St. Mark's Lutheran » gospel

Standby by for some Announcements…

Parson Brown — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:11:23 +0000

Sermon Text: Luke 1:26-38
Full Text of Sermon

I’m not sure why but Advent 4 (Mary’s week in the lectionary) and Thanksgiving are probably the two occasions that I almost always feel real good about the sermon. On firm Lutheran grounding I’d just say that they are opportunities to proclaim a very clear gospel. In my theological understanding I’d say they are times that give themselves to Christology – and the gospel is first and foremost a proclamation of Christ. If I was being a little more spiritual and sentimental (or Roman Catholic) – I’d say an extra measure of the Spirit is given to preachers talking about Jesus’ mom or eucharist/thanksgiving. Whatever the reason, this a sermon that all I can really say is take a listen…

If I don’t get back here this week, I hope to see you at Christmas Eve or Christmas day services. If you are a remote reader/listener, Merry Christmas and please find a church to celebrate Christmas with this week in your hometown.

Outside Support (“A Game of Musical Chairs”)

Parson Brown — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:22:38 +0000

In the post yesterday I made a comment to the effect that “we as a country seem to be playing a never-ending game of musical chairs deciding who takes the loss.” That has been my gut financial feeling for a long time. My guess is that is the core of the anger over things like TARP and just anything that shares the word “bailout”. That is because someone with authority decided that “those folks” will not take the loss. And of course those folks were the already rich and powerful. The powerful politicians stuck the bill with the taxpayers and paid out their buddies. They will get theirs when their political career winds down or they will get it back-door when their wife gets a cream-puff director job or a hot tip on some land. That has been my thought for a long time, but I never saw that expressed by anyone else. Until now. Here is David Wessel – WSJ columnist on “why crises persist”.

It’s been five years since the U.S. housing bubble burst. Housing remains among the biggest reasons the U.S. economy is doing so poorly.

On both continents, there is no longer any doubt about the severity of the threat or the urgent need for better policies. Yet the players seem spectacularly unable to act.

What’s taking so long?

Deciding who will get stuck with the tab.

This is exactly why “stimulus” might seem to be compassionate, but it leads to more problems, and why this guy, Andrew Mellon, has long been an interesting figure to me (I was a financial geek for a long time). Mellon famously said “work the rot out”. Part of work the rot out was liquidating harshly any bad banks. By that he meant prices need to fall and the faster the better, and the best things a government can do in a downturn is uphold the law and liquidate failed stuff as fast as possible. What you can take that as instead of prolonging the game of musical chairs as a political problem, play the game as hot potato. Politics is a game of fairness defined by the mob. A political solution usually is found where just over 50% decide “this is fair”. (Of course that means just under 50% could be getting whacked). To move it to the political realm is to ignore the law or re-write the winners and losers. To Mellon, finance is completely a game of law. The mob is never really fair. The rich and powerful win it, or the whole place is turned to ruins…every time. The law is or should be impartial. Andrew Mellon would have bankrupted and liquidated his mother. And that is to be praised. That is the impartiality of the law. Under fair laws we are all equal, even if those laws aren’t perfect we know what they are. That is a first use or civil use of the law. The Hebrew prophets weigh in on that civil use. Micah 6:11 is an example, rhetorically – “Shall I acquit the man with wicked scales and a bag of deceitful weights?” Also check out Lev 19:36, Deut 25:13, Prov 16:11, Prov 20:10, and Prov 20:23. I could list more. And we think God doesn’t say anything about this, heh. Our problem is that bad weights have already been used.

That first use or civil use can point to a second use of the law. It should dawn on us looking at the effects that we all will be caught with a hot potato sometime. We all will have a debt that we can’t pay. Quoting another economist – in the long run we are all dead. Governments are institutions of the law. But with God we hear the Gospel. The law would liquidate us. In Christ we find a new law…a law of grace. A king who can forgive 10,000 talents.

Update: Here is my favorite financial journalist, Megan McArdle on the folly of fairness. I guess what you could say is that she wishes we would apply grace now instead of the law. But to apply grace means you trust the person with the scepter or that you apply grace abundantly. Jubilee. The Lord who knows hearts. Think anyone would go for a wholesale debt forgiveness? Trust the US government to judiciously forgive? Didn’t think so. Even Israel never applied a jubilee year. Institutions of the law apply that law. That is why they have the sword – a terrible swift sword.

It’s about the gospel…

Parson Brown — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 17:04:49 +0000

This post from Scot McKnight strikes at a theological nerve. It is the latest and most clear in an grouping of posts.

First the caveats. McKnight is a big-tent evangelical. He has a new book to sell. My sympathies lie with McKnight’s general bent. Last caveat – Luther said a lot of things, most of them polemical, but if you want to get a real sense of the core of his faith, you read his sermons and hymns.

I don’t think I’m stretching something to say that “That old time religion” just doesn’t seem to be working. And I think we can say that regardless of what side of any of the various schisms you are on. (For conversation’s sake I’m really talking about the American church and not the global south.) With that fact, a believer is confronted with a few unappealing choices: God has chosen to pass over this time and place (verse of horror Amos 8:11), this time and place has rejected the word (verse of horror Heb 6:4-5), we have bent the Word in the easiest way to our own liking (Matt 5:19, 2 Tim 4:3).

I would in general skip that first choice because of Pentecost and the parable of the Sower. In this age the Word of God is thrown extravagantly, the Spirit has been poured out. I don’t think that second one can be ruled out. But if we take that seriously, we need to redouble our efforts. If we think that is the case, it might not be too late yet. Maybe the Lord will relent (think the story of Hezekiah, Isa 37:15-38:7). The letter to the church in Laodicea (Rev 3:14-22) is key. The third one is what Scot McKnight is getting at. And he is pointing at all the various schisms.

To the religious group mainly represented by the old mainline protestant and the “cafeteria” catholics the gospel has become about the word justice. It is a gospel of social justice. This is tougher for me because it isn’t my native tribe, but they have “proof texts” and the spirit of the OT prophets. To the religious group represented by the various bands of evangelical bible churches and the denominations of a more theological bent (LCMS, PCA) the gospel is all about justification. (Hence McKnight’s quotation about Luther, a Luther quote that proudly lives around these parts). Both groups have bent the gospel. It is still possible to hear the word from both, but not at a full throat-ed roar.

The effects of that bending are: the frozen chosen and the unholy saints. (And a bunch of people who just don’t seem to have ears.) Just a little challenge here. How many calls for help or action or the church doing something in a congregation focused on personal salvation go unheeded? If a preacher walked into a church and said you need to tithe (at a minimum) so that this church can fund {a soup kitchen, a free preschool, a missionary, fill in the blank good of the kingdom} what kind of reaction would he get? Similarly if a preacher walked into a mainline church and started preaching chastity (Matt 5:27-30) and the evil of divorce (Matt 5:31-32) how fast would he or she be removed?

Now look for a second at “A Mighty Fortress”. We sang that this past week – Reformation Sunday. Why was the reformation so strong?

No strength of ours can match his might, We would be lost rejected
But now a champion comes to fight, whom God himself elected
You ask who this may be? The Lord of Hosts is he.
Christ Jesus, Mighty Lord, God’s only son adored
He holds the field victorious.

Luther’s preaching and hymns were all about Jesus. Jesus defeating sin, death and the power of the devil. Jesus the Lord. The same way that there are two natures in one Christ. The gospel is not just about justification. It is not just about social justice. The gospel is about Jesus. A Jesus who would say – “be holy” (Matt 5:48) and “my yoke is easy” (Matt 11:30) or “come all who are heavy laden” (Matt 11:28) or John 3:16.

Scot McKnight likes 1 Cor 15. For a statement of how we live that Jesus gospel I like Paul in Phil 3:10-16. “I want to know Christ and the power of His resurrection…not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on…if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. Only let us live up to what we have already attained.”

The Puzzle of Reformation Day

Parson Brown — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 18:44:33 +0000

Scripture Text: John 8:31-36
Full Text of Sermon

Traditions tend to pile up. There is nothing inherently wrong with traditions. Most traditions are in fact healthy and good. But they tend to pile up. Just think about Christmas. How many things are there that you “have” to do? Does the holiday just stop if you miss baking the sugar cookies or you don’t get the lights hung? Have you ever said the holiday has been ruined because we didn’t get to do X (fill in with your X)?

Churches are like dumping grounds of traditions. Churches hold on to traditions long after the last people who knew what they were about have been carried out the door. To make matters worse, they often add theological reasons for a tradition. Here is an example. You probably have a US flag at the front of your sanctuary. Why is it there? Are the Kingdom of God and the United States equivalent things? What would happen if it wasn’t there one day? My guess is that someone would make an argument – put it back, Jesus and Paul both said something along the lines of Caesar is the appointed authority, that flag is our recognition of that authority, so put it back. A theological fig leaf for a tradition. Not that the tradition is bad, just that it is a human tradition.

But traditions can pile up to toxic levels. To levels where the core of what we are about as Christians becomes obscured. The original creed was Jesus is Lord. If you listen to the stirring reformation hymns – especially A Mighty Fortress – that is what you will hear. The reformation was about stripping out some toxic levels of tradition and reminding people that our salvation is found only in Jesus, that Jesus is Lord. Our lives should be shaped by that very direct statement. At all times and in all places, a people willing to live like Jesus is Lord do revolutionary and remarkable things. And the best part of that is that if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. You will be part of the house forever. That is what this very personal Lord has done for you.

Religion and Truth in a Pluralistic Culture

Parson Brown — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:21:31 +0000

This short write up is well worth the 3 mins on Pope Benedict’s conception of interfaith or ecumenical interaction. Its starting point in an event that just took place in Assisi. 25 years ago the previous pope was at the same place involved in prayer with “Buddhists chant[ing] to the accompaniment of gongs and drums, Zoroastrians tend[ing] a sacred fire, and an American Indian medicine man in traditional headdress smok[ing] a peace pipe and call[ing] down the blessings of the “Great Spirit.” Benedict has a different view, even if the picture nearby might not say speak that.

The great religious question of our age is inclusivity vs. exclusivity. Were all those people praying to the same God, or was it an example of syncretistic worship on the level of ancient Israel’s “high places”? (1 Kings 12:27-32) Do all roads go up the same mountain, or is Jesus Christ the way, the truth and the life? (John 14:6) Let’s make it real clear. We read it in worship a couple of Sundays ago. Isaiah 45:5 – “I am the Lord, there is no other, beside me there is no other.” If the bible counts as your scripture, you can’t hold the “all roads view”. And holding worship services with people chanting, tending and smoking to other dieties hopelessly confuses things. It is no wonder people might just assume that there is no truth in any of them. Then Cardinal Ratzinger said as much:

The cardinal later wrote that “multireligious prayer” of the kind offered there “almost inevitably leads to false interpretations, to indifference as to the content of what is believed or not believed, and thus to the dissolution of real faith.”

Such prayer should occur only rarely, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, and to “make clear that there is no such thing . . . as a common concept of God or belief in God, that difference not merely exists in the realm of changing images and concepts” but in the substance of what different religions claim.

It is the now Pope Benedict’s next step that is almost uniquely Lutheran.

As he told a European ambassador last week, social justice is based on norms accessible to all, derived not from divine revelation but from “reason and nature”—that is, from “universally applicable principles that are as real as the physical elements of the natural environment.”

He is using Catholic natural law language there. A Lutheran would appeal to two concepts: a theology of two kingdoms and the fundamental law and gospel distinction. We are able to work together in social justice areas because social justice is part of the law or part of the kingdom of the law. The law is universally written on all hearts. (Romans 2:14-15) And the law is good and wise. There is a righteousness that comes from the law – a civil righteousness. But the civil righteousness is not the saving truth of the gospel. In worship – we are separate. Because all roads don’t lead to the same place. Because we proclaim Christ crucified, risen and ascended as Lord. He is Lord, there is no other. Confusing law and gospel only leads to loss of faith.

Sin, death and the power of the Devil – post 2

Parson Brown — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:07:54 +0000

First post in series.

Ask yourself what is the summary or shorthand for the gospel. Go ahead, think for a second, what is the gospel……
My guess is that most would answer something like: the forgiveness of sins.

That is good news. It is gospel. But is it the full gospel or even a good summary?

If forgiveness is the gospel, where does the story start and where does it end? If I think of the gospel purely in those terms it starts when I sin and it ends with a sacrifice on the cross. Can you see anything missing in that or slightly off?

Here is my list. First it starts with us – the finite driving the infinite. We sin so God reacts. That doesn’t seem right. Second, in that scenario there is absolutely no need for the resurrection. All you need is the perfect sacrifice. [The resurrection might lend credence to the sacrifice i.e. be proof that it was accepted, but it is not necessary.] Third, the story doesn’t seem to go anywhere but a repeating loop. I sin, God forgives, I feel good until I sin again. Rinse, Wash, repeat. That is one of the most boring and mocked lines ever. If you are trapped in that boring story, no wonder some Christians just want to be raptured. Is that really all the gospel is?

I did a simple search on the word forgiveness in the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). Take a guess as to how many times the word forgiveness is used in the gospels? Go ahead, even with having read the above take a guess…7. There are seven passages in the gospels that use the word forgiveness. Let’s widen it a little bit and include the verb forgive, not just the reception of forgiveness but the action of forgiving. That adds another 17. Total mentions in the gospels of forgiveness – 24. So it is not unimportant. And some of those passages are key understandings, but 24 mentions in four books can’t be the sum total. Ask a different question. How many times in the gospel is life mentioned? 72 verses. Three times the number of verses as forgiveness.

If you start in genesis 3 with the fall you only need to read until Matthew 27. But that is a shortened gospel. The scriptures start with Genesis 1, with God creating life. They end in Revelation 22 with God re-creating the heavens and the earth and the River of Life flowing from the throne. The gospels include a resurrection and one of them the ascension. The gospel, the good news, is something more. The gospels tell a bigger story.

Two verses from the Gospel of John. John 10:10 – “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” John 17:3 – “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you , the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”

God created you. But the thief – Satan, our accuser – came to steal you and kill you and destroy you. Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so death spread to all men (Rom 5:12). The gospel is that Jesus Christ has come to give life, life in the full. You might ask what is this life? The sent one’s answer – that you might know God. The life of the world to come is build around the throne of God and the lamb in the midst of their people (Rev 22:1-2). That life starts now. Those waters of life flowed in baptism. The church, the people of God, gathers around Christ – body and blood.

We might know God not just because Jesus has forgiven us, but also because he has won our victory over death that covered all and cast that thief into the pit. Sin, death and the power of the devil have been broken through the advent of the Kingdom of God. More on that next time.

What do you think about the Christ?

Parson Brown — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 03:31:04 +0000

Sermon Text: Matthew 22:34-46
Full Text of Sermon

The text is the last in a sequence of questions that the various leaders of the Jews in Jerusalem were quizzing Jesus with. In the Synoptics (Matt, Mark and Luke) Jesus is only in Jerusalem once, and the leaders are testing him. Finding out where he falls. The first of the questions is tricky and political. The second by the Sadducees was just the sniggering expression of a cynical elite. But this last one by a representative of the Pharisees is serious. What is the summary of the law?

And Jesus treats it seriously. He doesn’t cryptically answer it or just swat it away. He gives an answer. Love God; love your neighbor as yourself. We don’t always see it, but there are three loves in there: God, others and self. The core of the law is to love them all.

We all have more or less success with that, but the law only goes so far. In the middle of the puzzlement of how do I balance those, Jesus asks a question. What do you think about the Christ? The Pharisees answer – he’s the son of David. A King. A representative of the law. But Jesus pushes them. Why does David, the highest law – the great king – admit to another Lord? And he leaves the question hanging.

I try in this sermon to put that same hanging question on the hearer. What do you think about the Christ? Does he fulfill the law? What does it mean to call him Lord? The answers are yours. I think that is the difference between a theology from above and one from below. If you are working with a theology from above, you proclaim the majesty and Lordship. (And the hymns for the day did that proclamation for us.) If you are working with a theology from below, you invite, you portray, you ask people to observe and draw conclusions. Both can bring forth faith in the hands of the Spirit. The first invites the Amen! The second challenges to thought. Look deeper. Put aside the standard answers and come up with your own. Work out your salvation with fear and trembling (Phil 2:12). The church needs both. The Christian needs both – the amen and the reflection.

The Civic Religion and the Sure Hope

Parson Brown — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:28:42 +0000

Full Text Link

As with so much else in America, if you want to cut to the soul or the bone of a matter you need to listen to Lincoln. (And Silent Cal Coolidge, but he didn’t live in exciting times, but his Autobiography and letters are deeply full of wisdom and heart.) But Lincoln instinctively knew the limits and failures of the civic religion. In the Gettysburg address:

…We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here…

The civic religion is part of the law. And the law has no power to save, to grant life. The sure hope is in Jesus Christ who grants eternal life which will surely not be snatched away.

So at St. Mark we juxtaposed the Sept. 11 memorials and our Church’s 110th anniversary. The one is good and proper, the other proclaims life and hope.

Man does not live by bread alone…

Parson Brown — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 20:58:46 +0000

This story by Australian Theologian Ben Myers is nifty. And I have to admit I hear the law in it slightly, I am convicted, but not where he is aiming.

Prof. Myers is part of one of those “uniting” churches. That is the same thing the founders of the LCMS were running to America away from – the dreaded Prussian Union. Myers is worried about baptisms without teaching, probably because they are practicing a believer’s baptism (i.e. baptism is administered at an age where you make a serious profession of faith). As Lutheran’s we baptize infants. We believe, with the Catholics, that baptism is the sacrament through which God promises to bestow the Spirit. God’s sure promise attaches to that water. What that doesn’t rule out is that child turning his/her back on the baptismal promise. [A Lutheran/Catholic vs. Reformed difference. To the true Reformed, if you are elect, you can't ship-wreck you're faith. The Lutheran/Catholic maintains to ability to do all kinds of damage although nothing positive without the Spirit.]

Where I would feel more convicted is at the Altar Rail for the Supper. We don’t really turn people away. If I see a person I don’t know, I’ll follow up. If I know they are going to be worshiping with us often, I will try and explain the Lutheran teaching. Luther’s questions (which are probably not actually Luther’s but added to the Catechism later) are the place I run. They boil down to three questions: Do you believe you are a sinner? Do you confess the Nicene Creed? Do you recognize the true body and blood (i.e. something mystical is going on here and not just bread and wine)? Here is actually a place where the liturgy or just a well planned worship service helps. Confession and Absolution come first (check first question), the creed is confessed (check second question), the words of institution and as the body and blood are distributed say ‘This is my body, blood…take, eat, drink” (check third question).

The small catechism is all Luther thought the typical peasant layman needed to know. The large catechism was intended for pastoral instruction. (Compare that to 8 years of college!) Am I complicit in not teaching enough? Yes. If I upped the level would I still be complicit? Yes. What is the answer? Sin boldly. Depend upon the providence and grace of the Lord. I come O Savior to your table for weak and weary is my soul. Thou, Bread of Life, alone are able to satisfy and make me whole.

I fought the law and the law won…

Parson Brown — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 23:39:43 +0000

Full Text

What does the law of Moses mean to a Christian? I think that is what Paul is trying to answer in Romans 7. And the text for today talked about the ditch to the right side of the road and the ditch to the left side of the road. On the right, you fall into legalism. You fall into the error that the law still has some role in your justification. Paul takes an analogy from marriage, but compared to Galatians, Paul is subdued in this response. He just reminds us that in Christ we are freed from the law, contrary to legalists everywhere. On the left side the ditch is antinominanism or the thought that the law itself has been banished. It is against this that Paul gets really tough. Boiled down he says – you need the law, you need it to show you just how lost and condemned you are.

Another way I thought about it this week is the right side is religious without being spiritual – the problem in the 16th century. The left is spiritual without being religious – the bigger problem today. Paul takes each in turn and says go back.

Next Sunday’s text looks at Paul’s via media on the law. But to stay out of the ditches both that law we can’t keep and the Spirit in us point toward Christ. Its His way that we walk.