Pastor Mark's Blog

Some decades ago, Coca Cola’s self-descriptive advertising slogan was “Coke. It’s the real thing.” Shortly thereafter, someone modified the slogan, “God / Jesus is like Coke. He’s the real thing.” No shortage of other religiously altered (altared?) advertising slogans also exist, such as, Jesus is: (1) like “Ford… He’s got a better idea,” (2) like “All State Insurance… You’re in good hands with him,” (3) like “Tide… He gets the stains out that others leave behind,” (4) like “Dial Soap… Aren’t you glad you have Him? Don’t you wish everybody did?” and (5) like “Maxwell House… Good to the very last drop.” Out of curiosity, how often have you dropped Jesus?

So, is Jesus a thing or an idea or a stain remover or what? What do we make of such slogans borrowed from secular advertising? Why do we use them? Are they effective? What might Jesus make of them? Apply this to yourself. Are you “like Coke” or “like Tide” or “like Dial Soap” or “like Maxwell House”?

Apart from the application, what about the substance of such claims. What is “real” about Coke? What is the maximum number of times that one can drop you and from which height? If not physically dropped then perhaps relationally dropped. If people drop Jesus from their lives, how many drops can Jesus withstand? If Jesus is good to the last drop, then what happens to those who drop him for the final time?

Presumably, people take such phrases about Jesus or God seriously, at least at some level, or they would not propagate them. Perhaps more important than the slogans’ contents, what do such slogans say about those who use them? Caution! You are now entering a critical thinking zone!

Christian witness and Christian mission often leave Christians feeling perplexed and inadequate and exposed and vulnerable and fearful. On one hand, Christ has become an or the most important aspect of one’s life. On the other hand, one is often at a loss for words as to what that really means and how to communicate that to others. In a market driven society, like in any day and age, one is often tempted to borrow from the secular to advance the religious. To what extent one should do this, if at all? This question is and has been a matter of debate amongst Christians from its earliest days. Jesus himself frequently used parables, “The kingdom of God is like …” So, what do we do, or not do, and why?

Very often, we use analogies and metaphors to assist communication. Comparing something new to something old or familiar seeks to tap into an existing point of contact or conceptual framework in order to facilitate communication and understanding for the new. So, if you are “like Coke,” are you “the real thing” or are you really “carbonated water, sugar (sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup depending on country of origin), colour (caramel E150d), phosphoric acid, natural flavourings including caffeine”? Can you be “the real thing” and all that other questionably nutritious stuff? How does Coke mix with Jesus? In an effort to make Jesus (more) palatable, perhaps churches could offer “Rum and Jesus” instead of communion. Is that idea any more or less accurate or offensive than borrowing a secular advertising slogan? If so, why?

So, what is the point of contact between God and fallen humanity? What do sinners, who have lost the image and likeness of God (see Genesis 1:26) possess which could serve as a point of contact with God? Succinctly put, sinful humanity has no inherent point of contact with God. That is our problem. The relationship our side is completely broken, and all attempts by sinful humanity to create points of contact with the divine do little more than make for great or ghastly religions. Do those religions, however, make any difference in humanity’s relationship with God? The Bible say, “No.”

So, what are we to do to win God’s favour? The answer is: Nothing! There is nothing that we can do. No-thing, no “good” work, no slogan, no analogy, no anything at all will or can do it, no matter how hard we try. Instead, God did it and does it, by grace alone. God in Jesus Christ is the only point of contact between the justifying God and us lamentable sinners. By being both truly divine and truly human, Jesus comes to us outside of ourselves and apart from our efforts to be the only point of contact between God and us. This is so because Jesus

“… who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of human beings. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:7-9)

When sinful humanity killed Christ with more than vacuous slogans, the Father raised his Son from the dead, again by grace alone, to create an indestructible and indefeasible point of contact with himself beyond our powers of death. By grace alone, God seeks to bring us into a new, living relationship with him through the word alone and through faith alone solely in Jesus Christ.

In that light, God’s light, there is absolutely nothing and no one to which or to whom we can compare Jesus without diminishing or denigrating both his divinity and his humanity. With respect to witness and mission, the Father did not send his Son to find points of contact in us sinful human beings. Instead, the Father sent his Son to refashion sinful human beings through his justifying gospel into the body of Christ to be his living, verbal points of contact to those who do not yet believe. That is our baptismal calling and commission. That is our life of faith. Together, that is our congregational mission without comparison or compromise.

Last month’s contribution, namely offering the suggestion that we forego Lenten soup suppers for Bible study, produced some interesting comments and a few interesting discussions. While some were supportive of the idea, others took offense. Frankly, I was surprised that anyone voiced any support for the idea at all.

The phrase “in the soup” is sometimes used by pilots to describe flying in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). This does not pertain to taking a trumpet or clarinet into an airplane to toot at the passing clouds. Rather, it refers to flying through weather conditions where one does not have outside visual references, i.e. one flies by navigational instruments and radio aids in the cockpit, as well as help from air traffic control, in order to fly through fog, mist, clouds, and so forth. Commercial airliners routinely fly on instrument flight plans regardless of the weather conditions. In short, when one is “in the soup” one needs additional and outside aids to arrive at one’s destination safely. The food service, often curtailed or discontinued by the airlines, has nothing to do with arriving at one’s destination in a safe or timely manner.

Apart from my suggestion of substituting Bible study for soup suppers, the Bible itself is full of ideas and comments from God also challenging our assumptions, perceptions, and decisions, not to mention our “thoughts, words, and deeds,” as we often confess. In addition to verses like, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4 ESV), one also finds passages as follows, “And the whole congregation of the people of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness, and the people of Israel said to them, ‘Would that we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the meat pots and ate bread to the full, for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger’” (Exod. 16:2-3).

To this, Jesus might reply, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied” (Matt 5:6). To those whom Jesus did feed, he said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal” (John 6:26-27).

Fortunately, or not, human beings are not made of tummies alone. We have hearts, minds, and souls with which we are commanded to love God with all our strength. That means that we have much more to loose than a few calories once a week for the six weeks of Lent. Jesus says, “So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 10:32-33). Likewise, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Matt. 16:24). Alas, however, “After saying these things, Jesus was troubled in his spirit, and testified, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me. … It is he to whom I will give this morsel of bread when I have dipped it.’ So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. Then after Judas had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him” (John 13:21, 26-27).

A pilot in the soup has no outside visual references. Nearly 90% of the time, when accidently flying from visual meteorological conditions (VMC) into instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) untrained pilots find the ground at a fatal velocity. A trained instrument-rated pilot, however, is guided through the soup not by somatic sensations but by reading the instruments and by listening to air traffic controllers. Likewise, as St. Paul reminds, Christians “walk by faith, not by sight” (II Cor. 5:7), and as Jesus said, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29).

So, what do we make of soup suppers? Scripture says, “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food,” and God will destroy both one and the other” (I Cor. 6:13) and also, “‘All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever.’ And this word is the good news that was preached to you” (I Pet. 1:24-25). It is not clear how many people are for or against the notion of replacing soup suppers with Bible study. What is clear, however, is that restaurants are in business to serve food, and churches are in business to serve the good news, meaning both to serve it as the word of God and to serve it as the word of God to others.

Whether in the cockpit or in church, being “in the soup” is neither here nor there for those listening to the guidance communicated by navigational instruments, necessary charts, and air traffic controllers, or scripture and God respectively. Listening to that voice of guidance in both instances is a matter of life and death.

How often each day do we procure, prepare, and partake of food? In comparison, how often each day do we partake of the word of God? As the old saying goes, “One is what one eats” (Man ist, was man isst). So, to whom shall we listen – the grumbling of our tummies, the grumbling of the congregation, or the gift of the one who says, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4 ESV)? More pointedly and more graciously, which of these offers himself through the cross and resurrection to you in the supper at his table?

The season of Lent is often associated with various references in the Bible to 40 days, a time reference which generally means “a long time.” In Christian times, Jesus’ journey in the desert is sometimes cited as providing the rationale for the length of the Lenten season:

“Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. And the tempter came and said to him, ‘If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.’” (Mt 4:1-3 – ESV)

Jesus did not allow himself to be tempted by the devil. Likewise, he would not have allowed himself to be caught “loafing” during his time of fasting. While in the desert, perhaps the devil also tempted Jesus to create some dessert. All hot-cross-buns and half-baked puns aside, what do we make of Lent?

The word “Lent” refers to the “lengthening” of days or springtime. Thus, “Lent” did not originally have a religious connotation. Although customs vary, the early church tended to celebrate the resurrection every Sunday with a fast day on the preceding Friday to mark Jesus’ crucifixion. In the course of time, however, a particular “holy day” or holiday for celebrating Easter developed, and correspondingly the single, preparatory fast day was extended to many days just preceding Easter, which we now call Holy Week. This penitential period itself was then preceded with a “longer” fasting time of varying degrees and days numbering 40, as cited from Matthew above. Because Easter is celebrated in the springtime, the “lengthening” of days or Lent acquired new meaning, literally. So, if Lent is a manufactured season of questionable origins and purpose and if Luther was happy to dispense with Ash Wednesday, what do we make of Lent?

Traditionally, taking its cue from the passage cited above, Lent has been observed as a time of fasting. In German, Lent is called die Fastenzeit, the time of fasting, a name which readily denotes the reason for the season. The word Lent, however, does not convey the same meaning, and often means nothing to many people today, whether understood as “lengthening” or “fasting,” although some might give up fuzz for lint.

Some decades ago, it became fashionable in Lutheran churches to have Lenten soup suppers. Presumably, soup signifies a light meal, i.e., doing with less. Also, adding soup suppers to a midweek Lenten service would most likely boost attendance in a secular age when religious practices in an affluent society, especially fasting, are definitely not in vogue. Paradoxically, however, a hearty soup supper of seemingly unlimited servings can prove more filling than one’s regular evening meal at home! Similarly, if one needs to throw on food to help boost attendance during the “fasting time,” then in both cases something is very much amiss. So, what do we make of Lent and why have we added soup suppers?

In reply to the tempter, Jesus said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God’” (Mt 4:4).

So, why in Lent do we make such a fuss, or not, of foregoing some element of food or some supposed luxury or excess, when doing so does absolutely nothing to strengthen our understanding of God or God’s word? Why do we pay attention to Matthew 4:1-3 and seem to overlook Matthew 4:4? What do we say about our faith in and devotion to the word of God when we feel obliged to provide soup to entice people to midweek Lenten services?

As with so many activities in “the church,” we are often long on doing but short on theological rationale for our doings. In other words, we go to great lengths to devise ways to show our religiosity, but when all is said and done we sinners have said and done little in relation to what God’s word revealed in Christ and Scripture says and does to us. Instead of soup suppers, what if we met for Bible study before our midweek Lenten services? Would our response be, “Bon appétit” or “Fastenzeit”?

Who can reserve for him- or herself proper justification to make judgements for justice? After a long discourse on law and judgement, both human and divine, St. Paul writes in his letter to the Romans,

“But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for fall have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:21-16 – ESV).

Christianity has been in a quandary since the resurrection of Christ. When sinful humanity crucified the Son of God according to its misinterpretation and misuse of the law, even divine law, it demonstrated its fatally flawed understanding of judgement and justice. Nonetheless, God revealed his judgement against humanity by demonstrating his righteousness. How? Apart from the law! How? By putting Christ Jesus forward as a propitiation for sin (place of sacrifice and atonement) by his blood! How? To be received by faith alone!

In other words, God has reserved judgement for himself, and such judgement is not exercised according to human expectations or standards. By faith alone, God declares sinners to be righteous. What kind of judgement is that? It is God’s judgement. What kind of justice is that? It is God’s justice.

Well, what about all those sinners who are sinning in a world full of sin? Does not such “justice” also effectively mean that God is declared powerless and thus useless, especially against human sin? Has not the notion that God justifies sinners apart from the law led sinful human beings to believe that they paradoxically can and should employ the law to justify their own godlessness and ungodliness? If that is the case, what should we make of human sin?

For better or worse, those are not quite the right questions. The perhaps more correctly posed question is: What does our human sin make of us? Quite simply, it makes hypocritical judges of us unable to differentiate between good and evil according to the law, even divine law. Knowledge and realization of this disability comes, likewise, not through the law but only through faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus, apart from the gospel, sinful human beings legalize each other to death. From whom, however, does humanity receive the gospel?

Martin Luther’s posting of his 95 Theses Against Indulgences on All Hallows’ Eve (31 October 1517) was a bold attempt to communicate to the church and to the world that our human sin is too deep and too vast for humanity to handle alone. Our human sin and its deleterious effects cannot be addressed or redressed by human efforts, either by the law or exemptions from it, and certainly not by contrivances like papal indulgences. Furthermore, our own reliance upon our own efforts leads only and inextricably to our own self-righteousness which is the antithesis of the godly life. Thus, Luther began his 95 Theses by stating, “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ‘Repent’ [Matt. 4:17], he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.”

The judgement and justice of our world and of ourselves cannot save us from our sin nor help us in anyway in our relationship to God. By calling us to repent, Christ calls us to be turned away from our self-righteousness by being grasp solely by the word of his cross as vivified in the power of his resurrection. His voice comes thereby to us in law and in gospel through holy scripture, through Christian teaching, and through Christian preaching. With each new day, Christ calls us through the waters of Holy Baptism to die to our sinful selves and to be raised to newness of life. Christ then calls us to gather in Holy Communion where he puts himself forward by his promise as the forgiveness of sin for those who partake of his body and his blood.

In, with, and under the power of Christ’s word, God calls penitent sinners to belief and thereby to be saints, to be given an alien righteous from God alone as a gift of his grace. In that light, All Hallows’ Eve gives way every day to All Saints Day. So, how do we communicate this good news to the unbelieving world which surrounds us?

On 31 October, Protestants, particularly Lutherans, celebrate Reformation Day. The 31st of October is also known as All Hallows’ Eve, the day preceding All Saints Day on 01 November. That is why most Americans know 31 October as Halloween.

As Lutherans are generally aware, on 31 October 1517, Martin Luther published his 95 Theses Against Indulgences. Indulgences are an invention of the Roman Church designed to shorten one’s time in an invented place called purgatory. Purgatory is conceived as a place like hell where one is “purged” of one’s remaining sin in order to be purified for admittance into heaven. This past summer, Pope Francis issued yet another indulgence in connection with World Youth Day held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, last July. To keep up with the times, this indulgence could be obtained in part by following the pope on Twitter!

In Luther’s day, indulgences were sold with the motto, “As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs.” Nowadays, the motto might be, “When the Pope on the internet tweets, purgatory-bound souls get treats!” As the 31 October is both Reformation Day and Halloween, are indulgences a trick or a treat? Luther would say that they are a trick. The pope would say a treat. Who is right?

When tempting Adam and Eve to take and taste the fruit from the tree in the midst of the garden, the serpent said, “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5 – ESV). This empty promise is full of subtle irony. In order to be like God, knowing good and evil, Adam and Eve would first disregard God and his word, would then disobey God, and would finally do evil against God. Since then, sinful humanity has not changed much, continually carrying on the same way deluded into believing that we are “like God, knowing good and evil.” Such is the nature and reality of human sin.

With such inborn propensity to be wholly unlike God, how can sinful human beings know the difference between good and evil at all? How can any of us judge what is right and what is wrong, and more personally, who is right and who is wrong. In relation to the church and its proclamation and practices, what in the name of God is a trick and what is a treat and who is right?

Rightly (or wrongly), to make a distinction between good and evil, one needs to make judgements. Being judged and judging are inescapable realities of human life. People make decisions for, about, and against us long before we can make our own judgements and decisions. With time, we either enjoy the benefits or suffer the consequences of our own judgements and decisions. Complicating matters further is the fact that the results and repercussions of our judgements and decisions are either not immediate or sometimes remain unknown to us. When known, what often seemed good or evil at one time can later be perceived as exactly the opposite, as Adam and Eve learned all to well for the rest of humanity.

In western culture, particularly where Christendom once held sway, the world’s mores are in disarray. Religious humanists are at odds with religious fundamentalists of all stripes. Secularists dispute the right and rights of faith-based approaches to societal structures and dynamics. Modern Christians, caught and confused in such complexities, scrambling for clarity and security, find themselves not only at odds with members of other denominations but also with members of their own denominations.

As a result, Christians today are often more divided by culture than by theological confession. For example, is prayer in schools right or wrong? Is abortion right or wrong? Is same-sex “marriage” right or wrong? While stating that church teaching is clear on such matters, even Pope Francis is reported as saying that he cannot judge. In contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court has made judgements on such matters but by whose standards?

In his book Kingdom of God in America published in 1937, H. Richard Niebuhr summed the overall modern situation as such, “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross” (193). Today, unfortunately, even this insightful assessment about “men” might be judged to be “too sexist” to gain a rightful hearing.

For better or for worse, Niebuhr’s portrayal of modern humanity’s vacuous understanding of “God’s righteousness” is a far cry from Luther’s experience prior to his Reformation discovery of a wrathful God raking souls over the coals of hell and purgatory. Reflecting upon his Reformation discovery, Luther described his religious life so,

“Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God, and said, ‘As if, indeed, it is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the decalogue, without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with his righteousness and wrath!’ Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience” (Luther’s Works, 34:336-337).

What accounts for this monumental shift in perspective of both God and humanity between Luther’s day and secularized Christianity today? Could one not justifiably argue that Luther’s rediscovery of justification by faith alone (apart from works of the law) itself has led incrementally to modernity’s emasculation and evisceration of God and God’s law? Figuratively, is this not why Halloween (and bobbing for apples) has effectively supplanted nearly all cognizance of Reformation Day? Even the U.S. Supreme Court would not hazard an opinion on this matter. So, who is right and who is wrong? What is good and what is evil? Who can reserve for him- or herself proper justification to make judgements for justice? (Part II in November)

Over the past few decades, many church-related individuals and groups have been talking more and more about “spirituality” or “spiritual direction” or “spiritual formation.” In contrast, some religious leaders have described themselves as religious but not very spiritual. Perhaps most surprisingly, or not, some US courts are inclined to classify atheism as a religion.

In all this confusion, seminaries and theological faculties of various denominations are increasingly requiring trainee pastors to undertake some sort of training in “spiritual” activities, and to accommodate this many groups and institutions offer courses and certificates in such activities or studies. Much of this “training” is assumed to be basically “Christian,” but if so, how?

The current attention to matters “spiritual” is nothing new. Throughout church history, such movements crop up when the church apparently becomes ossified through tradition or bureaucracy or some other stagnating phenomena. When people think that churches are not “going places,” they implement all manner of changes “led by the spirit” to make worship or congregational life more “spiritual” or “relevant” or “experiential.” In Lutheran history, German figures such as Philipp Jakob Spener (1635-1705) and August Hermann Francke (1663-1727) were very influential starting pietistic renewals. Hans Nielsen Hauge (1771-1824), a Norwegian, lead movements to revitalize the church which amounted to “church within the church.” Likewise, in the 18th century, Charles and John Wesley led similar movements in the Church of England which eventually gave rise to the Methodist churches. In one way or another, consciously or not, all these have influenced American Lutheranism.

Taken as a whole, these movements share notions of “spiritual formation” as a means to help people develop their relationship with God through various “disciplines” or “practices.” Admittedly, it is hard to find “fault” with many of these disciplines or practices, such as prayer or reading sacred texts or confession or fasting or … Predating Protestant manifestations, such activities were and are very prevalent in the “religious life” of nuns and monks both Christian and non-Christian alike. So, how does a Buddhist monk’s prayer, chanting, meditation, fasting and such differ from a Christian monk’s prayer, chanting, mediation, fasting and so forth? To take a non-religious example, if everyone is eating ice-cream, does it matter which flavour one chooses as long as one is eating ice-cream? Taking a religious example, if churches consume liquids during worship does it matter that some consume wine or grape juice or poisoned punch, like in Jonestown, Guyana? What credentials (from Latin credo = I believe) should “spiritual directors” possess, and what “possesses” them to become spiritual directors in the first place? Even if they have credentials from a religious organization or group, how do such people differ from “personal trainers” found at the local gym in terms of being part of a “team” or body of believers as are Christians in the body of Christ?

Well acquainted with the intricacies of the religious life, Martin Luther recalls his “tower experience” in the Preface to his Latin Writings,

“Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction… At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, “In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’” There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.” Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me. Thereupon I ran through the Scriptures from memory. I also found in other terms an analogy, as, the work of God, that is, what God does in us, the power of God, with which he makes us strong, the wisdom of God, with which he makes us wise, the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God” (LW 34:336-337).

Likewise in his explanation to the third article of the creed in his Small Catechism, Luther writes,

“I believe that by my own reason or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to him. But the Holy Spirit has called me through the Gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, and sanctified and preserved me in true faith, just as he calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth and preserves it in union with Jesus Christ in the one true faith. In this Christian church he daily and abundantly forgives all my sins, and the sins of all believers, and on the last day he will raise me and all the dead and will grant eternal life to me and to all who believe in Christ. This is most certainly true.”

As both scripture and our confessional writings show, nothing within our sinful human power or determination or effort, whether “spiritual” or “religious” or “religiously spiritual” or even “religiously atheistic” can foster, fabricate, or fix our broken relationship with God. In fact, such attempts to make our sinful flesh more religious are, in fact, not spiritual because they actually lead us away from the God who comes to us. To think or believe otherwise, sadly, disavows Christ’s incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection.

Viewed rightly then, “spiritual direction” in the Christian faith manifests itself as God’s word and sacraments coming “extra nos” (outside ourselves) to us to lead us lost sinners out of and away from the powers of sinful flesh and death to be “altogether born again to enter paradise itself through open gates,” as Luther states. This is the work of the Holy Spirit solely through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

So, take some time to stand or sit still for a sermon or for Sunday School or to read your Bible or to pray. In other words, stop moving the target so that God can come directly to you as directly as possible to you so that you will then be directed by his word to bear his word to others. That is what it means for us to be “called as a community of Christians saved by grace – through faith alone in Jesus Christ – to spread the Holy Gospel in word, sacrament and action soli deo gloria,” as St. Luke’s mission statement declares.

Theology in the modern age is in disarray. Theology in most ages has been in disarray. The reason for such confusion in theology is the confusion which human sin brings into the divine-human relationship. That confusion arose when human beings threatened to “be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5). For sinful human beings, however, being like God was not enough. As Luther writes in the seventeenth of his Ninety-seven Theses Against Scholastic Theology, “Man is by nature unable to want God to be God. Indeed, he himself wants to be God, and does not want God to be God” (LW 31:10). In that light, theology has been in disarray since Adam and Eve went out on a limb and so fruitfully plunged humanity into enmity with God in order to take the place of God.

In the New Testament, St. Paul describes this confusion and rebellion as the mixing of the flesh with the spirit. As he writes in chapter five of his letter to the church in Galatia (RSV),

“[16] But I say, walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. [17] For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would. [18] But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law. [19] Now the works of the flesh are plain: unchastity (porneia), impurity, licentiousness, [20] idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, [21] envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. [22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, [23] gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law. [24] And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. [25] If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.”

Looking at the lists of characteristics of the flesh and the spirit, sinful humanity not only indulges in but also glorifies the life of the flesh. Everywhere one turns in society, the intemperate exercise of the destructive nature of the flesh is hailed as freedom and individual human rights. In other words, what the world often says is “right” Scripture says is “wrong” because the practice of such wrong prevents inheritance of the kingdom of God. Thus, Luther insightfully writes, “Reason and the wisdom of our flesh condemns the wisdom of the Word of God” (LW 12:343).

At the time of the Reformation, Luther and colleagues stressed this dichotomy and called the church away from the flesh and forward to the spirit, away from self-justification by the law and forward to the salvific gospel, away from human works of the flesh and forward to justification by grace alone through faith alone. Being set free (eleutheros in Greek – Lutheran) from the powers of sin, death, and the devil (the domain of the flesh) was and always is a spiritual event effected by the pure proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Again, as Paul states, “Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.” Unfortunately, the church in western society has not been and is still not immune from the mixing and thus the dissolution of the flesh-spirit dichotomy.

The enmity of the spirit against the flesh and the flesh against the spirit never has been a matter of personal piety or denominational identity or cultural conditioning. It represents the difference between the demonic and the divine, between the temporal life which ends in death and the certainty of faith which promises to grant eternal life. As the spirit of atheism has grown ever stronger in western society, the flesh-spirit dichotomy has been torn apart, allowing the once forbidden or illegal exercising of the flesh not only tacit tolerance but even open acceptance and celebration, paradoxically sometimes in the name of God.

Plainly, secular atheists who live in the flesh fail to understand this and thus truly view Christianity and its crucifixion of the flesh as a personal, religious, and cultural threat. Their flesh is all that they have, and when it is dead, they are dead. So, they celebrate the carnal life with gusto! As St. Paul writes, “If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die’” (I Cor 15:32). Consequently, even a Christian’s sincere concern for the salvation of their carnal brothers and sisters is necessarily interpreted and resisted as a threat to their (fleshly) life and livelihood.

In western countries in recent decades, the political power of the flesh has flexed its muscle in very insidious ways. The notion of separation of church and state has merely been a ruse for the expulsion of God and thus the divinely spiritual from society. This manifests itself through the sinful misapplication of the law to discredit and demonize the gospel. Consequently, what lends the impression of legally protecting an area of societal neutrality has, in fact, been an attack on the divinely spiritual. In the war between the flesh and the spirit, there is no neutral ground, no amicable armistice. In this battle, the cross of Christ reveals the destructive reality of sinful, human flesh in all its glory.

Cristina Odone, in her Daily Telegraph blog wrote on 07 July 2013,

“The American street preacher [Mr Tony Miano] had been arrested outside Centre Court shopping centre in Wimbledon on July 1. He had been reading from St Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians, which condemns homosexuality. A passer-by called the police. Three officers arrived and arrested Mr Miano, a retired deputy sheriff from California, for disorderly conduct.

The irony of being marched to the Wimbledon nick after having spent 20 years as a law enforcer was not lost on Mr Miano. He told me over the phone: ‘The booking process held no surprises.’ He had his DNA and fingerprints taken (and was relieved of his wedding ring) and was then locked up in a small cell for seven hours.

In the police station, he was granted his request for a Bible and for a lawyer from Christian Concern, a group that fights cases involving religious freedom. Then the police asked if he’d ever feed a homosexual, or do them a favour.

‘I said yes, of course: the Bible taught that I should love my neighbour as myself,’ Mr Miano told me. ‘The policeman asked if I believed homosexuality was a sin and I realised that I was not only being interrogated about what had happened but about what I believed.’”*

The flesh-spirit dichotomy resides at the heart of the Christian message where the cross and resurrection meet in Christ Jesus. This dichotomy also resides at the heart of the biblical understanding of baptism by which sinners are freed from sin and death. Societies, whether secular or religious, which fear the Bible and persecute its adherents, however, cannot tolerate the freedoms of being Christian. They also cannot countenance ideals like “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth,” as Abraham Lincoln stated in his Gettysburg Address. Instead, they have aligned themselves to the tyrannical slavery of unbridled gratification and glorification of the desires of their flesh. Such uncontrolled narcissism “is by nature unable to want God to be God. Indeed, [it] wants to be God, and does not want God to be God.”

In the face of such hostility, let us let the fruit of the Spirit radiate brightly into the world around us and allow God to make us into a community of Christians saved by grace – through faith alone in Jesus Christ – to spread the Holy Gospel in word, sacrament and action soli deo gloria.

*http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100225249/banning-the-term-gay-is-an-insult-to-free-speech/    [Mr Miano also preached against pornography and slushy novels, but such things apparently have little political power.]

Article V of the Augsburg Confession, a chief Lutheran statement of faith written in 1530, states,

“In order to obtain such faith God instituted the office of preaching, giving the gospel and the sacraments. Through these, as through means, he gives the Holy Spirit who produces faith, where and when he wills, in those who hear the gospel. It teaches that we have a gracious God, not by our own merit but through Christ’s merit, when we so believe.”

One might ask, “In order to obtain what faith?” The preceding section, Article IV of the Augsburg Confession, provides the answer by describing what kind of faith, namely the faith by which sinners are justified. So, in order to obtain justifying faith, God instituted the office of preaching, which is the giving of the gospel and the sacraments. In short, faith is created in the events of preaching and teaching the gospel and administering the sacraments of holy baptism and holy communion in accordance with the gospel.

If that is the case, then all we as a congregation need to do is to find the right technique of delivery or the right marketing formula or the most pleasing appeal to society, and then the church will be full of believers, right? Undoubtedly, many pastors and parishioners alike believe this. Unfortunately, or fortunately, Article V has more to say. The proclamation of the gospel in word and sacrament is the means by which the Holy Spirit produces faith “where and when he wills, in those who hear the gospel.” Well, that complicates things a bit, doesn’t it?

If the Holy Spirit produces faith at his discretion, then that means that we are not in charge, and we have no control over the creation of faith in others. If we have no control over this “process,” then what are we doing in church? Are we not just wasting our time with Bible study, Sunday School, Catechism Class, Vacation Bible School, and so forth? What is the point of making such an effort if the Holy Spirit decides, unbeknownst to us, to create faith or, alternatively, to take the day off, or the year off, or simply decides to withdraw himself for the remainder a congregation’s ever shortening life span? What are we to do?

That is precisely the worry, but why do we worry? Does not such worry express our own lack of faith in God’s desire and ability to complete the salvation that he has effected? Put differently, despite our best intentions and efforts, our own doubt, i.e. our own sin, undermines our efforts at evangelism. So, what are we to do?

As the creation of faith in others is beyond our control, then equally the creation and continuance of faith in ourselves is also beyond our control. As the gospel is the “good news” that we sinners are justified by faith alone in the word of Christ alone by his grace alone, then part of that “good news” is the reality that we are not responsible FOR the gospel, even though we are responsible TO the gospel. So, if we are not in control of church, then what is the point of being in church, especially of the Holy Spirit creates faith where and when he will?

Look again at Article V. The Holy Spirit creates faith as he deems fit in those who hear the gospel. Where will sinners hear the gospel? That is our cue. Our mission as a church is to be inspired by Scripture through the Holy Spirit in order to communicate the gospel of Jesus Christ as clearly and as purely as possible. In short, in order to obtain such faith God has made us missionaries in the priesthood of all believers to proclaim his justifying-faith creating gospel where and when we are called to do so. So, let us be faithfully instrumental in communicating the gospel of Jesus Christ which the Holy Spirit employs to create justifying faith in Christ alone for the salvation of our fallen humanity.

If all Christians claim the Bible as the word of God, then why are there so many denominations and churches? Some denominations and churches say that the Bible is “inerrant” and “infallible,” and some do not. Some think that all parts of the Bible are equal, and others do not. Some claim that the Bible contains extra books called the Apocrypha, and others do not.

Even if Christian opinion were uniform and united about the canon of Scripture, which church or denomination would have the correct interpretation? Protestants generally believe that everyone can and should interpret Scripture. If that is the case, what if people in the same denomination or congregation disagree? In the Roman church, it is taught that academic scholars may have varied, scholarly opinions about the Bible, but only “the Church” can offer the correct interpretation of Scripture.

So, who is right?

When people approach any object or situation, they view and interact therewith from their own perspective. If someone asks, “How does the rose smell?” Whose nose would any of us use to smell the rose? If someone inquires, “What do you think of this colour?” Whose eyes would any of us use to view the hue? Using ourselves and our experience, i.e. being self-referential, seems perfectly natural, and for most of our everyday experiences, it simply is! Being self-referential can, however, also lead to many ill-perceptions and false assumptions, which can have effects from harmless to the disastrous.

In relation to God, our natural, self-referential way of being is always disastrous because it means that we are by nature turned away from God and turned in on ourselves. Following on from the understanding of “iniquity” meaning “bent,” St. Augustine characterized such turning in on ourselves as the nature of human sin. So, if we cannot smell a rose or view a colour with someone else’s nose or eyes, how can we even imagine approaching, studying, and living from Scripture as the word of God from God’s intended perspective?

Despite knowing that we cannot smell a rose with someone else’s nose or view the hues with someone else’s baby blues, we sinful human beings not only believe ourselves to possess but also relegate to ourselves an uncanny, if not infallible ability to view and hear Scripture from God’s vantage point! Why does this come so naturally to us? Simply put, our nature as sinners spinning out of control in on ourselves makes us into little diabolical dust devils, so to speak, arrogating God’s word and thus God’s reality to ourselves.

God’s word and our encounter with it, however, are not only beyond our control but also beyond our sinful comprehension. When God’s word engages our lives as sinners, it touches our sinful hearts and minds with laws of reality which stop us literally and metaphorically dead in our tracks. Then, the gospel of Jesus Christ comes to raise us up to be new creations of God’s word. Luther describes it this way:

In relation to Psalm 68:13, Luther writes, “And note that the strength of Scripture is this: that it is not changed into him who studies it, but that it transforms its lover into itself and its strengths. … Because you will not change me into what you are (as heretics do), but you will be changed into what I am” (LW 10:332-333).

Further, in relation to Romans 1:17 and 4:5, Luther states, “He [God] justifies, overcomes, in His Word when He makes us to be like His Word, that is, righteous, true, wise, etc. And He thus changes us into His Word, but not His Word into us” (LW 25:211).

Christianity is littered with seemingly innumerable groups, denominations, and churches because Christianity is inhabited by people of all type and stripe who in the name of God interpret Scripture from their own inward, sinful perspective. It is, of course, the natural thing to do. Thankfully, in sharp contrast thereto, God does not look upon groups, denominations, or churches. Instead, God looks into our hearts and allows Scripture to recreate us into God’s word in the same way that God’s promises to turn water, bread, and wine into the sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion. It is, so to speak, God’s supernatural thing to do.

So, if reading ever more scripture transforms us ever more into the word of God, then why do we not have a Bible in our hands every minute that the hands spin around the clock?

Prefaced by a passage from I Corinthians, the following three paragraphs quote some of Martin Luther’s thoughts on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Read, enjoy, and be inspired to proclaim the gospel of given to us at Easter.

“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, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. Then He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles” (I Corinthians 15:3–7).

“With these words St. Paul explains and repeats the essence of His Gospel, which he preached to them, the Gospel in which they stand and by which they must be saved. Thus he composes a whole sermon on the resurrection of Christ, which might well be read and discussed on the Day of Easter. For from this flow the basis and the reason of this article on the resurrection of the dead which he is elaborating. And his sermon substantiates this doctrine most forcefully, both by proof from Scripture and by the witness of many living people, etc. He wishes to say: “I gave you nothing but what I myself received, nor do I know anything else to proclaim as the basis of our salvation than the Lord Jesus Christ, as He most certainly both truly died and also rose again from the dead. That is the content and the sum and substance of my Gospel, on which you and I were baptized and in which we stand. Thus I did not steal anything, nor did I spin a yarn, nor did I dream this up; no, I received it from Christ Himself.” With this he pricks those false teachers. It is as though he were to say: “If they proclaim something different, they cannot have received it from Christ. It must represent their own dreams and phantasy. For they obviously did not receive it from us nor from other apostles (since we all agree and are in accord with our message), much less from Christ. Therefore it must be sheer seduction and deception. Thus Paul also boasts in Gal. 1:11, 12, 17 over against the false apostles that he did not receive this doctrine from man nor from the apostles themselves, and that his proclamation was not derived from human reason or wisdom, that no man had invented it or contrived it of himself, but that it was a message which he had to receive through divine revelation. That was something those people could not boast of or maintain. Indeed, his own reason had contributed absolutely nothing to this, nor had he striven to obtain it. In fact, he had once persecuted it and raged against it like a raving, silly dog. God’s Word is so far beyond all reason, also beyond the apostles’ own knowledge or wisdom, that no one can attain it by his own power or understanding, to say nothing of contriving or devising anything better, as those people among the Corinthians alleged to be able to do.

“Paul adduces two kinds of proof (in refutation of their false teaching) in support of his message, or Gospel, which he has preached concerning Christ’s resurrection. First, he points out that he took this from Scripture and that he proves this with Scripture. In the second place, he cites his own experience and that of many others who saw the resurrected Christ. For it is the mark of a fair man to prove and attest what he proclaims and says, not only with words but also with deed and example both of himself and others. And thus Paul enumerates the eyewitnesses of Christ’s resurrection; first, Cephas, or Peter, then the Twelve, to whom Christ showed Himself alive, so that they heard and saw Him and associated with Him in His external, physical essence. Later He was seen by more than five hundred brethren who were assembled together, then separately by James, and finally by all the apostles. Here Paul calls all those apostles (different from the Twelve) who were sent out by Christ to preach. For He selected the Twelve especially (as something more than plain apostles, or messengers) to be His witnesses not only of the resurrection but also of His entire life, of His words and deeds heard and seen by them, so that they might disseminate the Gospel after Christ. “All of these are, in addition to me, reliable witnesses of what we saw and experienced, carried out as foretold in Scripture. …

“Therefore we must accept these words of St. Paul as an admonition to adhere firmly to this doctrine and proclamation, for which we have both reliable Scripture and also reliable experience. These are to be two proofs, just like two touchstones of the true doctrine. Now, whoever refuses to believe these two and still looks for something else or, finding nothing of the kind, clings to still others, deserves to be deceived. And yet this was all of no avail, nor does it avail today, with the multitude. They want to be deceived and misled. They pay heed only when someone presents something novel and embellishes this prettily. But he who will be taught and not err must watch for these two points: who can adduce testimony for his doctrine from Scripture and from reliable experience. We are able to prove our doctrine and proclamation. I, too—praise God—can proclaim from experience that no works are able to help or comfort me against sin and God’s judgment but that Christ alone can still and console my heart and my conscience. For this I have the testimony of all of Scripture and the example of many pious people, who say the same and have experienced it. In contrast, all the factions can prove or attest nothing from their own experience or from that of others. Finally we must also note here how St. Paul describes and defines his Gospel, namely, as a proclamation from which we learn that Christ died for our sin and that He rose again. And he proves both from Scripture. There you have everything in a nutshell, and yet it is stated clearly. Accordingly, you may judge all doctrine and life and know that whoever presents anything else as the doctrine of the Gospel and adds some of our own deeds and holiness surely misleads the people. You hear no mention of any works here, and nothing is said of what I must do or not do to atone for, or to remove, sin and to be justified before God, etc., but only what Christ did to that end, namely, that He died and rose again. After all, those are not my works or those of a saint or of all the people on earth. But how do I bring it about that this helps me and avails for me? Not otherwise than by faith. Paul declares that the Corinthians received this by faith, that they stand in it, and that they are saved by it. And a little later (v. 11) he will say again: “So we preach and so you believed.” Thus he impresses these two points everywhere as the chief article and the epitome of the Gospel, by which we become Christians and are saved, if we retain it and adhere to it firmly and not let it be preached in vain, as I have said often and in much greater detail” (Luther’s Works 28:75-76, 81-82).