Pastor Mark's Blog

Christianity, and particularly much of Lutheran Christianity, has taken some pretty interesting twists and turns in recent years. Not limited to the United States, but perhaps more endemic here than elsewhere, the past four to five decades have seen a wholesale abandonment of doctrines of the Christian faith in favour of a number of false gospels and false religions masquerading as Christian love.

On one end of the spectrum, much of mainline Christianity has collapsed into being a social or socialistic religion of love, as nebulously defined as possible. On the other end, American Evangelicalism has marketed an individualistic idea of love represented by the demand, if not command, to have a “personal relationship” with Jesus Christ, as if the second person of the Trinity incarnate could be anything but personal. By merely praying to “accept Jesus into your heart,” whatever that might entail, one is supposedly saved, and another notch is made on the tally board after the altar call. What, however, do those individuals “accepting” Jesus really know about Jesus, and which Jesus are they finding so acceptable? In this blind date, blind faith relationship, what differentiates a “personal relationship” from a “designer relationship” with Jesus?

In either direction, love seems to lead the charge to marginalize sound theological teaching (doctrine) in favour of social or individual interpersonal goodwill. Thus, one frequently hears phrases like, “It does not matter what the denomination teaches as long as they go to church.” Similarly, “There is only one God, just different ways to get to him (or her or it).” Also, “God is love. The best way to serve God is just to be loving.” Perhaps worst of all, “COEXIST.”

With this mind set, well-intentioned “churches” compete to make the Christian faith as bland as possible, paradoxically, to attract people to the Christian faith! Rather than offer the Christian faith, however, what people get is little more than a “warm-funzy” religious experience called Christian worship. According to this philosophy, by “dumbing down” the Bible and sound doctrine and meaningful worship, somehow church will magically become not only attractive but also acceptable to non-believers! Consequently, such “loving” intentions leave the church, its message, and its worship to be defined not by God and his word but rather by what church leaders think nominal Christians and even non-Christians want! Making Christian mission into non-Christian mission, all in the name of love and religious good works, could hardly be more backwards.

What might Luther make of such ideas? He would call them a heinous crime. In fact, for Luther violating the worship of God, and the sound doctrine behind it, is a greater crime “than murder, adultery, or another crime.” In his commentary on Deuteronomy, Luther writes,

“For to sin against the worship of God is to sin against faith and the Word. Here one should give no heed to love or sympathy, since by it God is offended and lost, together with the Word, which is the leader, light, teaching, and rule of the whole life and of all works; when you have lost it, no work can be guided, no life established. When you sin against love, but the Word and doctrine remain intact meanwhile, only the work is lost, and it can be restored and repaired according to the rule of the Word. So immeasurable is the distance that separates a sin against faith and the Word from a sin against love and works. For love bears all, endures all (1 Cor. 13:7). Faith bears nothing, and the Word endures nothing; the Word must be perfectly pure, and doctrine must always be thoroughly sound, that it may be the goal of life and the guide for works. Love can be infirm and impure, and must be daily increased and made perfect” (Luther’s Works, 9:166).

In that light, if we really loved our neighbours, then more than anything else we should and would want to give them the perfect gift, namely the pure Word of God. By giving them the pure Word of God we are giving them the pure love of God (John 1:1-18, 3:16), which makes our sinful ideations of love pale into insignificance. In this time of Lent, how prepared and able is St. Luke’s, individually and collectively, to offer the pure Word of God and thus the pure love of God to those for whom Christ, the word of God incarnate, died?

The word “crisis” comes from the Greek meaning a time of decision. More commonly, we often think of a crisis as a major problem or as some type of disaster. Often in emergency situations, a decision is needed quickly, and this often plays into the perception of crisis being an eventful, perhaps even traumatic affair.

Over the past few years, we at St. Luke’s Lutheran Church have had to make a few decisions or have decided not to make decisions. What should we do with the pastor? Should we change our worship services, or not? How many worship services should we have? At what times should we have services and Sunday School? What type of budget can we afford? How do we help visitors feel welcomed enough to return? Should we leave our denomination and join another? Should we remodel some or all of our fellowship spaces?

The life of a congregation is full if decisions. Some of them are indeed filled with excitement. Others are accompanied by frustration, anger, and disillusionment. Because of these emotions, a time of decision can be a crisis in the common sense of the word.

In the coming year, we will continue to face more decisions. How will we weather the loss of many of our dearest members? Will we have enough people to assist with the various tasks at church, from preparing Sunday refreshments, to setting up the church for special occasions, to assisting visitors and newer members to feel comfortable increasing their participation in congregational life? Should we extend our interim constitution or draft another to replace it? The expected and the unexpected will arise and will demand us to make decisions, perhaps in ways which we might experience as a crisis.

As already indicated, change and crisis (making decisions) seem to go hand in hand. Most of us do not relish change. Some of us avoid change at almost any cost. New Year’s resolutions speak of change, but we often realize that such changes are only cosmetic and fleeting in nature. We say, “This year I will attend church more often,” or “I would like to increase my offering.” Then, we realize that Little Freddie needs to attend a sporting event on Sundays. Sadly, those bills from our “real” daily life hardly seem to get any smaller. Worse yet, we realize that no one named Little Freddie lives in our home!

From the perspective of having to make decisions, we human beings are always in crisis, except in our relationship to God. On the one hand, in our sin and its associated self-centeredness, we have to make decisions in our daily lives, even our church lives. On the other hand, in relation to God we do not and cannot make the right decisions because we are trapped in our sin. This “bondage to sin” from which we cannot free ourselves, then, affects how we make decisions in relation to ourselves, to our lives, and to our church and its mission. When not taken in relation to God’s decision for us and our salvation in Christ Jesus, “our” decisions become a compounded crisis either in our personal lives or in our church life or both.

In this crisis situation, what are we to do? In short, there is nothing that we can do. God has made the decision. In the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God has decided for us! By the promise of his word made flesh dwelling among us, God has decided to love and to accept and to forgive and to renew and to heal and to do wonderful things in our lives and our church life. These gifts from God we cannot rightfully do ourselves. We can only share them with others as God has graciously given them to us.

As we venture into 2013, let us live together in the treasured gift of God’s word in Christ Jesus, our Lord, and thereby strive together in and with that same word to make our decisions together in the knowledge and faith that God’s word will create for us our fellowship and our future.

Many parishes in the Roman Church are named Church of the Assumption or sometimes Church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This name is derived from the notion, originating in the fourth century, that Mary was “assumed” (Latin, assumptio = taken up) into heaven at the end of her life. Pope Benedict XIV (1675-1758) asserted that denial of this notion was impious and blasphemous. On 01 November 1950, Pope Pius XII declared this notion to be infallible doctrine. Later, the Second Vatican Council affirmed that “the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things” (Lumen Gentium, n. 59). Importantly, the phrase “when her earthly life was over” leaves the question open whether Mary actually died or not.

Unfortunately, the “assumption of Mary” has no biblical foundation and no historical facticity. Like the idea that Mary was conceived “immaculately” (without sin), the assumed doctrine of her heavenly assumption draws her earthly life to a close in a seemingly wondrous and yet truly nebulous way. Is such doctrine, however, actually Christian?

For Protestants, such teachings about Mary are not only improbable but seem themselves to be impious and blasphemous. Contrary to its intent, the assumed doctrine of Mary’s “immaculate conception” can neither shield nor protect her son from sin. Instead, it intentionally aborts Jesus as the saviour of the world. Since a truly gracious God would extend sinless conceptions beyond Mary to cover all humanity, this misconceived doctrine effectively empties Jesus of any significance. Consequently, Mary’s immaculate womb becomes Jesus’ nativity tomb, and her assumption into heavenly glory renders his resurrection a vacuous story.

Like the assumption of Mary, every church denomination conceives and harbours misconceptions about the Christian faith which are often believed without scriptural and rational basis. These assumptions are conceived because human beings actively seek answers and explanations to life’s experiences. Simply put, if human beings do not know an answer when perplexed, they will invent one! Once an invented answer takes root in human minds and societies, it often becomes difficult, if not impossible to dispel. Recall how long the church itself not only fought to maintain the assumption that the world was flat and the universe revolved around the earth but also persecuted those who knew these misconceptions to be false.

So, what happens when sinful human beings with all manner of individual and communal, religious and non-religious assumptions gather together? The answer is a congregation. Unfortunately, every member of any congregation, brings her or his sinful, assumptive imagination into a religious setting, ready and willing to bestow his or her opinionated answers to the meaning of life, the world, and everything on those assembled. Unfortunately, sinners assume that scripture and reason will certainly agree with their assumptions.

For example, because some people call themselves Lutheran, they frequently assume that whatever they think, feel, or say must indeed be Lutheran, regardless of what Christ, scripture, and the Lutheran confessions may say to the contrary. Likewise, those who interpret scripture based on their subjective sinfulness, rather than in relation to the living word of God, namely Jesus Christ, spend most of their lives using the Bible as a proof-text for their own self-righteousness. Even more mundane, how often do church leaders and members forego feigning theology altogether in favour of propagating gossip? If Christians spread the gospel as fast as gossip, Christ’s second coming would have taken place before his ascension!

Assumptions become dangerous, even fatal, when their accompanying expectations go unfulfilled. Jesus’ disciples, his church leaders, his king, and the imperial governor occupying his homeland all made assumptions about Jesus, his mission, and his kingdom. When Jesus failed to fulfil their assumptions, they conceived an immaculate plot to assume his heavenly glory by nailing him to a tree and stuffing him in the ground. Tragically, each succeeding generation in the Church of the Assumption assembles itself to do the same.

In stark contradiction thereto, the word of the cross raises the church of Jesus Christ into life in order to proclaim him alone as the way and the truth and the life (John 14:6). This Christian church “is the assembly of all believers among whom the gospel is purely preached and the holy sacraments are administered according to the gospel. For this is enough for the true unity of the Christian church that there the gospel is preached harmoniously according to a pure understanding and the sacraments are administered in conformity with the divine Word …” (Article VII, Augsburg Confession, Tappert, 43).

Through the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ is calling us to abandon the Church of the Assumption and to assert the pure proclamation of his gospel as the “soul” power of God by which believing sinners are justified by faith solely in Jesus Christ.

In chapter eight of Mark’s Gospel, Jesus asks his students two questions, Generally, he asks, “Who do the people say that I am?” Then, turning to his students, he probes, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter replies, “You are the Christ” (Mark 8:27, 29).

Then, later in chapter 13, Jesus says, “And if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ Do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, even the elect” (Mark 13:21-22). So, whom should one believe when asked questions about Jesus; perhaps Peter telling folks who the Christ is or Jesus telling folks to not believe people telling folks who the Christ is?

This apparent dilemma has befuddled the followers of Jesus since his earthly lifetime. For Martin Luther, the problem became particularly acute at the time of the Reformation. It then exploded exponentially among all so-called Protestants. So, what is the nature of this dilemma?

Obviously, the dilemma itself predates the Reformation and Jesus’ earthly life, stretching all the way back to the beginning of humanity when Adam and Eve started listening to and trusting other voices than God’s. This resultant lack of trust in God alone theologians call sin, a condition in which all humanity is trapped. In short, human sin is simply but devastatingly unbelief in the one true God. The First of the Ten Commandment seeks to address this problem, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3). Although this commandment likewise seems a simple solution, human beings by their nature fail to honour this commandment. Consequently, the remaining nine commandments also cannot be fully honoured.

So, where is the problem if Christians all purport to observe the First Commandment by believing in Jesus Christ? Like all laws, their application is open to interpretation, with lawyers arguing their points and judges making determinations. Since judgements at various levels are often contradictory or overturned, most countries have some form of high or supreme court to make final adjudication. Christians believe that too, namely in Jesus, whom they confess in Apostles’ Creed to be the judge of the living and the dead!

Until that final judgement, however, Christians languish seemingly at the level of adversarial lawyers offering diverse opinions, which tend to fall into two main categories. The first says that there is only one God portrayed by differing but equally valid interpretations or perspectives. The second says that there is only one true God with all other deific manifestations being rightly called false gods or idols, and even false christs. Whereas the biblical witness favours the latter position, unfortunately Christians in practice tend to clamour to the first. This explains the theological and denominational differences which bedevil Christianity and also explains why substantive discussion of God has practically vanished from recent ecumenical endeavours. God is simply too divisive for ecclesial unity!

How does this work in real life? Take a difference between the Roman Church and Baptists. The Roman Church baptizes infants, and Baptists generally do not. So, who is right? The answer depends upon one’s understanding of God. According to the first view above, these two churches have merely differing opinions on the same God, i.e. God recognizes infant baptisms in one church but not the other, but what kind of a sacrament is that? What kind of a god is that? According to the second view, one is confronted with two different “gods” because God either does or does not allow and recognize infant baptism. This, however, would necessarily mean that one church is wrong. So, is God wishy-washy on baptism or are human beings awash with sincere belief in false christs? Which is right?

At the time of the Reformation, Luther, following Jesus’ lead, advocated the exclusive understanding of one true God over against the myriad of false gods, christs, and prophets which the sinful, human imagination continually invents. In his interpretation of the First Commandment in his Large Catechism, Luther states, “If your faith and trust are right, then your God is the true God. On the other hand, if your trust is false and wrong, then you have not the true God.” So, how does one know whether one believes in the one “true God” or not? Is this not sinful subjectivism run amok?

No, it is the reality of the gospel purely proclaimed or not.

Because of our human sin, churches always face the same dilemma; they either confess and preach salvation in the one true Christ alone (by grace alone received through faith alone created by the word alone), or they offer their adherents a pseudo-christ or pseudo-christs of their own ecclesial imagination. Purely proclaiming the one true Christ is not a matter of subjective opinion or ecclesial tradition or denominational determination. Instead, it is the word and work of the Holy Spirit who “calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith,” as Luther would say in his Small Catechism.

With that in mind, are we at St. Luke’s Lutheran Church able and willing with the Holy Spirit’s leading to engage with Scripture in order to teach and preach the one true crucified and resurrected Jesus Christ as purely as possible, or do we prefer to shy away from our vocation by offering our own personal perspectives informed by our sin-cere and quasi-religious imaginations? In other words, as a church are we theologically prepared to undertake our calling with clarity and conviction? If so, how do we know?

Christians always face a dilemma. What to do about the church? Followed by much ado about the church. So, what is the church? What are its “marks,” as theologians phrase it? How is it made? What can we do to build it? Which part of the Bible gives us the definitive answers?

These questions have literally bedeviled Christians since the inception of the church, whenever that was, and theologians, church historians, and denominational leaders expend no shortage of time and energy fighting about such things. These disputes help to create the divisions in the church, and attempted resolution of these disputes (institutional ecumenism) paradoxically creates even more divisions in the church. Nonetheless, we sinful human beings relentlessly think that if we get the form or formula just right, then the church will simply fall into place.

Historically, and still today, some say that the church is built on a pope who is necessary for unity (Roman Catholics). Some say that the church is structured around bishops in so-called “historic succession” (Episcopalians). Others say that only “adults” believe enough to be baptized (Baptists). Others yet structure their church around the leadership of “elders” (Presbyterians). Some expect a methodological expression of the “holy life” (Methodists). Still others throw their hands into the air, avoid contrived structures, and leave it up to the Holy Spirit (Pentecostalists). The variations on these various streams of Christianity seem innumerable. So, who is getting it right?

In apparent contrast to mainline churches, modern attempts to get the church “right” are less denominationally definable. These approaches study sociological trends and research, employ secular marketing techniques, and adopt social/societal dynamics and the like to make the church “relevant” to potentially religious consumers. These secular approaches are typically dressed up in religious language and often fitted with biblical paradigms to lend them “credibility” (credo, creed).

The institutional ecumenists, perhaps best termed ecclesial elitists, summon all Christians to “head home to Rome.” The modernists, perhaps best called ecclesial entrepreneurs, seek to capitalize on the untapped (unchurched) religious market through secular means. Although seemingly diametrically opposed to each other, both approaches are essentially the same. They both advocate forms or formulas, if done properly, which will get the church “just right.” Unfortunately, Lutherans both within and between their various denominations often find themselves sharply divided between these two trends.

So, why is the biblical message, the gospel of Jesus Christ, in and of itself apparently not enough for large swaths of “Christianity”? Why does the word of God, by which God created everything, apparently need denominational or secular crutches to gain and maintain a foothold in the world? What has gone wrong?

In 1531, Luther wrote, “I wanted to say this in rebuttal to those stiff-necked boasters who constantly chatter about the church, the church, the church, although they do not know what the church or its holiness is. They simply pass over that and make the church so holy that Christ has to become a liar on account of it, and his words are robbed of all their validity.”

When sinful human beings state, act, or imply in any way, formula, or form that the word of God, the gospel of Jesus Christ properly differentiated from the law, is not sufficient to create the faith alone by which sinners are “made right” (justified) before God, then they truly rob Christ’s words of their validity. Sinners, by their sinful nature, are not meet, right, and salutary. They are wrong and can only be made right (justified) by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. When God gathers these justified sinners together through the pure proclamation of his gospel, then Christ alone through the promises in his crucifixion and resurrection makes the church happen, brings the priesthood of all believers into action, and makes it “just right,” i.e. holy and righteous before God, apart from any human work.

Luther continues, “Against this, we in turn must shout exultantly, ‘Say what you will about the church, let it be as holy as you please, still Christ cannot become a liar on that account.’ In its teaching, praying, and believing the church confesses that it is a sinner before God and that it often errs and sins; but Christ is truth itself and can neither lie nor sin. Therefore, insofar as the church lives and speaks in the Word and faith of Christ, it is holy and (as St. Paul says [I Cor. 7:34]) righteous in spirit. And insofar as it acts and speaks without Christ’s word and faith, it errs and sins. But whoever makes an article of faith out of the sinful deed and word of the church defames both church and Christ as liars” (Luther’s Works, 34:76-77).

As sinners, we cannot create faith or holiness, i.e. make Christians or disciples. Instead, we can only preach and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ as purely as possible whereby Christ creates the faith which justifies sinners into his church. That is why the doctrine of justification by faith alone is the article by which the church stands or falls (articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae). In other words, all the ecclesial forms and formulas of sinful human beings rightly cause the church to fall everywhere but into place. Only the word of God, however, raises the body of Christ, the priesthood of all believers, from the power of sin and death to live its mission of communicating the gospel of its head, its lord and saviour, to all the world, soli Deo gloria.

Summer is officially here. School is out for most children. Consequently, summertime is the time when most people take a vacation, as we Americans call it. Other strands of the English language describe such events as “going on holiday,” from the old usage of refraining from work on a religious “holy day” observed at various points in the church calendar year.

Being somewhat more secular from its inception, however, in American one does not “go on holiday” but rather one “takes a vacation.” A vacation, taken from the Latin verb vacare, means “to leave empty,” and when Americans go “on vacation,” they often leave their places of employment, their homes, and their seats (and offering plates) in church empty. Despite this “negative” connotation, most Americans think positively of vacation, of this “leaving empty,” as an opportunity for rest, relaxation, or adventure. For some, this often means that vacation is filled with all manner of “unholy” activities both day and night.

To combine the notions of “holiday” and “vacation” more constructively, Christians are reminded of the centerpiece of our faith, namely the event of Easter Sunday. On that day, Jesus created a holiday (holy day) by leaving his tomb empty! Human sin and death were transformed into divine righteousness and eternal life so that through faith alone sinful human beings might live with God, holy forever.

To continue this linguistic game on a more mundane plane, what should we make of the concept “Vacation Bible School” (VBS)? On one hand, VBS takes place during “vacation” when Americans leave work and school. Such “vacation,” as mentioned, provides an opportunity for rest, relaxation, and even adventure. Nowadays, adventure, whether biblical or even quasi-biblical, seems to be a necessary ingredient for VBS.

On the other hand, many people are left empty by the term “Vacation Bible School.” Although VBS was originally directed at children and their parents whose lives were actually or effectively empty of the Bible, one needs to ask, who really wants to go to “school” during vacation? Also, despite attempts to make VBS into an adventure of biblical proportions, most VBS curricula seem empty compared to modern fantasy adventures of video games, multimedia entertainment, and theme parks. What can an old book about long forgotten times say to tech savvy people today?

Perhaps we need to reassess our questioning. Why did Jesus vacate the tomb into which he had been laid? How did he get into that tomb in the first place? Why was he here in human time and space at all?

Since creation, humanity has been dogged by the fact that it has left itself empty of faith in God’s word and work. When it vacated God’s word, humanity was forced to vacate the Garden of Eden. Ever since then, human history tells the story of people desperately trying to fill the voids in their lives with any and every means possible, whether constructive or not. As modern advertising shows, people are enticed to spend their money to spend their waking moments trying to fill their stomachs, senses, needs, desires, and so forth with all and sundry in order to stave off preoccupation with our eventual full-time occupation of those empty places called graves.

So, in answer to our questions about Jesus above, St. Paul wrote words long ago which continue to speak to humanity in every day and age:

“So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any incentive of love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:1-11).

As the son of God, Jesus vacated himself in order that we might be filled with the spirit of his word and work, all active through faith alone granted in Christ alone as communicated to us in scripture alone. Thus, for us Christians, everyday filled with Christ and his word is a lesson in vacation Bible school, looking not to our own interests and needs but to the interests and needs of other sinners. Living with this mind of Christ, we too are called to empty ourselves in order that through the gospel of Jesus Christ those whom we encounter might live wholly and holy in him forever.

In July, Americans observe the Fourth of the month as our national Day of Independence.  If any of us know any wording from the Declaration of Independence, signed on July 4^th, it is typically the phrase, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Our nation’s founding fathers were much better politicians and diplomats than they were theologians.  Scripture talks plenty of life and of liberty (or freedom), but the “pursuit of Happiness” is sorely lacking in biblical support.  Thomas Jefferson never explained why he inserted this phrase, coined in 1759 by Samuel Johnson, into the Declaration of Independence.  The idea “pursuit of Happiness” is not only bad theology, but it causes no end of trouble for the human race as a whole.

The “pursuit of Happiness” would be a grand ideal if it were not for the reality of human sin.  If we read scripture, even not so carefully, we nearly always find that the “pursuit of Happiness” guided by human sin leads us not only away from God but also leads us into all kinds of trouble.  “Pursuing” something implies that we do not already have something, as if God will not provide for us.  Pursuing what makes “us” happy makes “us” the point of reference for our lives when that reference point should be God.  Were not Adam and Eve “pursuing Happiness” when they grabbed a hold of the forbidden fruit?

Nonetheless, we as Americans (and as sinners worldwide) think that we have a God-given right to be happy.  We even demand that God must make “us” happy.  In that same vein, those called formally to service in the church, however that is defined, must also make “us” happy.  If they do not, there is often hell to pay!  How much of our “church shopping” in the USA is based on feeling good rather than on finding good theology?

From a biblical perspective, because sinners have continually pursued their own happiness, God has throughout history pursued sinners precisely in order to liberate them from this dead end venture.  Jesus gave up his divine freedom and eternal life not to make us happy but to call us holy.  God knows when he has deemed us holy (trusting in Christ) that we are truly liberated for life.  Is there any greater happiness than being united with Christ by faith alone now and into all eternity?

While the rest of the country and the world is vainly seeking their happiness in sinful pursuits, let us trust and bear witness that our true independence comes from our total dependence upon the God who have his son on a cross to make us free (eleutheros in Greek) and thus Lutheran (see John 8:31-38).  Scripture calls persons set free by faith alone in Jesus Christ “holy ones.”  If we are not totally happy with that, then we have missed the point of the Christian faith.

We sometimes use the phrase that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” when we try, somewhat cynically, to find the good in someone’s actions which have somehow not met (our) expectations, or worse, which have actually caused more harm than good. This common phrase is more poignant theologically than would appear at first or even second glance.

Paradoxically, the phrase itself, “good intentions” seems to contradict the notion of “hell,” no matter how we might define both terms. Should not good intentions of themselves produce good? More forcefully, how can good intentions not effect good? Furthermore, if good intentions are reflections of the persons so acting, would it not be problematic to insinuate that such persons are wittingly or unwitting leading folks to hell?

So, how do sinners know what a good intention is, let alone decide what a whole host of good intentions are? What is our reference point? What criteria are fitting? If a traditional definition of sin is being turned in upon our selves (incurvatus in se), then sinners by nature use themselves as their reference point for their good intentions. In that light, how can the “good intentions” of sinners lead anywhere else but away from God, i.e. to hell?

The only phrase in the Apostles’ Creed lacking explicit biblical support is the notion that Jesus “descended into hell.” Based on the prevailing judgement of the religious leaders of his day, and the crowds and the Roman authorities, Jesus was scourged and crucified out of the best of intentions. According to John’s gospel, Caiaphas explains “that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed” (John 11:50). When Jesus “descended into hell” he descended into the midst of our personal, social, religious, and political good intentions. Incuravatus in se is a very vicious circle.

If the road to hell is figuratively and literally paved with our good intentions, then how is the road to heaven constructed? How is it recognized, and how do we know when we are on it? The word for road or way in (biblical) Greek is odos (for example, an odometer measures how far we have travelled along the road or on our way). According to St. John, Jesus describes himself as “the way [odos] the truth and the life” (John 14:6), and St. Matthew writes, “For the gate is narrow and the road [odos] is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matthew 7:14).

Churches of all denominations view themselves as having a mission. That mission is reflected in the theology, leadership, and people of each denominational persuasion. Those churches most likely have more good intentions than they do people, and St. Luke’s is no exception. This means also for us that exercising our individual and communal good intentions runs the risk at every turn (in upon ourselves) of undermining the mission inaugurated in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. What a quandary we face!

Apart from his crucifixion, what have we sinful human beings contributed to Jesus Christ being and creating both the way of life and the way that leads to life? If we have not had and do not have anything constructive to contribute in God’s soulful endeavour in Christ, then why do Christians continually use ourselves and our experiences as the points of reference for the churches’ mission and actions?

St. Paul writes, “When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: ‘Death is swallowed up in victory.’ ‘O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?’ The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain” (I Corinthians 15:54-58).

By raising Jesus Christ from the dead, God has made us sinners the point of reference for his salvific work as a pure gift of grace. Not our sin, but instead our justification by faith alone is the way in which Christ leads and carries us through life and into eternal life. How can we at St. Luke’s Lutheran Church best reflect and communicate this gift of God’s justifying grace in all our words and works?