Sinner and Saint

In today's church pulpits, divorce doesn't rate as sin

"In today's church pulpits, divorce doesn't rate as sin" is the title of an article written by Cathleen Falsani in the Chicago Suntimes. Her article compares what was preached in the pulpits and shown on tv when she was growing up verses what is being preached and shown on tv today. Back then, she says, divorce was the number one sin preached out against and "never" shown on tv. Today its same sex marriage (although it is polarized in the churches) and now being shown on tv (the Simpsons for example).

This is a problem. Divorce is a sin. Biblically speaking there is only one just reason for divorce and that is adultery. Gambling is also a sin. When it comes to alcohol I do not have a problem unless it goes too far. Yet we don't talk about that as much anymore. Yes, homosexuality is a sin. Yes, it should be preached about and is. What I see here is something that I believe is a problem. The more a sin is portrayed as being ok in mainstream America especially on television...the less a problem it is for people later on. We have been shocked to death by television and nothing seems to shock us anymore. This is a problem...it is a problem we will always face. We must continue to proclaim law and Gospel. We must call sins a sin publically and be just as willing to forgive that sin when a person asks for forgiveness.

Anglican Church Asks U.S., Canada to Leave

Robert Barr of the AP reports that "Anglican primates agreed Thursday that the U.S. Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada would withdraw from a key body of the global Anglican Communion after failing to overcome internal church disagreements about the election of a gay bishop in the United States and the blessing of same-sex unions there and in Canada."

As Barr reported, this is the first breach of the Anglican Communion over issues of sexuality and Biblical authority. Looking from the outside as a Lutheran, I think this is long overdue and the Anglican Communion should have done this immediately...yet this is a touchy issue and I'm sure that the Anglican Communion took its time knowing how decisive an issue this is. I think it is a sad thing to happen but also builds my own hope that worldwide Christians will step forward against the problems that we are enduring dealing with homosexuality, same-sex unions, and Biblical authority.

It seems that the United States and Canada are becoming more liberal then their daughter churches. Many churches that were started from missionaries of these two countries are now more vocal and more conservative. I am glad that they are becoming more vocal! Our country is facing a crisis of liberalism that keeps gaining momentum especially from mainstream media. We must stand up for the truth of Scripture. We must pick up our crosses and preach Christ and Him crucified. Yes, Christ died for all sins, for homosexuals, for all of us. Yet when homosexuality is seen as being "ok" and "unsinful" many are in danger of hardening their hearts over this issue and remaining open practicing homosexuals that are in danger of condemnation. It is out of Love that we speak out against homosexuality... we wish for them to have salvation. For Christians to keep quiet on this issue...and let homosexuality become "ok"... we are realing showing hatred and contempt by allowing others to fall into condemnation.

"Simpson's" charachter "comes out of the closet."

Its all over the newspapers and blogosphere. A Simpson's character has come out of the closet! Homer becomes a internet order pastor! Springfield allows gay marriage! Many people have taken their sides on the matter. Many are against the episode. Gays have "cheered" the episode. Lets look at what actually happened though. My fuss is not that the Simpsons had a gay episode but what people are saying and thinking about it. First of all...the episode the true Pastor of Springfield standing up against homosexual marriage because it was against the Bible. Marge had the attitude of who cares as long as they are happy. Homer had a dream of marrying himself and making baby Homers. Homer even went as far as marrying anyone to anything as long as they paid money. MONEY! Yes... that is what it was all about on the Simpsons. The town legalized same sex money for.... you guessed it MONEY! Homer was in favor of same sex marriage and became a pastor...for what reason?... you guessed it again... MONEY. The whole episode showed that this debate is throwing away what the Bible says and shows the attitude of "money loving" and "do whatever feels right." These are not "good" morals or Christian morals. That is the point. The show mocked how far things could go. Brother marry sister. Homer marry Homer. Fisherman marrying a wooden statue. Comic book man marrying a cardboard cut out.... etc. That is the point. Where do we draw the line. If it is only about money....who cares who marrys who or what. If its about God, morals, and Scripture... then same sex marriage and homosexuality is a sin and wrong. There ya go...my two cents.

Art Experts Hold Mock 'Da Vinci' Trial

In an article appearing in the Chicago Tribune, Marta Falconi reports of a mock trial being staged in Vinci, Italy (outside of Rome) by Art Experts who are upset with the inaccuracy of Dan Brown's book The Davinci Code. In this trial both art experts and clerics alike are presenting evidence that shows the errors contained in Dan Brown's book. Reading it myself I was disturbed at the errors of theology and language that were present. It is also interesting to see art experts also enraged about this as well. It seems that Dan Brown was inaccurate "blazingly" throughout his book. Yes, he says that it is fiction. But he also says that the things he writes are what he surely believes and presents the book with his version of "truth" and "facts." His book is surely dangerous and full of lies.

Devil gets his due at Vatican class on occult

In an article appearing in the Chicago Suntimes, Angela Doland reports about a new class being offered by the Vatican dealing with the occult. In a renewed sense of urgency Rome wants to teach its priests about misconceptions and facts dealing with Satanism, excorcism, and the occult. It is an interesting read to be sure. The comment I thought was the most ironic is this: ''In the '60s and '70s, people got away from that,'' Barak said. ''Even theologians said, 'No, the devil is just a myth.''' Now that is just frightening. The devil surely exists and is attacking each of us daily.

One faith, one Bible -- but two races

In an article written by Cathleen Falsani we read about a problem of racial identity that is getting in the way of different people that believe the same Biblical beliefs from coming together. This is a strenuous problem that occurs throughout the United States and especially in Chicago. I know historically that Martin Luther King Jr. could not change Chicago like he did the South. I even know that when King marched here in Chicago he was hit in the head with a brick and his blood was splattered on a market window. The store owner refused to wash King's blood off of that window to show and prove the point that King was not in the South but was in Chicago. I guess Chicago has always played by different rules then elsewhere.

I grew up in the Suburbs of Chicago and went to Luther High School South where my father taught. By the time that I attended Luther it was predominantely black. While it was still Lutheran...white Lutherans refused to send their children their. There truly is a ethnic and racial divide in Chicago and it does need to be addressed.

What is an evangelical?

In a story appearing in the Chicago Suntimes, Cathleen Falsani writes about the term "evangelical." She tracks the word back to its root in Greek (euangelion) which means Gospel or Good News. Her article is well written except for a slight pet pieve of mine. She makes reference to Martin Luther's use of evangelical (evangelische kirke) "evangelical church." She then quotes others as saying that it was then used by "Protestants" for many years following. This is quite inaccurate. The Lutheran Church was the only church to use this term for a long time until others took hold of it. In fact, you were only able to tell the difference between Reformed and Lutheran churches in Germany by this name. It was the Lutherans alone that used the name "Evangelische kirke."

Apart from that I like her article alot. She traces the use of the word forward and shows how it was used by different groups and people in the United States. I think the conclusion that I would draw is that the word evangelical has been redefined many times by those that wish to use it. I personally don't use the term anymore (unfortunate that I can't) because it lumps me with people I do not agree with. I am simply Lutheran.

Vatican gets serious about annulments

In a story reported by both the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Suntimes, we are told of the Vatican's growing concern of annulments being issued in the United States. Many US Roman Catholic leaders were dissapointed by Rome's issuing of "Dignitas Connubii," or "Dignity of Marriage." Many have been pushing to ease the rules of issuing indulgences.

America by far is leading the world for Roman Catholic indulgences. I am glad that Rome is speaking out about this. I do not agree with how Rome view marriage and marriage of non Roman Catholics or marriages performed by Roman Catholics but they are seeing a great problem occuring with annulments. They are being used as the easy way out of marriage and into a divorce.

The problem that our society has is a lack of conviction and sanctity of marriage. We look at divorce as an easy way out of a bad situation. We are not looking at marriage as something that should last a life time. Nor are we taking the time to work toward marriage in a relationship understanding the importance of the bonds.

I commend the Pope for speaking out against divorce and sincerely hope that people take marriage seriously.

Why the imposition of ashes?

As Ash Wednesday is now upon us, I thought that I would spend a little time discussing a topic that comes up every so often...that being the imposition of ashes. Many people practice the imposition of ashes while others stand watching and wondering what is going on. Is it a pious act or a Pharisaical must? Now take it for what it is worth...but here are my own thoughts on the matter.

In the Old Testament sack cloth and ashes were worn to signify humility and mourning. We remember that when we die from dust to are and to dust we shall return. The ashes remind us that we one day will die and we will die because of our sin. Yes, the ashes signify death but they also signify life. The ashes are made in the shape of the cross on our forehead...why? This represents our Baptism, the drowning of our old Adam, and reminds us of when the Pastor made the sign of the cross both upon our forehead and upon our heart to mark us as being redeemed by Christ crucified. In Baptism we are joined to Christ in His death and resurrection. The simple reason for the imposing of ashes...is to be a simple reminder at this time of Lent of Jesus life, death, and resurrection and that we too will die and be resurrected as well.

So why not have the imposition of ashes? Many think that this is a way for Christians to "show off" just like the Pharisees. Yes, this can be an abuse...yet we do not stop a good practice because of its abuses. Should Christians stop acting differently (in the eyes of the world) because it may appear as "showing off?" Should Christians and especially Pastors not dress differently (in the eyes of the world) because it may appear as "showing off?" Should Christians stop wearing crosses because it may appear as "showing off?" Certainly not. We boast not of our own work but out of Christ. May we always continue to boast of Christ's marvelous work and continue to proclaim Christ crucified, dead, buried and raised! We show that we are Christians in many ways and as long as we do not boast of our own work there is nothing wrong with showing our Christianity in public.

Finally, there are those that see ashes as reminding us of pure damning law. No, this is not so. As I have already said, ashes show death and life! But you cannot take the law out of this entirely either. We do admit in confession... "that I by nature and sinful and clean in thought word and dead..by what I have done and by what I have left undone... What we must understand are the three uses of the law. If we mix justification and Sanctification we always end up with the same thing. We end up with heretical doctrine and thinking.

Our lesson can be learned from the Antinomian controversy. "The Philippists taught: 'The Gospel alone is expressly and particularly, truly and properly, a preaching and a voice of repentance, or conversion.' revealing the baseness of sin (Paul Crell), which is exactly what the arch-antinomian Agricola had said.

The Formula of Concord settled the matter by recognizing the triple use of the Law - 1) for outward decency, 2) for revealing sin, 3) for the rule of life to the regenerate, who need it on account of their Old Adam. These controversies served to bring out with yet greater clearness the distinction between the Law and the Gospel, justification and sanctification.

So there it is. Yes, i do like the imposition of ashes. I think it is a good practice...it is not commanded or necessary...but is a good reminder of our coming death and Resurrection that we have recieved from Christ by His death and resurrection.

Blurring Lines Between Religion and Science

In an article appearing in Red Nova, Amanda Branum of Colombia takes aim at the notion that if you are a Christian you cannot hold to evolution. She contends that she is Christian, believes in the inerrancy of Scripture, and is a former creationist. She says that the Bible was not speaking about scientific intent and that

the creation account was written, the Israelites were in a sea of pagan influences and myths. It is actually in the form of an epic poem and is intended to communicate who created the world, not how it was created. It is wrong to twist the intent and message of Scripture to fit our own agendas.

Where do I start? How can you say that the Bible is inerrant and then say that it was influenced by a "sea of pagan influences and myths." By saying that you are denying that Scripture is the innerrant Word of God. Next, Amanda, a Scientist, begins to argue over the Genesis account being an epic poem that didn't intend this and only meant that... Now...she complains about others attacking evolution... partially because it is help by so many scientists...and that people without a knowledge of science are the one attacking using arguments that are invalid... now... Amanda... what do you think your doing here!

Not that I am the wisest man in the world...or even a small corner of the world. I have been trained in Theology and will have earned an MDiv in May. I do not hold to your view. I do believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. I do believe that God created the world in six twenty four hour days (Hebrew yom). I do not believe the Bible was influenced by the pagans. And YES, I do believe that Genesis is the cornerstone of the Bible and if it is rejected, especially as truth, the wall comes crumbling down.