Roman Catholics and Muslims

This is slightly old news, but it is worth noting for those who may have missed it. Please follow this link, and read the article before continuing:

Catholics, Muslims Open Landmark Talks at Vatican.

Correct me if I have misunderstood the article, but I gather that the purpose of these Catholic-Islamic forums is to encourage a sense of mutual tolerance and acceptance. Islam and Christianity apparently have merely misunderstood and marginalized each other unfairly for several centuries, but they stand on relatively (if not completely) equal footing.

Though I understand and appreciate the value of debate and attempting to understand an opponent's position (so as to be better able to refute their arguments), I cannot possibly agree that Christianity and Islam are two sides of essentially the same coin. I will prove my argument in a few brief points.

There are but two religions in this world: the religion of the Law and the religion of the Gospel. All religions that function under the Law, regardless of external differences, are exactly the same: all profess that man either cooperates with God in his own salvation or does it all on his own. All non-Christian religions fall under this category, but there are many that call themselves Christian that also fall under this heading. The religion of the Gospel, on the other hand, is found only in Jesus Christ and His monergistic (read: Sola Gratia) work of redemption.

Christianity and Islam are fundamentally and explicitly exclusive. It is written:

Jesus said to him [Thomas], "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6, emphasis added)

Any attempt to suggest that one can be saved outside of Christ is to go against the clear words of Scripture.

Further, it is written:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God. (Mark 1:1, emphasis added)

Again, it is written:

And behold, you [Mary] will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. (Luke 1:31-32a, emphasis added)

Again, it is written:

I [Jesus] and the Father are one. (John 10:30)

Compare this to the Quran, which claims:

O followers of the Gospel! Do not overstep the bounds [of truth] in your religious beliefs, and do not say of God anything but the truth. The Christ Jesus, son of Mary, was but God's Apostle - [the fulfilment [sic] of] His promise which He had conveyed unto Mary - and a soul created by Him. Believe, then, in God and His apostles, and do not say, "[God is] a trinity." Desist [from this assertion] for your own good. God is but One God; utterly remote is He, in His glory, from having a son: unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth; and none is as worthy of trust as God. (Nisa 171)

Further, the Quran claims:

As it is, some assert, "The Most Gracious has taken unto Himself a son!" Indeed, [by this assertion] you have brought forth something monstrous. (Maryam 88-89)

Needless to say, if this conference were truly a matter of proclaiming and defending the truth, then there would ultimately be no conference. There can be no reconciliation between the two diametrically opposed religions. Rather, the religion of the Gospel would be abdicating to the world in such an arrangement.

May the Holy Spirit break the hearts of those trapped under the lie of Satan, and may He breathe new life into their lifeless spirits through His Word. May it be granted for the sake of Christ. Amen.

Even so, come Lord Jesus, and come quickly!

Election Musings

It's official: Barack Obama has won the election to become the 44th President of the United States. I must say this with a certain bit of unease, considering both his socialist-like policies and the cult that has grown up around him. (I would strongly recommend visiting A Little Leaven for more information about his cult.)

I certainly do not agree with the man at all concerning his ideologies, and I genuinely fear for the future of this nation. The economic policies he advocates may very well prolong the recession, even though all who believe in them tout those policies as the saviors of the United States.

However, the point of my post is this: God has placed this man in authority over us Americans, and we should respect his office, even if we do not care that much for the man.

It is written:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. (Romans 13:1-7)

Again, it is written:

Then Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained from them what time the star had appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, “Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him, bring me word, that I too may come and worship him.” After listening to the king, they went on their way. (Matthew 2:7-9)

The first passage is self-explanatory, and because of its clarity, I will use it to explain the second. Luther makes an excellent point about this passage in one of his sermons. He says:

God uses Herod when he may be used to advantage as God's creature, and offers him to the wise men for their service. Hence they did not look upon or listen to Herod, but to the king. It did not concern them that he was wicked within himself, -- they took hold of what was good in him, as the bee sucks the honey from the flower and leaves the poison to the spider. They listened to him when he told them to go to Bethlehem and search diligently for the child, as the prophet had foretold; which intelligence he had not from himself, but from the priests. They could not, however, know his wicked counsel and purpose, nor his evil life. Thus we are to learn to hate the vices of men, but love the men; we are to distinguish the honey from the poison. (Luther, Martin. Complete Sermons of Martin Luther. Vol 1. pg. 359)

Thus, it is important that we respect those in authority over us because of the office they hold, rather than the sake of the person who holds that office. The wise men listened to the king, that is, to his office and obeyed, but when the angel revealed to them that Herod had deceived them, they did not obey his command, as it is written, "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

Even so, come Lord Jesus, and come quickly!

Out of Obscurity

Greetings to all in Christ our Redeemer.

I apologize for having wandered into a self-imposed exile, but things have been quite hectic on this end. I will make every effort to update more frequently.

The upcoming Presidential election should prove quite fruitful for reflection. Let us all remember that God works in mysterious ways in the Left-hand Kingdom, and we should make every effort not to confuse the Right and the Left as some are in the habit of doing.

Even so, come Lord Jesus, and come quickly!

LCMS Convocation

If anyone doubts the importance of the next few days for the future of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, then he ought to check to see if he is still alive. Though I will wait until after the convocation to give full impressions, the convocation's advent merits a preliminary comment or two.

The inclusion of Dr. Leonard Sweet who is an ordained Methodist clergyman in this convocation may be a potential source for serious problems at best. Consider a quotation from an article in the Associated Baptist Press reporting on a speech given by Dr. Sweet in 2007:

"I think God is defragging and rebooting the church," Sweet said, alluding to computer terminology for reconfiguring and restarting a system. "I think what he is doing is he is getting us back to the original operating system of Christianity." . . .

The old model of church is "killing the West," Sweet said at the conference. The out-dated model is "attractional, propositional and colonial." It must become missional, relational and incarnational, he said. (source)

Yet, this man, calling for the church to change or die, has been given a slot to speak at the convocation. Indeed, this situation is troubling at best. (See the original article at the LC-MS website.) Why has it been so popular lately to fill our conventions, convocations and gatherings with men (and women, for that matter) who hail from well outside Lutheranism? Do we have a lack of capable men to lead and teach us?

Leonard Sweet may indeed believe that the church must change or die, but the church has stood for thousands of years without the wisdom of man. God will maintain His Church well past the modern nonsense as He has always done. The quest for relevance will inevitably mean a compromise of the Gospel, the eternally relevant message for mankind.

Even so, come Lord Jesus and come quickly!

Divided We Stand

Anyone who denies that our Synod is deeply divided is either in denial or deeply ignorant. I make no apologies for my wording, since the truth is quite plain.

Consider the following:

How can a single Synod have two polar opposites within itself?

At one end, we have a number of examples of churches throughout the United States, such as:

Redeemer Lutheran Church, Fort Wayne, IN
St. Paul Lutheran Church, Hamel, IL
Trinity Lutheran Church, Worden, IL

At the other end, we also have a number of examples of churches throughout the United States, including:

Epic Church, Rochester Hills, MI
Jefferson Hills Church, Imperial MO
The Alley, Cottage Grove, MN

Certainly, the list on both sides could go on. There is simply a great divide within the Synod that is too large to ignore or wish away.

I was talking with a pastor the other day about this very subject, and he related to me a story that happened when he was younger. While visiting his then-future wife, they attended a church where the pastor presented a service that was, in his words, "terrible." There was no division of Law and Gospel in the sermon, the whole thing was more geared toward entertainment, and the sermon was a group of mild moralisms. Afterward, though, this pastor of this church came up to the other, said something to the effect of "you caught me," and apologized for the whole thing.

Was this man acting against his better conscience? Did he apparently know what he was doing was detrimental to the flock? Why would he apologize for the whole thing to another pastor if he did not feel crushed under the weight of the Law?

If all of this is new to some of my readers, I must sound an alarm for them to wake up. There is too much at stake to be sleeping at this hour.

Even so, come Lord Jesus, and come quickly!

Issues of Presentation

I have often covered the question of questionable lyrics in music on this website, but this video raises yet another important question. Is the method of presentation as equally important as the lyrics? In other words, do the words necessarily dictate the form?

This video presents the dilemma in a clear fashion. Can the Te Deum be sung properly on a guitar? (Leave the issue of the quality of his singing out of your consideration. It is somewhat painful, but consider the idea in general using this video as an impetus for your thoughts.)

I am going to leave this question open for right now and encourage my readers to contribute their thoughts. Leave a comment, and let me know what you think!

Even so, come Lord Jesus and come quickly!

The Depravity of Music

I must begin this post with a disclaimer, so that everyone understands exactly where this post begins. I am not claiming that all music is evil nor am I saying that all recent music is the same. As with anything in this sinful realm, there is both good and bad.

With this understanding, there is much of what might be considered recent music in many genres that have crossed certain lines. Songs bearing explicit lyrics about sexual acts or sins too heinous to repeat have become a part of the mainstream culture.

I was standing in Target yesterday waiting for my wife, and a song I had never heard began to play in a nearby stereo. Its lyrics were both subtle and explicit, since the woman singer never directly said that she wanted to have sex, but this notion was so patently obvious throughout that it was utterly sickening.

My wife has heard a couple of songs at her workplace that glorify homosexuality in a variety of forms. What makes them worse is the fact that they are catchy tunes, and my wife finds it difficult to get them out of her head.

Countless other examples could be cited of such depravity, but they should not be given the chance to expose themselves to others who have not heard such filth. It is for this reason that I choose not to repeat the titles of these songs, though I suspect that my refusal will mean nothing in the widespread diffusion of these songs.

What is the purpose of making such catchy songs that glorify sin? Without doubt, the purpose is to promote such ideas and influence the average person to accept them without resistance. The power of music cannot be denied. Arius, an early heretic in the church who denied the divinity of Jesus Christ, wrote a number of songs that became quite popular throughout the world. Because of those songs, the heresy Arianism lasted for several centuries, until St. Ambrose finally wrote hymns to counter the heresy on its own grounds. (The excellent hymn "Savior of the Nations, Come" is the work of St. Ambrose.)

The point is that music perpetuated the heresy of Arianism for a long time, and this music that glorifies sin is intended to do precisely the same thing.

Even so, come Lord Jesus, and come quickly!

Stoicism

Around 301 B.C., a philosopher by the name of Zeno of Citium founded a philosophical movement that would later be dubbed "Stoicism." Noted for such prominent features as an emphasis on reason, the movement would have a tremendous impact on the world.

The modern adjective "Stoic" has a denotation of "indifferent," especially in the arena of emotions, and this usage is in fact not at odds with the original system of philosophy. To learn more about Stoicism, or to find resources to study further, follow this link.

Stoicism's influence on the modern world, however, is impossible to deny. Consider the prevailing notion in the Western world that men should not be emotional. Young boys are taught very early to avoid expressing feeling, especially grief, since expressing emotion has developed a connotation of being a "womanly virtue."

This notion of a manly lack of emotion, however, is directly at odds with the Scriptural account. Men of both the Old and New Testament very clearly exhibit their emotions, and Our Lord Himself weeps openly for Lazarus in John 11. Our Lord was not afraid to express His grief. Why, then, are men in the West expected to be "strong" and not to show any emotion?

Even if the key difference here returns to the fundamental differences between the Eastern and Western world, there are important issues to consider. Keeping our emotions bottled indefinitely will only lead to greater problems, including severe depression. We in the West tend to try to solve our emotional problems through medication and counseling, when the fundamental problem is our persistent and foolish notion that men (and women on occasion) should and must not express emotions.

Emotion is not a weakness, but rather a beautiful gift from God. We must not fear our emotions, but rather express them in a way that will benefit us rather than harm us.

Even so, come Lord Jesus and come quickly!

The Religion of "Peace"

According to the latest news, the Dalai Lama is on record stating that Islam should not be considered a religion of violence, but rather one of peace.

This statement stands, of course, in the tradition of liberal theology that ignores the clear admonitions of the Quran. (Of course, this particular virus affects the Christian church as well.)

The Quran states quite clearly in a number of places:

[And] fight against those who - despite having been vouchsafed revelation [aforetime] - do not [truly] believe either in God or the Last Day, and do not consider forbidden that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and do not follow the religion of truth [which God has enjoined upon them] till they [agree to] pay the exemption tax with a willing hand, after having been humbled [in war]. (At-Tauba 9:29)

And so, when the sacred months are over, slay those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God wherever you may come upon them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place! Yet if they repent, and take to prayer, and render the purifying dues, let them go their way: for, behold, God is much forgiving, a dispenser of grace. (At-Tauba 9:5)

Certainly, the list could continue, but for the sake of space, this will suffice for the present argument. If, then, the Quran explicitly commands its followers to fight against the unbelievers until death or conversion, how can Islam be considered a religion of peace? Is it the way of peace to physically subjugate those who do not follow Islam? The Dalai Lama has so declared; thus, the Quran must be wrong.

Ignore the fact that two Christian girls were recently (July 12th, 2008) abducted in Pakistan by Muslims and allegedly forced to convert to Islam. Islam is a religion of peace.

Ignore the burning of Christian churches by Muslim protesting the release of two different Christian girls by the police. Islam is a religion of peace.

Are these the actions of a few fringe groups acting in the name of Islam? Perhaps, but if this is the case, where is the general pronouncement condemning such actions in the greater Muslim world? Why have the majority of Islamic leaders not stepped forward to distance themselves from such radicals?

As for the counterargument that Christianity once did the same during the Crusades, it must be made perfectly clear that the actions of a few do not dictate the truth of the whole. Nowhere is it written in Holy Writ that we must fight and kill unbelievers, forcing them to choose between death or conversion. Therefore, those who acted in that way were acting outside the Church.

Even so, come Lord Jesus, and come quickly!

Having No Religion

A rather strange tendency in some circles, both "Christian" and otherwise, is to proclaim oneself to be without religion. Such circles may be defined as such:

1. Atheists of essentially all stripes would deny having a religion at all, though I would argue that their very denial of any kind of deity is a religion. They have a religion with no God.

2. Those who claim to be "spiritual," yet not religious constitute another group and a most confusing one at that. What does it mean to be spiritual, yet not religious? Even if this is understood as a rejection of "organized religion" (which I suspect is most often the case), then the question still remains as to why they are not "religious." As in the case with atheists and agnostics, everyone has a religion of some kind. Man is hardwired for religious belief, even if he does not express it on a regular basis.

3. Christians who claim to have no religion, but rather a personal relationship with God, form the final group, and it is this group that is the major focus of this post. What does it mean to have a relationship with God, but no religion? How can faith be divorced from religion?

Again, I suspect the real reason for such a statement among Christians is a less-than-subtle way of stating a divorce from "organized religion." An unnatural wedge has been driven between doctrine and outreach in many Christian circles, and adhering to one is seen as a desertion from the other. The "missional-minded," those who emphasize outreach, often see those who seek doctrinal purity as being cold and heartless toward the unbelieving world. Nor will I deny that there are some who would overly emphasize doctrine over mission. Both, in this case, are in the wrong.

Further, those who emphasize mission over doctrine find uncompromising doctrinal practices as stifling the message of Christ. Who cares whether we all agree on things like the deity of Christ, the Lord's Supper, or Baptism? What matters most is this personal relationship with Christ. Doctrine gets in the way of outreach.

However, this all-too-common wedge between doctrine and mission causes both sides to fail. We must be ever conscious of the Great Commission, but we cannot deliver people from the Kingdom of Satan through muddled doctrine either. Proper doctrine creates and sustains a proper sense of mission. Would a medical doctor, in his quest to heal the sick and infirm, use anything less than the right medicine for his patients? Would it not seem dangerous if he, out of a desire to "heal as many as possible," used suspect or entirely wrong medicines? Would it not be irresponsible of him as well to maintain the purest and best medicines, yet never give them to the people? Why, then, do we tolerate such a situation in Christ's Church?

Instead of seeking to save the lost through means that may very well damn them, we must always strive to give them the best medicines for the fatal illness called "sin." Likewise, proper doctrine does not create a sense of hoarding and defensiveness, but rather a genuine love and concern for those who do not believe. There is no wedge. Once this is understood, a step in the right direction has been made.

Even so, come Lord Jesus, and come quickly!