My cousin and Haiti

To anyone (or everyone?) who reads this thing: Please keep my cousin Kat, and her boyfriend and friend, in your prayers as she goes down to Haiti this Friday to serve the people suffering there. I definitely admire this act of courage and mercy, and I wish I could go myself. Here is the link to her blog for those interested:

Helping Haiti Heal

Overheard in the Public Square...

...well, sort of a "square." It was definitely in public though! Today, as I do a couple times a week, I was reading for an hour or two over at the coffee house just off campus, Kaldi's. Kaldi's is your typical hipster style coffee shop, but man oh man do they have some good coffee! And they also have some really nice people working there, and a ton of customers.

Today as I was reading for Confessions II, a large group settled in behind me as I was sitting on a stool looking out the window to the street with Concordia Seminary's campus in the background. I'm not sure what this group was all about, usually groups will come in to meet about class projects or something since the area is also home to Fontbonne University and Washington University. But as they settled in my ears perked up because one of the girls asked what that place was across the street. The reply was, "Concordia. Concordia Seminary." End of conversation. That did not bother me as much as it does now until I heard another exchange a little bit later on.

Their conversation turned to a situation where one of the older women with them mentioned the popular Christian band/ministry Hillsong United. The woman found their "recruiting" tactics and soliciting of funds a bit offensive. Unfortunately since I'm really there to read and not eavesdrop on people's conversations I tend to miss how these things start. But then it went into a full table conversation about Christians and their evangelism methods. There were things said like, "I don't think you should actively recruit for your religion," and that Christians are "cult-like." As if that wasn't rough enough to hear one of the guys told a story about a friend who went from not a Christian to converting to Christianity. Upon his conversion he cut off all communication with former friends because they were "sinners." But he didn't stop there, he also broke up with his girlfriend.

Laughter ensued. Laughter. Christians are irrelevant.

The book I was reading for Confessions II was on Luther's Catechisms as a way for teaching even in a 21st century context. I'm buying into the idea because Kolb, who teaches the course, and Arand, who wrote the book, are the type of guys who get it. But this still poses a tough challenge.

How do we catechize a culture in which Christian's (1) portray a negative image of themselves? and (2) are laughed off, seen as out of touch, and irrelevant?

This is a huge problem. Christians themselves have by and large created the stumbling blocks. It could very well be argued that this is mostly the fault of American Evangelicalism and not evangelical and catholic Lutheran Christians. But LUTHERANS are largely irrelevant to society. "What's that place?" Yeah, maybe it was an innocent question, but it speaks to a larger issue. Why don't people know who we are? Lutherans have to give a faithfully confessional witness in the public square. No more secrets.

(Note: I was overzealous about posting the Commandments, I will return to that at some point in the near future)

"What's that place?" I want people to know.

The Ten

In the Lutheran tradition the Ten Commandments are used for Christian instruction and teaching. The reason they are used is because of their reflection of the natural law which is written upon the hearts of all people. Over the next few days I will post on the The first 3 commandments. These deal with issues in relation to God specifically. In Luther's Small Catechism there is a formula for how to instruct people in the Ten Commandments. Luther puts each commandment from the scripture out there and then answers, What does this mean? In that section Luther gives us an interpretation of what the commandments mean. This is very helpful for instructing those in the Christian faith why the commandments should matter even to us this day. We are not saved by keeping the commandments, yet Christians show their fruits by performing works of the Law. These works are given to us by God himself (Ephesians 2:10).

In my Confessions II course I have to memorize the Ten Commandments, and their explanations (this is the more difficult task). So mostly for my own edification, but maybe even for yours I am going to be making posts on the Ten Commandments. Today we start with Commandments 1. Luther also has some pretty cool insights from his Large Catechism (we're so creative aren't we?), which I will be posting as I see fit. The text of the commandments is from Exodus (the 2nd book of the Old Testament), Chapter 20, verses 7, 8, and 12-17. You may notice some commandment order differences, for our purposes the commandments are ordered the way that I am ordering them (according to the Small Catechism), but I wanted to let you know of the slightly different ordering found in Exodus 20 incase you wanted to play along from home.

Commandment 1:

You shall have no other gods

What does this mean? We should fear, love, and trust in God above all things.

My commentary: One thing that will be noticeable is Luther employs this "We should fear and love God" formula for all of his explanations. The explanations commandments 2-10 begin "We should fear and love God so that..." Commandment 1 is the only one that does not include "so that." What is Luther aiming at here by saying "We should fear, love, and trust in God above all things?"

Large Catechism: A "god" is the term for that to which we are to look for all good and in which we are to find refuge in all need. Therefore, to have a god is nothing else than to trust and believe in that one with your whole heart. As I have often said, it is the trust and faith of the heart alone that make both God and an idol. If your faith and trust are right, then your God is the true one. Conversely, where your trust is false and wrong, there you do not have the true God. For these two belong together, faith and God. Anything on which your heart relies and depends, I say, that is really your God.

The intention of this commandment, therefore, is to require true faith and confidence of the heart, which fly straight to the one true God and cling to him alone. What this means is: "See to it that you let me alone be your God, and never search for another." In other words: "Whatever good thing you lack, look to me for it and seek it from me, and whenever you suffer misfortune and distress, crawl to me and cling to me. I, I myself, will give you what you need and help you out of every danger. Only do not let your heart cling or rest in anyone else."

Book of Concord (Kolb/Wengert), Large Catechism, pp.386-387

Saint John

A punk junior in high school was loitering in his churches narthex one Sunday between worship services when an older and wiser member of the congregation stood before him and said, "So, I hear you are considering the pastoral ministry?" The punk junior in high school replied, "Yeah I'm keeping all of my options open, but it's kind of funny how this idea just recently popped into my head." The older, wiser member took his hands, placed one on the punk's shoulder, and pointed with his index finger to his head with the other hand and while smiling said, "It didn't just pop in there, it was put there."

Some months later the punk junior in high school was having a bit of a crisis of faith. It wasn't like him to miss church, he had pretty much gone every week of his life. But due to the "pressures" of high school, and this thought that God had placed in his head, he was having trouble sorting things out. Questions like, "Why does God want me to do this?" and "Why can't I just be normal?" intruded upon his conscience. He felt the struggle of desiring a life of service in the ministry with a teenage boy looking to enjoy life. A long standing "church-boy," as some previous Sunday School and Confirmation students used to kid him, had missed a month of Sunday services and was not going on his youth group's summer trip. But there he found himself inside that same churches narthex again peering through the stain glassed windows of the "front door" as the sun was setting when that same older and wiser man entered.

"So, Matt, what are your thoughts on the pastoral ministry?"

Aside from my immediate family if there was one person I wanted to be at my ordination it was John Woods. I'm merely a first year seminarian and John has gone to be with his Lord. This was not the only time Deacon Woods helped me along in my faith. He was my 5th grade First Communion instructor, my 6th grade Sunday School teacher, he was present at the Tuesday Morning men's bible studies I frequented up to late this past summer, and he was a great casual conversation partner. His sermons were long, often too long, but he spoke of God's incredible grace every time. He cared deeply about Christ's church and took seriously his commitment as a deacon, literally a servant, in any way the church needed him.

He lost his wife a while ago to cancer and you could tell that always hurt him, but he pressed on knowing and trusting ever more that one day again he would see his wife, Janice. And even more than that he knew that his life's work was not in vain, because he would one day see his Lord that he trusted in.

That day has come. John struggled greatly the last 6 months as life took a physical toll on him. And it is a great comfort to know that he is at rest with Jesus. But it would be misleading, even dishonest, to say that he is now at home. It would be robbing him of the promise he received from God in his baptism to say he is now whole. John rests comfortably with the Church Triumphant but he is not home and he is not whole. This servant of God now awaits in heaven with all the saints the day that will come when the trumpets sound and Christ raises the dead.

In the Gospel that bears his name there is a scene where Jesus' good friend, Lazarus, dies. As Jesus and His disciples are approaching to Lazarus' home in Bethany, Lazarus' sister Martha runs up ahead to meet Jesus and says, "Lord, if you had been here my brother would not have died. But even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give to you." Jesus replied, "Your brother will rise again." Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day." Jesus said to her, "I Am the resurrection and the life..."

Jesus actually went on to bring Lazarus back from the dead that day. But later on Lazarus would die again. All human beings die. It is mistakenly called a natural part of life as though the Author of life would have death reign. Well, the Author of life would not have death reign. Before the foundation of the world Jesus was the resurrection and the life. Those who are in faith, though they may die, will live forever. This is not simply a disembodied soul that floats about in some distant reality called heaven forever, no it is more than that.

Don't get me wrong, John and all the saints are in heaven, but this is not the end. Through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ death no longer reigns, Christ reigns. He reigns currently from heaven awaiting the signal from the Father that the time has come to restore creation. Jesus is coming again, and all the dead will be raised.

When I found out last week that Deacon Woods was very ill I selfishly hoped he would hold on until I came home, which is next week (2/20). When he taught First Communion classes he would bring us to the altar and have us ponder its significance. He confidently and boldly told us that during that sacrament, you are never closer to God on earth than in that moment. At that sacrament you are also joined with all the saints, from around the world, and in heaven. Holy Communion is a foretaste of the feast to come in the resurrection. So although I won't be able to visit with John at his house or even in the pews, halls, or rooms of Trinity Lutheran Islip, I confidently and boldly go to that altar knowing that in that sacrament I receive the very physical presence of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sins. And even more than that I visit with John, and all the saints, in that glorious foretaste of the feast still to come.

God's rest and peace to a man who was a sinner and a saint, and has shed the former to live in the latter forever, +Saint John Woods

We Shall Not Weary

Like I said, absolute Neuhaus kick right now...and on this solemn anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision on January 22, 1973 I share with you the words of a tireless defender of "the least of these."

Here is an article from remarks he delivered to the convention of the National Right to Life Committee in July 2008. Especially personal to me are these words:

The culture of death is an idea before it is a deed. I expect many of us here, perhaps most of us here, can remember when we were first encountered by the idea. For me, it was in the 1960s when I was pastor of a very poor, very black, inner city parish in Brooklyn, New York. I had read that week an article by Ashley Montagu of Princeton University on what he called “A Life Worth Living.” He listed the qualifications for a life worth living: good health, a stable family, economic security, educational opportunity, the prospect of a satisfying career to realize the fullness of one’s potential. These were among the measures of what was called “a life worth living.”

And I remember vividly, as though it were yesterday, looking out the next Sunday morning at the congregation of St. John the Evangelist and seeing all those older faces creased by hardship endured and injustice afflicted, and yet radiating hope undimmed and love unconquered. And I saw that day the younger faces of children deprived of most, if not all, of those qualifications on Prof. Montagu’s list. And it struck me then, like a bolt of lightning, a bolt of lightning that illuminated our moral and cultural moment, that Prof. Montagu and those of like mind believed that the people of St. John the Evangelist—people whom I knew and had come to love as people of faith and kindness and endurance and, by the grace of God, hope unvanquished—it struck me then that, by the criteria of the privileged and enlightened, none of these my people had a life worth living. In that moment, I knew that a great evil was afoot. The culture of death is an idea before it is a deed.

Whatever you do to the least of these...

The least of these. Society generally deems the "least of these" to be those who are poor and destitute. I think that's a fine definition, but is this definition complete? I would argue that definition is not complete. Maybe it really isn't even a "definition." But generally when people talk about the "least of these" they are referring to the disenfranchised of society. Those human beings who have been treated as less than human. The abolitionists and other anti-slavery groups of the 19th century would definitely define those being used as property by other humans beings, and being counted as less than human in the ruling law document for this country, as the least of these. The Supreme Court in the Dred Scott Decision of 1857 definitely made the claim that African Americans were less than human according to the Constitution of the United States of America. An abominable claim if there ever was one.

In 1973 the Supreme Court made another decision and based it on the Constitution. Human fetuses, babies in the womb, have no Constitutional right. The right is only there for the mother carrying that child. Human fetuses, developing or fully developing human beings, are less than human. The thing that rules the day is not humanity in the collective sense, but the one individual's "right." An abominable claim if there ever was one.

I'm on a Neuhaus kick as of late. I found this article from October 2009 to be most helpful in sorting out this situation. Here are a few paragraphs from the above linked article that get at the heart of the problem.

No other question cuts so close to the heart of the culture wars as the question of abortion. The abortion debate is about more than abortion. It is about the nature of human life and community. It is about whether rights are the product of human assertion or the gift of "Nature and Nature’s God." It is about euthanasia, eugenic engineering, and the protection of the radically handicapped. But the abortion debate is most inescapably about abortion. In that debate, the Supreme Court has again and again, beginning with the Roe and Doe decisions of 1973, gambled its authority, and with it our constitutional order, by coming down on one side.

The result is the Court’s clear declaration of belligerency on one side of the culture wars, endorsing the radically individualistic concept of the self-constituted self. In the Casey decision, for instance, it waxed metaphysical in its assertion that the unlimited abortion license is necessary in order “to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.” (Such philosophical speculation, bear in mind, is made by lawyers presumably interpreting the Constitution.) Not only does authentic personhood require freedom from the state, but also freedom from other potentially encumbering communities. From spouses, for example. The Court struck down the requirement that fathers be notified before mothers get an abortion. That, it is said, would be an “undue burden.”

The Court has from time to time cautioned against the state establishment of a “civic religion.” The same justices seem to be blithely unaware, however, that in Casey and other rulings they are in fact asserting and endorsing a philosophy of at least quasi-religious status. Addressing the “concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life” crosses into those “ultimate concerns” by which religion is ordinarily defined. Against alternative understandings of the self in relation to community, normative truth, and even revelation, the Court recognizes no other reality than the isolated individual defining his or her reality.

I especially like the last paragraph I posted just above here. It shows what the real issue is here. The Court in this ruling is establishing a sort of religious philosophy, and the decisions, as was the case in the Casey Decision in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey in 1992, are some quasi religious philosophical reasons for why abortion or "choice" is necessary. The Court(s) and others assert this understanding that goes beyond the realms of legality and secularity that a human is an individual autonomy. And in the case of abortion the mother who is living, but outside the womb of her own mother, is more human than the developing (or developed) human being, who is living, but inside the womb of his/her own mother.

In actuality what we have here is the Supreme Court and our individually autonomous society asserting the same decision as the Dred Scott one in two ways

1) The Court takes one side and demands everyone follows

2) Certain human beings are less than human

This is tragic. Is this really Liberalism? Is this really Libertarianism? Can we be beholden by such labels as Conservative/Liberal, Republican/Democrat, Theistic/Atheistic, etc., or at some point in the given moment of time are we all actually human beings? I'm a Conservative, registered Republican, and a confessional Lutheran, but when I see someone on the street who is poor I don't give them a background check to see if they match my worldview in order to give them help. I help my neighbor because I am a creature created by God, and redeemed by God, I serve my neighbor because it's the right thing to do. In the same vain I don't stand and speak against abortion because I am a Conservative Republican Lutheran. I make my stand because that is a human being, my neighbor, and Jesus told me to look out for the least of these.

Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Earlier this morning (last night) I posted a little chunk from an article/talk delivered by the sainted Father Richard John Neuhaus. While a Lutheran pastor is Brooklyn, NY during the 60's Father Neuhaus became heavily involved in the Civil Right's movement. He knew Dr. King, he worked with Dr. King. The congregation he served was The Lutheran Church of St. John the Evangelist in Williamsburg. I had the pleasure of interning there last summer.

Dr. King was and IS an important figure for American politics, African Americans, and the church. His impact is beyond words. Heres a link to a video that shows that influence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0FiCxZKuv8&feature=related