[See the first entry here.]
Hermann Sasse on true unity:
“The serious Roman Catholic, the serious Lutheran, the serious Calvinist, the serious Anglican, the serious Baptist–all stand nearer to the eternal truth than the one who hazards making no confession because he maintains that the truth is finally undiscernible. And because of this, they stand closer to each other.
“The unity of the Christian West was not really broken at the time of the Reformation. It was broken first at the end of the seventeenth century when the struggle between the confessions ceased and the time of indifference and tolerance began. So long as the confessions still wrestled with each other and dialogued with each other, they knew they belonged together. Though we do not desire to cover over their sins, the polemic of the age of the orthodox theologians was, therefore, more Christian than the peace and tolerance of the eighteenth century. And the same applies to our time. …
“The church was born with this difficulty. It has been of the nature of the church on earth since the time of the apostles. Therefore neither can we spare the young churches on the mission field this difficulty. They too must learn that the struggle for the one church is the struggle for the true church. …
“For precisely where Christians with complete seriousness inquire about the one true church, there the Lord of the church, quite aside from all our entreaties and understanding, and in spite of our betrayal and our sins, builds his holy church on earth.”
[Hermann Sasse. The Lonely Way. Vol. 2, pp. 194, 195.]
[So that’s why I like conservative Roman Catholics better than liberal Lutherans!
That was the best soundbite from John Kerry in this debate.
I actually thought (I didn’t believe I would ever say this) that John Kerry did a good job in the debate. I think he is well-spoken and articulate. He’s still wrong. This nonsense about building a coalition is driving me nuts, and I am surprised that President Bush did not hold Kerry’s feet to the fire on that. The President did mention the allies that are with us, but he did not say that the allies John Kerry thinks are important (France, Germany and Russia) will never join us no matter who is President! They have said as much, and Kerry is simply deluding himself about his personal charisma being enough to bring them to “the table.” He is dishonest or naive, I’m not sure which.
President Bush also should have said more than once that John Kerry voted against giving the money to the troops, while John Kerry gives us sob stories about troops getting body armor for their birthdays. Why do you think that is, Senator?
Further, Kerry gave us this stupid line about a “backdoor draft,” and then says he is going to form more divisions and double the special forces. Well, how does he expect to do that? (Maybe a draft?) Mr. Kerry, special forces don’t grow on trees.
For the President: Please, please, why won’t anyone tell him that it is “NU-CLE-AR” not “NU-CU-LER”?! Sweet mercy!
What did you think about the debate?
Since we hear so much about polls during this time of the year, I thought I would contribute another one. But this one is actually interesting.
USA Today provided the following information. 30-year-old men and women were asked if they had reached the following goals: finishing school, leaving home, getting married, having a child, and reaching financial independence. In 1960, 65% of the men said they had. An even greater percentage (77%) of women said they accomplished those goals. Again, the year was 1960.
In the year 2000, only 31% of the polled men said they had done all five things. 46% of the women reported they had.
Scripture gives a variety of reasons for marriage, most notably companionship, procreation, and the ability to curb sinful lust.
In the debate over gay marriage, can Christians still use the “procreation” rationale, considering that Christian couples frequently use various forms of contraceptives?
Finally, along with Episcopalian rites for two homosexuals, we have a rite for fornication thanks to Rev. Joel Brondos! (No doubt many people will find nothing funny or unusual about such a “rite.”)
Last week, I reported on the “ideal girl” of the 1960s, based on a survey of Lutheran boys. Well, now it is the girls turn to tell us what they want. Of course, this is coming again from the survey in the 60s.
“Physically, he’s tall (seven out of eight girls specify this), and he has blue eyes and blond hair which he wears in a crew cut. He wears chino pants.”
There you have it. Interesting, the girls didn’t mention anything about the boy’s intelligence.
Irenaeus (120-202 AD) wrote the following:
“He came to save all through Himself–all I say, who through Him are reborn in God–infants, and children, and youth, and old men. Therefore He passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age, and at the same time becoming for them an example of piety, of righteousness, and of submission; a young man for youths, becoming an example for youths and sanctifying them for the Lord.”
[quoted by Jordin Bajis (Greek Orthodox!) here]
According to “Tongue-Tied” on Foxnews.com, some students are upset that a fraternity party was advertised as a “Professors and Schoolgirls” theme. Do not misunderstand: I think that is degrading and unacceptable. That is not the point of this, however. The fact that such a party is degrading was not the only complaint; some students, specifically Dave McCandlish, thought that the theme endorsed “heteronormative activities.” That’s a new one. It amazes me how many absolutely meaningless deprecations these people can make up. What? Does that mean “normative for people who are different”? Does that mean “activities normal to people who are heterosexual”? It’s means about as much as “homophobia.” There are, compared to the number of people to whom the term is applied, relatively few people who are scared of homosexuals. Now, people who are scared of “the same,” I don’t know…
On the other hand, the Christophobics are all over the place.
Can’t we just speak English? Call things what they are? If you want to say that you disagree with what has been the norm for sexual behavior for thousands of years, say it; don’t make up words.
For many years, one of the Lutheran church bodies in America had a youth organization called “The International Walther League,” named after a Lutheran theologian. This group had its own publication called Messenger. In the early 1960s, an article appeared in this periodical. Here is a paragraph from one of its pages. It details a survey conducted to check out what boys wanted in a girl.
“Their ideal girl: She’s a blue-eyed blonde, not too thin and not too plump. She’s a trifle shorter than her boyfriend and not quite as bright. She gets medium grades in school. She doesn’t smoke; doesn’t drink. She dresses conservatively, usually in casual clothes. She uses little, if any, artificial beauty aids.”
Well, I actually like intelligent women. Am I missing out on something? What did these guys back then know that I do not understand today?
Well, how do you know? I’ll tell you how I know: 25 years ago yesterday, the punishment for my sin, both original and actual, was washed away by the spoken and Incarnate Word of God in Bloody baptismal water. I was drowned and raised again in the death and resurrection of Christ, and I’ve never been the same since. I’ve made lots of “decisions” for Christ, and they just never took. Good thing I don’t have depend on them for my eternal salvation.
How do you know?