January 22, 1973   ~   Roe v. Wade

There is but one…ONE…question on which finally the entire debate hangs:  “Is the unborn fetus in the womb a human life, or not?”  If not, then the matter is settled–a woman chooses whether to remove a mole, a finger nail, or fetal tissue:  her body, her choice.  If so (if it IS a human life), then the matter also is settled–within the woman is a distinct human being, possessing its own DNA:  not her body, not her choice.  The issue–complex as it’s sometimes made to seem with talk of ‘reproductive rights,’ ‘trimesters,’ ‘settled case-law’–is really as simple as that:  Is it life, or is it not?  Either way, the issue is settled.

Some plead ignorant–not believing themselves medically or intellectually equipped to answer the question.  Well enough (though a heartbeat exists even at 22 days, and brain waves and fingerprints at 6 weeks, and from conception the fetus does possess its own distinct DNA).  But if one is unsure, wouldn’t logic and human decency insist that he ‘err’ on the safer side?  Consider this:  A man has an old, dilapidated tool shed on his property.  It’s going to prove an inconvenience for him going forward–it’s too expensive to maintain, it wouldn’t provide him the space to live his life in the way wants to live, and family members have been leaning on him to get rid of it.  He’s going to remove it (it’s his property)–the fire department ok’d his burning it down.  As he prepares the site for demolition, someone helping him asks, “Didn’t I see a child in there?”  What should he do?  What would you do?

Since 1973, more than 54 million times the answer has been, “Go ahead and light it.”

There really is but one question:  Is that unborn fetus a human life, or is it not?

To him and to her cut to the heart–near broken at the thought of what is done or left undone, flickering on the verge of despair:  “the blood of Jesus…cleanses us from all sins,” (1 John 1:7).  A “bruised reed He will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench” (Matthew 12:20).

It’s often asserted that the meticulous guarding and care of doctrine impedes the work of the mission of the Church and the saving of lost souls.  Does it?  This particular question hasn’t been submitted for response, but if it had been, perhaps it would have taken the form of the following question…

Question:  There are so many souls that need to hear of Christ and His saving work for them.  Do we need to obsess about having ALL the doctrine right?  Doesn’t that get in the way of the Church’s mission of reaching the lost?

Answer:  C.F.W. Walther, first president of The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod and perhaps the most influential Lutheran figure of the American 19th century, answers that common question well.  His answer is from a sermon he preached in 1872, on the occasion of the first official meeting of the Synodical Conference; his sermon text was 1 Timothy 4:16, “Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching.  Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.”–

“But, my brethren, the holy apostle does not only say in our text to his Timothy, ‘Keep a close watch on yourself,’ but also, ‘and on the teaching.  Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.’  And thus he shows us, secondly, that, if we make the salvation of souls above all things the chief object of our joint labor in Christ’s kingdom, we certainly shall take heed also unto the doctrine and thus be kept from ever violating faithfulness toward the Word of God.

“As you know, my brethren, it is a common saying in our time that the continual urging of the doctrine is a most pernicious tendency, only hindering, yea, destroying the kingdom of God.  People say, ’Instead of disputing so much about the doctrine, you ought rather to think of taking care of the souls and of leading them to Christ.’  But all who speak this way certainly do not know what they say and what they do.  As it would be folly to chide the tiller of the ground for his diligence to obtain good seed, and to demand that he should be eager only to obtain good fruit, so it would be folly to chide those that take heed unto the doctrine above all things, and to demand of them that they should rather endeavor only to save souls.  For as the tiller of the ground must be eager to obtain good seed above all things, if he wishes to reap good fruit, so must the Church care for sound doctrine above all things, if she wishes to save souls.”

–C.F.W. Walther, Opening Sermon for the Synodical Conference, 1872, translated by August Crull, included in At Home in the House of My Fathers:  Presidential Sermons, Essays, Letters, and Addresses from the Missouri Synod’s Great Era of Unity and Growth, Matthew C. Harrison, 198.

The following is an excerpt from an article by the late Dr. Kurt E. Marquart…

Why did Luther carry on such a vigorous battle for what is in the Sacrament? I draw only one or two themes from the rich New Testament presentation. For instance, think of the Sacrament as the New Testament Passover, where Paul writes in the Easter Epistle, 1 Corinthians 5:7 – ‘Christ, our paschal lamb, is sacrificed’. This has deep connections with the resurrection, because the New Testament never divides the cross and the resurrection. These are seen as one complete unit. Lutherans, too, need to see that the Sacrament is not basically a Maundy Thursday or Good Friday affair – which it also is. With the Early Church we need to see that the Sacrament is primarily a resurrection, Easter affair. This is why, as Dr. Sasse Points out, the Lord’s Day, the day of resurrection, was never complete without the Lord’s Super, the Lord’s Word in his Church. These great things belong together. The Early Church made this connection between the Sacrament and the resurrection.  …

In his interesting book, Early Christian Worship, Oscar Cullmann points out that the symbol of the fish was a symbol not merely for Jesus Christ generally. We all know that the Greek word for fish is made up of the first letters of the words Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour. Cullmann points out that the symbolism goes deeper than that. It goes back to the time when the resurrected Saviour comes to the disciples and feeds them with broiled fish. All the resurrection appearances – except the one with the women at the tomb, where it simply wouldn’t be practical – occur in connection with mealtimes in connection with food. A most important, and probably the true variant reading in Acts 1, where it talks about the Lord being with the disciples for 40 days, the Syriac version, says that he took salt with them, that is, he ate with them for 40 days. The point is that the resurrection appearances take place in connection with mealtimes. Remember the Emmaeus road! At the breaking of bread, their eyes were opened and they recognized the Resurrected One. The Sacrament now came to be regarded as the continuation of the resurrection appearances of the Lord. That’s very important. As we have it in John 20, on the first resurrection night, the disciples being assembled, the Lord stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you’. That was at mealtime. They were gathered for dinner. On the following week, the next Lord’s Day, he appears again. This time Thomas is there and he confirms his faith. The point is that there is an unbroken chain of Lord’s Days going right back to that first one, which was not interrupted by the Lord’s Ascension into heaven, and which didn’t take him further away, but made him closer to us. He now rules and effectively controls the universe for the benefit of his Church. The Sacrament means specifically the resurrection banquet, where the Resurrected One himself is among us as truly as he was with Thomas and the disciples, and says to us, ‘Peace be with you’.

We Christians must know that if God s not in the scale [of justice] to give it weight, our side of the scale sinks to the ground. What I mean is this: If it cannot be said that God, not a mere man, dies for us, we are lost. But if God’s death and a God Who has died lie in the balance, His side goes down and ours snaps up as though it were light and empty…But He could not be in the scale without becoming a man like us, so that we could speak of God’s dying, God’s suffering, of God’s blood, God’s death. For God in His own nature cannot die; but now, since God and man are united in one Person, the death of the man [Jesus Chist] with whom God is one Thing or Person is justly called the death of God.

–Martin Luther, 1539

Martin Luther (in his small treatise “Two Kinds of Righteousness”):

[W]henever we, on the ground of our righteousness [won/imputed by Christ], wisdom, or power, are haughty or angry with those who are unrighteous, foolish, or less powerful than we…righteousness works against rightousness, wisdom against wisdom, power against power.  For you are powerful, not that you may make the weak weaker by oppression, but that you may make them powerful by raising them up and defending them.  You are wise, not in order to laugh at the foolish and thereby make them more foolish, but that you may undertake to teach them as you yourself would wish to be taught.  You are righteous that you may vindicate and pardon the unrighteous, not that you may only condemn, disparage, judge, and punish.  For this is Christ’s example for us, as he says:  “For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him” (John 3:17).

Luther’s Works, American Edition, Vol. 31, p.303-304

Question:  Error works itself into the Church in all manner of ways.  Are there predictable stages, or developments, through which error will progress, that it might be more easily recognized?

Answer:  Though I don’t pretend to be any kind of plumber, I’ve heard it said (and even know by a little experience) that if there’s a way in, water will find it; i.e., if the seals aren’t tight and the cracks aren’t sealed, water will work its way in.  So with error.  However, as one Charles Porterfield Krauth (a confessional Lutheran pastor of the latter 19th century) well observed, error often will make progressions in stages–in three stages.  Namely, it will ask to be tolerated; it will assert equal rights; then, it will demand supremacy.  Krauth…

But the practical result of this principle is one on which there is no need of speculating; it works in one unvarying way.  When error is admitted into the Church, it will be found that the stages of its progress are always three.  It begins by asking toleration.  Its friends say to the majority:  You need not be afraid of us; we are few, and weak; only let us alone; we shall not disturb the faith of the others.  The Church has her standards of doctrine; of course we shall never interfere with them; we only ask for ourselves to be spared interference with our private opinions.

Indulged in this for a time, error goes on to assert equal rights.  Truth and error are two balancing forces.  The Church shall do nothing which looks like deciding between them; that would be partiality.  It is bigotry to assert any superior right for the truth.  We are to agree to differ, and any favoring of the truth, because it is truth, is partisanship.  What the friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental.  Anything on which they differ is ipso facto non-essential.  Anybody who makes account of such a thing is a disturber of the peace of the church.  Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them.
From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy.  Truth started with tolerating; it comes to be merely tolerated, and that only for a time.

(C.P. Krauth, The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology, 1872)

 

 

 

“And the angel said to them:  ‘Fear not, for behold I “good-report” to you great joy which is unto all the people…’” (Luke 2:10). Although traditionally the words of the Christmas herald are said:  “I bring you good tidings of…,” literally, the angel said “I good-report to you.” A euaggelion (Greek) is the report of good news (e.g., the report of a battle victory).  The angel makes a verb out of it:  euaggelizomai—I ‘good-report,’ or ‘bear a good report,’ to you.

Too often the good report of the euaggelion (or Latin, evangel; or English, gospel) is not permitted to sing above the fields of our lives in its full glory.  Why?  Well-meaning church leaders hoping to incite Christians to share the gospel unintentionally reform the good-report into a work-order.  It’s done via that caveat:  “…the Word and the Sacraments are important, but… (here, usually some form of admonition or exhortation to share the word follows as a required duty of the Christian life).  As soon as one adds the caveat “but,” it frankly doesn’t matter what’s said next.  The good-report is diminished.  It’s mingled, diluted.  The fact that the incarnate God, crucified for the iniquities of all humanity, comes to meet humanity within His chosen means to bear to us eternal life and salvation is the gospel!  Add no “have to, must, need to, etc.” to it, or the gospel will be taken from the sheep—they’ll not be allowed simply to graze.  While sharing the news is important, so as not to take away from the gospel instead say, “The Word and the Sacraments [bearing Christ to us] are important!  Now (taking nothing away from their importance), will we not share the good-report with others?”

How will we?  I write this with Christmas on the near horizon.  Last night my wife wrapped the first of the presents to be placed under the tree.  This morning, my oldest son, John, found them.  When he woke, my second son, Jacob, came to me; and one of the first things he said was:  “There are presents under the tree!  …John showed them to me.”  John showed them to me…John understood what the presents meant, and he couldn’t contain the news.

Isn’t that how the news of God-incarnate’s presence/presents with/for us is naturally shared?  Sure, at times an organized effort will be helpful.  But, when Goliath fell, did the word not spread from house to house “organically”?  They knew what their newly-won freedom meant.  But far more:  “Unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, Christ the Lord!” It’s a great report that incites its being shared.  Brothers share it with brothers; mothers with daughters; friends with neighbors…organically.  It’s how Nathanael heard if from Phillip (“We have found the Christ!” John 1).  No yoke of duty was hung on the necks of the shepherds, either.  The joy of the news is the wind in the sail that moves the ship bearing the gospel, not the drumbeat driving the oarsmen! Rejoicing in the gift given, they couldn’t help but spread the news:  “And when they saw it [the manger with the Christ therein], they made known the saying that had been told them concerning this Child…And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them” (Luke 2:17, 20).

Question:   In the Old Testament reading for the Eighteenth Sunday after Pentecost (Oct. 16; three-year reading series), Isaiah reports that God said: “I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form light and I create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity…” (Is. 45:6b-7). How can that be, since God isn’t the author of evil? And, does this give people the right to blame God for catastrophes that they encounter in life?

Answer:   A good question, and one that—on its surface—becomes even more confusing when considering other viable translations for the Hebrew word in question, ra—here translated “calamity” (English Standard Version) but elsewhere translated “evil” (e.g., King James Version). Is God the author/creator of evil? No.

While even the translation “evil” would be appropriate for the word ra, God is not saying that He’s the author/creator/generator of moral bad (e.g., immorality, hatred). Holy Scripture is clear that evil—as we understand that term today—is the product of human sin and the devil (Rom. 5:12; Jms. 1:13-15; Jn. 8:44). Moses tells us that “God saw all that He had made and it was very good” (Gen. 1:31).

So what’s the LORD saying in this verse? In the surrounding context the LORD is making plain that He, and He alone, is God (He says three times in two verses: there is none other, Is. 45:5-6). Polytheism (the belief that there are many gods) was commonly held among the ancient peoples. Also, there was a widely-held view that good and evil are brought forth from two dueling and rather equal opposing forces—metaphorically characterized by “light” and “darkness.” The LORD (with all capital letters, a translation of the Hebrew YHWH—God’s proper/covenant name) here makes plain that such is not the case! “I am the LORD (YHWH), and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make well-being (shalom) and create calamity (ra), I am the LORD (YHWH), who does all these things.” In other words, there is no dueling force equal to Me; in My hand I hold the power over all that is “light” (good), and over all that is “darkness” (bad). Martin Luther, in his commentary on Isaiah, includes this helpful explanation of the verse: God is saying: “When I bestow peace, no one can take it away. On the contrary, when I take it away, no one shall restore it. So you must acknowledge Me as the only God to whom you can flee for refuge” (Luther’s Works: American Edition, vol. 17, p. 125).

So, does this give us the right to blame God when catastrophes befall us? Is God punishing people by sending upon them tornados or tsunamis? While God will often work through the fallout of human sin/wrongdoing to bring about the good that He purposes (cf. Rom. 8:28), it can often be very difficult from the human vantage point to draw direct lines between what befalls a person and particular sin, or a “personal degree” of sin. Of the eighteen persons upon whom the tower of Siloam fell and killed them (Lk. 13:4), Jesus said: “Do you think that these were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.” Our Lord—who by His almighty power subdues all things to Himself—uses such events for good (even the plagues on Pharaoh’s Egypt, or the serpents in the wilderness!).  By them He leads us to repent of our sin (no matter who we may be) and, as Luther said, with the report of salvation in Jesus Christ to acknowledge our Lord God as the only God to whom you can flee for refuge–promised for Jesus’ sake.

“Praise God from Whom all blessings flow!”

     A  unique and annual LCOS event:  HERITAGE SUNDAY.   It’s the second Sunday of September when the congregation celebrates two important facets of our life together:  LUTHERAN EDUCATION and GRANDPARENTS DAY. 

Our Lutheran convictions are confessed from generation to generation as they are passed on from  grandparents to parents to grandchildren in our homes as they are supported by the educational classes of the congregation.

Nearly 150 members celebrated the event this year.  Following the morning divine services, many remained or returned to the campus’ school courtyard where the grills were smokin’ hot with burgers, sausages, and chicken wings and the children were jumping off their energy in the Noah’s ark jumphouse while the grandparents and parents were enjoying the bluegrass music of our own Campbell Family Singers and the patriotic harmonica of Don James.

During the picnic, drawings were held for ‘Here I Stand’ golf balls and socks and other ‘Old Lutheran’  “periFUNalia.”  Children were entertained by face-painters, a balloon artist, and received gifts of Lutheran books.

Because this Heritage Sunday coincided with the decade  commemoration of the  9-11 attack on America,  the solemn tolling of the church bells called all to the sanctuary for a special service of Remembering 9-ll. 

Our thanks to the Board of Education for preparing and coordinating the event which was enjoyed by all!