Sunday, May 5, 2024

Its Easter!

While it is still Easter for those in the West, for those in the East, Easter is today.  While most years the distance between the dates is smaller, this year it is very significant.  In 2024, the Christian world of the rest celebrated Easter on March 31 but the Orthodox celebrate Easter today, May 5.  The difference is due to the fact that most Orthodox churches use the Julian calendar introduced by Julius Caesar in 45 B.C. and the West uses the Gregorian calendar introduced by Gregory XIII’s 1582 papal bull Inter Gravissimas (“Among the Greatest Concern”).  Developing an accurate calendar is not a simple task since the time it takes the earth to make a complete revolution around the sun cannot be neatly organized into days and months. Such a revolution takes nearly a quarter of a day longer than 365 days, so every calendar has had to adjust for this difference or be increasingly off year after year.  Both the Julian and Gregorian calendars were efforts to account for the movements of the sun and the moon, with the Gregorian calendar being the more successful effort to do so.

Easter, the celebration of the resurrection of Our Lord, is the most important feast of all liturgical times but from the earliest centuries, the Christian churches celebrated it on different dates. The First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea of 325 determined to resolve the issue by decreeing that the universal Church would celebrate Easter on the first Sunday after the full moon following the beginning of Spring.  By this reckoning, the earliest possible date for Easter could be March 22 and the latest April 25.  The Julian calendar used at that time missed the calculation of the year by 11 minutes and 14 seconds.  Although the Church was aware of this fault, they attempted to follow the Council of Nicaea anyway.   To correct the problem, Pope Gregory XIII removed 10 days from the calendar in 1582 so folks went to bed Oct. 4 and woke up Oct. 15.  The Julian calendar trails behind the Gregorian calendar about 13 days (slowing increasing to 14 days in 2100).

Roman Catholic countries tended to follow the new calendar right away; Protestant countries began adopting it in the 1700s, including colonial America in 1752.  The holdouts in the East included Russia, which remained on the Julian calendar until 1917, and Greece, which remained on the Julian calendar until 1923.  No one likes the difference.  Both Pope Francis and the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew seem to be supportive of a common date but the problem is exacerbated by divisions within the Orthodox church community (in 2018 the Russian Orthodox Church severed ties with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople after Bartholomew sided with the independence of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine).   If it does progress toward an agreement, it is more likely that it will unfold step by step with different Orthodox jurisdictions instead of everyone jumping on board at the same time.

Thought you might want to know. . . 

 

 

 

Saturday, May 4, 2024

Boggles the mind. . .

I read this and put it aside because I could not wrap my head around the size and scope of it all.  Maybe you can comprehend it all.

The debt load of the U.S. is growing at a quicker clip in recent months, increasing about $1 trillion nearly every 100 days.

The nation’s debt permanently crossed over to $34 trillion on Jan. 4, after briefly crossing the mark on Dec. 29, according to data from the U.S. Department of the Treasury. It reached $33 trillion on Sept. 15, 2023, and $32 trillion on June 15, 2023, hitting this accelerated pace. Before that, the $1 trillion move higher from $31 trillion took about eight months.

How much is a trillion dollars?   If you were to spend $1 million every day, it would take approximately 2700 years to spend one trillion dollars.  A trillion is a million million for both American and modern British English definitions. A trillion dollars is a million dollars multiplied by a million. Or if you prefer, a thousand billion. It has 12 zeroes: 1,000,000,000,000. Makes your eyes cross, doesn't it?  A trillion seconds is 31,688 years.  If $1 million in $100 dollar bills stacks up to 40 inches (3.3 feet: kind of underwhelming to look at, really!), and $1 billion is 40,000 inches (that's 0.63 miles high: much more impressive!), $1 trillion in $100 dollar bills is 40,000,000 inches high, which is 631 miles. On an average annual income of around $50,000, saving a trillion bucks (with no expenditures) would take 20,000,000 years.

Oddly enough, there are people who think that God is not real because you cannot understand Him.  Gosh, how do understand a trillion dollars?  Does that mean it is not real, either?

Friday, May 3, 2024

The Sign of the Cross. . .

 I have had a number of folks insist that the sign of the cross is not quite Lutheran standard practice and represents a restoration of something Luther did not intend to keep.  Well, read it and weep.

Martin Luther on the Practice of
Making the Sign of the Cross

In the morning, when you rise, you shall make the sign of the holy cross, and you shall say: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Then, kneeling or standing, you shall say the Apostles’ Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. (“Prayers for Daily Use,” The Small Catechism, An Explanation of Dr. Martin Luther’s Small Catechism [Mankato, Minnesota: Evangelical Lutheran Synod, 2001], p. 26)

In the evening, when you go to bed, you shall make the sign of the holy cross, and you shall say: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Then, kneeling or standing, you shall say the Apostles’ Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. (“Prayers for Daily Use,” The Small Catechism, An Explanation of Dr. Martin Luther’s Small Catechism [Mankato, Minnesota: Evangelical Lutheran Synod, 2001], p. 26)

To defy the devil, I say, we should always keep the holy name upon our lips so that he may not be able to harm us as he would like to do. For this purpose it also helps to form the habit of commending ourselves each day to God – our soul and body, spouse, children, servants, and all that we have – for his protection against every conceivable need. This is why the Benedicite, the Gratias, and other evening and morning blessings were also introduced and have continued among us. From the same source comes the custom learned in childhood of making the sign of the cross when something dreadful or frightening is seen or heard, and saying, “Lord God, save me!” or, “Help, dear Lord Christ!” and the like. (Large Catechism I:72-74, The Book of Concord, edited by Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000], pp. 395-96)

[Psalm 118:]5. Out of my distress I called on the Lord; the Lord answered me and set me free. ... You must never doubt that God is aware of your distress and hears your prayer. You must not pray haphazardly or simply shout into the wind. Then you would mock and tempt God. It would be better not to pray at all, than to pray like the priests and monks. It is important that you learn to praise also this point in this verse: “The Lord answered me and set me free.” The psalmist declares that he prayed and cried out, and that he was certainly heard. If the devil puts it into your head that you lack the holiness, piety, and worthiness of David and for this reason cannot be sure that God will hear you, make the sign of the cross, and say to yourself: “Let those be pious and worthy who will! I know for a certainty that I am a creature of the same God who made David. And David, regardless of his holiness, has no better or greater God than I have.” There is only one God, of saint and sinner, worthy and unworthy, great and small. Regardless of the inequalities among us, He is the one and equal God of us all, who wants to be honored, called on, and prayed to by all. (“Psalm 118,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 14 [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1958], pp. 58,61)

This is how it works. You denounce a man for his unbelief and greed, and you hold the First Commandment up to him (Ex. 20:3): “You shall have no other gods before Me.” That is, “You shall not attach your heart, your desire, and your love to anyone else but Me.” And he refuses to hear that denunciation or to stand for it. He starts ranting and raving against it, until in his heart there is bitterness and venomous hatred against the Word and its preachers. That is why the text of the Ten Commandments contains the threat (Ex. 20:5): “I am a jealous God, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children of those who hate Me.” He is talking about these very same greedy bellies and Mammon-servers, for Scripture calls greed “idolatry,” or the worship of idols (Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:5). And yet, as we have said, they lay claim to titles like “the greatest of saints” and “enemies of idolatry and heresy”; and they absolutely disclaim the title “haters of God.” But they are convicted by their inability to hear or see the Word of God when it attacks their greed, and by their insistence that they get off without any denunciation. The more they are denounced and threatened, the more they deride and mock, doing whatever they please to spite God and everyone else. Now, is that not a horrible disease and an abominable sin, one that should terrify us so that we hate Mammon from the heart, make the sign of the cross against him and run away as from the devil? Who would not be terrified to fall into this and to hear this judgment spoken over him? (“The Sermon on the Mount,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 21 [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1956], pp. 190-91)

...God does not desire that you should learn from the dead and seek the truth from them. He wants to be your living, abundant, and satisfying teacher himself. You must cling to his word. He knows well what he ought to tell you about the living and the dead, for he knows all things. What he does not tell you or refuses to say, you should not seek to know, but do him so much honor as to believe that he realizes it is neither necessary nor useful nor good for you to know. So you should happily and gladly cast to the winds all this swindle of the spirits and not be afraid of them; doubtless they will then also depart from you in peace. If you should have a poltergeist and tapping spirit in your house, do not go and discuss it here and there, but know that it is not a good spirit which has not come from God. Cross yourself quietly and trust in your faith. (“Sermon for the Festival of the Epiphany,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 52 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974], pp. 178-79)

...how do I approach this Savior and Redeemer? By means of cowls or monastic orders and rules? No! Just cling to the Son in faith. He conquered death and the devil, and He slit the devil’s belly open. He will reign and rule again, even though He was crucified under Annas and Caiaphas. Therefore attach yourself to Him, and you will tear through death and devil; for this text [John 3:15] assures us: “Whoever believes in Him shall have eternal life.” Accept the truth of this miracle of God’s love for the world, and say: “I believe in the Son of God and of Mary, who was lifted up and nailed to the cross.” Then you will experience the new birth; for death and sin will no longer accuse, harm, and injure you. Whoever believes in the Son will have eternal life. Cling to His neck or to His garment; that is, believe that He became man and suffered for you. Cross yourself and say: “I am a Christian and will conquer.” And you will find that death is vanquished. In Acts 2:24 St. Peter says that death was not able to hold Christ, since deity and humanity were united in one Person. In the same way we, too, shall not remain in death; we shall destroy death, but only if we remain steadfast in faith and cling to death’s Destroyer. (“Sermons on the Gospel of St. John,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 22 [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1957], p. 356)

I have also read of a number of people who, when persistently assailed by the devil, crossed themselves and spoke these words: “The Word became flesh” [John 1:14], or the equivalent: “I am a Christian!” with the result that the devil was beaten and put to flight and their peace of mind was restored. And I believe this to be true, so long as the words are spoken from a believing heart. Little is gained against the devil with a lengthy disputation; but a brief word and reply such as this is effective: “I am a Christian, of the same flesh and blood as my Lord Christ, the Son of God. You settle with Him, devil!” Such a retort would soon make him depart. It is certain that if anyone could speak these words “And the Word became flesh” in true faith and with strong confidence in hours of the greatest temptation, he would be delivered from his trouble and distress; for the devil fears these words when they are uttered by a believer. I have often read and also witnessed it myself that many, when alarmed and distraught, spoke these words “And the Word became flesh” and at the same time made the sign of the cross, and thereby routed the devil. Belief in these words was so powerful that it overcame the world and the devil. (“Sermons on the Gospel of St. John,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 22 [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1957], p. 106)

...we dare not trifle with the sacraments. Faith must be present for a firm reliance and cheerful venturing on such signs and promises of God. What sort of a God or Savior would he be who could not or would not save us from sin, death, and hell? Whatever the true God promises and effects must be something big. But then the devil comes along and whispers into your ear, “But suppose you received the sacraments unworthily and through your unworthiness robbed yourself of such grace?” In that event cross yourself and do not let the question of your worthiness or unworthiness assail you. Just see to it that you believe that these are sure signs, true words of God, and then you will indeed be and remain worthy. Belief makes you worthy; unbelief makes you unworthy. (“A Sermon on Preparing to Die,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 42 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969], pp. 109-10)

...we know and have no other sacrifice than that which he [Christ] made on the cross, on which he died once for all as the Epistle to the Hebrews [9:12,26] says, and thereby put away the sins of all men and also made us holy for eternity. That, I say, is our gospel, that Christ has made us righteous and holy through that sacrifice and has redeemed us from sin, death, and the devil and has brought us into his heavenly kingdom. We have to grasp this and hold it fast through faith alone. ... Now if this gospel is true, then everything that offers another way or another sacrifice must be false. But in the mass the papists do nothing but continually ride the words “we offer up, we offer up” and “these sacrifices, these gifts.” They keep completely quiet about the sacrifice that Christ has made. They do not thank him. Indeed, they despise and deny his sacrifice and try to come before God with their own sacrifice. ... The good Christ is not pleasing to the Father unless the holy canon comes and makes him pleasing, in that the offering reconciles him with God. And so again Christ is dead and of no avail, since only the work is supposed to forgive sins and obtain favor with God so that he is gracious to Christ and to us. You see, there you have heard the holy secret mass, so that you may know what it is and may be shocked by it and may cross yourself as you would before the devil himself. ... Therefore, dear Christians, let us flee from such an abomination... (“The Abomination of the Secret Mass,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 36 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959], pp. 313,327-28)

... I am not contending against the sacrament but against the mass, and would like to separate the sacrament from the mass so that the mass might perish and the sacrament alone, without the mass, might be preserved in its honor and according to the ordinance of our dear Lord Jesus Christ. May God grant to all devout Christians such hearts that when they hear the word “mass,” they might be frightened and make the sign of the cross as though it were the devil’s abomination; on the other hand, when they hear the word “sacrament” or “Lord’s Supper,” they might dance for pure joy, indeed, in accordance with genuine spiritual joy, cry sweetly. For I am very fond of the precious, blessed Supper of my Lord Jesus Christ in which he gives me his body and blood to eat and to drink even bodily with my own mouth along with these exceedingly sweet and kind words: “Given for you, shed for you,” etc. I am the more hostile and angry about the mass, because the papists have thereby arrogated the holy sacrament to themselves alone, have taken it from [Christians] and robbed Christians of it, and have made a business of it and yet have woven both into one another so inseparably when they provide it for Christians at Easter time, that the common man is unable to distinguish between the mass and the sacrament. ... Yet they are not one and the same thing. It is the mass when I sacrifice the sacrament to God for my sins and the sins of others as a work performed by human beings (whether they be evil or godly). This they have to acknowledge. It is the sacrament when I receive from the priest the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine. (“A Letter of Dr. Martin Luther Concerning his Book on the Private Mass,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 38 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971], pp. 226-27)

I only desire to have the conscience free and to have all Christians make the sign of the cross against a faith which believes that the pope is right in his rule. For such a faith destroys faith in Christ and drowns the whole world in nothing but sin and destruction. The pope and you papists are the pious heirs of this sort of thing. You, who do no more than propagate such superstition, seduce the world, destroy Christian faith, and lead all souls to the devil when you should believe only in Christ and preach freedom from human laws so as to remain “ministers of the Spirit” and not “of the letter” [cf. II Cor. 3:6]. (“Answer to the Hyperchristian, Hyperspiritual, and Hyperlearned Book by Goat Emser in Leipzig,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 39 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970], p. 202)

...Peter says, “You are Christ, the Son of the living God” [Matt. 16:16]. Now blessed is he who has this confession of Christ. Reason cannot come this far. This is made known by Christ Himself when He answers Peter and says, “Blessed are you, Simon, son of John. Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in Heaven.” And He says further, “You are Peter (that is, a rock) and upon this rock I will build My church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” [Matt. 16:17-18]. ...that rock is Christ and his Word. For Christ is known only through His Word. ... Upon that Word I then build. ... Therefore “rock” here means nothing else but the Christian evangelical truth, which Christ makes known to me here. By this I ground my conscience upon Christ and against this all other might is ineffectual, even the gates of hell. Without this rock and foundation no other can be laid. As Saint Paul says to the Corinthians, “No one can lay any other foundation apart from that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus” [1 Cor. 3:11]. ... Therefore Christ alone is the rock. Where any other foundation is laid, then make the sign of the cross over yourself, for surely the devil is there to lay it. For this passage cannot be interpreted in any way but only that it speaks of Christ. (Sermon for “The Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, the Holy Apostles,” Luther’s Festival Sermons [Dearborn, Michigan: Mark V Publications, 2005], Church Postils, Summer Section, pp. 89-91)

...clandestine betrothals...deprive God and parents of the obedience due them... Therefore, I am determined that no clandestine betrothal shall be approved, even if the father gives his consent, because that only confirms the work of the devil. From the beginning of the world, the only true way of doing this – among the Gentiles, the papacy, and among us – has been for the parents on both sides to come together and give their children in marriage... Whatever is contrary to this is against God, who has forbidden it, and this method prevailed until the present day among both the Gentiles and the Jews. Afterward came the devil’s head at Rome with his other way of doing it, the devil’s way, which is this: because the son intends to do something honorable, namely, get married, he can do this without the knowledge and consent of his parents, whether father or mother. That is such an evil thing that one can scarcely say it aloud. God says, “Honor your father.” The pope says, “That is not necessary if your intention is to do something honorable.” Consider whether it is God or the pope who speaks properly. God says, “Honor.” The pope says, “No, but I say that you may well [do otherwise],” etc. There make the sign of the cross. (“Sermon for the Second Sunday after Epiphany” [1544], Luther’s Works, Vol. 58 [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2010], pp. 83-84)

In Haggai 2[:6-9] we read: “For thus says the Lord of hosts: once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land; and I will shake all nations, so that the consolation of the Gentiles (chemdath) shall come, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the Lord of hosts. The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, says the Lord of hosts. The splendor of this latter house shall be greater than the former, says the Lord of hosts; and in this place I will give prosperity, says the Lord of hosts.” This is another of those passages which pains the Jews intensely. They...take up and crucify the expression “consolation of the Gentiles,” in Hebrew chemdath... They insist that this term does not refer to the Messiah, but that it designates the gold and silver of all the Gentiles. Grammatically, the word chemdath really means desire or pleasure; thus it would mean that the Gentiles have a desire for or take pleasure and delight in something. ... What do the Gentiles desire? Gold, silver, gems! ... Further, how does it happen that such very intelligent teachers and wise, holy prophets do not also apply the word “desire” (chemdath) to all the other desires of the Gentiles? For the Gentiles desire not only gold and silver but also pretty girls, and the women desire handsome young men. ... Why, then, do the Jews not interpret this verse of the prophet to mean that such desires of all the Gentiles also will shortly come to Jerusalem, so that the Jews alone might fill their bellies and feast on the world’s joys? For such a mode of life Muhammad promises his Saracens. In that respect he is a genuine Jew, and the Jews are genuine Saracens according to this interpretation. ... Therefore, dear Christian, be on your guard against the Jews, who...are consigned by the wrath of God to the devil, who has not only robbed them of a proper understanding of Scripture, but also of ordinary human reason, shame, and sense, and only works mischief with Holy Scripture through them. ... For anyone who dares to juggle the awesome word of God so frivolously and shamefully as you see it done here...cannot have a good spirit dwelling in him. Therefore, wherever you see a genuine Jew, you may with a good conscience cross yourself and bluntly say: “There goes a devil incarnate.” (“On the Jews and Their Lies,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 47 [Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1971], pp. 209-14) Note: When Luther speaks of “a genuine Jew” and “a devil incarnate,” he is not saying that Jewish people as a racial group are devils, but he is referring to the demonic “spirit” that he perceives to be dwelling within false teachers and false prophets (whether Jews or Gentiles) who “juggle the awesome word of God so frivolously and shamefully.” The fact that Luther also calls Muhammad “a genuine Jew” demonstrates that he is using this phrase as a description of someone who adheres to a certain kind of belief system, and not as a description of someone who belongs to a particular ethnic group. At the conclusion of the treatise from which this quotation is taken, Luther says (in regard to the Jews) that he wants his readers “to understand not only that their belief is false but that they are surely possessed by all devils.” He then immediately goes on to express this prayerful wish: “May Christ, our dear Lord, convert them mercifully...” (p. 306).


ADDENDA:

Among all the ancient writers there is indeed frequent mention of the sign of the cross. ...at the time of Tertullian and afterward the Christians with their fingers formed a transverse figure like a cross in the air, and in this way identified themselves. It was...a profession and reminder that they believed in Christ crucified, and that they were placing all their hope and confidence in Him. (Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part IV [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1986], p. 94)

If you are tempted, hasten to sign yourself on the forehead against the devil, provided you make it with faith, not for men to see but knowing how to use it like a breastplate. Then the adversary, seeing the power that comes from the heart, will flee. This is what Moses imaged forth through the passover lamb that was sacrificed, when he sprinkled the thresholds and smeared the doorposts with its blood. He was pointing to the faith that we now have in the perfect Lamb. By signing our forehead and eyes with our hand, we repulse him who seeks to destroy us. (Hippolytus of Rome, “The Apostolic Tradition” [ca. 215 A.D.], in Lucien Deiss, Springtime of the Liturgy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1979], p. 153)

There is a lot of information on the Internet about the practice of making the sign of the cross. Those who write about this practice from a distinctly Lutheran perspective include C. F. W. Walther, Adolph Spaeth, Paul H. D. Lang, Harold L. Senkbeil, John M. Dreyer, John M. Dreyer again, Richard A. Krause, Karl Weber, Eric Andersen, John Bombaro, and Seth B. Kasten. The Ukrainian Orthodoxy web site, the Signum Crucis web site, Byzantines.net, Virtualology.com, the Christianity Today web site, and Conservapedia offer some interesting historical background on the sign of the cross. The Defenders of the Catholic Faith web site provides many patristic citations on the subject.

HT Angelfire 

Thursday, May 2, 2024

The magisterium of the screen. . .

I wish it were only true that we were captive to our screens for amusement but we are also indebted to them for other things -- some good and some bad.  We can all lament how the noble invention has become a tool for our most prurient interests displaying pornography far more evil that the magazines of old printed on paper.  On the other hand, it is possible for people in remote areas or without immediate access to an in person visit to be seen by medical personnel.  There is another use perhaps more pernicious than images and that is our ability to find the most obscure and odd bits of information and presume because of the screen that we have stumbled upon the greatest wisdom of all.  The reality is that we have come to depend upon the screens as our primary source of information, facts, and opinion -- something even more likely with the increase of AI.  Yet we have not figured out how to weed out the straw from the kernel of grain that has real value.  It is left to each of us to muster our own rationale for why what we read is correct or false and, in most cases, it is less an informed judgment than it is one formed from preference and that which agrees with our instincts.

Nowhere is this more true than when it comes to religious knowledge.  I cannot tell you how many questions come to me because somebody was reading something on the internet and it contradicted catechism and creed but seemed so very authentic and did fit with the questioners own doubts and concerns.  In other words, I thought I might be a heretic until I read something on the internet which agreed with me and know I know I am probably correct and the Church has been wrong for a couple of millenia.  Of course, that is so logical and reasonable that it must be correct, right?  But the fallacy of the internet is that is offers what is presumed to be of equal value with creed and catechism but is merely an oft rehearsed and resurrected heresy that refuses to die.  Or it offers us practices which should be called oddities and aberrations and sets them up as equally reliable with catholic practice.  It does not hurt if the practice accords with what the person knew growing up and so personal experience also weighs in for the value of that piety.   In any case, it is left to the individual to decide what is good, right, and salutary.

Liturgically this works like this.  Every practice over the course of Lutheranism is set up as an equally valid and legitimate one and then the individual picks and chooses among them what fits that person.  The problem is that practices are not always exemplary but may indeed reflect a decline or undo influence from another tradition.  So, I grew up first with Holy Communion quarterly and then monthly before discovering that the Augustana says our practice is weekly -- every Lord's Day.  So which is a more accurate reflection of Lutheranism -- practices that became aberrations to our confessions but normal or those which reflect our primary confession and yet may be a minority today?  Are they all equally valid and Lutheran?

Doctrinally it works like this.  The explanation of the Trinity is either a simple narrative based upon the leaves of clover or the parts of the egg or the apple and its tree or it is seen as an invention foreign to the Old Testament and invented by later Christians.  Is a more modalist or partialist explanation which fits our reason a better way of approaching the mystery of the Godhead or do we dispense with the explanations in favor of none?  I grew up when such images of the Trinity were commonly used to explain the mystery of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and the one God and they seemed perfectly reasonable except that they were wrong.  There is no reasonable explanation for the math of the Holy Trinity no matter how much we want to find one.  Yet we are loathe to let go of the images that fit our want to make God comprehensible simply because they are wrong.

In both of the above cases, we can find an abundance of internet sources to justify why we can choose the error and still be correct.  Then, along comes a pastor who tries to tell us that what we think we know well is not correct and he is the one in the wrong.  The internet cannot lie to us and we believe we have done our homework to figure it all out and besides it fits so well with what we want to believe.  Hmmm, what could be wrong with this picture?

Wednesday, May 1, 2024

Neither one nor the other. . .


Lutherans sitting on the side of the road love to watch the Roman parade go by and to ridicule what we have been objecting to for a very long time.  It is a tedious delight to some.  It is a tiresome repetition that gets old to others.  Under Francis, it has been rather easy sport since he seems determined to muddy what is clear and make clear what is rightfully muddy (meaning complex).  Yet much of what Lutherans complain about is or should be an aberration in Rome, something called ultramontanism.  The term derives from the practice of labeling a non-Italian pope  papa ultramontano – a pope from beyond the mountains (the Alps).  Though it refers to the tension between papal authority and the state authority that lives side by side, it really comes down on the side of papal authority -- absolute papal authority.  It took on steam in the wake of the Reformation but was formalized in Vatican I.  Thus from the 19th century on some conservatives have made something of a hyperpapalism in which both episcopal collegiality and the role of the cardinals has been weakened.  Now, the current pope and his allies seem to capitalized upon this idea and made his papacy among the most authoritarian that has been known.  It has become somewhat of a crisis in Rome.  Suffice it to say, the church is not an autocracy.

That said, Lutherans have not been immune from the tendency to view the structure of churches both local and national as a sort of democracy.  We vote on anything and everything -- though we insist we do not vote on the Word of God.  Sometimes it seems like a bit of semantics to slide out of that one.  We vote on doctrinal resolutions in any case.  We have not quite decided what it means when a vote on our doctrinal stance and its accompanying practice is not unanimous.  We have not quite decided by what threshold such affirmations of what Scripture teaches and we confess ought to pass -- is a simple majority enough to uphold the faithful teaching of the faith?  The modern aberrations of same sex marriage, gender identity, and even women's ordination entered the practice of Lutheranism not because we confessed this as what Scripture has always taught but by a democratic vote deciding that this is what some churches wanted to do.  We vote on calling pastors (simple majority among some and super majority for others).  We vote on the money we will spend, buildings we will build, furniture we will purchase, maintenance we will do, even on excommunications!  We have a long history of voting and yet the church is not a democracy.

We want to make the church into a mirror image of the world -- the monarchical style of the papal system or the democratic style of Lutherans (and most Protestants).  We are, in reality, neither one nor the other.  Our structures should be designed to maintain the faith but not to change it.  Our governance should exist to give integrity to what we believe, teach, and confess but not to change it.  One of the things I struggle with most is how we try to use structures and procedures to make up for what seems a lack of confidence in the Word of the Lord that endures forever or our discomfort with what that Word says.  The only real job of a pope ought to be to maintain the faith and correct the faithful when they err.  The current pope has tightened up the authority but at the same time created confusion where confidence should exist.  The only real job of Lutheran governance is the same -- to maintain the faith and correct the faithful when they err.  Instead, many Lutherans seem more intent upon protecting the structures or changing them than they do standing where we have always stood.  In the end, an ecclesial autocracy and democracy create more confusion than clarity and hinder what ought to be our primary purpose and role.