A Bit More

There is another truly wonderful bit to pull from that icon of Adam I like so much.

Just as the Ancient of Days calls Adam to life with His breath of life and gives him a name and vocation, standing by his side as he fulfills it, so too the Ancient of Days calls us to life in Baptism. We then are all “Little Christs,” growing from His vine going about our vocations with Him beside and in us. We are remade in His image as God’s own sons (Eph 1:5; Col 3:10).

Wherever there is such faith and assurance of grace in Christ, you can also confidently conclude with regard to your vocation and works that these are pleasing to God and are true and good Christian fruits. Furthermore, such temporal and physical works as governing a land and people, managing a house, rearing and teaching children, serving, toiling, etc., also develop into fruit that endures unto life everlasting. Thus the holy patriarch Abraham and our holy ancestress Sarah will be commended and praised on Judgment Day for their marital life. Although the married estate will come to an end and be no more, as will all the life and activity of this world, yet this holy Sarah, and others with her, will receive their little crowns because they were pious spouses and mothers, not by reason of their works per se—for these had to cease—but because they did these works in faith. In like manner, the works of all Christians are performed to God’s everlasting pleasure; they will not be despised, as will those of non-Christians, but will have their eternal reward also in yonder life, because they are works done in Christ and grow from the Vine. (LW, 24, 220-221)

Mother's Day Decisions

It’s Mother’s Day. OK, if Mom isn’t near you, you can at least pick up the phone and join in on the following exercise. Turn to her and say:

“Mom, thanks for toting me around for all those months. Thanks for putting up with sick tummies, swollen ankles, and sore backs just to give me a place to be nurtured before I was born. Aren’t you glad I decided to be born? Sure I know you did some pushing and had your part to do, but it was really my decision that brought me into the world, giving me life. And anyway, aren't you happy I chose you to be my mother? I sure am!”

Now I don’t know how things are in your families, but I know how they are in mine. Had my father ever heard me speak to my mother like that I’d likely not be sitting well for a couple days. Even if my dad hadn’t heard me speak such vile words to my mother, she’d have taken care of me herself. She’s that sort of woman. Good for her.

But let’s look at things a little deeper. Isn’t that statement the very same thinking that lurks behind decision theology? That’s the theology that says in large or small parts we make a decision that contributes toward our salvation, forgiveness, and eternal life in Christ.

I had a discussion recently with Bruce following my blog post Fireproof. Bruce took issue with how I characterized the speech of the actors who used words like, “Before I gave my life to the Lord... When I gave my life to God...” He said they themselves would not approve of the terminology “decision theology” because, if asked, they would say that the Lord had acted in their hearts, and all they had done was the Lord’s work. It was just their manner of speaking, but they meant what we mean.

My response to that was, “OK, then surely they also baptize infants.” Therein is the true test between those who reject decision theology in all its parts, and those who merely reject the appellation “decision theology” because it itches like a cheap wool sweater. There was other work to do before that question would be answered, though.

There was still that book, The Love Dare, the book from which the film Fireproof sprang. The Love Dare was written by Stephen and Alex Kendrick, both of whom serve as pastors at Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, GA. They are also film makers. Fireproof is one of theirs. Reading through the book demonstrated just how much that term must be itching. There was more language of “receive” than of “accept.”

And yet, this is simply a slippery mask on a façade. Midway through the book is written,

Perhaps you’ve never given your heart to Christ, but you sense Him drawing you today. You may be realizing for the first time that you. too, have broken God’s commands, and that your guilt will keep you from knowing Him. But Scripture says that if you repent by turning away from your sin and turning to God, He is willing to forgive you because of the sacrifice His Son made on the cross. He is pursuing you, not to enslave you but to free you, so you can receive His love and forgiveness. Then you can share it with the ones you’ve been called most specifically to love.

The language of decision theology has changed. There is more talk of receiving what Christ gives, and an emphasis on the fact that it is the Holy Spirit who gives it. Yet in the final the movement is the penitent toward Christ, rather than Christ toward the penitent. Perhaps you’ve never given your heart to Christ. . . Christ is drawing, but the final work rests upon the one who gives his heart to Christ. It is a fascinating interest that so many of those who practice decision theology–even while they abhor its name and try to distance themselves from it–deny baptism to infants because it is this group of humans who cannot make that step toward Christ. So it is Infant Baptism that most clearly delineates those who are truly practitioners of decision theology, and those who are not. Soft words can cover a heap of indiscretions, but is the practice that will reveal the theology.

I wrote to Rev. Michael Catt, Senior Pastor of Sherwood Baptist Church, and asked him directly. “Do you practice Infant Baptism?” He had an assistant respond, asking that I include his entire response. I agreed. It follows here.

What about infant baptism?

Since baptism is for those who have repented and believed, we do not practice infant immersion. An infant cannot repent. An infant cannot believe. Hence, we practice "believer's baptism." Infant immersion began in the early centuries (by the year 200 A.D.) because of the development and distortion of two doctrines. One is called "baptismal regeneration" which said that baptism actually washed away one's sin or regenerated the person. The other distortion had to do with the doctrine of "original sin." The church came to believe that an infant was born not only with original sin, but also with original guilt which meant that an infant was guilty before God and God would hold him accountable for his sin. Thus, if the child died, then he was doomed for hell. Since the church believed that baptism actually saved the candidate, they began to do the next logical thing: they baptized babies believing that the rite saved the child if it were to die.

This idea is called the Sacramental View of baptism. A sacrament is thought to be a channel through which God bestows grace upon a candidate. Baptists have never been sacramentalists. We don’t call baptism a sacrament. We understand that the Bible teaches baptism to be a symbol. Thus, we use the term “ordinance” to describe the rite. An ordinance is something that has been ordained or decreed by God. Jesus commanded us to be baptized as a symbol of what has happened in the life of someone who has reached the age of accountability and consequently is old enough to repent and believe.

Many of the mainline Protestant denominations modified their teaching from a sacramental view to a symbolic one. They have continued to sprinkle infants, but they have poured new content into its meaning. Some consider it to be an act of dedication for the parents. Others see it as a sort of down payment on the infant’s salvation. They say that the infant is baptized that he may be saved rather than to save him. And then others believe infants are children of God because of their innocence and the faith of their parents. We believe that a child is innocent and if the child dies he is received into the eternal presence of God.

It helps to remember that when most mainline denominations were founded (in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries), baptism was not a major issue as it is with Baptist, and in most instances it was not even a minor one. Denominations like the Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians began because of issues totally unrelated to baptism. Hence, they kept the rite of infant sprinkling, but poured new meaning into it.

Baptists came out of the Church of England in the mid-1600s over the issue of believers’ immersion. Since the church and the state were one on the same in those days, their acts of immersion adult believers were considered treason. Thus our Baptist forefathers were harassed and persecuted and in some cases put to death because of this “new” and “heretical” teaching.

I’d like to suggest we reclaim the term “decision theology.” Let’s say we all gather together and hash this thing out, beginning with whether or not Baptism now saves you or if infants who leap in their mother’s womb at the sound of the Christ-bearer’s voice can believe. We can move on to what's for Supper and who rightly serves the Meal. Then it will be a good time to make a decision, a decision based on what scripture says. Then it will be time to decide to be Lutheran. And in making that decision, one would practice like a Lutheran, speak like a Lutheran and actually mean the same thing as Lutherans believe teach and confess, and worship as Lutherans–rather than trying to put otherwise style onto Lutheran substance. This all includes recognizing that we Lutherans already have a perfectly wonderful marriage handbook without all the little pitfalls of The Love Dare and Fireproof impinging upon our spiritual health and welfare. It’s called the Catechism.

Now wouldn’t it be something if we Lutherans paid as much honor to our own ABC’s as we do to the spz’s from elsewhere? Why, it would be akin to paying honor to our own Mother rather than to glorifying some flounced up actress playing a mother.

But this I say for myself: I am also a doctor and a preacher, just as learned and experienced as all of them who are so high and mighty. Nevertheless, each morning, and whenever else I have time, I do as a child who is being taught the catechism and I read and recite word for word the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, the Creed, the Psalms, etc. I must still read and study the catechism daily, and yet I cannot master it as I wish, but must remain a child and pupil of the catechism—and I also do so gladly. These fussy, fastidious fellows would like quickly, with one reading, to be doctors above all doctors, to know it all and to need nothing more. Well this, too, is a sure sign that they despise both their office and the people’s souls, yes, even God and his Word. They do not need to fall, for they have already fallen all too horribly. What they need, however, is to become children and begin to learn the ABCs, which they think they have long since outgrown. M. Luther

Fireproof: Water on Hotspots

A comment to my blog post, Fireproof, caused me to view Fireproof again. I like to be accurate, but try as I might, sometimes I do fail. This time I did. I got the quote wrong. In my original post I wrote:

And that’s the biggest error of the movie. At the “final breaking point” for the character played by Cameron, his father is leading him to realize that he has not kept God’s Law. The Law is being proclaimed in all its severity. “How can I go on loving someone who keeps rejecting me?” Cameron asks. His father is now standing near a cross, built near a lakeside trail. It is then Cameron realizes there is a connection between Christ and his marriage. His father fills in the gap, and does so beautifully while proclaiming the Gospel in all its sweetness, “God doesn’t love you because you are lovable, but because He loves you. He loves you because His Son died for you.” Then it all comes crashing down as the Gospel is ripped away and everything is left in utter despair, “But son, you’ve got to decide…” followed by a litany of what must be done to be acceptable or to let Jesus in. Shoulda known. Wasn’t it daddy who first told his son, “Well, you haven’t opened the door very much to let Jesus in, either.”

The quote I got wrong is, “But son, you’ve got to decide…” What Caleb’s father actually says is, “The cross was offensive to me until I came to it.” For that I do apologize. I do so dislike inaccuracy in my work, and I appreciate my attention being called to it.

However, that doesn’t undo what I have written about the movie; in fact, it further supports it. The scene is a powerful one. John Holt, Caleb’s father, gets the message of Law and Grace right, only to snatch Caleb from the comfort of Grace and then to toss him into the jaws of the Law and leave him back in it. I suppose the statement would be alright in and of itself if left in isolation and if it were the only one like it. We sometimes talk in that casual way. But Caleb's friend Mike at the station house exacerbates the situation when he says, “Before I gave my life to the Lord... When I gave my life to God...” All of this is Law-talk. It is speaking of what we do, not of what God has done and is dong for us in Christ. If it is our response to Him that completes conversion in some way, then how can it be said that it was all Christ’s work of salvation that saves us. Wouldn’t it be more accurate, if we are responsible to give our lives to God, to say that some of our salvation rests on us, as a part of our responsibility? In that case, wouldn’t that mean that Jesus is only a partial Savior, and we are co-Savior with Him?

Even young children can understand this, and they do because they have parents. They didn’t ask their parents to be their parents. Their mothers and fathers are theirs because they did something that caused the conception of their children. The children didn’t one day say, “I give my life to you. You are my father. You are my mother.” If my children had ever spoken to me that way I’d have taken them to the bedroom for a long sit-down.

Paul says we are at enmity with God, and cannot be subject to Him ( Ro 8:7). But this is good news, too. Jesus came for sinners, not the righteous, who have no need of Him (Mt 9:13). John Holt spoke rightly when he said the cross is offensive to those who reject not only Christ’s Grace, but also God’s Law. So how does this get reversed? How do us God-haters become those who desire to keep His Law? Something has to happen in a person in order for the cross to no longer be offensive, and that “something” needs to be delivered. That’s where God’s Grace comes in. Grace is what God has done and does through Christ. But what good is it for you if it is not given to you? How can it be effective in your life if it is not yours to apprehend? It is a simple concept: If we by nature are unable to turn to Christ (as Paul says), then Christ’s gifts must be delivered to us.

Children also understand the wonderful habit parents have of giving gifts. Parents will break the bankroll on birthdays and at Christmas for their children, then wrap the gifts and hide them until that special day arrives. The children know the gifts are coming. Is it enough for the parents to tell the little darlings, “We bought you gifts. Here are the receipts. We wrapped them up. We even have pictures of them–see?” Hardly! The gifts need to be delivered. The need to go from the hand of the giver to the receiver.

Christ has instituted the means whereby this happens with His Gifts for the Church through the Holy Spirit. Faith, once delivered, is not sustained in a vacuum. Nature abhors a vacuum, and once found, a host of that which is not of the Faith rushes in. Jesus sent His apostles out with the instruction, “He who hears you hears Me,” (Lk 10:16). This authority is reinforced after His resurrection when He tells His apostles that they are to forgive sins in His name, even withholding forgiveness from the unrepentant (Jn 20:23). Christ’s institution of Baptism for all nations, (Mt 28:19), goes hand-in-hand with “teaching all that He command” and His promise “lo I am with you, even to the end of the age” (Mt 28:20). In Mt 26, Mk 14, Lk 22, and 1Co 11 Christ locates Himself in the bread and wine. “This is my Body... this is My Blood.” With these words Christ has located Himself. He is wherever His baptizing and teaching, His Absolution, and His Holy Supper are going on. These are the things of the Church, for this is how the church knows where Christ is for them. It is by these Means the Holy Spirit is delivering God the Father’s gifts of Grace through and for the sake of His Son, Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. This is how the church is created and sustained.

Caleb is left alone at the outdoor cross after his confrontation with his father. We see much of that in the movie: Caleb alone in the bedroom struggling and praying, Caleb alone with the computer, etc. Granted, not everything can be presented in this film, and perhaps the makers didn’t want to offend by presenting a church setting that might make it seem to lean toward one particular denomination. Choices have to be made. I get that. So the focus was on the marital issues. Still, marriage cannot be separated from its institution in Christ especially when a Christian organization wants to make a film on how to fireproof a marriage. A marriage cannot be fireproofed without water, and lots of it. And by “water” I mean the water of Baptism–through the daily living in it. We see and hear a lot about Jesus in Fireproof, but He is never delivered to anyone. The Gifts are purchased, wrapped, and hidden in a closet somewhere, waiting to be given. Not only did the characters in the film only receive (word) pictures of them, they also spoke as if they could give their lives to their own Heavenly Father–as if they had something to do with their own salvation!

This grates on me, for it is Law disguised as Grace. So it is for this reason I will continue to throw Kleenex boxes at the movie, and advise any right-minded pastor to not expose his congregation to the teachings in The Love Dare. Some have argued that it is good to use because it depicts the situations in marriages so well. That it does, as I have already written. Therein lies the entrapment. Fireproof is well-done, and does depict life as we know it. For that reason one is pulled in before even realizing it. And for that reason the false doctrine in it is even more dangerous. C. F. W. Walther advised his hearers:

Lastly, he [Paul] writes to the Galatian congregation, after errorists had found their way into them, in chap. 5:7–9: “Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” He means to say that a single false teaching vitiates the entire body of the Christian doctrine, even as a little poison dropped into pure water produces a deadly potion.1

Now as long as we are in the correction mode, There are two more things that need correcting–this time from the post Fireproof Reprise (I have to tell you, my memory is unreliable! That’s why I love my books.) I had complained that Caleb did not confess his sins. Wrong! Caleb did confess his sins to his wife, and she forgave him. In the blog post I can see I was thinking more of Holy Absolution. The forgiveness from his wife was a good scene–and necessary. Also, the song with the lyrics “waiting for Jesus” doesn’t occur while Caleb is on the trail, but later. There is less of that sort of thought when one knows where to find Him according to where He has promised He will be with His forgiveness of sins: in the water of Baptism, the preaching and teaching of His Word, His Absolution, and His Holy Supper.

There you are. Here I am. My Old Adam may be drowned daily and much, but he floats just as daily and much. I am a sinner. Thank God in Christ for Jesus!

1 Walther, C. F. W., Dau, W. H. T., & Eckhardt, E. (2000, c1929, c1986). The proper distinction between law and gospel : 39 evening lectures. Forward by Jaroslav Pelikan. Includes index. (electronic ed.) (350). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

Obama Beats Jesus

I skimmed over the news about Obama being more popular than other "icons" of the era, such as Mother Teresa, Ghandi, JFK, and even Jesus. Was that meant to make me go flippity dippity or some such thing? Jesus Himself said it would be that way.

Moreover, that's the way of the two religions, and of the life of the Christian who lives as both sinner and saint in this life in the first place. There are only two religions in this world. There are those religions by which a person will appease his god by his own gifts as retribution for sin in hope of salvation and heaven, and there is the religion in which God gave His only-begotten Son to die for the sake of the sins of all mankind. What a paltry substitution it is to trade one's own good works, or even one's faith (as if it were the one last good work to be done) for what God gives freely for the forgiveness of sins. This is truly what it means to be one's own god. And Christians can be swept up in this idolatry, too.

The irony of the news report that Obama is more popular than Jesus is that in all Christian honesty daily and much we are more popular than Jesus to ourselves. That is why we fail to love our neighbor as we ought. Even if we do not murder him, even if we do not maliciously slander him, do we do all we can to help him in his bodily and spiritual needs? Do we speak well of him and protect his image? Do we covet what others have? That's what all those ads on TV are for in the first place, to incite covetousness. How well do we combat that inclination?

This is why the whole life of a Christian is that of repentance, plunged ever deeper into Baptism. Just as we sin often and much, so do we need to be drowned often and much. This doesn't mean re-Baptism. Scripture is clear in Ephesians 4 that there is only one Baptism. What this means is daily confessing what God already knows is true about us: "I am the sinner. Only Jesus saves me from sin, death and the devil." This is repentance. This is living daily in Baptism, drowning the Old Adam so that the New Man might arise.

Kindergarten Activism

Here ya go. Now sexual choice is a matter for Kindergarten Activism. Tell me...what of those kindergartners who didn't sign the pledge? Mine certainly would not have. Granted, the school finally said it was inappropriate for students of this age to sign a pledge like this. But that begs the question. Is it even appropriate for children of any age to sign such a pledge?

Since when does sexual choice lifestyle get the privileged consideration for rudeness? I teach school, and I teach my students not to call anyone any name but the one their families call them. It's simple: If you wouldn't like to be called by that name, don't call others by that name. It's a matter of politeness regarding all persons, not singling out one section of society.

But this is the lesson of liberation socio-political ideology, which then dressed up Doc Martins, spiked her hair, and demanded equal rights--especially because she could control the produce of her own body. Well now she or he have that so well under their own power that dads can be moms and the rest is so confusing I can't even begin to untangle it all out. The most important lesson learned from all this is that those who have been oppressed cannot themselves be oppressors; therefore, they can demand such privileges and deal out consequences to those who don't conform.

I first saw glimmers of it when my daughter was in sixth grade. She was asked to design a coat-of-arms representing herself. She was given a piece of paper with the shield already copied onto it. She was to divide the shield into six parts, each one representing a certain aspect of herself. The top right was reserved for her "sign."

"What's my sign?" she asked me.

I pulled out her Baptism certificate and showed it to her. On it was a cross, with a shell and three drops of water. She was happy, and ran off the copy it. Knowing her teacher might have questions about it, I explained to Jane that she was a baptized child of God. Her Baptism into Christ is all she needs to keep her all her days. She doesn't need the Zodiac, and our family won't use the Zodiac to describe its members. We are members of the Body of Christ, so the cross describes us.

Jane's teacher called me regarding the project. She didn't quite understand what Jane was telling her, so she wanted to ask me. I thought that was very kind of her. But by the time we finished our conversation she was furious. No, I would not relent. Jane would not have any sort of Zodiac sign on her coat-of-arms. The cross was her sign, not anything from the Zodiac.

Now, I'm not saying Jane's teacher had ever been oppressed. I don't know if she ever actually was. Liberation socio-political ideology filtered into teaching so that the central idea of the lesson was lost for the sake of the ideology of the teacher. The Coat-of-arms was supposed to be an expression of who each child was. In my child' case, it quickly became an issue of whether or not she subscribed to the Zodiac. She'd best not be truly Christian, because that didn't conform to the teacher's idea of who she ought to be.

That's what really going on with these "pledge cards." The teacher is demanding her students conform to her image of what a polite child should be. Such a child doesn't use certain words at his age. OK, but what about overall name-calling? If the goal is to stop name-calling, then pledge cards aren't needed at all, at any age. Neither would club meeting for certain select groups, or "coming out days." The whole thing is racially bogus.

Fireproof Reprise

In one scene Caleb, the character played by Kirk Cameron, is forced to make a decision between his internet addiction (which is really an addiction to pornography) and his covetous lust for a boat and his responsibilities as a husband. He unplugs the monitor, takes it outside to a table, and smashes it with a baseball bat. He does the same with the CPU. He leaves a nice bouquet of roses for his wife where the computer once sat with a note, “I love you more.” The money he’d saved goes to purchase a hospital bed and wheelchair for his wife’s mother so she can remain at home in comfort following her stroke. Kleenex time, right?

Well, let’s examine this some. It is true that the couple needed to stop this silly game of your money, my money, your bill, my bill. Marriages like that often indicate that the unity of the flesh is understood only to mean sexual partnership, not also human partnership and unity. Marriage isn’t meant to be sexual convenience. That is not the one flesh union God is speaking of. Marriage is the melding of two lives into one, although two persons are not absorbed into each other. Identities are retained. So when “Caleb’s money” paid for Katherine’s parents’ needs, it was actually their money being spent for a greater need than both of their own.

Perhaps Caleb needed to toss out the computer in order to stop his addiction. However, a more potent message was given when he did: It was the computer’s fault, so kill the computer! Where was the killing of the flesh in Caleb? Where was the confession of this sin from Caleb, and to whom? It was nowhere shown. In fact, in the scene of his final breakdown with his father along that lakeside trail, the song heard playing as the two were praying and talking had a refrain with words along this line, “waiting for Jesus...” Waiting for Him where? Like Simon Burch did when he shouted his confession to the sky and waited for an absolution that never came?

So the computer was offensive and had to be thrown out. It caused debauchery. Just like wine causes drunkenness and had to be tossed out of the Holy Supper of our Lord. It wasn’t until after Mr. Welch came along that even Baptists found justification for that, and rationalization for Christ not really serving wine at the marriage in Cana. What’s next? Obesity is the biggest health problem in America today. Bread causes obesity. So now we need to deep six the bread from Christ’s institution? Better yet, let’s find justification for hoodia as the real deal in the wafer served.

When Paul tells his hearers that being drunk with wine is debauchery, he does not also say “Don’t drink it,” for that would be giving a new command–one that his Lord had not given. Jesus tells us to drink wine, at least in His Holy Supper. Paul also says that we are to fill ourselves with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, “submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.” It is then he describes the relationship of husband and wife as an icon of the relationship of Christ and His Bride, the Church. The relationship of husband and wife originated from the a bloodied side in the First Adam as he lay sleeping just as the relationship of Christ and His Bride arose from His bloodied side as He lay sleeping in the grave. The church is recalled to this each time she communes on Christ's Body and Blood in the bread and wine. Husbands and wives are recalled to this as they submit to each other as unto Christ.

In one remarkable scene in the movie, Caleb goes to his friend after his faith breakthrough and says, “I’m in.” The friend finally understands and responds, “You’re my brother from another Mother, which means we have the same Father.” I wanted to throw that non-existent Kleenex box at the screen and shout, “So why don’t you baptize babies?” St. Cyprian wasn’t speaking of a Mother who gives birth by air and sunshine. He was speaking of a Mother who gives birth by water and the Word. Yet this is denied to infants and its salvific work is denied by any who receive it at all by those who produced the movie Fireproof . “We know baptism doesn’t save,” is a commonly heard refrain. “It’s man’s work.”

It’s in the presupposition. Repeat after me: It’s in the presupposition. It is not what goes into but what comes out of... It is not what goes into but what comes out of... But how can we expect those who deny Baptism to infants to produce anything better? The answer is, we can’t. It hearkens back to the fact that it's because they cannot see that infants need Baptism. Jesus came for sinners, not the righteous. That gets in the way of going to one’s death with “my faith” being the last one good work held tightly in the hand before the throne of grace. The irony of plucking out the right eye that offends is the left one remains to pick up the slack. Gal 3:27; Col 3:9; Ro 13:14, all speak to putting on Christ. All Christ, nothing but. Our weak faith is no match for His one sentence from the cross, “It is finished.”

Fireproofing is wet work, daily and much.

Fireproof

An email this week from a deaconess colleague touted the movie Fireproof as a “must see.” “Bring a box of Kleenex,” it suggested. My husband is with his mother and sister this weekend, so I took a friend along. A good thing to do, too. If I’d taken along that box I might have thrown it at the screen. She’d have stopped me. We probably had the only dry eyes in the place.

Fireproof is the production of Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Georgia. Many of its members appear in the movie.

Kirk Cameron did as fine a job of acting as he can do. He plays a firehouse captain whose marriage is suffering from neglect. Erin Bethea is cast well as Catherine, his wife. There are some good firehouse humorous moments, as well as some well-played drama.

The marriage scenes are typical and can be related to by many who see the film. There is not a stretch-n-leap to fit oneself from the theater seat into the situation on the screen. The language was accurate and comfortable to the ears. The movie drew the watcher into the context of the setting and pulled him along, “Yeah, that’s how it is.” The defining line for divorce was: when you can get respect everywhere except at home, it’s time to call it quits. That’s an all too familiar refrain.

So far, so good. Then dad steps in with a challenge—a forty day challenge. Now why does that start to make the hairs on the back of my neck creep up? What is this? Forty Days of Purpose Marriage? And that’s what it turns out to be.

Fireproof is connected with the book, The Love Dare, which is a forty-day plan for re-igniting marriage. Samples of chapters can be downloaded in PDF files at their website. Christ’s parable of the Good Samaritan is presented as a moral tale demonstrating racial tolerance and mercy. If Christ’s essential gift of mercy is absent in His parable, then readers can be assured that He is absent in the larger theme of the book, marriage. And He is.

Marriage is spoken of as a social arrangement established by God, but Paul’s greater point that marriage is an icon of the church, Christ’s own Body, is not mentioned at all. To be fair, I’ve not read the whole book. Still, of what I have read, nothing flows in and out of Christ. Rather, all is centered in and out of decisions one makes for himself to do for another and for God.

And that’s the biggest error of the movie. At the “final breaking point” for the character played by Cameron, his father is leading him to realize that he has not kept God’s Law. The Law is being proclaimed in all its severity. “How can I go on loving someone who keeps rejecting me?” Cameron asks. His father is now standing near a cross, built near a lakeside trail. It is then Cameron realizes there is a connection between Christ and his marriage. His father fills in the gap, and does so beautifully while proclaiming the Gospel in all its sweetness, “God doesn’t love you because you are lovable, but because He loves you. He loves you because His Son died for you.” Then it all comes crashing down as the Gospel is ripped away and everything is left in utter despair, “But son, you’ve got to decide…” followed by a litany of what must be done to be acceptable or to let Jesus in. Shoulda known. Wasn’t it daddy who first told his son, “Well, you haven’t opened the door very much to let Jesus in, either.”

Faith flows in and out of Christ; faith is not a decision made by us.

Marriage is hard work, just like the movie said. Too hard for a quickie fix like the forty day challenge of The Love Dare.

Marriage is precious. So precious, Paul says, that husbands ought to treat their wives as those for whom they would die for, just as Christ died for the church. Fireproof was right on this point. Any “parasite” on your marriage, that which is attached to that sucks the life out of your marriage, needs to be gotten rid of. But sinners that we are, once that parasite is gone, a void is felt. What will replace it? Only living in Christ’s forgiveness, daily drowning the Old Man, and regular sustenance from His altar will provide the means for surviving that.

This is not to say there is no room for books that offer advice on ways to be kind and show mercy to your spouse. The Love Dare says, “If you accept this dare, you must take the view that instead of following your heart, you are choosing to lead it.” Wouldn’t it be better to have one’s reason and intellect conformed and informed by Christ so that it is led by Him? Without that, there can be no demonstration of selfless, sacrificial love, for those belong to Him. Apart from the certainty of the Gospel, giving up things for someone else, holiness living, and decision living leads to the despair of uncertainty and hopelessness.

From The Love Dare:

Remember, you have the responsibility to protect and guide your heart. Don’t give up and don’t get discouraged. Resolve to lead your heart and to make it through to the end. Learning to truly love is one of the most important things you will ever do.

Psalm 51:

Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and uphold me with a willing spirit. Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will return to you. Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, O God of my salvation, and my tongue will sing aloud of your righteousness. O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise.

For myself, I’ll take Psalm 51 over The Love Dare. God took responsibility for my heart in Christ, even before He began creating the world. To say “I love you” is to choose to love beforehand. To learn what love is we look to Christ and His Father. To know what marriage looks like, we first look at Christ and His Bride.

As for Fireproof, the movie, watch it if you wish, but be forewarned of its decision theology. As for Fireproofing a marriage, there truly is a better way. Instead, why not remain wrapped in Christ first by Baptism, and second by marriage. Then daily live in that.

Infant Baptism in Baptist Country

We live in Baptist Country. That's rightly capitalized in these parts. Then again, with the way things are going with regard to the general protestanization of the Lutheran Church, Baptist Country is in every pew in every local congregation--despite the efforts of faithful pastors.

Rev. Rick Sawyer of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, Brandon, MS, has written an excellent website responding to the favorite retort of the Baptist Country's refutation for Infant Baptism. You can access it here.

In fact, while you're there, take a look at his piece on Historic Faith. and then at his one titled He is Risen.

Convocation of Sacred Ghosts

Friday nights are for decompressing. Don’t get me wrong—this year’s class has been a “dream” class for any teacher. They are wonderful students. But that doesn’t mean that after a full week of teaching I still don’t need an evening home with my husband doing the mindless nothingness of eating pizza and watching bad tv. Ghost Whisperer is a fine example of this. It has an implausible premise with an untenable ending. It’s utterly hopeless, for it is lacking in the one thing needful for hope: Jesus Christ. If He is not the source of the light to whom the living have been drawn, then there is no hope for those who have now sleep in death.

 

On a recent show Melinda, the Whisperer herself, took a picture of herself. What it revealed was that she is surrounded by specters. From the tone and setting of the show, viewers were led to believe these were unhealthy ghosts. Either that or that Melinda was being haunted by dead ones who had unresolved issues only she could solve. Oh, dear; oh, my.

 

And yet, what a wonderful picture that was to see for such doubting Thomsases as we! A dear and blessed friend of mine once told me (and I won’t give his name for fear I’ll get this wrong and thereby shame him!) that when we confess that a particular piece of sacred bread given by the hands of the pastor is the Body of Christ, and likewise the wine is Christ’s Blood given the same way, then we must also confess Christ’s Body in those who are receiving these Holy Things into themselves around us.

 

Yet it goes even further. The blessed hand that feeds is Christ’s hand feeding, just as in Baptism it is not the pastor, but Christ Himself who does the work of it.

 

Thus God is present in Baptism, in the Lords Supper, and in the use of the Keys because His own Word is present there. Therefore even though we do not see or hear Him but see and hear the minister, God Himself is nevertheless truly present, baptizes, and absolves. And in the Lord’s Supper He is present in such an extraordinary way that the Son of God Himself gives us HIS body with the bread and His blood with the wine. (LW 3:220).

 

And still deeper and more wonderfully, when Christ ascended to the right hand of the Father, we are put to the question: Where is the Father and His right hand? God is everywhere, and His right hand is where He is. So Christ is where His Father is, everywhere. That means heaven isn’t “up there.” We are surrounded by heaven. How this can be is a mystery, something too unfathomable for my mind to comprehend.

 

Still, it means that the angels, archangels, and all the heavenly hosts surround us daily. We can’t see them, but the armies of heaven surround God’s baptized. How can it be otherwise? Didn’t Christ say there is but one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism (Eph 4:5)? Therefore, the Church only has one Body (Eph 4:25). The narrow door (Lk 13:24) has room for only one body: Christ’s.  Yet that body has many members (Ro 12:5; 1Co 12:20). Those who sleep in the Lord cannot be excluded, for we confess the resurrection of the dead. 

  

Some members of Christ’s body can be seen; some cannot be seen. Those which can be seen pray and work for the Body of Christ. In their various vocations as “little Christs” each member of the church touches the life of the other, serving the other. In this way Christ is served, while Christ is serving others. The heavenly hosts still serve the church in heaven, “We also grant that the saints in heaven pray for the church in general, as they prayed for the church universal while they were on earth” (Ap. I; 9, 2).

 

Surrounded by unsettled ghosts haunting the living and causing their lives to be a wretch? Does not the parable of the rich man and Lazarus teach us this is impossible (Lk 16)? There is a vast gulf between heaven and hell. Moreover, why would Satan allow any to have a vacation from hell, which is what haunting on earth would allow. And heavenly angels always enter with God’s message of peace.

 

So let Hollywood have its silliness, but from that teach us a thing or two. We—the baptized—are surrounded by those whom we cannot see as well as those whom we can see. The baptized are never alone, for to be baptized is to be one of a unity; it is to be a member of a body of many members, the Church who is the Body of Christ—who is her Head.

 

A true picture of one of the baptized would reveal him surrounded by angels, archangels, Adam, Eve, Abel, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Isaiah and all the heavenly hosts. Jesus was counseled by Moses and Elijah before His crucifixion, and comforted by angels in His passion. Dare any of us who have been clothed in Christ, those who are full inheritors of His Father’s kingdom, deny that we receive the same in our hour of need? Indeed we are taught to pray for such daily: “Let Your holy angel be with me that the evil for have no power over me. Amen.”

 

 

 

Shepherds and Daddies

Wednesday afternoon I called to see how Emi was doing. Last time her daddy went to Iraq she entered a two-week depression. She was barely a year old then. Now she is four-years-old and has a baby sister who’s nearly five-months-old. Emi understands more than she did the last time he left, so she hasn’t slipped into a deep, silent depression like the last time. But that doesn’t mean she likes it any better. The first thing Emi told me was “I’m at my house. Daddy’s not here. He’s on a long bye-bye.” In her own way she complained about the long distance between her house and mine. “You’re in Mississippi. I’m in Tennessee. That’s far, far away.”

Emi’s very articulate on the phone. That because every time her dad goes to Iraq he takes his cell phone with him. As soon as he can, he converts to an overseas account. If he cannot, he buys phone cards. Every chance he is able he calls home. He likes to call when he can speak to all three of his “women.” Even when all he could do is barely understand Emi’s babblings, that was enough for him. She recognized his voice and clung to the phone as if to a lifeline. Now he speaks to Lianna in the same way.

It was John’s privilege to rise and feed Lianna in the early mornings. That was their time together. It became such an ingrained ritual that if Cindy tried to take over, Lianna rebelled. She wanted her daddy at that time. When he calls on the phone, Cindy holds it to her tiny ear so that she can hear his voice and remember who her father is. He speaks to her some of the same loving worlds he spoke while they were together in her bedroom.

Does the tough-guy Sergeant care if any of his men over hear him? Not one bit. Let them take a lesson, he says. When he returned home the last time, Emi was fearful of anyone save her own mom. She was in her two-year-old Mommy’s-girl stage. There was rightful concern she would be unduly afraid of her own father when he returned from Iraq because she might not recognize him on sight. She was so young when he left. Yet as he approached the car in Frankfort, Germany, Emi let out a squeal of delight. That was her daddy! She’d know him anywhere, and time was no factor in that.

Lianna may not so easily recognize her own father’s face when he returns home again, but she will remember his voice. She continues to hear it often. She knows her father by his voice. It is the same way Emi’s memory of her father was kept alive. She spoke to him often and in the manner that only those two could speak with each other. His voice and words in her ears kept alive her memory of his face.


I’ve never seen Jesus’ own face in the flesh, but I know where He is to be found, nevertheless. Christ’s promises are attached to His Word in water, bread and wine and delivered by men for life, forgiveness of sins and salvation. Wherever Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, preaching, and the Absolution are going on, there is Jesus. Wherever Jesus is, there His voice may be heard in the words that are spoken.

Daddy calls his girls to the phone, and they come to him. Emi clings to the phone when he calls; Lianna will know him by his voice when he returns. The faithful are gathered by Christ’s voice, His Word. He says, “My sheep hear My voice and follow Me” (John 10:27). Yet how can any follow who have not heard the voice of the Shepherd? That is ultimately what Paul asks in Romans 10:

13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” 14 But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

Faith–that is, Christ–comes by hearing, yes. And just as Emi’s and Lianna’s daddy has taught them, hearing once (as if to ignite the eardrums and set them ablaze, and then let the fire smolder out) does not make for the familiarity of recognition of the Good Shepherd. Nor are all who call upon the name of the Lord of Him (Mt 7:22-23).

Wherever Jesus is present in His Word purely spoken and rightly administered in His Sacraments is where the Heavenly Father’s children have been called to gather. It is there God’s children are rightly fed by the Good Shepherd Himself. Emi runs to the phone whenever it rings, hoping it's her daddy. She reminds her mommy on Saturday night that church is the next morning, so they’d best be ready early. She knows where she needs to be to hear her daddy’s voice, and her Father’s voice. Two of my students are begging to be baptized. One longs to have the Lord’s Supper, and quotes the Catechism to support his reasons why. “Jesus said do it for the forgiveness of sins. I want it.” They have heard their Shepherd’s voice. Were it up to them, they would spend a great deal more time in church hearing it, responding to it.

I once had a professor who asked me if I would ever be certain that I’d heard my Shepherd’s voice. As certain as I know where to look for my Shepherd by the Marks of His Church. For wherever those Marks are found, there also is the faithful flock gathered around the undershepherd administering the Mysteries of our Good Shepherd. Why would anyone want to miss out on any bit of it?

All Wrapped Up

Pastor was delivering his last chapel sermon to the students in school before Christmas break. He was describing Baby Jesus in the manger wrapped in swaddling cloths, and linking that to the Sacrament of the Altar. Jesus was laid in a place where animals eat, and we eat of His Body and Blood in the bread and wine at the altar. “There was Baby Jesus,” he said, “all wrapped up like a burrito.”

Afterward one of my students said to me, “In Baptism we are like burritos, too. We are all wrapped up in Jesus.”

That’s a pretty fair exposition of Gal. 3:27.

Bondage in Liberty

Without question, the greatest advance for women in society was not the right to vote. It wasn’t even the right to own property, which attended the right to vote. Nor was it, as some would argue, the ready availability of higher education. No, the greatest advance for women in the twentieth century was The Pill.

The Pill granted sexual freedom without threat of consequences (pregnancy), but it was not fail-safe. Eventually with the right to abortion-on-demand, women could finally have what men had: the freedom to act with sexual irresponsibility. Feminism is not about protecting women; feminism destroys what is most feminine in women. Feminism gender-neutralizes humanity.

Now chemistry (Oh, I get by with a little help from my friends!) lends a hand to complete the picture. The FDA has just approved production of a new version of The Pill, called Lybrel. Lybrel prevents not only pregnancies, but also menstruation.

There is a scene in G. I. Jane where the character Demi Moore plays is with the doctor admitting she has not had her menstrual cycle for the months she has been in rigorous training to become a Navy Seal. The doctor explains that this is normal for a woman who undergoes such experiences. Act like a man and a woman’s body reacts like a man’s. The cycle of female hormone production shuts down and her cycle is interrupted.

With Lybrel any woman can experience far greater freedom than just that. No need to suffer the physical abuses of G. I. Jane in order to achieve near-manhood. Just pop a pill and let chemistry have its way. Science is doing all it can to aid the feminist ideology that sex is what is determined by birth, but gender is culturally defined. As one hip young woman says,

"Womanhood is the appreciation of the ability to give life and to nurture. Women are the primary caretakers because society has made it OK for us. That's sociological, not biological."

Hmmmm... and all along I thought women made good mommies because they were the mothers, a theo-biological thing. One line in Look Whose Talking says it all: "Lunch!"

This is not to say that every use of The Pill is wrong. It has been responsibly prescribed for hormone therapy, from which women have benefited and whose lives have been enriched. Christians live in greater freedom than to say “If it’s not in scripture, we can’t use it.” Moreover, the abuse of a thing does not negate it proper use.

The underlying issue is the Sixth Commandment. Nothing is to supplant what God instituted, yet that is what it happened with the advent of The Pill and the Sexual Revolution. If by science, the constitution, and culture women were freed from the obligations and produce of their bodies, then they were finally the equal of men. The Pill was the first step, allowing women greater sexual freedom without the threat of pregnancy than they had ever known. Legalized abortion was the next step, for then if women became pregnant, they could abandon their responsibilities to the child with finality. Men had done so for years; now women could. A Pill that ceases the menstrual cycle is the final step. Now women can live in ultimate liberty, totally free from the “negative” trappings of womanhood. Any wonder that its name so closely resembles the Latin for free, liber?

There is much to appreciate in the Levitical codes with their constant reminder of uncleanness, which is sin. God reminds both partners in the marriage that both the contents of the womb and semen are for his purposes. This is not to say marital sex is only for the sake of pregnancy. However, menstruation is unclean because of what has not happened, pregnancy leading to birth. Whatever is spilled or flows out that does not lead to pregnancy is treated as a dead thing. Things die because sin has entered the world. Dying people need a savior from sin, death, and the devil. While every pregnancy points toward the Promised One, menstruation also serves as a reminder to waiting-Israel of him, for in that woman he has not yet been conceived and salvation is still not near. Whoever is born of the womb belongs to God, to be included in his kingdom of grace through his Gifts given to that one.

This reminder of death midst life—specifically of the fact that now, post-fall, death co-exists with life in what God created to be an only life-producing situation (Ge 1:28), marriage. It is a picture of the Baptismal life of repentance. We are unclean because of what comes from within us. We are as dead things who can only produce dead things. We cannot do what God commands us to do. But in Baptism the old is drowned and resurrected in Christ. We are made alive again, walking in New Life (Ro 6:3-4). In Christ all things are made new (Rv 21:5). Even after his coming among us, every pregnancy is a reminder of Christ's incarnation in Mary's womb by the Holy Spirit. Abortion is therefore all the more precious to Satan because of this. God created the distinctions of male and female for his purposes. When God entered Mary's womb, he sanctified it and made it his home. In Christ, not just motherhood, but all that is of woman is made holy again.

With Lybrel, woman is given a different perspective on her creation entirely. What woman needs God’s view of her when science, government, and culture can define who she is and what she can be? Periods too gross to put up with for the hip woman? Let science do away with them so women can be as free as men (Ex 14:11).

Catechism Essay

Why the Catechism is Important

The Catechism is important to keep us from going crazy. It does this by reminding us of what Jesus has done for us. The Commandments, Baptism, and Confession are important parts of the Catechism that do this.

The first part of the Catechism that is important is the Commandments. The Commandments are important because they tell you how you should treat your parents, not to hurt or harm your friend, to not misuse God’s name, and not to steal. We learn to do this because this is how God treats us in Jesus. The second part of the Catechism that is important is Baptism. Baptism is important because it brings you to Christ our Savior, and Jesus tells us to do it. The third part of the Catechism that is important is Confession. Confession is important because you repent of your sins and receive Absolution, that is, forgiveness.

In conclusion, the Catechism is an important book to learn. It has a lot of good things about our Lord Jesus Christ.

Fifth Grade

Catechism Paragraph 4

How the Catechism Teaches Me

I have two good things to talk about the Catechism. My two things are Baptism and the Lord’s Prayer. My first thing is Baptism. I like Baptism because it talks about water that is holy because of God’s word in it. The Catechism also teaches me the Lord’s Prayer. I like the Lord’s Prayer because Jesus put these words in my mouth. These two things remind me of Jesus’ word and what Jesus did for me.

Second Grade

Catechism Paragraph 3

How the Catechism Teaches Me

The Catechism teaches Christ and Baptism. The first thing you learn is Christ is our Lord. It teaches us in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. The second thing you learn is Baptism. Baptism teaches us about Christ and his word. Both of these things teach about God forgiving us.

Second Grade

Catechism Paragraph 1

How the Catechism Teaches Me

Catechism teaches me two things. These two are Jesus and Baptism. The first thing the catechism teaches me is Jesus. It teaches me Jesus because it has the Lord’s Prayer. I also learn about Baptism. I like Baptism because it washes away my sin. I like these two because the Lord gives them to me.

Second Grade

Response to Weekend Fisher

Weekend Fisher commented at length. I couldn't help but respond.

Valuing every human being as fully human and each one equally created in the sight of God is definitely a prized asset. Feminism did fight for this in its first movement when its goals were centered on protecting women and children from the legal and political abuses they were suffering at the time. As I indicated previously, even under the harshest and most tyrannous of rules, bread was buttered and clocks were wound on time. That doesn’t mean feminism offered the best answer to the problems; it merely means feminism “corrected” problems in its own way.

However, in valuing every human as fully human, feminism disregards what God himself says of his creation of humans. Under feminism, humanity assumes a nebulous identity. For feminism, there is a general humanity which is identified as neither male nor female. Distinctions of sexuality are obliterated or deemed non-essential. For God, to be human includes sexual differntiation.

“God created the man (adam) in his own image, in the image of God he created him, that is, male and female” (Ge 1:27). In the Hebrew text there is an athnach at the word “him.” It is like an id est, a pause dividing the sentence into two parts. The athnach makes clear the inner logic of the sentence. It clarifies what God considers humanity. Humanity is man that is male and female. There is no humanity of male or female to the exclusion of the other. There is no generic humanity apart from the concretions of male and female.

God sealed this created design of male and female in marriage, which is the icon of Christ and His Bride the Church (2Co 11:2; Ep 5:22-33). Christ is God’s Son from eternity. God is therefore a Father from before creation. The Lamb, which was slain from the creation of the world, died for his Bride (Rv 13:8). She is created from those things which flow from his side (Jo 19:34; 1Jo 5:6;8).

When Stanton attacked the authority of scripture (its inerracy, infallibility, and efficacy), she did not merely launch a war on the power of words; rather her conflict was with God the Father himself—and by that not merely every male authority figure, but authority itself. The fact that lesbian relationships were tolerated within the feminist movement from the beginning demonstrates how feminism eradicates the differentiation between male and female and neuters humanity. Marriage became the first casualty in feminism. Androgyny was its final destination.

Peter calls women the weaker vessel (1Pe 3:7). This has nothing to do with the amount of faith a woman can have. Of course Eve was deceived. She admitted that (Ge 3:13). And Paul says that’s why women are not to usurp authority over men (1Tim 2:14). Still, that’s not what makes her the weaker vessel, as if women simply can’t believe as well as men because of an inherent flaw. Or, worse yet, according to one feminist lie, as if Jesus hadn’t assumed female flesh when he was incarnated and therefore didn’t die for her sin, also. No, no, no! See my answer here. Women are the weaker vessel because of a simple fact of nature. They are the only ones who can become preciously pregnant with the future, and no others of humanity are able to bear and nurture future generations. Women ought to be protected.

F. Carolyn Graglia, in Domestic Tranquility, writes of women as “precious.” Why? Women bear and nurture future generations. For generations women have been the protected ones of our society for this reason. They are, in truth, the “weaker vessel.” Yet the idea of women as precious in the minds of men and women alike has been nearly destroyed through the feminist cause and worldview. When women began to see themselves as less than precious, as beings who were strong and invincible not desirous of or needing the protection of men, men assumed a more feminized role in society. Women who kill, especially their own growing children inside of them, are hardly seen by men as those needing to be protected. Feminism has confused sexual distinction and differentiation and catechized society into a dogma of androgynous generic humanity.

If women’s weakness referred to their faith, to their believing enough, then what can we say? That Jesus didn’t die for all of their sins, so now more must be added (believing)? That more Jesus, that is more faith, is given to men than to women? Paul says it quite clearly in Galatians: “You are all sons of God through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Ga 3:26-29).

The Greek text orders the pairs in Christ this way: ouvde… ouvde… ouk… kai.. That is “neither… nor… not... and.” We can ask ourselves an SAT question. Why does Paul order these pairs like this? Does it make a difference? The answer lies in the context of the letter to the Galatians. Paul has not concerned himself with male and female issues at all; rather, he has addressed Jew/Greek and slave/free matters. These are artificial barriers God imposed on mankind in order to bring about his plan of salvation. Now that salvation has come to mankind, Paul is preaching the Gospel of freedom to all people. “Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘In you shall all the nations be blessed’” (Ga 3:7-8). Sons of Abraham are all nations who come to Jesus Christ by faith, male and female alike.

So when considering what Paul writes of those who are in Christ as the sons of Abraham, he must be put in context to what he has said previously. His primary concern is Gentile issues, not male and female matters. It is as if he tossed male and female in as an afterthought, although that can hardly be the case as he was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Still what is of importance is that all who are baptized into Christ are one in him, for he is one Person.

Paul says those who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. They are in him. They are one Person in him. Therefore, there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female. There is only Christ. One Lord, one Faith, One Baptism—one Church. By Baptism we are made Abraham’s offspring, that is, inheritors of the Kingdom of God. As inheritors in Christ’s image, male and female alike—regardless of sexual differentiation in Christ—are clothed in Christ and are therefore sons of God (Ga 4:6; Ro 8:14).

Paul does not say sexual differentiations are of no importance in the same way political and social distinctions are of no consequence to Christ. He is not here saying that the concretions of male humanity and female humanity have been overcome in Christ. In another place he speaks clearly of how sin entered the world through one man, Adam, and the gift of life by the one man Jesus Christ (Ro 5:12-21). Now in the same way Paul is again speaking of Christ. All humanity came from Adam and from him came Eve and through them their offspring. They were created in the image of God as man that is male and female, not to be independent of each other, but together and in union. Their marriage is an icon of Christ and his Bride. Adam was created in the form that the Son of God would one day incarnate as Husband of that Bride. Marriage brings together in one flesh what once was one in Adam—although Adam was “not good” alone (Ge 2:18).

Some consider God’s statement “he shall rule over you” (Ge 3:16) to be a curse put onto woman. Let’s consider it another way. The Hebrew word in question is mashal. The next time we see it God is speaking to Cain, telling him to control his anger against Abel (Ge 4:7). Sin desires him, but he must master it. If Cain does not control his anger, he will do even greater harm than only to himself. Living within the Law is living in Christ, for he kept the Law perfectly for us. So even after Christ’s death and resurrection the Law applies to us, even though it does not condemn us (Ro 6-7).

The woman had admitted that she was deceived, and sin had ruled her (Ge 3:13). We must read the text in context. Adam, instead of admitting his guilt, blamed God for his sin. “The woman whom you gave to me…” (Ge 3:12). He was not merely asking for a divorce from his wife, but for God’s death. The penalty for eating of the Tree was death. If it was another’s fault and not his own, then Adam would live. Someone had to die. Adam did not want it to be himself. He blamed God for the woman he gave him, so he expected God to take the blame for his sin.

God took the blame for Adam’s sin, and laid it all on his Son so that through him all men were set free (Ro 5:15). Likewise, in Adam all mankind fell (Ro 5:12). Still, as her husband, Adam was the woman’s head (1Co 11:3), just as Christ is the head of the church (Ep 5:23). When God places the woman under her husband’s rule, he is putting her back into his care. He is not to be free of her, but is her protector; she is not free from him, but submits to him as her lord, just as Sarah later would serve as an example (1Pe 3:6). God said that it would be through a woman his Seed would come, the one who would crush the serpent’s head. Adam recognized God’s grace in this. He changed the name of his wife to Eve, which means “Mother of all living” (Ge 3:20).

This recognition of the concrete distinctions of male and female and their unique created roles and functions as male and female is lost in feminism. Feminism recognizes a generic humanity without distinction of maleness or femaleness—a blurring of sexual roles. This neutering of humanity began first with the neutering of the authority of scripture. It extends to the manner in which it regards all authority, especially in the family.

Enough sitting for now.

Draftees and Volunteers

Recently I spoke with a friend of mine whose wife has been struggling through cancer. She has already tried several forms of chemotherapy. To date none has been successful. The treatment she is currently taking is her last option. The treatment itself causes pain and suffering. She is literally at a crossroads. She is ready to for release from her body of death. Her husband is loath to let go of his wife of too few years. They were barely home from the honeymoon when they received the news of her cancer.

Knowing what they are going through would only be a pretense on my part. John and I will be married thirty-eight years this June. Cleaning up after each other is second-nature. He straightens out my checkbook (which no man nor beast but he can fathom); I wipe the walls when he pours the spaghetti sauce too quickly into the bowl and it splashes everywhere. We’ve both had medical needs requiring the other to be the other’s nurse, and, if need be, orderly. It goes with the territory called marriage.

Generally speaking, though, these are things that are worked into gradually—over years of knowing each other intimately and after having had years of “the better” before “the worse” is thrust upon the marriage. There is simply a “not fair-edness” when a marriage is barely months old and it is plunged into the burdens of bearing the worst of what life has to dish out.

To add to this husband’s burden, two congregations decided they would not bear his wife’s illness with him. He was unceremoniously and without cause sent packing from both congregations, in part because they tired of a pastor with an ill wife.

Maundy Thursday brought welcome respite to their lives. Pastor Husband was invited to officiate at Mass for the first time in several months. His bride was well enough even after a recent hospital stay to attend. When I spoke to him afterward he talked of nothing but the joy he had being in the pulpit once more, and even more of serving his wife the precious Body and Blood of our Lord. “This may be her last Easter this side of heaven.”

Simon of Cyrene was not a volunteer, but a draftee. He was just a visitor to Jerusalem who stood by the side of the road watching the proceedings, when suddenly a cross was thrust upon him to carry. And not just any cross, but Jesus’ cross. It was the cross on which a murderer, thief, adulterer, or a liar should be hung—and was. Jesus became all those things for our sakes. Barabbas, the murderer whose name means “son of the father” was set free so that on his cross the innocent Son of the Father was crucified in order that all men—all sons of the father—might be free.

Christians are brought to Baptism by the Holy Spirit working through the word, often in others who carry little infants to the font. It is then the cross of Christ is placed on the Christian, even little babies. Paul says all those who have been baptized were baptized into Christ’s death, and then raised from that death just as Christ was by the glory of the Father (Ro 6:3-4). Baptism is not for volunteers, but draftees.

The cruelty of sin strikes us in its unfairness. Baptism levels the playing field once more. In Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no slave or free, no division by enmity (Ge 3:16) between male and female—nor even any illness of body or soul—because all are redeemed in Christ (Gal 3:28-29). The redeemed in Christ are those baptized in Christ. Christ makes all things new again (Rv 21:5). Christ takes the baptized into himself, yet his cross still rest upon them. Just as Simon was drafted to carry Jesus’ cross when he could not, the baptized have also been drafted in Baptism to bear the cross for others when they are unable. It’s vocation: faith in Christ becomes love for neighbor.

It is by dying we live. In baptism we died on Christ’s cross. We are brought to death in baptism so that we might live by the glory of the Father, just as Christ did before us. For the Christian, life begins in water. In his work De Baptismo, Tertullian writes, “But we, little fishes, after the example of our Icqus (Icthus, fish) Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water.” What Christ has wrapped in himself by water we dare not unwrap—nor let dry out by neglect. This includes dumping the cross placed upon us because we think it’s just too bothersome to carry any longer.

We tire too easily of our crosses. We craftily manipulate the Law to suit our desires, and then we employ the Gospel to justify our sins. We flip and flop, exerting much energy trying to breathe, not really noticing that the font in which we are supposed to be flourishing is actually drying out. Woe to the one who actually leaps from the font, imagining from the desires of his heart that his life will be better outside it (2Pe 2:21).

Absolution—ever notice how wonderfully wet a word that is?—is tied to baptism. It plunges us once more into the depths of cleansing baptismal waters, wrapping the penitent once again in Christ. Absolution is a return to the cross for the sake of freedom from sin, but there is no escaping the cross that is to be borne for the sake of others. That is the life of the baptized: We are freed from the cross in order to bear the cross for others.

In Christ the playing field is leveled—even when it comes to the devotion of spouses bearing crosses for each other in their marriage. It is only sin that “unlevels” the field, makes it all unfair. In baptism—in Christ—what is done for one is done for Christ himself.

St. Patrick and The Gang

Every at this time my class schedule begins to open up. We are in the fourth quarter and the end of the school year is near. March Madness has a different connotation. Spring fever hits hard.

We gained a new student in January, one who returned to us after three years in public school. He has turned the Troublemint Twins into a trio. He announced one day that he was the “mastermind” and his intention was to have the others as “henchmen.” The gang thinks that because it is March they must wear green every day. He who does not must be pinched. The one who came up with this idea is the lead pincher himself. The Pinching Machine was devilishly active for the first two days of March, not even respecting the wearing of the green. I nipped his little pincers yesterday when I told him that St. Patty’s Day was only one day out of the whole of March—and during Spring Break when he and his gang would be at home terrorizing parents and grandparents, not at school—so his two digits best remain to himself or he’d suffer consequences he hadn’t yet dreamed of. His little hand relaxed. Wise move. He’s a quick learner.

For all his wildness the kid’s a lot of fun. As soon as February ended he was excited about March. He danced into the room with a jig and wanted to know if we could speak “Scottlish” all month. He asked questions about St. Patrick, whether we would learn about him. Of course we would, I told him. And leprechauns, and post of gold, too? No, we don’t talk much about those things.

We learn about St. Patrick himself. He is a good saint with which to acquaint children—not so much as a model and an example, but for his writings. Patrick’s Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus, The Lorica (or Breastplate), and his Confession are excellent study resources for children to learn how others have confessed their Christian faith. While Patrick is not necessarily an easy read, he is worth the effort. For the well-catechized child, his words are not only familiar; they prove also to contain the true treasure for which his day is remembered. It is not with gold and silver that Christ rescues us in and from this world, but with his holy precious Body and Blood.

Good resources for teaching St. Patrick are Fr. Tommy Lane and Love to Learn Place. Fr. Lane has a short homily that includes biographical details. Love to Learn is a homeschooling resource I recently discovered and will be utilizing in the future. On that link are Patrick’s Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus, The Lorica (or Breastplate), and his Confession along with study guides. Each is available in .pdf file. All look to be excellent for both at home or in classroom study.