Saturday, May 17, 2008

The time when you can still ask a girl to dance


Just bring'n some lovin today...


When I was a teen ager, the way they sponsor a dance was in a public or town basketball court. The court would be decorated all around and us guys would be sitting in one end of the court and the girls to the opposite side of the court. It was a great stress when I had to walk accross the court to invite a girl, who happened to be a stranger, to dance with me. When a girl happened to be tired, you walk back to your seat dejected.

The songs of these guys would permeate the dance court. Boy, did they have the grove. My buddies had lots of fun singing and copying those moves. Their song "you make me feel brand new", makes me feel very old. Here is one more..



Ah, yes, they don't do those moves anymore.

It is between me and ____

Individualism - that attitude of independence, self-reliance, liberty and responsibility, is also present amongst Christians. How do you detect this? Normally you detect this in statements like "it is between me and ____". You can fill in the blank. The blank may stand for "God" or may stand for another individual - a wife, a son, a husband, daughter and what have you.

Christians are into this, absolutely. Tell a Christian about a behavior that needs repenting and they can say - it is between me and God. Or maybe they need to stop treating their relations badly and they can say - it is between me and my wife.

What does it imply when someone says "it is between me and ___"? It means, bugger off, you are not involve here, it is none of your business and so shut up. There are incidences that this is true, indeed it may be none of our business. But if this individualism is allowed to stand, society will turn to anarchy. Individualism breeds anarchy, actually, it also builds confusion.

I tell you why individualism does not work, even on a human level. Let us assume that someone just killed or murdered somebody. If we respect individualism, the criminal can say -- bugger off, it is between me and him (the victim). I want to know what the police might say or do to such a person who is guilty of that offense? Will they say - "right, it is none of our business, off you go"?

A decent society, if it is still decent that is, will not accept, the philosophy - it is none of your business. The police intrudes and prosecutes. It is not the relations of the victim that does this prosecuting, it is the police. Decent societies do not allow you to say -- it is none of your business. No, rather, decent societies make injustice and oppression their business.

Genesis 4:

9 Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not
know. Am I my brother’s keeper ?

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

All too easy

It is often amazing how easy it is to be a preacher or pastor in a non-denominational church.

Last week I was at a birthday party and we met a couple who had moved to another suburb. We got to talk about church topics and the wife inquired about a preacher who has been enjoining them to become a member of his congregation. It so happens I know the gentleman but not as a pastor at that time and I let her know of my aquaintance with the preacher. So she asked me what I thought. Well I did not beat around the bush and I just let her know of my amazement as to how easy it is for a person in a non-denominational church to become a pastor. I told her that I would rather come under the teaching/preaching of a man I knew who has studied and has the reputation of being a student of God's Word. I also said that pastoring is a dangerous business because souls are at stake, people's mental/emotional and most of all their spiritual well being are affected by what goes on in the pulpit. So I felt it immoral not to tell the truth of my opinion when I got asked. It would be so unfair to play politics at this stage. In fact the said gentleman had nothing but congenial relations with me in the past, but that is not the point, the issue is doctrine/belief and competence.

It is astounding today how one can set up shop, hire a hall, a function room or get a vacant warehouse and turn it into a church. It is thoroughly amazing how one could get a people together and self elect one's self to be their spiritual leader (hence, pastor) and the remarkable thing is --- people go and become part of that congregation!

We would not go to a doctor who had not been properly trained in medicine and take prescription from them, would we? Yet people go to would be - pastors who had no training except the boast that they have the gifts of the Spirit and annointed by God to preach. We go to people whose authority is nothing but their own testimony! It is only in evangelical Christianity that one can stand in an office of preacher without proper qualifications. Goodness, if you practice law without a license from the bar, you would be jailed, but this does not happen in Christianity. This is way too easy! As Jesus said -- broad is the way to you know where.

Monday, May 12, 2008

Hides, but no, it reveals

It has been said that vestments were worn by preachers in the good old days to hide them, so that the people do not get to focus on them while they preached. That is, so that they do not attract attention to themselves.

Hmmm, tell me if a vestment so elaborate will not gain attention. Look at the sample here, look at the gold and glits.

Actually vestments may not hide the preacher, rather it reveals his character, it invariably speaks of his personality. When a preacher is more interested in what he should wear on Sunday, (s most high church nuts are like that) rather than what he is supposed to say, it does not hide his character, it actually reveals it.

Take the cue from Balaam's ass. The smelly ass had more sense and truth to say compared to the falsehood spewed out by the prophet.

I am glad PB (you know who you are) is not obsessed with what he should wear but worries more as to what he should say. God bless you bro.

Just another self-absorbed boomer


Hagibis - the Filipino word for being rapid or swift. When I got this machine last Saturday, that is what the missus called the whole affair. The machine gave me a good enjoyable ride, it was swift yet smooth. However, the process of buying this machine revealed certain things about me. I am not so sure if what I have found is something I am happy about, I got the word "idolatry" spinning in my brain. The whole process showed things that went inside my heart, what went on inside me.

For starters, it confirmed to me that I am a self absorbed baby-boomer, I am still intent on re-living or realizing some old teen-age dreams. What's up with us baby-boomers, why are we like that? They say what separates men from boys is the cost of their toys.

After taking this bike home, I sat down that night to reflect on what has just happened. What kind of example have I just given my kids? I felt so ashamed of this. How could I do this when I know there are folk around the world, my neighbor, who do not even have something to eat. I just insulted them. The brat is still alive and well and as I grow older, it reveals itself to me, and I wish it would die. Yesterday, I felt like returning the bike to the dealer. If I was not locked in legally, I would have asked them to take it back; of course, they would not return my deposit. Boomers are into symbols - this one is now a symbol of my shame. I was mumbling - I am so sorry, God, forgive me. How could I be like that? I am so sorry for my example, deeply sorry. Lord, have mercy on me.

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Funny part

The last few posts have been controversial so I got back to reading the Smalcald articles. A few days ago, I got to this portion of Article IV…

16] For in the Council we will stand not before the Emperor or the political
magistrate, as at Augsburg (where the Emperor published a most gracious edict, and caused matters to be heard kindly [and dispassionately]), but [we will appear] before the Pope and devil himself, who intends to listen to nothing, but merely [when the case has been publicly announced] to condemn, to murder and to force us to idolatry. Therefore we ought not here to kiss his feet, or to say: Thou art my gracious lord, but as the angel in Zechariah 3, 2 said to Satan: The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan.

I cracked up laughing when I read the quote from Zechariah. I mean, the irony, if that is what you can call it is so funny. Luther has a way with words. Tappert had a footnote that there was an addition in some versions wherein Luther added– shame on you.

I am sure you do not share my dry, weird and sick sense of humor but I could not wipe off the grin from my face each time I recall this quote… sorry, I meant no offense, I just found this part of Luther’s Smalcald cleverly devised, really funny...

Friday, May 02, 2008

Kathlic, what Walther wrote.

To some Lutherites the word 'kathlic' is so precious, so much so that papists ministers play on this word to say that they have more things in common with Rome than anyone else. "Common" is a relative term, as in the phrase "common sense". Frankly "common sense", is not as common as some people think it is. The poor sheep is led to believe because they (the Lutherites and Catholic) look the same, and sound the same (say in worship), that their words must mean the same!

Here is what Walther said about Lutherans being 'kathlic'. You can check the full article here.

Now perhaps others will say: "So you don't want that! Fine, then call yourselves Catholic. But to this suggestion we say: God forbid! Indeed the laughable accusation is often made against Lutherans that they are very much like the Catholics. but who was it that first in public writings truly attacked the Roman papacy as the chair of the antichrist. revealed it to all the world, mortally wounded and killed it? Was it Zwingli? Was it Calvin? Was it Wesley? Wasn't it our Luther? Did not all other true and supposed reformers continue the attack on the enemy from within the fortress which Luther had taken in the heat of battle? How could Lutherans call themselves "Catholic" when the archenemy of the Lutheran church calls himself by this name so that with this beautiful name he might hold captive the consciences of the souls freed by Christ? For indeed the name "Catholic" is a glorious name for it means the universal Christian church which was established by the apostles and spread out upon all the earth outside of which there is no salvation. Obviously no one can be a Christian who would not confess himself as belonging to the church which is catholic or universal in the truth. And there was a time when the true church used this name and with this name separated herself from all false doctrines and their sects. And it has a glorious sound. How wonderful the name catholic sounds. For example, in the mouth of Athenasius or Augustine when they use it against the sects of the Arian, the Donatists and others. How glorious the name rings in the time of the Roman bishop Gregory the Great who completely rejected the title of the universal bishop of Christianity. Gregory wrote to Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria among other things: "You allowed a haughty designation in the title
of your letter in that you grant me the title of the universal pope. I ask that hence forth you do no such thing." (L. VIII. ep. 30). In another place this Roman bishop (who died in 604 AD) wrote that until his time no Roman bishops had been willing to carry this title for fear that the true faith would be lost and a bishop would become the forerunner of the antichrist. While the bishops of Rome still wrote in this manner and were appalled that by accepting the title of universal bishop over all Christianity Christ, who is the true head of the entire church, would be robbed of his honor - at that time there was still a true church which called itself the catholic or universal church. But what is the meaning of the word "Catholic Church" now? It is the fellowship of those who recognize the bishop of Rome as the head of the church, as standing in the place of Christ and God himself. They recognize him as infallible and give his commands unconditional obedience. They must therefore worship all the unquestionable errors of the papacy such as: the sacrifice of the Mass, praying to the saints, purgatory, the worship of images and relics, the pope's indulgence, human works unto salvation and self chosen works, the forbidding of the bible and marriage, tradition or the unwritten Word of God, compulsory fasts etc. etc. which all the confessions and catechisms of the new Roman Catholic Church teach along with the explicit explanation that outside of this faith no one can be saved. (Prof. fid. cath. e Conc. Trid. a S.P. Pio IV extracta, No. 28) Since from this it is now clear that the name "Catholic" has a new meaning, namely the Roman papacy with all its atrocities and in no way the universal Christian Church, and thus indicates a sect, obviously no one who recognizes the Word of God as the true rule of the Christian faith can trouble us to use this name.



This is one of Walther's best comments. I have his Law and Gospel book and I find very little success in testing my scepticism on what he wrote there. My skepticism often goes home, licked. I am sure I will find something I can disagree with, I have one but this is not one of them.

Here is my observation. Poping groups will first stress that you are a small c "catholic". Since they have the sophistic mentality already in place, it won't be long until the small c gets played up in the discussion and with a slight of word usage, you are now no longer talking about being small c "catholic", you are now transitioned to the big C, "Catholic". If that word is so precious to you and you idolized that word such that you must have it, well, I can only say, you are on your way to home sweet Rome.

I like what Pr. Mark said to me (one of our LCA pastors) on this blog and what Pr. Brett (my pastor) said in discussion: one day, they may even deny us the name Lutheran, and we would not even be shocked or awed or sorry for it. Why? Because we are not into a name, we are into the Gospel, it does not matter what they call or do not call us. When people are into JBFA i.e. the Gospel, they do not quibble about their labels, they are just convenient terms for quick positional identification and location.

It is not the name that counts but the meaning of what is behind it. That is the question.

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Work the middle

Speaking of a theological middle ground, C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity said this

Hostility [towards himself] has come more from borderline people whether within the Church of England or without it: men not exactly obedient to any communion. This I find curiously consoling. It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests that at the centre of each there is a something or a Someone, who against all divergencies of belief, all differences of
temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with the same voice.
I find that statement rich in observation and experience. I see what Lewis said applies to any denomination. When the middle position is thin, when on the right you have the fundamentalist fanatics and on the left you have libertine liberals, it is just a matter of time before a major split happens.

Speaking of my denomination, I like what Dr. Ichabod said one time in his post. He said, he wished the crypto-papists and the church growthers would simply leave, and leave behind, the Concordians in peace. In truth as Augustinian Successor said, the former is more potent and dangerous than the latter. The latter is easily detected, but the former hides under the banner -"confessional", they can easily pull the wool over your eyes, specially if you are not familiar with Scripture and do not have time to check with the BoC.

Monday, April 28, 2008

Irenics, so few and far between

Many people attribute this quote wrongly to Augustine or to John Wesley:

In essntials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity

Actually it was from Peter Medeirlin, a Lutheran pastor of the 17th Century.

Some historians admire the irenic attitude of Medeirlin. That saying of his seems so wise to me. In Concordia land specially in the US, there are only two poles you can be in, either you be in polemics or you be in apologetics, irenics is not that well known.

Irenics came into my mind while I was reading a blog by an LC-MS member who happened to be so critical (even severe) of the way the said Synod is heading. Right now, there are so many folk un-happy about their Synod president, about their Synod's programs and so forth. It seems that their Synod officials can never do anything right, either they have become Seeker Sensitive or has sold out to Church Growth Agenda etc. etc.

I am not LC-MS (perhaps I should be happy I am not) and looking at these bloggers, I wonder if I were in the US how I would feel about this, that is, if I were a member of LC-MS. I have a policy that I do not discuss Synod matters, because in my belief, the real action that concerns me is what happens in my local church. Because if I were handling a congregation, I would rather worry about my flock and my doctrine, I'd rather nose around my business that that of others.

I have no concern for Synod ideals or un-ideals. Whatever they may be, they do not necessarily translate down to where my pew is. At any rate, the way these angry bloggers (angry at their Synod officials) are carrying on, you can not help but wonder of if the LC-MS has become, the LC-M-ess.