Sermon for Pentecost II

Second Sunday after Pentecost, May 29, 2005

False Prophets in the Wilderness
Matthew 7:15-23

In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
You are standing in the middle of a great wilderness, a desert of sand and rock where oases are few and far between and shade seems nonexistent. You cannot remember a time in your life when you were not in this wilderness. To judge by all appearances, there is no other place except this wilderness; based on everything you have seen, the desert covers the entire earth, and you can never reach the end of it. You’ve heard rumors about a place beyond the edge of this dry and arid wasteland, but you have your doubts. Or at least you have your doubts about ever getting there.
Thinking of that desert reminds me of the scene in the Clint Eastwood movie, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, where Clint Eastwood’s character (“The Good”) is forced by Tuco (“The Ugly”) to walk across 100 miles of desert. My throat gets a little dry just thinking about it. He has nothing to drink, and he has no hat to cover his head. His face is soon blistered and cracked from the effects of the sun. That’s what the desert does to you.
Continue reading

Thank You, Dr. Feuerhahn

“Sometimes faithful service is costly, and men fall out of favor. This was [Hermann] Sasse’s ‘lonely way’ (der einsam Weg)–the cost of confessing the faith in the face of opposition from within and without of the household of faith. Such loneliness is real, of course, but it does not mean ruin because our gracious Lord never leaves us. Instead, the lonely way brings a holy despair of self, persons, committees, programs, bureaucracies, seminaries, and synods, stripping away everything but Jesus Christ. Ron [Feuerhahn] speaks of this strengthening to those who would lose hope, bidding them, ‘trust yourself to the One who judges justly’ (see 1 Pt 2:23). Such an unshakable pastoral delivery of Gospel hope is perhaps his greatest gift to us: ne desperemus (Ap VII/VIII, 9)” (Scott A. Bruzek, “Faith’s Ancient Strength” in Lord Jesus Christ, Will You Not Stay?: Essays in Honor of Ronald Feuerhahn on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (St. Louis: Concordia, 2002), 7).

Of Males and Animals

The Lord speaks.

“If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish. He shall bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the Lord.” (Leviticus 1:3, ESV)

Kleinig speaks.

“The requirement that the sacrificial animal be a male relates to the biblical principle of male headship. Eve was created out of Adam, and the man is the head of his wife just as Christ is the head of the man and God the Father is the head of Christ (1 Cor 11:1-16). St. Paul refers again to the headship of the man over the woman and of Christ over the church immediately before affirming that Christ gave himself up as the sacrifice that cleanses his bride, the church, so that he may present her as unblemished before God the Father (Eph 5:23-27)” (John Kleinig, Leviticus (St. Louis: Concordia, 2003)fn.13,66).

The Athanasian Creed

I don’t usually post things on Sundays, but I think this one might not be inappropriate. If you attend a liturgical church, you probably used the Athanasian Creed today. (You can see the insert for the upcoming Lutheran Service Book here. We used it this morning. Here is another version.)
In our undogmatic age, this confession makes people uncomfortable. With words like “must”, “whole and undefiled”, “necessary”, and “the catholic faith is this”, the questions will inevitably arise: “Wait, don’t we believe in grace alone? What’s with this Law language?” Perhaps “worst” of all are these sentences: “At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.”
These are good questions that deserve answers (if they are genuinely being asked), but the asking of them should not determine whether we retire this elderly creed or not.

I had a friend in college who said he didn’t like the Athanasian Creed because of that second-to-last sentence in the Creed. I can understand it coming from an undergrad, but when Ph.D.’s who are on LCMS clergy rosters say it, we’ve got a problem.
On a certain e-mail list, a professor (not at an LCMS college–anymore, anyway) said that after earning his degrees, he found the statements in the Creed “confusing and misleading.” Well, who doesn’t, at least as far as “understanding” the Trinity goes? But what is misleading or confusing about confessing one Father, one Son, and one Spirit; but not three Fathers, three Sons, or three Spirits? Or what is confusing and misleading about confessing the Father, Son, and Spirit all to be God, but not three Gods? The Athanasian Creed simply says what God has said or revealed about Himself in short statements that are, admittedly, beyond our finite understanding.
As for the claim that this is only a Western confession, I certainly hope that our friends in the East could confess this along with us, whether they’ve ever officially endorsed it or not (except for the part about the Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son, of course!).
But all that is prolegomena to the most distressing part, heard from both my friend and the professor. That is, that the final section is contrary to the chief article of the faith, i.e., Justification by Grace through Faith alone. It is axiomatic that Lutherans who confess this Creed do not believe in justification by works. The problem with denying that statement in the Creed is that the professor thereby denies the words of Jesus Himself. I suppose it’s not enough to claim that Paul contradicts himself with regard to the Law; now Jesus (the Author of the faith, need it be said?) contradicts the chief article of the faith!
The Creed simply reproduces John 5:29. (Or is that an interpolation?) It condenses Matthew 25, and especially v. 46 (certainly the most “Jewish” of the Gospels).
Or see Revelation 20:12-13. (Oh yeah, that’s an antilegomenon…)
It is the bane of those who reduce the Christian faith to their version of the Gospel that anything and everything that doesn’t fit the system is automatically ruled out of bounds.

So what do Lutherans do with verses like the above and the final part of the Athanasian Creed? It is actually very simple. We will be judged by our works. The difference between those who in the Book of Life and those in the lake of fire is simply this: the evil works of those whose names God has written in the Book of Life have been swallowed up by Jesus’ death and resurrection. They are gone. When we are judged, we will be judged righteous for the sake of Jesus’ righteousness. Therefore, all our “good” works will really be seen as good, because all Jesus’ works were and are good. For those not covered with Jesus’ righteousness, even their good (in the eyes of the world) works will be judged evil because of their sin.
No, the Athanasian Creed cannot be pulled out and “confessed” once a year merely for the sake of the liturgical calendar. But neither can the Apostles’ or Nicene Creeds simply be spoken every Sunday without constant reexamination.
The lack of instruction (or, dare I say it, indoctrination?) in some places seems to be the root of all sorts of evil.
With proper explanation, the Athanasian Creed can be what it was intended to be: a teaching of the proper understanding of the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation in the face of all manner of heretical teaching.
May the Lord preserve us from rationalism in all its forms!

Almighty and everlasting God, who hast given unto us, Thy servants, grace, by the confession fo a true faith, to acknoweldge the glory of the eternal Trinity and in the power of the Divine majesty to worship the Unity, we beseech Thee that Thou wouldst keep us steadfast in this faith, and evermore defend us from all adversities; who livest and reignest, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, ever one God, world without end. Amen.*

[Update (7 years later!): There is also a modern misunderstanding with phrases in the Creed such as: “Therefore, whoever desires to be saved must think thus about the Trinity.”  This sounds, to our ears, as if all that is required for salvation is getting our thoughts right, or thinking correctly, about God.  I don’t know the Latin, but this cannot be the meaning of the Christian faith.  Right knowledge, even Scriptural knowledge, cannot save by itself, since the Devil and his demons know all of it.  I think the key to this problem is found in the phrases right before the previous quote (v. 25 in Lutheran Service Book): “the Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity is to be worshiped.”  The imperative can mislead, but only one who is righteous by faith alone can worship the Trinity, since outside of Christ, the Trinity is unknowable, let alone worshipable for sinners.  Worship comes as one trusts the Triune work of God in Jesus, and not before or outside of that trust.  Such trust is truly “right thinking” in the terms of saving faith.  The Devil may have true knowledge, but he cannot (will not) worship.  Further, the last part, “whoever does not believe it faithfully and firmly cannot be saved,” does not refer to belief as a work that the human does “faithfully and firmly.”  That is impossible, and it would mean no one would be saved.  It is faithful and firm not because the individual has faithful and firm faith, but because Christ is always faithful and firm in His saving work for you.  Look at Christ, not yourself!]

Continue reading

The “Separation” of Church and State

I’m getting tired of this crap. If it’s not the ACLU suing because of “the Silver Ring Thing” it’s some idiot from Spanaway, WA, claiming that a license plate “offended” her. To paraphrase some other idiots, “If you don’t like Biblical license plates, don’t have one.”
Only in the deluded minds of the anti-religious bigots in this country has the “separation of church and state” (whoever coined that phrase deserves to be hung from the ceiling by his (her) little toes and made to read the Constitution over and over again) meant that Christians cannot do what they want with their own property, or that Christians have no right to participate in public discourse. Why do I single out Christians? Because the ACLU and their ilk could not care less about Muslims, Jews, or Hindus and their “religious speech.”
What did the complainant say? “I was offended that I have to be prayed over by a license plate.” Poor baby. I retract my former statement about her being an idiot. She’s actually delusional and hallucinatory. License plates don’t pray. A praying license plate– that would be offensive indeed. I might be more inclined to believe her if she was offended that Jesus died for her on the cross. That is offensive. License plates? Not really.

But back to the original point of this. The separation between the Church and the State is only between a particular church and the state. The state is not endorsing a particular religion or denomination if it allows people to put “John 3:16” on a license plate. Neither is it endorsing a particular religion or denomination if it funds abstinence education, or “faith-based organizations” or any number of other things to which the ACLU is opposed. Until the government begins supporting only Methodists or Baptists or, happy day (not really), Lutherans, the government is upholding the original intention of keeping Church and State separate.