1546 Eisleben, Germany)          

Married Katharine von Bora, 13 June 1525

One of our new sons of soul struttin his pipes with a classic Donny Hathaway Roberta Fleck tune along side Shelby Johnson… Letting if go!!!!

Martin Luther’s first video off of his sophomore album “Rebel Soul Music.” The video stars the beautiful Nona Gaye daughter of the legendary Marvin Gaye…

This song is the joint for the lovers out there!

“Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, in saying ‘Repent,’ intended that the whole life of believers should be repentance.” Martin Luther, Thesis 1

My wife Rebecca and I have a long-running debate about Love Actually. While I think this is a well done, well acted film, I maintain that it is not, truly, a Christmas movie.

How can I say this? The plot of the movie is looking at various expressions of love, from devotion to friendship to sexual to familial, expressed at different ages and social levels. As such, my claim is that this is a very good movie with the setting of “Christmas-time in London” laid over top of it. The movie could just as easily been set in New York during Halloween, or San Francisco during Thanksgiving. One could easily forget that the story is taking place at Christmas but for the constant reminders (Bill Nighy’s character basically serves this role).

Of course, the question then becomes, what does constitute a Christmas movie? It can’t be just any movie a particular family watches at Christmas; I know families that watch awfully strange movies at Christmas (is John Wayne’s McClintock a Christmas movie?). Is there a difference between a Christmas movie and a movie watched at Christmas?

A Christmas movie is one whose plot is driven by a Christmas theme. If you remove the Christmas elements, the movie would need to be rewritten. So, in honor of Wm. Scott Looney, here is my top 5 actual Christmas movies.

5. Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer (1964) – Although it’s sketchy to make a movie based on a song, this one makes the cut.

4. Santa Clause (1994) – I know this movie is pretty stupid, but it’s also fun. It also takes me back to the good old days when Tim Allen was successful… and thinish.

3. The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992) – One could ask, “Couldn’t this story be transferred to any other night?” Perhaps, but it would take serious revision, as the ghosts of Christmas past, present, and future come, and the “spirit of Christmas” makes Scrooge change.

2. Elf (2003) – No question.

1. A Christmas Story (1983) – The plot is solely driven by his Odyssean quest for the “Red Rider BB Gun.”

Believe me, I know what you’re asking. Where’s It’s A Wonderful Life (1946)? It pains me for this to be “bumped,” as it is my absolute favorite movie, but one could take the “Christmas” elements out of this movie and it would still work (George’s “crucial moment” could come on any day of the year without much revision).

This is not to say that this (or other left-outs) are bad movies; some truly “Christmas” movies are awful, and some “movies watched at Christmas” are amazing. I know some of you will be angry with this list: how shall I defend myself? “Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me.”

“That is the mystery which is rich in divine grace to sinners: wherein by a wonderful exchange our sins are no longer ours but Christ’s and the righteousness of Christ not Christ’s but ours. He has emptied Himself of His righteousness that He might clothe us with it, and fill us with it.

And He has taken our evils upon Himself that He might deliver us from them… in the same manner as He grieved and suffered in our sins, and was confounded, in the same manner we rejoice and glory in His righteousness.”

–Martin Luther, Werke (Weimar, 1883), 5: 608.

- Af Martin Luther

Vi finder ofte mennesker, der beder, faster, skænker gaver, gør dette og hint og i andre menneskers øjne fører et fromt liv; men spørger du dem selv, om de nu også er sikre på, at det de gør, er Gud velbehageligt, så siger de nej, det ved de ikke eller tvivler på det. Dertil kommer, at der er nogle højlærde folk, der leder dem på vildspor og siger, at det ikke er nødvendigt at være sikker herpå, og som alligevel ikke foretager sig andet end at lære, at man skal gøre gode gerninger. Nu er det sådan, at alle disse gerninger ikke sker i tro; derfor er de intet værd, helt døde. For sådan som ens samvittighed har det med Gud og ens gudetro er, sådan er de gerninger, der bliver resultatet heraf. Nu er der ingen tro, ingen god samvittighed for Gud; derfor er det intet bevendt med de gode gerninger, og deres hele liv og al deres godhed er for intet at regne. Det er grunden til, at de beskylder mig for at forbyde gode gerninger, når jeg sætter troen så højt og forkaster disse gerninger uden tro, mens jeg netop ville lære troens virkelige gode gerninger.

Spørger du dem endvidere, om de også anser det for en god gerning, når de udfører deres håndværk, går, står, spiser, drikker og laver alt det arbejde, livets opretholdelse og almenvellet kræver, – om de tror, at Gud finder behag i sligt, så vil du finde, at de siger nej og opfatter begrebet de gode gerninger så snævert, at der kun bliver tale om sådan noget som at bede i kirken, faste og give almisse. De andre gerninger anser de for at være uden betydning som om Gud ingen vægt lagde på den slags ting, og således afkorter og forringer de ved deres fordømte mangel på tro den tjeneste, de skylder Gud, som dog alt tjener, der kan gøres, siges og tænkes i tro. (…)

Således kan nu enhver selv mærke og føle, hvornår han gør noget godt, og hvornår han ikke gør det. For finder han i sit hjerte forvisningen om, at det behager Gud, så er det han gør, godt, om det så var så lidt som at løfte et halmstrå. Er denne tillid ikke til stede og er han i tvivl, så er det, han gør, ikke en god gerning, om den så vakte alle døde til live og mennesket lod sig brænde levende. Det lærer Sankt Paulus (Rom. 14, 23): “Alt, hvad der ikke sker ud af eller i tro, det er synd.” Ved troen som hovedgerning og ved ingen anden gerning bærer vi navnet kristne og troende. For alle andre gerninger kan en hedning, jøde, tyrk eller synder også udføre; men at stole helt og fuldt på, at han har Guds velvilje, det er kun muligt for en kristen, der gennem troen har nået afklaring og fasthed. (…)

I denne tro bliver alle gerninger ligestillede, og den ene er som den anden; al forskel mellem gerningerne falder væk, hvad enten de nu er store eller små, kort- eller langvarige, mange eller få. For gerningerne er ikke gode i sig selv, men ved troen, der uden forskel forbliver den samme i alle disse gerninger og virker og lever, hvor mange og forskellige de end måtte være, ligesom alle lemmer lever af hovedet og virker og bærer navnet og uden hoved er der ikke et lem, der kan leve, virke eller have et navn. Deraf følger endvidere, at en kristen, der lever i denne tro, ikke behøver nogen lærer i gode gerninger, men hvad der ligger lige for hånden, det gør han, og alt er velgjort.

Det kan vi givet et simpelt, kødeligt eksempel på: dersom en mand (eller en kvinde) antager, at den anden nærer kærlighed og velvilje til ham, og tror fuldt og fast derpå – hvem lærer ham da, hvordan han skal opføre sig, hvad han skal gøre, undlade, sige, fortie og tænke? Tilliden alene lærer ham dette og mere, end der behøves. Da findes der for ham ingen forskel på gerningerne: Han gør det store, langvarige, mangfoldige, lige så gerne som det små, kortvarige, enkle og det med et glad, fredfyldt, tillidsfuldt hjerte. Men dersom der er tvivl, da søger man efter, hvad der vil være bedst, da begynder man at udmale sig forskellige gerninger, som man vil erhverve sig velvilje ved, og skrider til værket med tungt hjerte og stor ulyst og er alligevel indfanget, mer end halvt fortvivlet og bliver ofte til nar. Således ved også en kristen, der i forholdet til Gud lever i denne tillid, alt, formår alt, tror sig i stand til alt, der skal gøres, og gør alt, glad og fri – ikke for at samle megen fortjeneste og gode gerninger sammen, men fordi det er ham en lyst, således at behage Gud, og han tjener Gud uden tanke på at få noget til gengæld, tilfreds med, at han derved er Gud til behag. Men det omvendte er tilfældet, dersom nogen ikke er enig med Gud eller tvivler på det. Han begynder da bekymret at spekulere på, hvorledes han dog skal stille Gud tilfreds og vinde ham med mange gerninger. Han iler til Santiago, til Rom og Jerusalem, farer hid og did, beder bønner her, går til skrifte der, spørger denne og hin og finder dog ingen hvile og gør alt med beklemt fortvivlet og trist hjerte. Skriften kalder da også sådanne gerninger på hebræisk aven amal, på vort sprog “møje og arbejde”; dertil kommer, at det ikke er gode gerninger og alt er spildt. Der er mange, der er blevet forrykte derover, og af angst er de drevet ud i jammer og elendighed. Derom står i Visdommens bog (5, 6f): “Vi er blevet trætte på den forkerte vej og har vandret ad tunge sure veje; men Guds vej har vi ikke erkendt, og retfærdighedens sol er ikke stået op for os.”

ELCA Lutheran leaders announce that a new Lutheran church body will be formed for those leaving the ELCA.

From their website,

Leaders of Lutheran CORE (Coalition for Renewal) have voted to begin work on a proposal for a new Lutheran church body for those who choose to leave the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, they announced Wednesday, Nov. 18.

The votes by the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in August to allow pastors to be in committed same-sex relationships have created a biblical and theological crisis throughout the ELCA and have generated conflict in local congregations. Many congregations and individuals are considering the possibility of leaving the ELCA or have chosen to redirect giving away from the national church.

The full statement is here. There’s already a pretty extensive support list. You can view it here.

This is my opinion. What will keep this conservative ELCA wing from joining with the LCMS or WELS? You’re not going to believe it, it differing views on the roles of women.

Martin Luther’s impact on the history of Christianity cannot be underestimated. In his Three Treatises, specifically in “An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate (1520),” Luther mounted his attack on the Catholic Church, but it is interesting to note that he never actually says that the pope and priests should not exist. Instead, Luther expands the definition of the priesthood to include all baptized believers. Note the interesting parallel between this concept and the similar (with some key differences) concept of the common “priesthood of the faithful” emphasized during the Second Vatican Council in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, also known as Lumen Gentium. Perhaps Luther anticipated some of these changes. At any rate, his attacks did not serve so much to tear Rome down but rather to dilute its temporal authority while emphasizing the need for the church to become more spiritually simplified and return to its ancient roots. He did not suggest that Rome should have absolutely no power or say in anything whatsoever, only that it should be reduced to the level that it had once been, and even then used prudently in order to constitute a legitimate use of power.

Despite decrying the amount of power, both temporal and spiritual, that popes had (in his eyes), Luther did not appear to desire a complete overthrow of the popes, at least not in the Three Treatises. Part of the problem, as Luther saw it, was that Rome had gotten to the point where it stood for “temporal affairs” and no longer purely spiritual ones. He saw the church as being involved in temporal affairs largely for money (p. 49-50). He also saw a need for reducing the pomp of the papal office, especially with his suggestion that the pope should support his own household with his own money and should also reduce material extravagance (p. 52). “If they had less wealth and pomp, they could pray and study better, and so become worthy and able to deal with matters of faith, as was the case in olden times when they were bishops, and did not presume to be kings over all kings (p. 52).” This is important because it shows that Luther is not, at least in his own mind, calling for the Catholic Church to be abolished. Compared to other reformers, he seems to have been more conservative than that (this relative conservatism carried over into some aspects of Church teaching as well. Unlike future reformers, Luther believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist). Instead, he is calling for the Church to go back to something that it was at one time, a community of equal believers. He suggests that temporal authorities, to the fullest extent possible, should not contribute anything to Rome, and demote bishops to the level of parish priests. However, he says that they should be demoted “so that the pope alone may be over them (p. 47).” This would significantly simplify the Catholic hierarchy. Also, “it should be the duty of the pope, as the man most learned in the Scriptures and most Holy, not in name only but in truth, to administer affairs which concern the faith and holy life of Christians…(p. 48).” On a more practical level, Luther realized that the papacy had powerful tools at its disposal that must be subdued or even eliminated. One such power was the interdict, which Luther claimed had been used to secure power over material goods (p. 72). He condemns the Church’s focus on holy days, feasts and the cult of the saints. For example, he did not understand where the pope’s authority to canonize saints came from. He preferred to leave such things to God (p. 78).

Luther also wanted the papacy to stop creating and confirming religious orders, but this is where it gets interesting. His goal in this particular recommendation was not solely to limit the power of the papacy, although that was a part of it. While he believed that the pope was encouraging the formation of Mendicant orders for the purposes of shoring up his own authority, Luther had a much deeper reason for opposing the religious orders. It was to avoid the orders causing “simple souls [to think] only of works (p. 63).” This was especially important for Luther’s personal theology, namely the justification of faith through Jesus Christ alone, and not merely works. Here the desire to limit papal power is intimately tied into Luther’s own theology. Luther’s theology emphasized a kind of “devolution” of power from the top down, culminating in a common priesthood. As far as Luther was concerned, if the pope could perform certain actions, why not any priest? “If the pope has the power to grand you dispensation to eat butter and to absent yourself from mass, then he ought also be able to leave this power to the priests, from whom, indeed, he has no right to take it (p. 84).” Indeed, popes should be honored to even be asked for their opinions (p. 90)!

Luther’s call to reform was not a call to end the Catholic Church or to topple the pope, at least not in the Three Treatises. Luther’s goals were both practical and theological, namely to bring the Church back to its simpler roots when its power was more spiritual and less temporal, a goal that could be accomplished by reducing the temporal power of the pope. On a theological level, there were no favorites in Luther’s eyes. All baptized Christians were part of a common priesthood of believers, a theme deeply tied to Luther’s idea of justification by faith. Luther challenged the Catholic Church and forever changed the history of Christianity.

Copyright © 2009 neverwalkaway.wordpress.com. All Rights Reserved.

“The Praise of Folly” by Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, first published ca. 1512 AD, was a satirical work that purported to demonstrate the inherent goodness of folly and stupidity. However, Erasmus not only defended folly itself, but he applied the concept of folly to Catholic theologians and clergymen. In the later portion of the essay, he satirized various aspects of Catholicism, including its theologians, religious orders and even the cardinals and pope. His work can be interpreted as a foreshadowing of the Protestant Reformation, which in fact happened not long after Erasmus wrote “The Praise of Folly.”

The first half of the essay actually has little to do with Christianity. Erasmus, pretending to be the personification of “Folly,” discusses the virtues of folly and the pitfalls of wisdom, intelligence, philosophy, etc. He makes his case for the superiority of folly as a state of mind, but the second half of the essay strikes a somewhat different tone. Erasmus makes several jabs at the Catholic Church. He was in a position, having once been an Augustinian monk and priest, to see Church affairs differently than the average layman.

His first criticisms are aimed at theologians. “Perhaps I ought to pass over the theologians in silence and ‘just not go near that open sewer’…they are a class of men so arrogant and irritable that…they’re likely to force me into a recantation; then if I refuse it, they’d promptly have me up for a heretic…they cocker up their own self-esteem, as if raising themselves to a seventh heaven, and from that vantage point look down on the rest of the human race (p. 57).” Erasmus also mentioned several theological questions, such as what form God could assume, and dismissed such questions as “worthless quibbles (p. 58).” He questions whether or not the Apostles would have raised the same types of philosophical questions that theologians of his time raised (i.e. how Mary was supposedly kept sinless, etc.), and refers to their collective arrogance when he thinks of them as considering themselves to be “neighbors to the gods when they addressed…with the title ‘Magistri Nostri’- it is a phrase that they think conceals some lofty, secret illusion (p. 62).”
Erasmus delivered some particularly potent criticism in regard to the nature of religious orders, where he questions whether or not they really care at all about the Christian religion: “they are far less interested in resembling Christ than in differing among themselves (p. 63).” He claimed that the monks could be intimidating since they knew everyone’s private lives, and he discussed their propensity, especially the Mendicants, to abuse the confessional when intoxicated, claiming that they would violate the seal of confession (p. 64). He also insulted their sermons, claiming that they instead of discussing the Gospel, which “should be the main order of their business (p. 65),” that they would preach about comparatively trivial matters (such as the significance of the letters in Jesus’ name). They would make the sermons sound more significant and intelligent than they actually were. Indeed, the “men of cloth” owed much to folly (p. 66).

The most important criticism is reserved for the Catholic hierarchy of bishops, cardinals and the pope. Between the discussions of the religious priests and the Catholic hierarchy, Erasmus discusses the folly of the nobility. It was no accident that Erasmus prefaced a discussion of the church hierarchy with a talk on the folly of the nobility, since the hierarchy “early imitated” the “courtly manner of life” even to the point of having “surpassed their originals [the nobility] (p. 68).” He first accuses the bishops of failing in their duties to watch over their flocks, pointing out that they have forgotten the meaning of the word “bishop,” which is “overseer.” He does not forget to include the fact that the bishops do not fail to pay attention to their monetary collections. As Erasmus says, there was “no ‘careless oversight’ there (p. 69).” His criticism of the cardinals is perhaps more subtle. He asks why the cardinals, if they are in fact the successors of the Apostles, feel the need for fancy clothes or indeed for money at all? Erasmus reminds us that the Apostles were poor men. Finally, he gets to the pope, where he raises a very simple but interesting question. If the popes really imitated the life of Christ, with all of his suffering and poverty, then why would they even want the job? If they were truly imitating Christ, then they would probably be suffering and no enjoying the job at all. Why would they want to “purchase that position at the expense of all his belongings, or would defend it, once bought, with sword, poison and violence of every sort (p. 70)?” If the popes were not consumed with folly, then wisdom would naturally cause them to toil and groan with grief. Erasmus reinforces his criticism by highlighting the fact that the popes do not hesitate to use not only Scripture but also “interdicts, suspensions, warnings many times repeated, anathemas, fearful images, and [excommunications] (p. 71)” to impose their will. Even worse, according to Erasmus, they have no problem using war as a means to an end, even though, in Erasmus’ eyes, war is morally wrong (p. 72).

The Catholic Church is not the only object of criticism in “The Praise of Folly,” nor is the majority of the essay dedicated to criticizing it, but it is perhaps the most historically relevant considering the fact that the Protestant Reformation closely followed. Did the essay have any influence on future Protestants like Martin Luther? Or did the essay simply reflect how some members of society viewed the church at the time? Perhaps it was a combination of both. Luther certainly knew of Erasmus (and vice-versa), and the Church considered “The Praise of Folly” worthy of being placed on the list of forbidden books, but it was too late: “The Praise of Folly” had made its point.

Copyright © 2009 neverwalkaway.wordpress.com. All Rights Reserved.

Lichtgeschwindigkeit 49 Gorbatschow Kohl Bush als Pirateneinheit

Piraten-Presseschau am Freitag, 31. Okt. 2009,

von Dr. Dietmar Moews, am Reformationstag, vor der Kirche

zu den vier Evangelisten am Alten Anger, Breite Straße in Berlin-Pankow;

Aufnahmezeit um 16 Uhr;

Piratenthema hier: NRW-Wahlkampf: Gorbatschow, Kohl, Bush

als Einheitsgipfel in Berlin, CDUler wechseln zu den Piraten –

hier als Piratenthema und als Wahlkampfthema für die kommenden

Landtagswahlen in NRW, 2010; die Kirche zu den vier Evangelisten

(Johannes, Lukas, Markus und Matthäus), ersterwähnt um 1230,

im Jahr 1859 neugebaut; die DDR ergänzte die im Krieg zerstörten

Türmchen im Jahr 1953 durch kleinere. Hier sind heute in Pankow

Protestanten in der Nachfolge von dem weltbekannten Katholiken

Martin Luther (Zitat aus Die Freiheit eines Christen) und dem

protestantischen Theologen Karl Barth (Zitat aus Klärung Wirkung

Aufbruch) tätig; 60 Jahre Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,

das wichtige Leitmedium in Deutschland; ferner Deutschlandfunk,

BILD vom 31. Oktober 2009 und

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

Produktion, Performance, Autor, Direktion: Dr. Dietmar Moews;

Aufnahmetechnik und Admin: Piratencrew Berlin

“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)