How about a talk on "Perpetual Virginity"? (I'm waiting for a meeting, so I will write) There are many places I agree with Luther - in fact, more so than most Lutherans today. I even agree with Luther that Poligamy is preferable to divorce (how about that for a sign of your being of a common mind with Marty?). However, I must disagree with Martin on the idea of Mary's Perpetual virginity.
I think St. Mary was a decent person. I think she lived fairly well - I won't go into any adoration, but I'm going to assume that she was at least a decent Jewish girl. She was married - therefore - she had sex with her husband. Period. There is no idea anywhere that it is right or proper to withold yourself from your spouse (except for times of purification in the OT or prayer in the NT) -- therefore, as a good spouse she would be with Joseph - and don't give me this "Joseph was an old pious man" stuff -- Joseph was healthy enough to drag them to Egpyt, and Zechariah was having kids when he was pretty old too.
Now, given my previous post about frivolous theological speculation, why would I even write on this? Well, I think in America as theologians we have a hard time dealing with Sex. We live in an oversexed society - one that has become so rapidly since the 1960s. And as a result, some of us are tempted to over-react - to deal with sex less and less and less.
Sex is not evil. It was instructed prior to the fall (go forth and multiply). Now, like all blessings of God - including speech, our neighbors, life - we abuse it and use it wickedly - but in and of itself sex is not evil - nor should we treat it as though it is. Paul advises one to remain chaste if one may - but that's referring to not getting married - not binding yourself to another and having to deal with their concerns - not just sex. The single guy asks a rhetorical question - marraige really is about more than just sex, right?
Moreover - marriage is not a bad thing (see, I've got wedding bells on the brain). We say that God joins the two together - let not man separate them. That includes, especially, the two people in the marriage. Sex (or lack there of) certainly is never to be used as a weapon or tool or persuasion in marraige - we would all advise against that. Holding one's self aloof for psuedo-spiritual reasons is physically separating and sunndering a marraige. And that's just wrong.
In Jospeh and Mary we get an example of a good, Christian marraige. We see an image of a husband who is devoted to his wife, who even when he thinks he will have to divorce loves her so that he plans to do so quietly. We see a wife who is humble and sumbits, who shows great love. I would assume that this same love spills over into her love and service to Joseph - I would assume that she is a good wife to him in all the common aspects of wivery that there are. Why in the world would we wish to even think that Mary's personal piety would trump her office of wife is beyond me.
We should be able to posit Joseph and Mary as good examples for our folks preparing for marriage - devotion to each other - patience prior to marriage (for Joseph does not "know" Mary until Jesus comes along) self-sacrifice and love. This we see in Scripture. If instead we choose to hold to a custom and legend with no merit in Scripture, we make Joseph an old doddard and Mary an image of feminine chastity that 98% of women will never be asked anything to be like. What good does this do anyone?
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Teaching vs. De-evolution
By the way - this is what I look like.
Now, with that out of the way (hee hee hee, now I can save my youthful picture from a few years ago when I had more hair and less stress) - how about a thought or two.
As a student of history I find the idea of Evolution to be utterly insane. At no point in recorded history do we see spontaneous, random advancement of anything. In fact, most everything in history decays and falls apart.
This includes the state of theology in the Church. Adam and Eve, though they sinned, believed. By the time of Noah, only 1 family was left. God leads the children of Israel out of Egypt - whole generations see His mighty works - and they continually fall away. And this is a New Testament thing as well - People fall away in John 6, the Epistles are pretty much all written to keep folks from falling into heresy, or at least to not go along with those who have.
And there are moment where that slide is halted. Nicea is one -- of course, if you ask Athanasius he's tell you the next 50 years after Nicea were rough - really rough (reminder - note that winning at vote at a convention does not equal theological victory) as Arians still ran havoc for centuries to come.
The slide was halted again at the Reformation. But years passed, and we slid into pietism and rationalism (ah, what joys we Lutherans bring to the theological world!) and slid and slid. We can see the effects of slippage for the Church in America, as we abandoned much of our heritage to fit in with the American culture (there was a logical reason why Missouri used to insist on all German all the time).
So, what is to be done about it? People cannot be left to their own devices while we simply expect them to improve. Things don't work that way. We can't expect people to Spiritually evolve into better Lutherans.
We have to teach - and we have to continue to teach. And what is the primary goal of teaching? To communicate and instruct, not one's own self, but others. The focus of teaching is teaching students. Here is the danger for us as Pastors. To teach, we must learn and we must study. Simple fact - if you don't know it, you won't teach. If you don't continue to learn yourself, you will not be able to effectively help other people learn (and don't try to duck behind some semi-schweimerii "but the Holy Spirit has to do it or else. . ." defense for your laziness and lacksidasical efforts - God uses means, and he has established the pastoral office as the means for preaching and teaching. You're a tool - do not let your stupidity get in God's way).
For this, a balance is called for. What we learn, we will try to teach. What we are excited about, we will more easily try to get other people excited about. So then, what ought we to study? What happens, I fear, is that too often theologians will get so specialized that what they themselves focus on, what they themselves learn, becomes stuff that they cannot teach to their people.
Look at the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (#2 all time on my Greatest Theologians post-Apostles list) - in his 80s, still claiming to be a student learning - and what is he learning? Nothing bizarre, but the same things which his people need to learn. He learns how to more and more appreciate the Supper. He learns more and more to submit to God. He learns more and more how to face fears in Christ. These are all things which everyone needs to know, and so he can teach them well.
Look at your own discussions, o Theologian! How does this help your sheep? Remember, you are not a pastor for your own sake or edification, you are in the office to serve - and everything that you do as relates to that office is to be for the sake of your people - and everything you study, every discussion you have ought to apply to the betterment of your people. If not, they'll probably fall into some heresy - either one that you ignored because you were too busy to deal with it, or worse yet, the one that your idle speculation gave birth to.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Married in Two Months
Well, I get hitched in two months.
One of the debates that comes up is whether or not Christ was married. As Scripture does not say so specifically, we cannot say either way. We may surmise, we may guess, we may propose - but we cannot speak conclusively where Scripture is silent.
Let's surmise. Examine my logic. Scripture says that Jesus bore every burden and infirmnity that is common to man. What is a more common burden to a man than his wife? Ergo, Jesus was hitched, otherwise marriage as an institution couldn't be redeemed >=o)
I'm getting hitched in two months. Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy.
Next button to push - Perpetual Virginity! Same Gadfly Time, Same Gadfly Channel!
One of the debates that comes up is whether or not Christ was married. As Scripture does not say so specifically, we cannot say either way. We may surmise, we may guess, we may propose - but we cannot speak conclusively where Scripture is silent.
Let's surmise. Examine my logic. Scripture says that Jesus bore every burden and infirmnity that is common to man. What is a more common burden to a man than his wife? Ergo, Jesus was hitched, otherwise marriage as an institution couldn't be redeemed >=o)
I'm getting hitched in two months. Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy.
Next button to push - Perpetual Virginity! Same Gadfly Time, Same Gadfly Channel!
Eating our own
Greetings to all. So, what pray tell is the purpose of this blog? Well, I wanted a place where I could be simply and unabashedly theological in my postings. This isn't about my personal life or thoughts on random events in my life - I've got a livejournal for that. This isn't anything that is official for me as pastor of my current congregation - there is a blog off of that website (that really has fallen into disuse). No, this is for talking about theology. Generally I will make a statement and then ramble about it. Let's get started, shall we?
Observation on Confessional Lutheranism #1 - We eat our own.
If it weren't for beards, manly voices (or at least word usage), and the topics discussed, one might easily confuse a bunch of Confessional Lutherans discussing theology for a high school girl's locker room during a cat-fight. Lots of scratching, clawing, hair pulling. It gets sort of nasty.
This is the great tragedy - because as those of us who try to be dedicated Confessional pastors know - there is enough nasty out there without people who ought to be your allies slapping you around on the side. I'm sure every pastor can tell you tales of woe that have hit him or someone close to him in the ministry. And yet it seems that when there is something to discuss, we pile onto each other. So why is that?
Here is my thought for the day - It is a matter of Conviction vs. Freedom. Let's face it, if you are a Confessional Lutheran Minister, you tend to have a lot of conviction. You've had as much schooling as a Lawyer and probably get paid worse than a local teacher (whom we know are underpaid). You chose a job with long hours where demands can be made upon you at any time, where you deal with the sick and the dying, where you have to instruct and correct people who may not wish to be instructed or corrected -- and all this with the Gospel. We are servants of the Word - and we cannot use force as the world uses force. I can't threaten to send a member who is being a putz to the principal's office. I can't fire a bad member. I can't choose not to take their case. In fact, I am expressly called to show more care for these weak brethren. To do this calls for a lot of conviction.
The problem is -- sometimes with conviction one begins to forget the idea of Freedom. Have you ever wondered why Luther was so unique amongst theologians, what set him apart, what made him different? He had both conviction and an understanding of Freedom. Read Freedom of a Christian - it is fantastic. Luther is the one who says ceremonies can vary in place to place as long as the Gospel is not threatened - shoot, Luther would even have let the Pope keep all his blasted titles - if only the Pope served as a true Spiritual Father and preached the Gospel. There is freedom there - that many of the things we could otherwise get hung up on are completely secondary to the Gospel.
And that's where the rubber meets the road for so many Confessional Lutherans. We have conviction, we have our ideas of how to be Confessional - and if someone doesn't agree with us on every little aspect of phraseology or practice - then they are evil. And we should recognize this for what it is - it's battle scars. The Lutheran Church has been through a lot and is going through a lot. Many have been taking the idea of "freedom" and substituting "license" for it. And thus we have learned to distrust freedom. And thus, we like to cut off other people's freedom, even Confessional Lutherans.
This is tragic. Lutherans give up too many things. This Sunday we will confess the Athanasian Creed - and the word "catholic" will sound strange to how many ears? We are no longer called Evangelicals - other took that name from us. Reformed? Gone as well. All through the 20th Century, how much of our liturgical heritage did we surrender until we drew the line at Scripture? We are only now reclaiming that heritage.
We need to reclaim the idea of Freedom. As Confessional Lutherans, we need to remember that if something is not forbidden or commanded, it is fundamentally a matter of freedom. Now, it may not be wise, it may not be the best - but it is Free. We need to remember that our brothers who have - and I won't even say different practice - but different rites and customs are not to be denigraded for this - but rather their Freedom is to be defended and safe guarded. Then that discussion about what is best can take place - but only in the context of Freedom.
We need to demonstrate what Christian Freedom is. Otherwise, the liberals take it and turn it into Lawlessness - and we by abandoning fall into legalism. And when this has happened, we will stop eating our own.
Observation on Confessional Lutheranism #1 - We eat our own.
If it weren't for beards, manly voices (or at least word usage), and the topics discussed, one might easily confuse a bunch of Confessional Lutherans discussing theology for a high school girl's locker room during a cat-fight. Lots of scratching, clawing, hair pulling. It gets sort of nasty.
This is the great tragedy - because as those of us who try to be dedicated Confessional pastors know - there is enough nasty out there without people who ought to be your allies slapping you around on the side. I'm sure every pastor can tell you tales of woe that have hit him or someone close to him in the ministry. And yet it seems that when there is something to discuss, we pile onto each other. So why is that?
Here is my thought for the day - It is a matter of Conviction vs. Freedom. Let's face it, if you are a Confessional Lutheran Minister, you tend to have a lot of conviction. You've had as much schooling as a Lawyer and probably get paid worse than a local teacher (whom we know are underpaid). You chose a job with long hours where demands can be made upon you at any time, where you deal with the sick and the dying, where you have to instruct and correct people who may not wish to be instructed or corrected -- and all this with the Gospel. We are servants of the Word - and we cannot use force as the world uses force. I can't threaten to send a member who is being a putz to the principal's office. I can't fire a bad member. I can't choose not to take their case. In fact, I am expressly called to show more care for these weak brethren. To do this calls for a lot of conviction.
The problem is -- sometimes with conviction one begins to forget the idea of Freedom. Have you ever wondered why Luther was so unique amongst theologians, what set him apart, what made him different? He had both conviction and an understanding of Freedom. Read Freedom of a Christian - it is fantastic. Luther is the one who says ceremonies can vary in place to place as long as the Gospel is not threatened - shoot, Luther would even have let the Pope keep all his blasted titles - if only the Pope served as a true Spiritual Father and preached the Gospel. There is freedom there - that many of the things we could otherwise get hung up on are completely secondary to the Gospel.
And that's where the rubber meets the road for so many Confessional Lutherans. We have conviction, we have our ideas of how to be Confessional - and if someone doesn't agree with us on every little aspect of phraseology or practice - then they are evil. And we should recognize this for what it is - it's battle scars. The Lutheran Church has been through a lot and is going through a lot. Many have been taking the idea of "freedom" and substituting "license" for it. And thus we have learned to distrust freedom. And thus, we like to cut off other people's freedom, even Confessional Lutherans.
This is tragic. Lutherans give up too many things. This Sunday we will confess the Athanasian Creed - and the word "catholic" will sound strange to how many ears? We are no longer called Evangelicals - other took that name from us. Reformed? Gone as well. All through the 20th Century, how much of our liturgical heritage did we surrender until we drew the line at Scripture? We are only now reclaiming that heritage.
We need to reclaim the idea of Freedom. As Confessional Lutherans, we need to remember that if something is not forbidden or commanded, it is fundamentally a matter of freedom. Now, it may not be wise, it may not be the best - but it is Free. We need to remember that our brothers who have - and I won't even say different practice - but different rites and customs are not to be denigraded for this - but rather their Freedom is to be defended and safe guarded. Then that discussion about what is best can take place - but only in the context of Freedom.
We need to demonstrate what Christian Freedom is. Otherwise, the liberals take it and turn it into Lawlessness - and we by abandoning fall into legalism. And when this has happened, we will stop eating our own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)