Chopsuey

Over here, chopsuey is equivalent to stir fried. The chopsuey I remember back home is so yummy, it has that greasy starchy saucy element in it you can eat it all day - with rice of course. What is up with chopsuey? Well you can throw in it all meats and vegies you like and it will still taste good.

So where is this conversation going? It goes into the reduction of Christianity.

Recenly I have been encountering RC folk who are just at home with mixing world views from Taoism or Budhism. They are not bothered at all and even quite at home in importing these ideas into their catholic spirituality.

There is one theme that runs in my observation - when you reduce Christianity as also a religion of works, then Christianity is just one of those religions that incite you to work for your own salvation. It is just one amongst the rest. So if Christianity is giving you a formula for work - what is so special about that compared to Taoism or Budhism? None.

So it is not nonsense when one mixes Christian ideas with these eastern ideas. It is simply the fruit of what happens when Christianity has been reduced, levelled to the ground like the rest.

But Christianity is not another method of working out your own salvation.

It has got to be a gift

Ok so I am no longer on vacation, which means I am back on the job of solving the worlds problems. It is a hard job but someone has got to do it.



The other day I was reading the Scripture and I came to the word 'gift'. The word and concept is splattered in Scripture many many times. Take a look at

Romans 6:23For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Believing or having faith in the Gospel surely has to be a gift. Its got to be. It must be a gift because the natural mind says that one has to work for one's standing with God. It is not natural for us to think of our relationship with God any other way and if there is any way we can get right with God we have to earn it. In fact this is where Biblical Christianity is unique because all other religions are already saying that, meaning - saying that if you want God to be kind to you, you do this and that...

So when a man/woman believes the Gospel it has to be a gift from God because all human senses say salvation or forgiveness of sins is by works. Every nerve of our being says -- there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Even Christians get Christianity wrong in portraying it as morality. Well, all other religions have that and that is not the core message of Christianity, it is not about morals though it is an aspect of it but it is not about it.

I notice people have some attitudes towards this Gift. Some think it is not a gift so they go to methods or measures - Charles Finney and his disciples are in to this. If faith in the Gospel is not a gift then one can be coerced (spiritually) to 'believe' or 'decide to believe'. This one leads to works.

Then there is another attitude, it is a gift alright some say and it comes out of the sky. It is immediate. It just happens. In other words the gift is not mediated.

I have counselled some young people struggling with this because they have the notion that a gift is not mediated, God just zaps people into believing. This one leads to dispair.

In fact both lead to uncertainty.

Here is where Concordians are different - sure faith in the Gospel is a gift but that gift is mediated - in other words, though Jesus is the author of faith, God creates faith in the Gospel via means - Word and Sacrament. The very promises of God is the very means God uses to create faith in the heart of the sinner. He does not decide, he does not get zapped out of the blue, but the promises is mediated - delivered and it is the very power to create or provide what God demands - faith. It is both demanded by God and at the same time created by God - through His Word.

So in this theology - there is no room for dispair or hopelessness, there is always a looking in one spot - in the Word - it is the same, yesterday and forever. Even this, even the fact that though faith is a gift, God nevertheless creates it using means -- this itself is -- good news. So God does not leave us alone to fend for ourselves.

A whole lotta shakin goin on at PlanetShakers

If the number of young people attending a church is an indication of success then PlanetShakers City Church in Melbourne tops them all. Two my kids used to go to this church, until I gave them some subversive ideas.

This week has not been a good week for this Assemblies of God affiliated church. One of its former pastors, Pr. Mike Guglielmucci confessed that the cancer he claimed to have been suffering from was a fake, there was no terminal cancer after all, it has always been a hoax. The interesting thing is that this cancer story happens to be the inspiration for a hit Christian song entitled - The Healer. Moreover, the cancer story gave the church another story - the wonderful story of courage and victory in the midst of suffering. The story of battling on with life even when life dishes out pain and sorrow. We are hungry to see heroes because we want them for ourselves. We desire inspiration life sucks.

It would surely have been a marvelous story if it were true, but this week Pr. Mike came clean and confessed that he just made it up and play acted on that angle for the last couple of years. Indeed, he managed to fool his family and church.

For a similar hoax see The Forgotten Marjoe

Good on Pr. Mike for coming clean. We must rejoice when one who is wrong recognizes it and now wants to make it right. I hope those helping him still give him Jesus and not assume the Gospel.

Some of course are shocked and angry and I expect the anger to come from the members of his church. Some of course will use this as another bullet to fire at those loony Christians and even though I am not Pentecostal anymore, I am included still in that attack. Pagans don't discriminate between one Christian from another (in case you are naive to think they can distinguish, I recommend you get some counseling). Anger always comes to those who forget that Christians are sinners too. Pagans are quiet when they see Christians on top of the game but wait till these Christians fall, they become opportunistic and take the chance to insult Christ and his people.

What of course makes the case specially serious is because PlanetShakers present the Gospel as the answer to victorious living, it is the Christian life-style that is the good news rather than a once dead now living saviour who died and rose again for mere sinners to win the forgiveness of their sins. It preaches Christianity or the Christian, rather than the Christ, oh yes, just get Jesus and life will be rosy.

Christians are mere sinners. The sad thing is that in that movement the Christian is not simul iustus et pecator, simultaneously saint and sinner. So it is a shock to the system when the sinner aspect raises up its ugly head, and the brat does do that from time to time and sometimes it wins.

Poverty, an excuse?

Proverbs 30
8Remove far from me falsehood and lying;
give me neither poverty nor riches;
feed me with the food that is^(A) needful for me,
9lest I be^(B) full and^(C) deny you
and say,^(D) "Who is the LORD?"
or lest I be poor and steal
^(E) and profane the name of my God.

Thank you for your prayers, I arrived back safely at my home base.

As I moved in and out of Manila, I have noticed the increase of depressed areas in the midst of high rise apartment buildings, something I am not accustomed. You see when I left more than 20+ years ago you could stand in the middle of the street and look high and would see blue sky . Not anymore. You will either see the smog or a high rise will block your view.

Last time I was here was 1999, but something acute has changed. It used to be that Filipinos have what they called "bayanihan concept", meaning, they will gladly help you without expecting anything in return. It used to be that people would be insulted if you try to pay them for the service they are gladly giving to you. Hmm, not anymore, the reverse is happening, and in a more profound way. They still will help but they expect you to tip them.

I know poverty is the cause of the 'Filipino Diaspora'. This has reaped families apart, a husband or wife goes to the Middle East and leaves his/her partner behind to earn and send money back home, but this has also introduced complications, loneliness and countless sufferings.

Upto what extent does poverty make people do things they know they prefer not to do?

In many ways I can appreciate that people will do things to earn a living so as to survive, but I am also asking, to what extent is poverty used as an excuse to engage in risky, dangerous and even illegal activities?

The Lord does not remove the poor so he can give us a job to do - to care and help them.

Still on vacation

Psalm 96.

It just occurred to me again, it is hard to praise the Lord without the background of the Cross. You cannot do it.

On vacation, but think about this...

The picture says it all doesn't it? Be good, there will be no post for the next 2 weeks.

For our reflection I am featuring again Mykalos' brutally frank comments...

Talking about “CC (Closed Communion)” I would single out the main controversial issue.

Separation of so-called conservative synods is usually based on doctrines lying outside BoC. E.g.: a) on the question of salvation by faith alone we all, Protestants, are united; b) on the essence of Eucharist there is a virtual agreement not only among Lutherans but also among them and many Orthodox Christians. Moreover (and it’s a principal point!), in order to be Lutheran someone has not to sign the complete BoC (including FoC). It is sufficient for him to share the Augsburg Confession (AC) only. The BoC is a historical document for German synod in XVI c. (and, of course, for LCMS and WELS as for traditional German descendants in the US:-)). Even for Scandinavian
Lutherans in XVI c. and up-to-day the complete BoC wasn't a document of obligation. They were satisfied with AC and Luther's catechisms.

Probably I’d specify: I am for the "CC" but ... for all Lutherans. It might be "closed" for Christians of other denominations because we cannot be reasonably sure whether they confess salvation by faith alone (without any add conditions) and real presence of Christ in the
Sacrament. But among believers of AC ("traditional" or "liberal" in their hearts) there should be no barriers in communion with Christ.

Well, whether views on the status of deuterocanonical Scriptures or a place of women in church public ministry are really determinative for a “communion gap”? These stuffs are not in BoC at all but they are present in “constitutions” and “confessional statements” of some synods. In this case is the Communion a tool of manipulation or a mean of grace?

I covet your prayers for a safe trip. My love to all of you. Peace be with youse alls.

Evangelicality

I coined this word. I am still trying to define what I mean by that term. I have not found words to exactly describe it. As a starter, my idea is being Gospel centered in the sense of majoring on the major -- the Gospel, or Gospel natured-ness, or evangelical-ness. The concept is still being sorted out in my mind.

Here are the following quotes that might give a gist of what I am getting at . This is from Pr. Acroamaticus who is sadly hanging his blogging cloves

I believe that if we are still an Evangelical church (and I use that term in the same sense as Sasse did, to describe a church that draws its very life-breath from the Gospel of Christ crucified for the forgiveness of sins, and seeks to proclaim only that Gospel to the world), then we will view WYD and the RC church with a deep ambivalence.

This one is from Bro. Mykola from Ukraine commenting on one of my posts here.

 

CC[closed communion] had become an invincible barrier even between so called conservative church bodies. It is not a secret that even the CELC and the ILC have not communion of altar. That's why primarily noble CC sometimes transfers into 'near sectarian' tool for emphasis of someone's identity.
So I can't decide definitely if CC practice is undoubtedly evangelical.

---

BTW, my blogging will be less in the next couple of weeks when I hope to be in Manila. If you have an article you want me to consider posting, please email me.

God give you peace.

Mere shared opinions

From time to time I surf the blog world. My prof said - if you want to write, you need to read. So I read as I surf.

Then I go visit Dr. Ichabod, only to discover that what I tucked away in my mind, he has already spelled out and articulated, and articulated well. OK, I am coming out of the closet...I do read dangerous subversive material s(LOL).

Here are a few shared opinions he featured in his blog.

[click on the paragraphs to go to the linked articles]

1. There seems to be a Waltherian synodical worship present amongst 'confessors'. Do not get me wrong, I learned a lot from Walther's Law and Gospel book, but as a 'church father' he is to be treated like the rest - capable of over stating his case. I sense this was specially true when it came to synod loyalty. Enclaves, sometimes this is what comes to my mind when I think of Synods in the US.

2. I prefer uni education for honing or sharpening theological scholarship. Over here, we were taught to be a wide ( and in my case be a wild) reader. Of course it is semi-dangerous, but it is less dangerous! At uni, you know who not to take seriously and dismiss. I am not sure that is the case in seminaries, it depends. Teachers in sems can easily hide under labels and catch words.

3.I also believe that reconciliation and justification are to be distinguished though not separate. We do this already with justification and sanctification. We distinguish the two but we do not separate. Trouble happens when they are mixed and lumped. My theory is that mixing reconciliation with justification leads to some anti-nomian indifference, one of which is Roma-phelia

Self-criticism is a virtue encouraged by Scripture - it tells us to examine ourselves. It should be specially applied even to the thoughts of the teachers we respect and esteem.

1 Timothy 4:16 (English Standard Version)

16(A) Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save(B) both yourself and(C) your hearers.

Well, that is my opinion anyway, so please try not to confuse me by giving me facts (LOL).

 

The TRUTH is outside us

Believing and believing in

The missus said something that occured to me...

To believe in God is not the same as believing God.

To believe in the Bible is not the same as believing the Bible.

To believe in Christ is not the same as believing Christ.

There is a subtle difference.

When are you coming home?

I have to feature an Aussie's reply to one of his commenters. This was from the Mild Colonial Boy, Esq.

To the question when is he returning to Rome, this was his reply...I highlight here the portion that made me laugh it made my tummy so gassy...

Sir,
Going back to Rome? Has the Church of Rome stopped opposing the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone? Has it stopped issuing indulgences for works? Has it stopped forbidding priests to marry (the doctrine of demons)? Has it stopped the virtual goddess worship of idolatrous Mariolatry and putting other intermediaries, other than Jesus, between God and Man? Has the Pope stopped propping up these and other Anti-Christian positions?

The answer is no.

The signing of an ambiguously worded document by a group of unrepresenative LINOs (Lutherans In Name Only) has solved none of the issues raised in the Book of Concord.

There is no need for me to return as I am in a Church which teaches the Word of God purely and administers the sacraments correctly.

When is the Church of Rome genuinely going to reform its doctrines
and practices?

I like the LINO bit. There is no where to return because the Colonial Boy has found his home.

Will you blend?

No, dear friends, this is not a post about iPhones. It is a post about comparative religion that may lead one to a blended spirituality.

Comparing two religions is a subjective exercise. I am not convinced too that there is a cut and dry method of comparing faiths. You can almost see what you are looking for if you want to, like a brute force fitting a round peg onto a square hole. Let me give a couple of examples...

1.) When I was studying religious claims as a young man (that was ages ago) at uni, I read that Confusius says -"It is good to honor your parents". That sounds familiar doesn't it? Now, let us see, I am sure we have heard that before, no? Might that not be the 4th Commandment? Ex 20:12. Hmm so would you come up with the Biblical basis of Confucianism?

2. What about the Budhist teaching of Karma? Simply put, this means that your action leads back to you. If you do good, good karma will come back, if you do evil, you will get bad karma one day. Would that not be similar to "what you sow is what you reap" - Gal 6:7. More over it sounds like the Golden Rule too doesn't it?

More sayings that are similar to the Bible can be found else where, I found one in the Baghabad Gita a long time ago.

Even some words or sayings of Jesus had some precedent with the words found in Rabbinic writings like that of the Mishna, so what do you make of it?

Well you can say this makes the claims of Christianity not exceptional, there is nothing unique about this even worst, perhaps Christianity might have copied them and imported them since it is not as ancient as the other religions. So what is the difference?

Well when Confusius says "you have to honor your parents", I come back and ask, "so what if I am not"? Confusius says "but this is bad, you are not being a good gentleman". So I retort - "who cares if I am not a gentleman"? "But this is being horrible", he replies. So I counter "why should I accept what you say, who are you anyway"? End of story.

Ah, but it makes a difference when it is God, the Supreme Being - Creator of the Universe who says "honor your fathers and mothers, so that you may live long in the lang your God is giving to you". All my wise ass remarks won't work. He just says "because I am God and because I say so, end of conversation".

What about karma? Well for the time being assume that we do not have a Jesus who said about the Golden Rule, then all of the sayings of all religions on the Golden Rule are just nice opinions and at best good observations that happens in life, and this can be gathered by observation and experience. Besides, if I were a skeptic, I can only say - well the good/bad thing that happened to you had nothing to do with karma - it was simply fate, a struck of good or bad luck. See what I mean, they carry no weight.

But wait. Jesus said "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12.

What is the differenc? A lot. It is not what is being spoken, it is who that is speaking. If Jesus did not claim to be the Son of God, the Messiah promised by God - you can dismiss him, but that is why what he says makes a difference, because it is the voice of God who is saying it. It is true not because we can observe it, it is true because it is God who commands and speaks it.

All the rest are puny sayings, they are dismissible, but not so with those that are spoken by God.

For this reason, Christianity's claims can never be considered one of those claims, because its claims purports to have the authority of the Creator God behind it. Thus, there is no room for syncretism in Christianity.

One thing too I have observed, all of these religions have some truth but based on Scripture - it is Christianity that has the whole truth, not just some of it but the whole truth.

Psalm 119:160The sum of your word is truth,and every one of your righteous rules endures forever

And oh, by the way, the central teaching of Christianity is not just about doing good to parents and reaping and sowing or such things - the central teaching of Christianity is the Gospel which is ---God sending his Son to die for our sins (yes we owe God a penalty for our sins) at the Cross and that Son was raised from the dead signifying the receipt of that payment. God accepted the payment of Christ on our behalf.

No other religion has topped that claim.

The Naked Pastor's equation

I found The NakedPastor from Steve M. I think he has some cartoonish things to say. Click on the picture to get to read his cartoons. What do you think of his equation?

Accentuate the positive

Eliminate the negative. That seems to be the message of an RC Bishop here to the victims of RCC clergy sexual abuse. Barney Zwartz of The Age reports it here. For the Bishop, these complaining victims are simply "dwelling crankily on old wounds".

We might recall that around this time last year, one of the biggest settlement payout by the RCC towards abused victims was reported by the ABC News here.

In the case of the Foster (the victims' family name) kids reported in The Age article, they were apparently young kids when the abuse happened.

No one can really comprehend the attending hurts when kids get abused of whatever kind. It is further a double blow when they are sexually abused, the real damage happens internally, psychologically.

There is something that compounds the hurt, it is compounded when the one who stands in the place of Christ is the one that inflicts it. But there is more, the hurt is multiplied a million times over when then victimizer is a member of "The One True Church".

I hears some say that it is not so much that a crime can be committed by a member of the RCC, because anyone is capable of abusing any helpless victime, you do not have to be an RCC clergy to commit such a sin, it is that with the case of priest sexual abuse, the priest does not get prosecuted, see here for this type of story.

So back again, if this is "The One True Church". If the victimizer belongs to, say a Protestant group, well, one can reason - that is the fruit of belonging to a False Church anyway. The situation is not the same for the case of the RCC clergies because the RCC claims to be the One True Church. It belongs to a Church group that has a higher moral and more serious claim than the rest.

I suspect one can not help but wonder, if this is the One True Church, how come it seems like it has such a disease? People surely are attaching different meanings to the notion of what "One True Church" means.

For reference that such abuses have been going on "for ages", read a copy of Jose Rizal's Noli Me Tangere. In English it is translated Social Cancer. Though this is a novel, the stories have real precedence. Let me warn you though, do not be surprized when you notice you are filled with rage before you put down this book, I however, won't blame you.

Matt 18:5"And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me;
6but (D)whoever (E)causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea

Who wrote the Serenity Prayer?

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to
change the things I can;and wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at
a time; Enjoying one moment at a time; Accepting hardships as the pathway to
peace; Taking, as He did, this sinful worldas it is, not as I would have it;
Trusting that He will make all things rightif I surrender to His Will;That I may
be reasonably happy in this life and supremely happy with HimForever in the
next.Amen.
--Reinhold Niebuhr

Was it Niebuhr? Look here.

Bye Bye

Finally. The Big Brother show is being axed.

They finally realized I was not watching. It took a while for the blockheads to realize that when you insult people's intelligence, you get their scorn.

It does not take a nuclear physicist to figure that one out. The show is a pathetic attempt to get ratings.

I would rather watch RAW or SmackDown any day compared to this. At least it is world class entertainment. There is drama, comedy and irony.

All For Jesus?

Purpose Driven Life (PDL) people are at a loss when we say that they have a man-centered approach to Christianity.

They are puzzled how in the world we can say that. Isn't PDL about what we do with Jesus, what we do with what He has given to us? Does not God wait for us to do what he wants done and so thereby blesses us? How could glorifying God be man centered?

This brings me to the title of the post. You may not believe this, but that was the name of the fellowship I first pastored. I came from a fellowship back home that had the same church name, then when I came to Melbourne that was the name also that I adopted when my little Bible Study group became a church. But note the name 'All for Jesus', you can get a sense of pride at this, - as if you really are 'all out for Jesus', (so you think and only if you have an unbiblical view of sin), you can get Pharisaical in thinking you are that - all out and out (as if).

It is funny but when you are lost in the woods all you see are trees. What turned out to be a response to the grace of God, namely: doing all to glorify Christ, becomes the focus of one's Christian walk - then pretty soon, what Jesus has done gets lost in the background. Soon also, things now turn on you and what you need to do -- for Him.

So we come now to why PDL folks are puzzled. To explain this to them (and to quote Prof. Nagel) - who is driving the verbs? When you come now to PDL's challenge questions like - what have you done for Jesus, what are you doing with the gifts God has given to you - guess who is the subject that is meant to work on the verbs - YOU.

When YOU is the subject, then that is where man-centeredness comes. Warren says it is about God but when it comes down to the wire - it is about you doing stuff, it is about you doing and yet you still leave undone, it does not become about what God has finished to do.

If God ever gives me again an opportunity to pastor, one of the church names I like to have in contrast to 'All for Jesus' is 'Christ for You'. To tell people what God has done and has finished to do in Christ is actually glorifying and glorifies Christ.

Another close second is Beggars Church (we are sometimes allowed to day dream).

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah (prayer)

Need I say more? If you thought Blah, Blah, Blah was something, wait till you hear the BAM, BAM, BAM.

I wanted to label this post with "funny" but I just can't.

Close but not quite, but more moderate.

[Updated: Please try not to be upset until you grasp my argument from the point of view of the Means of Grace]
Over at Wittenberg Trail, I got into a discussion that led to the subject of communion. To cut the long story short, the way my synod's pastors practice 'closed communion' has been dubbed by some LCMS folk as 'moderate' i.e. not confessional. As I mentioned somewhere, I describe my synod as a centrist synod.

Here is how the pastors at home practice 'closed communion'. In our bulletin sheets there is a mention of what our local church believes about the Lord's Supper, namely:

The Lutheran Church teaches that the 'Holy communion is the true body and
blood of our Lord Jesus Christ given with bread and wine, instituted by Christ
himself for us Christians to eat and drink'. It is for baptized people
who...

- repent of all their sins
- trust in Jesus Christ as their only Saviour
- believe that in the sacrament Jesus gives his true body and blood with
bread and wine
- join with the congregation in *this* public confession of Jesus and his
word

After consecration, the pastor comes forward holding the chalice containing the bread and say words to this effect ..."Dear Friends, our Lutheran Church *does not believe* that the bread and wine are *mere* symbols of Jesus' body and blood, but rather we believe it is truly the body and blood of the Lord given for our sins. Those who could confess this with us are welcome to receive the Lord's supper. Come for all things are ready".

I argue that because these words were written and are said prior to distribution, a visitor who comes forward is confessing what we confess about the supper. If a visitor comes forward dispite the words then there is no reason for him/her to be denied.

I defend that this is in the spirit of Scripture and the BoC. However, this position is called 'moderate' (but what can you expect I said we are centrist) and non-confessional - meaning we are not truly Lutheran (so reader beware).

I argue that the fact that the person is coming forward after the announcement of what it is not and what it is, is an assumption on our part (yes we can be wrong, but what do we have) that the person is agreeing with our confession about the Supper.

Further, I argue from the fact that the Lord's Supper is one of the Means of Grace, i.e. how God comes down to us, and therefore must not be denied on anyone who does not despise but rather rejoices in it!

Apparently for some folk, this is not enough. Apparently one must NOT ONLY believe that it is the true body and blood of the Lord, one must agree 100% with what the pastor preaches from that pulpit too. This latter one is rather curious, and opens for some abuse.

You know I am not always in church, sometimes I visit some Lutheran local church somewhere in the country when I am on holidays, I do not know what esoteric doctrine a country pastor might have taught sometime in his past or he currently hold, what I am agreeing with him is the confession on the means of grace, the Supper, that it is true body and blood of the Lord.

I examined for BoC references to check this position and here are the following

1. Large Catechism on the Sacrament of the Altar: We do not intend to admit to the sacrament and administer it to those who do not know what they seek or why they come.

My Comment: this is taken cared of by the explanation prior to distribution

2. The Apology to the Augsburg Confession (1531) says in Article XI.4 - Confession: "...Excommunication is pronounced on the openly wicked and on those who despise the sacraments."

My Comment: the fact that the person is coming after the explanation does not indicate that he despises the sacrament.

3. The Augsburg Confession (1530) says in Article XXIV.6 - Mass: "...People are admitted only if they first had an opportunity to be examined and heard".

My Comment: This indicates that before communion is given, the person must have given his confession in private to the pastor during the week and only then communion is given to such. In fact in some churches, this necessitates the use of communion tokens. I doubt if those who say we are non-confessional even practice this. Or, this may be also the general confession and absolution that happens earlier in the service, no matter anyway. Note that on my part, I agree with the meaning of the words in the BoC and not on the words themselves. The question is this - will our pastors eventually catechize that visitor? Yes. In fact if the person has been coming for some time, the person will receive a visit from the pastor and one of the things that would be discussed is this doctrine of communion.

Rightly so - one of the pastors (himself LCMS) in the discussion commented that there must be a way to practice close communion with non-Lutherans but we must be able to practice open communion amongst fellow Lutherans too irregardless of what Synod they come from.

I believe our pastors will serve you the elements if you confess what we confess about the Supper irregardless of what Synod you come from. I am open for correction and proper orientation on this by LCAus pastors themselves , but I have been to quite a few and find my articulation to be reasonable(if they are reading this, they can straighten my mis-impression or misunderstanding).

However, I am at this point comfortable that the way we practice it is in keeping with the Gospel as a gift and the nature of what the Means of Grace is -- that the very Sacrament (which is Gospel with elements) creates faith itself in the heart of the sinner according to God's will; why should we withold it if the person is willing to confess and receive it, why should we add more requirements that they belong to our synod etc etc? I just do not understand.



Well, dear reader : caveat lector. I do not necessarily carry the proper brand name to some: confessional. No matter, I only care that my position is Biblical, that is enough. You can call me a mongrel Lutheran, I do not care.

Remember, I am not perfect, I am not a member of Mt. Zion. Be careful of what you read here, you can get contaminated --- by the truth.

Small Cat as Evangelism Tool

[updated: thanks Pr. Kurt]

Remember the 4 Spiritual Laws? I remember at uni the poor guy who applied this to me, got an interesting response from me, I showed him my novena booklet for St. Jude.

The missus suggested to me to buy plenty of Luther's Small Catechism and give them away as an evangelism tool. I heard somebody suggested this, I said to her, but she has a way of pushing me, to get off my back side and do something so I am making plans to buy a truck load (a bit of hyperbole). So, why not. It will be a good discussion piece.

The thing that is nice is that with the Small Cat, you are not being asked for a decision, you are being told of a gift given. I won't sound like a sale's man. Since I am not asking for a decision, the point of being embarrassed does not even come to the question. I'' just be a witness how the Word is used by the Spirit to convert.

Sounds like a good idea? Has anyone tried this at home?

Improve 'me'

It seems what I need is not a better and improved 'me'. The more I get older the more I come to the idea that what 'me' needs is not to be come better or improved.

It needs to repent.

It needs to repent from the idea of what it needs is to be improved or become better!

What 'me' needs is to die and be no more. It needs death and resurrection, not just death, it needs new life, not just an improved one.

Even other religions hint at this. I know in my study before becoming a 'Christian', Buddhism advocates some form of nothingness. What is the difference? In Buddhism it is self help - you have to do this for yourself.

In Christianity, it is done for you.

OK. Comparative religion is sometimes a luny exercise, but it shows to me that Christianity has the WHOLE TRUTH.