Laetare: Rejoice in What it is!

Now and again a word or even a phrase hits me right between two firing neurons and literally explodes with excitement and heavenly light. Such occurred on Laetare of this year, the Fourth Sunday in Lent–which was March 22.

The Old Testament reading included Exodus 16:15, “When the people of Israel saw it, they said to one another, ‘What is it?’ For they did not know what it was. And Moses said to them, ‘It is the bread that the LORD has given you to eat.’”

In Hebrew the word for the question asked is "manna," What is it? It’s a double entendre. The question names the thing asked about: Manna? Manna. It’s sort of an Hebraic Abbott and Costello “Who’s on First?” Still, it’s by God’s giving that the question is asked and answered in the first place, so it is God’s happy joke on us.

Manna, is very similar to another question with which we are familiar, Luther’s Was ist das? (What is this?) of his Small Catechism. And this is where it all gets exciting.

After walking around in that huge vast desert the Children of Israel were hungry. So God fed them His way. He sent them bread from heaven. It sustained them in their temporal life, but not eternally. For that another Bread from heaven was needed. Jesus would speak of that later during His ministry on earth (Jn 6:49-58).

As God’s New Israel (He 8:8), the baptized wander in a desert no less vast and huge, no less fraught with dangers and enemies than our forefathers in faith did. They are just as hungry. God feeds them again with His heavenly food. Luther’s catechetical question makes the connection for us. God’s Word comes to us as heavenly bread; we ask,What is this? The answer is a confession according to His Word. Daily bread given; daily bread received. All this in preparation for the Greater Bread to be given and received in the gift of His Son who gives His own Flesh and Blood for us to eat and drink in the bread and wine for the forgiveness of sins.

Was ist das?, What is this? It is Christ, come down from heaven.

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.

Morning Prayer

The more I use it, the less I know it. Even the simplest sections have a depth that defies reaching. Every now and again an opportunity to delve deeper into its riches presents itself, and I find myself in awe of its beauty once more. I’m speaking of the Small Catechism, of course.

Our classroom opening ritual consists of the Invocation, Luther’s Morning Prayer, The Lord’s Prayer (in Greek), the Creed (in Latin), the Pledge of Allegiance, My Country ‘Tis of Thee, and the National Anthem. By then we are ready to pray the Catechism and go to Chapel.

One day last week one of my students was silent during the Morning Prayer. We can’t have any of that, I decided. Instead of fussing at the poor child, I reckoned that he really didn’t know what he was missing out on. It was time to break Luther’s prayer down, bit-by-bit according to good Was ist das? style.

It’s a simple prayer, written for use by the children of God of all ages.

I thank you my heavenly Father, through Jesus Christ, Your dear Son, that You have kept me this night from all harm and danger; and I pray that You would keep me this day also from sin and every evil, that all my doings and life may please You. For into Your hands I commend myself, my body and soul and all things. Let Your holy angel be with me, that the evil foe may have no power over me. Amen.

Introduction:

I thank you my heavenly Father, through Jesus Christ, Your dear Son

God becomes a Father to us through Christ, His Son. It is Christ who revealed God as “ Our Father.” Through Christ we may speak to God as our Father, asking Him whatever we will. He is our Father in Christ; we are His children in Christ.

that You have kept me this night from all harm and danger;

Do we not confess in the First Article of the Creed that our heavenly Father, the God Almighty Creator of heaven and earth defends and protects us against all danger and guards and protects us from all evil?

First Petition

and I pray that You would keep me this day also from sin and every evil

In the Third Petition of the Lord’s Prayer we pray that “God’s will is done when He breaks and hinders every evil plan and purpose of the devil, the world, and our sinful nature, which do not want us to hallow God’s name or let His kingdom come.” Of course, God’s kingdom has already come to the baptized, and none will be snatched away from it (Jn 10:27-28).

that all my doings and life may please You.

When we pray this simple line we do so in accord with the First Petition of the Lord’s Prayer. To hallow God’s name, keep it holy, is to teach His Word in truth and purity so that we, as the children of God, also lead holy lives according to it. Conversely, anyone who teaches or lives contrary to God’s Word profanes the name of God among us. So we pray here that we may not be found among those who profane God, but, rather, in the company of those who glorify His name by our work and speech.


Second Petition
For into Your hands I commend myself, my body and soul and all things.
These words Christ Himself spoke from the cross, “Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, ‘Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!’ And having said this he breathed his last” (Lk 23:46). Our Lord and Savior, ever filling His own mouth with His Father’s Word, was quoting Psalm 31.

5 Into your hand I commit my spirit; you have redeemed me, O LORD, faithful God.

Jesus trusted Himself to His Father for all things, even His death for sins that were not His own. The Father turned away from His own Son on the cross and chose to save mankind. On that day, the First Son came last, and the last sons came first. Then God’s Son was raised from the dead. He who was last is now the firstfruit of the resurrection of the dead, and those who are in Him shall be as He is. So we, too, pray as He did.

Conclusion

Let Your holy angel be with me, that the evil foe may have no power over me.

God sets His angels watch over His own. There are heavenly angels whom God sends for this purpose (Ps 34:7). And then there are other angels God sends for His purposes. For what is an angel but a messenger? And what greater power over the evil one is there than God’s own Word and Christ’s Sacraments, the very living presence of Immanuel? The Office of the Holy Ministry and the angels therein administer to the needs of Christ’s people, that the evil foe may not claim any as his own.

Amen

The blessedness of this word resounds in heaven! Yes and yes again! It shall be so because we are in Christ and He has given these words to us.

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.

Homecoming!

He's home! All of him, too. The whole company arrived at Ft. Campbell shortly before 7:00am yesterday. Johnny called right away, and I asked if he had seen the girls yet. He said they'd arranged for a babysitter because Emi was anxious about school. She's line leader this week. Her birthday was last Sunday. She's five now, so she was line leader all week. She had a job to do. She needed to do it! She'd see Daddy when she got home at lunch time. That would be about the time he was processed through and all formalities were over anyway, so Johnny understood. Lianna was just getting over a bad cold. She didn't need to be out in the cold, damp morning air.




Bless the Lord, all the Lord's creation: praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, angels of the Lord, praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, heavens, praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, all the waters above the heavens, praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, powers of the Lord, praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, sun and moon, praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, stars of heaven, praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, all rain and dew, praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, every wind, praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, fire and heat, praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, cold and warmth, praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, dew and snow-storm, praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, frost and cold, praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, ice and snow, praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, nights and days, praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, light and darkness, praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, lightning and cloud, praise and glorify him for ever!
Let the earth bless the Lord: praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, mountains and hills, praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, every plant that grows, praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, springs of water, praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, seas and rivers, praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, whales, and everything that moves in the waters, praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, every kind of bird, praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, all animals wild and tame, praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, all the human race: praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, O Israel, praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, priests, praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, his servants, praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, spirits and souls of the upright, praise and glorify him for ever!
Bless the Lord, faithful, humble-hearted people, praise and glorify him for ever! Daniel 3: 57- 87

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.

Answering the Big Question

St. Ted posted a comment that was a question. "Can I take you off my prayer list now?" In brief, "Yes."

I knocked out better than a couple of miles in less than 30 minutes today while the kids were pre-occupied with Latin. I couldn't have done that pre-cardiac stent, and would have blamed it on the back (scoliosis) and who-knows-what. I didn't know what was keeping me so tired, and it was quite puzzling. I didn't like it, either. Now I know. Now it's fixed. Now I can keep up.

And no, I didn't nearly collapse afterward, either. I was still rarin' to go for it.

It is bedtime now, though. Morning comes early for me.

Thanks for askin'. Night, night.

Jumping Ship and Joining In

All this talk of late regarding which societies and organizations I might belong to has gotten me thinking I might as well come clean.

I belong to as few of them as I can get away with. I don’t care for them. They add extra Rules & Time to my life—specifically time required keeping up with the Rules for each organization.

I was a member of the Wittenberg Trail for a while. It’s a good place to meet and talk. But I found I had to leave for the same reason I couldn’t comply with my daughter’s and granddaughter’s wishes to be on Facebook or put up a MySpace. It takes time away from other things I need to be doing. There are still some great books I want to read, and it takes me a long time to read. I still have teaching to do, and I can’t be spending a great deal of my home time on the computer instead of with my husband. There is a good reason why I’ve been able to blog to freely this week, the first week of school. So, I’m no longer a member of the WT.

My father taught me early not to join in with cliques. Looking back now that my son’s in the Army I can see how right he was. Army life is filled with cliques, from the Masons to any tiny sub-social group you can imagine. Johnny was in the Navy before he joined the Army. While on the now-decommissioned Belleau Wood, an LHA-3 “Gator Freighter”, he counted no less than five gangs. He’s not a joiner, either, and it’s done him well.

Of course, cliques and gangs are not organizations and associations. I do belong to a select few. I’m a member of the Concordia Deaconess Conference. The women of the CDC are very precious to me. I haven’t been able to attend the annual meetings in quite a long while, so they probably don’t realize that. Their schedule and mine scarcely seem to coincide. While they do have a set of Rules, it is in the form of a Code of Ethics. It’s still Law, but Law in which every Deaconess should be abiding anyway. It simply covers things like being faithful to the altar of Christ, remaining faithful to one's consecration vows, and wearing the Deaconess garb.

I’m also a rostered member of the LCMS because I am a deaconess commissioned in the LCMS. Ma MO considers me to be a Commissioned Minister. She can think what she wants of me, but I’m just a plain old deaconess/teacher. I’m no minister at all. I certainly wish my own Ma would think better of me than that!

The AAA is another membership I hold—don’t leave home without it. I don’t. They came out to the house to fix a tire last month after my granddaughter clipped a storm drain just around the corner and tore a tire. Nice folks.

The Libraries at CTSFW and CSL were both kind enough to give me cards. I’m hold one of CSL’s books hostage until I finish reading it. It’s a doozy!

I’m a member of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Brandon, Mississippi. The Rev. J. Richard Sawyer admits me to the altar there.

When the Augustana Ministerium opened up to laity, I became a member there. Their rules were easy.

I am listed as neither Republican nor Democrat, nor even Independent. I vote whichever way I chose. That may sound ridiculous, but these days even Independents are a block unto themselves.

This week I became a card-carrying member of a new group. After being implanted with this doohickey I’ll need to carry the card for it forever, and ever, and ever, amen.

I'm a member of the Body of Christ. Have been since August 3, 1950. That's why all other memberships are just plain skubalon compared to that (Phil 3:8).

Tree Hugging, Money Loving

A friend of mine passed on an e-News letter from the LCMS. It had a special “Focus on Workers in the Church.”

It was so special. It included a Bible verse, of course. “Other seeds fell on good soil and produced grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.” Matthew 13:8 (ESV)

Too bad the rest of the letter didn’t stay in context with Christ’s parable. Instead we were treated to a piece from Psyche and Spirit titled “The Thing About Trees.”

The short essay invited us to commune with trees and receive the benefits of being in their presence.

Summer is a great time to be outdoors and commune with nature. In the past few years, Japanese researchers have verified what most of us know with certainty - that there are significant psychological benefits to being in the woods. Bless them. But rather than sit at my computer and read their research, I'll try to get outside and find some trees to hang out with so I can experience it myself. Whether being in the forest feels creepy and strange or majestic and inspiring, it is the community of trees, the composite, which helps us feel that we are in the midst of what is greater than ourselves. A community of living things so thick and vast that we fear we could even get lost in it, entering farther and farther into our own and the collective unconscious - the thing of fairytales and great adventures. In our part of the country, many men and women, find greatest peace sitting for hours in tree stands, ostensibly waiting for animals to pass.

Now, this Miss’ippi (Colorado born, Germany raised, Arkansas/Texas livin’, Utah toted, Memphis hailin’) gal don’t need any Japanese researcher to tell her that being outdoors is the best cure for whatever ails her. That’s what God created gardening for—especially azaleas.

And there isn’t anything like a vast Rocky Mountain forest— or a German one like pictured above—to make one aware of what C. S. Lewis called the Numinous Other. He’s the one who is Greater Than Ourselves, who makes the forest feel creepy and strange. We know He’s watching. We can feel Him. But when you get right down to the bare bones of it, the Numinous Other is just more Law. Feeling Him doesn’t bring comfort. He causes the hairs on our neck to rise. We are in awe of Him. We know we don’t want to see Him face-to-face, at least not without a mediator. He isn’t the Savior.

The rest of the LCMS eNews letter had info about financial matters, managing debt and so forth. I can’t fathom that verse Mt 13:8 has anything to do with taking a walk in the woods and financial management, unless it is this way: “Take a walk in the woods, clear your head, and then go clear up your financial management.” Now that's just plain eisegetical silliness.

Jesus' parable and its context and its use in this letter have lost any relationship to each other entirely. Perhaps it’s that 2,000 year gap we’ve got to span. I reckon nowadays that parable refers to sowing money wisely? Maybe this is the new LCMS parable for financial investment:

A church worker took a walk in the woods and examined the beauty of her surroundings. She marveled at how the roots tangled over rocks and broke up the soil before the lofty trees finally took flight to the heavens above. Sitting among the glories of the trees, and the beauties of the flowers, she could feel the soft breeze of the wind. It was almost creepy. Besides, break time was over, so she beat it back to her desk before she got fired.

Duly refreshed, she took another look at her finances. She invested some of her finances in savings accounts where it earned less than prime rate. She invested other money in poorly held stock accounts where they soon failed. Other money she invested in a rising artist who ran off with his homosexual lover and all her investments. Other moneys she invested wisely in secure bonds, some producing at 6.2 over prime, others at 7.9 over prime, and still others at 8.5 over prime. (Gimme a break if I get this wrong. I don’t know financial terminology.)

OK, so is that how we are to read this verse in context with this letter? Otherwise I don’t know how it even fits!

A walk in the forest is a tremendous way to find temporal respite for the body and mind, but it does nothing for the eternal soul. For that, take along a small Bible, too. Meditate on God’s Word while among those things He created. The earth can inform you that there is a Creator; only God’s Word can inform you of your status before Him, and of His intentions toward you in Christ. Then do not separate yourself from the community of saints in worship gathered around the altar of Christ receiving His Gifts in Holy Absolution, Baptism, His Body and Blood through the bread and wine, and in the Word spoken in your ears by the pastor.

Financial matters are managed after one has been first fed from the Tree that gives eternal Life, forgiveness and salvation. Just as our First Parents ate from the fruit of a Tree and died, so now we eat of the Fruit another Tree and live, that of the Cross. Those who are first in Christ make better decisions as Christians. I think this is what the LCMS wanted to say. They just somehow couldn’t find the words for it. They got tangled up in Japanese researchers instead of going to the Source Himself. Whenever Jesus went off by Himself for refreshment by communing with (praying to) Someome, He communed with His Father, not trees. His prayers always began with His Father's Word. There's the lesson to learn from.

Reading Wisely

We’re going to do this one more time. Folks, it’s been a week which God has called me to repentance in more ways than one, and I’m a bit tired tonight. And it is also a week in which it takes me much time to sift things through. Bear with me. So let’s get this straight finally.

Does it matter at all whether the New American is the voice of JBS as long as it publishes the facts correctly and without bias? As for the friend I mentioned who reads the New American, she did know it was from the JBS, contrary to what I presumed. But did it really matter whether the story came from a JBS source or the AP as long as the facts were reported correctly?

I don’t think so. In fact, while that’s important to this particular issue, it’s not so important in all issues. Another dear friend of mine cautioned me years ago, “Learn to argue their case as well as your own.” That simple Aristotelian logic. That can’t be accomplished without reading widely, and from the other person’s own perspective. But beware! It might get you called out as something you aren’t. Don’t take offence, though. It’s simply a misunderstanding on the other person’s part.

I have a whole section on my bookshelves dedicated to feminist literature. When my husband is looking for something to read he knows not to search there. He questions why I purchase “that stuff.” He knows it often makes me angry when I read it. Still, it constantly leads me back to the Gospel because the errors are so glaring. To read those femmies doesn’t make me one, even though folks coming into the house would certainly have cause to suspect it of me by looking at the bookshelves.

I have Gnostic literature, and I’ve read Phillip Pullman’s His Dark Materials. I have another section of my library filled with Eastern Orthodox materials. I read the Ancient Fathers, preferring them over more recent offerings. Still, I’m not turning East (despite my icons!), nor am I an atheist.

I found agreement in my position on temporary restraining orders from a feminist author. She had a different presupposition, of course.

Why should we limit ourselves by what we read? Rather, should we not remain “un-parochial” in our minds by reading as wide a variety of materials as we can? I say this within certain limits, of course. I don’t mean to fill my mind with overtly pornographic or vile materials. But what I do mean to say is that just because a magazine is associated with a certain (politically objectionable) organization does not mean it should not be read. And reading the materials doesn’t mean one will necessarily be tainted with the philosophy of that organization. The ministerial use of one’s reason says that the Holy Spirit first informs what is received according to God’s Word. Therefore, what is read even from secular sources is filtered through the lens of Christ.

So I plan to read widely, and read wisely. And I’ll reference whomever I doggone well want to as long as they have something worthwhile to say, something ridiculous to comment on, or. . . well, you get the point.

Mea Maxima culpa!

Mea Maxima culpa! That’s Latin for “My GREATEST fault.”

In my last post I referenced an article from the New American without researching any further into the background of the New American or any further developments of the case being discussed. On the first point, it turns out that the New American is the voice of the John Birch Society. That’s not an organization I consider to be either reliable or to which I’d have my name attached. I received the article via email from a valued friend and considered it trustworthy on that basis alone. I doubt she even realized the connection with JBS. My failure was in looking any further beyond that.

On the second point, Colleen Nestler’s restraining order against David Letterman was eventually vacated as frivolous. That, too, should have been reported.

However much I failed in these two points, though, they do not detract from the overall message of what I had to convey. Consider these statements:

From ifeminists .com, written by Wendy McElroy,

In Oregon, DivorceNet provides advice on TROs. As in most states, an applicant need only assert a “fear” of violence even if none has occurred. Some applications can be made by telephone.

Wikipedia notes:

Volokh's colleague, David Kopel, used the case as an opportunity to condemn the restrictions Federal Temporary Restraining Orders place on their targets in terms of self-defense, and the “feminist community” that supports such restrictions and encourages “the authorities always to ‘believe the victim’ who complains of intimate partner abuse.’ Kopel believes that the case shows that such restraining orders are issued too readily and are too restrictive.

McElroy strikes at the issue with clarity and acute insight:

The seeming ease with which TROs are issued constitutes a problem for those who wish all restraining orders to be taken seriously. Any court order that can be obtained over the phone by stating a fear, or picked up at Window 3 in a little over an hour, trivializes the process.

But a TRO is not trivial. It is a legal constraint upon another human being’s freedom. It should be issued only in the presence of a real threat. False or frivolous applications should be viewed in the same manner as are false police reports.

False police reports—much like Potiphar’s wife’s report to the palace guards against Joseph—still result in the restraint of a person’s freedoms when they are received as though they are the truth. This is why this issue is one of the Eighth Commandment.

It is sad that we Lutherans no longer read the Apocrypha as often or as eagerly as we once did in Luther’s day. The books serve well as devotional material, to teach the soul and train it well for spiritual warfare. Luther found the story of Susanna a good illustration of the Eighth Commandment, and used it as such in his Catechism.

So while I do not stand by my previous source, I do stand by what I wrote. The facts of Colleen Nestler’s TRO against David Letterman can be verified through several resources. The New American need not be one. I should have also included the conclusion to the story. My apologies for not doing so. But unless convinced I’m wrong on other points, I’ll not apologize for anything else I wrote. There are two sides to every story, no matter who’s telling the tale.

Restraining Original Sin

An article from the New American barely gave me pause. It should have, but it didn’t. In various and sundry ways I was prepared for it.

Along the pathway here and there I was told, “If a woman comes to you and says she has been abused, take it as the truth.” The first time I heard it I took a deep breath, pondered it for a moment, considered my station in life, and let the situation stew for the while. (Don’t let the floor hurt some of you on the way down in your laughter.)

It would be twice more that the same phrase would hit my ears before I was in a position I could respond. “Excuse me. Are we saying that original sin has been suspended in women?”

Ah, the fury that was unleashed by that! Women receive abuse, and that’s the truth. Th-th-th-that’s all folks!

Now, it is a fact that when a woman is abused and finally cries out for help she is in a dire predicament. If she is not believed, more abuse is heaped upon her. Those who would be her helpers now join her abuser as being an offender against her. This is especially painful for women who have suffered familial sexual abuse. Family members who do not believe her instead become her accusers—of tearing apart the family needlessly.

It is also a fact that when a wife has suffered the abuses of her husband she too often requires much courage to escape from him. The circumstances may not be dramatic. They may not always involve children. Yet they always require the courage to confront one’s abuser and demand to be treated better.

So when a woman come forward and says she has been abused, she must be treated as if she is telling the truth. All care and caution must be exercised for her safety, and that of her children. Listen to her, counsel her, provide for her. However, the ear must be an open one, not a closed one.

There is always another person involved, the one she has accused. According to the Eighth Commandment, he deserves a hearing also. I didn’t ask if original sin had been suspended in women just to be a thorn in some folks’ side. The answer I received didn’t settle me. There was an insistence on listening to the women, because “In this case [abuse] no, women never lie.”

I beg to differ, and did. I cited precedence, and the discussion ended. Potiphar’s wife made use of the same deceit (Gen 39:7-15) the New American article warns us against. One of the lies of liberalism is that those who have been abused cannot themselves be abusers. It is also one of the great lies of feminism: Women cannot be abusers, or sexual harassers; they’ve suffered too much of the same from men. In fact, they are the arbiters of the abuse and sexual harassment through its definition, "whenever you feel threatened by another person's authority." I reckon a TV signal is enough of a threat to effect a restraining order.

So the question is still asked: Has original sin been suspended? If so, then Jesus is not needed, for He only came for sinners (Mt 9:13).

Mama Mia!

Yesterday we went out to see Mama Mia! and have dinner out. We’d already seen the latest Batman release—if you’ve not seen it, it’s a good one!

In a word, Mama Mia! was fun. A friend of mine had warned that it was “estrogen-based” and “overflowing with feminist sensibilities.” That wasn’t a surprise. The commercials pretty much gave that one away.

What was a surprise is, given that estrogen-feminist foundation, that Mama Mia! is a classic fairy tale with a bit of a twist. The Grimm Brothers liked to convey truth in their stories. So be cautious when the sisterhood spins a tale for you. It has the classic elements:

Girl is oppressed by evils

Girl is rescued by rich prince who returns to her side

Then a twist:

When the springs poke through the mattress, anything goes.

So let me get this straight… (Oops, gotta watch the use of dot, dot, dot. No double entendres intended here.) The message of feminism now this: The Autonomous Wonder Woman icon (career, babies, big house, husband and all the candy that supports this lifestyle) of feminism is by and large a failure. Does it break apart by middle age, or is it not achieved at all? Sophie rejects not only her mother’s choice of single motherhood, but also reveals the emptiness of one of her “father’s” own marriage because he didn’t enter into it with one to whom he was whole-heartedly committed. Sophie’s (Amanda Seyfried) own capitulation to feminist ideology is revealed later, of course, but that was increasingly expected.

Granted there is an ironic inconsistency in the title “Autonomous Wonder Woman” for someone who has both a husband and children. But if we grant that even among those who consider marriage to be a 50%-50% proposition rather than a 100%-100% vocation, then from the get-go neither is either giving nor receiving the best from the other. Something is always held back, much like Cain with his sacrifice rather than Abel’s with his. Feminism advocates the former, Christianity teaches the latter.

The point that nearly slid by in Mama Mia! was the undercurrent running like a riptide. Donna (Meryl Streep) wants rescue. A proper one is suggested by her friends—from a wealthy male which would put Donna back into the position of every classic attribute of male dominance that traditional feminism openly abhorred (although insidously appreciated). The fact that Donna’s rescuer shares her dream, and has from its beginning, enhances his willingness to rescue her. But that doesn’t answer the essential feminist dilemma. Is autonomy worth sacrificing for the sake of security? Is autonomy only for the young woman?

Apparently when her back is against a mattress with springs poking through it, feminism has two answers. What’s up with that? Same old, same old.

Additional Comment

Ain't it great we have a pastor who requires the daddies to be present for their child's catechesis prior to admittance to the altar, wherever possible?

He's not alone. It's a growing trend among faithful pastors.

Anonymous Fatherhood

A friend sent me the above photo. It was titled “Terror Strikes Harlem.” While there are a variety of socio-political facts that led to this obviously photo-shopped social commentary (the rise in absentee father hood among African-American males in the last decades), there was also a deeper theological commentary hidden within. While perhaps not immediately noticeable in the size of the icon on this blog site, the sign on church in the background identifies it as Lutheran. An alternate title might be, “Terror Strikes Lutheran Catechesis.”

My own children are giggling behind their hands right about now. Their father worked shift work in order to put clothes on their backs, bread in their mouths, and keep a roof over their heads. He was often at work when they came home from school, asleep when they awoke in preparation for an evening shift, and worked days on Sundays. So where was he when it came time to their catechesis? In fact, he often argued that he liked the Navajo way: Children, particularly the males, were best kept under the care of the mother for seven years, and then were sent to their fathers. He changed their diapers and fed them bottles, but right now they can’t remember it. Ain’t that the way of it?

There is a certain wisdom in that Navajo way. For, it perceives that moms stayed near the home and hearth, teaching the littlest ones from the very cradle the ways of the faith while men defended the home and put meat on the table. This is not to say the fathers are absent from or are free to absent themselves from the responsibility of the catechesis of the home. When mothers catechize their children, they are speaking in the stead of their husband and the father of the home—and at his behest and with his blessing. This assumes that father and mother are of one mind with regards to matters of the Faith, and in truth whenever possible, it is the father who leads the catechesis in the home no matter how old the children. Luther gets it right when he heads each Chief Part, “As the head of the family should teach them to his household…” By that he didn’t mean that 1Cor 11:4 is undone as a matter of “quaint Pauline tradition.” Timothy was taught by his mother and grandmother, and Paul commends this (2Ti 1:5). That doesn’t mean that God’s order for households is undone. The Fourth and Sixth Commandments still hold for Christians.

Women’s Lib undid all that, donchaknow. The Pill and abortion and we can control our own bodies because they are ours and not anyone else’s and that entire socio-political machination to sustain it. Set women free to be as depraved as men could be in their lowest instead of being the ones who lifted men up civilizing them. (What an icon of the Church that is! Whoever does not have the Church as his Mother cannot have God as his Father. With the feminization of society and the church, daddies are mommies, mommies are daddies, and God has breasts! That’s not a new Christianity; that’s idolatry.) Now men can wear high heels as well as women and women can show off their bare fannies on the streets as well as men—and their bare breasts—and still cry and weep because the streets are simply NOT SAFE any longer for man, woman, child, nor beast. Modesty is as quaint as that antiquarian Pauline tradition, and as practical as that Germanic monk’s Catechism.

Unless we use it, that is. Daily and much, for we sin daily and much. I cannot encourage it enough. The beauty of it can only be known through its continued use. We break it down into simple “chunks” every day:

M Commandments & Apostles’ Creed

T Commandments & Lord’s Prayer

W Commandments & Baptism

Tr Commandments & Confession

F Commandments & Lord’s Supper

I don’t know the circumstances of the original photograph before it was photo-shopped. I don’t know why those folks were running as they were on the lawn of that Lutheran Church. Perhaps the Ablaze! ™ promoter was coming ‘round? Who knows? Photo-shopped as it is, it’s an icon for us to learn from.

Liturgy, Fatherhood, and Secularism

Pr. Sawyer is leading us through a study of the liturgy on Sunday mornings. It is a Power Point presentation with video. Sunday morning we watched a Shabbat in a Jewish home. The most striking fact of it was how it was the *head* of the household, the *father*, who lead the prayers, and conducted the catechetical meal. It was all quite mindful of Luther's instructions regarding the use of the Catechism, "As the head of the family teach his household..." Liturgy begins in the Divine Service where the Holy Spirit has called and gathered the household of God the Father, the ecclesia, to be taught by the Living Voice of His Son, Christ. But it doesn't remain there. The Liturgy of the Divine Service becomes the service of vocation, Christ in service to neighbor. This is the ecclesia sent out by the Holy Spirit in their daily lives.

With all the hoopla of "Batman" lately, here is a perspective worth noting. It describes well what has become of the sacred office of fatherhood when it is taken outside of God's sacramental use of marriage and the home, and thus in Christ. Alexander Schmemann wrote, “Just as Christianity can– and must–be considered the end of religion, so the Christian liturgy in general, and the Eucharist in particular are indeed the end of a cult, of the ‘sacred’ religious act isolated from, and opposed to, the ‘profane’ life of the community.” Secularism, then, is the end of Christianity.

Teaching the Apochrypa

Do any of you pastors catechize your congregation on the Apochrypha? It would seem to me that if not, once again this is a bit of "lost Confession." By that I mean, what is good and right is lost to the dustpile of history. When attempts to recover it are made, it is done so only with great pain and effort, much like with the recovery of the practice of Private Confession among us.

The Apochrypha is often labeled as "books that don't belong in the canon," when quite properly they *do* belong there, but properly used and understood--just as the antilegomena are. In fact, the antilegomena are called the apochryphal books of the New Testament by some resources (Chemnitz). Other books clearly do not belong in the canon; their heretic influences are so strong inclusion precludes inclusion. Still, the Apochypha *may* be included with caution, and has been. They are considered good books, albeit not entirely reliable. So they may be used devotionally.

So why teach the Apochrypha? First, for the reason stated above. Hebrews 11:35 makes a reference that seems to be resolved only by turning to the story of the seven martyrs in 2Maccabees 7. While a doctrine wouldn't be built from that text (nor would one go to James to begin arguing justification!), it still teaches the Christian what it means to suffer to the point of blood for the sake of one's confession of Christ.

Second, we teach the Apochrypha for liturgical reasons. We have hymns written from its text: Now Thank We All Our God (LSB 895), Sirach 50:24; It Came Upon a Midnight Clear (LSB 366), Wisdom 18:14-15. At the Easter Vigil we sing LSB 931, All You Works of the Lord (Benedicte, omnia opera). The text is from the song of the three young men, which can be found only in the Apochrypha, The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Three Young Men, 35-68. The hymn is listed under "Biblical Canticles." The antiphon for last Sunday and the gradual for tomorrow are both taken from the Apochrypha. We use other words in our worship life which are extra-biblical: the ending to the Lord's Prayer and the Creeds being chief among them. While the words themselves can be found in Scripture, their specific form is not.

I recognize that introducing the Apochrypha in the congregation must be done with patience and delicacy. Still, It is worth the doing for the sake of a greater depth of worship and devotional life in the congregation.

Garden Time at GSLS

This time of year my students are more rowdy than ever. They have Spring fever; they have test (ITBS) fever; and they have end-of-year fishing trip fever. This year I found a project to keep them occupied after the ITBS in the April 2008 issue of Mississippi Gardener (I know all of you get that one!) Hopefully the pictures here will demonstrate enough of what we did so if you want to do it, too, you can.



Here's my happy crew. You will need one of those with what they have in their hands. Also, you will need supplies. We had:

8 curved scalloped-topped cement garden edgers (red)
2 straight scalloped-topped cement garden edgers (red)
3 bags garden and bedding soil
weed fabric
1 flat bedding flowers (we had 36 begonias and one amaryllis)
root stimulator

First we set up our design, which was a fish, an ICHTHUS. The boys knew that we are all little fishes attached to our One Fish, Christ--or, as my oldest student said, "branches living from the larger Branch." After that I scribed the soil with a knife. You don't have to use a knife. Just use something to mark the outside of the dimensions. Then we dug into the soil.


This was so we could set the landscapers into the soil, not merely upon it. That way they'd be solid.

After that, we lined the area with weed fabric.


Here you can clearly see the outline of the ICHTHUS shape. We used the soil dug out from the middle to backfill around the pavers. That way they were stable from the outside. The garden soil we added kept them stable from the inside. We used only three bags of garden and bedding soil to fill our planter. It was even a bit too full!

Here is the final "product" and the proud crew. The amaryllis planted at the center was a gift one of the boys gave me two Christmases ago. It finally bloomed this year. It needed a larger space to grow properly, so we moved it to a new home. They did a great job, and not one dirt fight in all of it!