Let Exceptions Be Exceptions

Posted on July 15, 2012 by Matt

Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but rather when there is nothing more to take away.
–Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

As a software engineer, I can appreciate this statement.  Good engineering isn’t cluttered and doesn’t have extra parts left over.  It cleanly and efficiently does what it’s supposed to do, and nothing else.  Unfortunately, the modern mind is the mind of an engineer, and we often forget that what is a sound proverb in engineering makes little sense when applied to other pursuits.  Shall we take brush strokes off of paintings as long as they could do without?  Shall we replace literature with Cliff’s notes that cover the essential points without all that unnecessary prose?  While there can be a kind of beauty in clean efficiency, it is not the only kind of beauty.  Good design is not Truth.  Perhaps the greatest crime against the humanities has been modernism’s ongoing attempts to reach the essence of a thing by stripping away everything that’s non-essential.  An effective strategy for the mechanical is downright destructive for the spiritual and the organic.

The same holds true when we try to apply this to theology.  Consider baptism.  Lutherans believe what the Church has historically taught and the Bible has always taught about baptism.  In short, we believe that Baptism saves us (“Baptism now saves you” 1 Peter 3:21, “No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit” John 3:5, etc).  More modernistic theologies, however, attempt to strip baptism and salvation down to their essential parts and end up separating the two.

This is typically reached, not through Biblical instruction, but through the use of exceptions to trim the edges of Biblical instruction.  Sometimes these exceptions come from the Bible:  for instance the thief on the cross.  He was told he’d be with Jesus in paradise, but he (probably) wasn’t baptized.  More often, the exceptions come from life.  What about unbaptized babies that die?  What about a man who believes because he here’s the Word, but he’s killed in a car accident on the way to his baptism?  Such folk aren’t baptized, but surely must be saved!  Must we therefore be good modernists by stripping salvation down to its essence and removing baptism from it?  Shall we make salvation more efficient and get rid of all the “false positives” of baptized who reject Christ later in life?

I think there’s a different and entirely legitimate answer to the exceptions:  “So what?”  Do these examples really prove that Baptism is unnecessary?  Only in the same way a broken Chevy rolling down a hill after pulling the wedges out from underneath its wheels proves that a car doesn’t need an engine to accelerate.  There might be some narrow, abstract, & theoretical sense in which it’s technically true, but it’s also completely irrelevant.  There’s nothing for the Church to do about a man who dies on his way to be baptized.  There’s nothing for the Church to do about unbaptized infants whom we have not been given the opportunity to baptize–otherwise they’d be baptized infants.  Let God sort that out.  That whole sacrificing His Son and dying for our sins thing makes me suspect that we can trust Him to accomplish whatever end is good and right.  The thief on the cross was saved by Christ’s personal promise–that he would be with him in paradise that very day.  We too are saved by Christ’s promise–His promise to the whole world that He saves us through baptism.  Why cut off perfectly good legs just because it might technically be possible to move around on bloody stumps?

We have not been authorized to make salvation more efficient than what God has taught.  God has given us the means of grace that He has given us:  Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and the Word.  By receiving these we receive faith & salvation.  He has taught us these things, and His teachings are trustworthy and true.  There’s nothing to be gained by misusing modernistic thought trends in a vain attempt to “improve” God’s instruction.

Posted in Lutheranism, Theology | Leave a comment

I Do Not Wish We Had Women’s Ordination

Posted on July 10, 2012 by Matt

Back in June, Rev. Matthew Harrison, president of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, had a Q&A session at the Northwest district convention.  One of the questions (starting at 34:50)  was how he would explain the LCMS’ refusal to ordain women as pastors to a daughter and whether we would one-day see women’s ordination in the LCMS.  His response centered around three main points.  1) He wishes women could be ordained, 2) but an honest reading of scripture prohibits it, and 3) in order to address the broader call to ordain women, we should work hard to put as many women as possible in non-pastoral offices (which he has personally done).

Unfortunately, I don’t think this is a particularly good answer.  I mean this with all due respect to President Harrison; though I do not know him, he is very well-respected by a great many people I respect.  Nevertheless, the answer he gave was, in my opinion, a poor answer I’ve heard elsewhere, and I think it needs to be discouraged.  As such, my purpose in writing is not to call into question President Harrison himself or even his views, but simply his response as it was delivered.

There’s a big problem with simply saying “I would very much prefer that we did have women’s ordination… but I can’t get away from the text” and then “the response to women pastors is… to open up [women’s service in the church] to give women every possible opportunity to serve.”  It reminds me of a husband saying “I really wish I could have a few mistresses on the side, but the Bible doesn’t let me, so I just want to surround myself with attractive women and come as close to having an affair as possible without taking my clothes off.  I’ll “harmlessly” flirt with women, have a roving eye, and view whatever extent of pornography I can rationalize with my look-but-don’t-touch attitude (from Victoria’s Secret catalog to Playboy to strip clubs, etc), but I won’t actually have an affair because the Bible says that’s wrong.

Now President Harrison’s response does have good points and could indicate other unspoken good points behind the statement.  For one thing, “I want women’s ordination but God’s word forbids it” is much better than “I want women’s ordination, so I’ll twist God’s word until it agrees with what I know is right.”  That it is against God’s word is the reason to oppose it.  It’s also important to remember the human tendency to fall into error by overreacting against another error.  Because of that, I believe it is indeed possible to encourage the women’s ordination crowd by treating women badly.  They then overreact to the problem and think the only way they can “save” women from the Church is by rebelling against God and ordaining them.  Inasmuch as President Harrison sought to communicate that in his comments, I’m completely on board.  Likewise, we must remember that our sinful desires are legitimate desires that have been corrupted.  When a husband lusts after other women, the problem isn’t that he shouldn’t desire sex, it is that his desire has been twisted by sin.  In the same way, it’s entirely legitimate for women to desire to serve God’s people or to want them well-pastored, and that desire should be encouraged.  The problem is when sin twists that desire towards what God has not given us.

Nevertheless, with all that said, attempting to half-satisfy sinful cravings does not make the cravings go away–it only whets our appetite.  It’s not as though a man who wants an affair is going to be completely satisfied with flirting, or being near attractive women, or making a habit of glancing down blouses.  None of these things are the sexual fulfillment he’s seeking.  As a result, the more he gets into the habit of trying to satisfy his desires in small ways, the more he is going to look for additional small ways.  The satisfaction will never be met, and the quest will continue.  Even small dalliances add up to affairs after awhile.  Trying to look but not touch just sets him up for a procession of failures that will tempt him to look harder until his eyes are at their limit and he will need to use other members to start getting closer still.  There’s a reason Bill Clinton found himself publicly making what everyone else recognized as a ludicrous claim that oral sex doesn’t really count as adultery.  This doesn’t just happen overnight.  In the same way, trying to get women as close as possible to the pastoral office by putting them in as many offices as possible without actually ordaining them is never going to satisfy those who want women to be ordained.  No matter how appealing those offices might be, it is not ordination.  Worse yet, after years of such practice, we will all be in the habit of working to get them ever closer–the next step will always be easier.    All we’ll end up with is pulpits ever more frequently occupied by laity until the only distinction left is a job title–and even that distinction will pass away as people realize that job titles make no real difference anyway.

But there is a better way:  God is good.  He loves us enough to have died for us.  We can therefore be sure that when God tells us that he does not call women to be pastors and does not allow His Church to help women pretend otherwise, we can be confident that he is not doing women (or anybody) an injustice.  When we find ourselves thinking and saying “I wish we could have women’s ordination, but the text doesn’t allow it” that highlights a sinfulness of our own which needs to be repented.  Publicly wishing we could have something God has explicitly forbidden in any context other than a confession is not a good apologetic because it is fundamentally sinful.  Furthermore, it harms our neighbors because it reinforces others who have confidence in those same sinful desires.  Just as a man commits adultery in his heart when he looks at a woman lustfully, we commit heresy in our hearts when we desire women’s ordination.  Like lust, this desire is something to be repented of rather than indulged in a piecemeal fashion.

Rather than whetting our sinful appetites in a misguided attempt to hold them at bay, I believe a better solution is to explore and discover how God is being loving towards us by forbidding women from becoming pastors–to teach our people why we should be glad that God does not call women in such a way.  It’s easy to complain, but it’s time for us to take on the more challenging task of finding the good in what God has gifted to us.

Posted in Feminism, Lutheranism | 2 Comments

Peer Pressure by Design

Posted on June 20, 2012 by Matt

Peer pressure is generally considered a bad thing.  We usually hear about it as some mysterious force that makes kids want to have premarital sex, do drugs, and so forth.  It was certainly placarded as a major villain back when I was in school.  However, the hyper-individualistic alternative that was proclaimed in response is really no better.  We are apparently supposed to decide for ourselves what we want in a vacuum, free from the influences of others.  We must find out what our heart tells us and follow it.  Of course, many of us, when we looked deep within our hearts, still found that we wanted to have premarital sex and do drugs.  To this, our culture has no further comments except, “as long as you’re sure that’s what you want…”  This is not a chorus Christians should seek to join.

If you really look at humanity, it becomes clear that, rather than being an inherent evil, social pressure to conform is actually part of our design.  “It is not good for man to be alone.”  Humans were created to be social beings.  What is more, we come into this world entirely dependent upon the care, nurturing, and training of others.  Scripture does teach us that bad company ruins good morals, but it also teaches us that iron sharpens iron.  It teaches that we ourselves must be taught.  It exhorts the older to train the younger, and parents to raise up their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.  If peer pressure is a bad thing, it is not because it unfairly puts individuals under the influence of others.

And yet peer pressure does persist as a danger in our society.  Why?  Perhaps the real problem is that our social circles tend not to extend far beyond our peers.  To return to the stereotypical image, it’s always kids influencing other kids.  I believe the reason for the stereotype is that we go to great lengths to sequester children with other children.  For preschool through eighth grade, we keep children in rooms filled with other children of the same age, station, and in the case of schools with gifted/remedial programs, the same relative intelligence.  High school and most 4-year colleges only change the relative age mix by +/- 2 years.  If you throw in daycare in the early years, that takes care of most daylight hours.  When they get home, they spend free time with their friends (who are usually the same age/station) or with media designed for their specific demographic.  Churches, of course, have wholeheartedly thrown in with the educational model.  Children move from Sunday school to confirmation class to youth group to young adult group to singles group to married group to parenting group.  Our own little societies always stay in lockstep with their own social profile.  Our families are now much smaller and the 2.5 children we think we can handle are usually grouped pretty closely together.  Often, the only social time with people who are older and wiser or younger and in need of assistance is at the dinner table or some family game night–and these are likewise dying traditions among many families.

The long and short of it is that peer pressure is not all that different from the hyper-individualistic alternative.  Given how youth are sequestered, the only alternative to looking into their own hearts is to look into other hearts that are as much like their own as possible.  Parents and churches need to take a good long look at how they’ve been taught to raise up their descendants in the flesh and in the faith respectively.  Thankfully, Christians do have places to look for guidance besides our peers.  We have Scripture, our Lord is with us always, and for millennia, our ancestors in the faith have gone before us; their experience can aid us as we walk through this life.  Perhaps it is time to end peer pressure by eliminating chronological segregation and broadening our children’s horizons–and our own.

Posted in Culture, The Modern Church | 1 Comment

Shame and the Slut Double Standard

Posted on June 18, 2012 by Matt

I’m not a big fan of shaming.  In other words, I don’t like the idea of emotionally manipulating people specifically for the purpose of making them feel shame.  On the other hand, I don’t like the idea of emotionally manipulating people so that they don’t feel shame either.  To some extent, all of us know right from wrong–it’s written on our hearts.  As a result, when we’re reminded of such standards and realize we haven’t lived up to them, we feel shame.  This is an entirely authentic and appropriate emotion to feel in the face of guilt.  And so, I therefore object when people try to manipulate others into forgetting the law written on their hearts in order to avoid feelings of shame.  The solution to shame is not abolishing the law–it’s the fulfillment of the law by Christ on our behalf.

But what about shame with respect to chastity?  I do not refer to slut-shaming (which is like any other kind of shaming), but to slut-shame:  the feelings of the unchaste when they are reminded that what is good and what felt good are not synonymous.  In modern America, this sort of shame seems much more liable to trigger attempts by sentimentalists to banish the unpleasant feelings by abolishing the law.  The usual rationalization I hear is that there’s a double standard for chastity:  when women sleep around, they’re sluts, but when men sleep around they’re studs.  This is deemed unfair, and so people want to restore balance by removing a woman’s sense of shame to match what they imagine to be a man’s lack of shame.

To get the obvious affirmations out of the way:

  • Yes it is sinful for men to fornicate.  Whether it’s “just as sinful for men as it is for women,” I neither know nor care.  I do not know because I cannot measure such sinfulness with enough precision to say whether it’s exactly the same.  I do not care because “I’m no worse than you” and “you’re no better than me” tend to be completely useless observations even if they happen to be true.
  • Yes, women are completely forgiven their unchastity through Christ’s atoning death just as men are.

Of course, whenever someone gets obvious affirmations out the way, it’s because there’s a big “however” coming.  This instance is no different.  Effectively dealing with this kind of double standard requires us to understand where it comes from in the first place.  Simply answering “sin” is unhelpful.  It doesn’t just have to do with the fact that humans are corrupted, but the specific nature of our corruption.

Sexual Barbarism

Humans were created to be monogamous.  Furthermore, this monogamy functions through the complementarity of men and women.  As has often been observed the male role in this monogamy is to lead and provide; the female role is to follow & receive (e.g., Ephesians 5).  The divorce rate has jumped ever since we tried to jettison this understanding.  Furthermore, for all the talk of homosexuals pretending they are married, there is also talk of this same pretense “fixing” marriage for heterosexuals by removing monogamy from it.  Monogamy simply isn’t the standard for two men.  It needs male/female complementarity to work.

It is also true that mankind is fallen.  Like everything else about us, our sexuality has spiraled away from what it was created to be.  We do not what we ought and our wickedness needs to be constrained by the law for the sake of relative peace in this life.  When we have not been adequately trained in this law by an enduring civilization, we become sexual barbarians.  This is true for both men and women.  However, because of the original complementarity, men and women tend* to spiral into sexual sin in different ways.  It is important to keep in mind here that human sexuality goes deeper than the urge to insert tab A into slot B.  It also contains the urge to create relationships.  That doesn’t mean that men and women don’t sometimes use each other as prostitutes for hook-ups.  It does mean, however, that relatively few people have or seek a sexual history made up entirely of brief hook-ups.

When able, sexually barbaric men tend to be polygamous.  Because they are made to lead and provide, they seek self-aggrandizement and self-satisfaction by creating harems when their sexuality is turned to selfishness.  The original design of relationships still has some input, for while they want to use their women, they also want to own them.  Kings are still jealous for their harems, nobles are still jealous for their concubines, and aristocrats are still jealous for their mistresses.  However, they do not hold themselves to any such standards for the sake of their women.  What?  Men have roving eyes?  Say it ain’t so!

Sexually barbaric women, on the other hand, tend to be hypergamous–rather than collecting, they trade their men for other men of higher rank and status.  Because they are made to follow and receive, they seek self-aggrandizement and self-satisfaction by trying to hang onto the most confident/alpha men who can maintain them in a desirable lifestyle.  What?  Women are attracted by power and wealth?  Say it ain’t so!

But I hear a faint objection here.  You’re a woman and you don’t want to trade your boyfriend for someone with more money, power, and authority?  You’re a man and you don’t want to create a harem?  Great!  If you’re not just fooling yourself, then that means you’ve been adequately civilized.  You’ve gained the unconscious habit of quashing those urges when they arise.  Unfortunately, we, as a society, are becoming less and less civilized all the time, so we can’t expect everyone to have those habits anymore.

Now, neither polygamy nor hypergamy are good things.  Both of these harm our neighbors and desecrate the image of God.  The end result is that both men and women end up being promiscuous–they just have different patterns for their promiscuity.  And indeed, fallen sexuality has its own insidious complementarity.  Those men whose wealth, fame, and station provide them with the opportunity to sleep with hundreds of women (think rock star or famous athlete) without too much social consequence very often do exactly that.  Of course, this is only possible because hundreds of women very much want to sleep with a man of such wealth, fame, and station.  Of course, not every man can attract hundreds of women, and not every woman can turn a rock star’s head, but even when practical capability is missing, these patterns still remain in the imaginations and behavior of men (e.g., porn) and women (e.g., vampire/werewolf porn).

The Double Standard

So how then does the double-standard come about?  The long and the short of it is this:  Men are usually bothered by promiscuity in long-term relationship prospects (especially promiscuity in excess of their own).  They will try to avoid marrying such women unless there is some strong countervailing factor.  The situation for women is more complicated.  They are likewise bothered by promiscuity (especially promiscuity in excess of their own), but at the same time they usually have a very strong countervailing factor:  they are attracted to precisely the kind of high social status indicated by a man having been promiscuous.

Women have traditionally been the gatekeepers of purity for precisely this reason.  When it comes to future marriage, It is almost always in her own best interest to remain pure.  The situation for men is more complicated.  They often have a conflict of interest.  When coupling decisions rest in the hands of prospective mates, remaining pure is often detrimental to men’s marriage prospects.  Not only could the notches in their bedpost make them more appealing, it is not at all uncommon for women to wonder why they should bother when nobody else has.  Generally speaking, it is not wise to entrust a responsibility entirely to someone who could have a vested interest in neglecting that responsibility.

So how do we deal with this load-bearing double standard?  Trying to emotionally manipulate women into no longer feeling shame at unchastity is just a recipe for sexual anarchy.  If the theory doesn’t convince you of that, the historical record of feminism should.  Shaming men?  As I indicated earlier, I’m not a big fan of emotionally manipulating people into feeling shame, even when “people” includes men.  Perhaps the solution lies in simply proclaiming the law to everyone and letting it do it’s job.  Most men will, to some degree, feel shame when reminded of unchastity because the law is written on their hearts too.  It wouldn’t be the first time that men were trained to reject a seemingly advantageous behavior for the sake of rectitude.  We don’t have to resort to deception and marketing when we can still return to a time-tested option like civilization.  Will this proclamation make women feel more shame than men?  Probably.  Will the double-standard persist?  Probably.  “Civilized” is not the same as “perfect.”  It’s still just restrained sin.  But it wouldn’t be either the first or the last time that either men or women shoulder some burden more than their compliments.  If the family hinges on complementarity, why should we expect civilization to hinge on it any less?

—————————————————-

*This is what we call a generalization.  It helps us spot trends without saying that all men are Y or all women are X.  For this very reason, they are not refuted by statements like “my friend is a woman and she isn’t X.”

Posted in Chastity, Ethics, Feminism | 7 Comments

In Defense of Thomas Kinkade

Posted on May 25, 2012 by Matt

First, let me make it clear that I am not defending Thomas Kinkade’s artistic talent or sensibilities.  I am neither an art critic nor an art conisseur, and am entirely unqualified to make such a defense if, indeed, one is justified.  This doesn’t bother me too much because even though I like and want to appreciate art, I have a rather low opinion of art critics and the art world in general based on almost exclusively hearing silly nonsense from that quarter.  Now, because I do want to appreciate “real” art, I myself dislike Christian industrial art.  This is because I dislike industrial art as such and don’t want it associated with Christianity.  But frankly, when Christians join up with art critics in condemnations of Kinkade, it reminds me of the second-least popular kid in school joining others in making fun of the least popular kid in school.  For such children, it’s a rare pleasure to be able to dismiss others as inferior, and though they themselves regularly suffer from such dismissal, their participation does let them feel like the popular kids for a brief moment.  Maybe the critics’ motivations are pure–I have no way of knowing one way or another–but that is the impression I get from these pile-on moments.

What I do want to defend the late Mr. Kinkade against specifically is a theological charge that I see cropping up:  that by imagining and painting a world without a Fall, he is rejecting grace, teaching works righteousness, and instructing us that all we and the world need is a little sprucing up.  Most recently, this post by Daniel Siedell on the subject has been making the rounds and receiving plenty of praise as it goes.

I find it quite instructive that in Scripture, God provides the very thing Kinkade attempted to provide in his own work–regardless of how well or poorly he carried it out.  A perusal of both Old and New Testament (especially the Prophets and Revelation) reveals numerous expressions of an unfallen world that make use of images from this one.  You see this at the beginning of Genesis, obviously.  But lest anyone see that as mere historical fact, you routinely see the theme of a new creation throughout scripture–a creation in which sin has no place. “And death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away” (Rev 21:4).  “For behold, I create Jerusalem to be a joy and her people to be a gladness.  I will rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in my people; no more shall be heard in it the sound of weeping and the cry of distress.  No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days or an old man who does not fill out his days…  The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox.”  (Isaiah 65:18-20,25).  Nature without carnivorous slaughter? How “trite, uninteresting, and sentimental!” Nevertheless, according to God, the “fear, anger, and desperation” that make up Siedell’s “Light” will be completely absent in the new creation.

Surely this does not mean that scripture “denies the very foundation of our relationship to God in Christ” by painting these word pictures.  On the contrary, they dovetail beautifully with that very message of our reconciliation to God in Christ.  After all, being saved so that after we die of cancer on Earth, we can eternally suffer from cancer in a gritty and “real” Heaven is not the Gospel.  On the contrary, we are being saved so that we can live in perfect innocence and blessedness with God forever–in a real and sinless world.  We are going to be led back to a new Eden and our lives put in order.

I, for one, am very glad that God has made this clear to us.  You see, there are two parts to really understanding that this fallen world is not our true home no matter how much we try to spruce it up.  The first is indeed what Mr. Siedell points out: the recognition that this world is dirty and gritty.  This is true and I’m quite glad there is art that captures this.  The second part, however, which the critics seem to take entirely for granted, is that there really is such a thing as “home.”  Without that second understanding, the true realization that the world is a nasty place is just shallow nihilism–nothing matters or has any value.  If “home” is a meaningless concept, you cannot say that the world is not your home; all you can say is that the world stinks.

With such a clearly legitimate purpose to serve, it appalls me that Christian critics jump on Kinkade’s attempt to paint a world without the Fall and then attach nefarious purposes like “His images give us a world that’s really okay, a world in which all we need is home and hearth, a weekend retreat, a cozy night with the family to put us right with God.”  Where did this come from?  Where exactly did an attempt to crystallize the abstract concept of “home” in canvas and paint transform into instructions on justifying ourselves before God through works?  Could someone take it that way?  Sure, but one can take “thou shalt not murder” that way as well.  I have yet to see anyone make the case that it must necessarily be taken that way or that Kinkade intended it to be taken that way.  Without such evidence, this whole charade is merely an exercise in bearing false witness against our late neighbor.  Why should he have “felt excruciating pressure to live up to these paintings?”  I don’t typically feel excruciating pressure to live up to the end of Isaiah or Revelation–I feel relief that God has both promised and achieved such a world for us.  I feel the same thing when I see “A Peaceful Retreat”–comfort that our struggle with sin will end.

Is showing an unfallen world insufficient on it’s own for teaching that this world is not our home?  Yes.  Does it fail to teach Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf?  Yes.  Well, eating only bananas is insufficient for proper nutrition, and I don’t see people leaping up to condemn Chiquita on those grounds.  Is staying exclusively within the safe confines of Thomas Kinkade healthy?  Certainly not.  But if that’s the charge being made here, it’s hidden within quite a bit of vitriol directed towards Kinkade personally and his work as such rather than any abuse thereof.

Posted in Culture, Lutheranism, Theological Pietism | 1 Comment

The Ten Commandments of Reaching Younger Generations

Posted on April 12, 2012 by Matt

The other day, my alma mater posed a question on Facebook:  “How can the Church more effectively reach out to younger generations?”  Many Christians are asking this as church membership in America declines, and there are a lot of bad answers out there.  As someone right on the border between the two generations in question, I’d like to get the basic answer down first:  What do Millennials and Gen-X need from the Church? Forgiveness of sins.  So I guess the best approach to reaching us would be convincing us that we need it (preaching the law) and then delivering it to us (preaching the gospel).

But, well…  short and pithy has never been my strong suit.  Leaving it at that is like telling someone that the Law is simply loving God with all your heart soul & mind and loving your neighbor as yourself.  True, it teaches us the core of what the Law is, but doesn’t necessarily teach us what it looks like in practice.  And so just as we need some moral instruction to teach us what the Law looks like, we also may need instruction on what preaching Law and Gospel to “young people” looks like.

I therefore offer up the Ten Commandments of Reaching Young People.  First table is primarily for pastors’ relationships with young people;  2nd table is for all Christians’ relationships with young people.

***First Table***

1.  Thou shalt preach the whole council of God.What does this mean?  Pastors should fear and love God so that they actually preach the whole council of God and trust that His Word contains all matters of theological necessity and that all matters in His Word are necessary.

2.  Thou shalt not come up with artificial preaching gimmicks.

What does this mean?  Pastors should fear and love God so that they do not make every sermon 49% law & 51% gospel or turn everything in the Bible into a bad metaphor for the Sacraments, but rather trust that He has already put these important matters in His Word and has no need for pastors to add them in.

3.  Thou shalt not use the efficacy of the Word as an excuse for poor, shallow, or negligent preaching.

What does this mean?  Pastors should fear and love God so that they do what has been given them to do to the best of their ability.  While they should not trust their own efforts to achieve the Spirit’s work for Him, neither should they see themselves as a mere set of shoulders holding up their vestments so that they need not concern themselves with doing a good job.  They aren’t casting magic spells from the pulpit;  God has promised to act through their work, not instead of it or coincidentally with it.

***Second Table***

4.  Thou shalt not try to “speak their language” or embrace fads that went out of style a decade ago.What does this mean?  We should fear and love God so that we are content with foolishness to the Greeks and a stumbling block to the Jews and not turn these things into ridiculous nonsense for everyone.  In the immortal words of Hank Hill, “You aren’t making rock n’ roll better;  you’re just making Christianity worse.”

5.  Thou shalt not segregate youth from the rest of the church.

What does this mean?  We should fear and love God so that we do not create separate age/life-status groups but instead recognize that there is only one church, and if we segregate youth, we simply push them out of her.  If what we’re already doing is important, then we need to teach them why they should join in. If they rightly suggest that we are neglecting something important, then let them start doing it with us. If they wrongly suggest that we are neglecting something important, then we must teach & correct them.

6.  Thou shalt not command inquisitive minds to “just have faith” and “set their human reason aside.”

What does this mean?  We should fear and love God so that we learn to answer their questions as best we can (i.e. apologetics) and trust Him to create a faith that keeps reason in its proper, God-given place.

7.  Thou shalt guide and discipline the young in doing good.

What does this mean?  We should fear and love God so that we trust that His love will motivate Christians to do good works and therefore train our youth to embrace & channel that motivation.  Sanctification is not the Think System.  God has not authorized us to protect the doctrine of justification by refusing His call to provide such instruction.

8.  Thou shalt be counter-cultural when God’s Word is counter-cultural.

What does this mean?  We should fear and love God so that we put His Word above the word of our culture–not just on hot-button political issues, but on all of it.  Yes, yes, conservative churches are very good at remembering that marriage is between a man and a woman, and liberal churches are very good at remembering not to favor the rich over the poor.  But I’ve yet to see a church of either stripe where the older women train the younger women on working at home and submitting to their husbands (Titus 2:4-5) or where youth struggling with sexual purity are taught to find a spouse (1 Cor. 7:2,9).  Remember: teach the whole counsel of God, even when it’s not The American Way.

9.  Thou shalt let the Law and the Gospel do their work

What does this mean?  We should fear and love God so that we do not snatch away the Law or withhold the Gospel.  The Law need not always be encapsulated in “<insert sin here> is very bad and you should never do it, but it doesn’t matter anyway because you’re forgiven.”  It is ok to just say “<insert sin here> is very bad and you should never do it.”  Give them some time to take heed lest they fall.   Likewise, the Gospel need not always be encapsulated in “everything you do is very bad and you can’t help it, but it doesn’t matter anyway because you’re forgiven.”  Don’t wait for fear, trembling, and the pangs of hell before preaching Christ Crucified.  If you remember the whole counsel of God, you’ll cover both of these in abundance without taking either one away.

10.  Thou shalt not use silly gimmicks like “the 10 commandments of ________” as teaching tools.  Otherwise you might have to add superfluous items just to make it to 10.

Like the original 10, breaking any of these means breaking the first, and keeping the first means keeping all of these.  If our congregations really teach the whole counsel of God, they won’t have time to make these common mistakes.

Posted in Christian Youth, The Modern Church | Leave a comment

In Which a Stream of Consciousness Overflows its Banks, Devastating the Local Ecosystem

Posted on March 14, 2012 by Matt

The other day, I was told about about Disney’s new Habit Heroes–an extremely short-lived Epcot exhibit that sought to combat obesity by teaching kids healthy habits.  It included heroic and fit characters like Will Power and Callie Stenics who need to elude the wiles of fat and deformed villains like Snacker, Lead Bottom, and The Glutton.  Naturally, people quickly recognized it as an attempt to shame ugly overweight children while uplifting the fit and attractive.  The exhibit was, as one commenter described it, “picking up where the school bullies left off.”  My first thoughts were pretty much along these same lines;  I mean it’s not exactly subtle, is it?

My second thought was one of hope.  If the obesity fanatics are kept occupied trying to combat obesity without in any way indicating that there’s anything wrong with being obese, maybe we won’t have to hear from them anymore.  Seriously; as soon as you have two premises: A) Obesity is bad and B) we can avoid obesity through our own good habits, then the obese must logically conclude that their behavior has lead to a bad thing.  Where do people think shame comes from, anyway?  Good luck teaching that obesity must be combated with good habits without ever indicating that obesity must be combated with good habits.

Then my wife mentioned how similar this whole thing was to the “educational” film strips from the 1950’s.  The kind they used to make fun of on MST3K and still make fun of on Rifftrax.  It seems like the same kind of shallow morality play meant to indoctrinate kids into becoming a rather narrow kind of good citizen.  But if the 10’s are the new 50’s, they’re a very liberal 50’s.  Nobody really thinks obesity is a good thing, but the overreaching nanny-state programs attempting to deal with this “epidemic” are certainly more dear to those left of center than those on the right.

This “liberal 50’s” take on society also seems to hold water in other areas.  You might not get dismissed from your job for being now or ever having been a member of the Communist Party, but in California, they’ll try their best to dismiss you for hunting.  There are full-page ads in the New York Times claiming that rejecting a new mandate forcing religious organizations to pay for any and all forms of birth control for their employees is a return to the Dark Ages–just about the shallowest slippery slope argument I’ve ever encountered.  You might not see Father Knows Best on TV, but there’s an astonishing amount of moral uniformity across television programs when it comes to matters like extramarital sex, abortion, and homosexuality.  They just happen to uniformly endorse liberal sensibilities.  And, of course, our universities are in a firm ideological grip that doesn’t tolerate dissent from the established orthodoxy.  Many, for example, have begun undertaking efforts to dissolve all student organizations that don’t meet their ideological standards.  Their new orthodoxy just happens to consist of overturning the traditional morality and religion that was rooted in American culture back in the conservative 50’s.  This they confuse with critical thinking–as though academics don’t realize that half a century has passed in the meantime.

But if the 10’s are a liberal 50’s, could the 20’s end up being a conservative 60’s?  Most older conservatives tend to cling to rank & file Republicanism and nominate the most liberal, big-government Republican available as their presidential candidate because otherwise a liberal, big-government Democrat might win and disaster would ensue.  Most of the conservatives my own age, however, seem much more impressed with Ron Paul, the candidate whom the Republican establishment deems a crazy maverick because he’s actually conservative.  They’re quite conservative politically & morally, but they tend to have very little respect for political and cultural institutions.  They want politicians with character and principles, but don’t care whether they have an “R” after their name on C-Span.  They don’t trust educational institutions and end up homeschooling.  They don’t want their future teenagers having premarital sex, but seem open-minded about them marrying before 20.  They’re skeptical that a college education is really the only way to have a full and productive life.  They have little interest in regulating Big Food, but still try to eschew processed vittles in favor of local and homegrown fare.    In short, they have clear ideas on the kind of society they want for themselves and their families, and are quite willing to buck society’s expectations in order to pursue it–even the expectations of conservative segments of society.

Will the coming decades bring us a bunch of free-thinking hippie conservatives who protest America’s liberal establishment, question its moral authority, and seek radical social change that overturns our stale and outdated institutions?  Only time will tell, but I’d like to think that such a 60’s would turn out better than last time.

Posted in Culture, Politics, Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Equality is Marriage Poison

Posted on March 11, 2012 by Matt

A few centuries ago, humankind added a novel component to their politics–the idea that all people are created equal.  This concept of equality proved to be very successful in advancing the common good.  It helped to modify and remove distinctions between peasant and lord, slave and master, and so forth–distinctions that were frequently abused and worked against justice by allowing those in power to escape its reach when it came to offenses against those under their authority.  In short, equality became an extremely useful political tool that helps protect people from each other.  We should be thankful for it.

But good things are often corrupted, and equality is no exception.  Based on equality’s great success, many wished to apply it to every area of life–not just the establishment of earthly justice.  In short, equality was idolized and became enshrined as Equality.  It was treated as something valuable for its own sake and made into a god which claims authority over our lives.  Much could be said about Equality’s successes and failures.  There is one area, however, in which Equality has done and still does exceptionally deep and abiding harm to many.  C. S. Lewis took up this line of thought in his novel, That Hideous Strength.  He addresses it by means of a conversation between a young woman in a difficult marriage and Ransom (the “director”):

“’I thought love meant equality,’ she said, ‘and free companionship.’
‘Ah, equality!’ said the director.  ‘We must talk of that some other time.  Yes, we must all be guarded by equal rights from one another’s greed, because we are fallen.  Just as we must all wear clothes for the same reason.  But the naked body should be there underneath the clothes, ripening for the day when we shall need them no longer.  Equality is not the deepest thing, you know.’
‘I always thought that was just what is was.  I thought it was in their souls that people were equal.’
‘You were mistaken.,’ said he gravely. ‘That is the last place where they are equal.  Equality before the law, equality of incomes—that is very well.  Equality guards life; it doesn’t make it.  It is medicine, not food.’
‘But surely in marriage…?’
‘Worse and worse,’ said the Director.  ‘Courtship knows nothing of it; nor does fruition.  …  It’s not your fault.  They never warned you.  No one has ever told you that obedience — humility — is an erotic necessity.  You are putting equality just where it ought not to be.’”

Like Jane, most of us were never warned.  On the contrary, we have been taught from childhood that a wife’s submission to her husband’s authority is a horrible crime against women–a concept that is not merely old fashioned, but destructive.  Some very real abuses of this authority are laid out and Equality is offered as a woman’s shield against such harm ever befalling her.  But in this case, the “cure” is worse than the disease.  As we look out over the ruins of marriage’s collapse in the West–the extent of which has lead many to believe that an institution that has been with humans for millennia isn’t even realistic–we can’t help but find ways in which Equality has abused the authority we granted to it.

In terms of marital decision-making, Equality introduces more conflict than it resolves.  One reason for its success in the political realm is the move towards democracy.  But democracy is of no value in a two-person system, for in the event of conflict, there is never a majority.  So how does each spouse receive equal say?  Most decisions are required in the context of a particular time and place–simply waiting for agreement means only that the most obstinate people always get their way.  A couple cannot take turns on important decisions without already having perfect agreement on how important each decision is.  They cannot turn it over to the most qualified individual without perfect agreement on who is most qualified.  Even if one could create a complex logical flowchart in which importance and qualifications are given values that are kept in balance, that would describe the relationship between two computers rather than between a man and woman.  Equality simply does not exist in a marriage.  Couples must often act as one, but Equality has no capacity for it in this context.  What an incoherent obligation like Equality does create, however, is a strong sense of entitlement in both parties.  If fairness is simultaneously expected and impossible, who is one more likely to blame for unfairness In the heat of the moment, oneself or one’s spouse?  Equality only creates a situation in which the other is always in the wrong and commands us to store up resentment.

Equality likewise kills romance.  As Lewis pointed out, obedience is an erotic necessity.  Even our standard romantic metaphors like “falling head-over-heels in love” or “being swept off you feet” imply being under the power of another.  When one offers one’s spouse a surprise gift and asks them to close their eyes, nothing would kill the romance faster than refusing until adequate justification is provided.  The veto which many count on equality to provide is poisonous to romance.  There is no English word less sexy than “no,” and there is no equality to be found in being literally swept off one’s feet.  Neither is there any help in abstracting this submission so that each spouse submits equally overall.  The moment one begins calculating whether their spouse has lived up to their own efforts at romance, the seeds of suspicion and entitlement are sown.  Equality is of no use when it comes to giving as much as one can to one’s spouse (to loving them)–it is entirely a non-issue.  Equality is only relevant to the task of policing one’s spouse to make sure they’re holding up their end of the bargain.  A couple cannot relax and enjoy one-another when they’re too busy measuring and regulating.

Equality is powerless to provide an escape from our society’s marriage problem;  all it can do is transform or discard marriage in the blind hope that maybe that will do some good.  Our only recourse is to remove it from its temple and to recover the natural complementarity between men and women that Equality commanded us to reject.  Not every distinction between individuals is harmful.  A wife submitting to her husband as unto the Lord and a husband sacrificing himself for his wife in imitation of Christ have no room for Equality.  This arrangement is not safe for either person, but when has romance ever been safe?  Far better that we discard the dead weight of the useless shield of Equality and learn and prepare once again to be husbands and wives rather than spouses.

Posted in Feminism | 6 Comments

Abusing Sola Scriptura

Posted on February 20, 2012 by Matt

“The Bible doesn’t say it’s wrong, so I can do it if I want to.”

Unfortunately, this is a common refrain among protestants and Lutherans looking for some kind of license.  We can see this very clearly when it comes to sexuality.  One of the most common questions unmarried Christians ask themselves is “how far is too far”?  Is it ok to hold hands? To kiss?  Make-out?  Heavy petting?  Sex acts that don’t involve penetration?  Intercourse?  One can answer these questions with wisdom, but it is hard to do so with proof texts, and so many simply do whichever of these they want.  Of course the 6th Commandment says that adultery is wrong, but many consider that this means the unmarried have no obligations.  One could point out other passages such as Jesus’ condemnation of lust in the Sermon on the Mount, Paul’s comment on homosexuality in Romans, or the frequent warnings against fornication throughout the epistles.  Nevertheless, anyone raised on the NIV reads only the empty label of “sexual immorality” where fornication is mentioned (“what I’m doing isn’t sexually immoral!”), homosexuality interests only a small portion of the population, and when one comes to the point where one thinks only adultery and lust are wrong but everything in between is okay, one will necessarily lose one’s understanding of what lust is.  And so we end up with the normalcy of premarital sex inside the church and lose any concept of the virtue of chastity.

We find the same thing happening when we consider the use of post-biblical technology.  For example, Rome has long taught that contraception is wrong.  Protestants have long responded that the Bible doesn’t specifically condemn it, so it must be ok.  Now, however, there are a growing number of protestants and Lutherans who find the Roman arguments on the subject compelling.  Some agree with the Roman teaching that contraception is always and without exception morally impermissible.  Many others do not go so far as making it a moral absolute, but do recognize that contraception is not simply ok to use whenever and however one wants (and that our typical usage is indeed wrong).  But these kinds of moral arguments proceed mostly from natural law and wisdom–they are fortified by Biblical attitudes (such as children being a blessing), but not by specific Biblical commands.  We don’t have proof texts, and so most Christians still refrain “the Bible doesn’t say it’s wrong, so we can do whatever we want.”

But why do so many Christians eschew wisdom in favor of proof-texting?  Perhaps because quite frequently, well-meaning pastors and theologians join in the chorus of the license-seekers and claim that Sola Scriptura somehow implies that the Bible is ethically exhaustive.  They do not seek license for themselves, but instead do not want anyone to harm their neighbors’ Christian freedom by laying down new oppressive rules.  And so they teach that anything the Bible doesn’t specifically command or forbid must therefore be morally neutral–that it’s neither right nor wrong.  Indeed, many Lutherans will go so far as to call it morally wrong and harmful to our neighbors to actually discern wickedness anywhere that Scripture doesn’t explicitly point it out.  By doing so, they imagine that they are being more faithful to Scripture than those who use reason and natural law to discern right & wrong and broadly apply Biblical principles as they live their lives.

The irony is that this doesn’t seem to be Scripture’s take on the matter.  Rather, Scripture seems to say that whatever Scripture falls silent on is a matter to be discerned by our good judgment.  There are, of course, Paul’s famous words in 1 Corinthians 6: “‘All things are lawful for me,’ but not all things are helpful.  ‘All things are lawful for me,’ but I will not be enslaved by anything.'”   There is also Ephesians 5.  Paul lays out some instructions, certainly, but they are somewhat vague:  we should not involve ourselves in “impurity,”  “foolish talk,” “crude joking,”  etc.  The Bible does not define such terms for us; Paul lays out no flowchart for what counts as crude or impure.  Instead, Paul instructs us to “Walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord.”  Once again, our good judgment is required.  Elsewhere, Paul even indicates that our good judgment should be informed by the natural order of things:  “Judge for yourselves:  is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?  Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair it is her glory?  For her hair is given to her for a covering.” (1 Cor 11:13-15a).  (as an aside, this video by Rev. Jonathan Fisk is an excellent treatment of these verses).  The point is that verses like these in no way indicate moral neutrality for everything for which Scripture does not provide a specific command.  On the contrary, they indicate good judgment in such cases–and our good judgment may or may not discern the subject to be neutral.  It may consider it good and necessary or dangerous or forbidden or neutral or something else entirely.

Now, as good modernists, we like to imprint hyper-individualism onto “use your good judgment” and take it to mean “no one else has any right to say anything on the matter; it relies on your own judgment hermetically sealed from that of others.”  This, however, is…  well, poor judgment.  Humans are social beings.  We don’t live in a vacuum and so neither should we exercise judgment in one.  We listen to and learn from others.  Who among us hasn’t, to some degree, learned how to live well from our parents and mentors–including from their rules?  And so if another exercises his judgment, discerns “one must” or “one must not” on a particular matter, and then gives voice to that judgment along with their reasons, it is not necessarily harmful to his neighbors.  It may be a precious gift instead, for we all want “our love to abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight so that we may be able to discern what is best.” (Philippians 1:9-10).  We most certainly shouldn’t masquerade our good judgment as God’s judgment and call it a new revelation as Rome does, but neither should we pretend our judgment isn’t ultimately about moral goodness in a sense that is in no way God-neutral.

Others who object to using good judgment will point out our sinful natures.  Humans love to make new rules for themselves to make themselves righteous and condemn others.  This makes our moral judgments unreliable.  Reason, after all, is the devil’s whore!  When reason and the law are joined, faith immediately loses its virginity!  Should we not therefore prefer a source like the Bible that proceeds straight from the mouth of God?   This question is usually rhetorical, but it does have an answer.  Is even our Biblically-informed good judgment fallible?  Absolutely!  Should we submit to Scripture when it indicates that we are in error?  Of course!  Any time our good judgment approves what Scripture condemns or condemns what Scripture approves, we must repent of our error.  No matter how solid our reasoning seems in such cases, we must let God be true and every man a liar.  However, this doesn’t mean that good judgment isn’t our best tool for the job when Scripture is silent.  And let’s not over-blow reason being the devil’s whore.  Bread is also the devil’s whore (Matthew 4:3-4).  That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make diligent use of bread as appropriate & necessary.  Likewise, though our good judgment must be subject to and instructed by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, we have been given no command to shelve it where Scripture is silent.

Though the Bible is exhaustive concerning the Gospel and Salvation, it is not exhaustive when it comes to ethics.  It was not meant to be because it is not primarily a guide to right living but a declaration that Christ has lived rightly in our stead.  Consider the Sermon on the Mount:  Jesus issues many instances of “You have heard it said… but I say to you…”  For example, “You have heard that it was said, ‘you shall not commit adultery.’  But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”  Here, Jesus disabuses those legalists who thought they were doing ok because they kept the letter of the law.  The point is not “you had one rule, but now you have two and I’ve gotcha with the second!”  That is still legalism.  He is instead telling us that “thou shalt not commit adultery” always went deeper than the barest literal reading.  Naturally, Luther agrees, which is why his explanation of the 6th commandment isn’t “do not have intercourse with anyone else if you’re married,” but instead “we should fear and love God so that we live a chaste and decent life in word and deed and each love and honor our spouse.”

Salvation is not simply a ticket to heaven–Christ has given us new lives to lead in Him.  These are not truncated quasi-human lives that exclude certain brain functions.  They are full and abundant lives that encompass our entire selves.  The sinful flesh that still clings to us will sometimes lead us astray, but these sins are likewise paid for.  We must lead our lives at the foot of the Cross, but let us not neglect to actually lead them as best we can.

Posted in Ethics, Law, The Modern Church, Theology | Leave a comment

The President’s Shell Game

Posted on February 13, 2012 by Matt

This past Friday, President Obama announced what he called a “compromise” in his plans to forbid those Christians who recognize the moral problems surrounding contraception and abortion from putting those beliefs into practice.  This new plan, he claims, is no longer a blatant assault on religious liberty for the sake of advancing his policies.  Unfortunately, this is simply untrue.

The president told us:

Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services -– no matter where they work.  So that core principle remains.  But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company -– not the hospital, not the charity -– will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.

The result will be that religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services, and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly.

Make no mistake.  This is simply a shell game.  There is no requirement that pharmaceutical companies provide contraceptives to insurance companies free of charge.  No, the insurance companies will still be paying out money for their policy holders’ contraception.  Where will the insurance company be getting this money?  From the premiums paid by those policy holders–the very same Christian organizations who do not want to be participants in contraception and chemical abortion.  These organizations simply no longer have any choice in the matter–just like under the plan that wasn’t falsely labelled a compromise.

This still takes away religious liberty; the only difference is that liberty is now replaced by plausible deniability.  “Who is paying for the abortifacients and contraception?  We don’t know (wink wink).”  President Obama is allowing Christians to save face by appearing to adhere to their beliefs in public–he is nevertheless taking away their freedom to actually adhere to those beliefs.

Only time will tell whether this con job be enough to silence the opposition and allow the president to force his morality on the American people.

Posted in Feminism, Politics, Uncategorized | Leave a comment