N. T. Wright is an Anglican bishop in England. Evangelicals and other theological conservatives like him because, among other things, he wrote a stirring scholarly defense of the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. But he believed that Luther had it wrong with this justification by grace through faith stuff. This is because Luther misunderstood the writings of St. Paul, who, according to Wright, was just talking about freedom from the Jewish ceremonial law, not the moral law. Actually, according to Wright, we are saved by good works after all.
Though this is being called the “new perspective on Paul,” this is not particularly new. This is basically the Roman Catholic take on what Paul says. Anglicans have never been particularly strong on justification. But what is remarkable to me is how so many evangelicals are seizing on this. Both liberal evangelicals and conservative evangelicals (including some otherwise hard-core Calvinists).
The Wall Street Journal has a column praising Wright from John Wilson, editor of “Books and Culture.” I think many evangelicals have been wanting to make salvation a function of good works for a long time, and this gives them a good excuse. Salvation comes from living like Jesus did. That usually gets translated into either conservative or liberal politics, or trivial lifestyle choices like not driving SUVs, recycling, affirming gays, or–on the complementary side–not drinking, smoking, or going to movies. I have yet to see the person who lives with the moral purity of Christ. But go ahead and try. And then when you fail, perhaps you will appreciate how Jesus really chose to live His life. By dying for you.
Cyberbrethren has received the highest honor in Lutheran blogdom: the coveted Golden Ardie award. I received it some time ago, but due to the recent disaster with Cyberbrethren it was not able to be publically announced until I had Cyberbrethren moved to a new and working location. I’m overcome with emotion at news of this prestigious award.
by Kevin D. Vogts, director of Church Relations at Concordia University Wisconsin, Mequon
Reprinted with permission from the December 1998 issue of The Lutheran Witness.
On Christmas Eve morning 1851, young Heinrich Christian Schwan, newly installed pastor of Zion Lutheran Church in Cleveland, strode out into the forest near his parsonage and chopped down a small, beautifully shaped evergreen.
It may have been a fir, it may have been a Scotch pine, it may have been a Norway spruce; no one knows anymore. But it doesn’t matter. What does matter is that the 32-year-old preacher lovingly carried the tree into his church, where it met with his wife, Emma’s, approval.
The couple spent the afternoon festooning the tree with cookies, colored ribbons, fancy nuts and candles. The crowning touch would be the cherished silver star that Schwan had brought with him from his boyhood home in Hannover, Germany. The star was a powerful reminder to him of how happy his Christmases had been as a child.
He wanted to share this same happiness with his congregation, most of whom were also German-born and thus likely to have seen a Christmas tree in their pasts. The custom hadn’t caught on yet in America. In fact, to Schwan’s knowledge, this was the first time that such a tree had appeared within a church this side of the Atlantic.
Once the tree was fully trimmed, Schwan carefully placed it in a prominent spot in the chancel. All that remained now was to light the candles bedecking its boughs. Standing back, gazing admiringly at their work, Heinrich and Emma could hardly help thinking, “Won’t the congregation be surprised tonight!”
The people were surprised all right.
Most were delighted. For them, seeing their handsome young pastor reading the Christmas story beside his bright, blazing tree enkindled wonderful Christmastime memories from the Old Country.
For others, however–those not familiar with the idea of a Tannenbaum, especially one in church–it was not such a blessing.
“Oh, my goodness!” one lady gasped, covering her eyes. “What in the world is this supposed to mean?”
“A tree in the chancel?” roared an indignant man. “What kind of a minister are you?”
Within a day or two, Herr Schwan’s Christmas tree was the talk of the town, and the talk was not good. A prominent local newspaper called it “a nonsensical, asinine, moronic absurdity.” It editorialized against “these Lutherans . . . worshipping a tree . . . groveling before a shrub” Worse, it recommended that the good Christian citizens of Cleveland ostracize, shun and refuse to do business with anyone “who tolerates such heathenish, idolatrous practices in his church.”
This, obviously, was bad press for the struggling immigrant members of Zion, especially those with stores and other businesses dependent on the public’s goodwill. And all fingers of blame pointed to the same man: the stunned, well-meaning Schwan.
To his credit, however, the young pastor, though sorely chastened, did not cave in–at least not right away. His Christmas tree was still in the chancel the following Sunday. But then it came down. Soon thereafter, Emma discovered Heinrich’s beloved tree-topping silver star in the trash.
She cleaned it up and presented it to him. “Why did you throw this away?” she asked.
“Because,” he said disconsolately, “there never will be another Christmas tree in Cleveland.”
“Nonsense!” she replied. “This year you put up the first tree, and next Christmas there will be many trees in Cleveland.”
Emma saved the star, and her prediction came true beyond her wildest dreams.
During the following year, Schwan, perhaps inspired by his stalwart wife, carefully researched the issue of Christmas trees. He ultimately concluded that such trees were not a sacrilege but rather a solid Christian custom–a custom in which Christians could express their joy at the birth of the Christchild.
He wrote many letters and received replies assuring him that lighted and decorated Christmas trees were de rigueur in many Christian countries. Emboldened by this knowledge–the fact that Christmas trees were not of pagan origin–he actively promoted their use as symbols of the joy of Christmas.
On Christmas Eve 1852, Schwan’s church again displayed a blazing Christmas tree. But this time it was not the only one in Cleveland. In fact, decorated trees appeared in homes all over town, and within five years Christmas trees were going up in homes and churches all across the country!
Although Pastor Schwan, as we now know, was not the first person to decorate a Christmas tree in North America (read article titled “Who Was Really the First?”), he was the first to introduce one into a church. And he was almost singlehandedly responsible for this custom gaining widespread acceptance and popularity in the United States.
The location of Zion Lutheran Church has changed since the 1850s, but on its original spot, the corner of Lakeside Avenue and East Sixth Street, stands an historical marker that states:
“On this site stood the first Christmas tree in America publicly lighted and displayed in a church Christmas ceremony. [Here] stood the original Zion Lutheran Church, where in 1851, on Christmas Eve, Pastor Henry Schwan lighted the first Christmas tree in Cleveland. The tradition he brought from Germany soon became widely accepted throughout America. The present site of Zion Lutheran Church is at 2062 East 30th Street.”
Pastor Schwan would later rise to great prominence in the Missouri Synod, serving as synodical President from 1878 to 1899. He was also the original author of the questions, explanations and Bible prooftexts appended to Luther’s Small Catechism. Had it ever occurred to you that the pastor who wrote the questions in the back of your old blue catechism was the same fellow who popularized the Christmas tree in America?
So, as you put up your Christmas tree this year, or admire the tree (or trees) in your church’s chancel, remember the day when young Henry Schwan betook himself an ax and tramped into that snowy Ohio woods. Remember that, thanks to him, the Christmas tree in church is a unique Missouri Synod contribution to the celebration of Christmas in America!
Contributing to this story are authors of other works relating to H.C. Schwan and his tree: Del Gasche, “A Christmas Tree? In Church?,” Farmland News, 1989; Penne L. Restad, Christmas in America, Oxford University Press, 1995; and Helen Jensen, “Cleveland’s First Christmas Tree” (self-published, 1996).
Jolly old elf? Nope. The real St. Nicholas put the smack-down, literally, on the arch-heretic Arius. This Nicholas definitely found out who was naughty, and who was nice, when it came to Christology and … he did something about it. Apparently, Nicholas was so upset with the heretic Arius’ denial that Christ was in fact God incarnate, not a lesser god or a stepped-down version, but God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, being of one substance with the Father, by Whom all thing were made.
It got me to thinking. How best today do we maintain eternal vigilance, which is the price of orthodoxy, against false doctrine and even, if necessary, give it a firm slap, without so offending people that they won’t even bother to listen or pay attention? In our world today courtesy, tact, being nice and polite are cardinal virtues. And, intolerance is regarded by many as the chief vice.
We speak the truth, in love, and keep moving forward. I’m not so sure slapping heretics is actually the way to go, but you sure have to admire St. Nicholas for taking such a clear stand against error. The church that can not curse, can not bless. We forget that sometimes.
Pastor Petersen has some helpful thoughts about St. Nicholas. He told me always to make sure to link to his site, so, be sure to click over there.
Legends abound concerning the generosity of St. Nicholas, Bishop and Confessor. Mainly he is remembered for his charity to children. But that is not why he is remembered in the Church. He is remembered and celebrated in the Church because he was a Theologian, a Bishop, a Confessor. He was one of the authors of what we call the Nicene Creed, that ancient, genuine, and truly ecumenical confession of the saving Faith. Through Nicholas, as through the prophets and apostles, God has provided for us. He has handed the Faith down to us, delivered the Good News of his generosity and compassion, bestowed upon us the Wisdom of God which confounds the wisdom of men.
A less popular legend than Nicholas dispersing his inheritance to poor children, is a story that he got so upset with Arius, who was denying the Divinity of Christ in much the way the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons do today, that he slapped him. Because of this outburst of violence he was to be suspended from his post as Bishop. Bishops rule in the kingdom of the right, not the left. There is no place for violence. After reflection and prayer, however, the Council decided not to remove him for the offense. Not because Arius had it coming (which he did,) but because Nicholas was repentant. Even Bishops of his stature, generosity, and compassion can lose their cool, and the way of the Church is forgiveness.
Nicholas struggled with his fallen flesh, even as we do. But God was gracious unto him, restored him again and again through His Word and Sacraments so that Nicholas, for all his weaknesses, was strong enough to confess, and the grace of God was multiplied in, and through, him. May God make us all such good and faithful servants, such grateful recipients of His love, such bold confessors until He comes again to give us even more.
Here is a response to my thoughts on Calvinism from a person who apparently identifies himself as Calvinist. I found it interesting. It offers good insight into how some Calvinists think. And it is a good example and verification of how for Calvinism, “sovereignty” is the thing. It’s also an interesting example of what is common among Calvinists, an assumption that they in fact know and understand the theology of Martin Luther. As one wag put it to me recently, “Calvinists really enjoy Lutherans but don’t like it when they start talking too much like Lutherans.” My observation is that many Calvinists read only a very, very little in Martin Luther and then assume they “get him” and so they assume that there must be a vast difference between Martin Luther and classic, confessional Lutheranism. I once again refer my loyal readers to the Book of Concord if they want to know what Lutheranism is.
Paul McCain has tried to collect his thoughts about Calvinism. This article is a great improvement over his hit-pieces.
***QUOTE***
In the process of trying to get to the bottom of Calvinism, I’ve learned that Calvinism is somewhat hard to define, but there does seem to be fairly universal consensus that the Canons of Dordt are the most commonly held principles of Calvinism…but….then you talk to other Calvinists who point you more toward the Westminster Confession. And then you have the Belgic Confession, and various other attending documents that go along with Westminster Confession which are apparently of some authority in various Calvinist churches. Of course, one could try to fathom a rather complex chart explaining Calvinism’s view of how a person is saved.
I just feel sometimes that I’m trying to pick up jello with my hands, or herd cats when I try to pin down precisely what is the Calvinist confession of faith. I wish Calvinists could, like we Lutherans, point to a single book and say, “Here is our definitive and authoritative and normative confession of faith.” I appreciate the fact that Lutheranism, though jello-like in its own unique ways, at least brings to the table a single book, called The Book of Concord.
i) Dr. McCain seems to have very definite views of what Calvinism stands for when it comes to criticizing Calvinism.
ii) To compare the variety of Reformed confessions with a single Lutheran book is deeply misleading, for the Book of Concord is, itself, an anthology of several different Lutheran credal statements, viz., Luther’s Catechisms, the Augsburg Confession, the Articles of Schmalkalden, and the Formula of Concord.
iii) The reason for the relative diversity of Reformed confessions has a lot less to do with doctrinal diversity than with national and linguistic diversity, reflecting the French, Dutch, and British wings of Calvinism.
The only doctrinal diversity of note is between the Reformed Baptist expression of Calvinism, represented in the London Baptist Confession of Faith, and the more Presbyterian types of Calvinism.
There is also some difference between Dordt and Westminster over the assurance of salvation. Westminster is basically a Puritan document, and reflects Puritan concerns and emphases.
As to Calvinism’s view of how a person is saved, the question is ambiguous. Is the question: “How does God save a person?” Or is the question, “What must a person do to be saved?”
The short answer to the first question is that those whom the Father chose, the Son redeemed, and those whom the Son redeemed, the Spirit renews and preserves.
For an answer to the second question, the Westminster Confession defines saving faith thusly:
“By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein…yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace” (WCF 14:2).
***QUOTE***
In my opinion, based on my observation and reading of Calvinist materials now for many years, and most recently of course my exchanges with several ardent Calvinists, I am all the more firmly convinced that Calvinism simply does not put Jesus at the absolute center of their “system.”
***END-QUOTE***
One of the problems with framing the debate in terms of what is “central” to Calvinism or Lutheranism is that this is not a quantifiable criterion. For “centrality” is just a picturesque metaphor. So when Dr. McCain judges Calvinism by this figurative imagery, what is the literal frame of reference? Otherwise, McCain is the one imposing a Jell-O-like standard of his own.
***QUOTE***
For Calvinists it is my opinion that what “centers” them is not the Gospel, so much as God’s eternal sovereign decrees.
***END-QUOTE***
Once again, we’re left with a metaphor.
And as far as metaphors go, the atonement is not “centered” in the decree; rather, the atonement is “grounded” in the decree. This is the “basis” or “foundation” of the atonement.
***QUOTE***
The concern I have with Calvinism is that the fuel driving is train is not the dynamite of the Gospel of Jesus, the love of God, the kindness shown by God to us in Christ, but….in God’s essence and glory, which Calvinists see most clearly in His “sovereignty” but not actually in His grace, love and mercy in Christ.
***END-QUOTE***
i) Since Jesus is divine, it’s a false dichotomy to drive a wedge between the glory of God, on the one hand, and faith in Christ, on the other.
ii) It is also a false dichotomy to drive a wedge between God’s sovereignty and God’s grace, love, and mercy in Christ.
In Reformed theology, God’s grace is sovereign grace, his love is sovereign love, and his mercy is sovereign mercy.
iii) Calvinism doesn’t come to the Bible with either a Christocentric or a theocentric agenda. If the emphasis falls on one more than the other, that’s simply an exegetical result of trying to do justice to the entire witness of Scripture.
***QUOTE***
Well, I say, “Then let’s hear more about Jesus and the Gospel and God’s life-giving love and kindness and mercy in Christ.”
***END-QUOTE***
“More.” This is another vague predicate. In Hesychasm, you have the “Jesus prayer.” At a linguistic level, that’s very Christocentric. But is it the essence of Christian piety?
***QUOTE***
I believe that the New Testament clearly indicates that we can not, and must not, look any farther than Jesus Christ when we talk about God. All talk of God that drifts free of Christ and Him crucified leads in a wrong direction.
***END-QUOTE***
i) Here we are getting to a key difference between Calvinism and Lutheranism.
ii) Ironically, it’s McCain who is coming to the table with a preconceived agenda. This is the canon within a canon that you find in Lutheran theology, where everything should be artificially shoehorned into a Christocentric or really Christomonistic direction.
Calvinism, by contrast, doesn’t feel the need to massage and manipulate and redistribute the data to that degree. Calvinism has no inner canon. The entire canon is the functional canon in Calvinism. So Lutheranism is far more system-bound that Calvinism.
iii) Calvinism sees an opposing danger. And that is when the work of Christ drift free of the Trinity. When the work of Christ becomes some impersonal, free-floating thing which is not coordinated with the work of the Father in election or the work of the Spirit in renewal and preservation. An autonomous sufficiency insufficient to save anyone in particular.
***QUOTE***
We are not to try to peer past, or around, or above Jesus and try to look into the hidden counsels of God.
***END-QUOTE***
This is another malicious misrepresentation of Reformed theology. Where does Calvinism get the idea of predestination in the first place? From the Bible. This has nothing to do the prying into the hidden counsels of God. Rather, it has everything to do with the revelation of the decree. Predestination is a divine disclosure—not some speculative inference.
***QUOTE***
It is this “system” that has me worried for my Calvinist brethren, for it seems to me that this “system” is quite a bit more concerned first with an articulation of the eternal decrees and hidden counsels of God than with putting Christ Jesus at the heart and center. Please let me explain.
Calvinism concerns itself first with God’s glory and making sure God gets what God deserves: glory. A noble goal! But, is this truly the New Testament presentation of what is at the heart of Christianity? It would, to me, seem to be working things from the wrong direction. We are not given, first, to know and contemplate God in Himself, but rather as He has chosen finally to reveal Himself to us, and that He has done through His Son, Jesus Christ. This is not a “system” this is a Person, the God-Man, Christ Jesus our Lord. Beginning with God’s glory is stepping off on the wrong foot.
***END-QUOTE***
This is more of the same. McCain is censoring the word of God. Muzzling the word of God. Redirecting and reorienting the word of God.
Any systematic theology is going to reorganize the contents of Scripture. That’s what’s involved in systematizing the teaching of Scripture. As such, there’s no one “scriptural” place to begin. There are many possible starting points. You can use the covenant, or the kingdom of God, or the Trinity, or, Christ as your structuring principle.
Calvinism doesn’t concern itself first and foremost with anything except doing justice to the whole counsel of God. Calvinism doesn’t feel the need to be more Christian than scripture itself, for you can’t be more Christian than Scripture itself.
Now, due to its battles with Arminianism and Catholic synergism, there has been a polemic emphasis on the sovereignty of God since that is what the opposing positions oppose—just as, in Lutheranism, you have a polemical emphasis on sola fide and the law/gospel antithesis.
There’s a Barthian and functionally Unitarian quality to insisting that we cannot know anything about God apart from the revelation of God in Christ. The NT is not all about Jesus. Salvation is Trinitarian.
It does not honor Christ to peel Jesus away from his Father, or sever him from the Spirit of Christ. It does not honor Christ to make him die in vain. To die for the damned.
***QUOTE***
Compare what our Calvinist friend Alan has to say to how St. Paul talks in Gal. 2:20.
***END-QUOTE***
Notice the reductionistic nature of this appeal. There’s more to the Gospel, more to St. Paul’s theology, more to NT theology, more to Biblical theology, than Gal 2:20. Not less, certainly, but certainly more.
***QUOTE***
I trust you will notice a striking difference. I’m not saying we have to mention Jesus with every other word, but….please let me hear about Jesus, not just about the sovereign will of God. The lofty grandeur of the God high in the heavens is a wonder indeed. But that does me no good. No, talk to me of God who lies in the manger, for me, as a baby. Let me hear more about God who lived perfectly in my place, who walked this earth, in the same flesh and blood I have. Speak to me of God who fed the crowds, healed the sick, raised the dead and calmed the storms. Put my eyes on Jesus, God in the flesh, who took my sins on his shoulders, who suffered and bled for me, as the all-sufficient atoning sacrifice for my sins, and the sins of the whole world. That’s the God I want to hear about more.
***END-QUOTE***
i) This goes back to McCain’s initial failure to distinguish between two distinct questions: (a) “How does God save a person?” And (b) “What must a person do to be saved?”
The Bible answers both questions, and it’s the sacred duty of a pastor or theologian to preach or teach both answers—not one to the exclusion of another. We just say whatever the Bible says. Repeat the teaching of Scripture.
ii) And there are times when it’s necessary to get into the mechanics of how God saves a person. For you have heresies and heretics like Pelagius and Valentinus and Roman Catholicism which give the wrong answer.
***QUOTE***
You see, God has come down in the flesh and now to all eternity, He is the only way I know the Father, no other way.
***END-QUOTE***
This is pious nonsense. There is no saving knowledge of God apart from faith in Christ. But Biblical revelation is a revelation of the Trinity. Christ is not a mask, obscuring or concealing the Father.
***QUOTE***
Put my eyes on Jesus, God in the flesh, who took my sins on his shoulders, who suffered and bled for me, as the all-sufficient atoning sacrifice for my sins, and the sins of the whole world.
***END-QUOTE***
i) All-sufficient for whom and for what? Sufficient, all by itself, to actually save everyone? McCain doesn’t believe that.
ii) I’d add, at the risk of kicking over a hornet’s nest, that as a practical matter, Lutherans like McCain put their faith, not directly in the Savior, but in the sacraments. They are not looking to Jesus, but to the wafer and the font. By contrast, Reformed Baptists do trust in Jesus alone.
Reflecting further on my comments previously about Calvinism, a friend shared this wonderful quotation from St. Ambrose, whose day we observe today. It is a good dose of Jesus, sure to cure whatever theological quirks or “system” or speculations about the decrees of the sovereign God might ail a body. Good for all us. Oh, come, Oh, come Immanuel!
90. To Him, therefore, let all come who would be made whole. Let them receive the medicine which He hath brought down from His Father and made in heaven, preparing it of the juices of those celestial fruits that wither not. This is of no earthly growth, for nature nowhere possesseth this compound. Of wondrous purpose took He our flesh, to the end that He might show that the law of the flesh had been subjected to the law of the mind. He was incarnate, that He, the Teacher of men, might overcome as man.
91. Of what profit would it have been to me, had He, as God, bared the arm of His power, and only displayed His Godhead inviolate? Why should He take human nature upon Him, but to suffer Himself to be tempted under the conditions of my nature and my weakness? It was right that He should be tempted, that He should suffer with me, to the end that I might know how to conquer when tempted, how to escape when hard pressed. He overcame by force of continence, of contempt of riches, of faith; He trampled upon ambition, fled from intemperance, bade wantonness be far from Him.
92. This medicine Peter beheld, and left His nets, that is to say, the instruments and security of gain, renouncing the lust of the flesh as a leaky ship, that receives the bilge, as it were, of multitudinous passions. Truly a mighty remedy, that not only removed the scar of an old wound, but even cut the root and source of passion. O Faith, richer than all treasure-houses; O excellent remedy, healing our wounds and sins!
93. Let us bethink ourselves of the profitableness of right belief. It is profitable to me to know that for my sake Christ bore my infirmities, submitted to the affections of my body, that for me, that is to say, for every man, He was made sin, and a curse, that for me and in me was He humbled and made subject, that for me He is the Lamb, the Vine, the Rock, the Servant, the Son of an handmaid, knowing not the day of judgment, for my sake ignorant of the day and the hour.
94. For how could He, Who hath made days and times, be ignorant of the day? How could He not know the day, Who hath declared both the season of Judgment to come, and the cause? A curse, then, He was made not in respect of His Godhead, but of His flesh; for it is written: “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” In and after the flesh, therefore, He hung, and for this cause He, Who bore our curses, became a curse. He wept that thou, man, mightest not weep long. He endured insult, that thou mightest not grieve over the wrong done to thee.
95. A glorious remedy—to have consolation of Christ! For He bore these things with surpassing patience for our sakes—and we forsooth cannot bear them with common patience for the glory of His Name! Who may not learn to forgive, when assailed, seeing that Christ, even on the Cross, prayed,—yea, for them that persecuted Him? See you not that those weaknesses, as you please to call them, of Christ’s are your strength? Why question Him in the matter of remedies for us? His tears wash us, His weeping cleanses us,—and there is strength in this doubt, at least, that if you begin to doubt, you will despair. The greater the insult, the greater is the gratitude due.
96. Even in the very hour of mockery and insult, acknowledge His Godhead. He hung upon the Cross, and all the elements did Him homage. The sun withdrew his rays, the daylight vanished, darkness came down and covered the land, the earth trembled; yet He Who hung there trembled not. What was it that these signs betokened, but reverence for the Creator? That He hangs upon the Cross—this, thou Arian, thou regardest; that He gives the kingdom of God—this, thou regardest not. That He tasted of death, thou readest, but that He also invited the robber into paradise, to this thou givest no heed. Thou dost gaze at the women weeping by the tomb, but not upon the angels keeping watch by it. What He said, thou readest: what He did, thou dost not read. Thou sayest that the Lord said to the Canaanitish woman: “I am not sent, but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” thou dost not say that He did what He was besought by her to do.
97. Thou shouldst hereby understand that His being “sent” means not that He was compelled, at the command of another, but that He acted, of free will, according to His own judgment, otherwise thou dost accuse Him of despising His Father. For if, according to thine expounding, Christ had come into Jewry, as one executing the Father’s commands, to relieve the inhabitants of Jewry, and none besides, and yet before that was accomplished, set free the Canaanitish woman’s daughter from her complaint, surely He was not only the executor of another’s instruction, but was free to exercise His own judgment. But where there is freedom to act as one will, there can be no transgressing the terms of one’s mission.
98. Fear not that the Son’s act displeased the Father, seeing that the Son Himself saith: “Whatsoever things are His good pleasure, I do always,” and “The works that I do, He Himself doeth.” How, then, could the Father be displeased with that which He Himself did through the Son? For it is One God, Who, as it is written, “hath justified circumcision in consequence of faith, and uncircumcision through faith.”
99. Read all the Scriptures, mark all diligently, you will then find that Christ so manifested Himself that God might be discerned in man. Misunderstand not maliciously the Son’s exultation in the Father, when you hear the Father declaring His pleasure in the Son.
Chapter XI of Book II Of the Christian Faith by St. Ambrose. (Nicenee & Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, vol. 10 Ambrose: Select Works and Letters p. 235)
Pastor William Cwirla offers this wonderful mediation, inspired by shopping for a Christmas Tree.A Meditation: While Shopping for a Christmas Tree (Isaiah 11:1)
Every year I drag a dying tree into the house And stick it in water spiked with preservative, Ever-green symbol of the life in death that is ours in Jesus, Leaving stuck in some forgotten forest A stump where once a fir tree nobly stood.
Isaiah saw David’s family tree cut down And made a decoration in Babylon’s living room. Leaving a nothing but a stump, Lifeless though very much alive, A remnant Root buried deep in Israelite soil Nourished by the Promise that God is true to His Word.
That stump of Father Jesse sprouted When time was fully ripe, First, a tender shoot named Jesus, springing fresh on virgin wood Then a righteous Branch, making Jordan’s water sweet Finally a fruitful Tree of Life, Cross from which a dying world may eat And live forever.
And so, dear friends, as you gather round your Christmas tree And bask in all its glittered glory, Remember that noble stump in some forgotten field, Dead yet very much alive, Waiting silently for resurrection day.
For we all will one day be cut down Just another Tannenbaum, And leave behind nothing more noble Than a gravestone and a salty tear Dabbed from the corner of a grief-filled eye. Dead yet very much alive, Soon to rise in the power of the Shoot named Jesus On that Day when death is swallowed up in Life, And the hungry lion’s mouth is filled with manger straw.
Pope Benedict XVI has declared a plenary indulgence for Catholics who honor the Virgin Mary on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception
December 8
In a November 29 announcement, the Vatican said that Pope Benedict has declared the indulgence to mark the 40th anniversary of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council. The announcement indicates that the Pope “when he renders public homage of praise to Mary Immaculate, has the heartfelt desire that the entire Church should join with him, so that all the faithful, united in the name of the common Mother, become ever stronger in the faith, adhere with greater devotion to Christ, and love their brothers with more fervent charity.”
A plenary indulgence, as Pope Paul VI explained in Indulgentiarum Doctrina in 1967, is “a remission before god of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven.” Indulgences can be decreed by the Pope or, under certain restrictions, bishops. The faithful can obtain indulgences for themselves or for the souls in Purgatory.
The indulgence declared by Pope Benedict may be obtained by those who “participate in a sacred function in honor of the Virgin, or at least open testimony of Marian devotion before an image of Mary Immaculate exposed for public veneration, adding the recitation of the Our Father and of the Creed, and some invocation to the Virgin…
“The announcement indicates that those who are ill or otherwise unable to fulfill the normal conditions “may obtain a plenary indulgence in their own homes, or wherever they may be, if, with the soul completely removed from any form of sin, and with the intention of observing the aforesaid conditions as soon as possible, they unite themselves in spirit and in desire to the Supreme Pontiff’s intentions in prayer to Mary Immaculate, and recite the Our Father and the Creed.”
To gain the indulgence, the usual conditions of sacramental Confession, Eucharistic Communion, prayer for the intentions of the Pope, and the removal of attachment to sin are necessary. (Thanks to Catholic Information Center, Washington, D.C.)
This story is breathtaking, for several reasons. Why do these mega-church folks do such incredibly stupid things? On the other hand, when you think about it, if in fact the congregation’s Sunday morning worship service is viewed chiefly or primarily as an outreach tool, then this makes quite a lot of sense. Once again, somebody is going to have to remind why some of us Lutherans continue to have a hankering to imitate these non-denominational, sub-Biblical, megachurches that don’t deliver all the gifts of Jesus to people?
Some Megachurches to Close on Christmas Wednesday, December 07, 2005
WASHINGTON – [AP] – This Christmas, no prayers will be said in several megachurches around the country. Even though the holiday falls this year on a Sunday, when churches normally host thousands for worship, pastors are canceling services, anticipating low attendance on what they call a family day.
Critics within the evangelical community, more accustomed to doing battle with department stores and public schools over keeping religion in Christmas, are stunned by the shutdown.
It is almost unheard of for a Christian church to cancel services on a Sunday, and opponents of the closures are accusing these congregations of bowing to secular culture.
“This is a consumer mentality at work: ‘Let’s not impose the church on people. Let’s not make church in any way inconvenient,’” said David Wells, professor of history and systematic theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, a leading evangelical school in Hamilton, Mass. “I think what this does is feed into the individualism that is found throughout American culture, where everyone does their own thing.”
The churches closing on Christmas plan multiple services in the days leading up to the holiday, including on Christmas Eve. Most normally do not hold Christmas Day services, preferring instead to mark the holiday in the days and night before. However, Sunday worship has been a Christian practice since ancient times.
Cally Parkinson, a spokeswoman for Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Ill., said church leaders decided that organizing services on a Christmas Sunday would not be the most effective use of staff and volunteer resources. The last time Christmas fell on a Sunday was 1994, and only a small number of people showed up to pray, she said. “If our target and our mission is to reach the unchurched, basically the people who don’t go to church, how likely is it that they’ll be going to church on Christmas morning?” she said.
Among the other megachurches closing on Christmas Day are Southland Christian Church in Nicholasville, Ky., near Lexington, and Fellowship Church in Grapevine, Texas, outside of Dallas. North Point Community Church in Alpharetta, Ga., outside of Atlanta, said on its Web site that no services will be held on Christmas Day or New Year’s Day, which also falls on a Sunday. A spokesman for North Point did not respond to requests for comment.
The closures stand in stark contrast to Roman Catholic parishes, which will see some of their largest crowds of the year on Christmas, and mainline Protestant congregations such as the Episcopal, Methodist and Lutheran churches, where Sunday services are rarely if ever canceled.
Cindy Willison, a spokeswoman for the evangelical Southland Christian Church, said at least 500 volunteers are needed, along with staff, to run Sunday services for the estimated 8,000 people who usually attend. She said many of the volunteers appreciate the chance to spend Christmas with their families instead of working, although she said a few church members complained.
“If we weren’t having services at all, I would probably tend to feel that we were too accommodating to the secular viewpoint, but we’re having multiple services on Saturday and an additional service Friday night,” Willison said. “We believe that you worship every day of the week, not just on a weekend, and you don’t have to be in a church building to worship.”
Troy Page, a spokesman for Fellowship Church, said the congregation was hardly shirking its religious obligations. Fellowship will hold 21 services in four locations in the days leading up to the holiday. Last year, more than 30,000 orshippers participated. “Doing them early allows you to reach people who may be leaving town Friday,” Page said.
These megachurches are not alone in adjusting Sunday worship to accommodate families on Christmas. But most other congregations are scaling back services instead of closing their doors.
First Baptist Church in Daytona Beach, Fla., led by the Rev. Bobby Welch, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, will hold one service instead of the usual two. New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo., led by the Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, will hold one Sunday service instead of the typical three.
In the process of trying to get to the bottom of Calvinism, I’ve learned that Calvinism is somewhat hard to define, but there does seem to be fairly universal consensus that the Canons of Dordt are the most commonly held principles of Calvinism…but….then you talk to other Calvinists who point you more toward the Westminster Confession. And then you have the Belgic Confession, and various other attending documents that go along with Westminster Confession which are apparently of some authority in various Calvinist churches. Of course, one could try to fathom a rather complex chart explaining Calvinism’s view of how a person is saved.
I just feel sometimes that I’m trying to pick up jello with my hands, or herd cats when I try to pin down precisely what is the Calvinist confession of faith. I wish Calvinists could, like we Lutherans, point to a single book and say, “Here is our definitive and authoritative and normative confession of faith.” I appreciate the fact that Lutheranism, though jello-like in its own unique ways, at least brings to the table a single book, called The Book of Concord. No, I’m not saying all Lutherans actually adhere to the Lutheran Confessions, just as I would not suggest that the Presbyterian Church USA is a paragon of Calvinist confession. We have our liberals. Calvinists have their’s. I’m not concerned about either right now.
In my opinion, based on my observation and reading of Calvinist materials now for many years, and most recently of course my exchanges with several ardent Calvinists, I am all the more firmly convinced that Calvinism simply does not put Jesus at the absolute center of their “system.”
Am I suggesting that Calvinists don’t believe in Jesus? No. That they don’t love Jesus? No. I’m simply saying that in the Calvinist system of theology the “warm beating heart” is not to be found, first and foremost, in Christ Jesus and the love and mercy of the Gospel, the good news of forgiveness and new life and hope in Him. For Calvinists it is my opinion that what “centers” them is not the Gospel, so much as God’s eternal sovereign decrees. Am I saying God is not sovereign? No. Am I saying God does not act sovereignly toward His creation? No.
The concern I have with Calvinism is that the fuel driving is train is not the dynamite of the Gospel of Jesus, the love of God, the kindness shown by God to us in Christ, but….in God’s essence and glory, which Calvinists see most clearly in His “sovereignty” but not actually in His grace, love and mercy in Christ. Of course, they protest this assertion. They say, “But that’s what we mean when we talk about sovereignty.” Well, I say, “Then let’s hear more about Jesus and the Gospel and God’s life-giving love and kindness and mercy in Christ.”
I believe that the New Testament clearly indicates that we can not, and must not, look any farther than Jesus Christ when we talk about God. All talk of God that drifts free of Christ and Him crucified leads in a wrong direction. Jesus Christ is the only way we know God as He wants to be known. We are not to try to peer past, or around, or above Jesus and try to look into the hidden counsels of God. And his is precisely where I think Calvinism as a system is highly problematic. Is referring to Calvinism as a system unfair? I’m sure it could be so in some senses, but, as one Calvinist web site puts it succinctly:
Calvinism is the name applied to the system of thought which has come down to us from John Calvin. He is recognized as the chief exponent of that system, although he is not the originator of the ideas set forth in it. The theological views of Calvin, together with those of the other great leaders of the Protestant Reformation, are known to be a revival of Augustinianism, which in its turn was only a revival of the teachings of St. Paul centuries previous. But it was Calvin who, for modern times, first gave the presentation of these views in systematic form and with the specific application which since his day has become known to us as Calvinism.
It is this “system” that has me worried for my Calvinist brethren, for it seems to me that this “system” is quite a bit more concerned first with an articulation of the eternal decrees and hidden counsels of God than with putting Christ Jesus at the heart and center. Please let me explain.
Calvinism concerns itself first with God’s glory and making sure God gets what God deserves: glory. A noble goal! But, is this truly the New Testament presentation of what is at the heart of Christianity? It would, to me, seem to be working things from the wrong direction. We are not given, first, to know and contemplate God in Himself, but rather as He has chosen finally to reveal Himself to us, and that He has done through His Son, Jesus Christ. This is not a “system” this is a Person, the God-Man, Christ Jesus our Lord. Beginning with God’s glory is stepping off on the wrong foot.
The central thought of Calvinism is, therefore, the great thought of God. Someone has remarked: Just as the Methodist places in the foreground the idea of the salvation of sinners, the Baptist the mystery of regeneration, the Lutheran justification by faith, the Moravian the wounds of Christ, the Greek Catholic the mysticism of the Holy Spirit, and the Romanist the catholicity of the church, so the Calvinist is always placing in the foreground the thought of God. The Calvinist does not start out with some interest of man; for example, his conversion or his justification, but has as his informing thought always: How will God come to His rights! He seeks to realize as his ruling concept in life the truth of Scripture: Of Him , and through Him, and to Him are all things. To whom be glory forever.
Here’s an example of what concerns me, from a self-described Calvinist gadfly I’ve come to know. Alan is an earnest and sincere Christian young man who writes this about himself:
I am a sinner saved by God’s grace alone. He didn’t save me by trying somehow to “woo” me by whispering in my ear hoping that I would cooperate. He saved me when I was spitting in his face. God took my creaturely rebel heart and sovereignly penetrated my will and performed the miracle of regeneration by raising me up to spiritual life. It was, and is, amazing grace.
Compare what our Calvinist friend Alan has to say to how St. Paul talks in Gal. 2:20.
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
I trust you will notice a striking difference. I’m not saying we have to mention Jesus with every other word, but….please let me hear about Jesus, not just about the sovereign will of God. The lofty grandeur of the God high in the heavens is a wonder indeed. But that does me no good. No, talk to me of God who lies in the manger, for me, as a baby. Let me hear more about God who lived perfectly in my place, who walked this earth, in the same flesh and blood I have. Speak to me of God who fed the crowds, healed the sick, raised the dead and calmed the storms. Put my eyes on Jesus, God in the flesh, who took my sins on his shoulders, who suffered and bled for me, as the all-sufficient atoning sacrifice for my sins, and the sins of the whole world. That’s the God I want to hear about more. You see, God has come down in the flesh and now to all eternity, He is the only way I know the Father, no other way. I can ponder the “sovereign will” of the grand Creator, but I prefer to ponder God in the face of Jesus Christ, who is, my Lord and my God. Let me hear of Jesus. He is the One who shows us the Father. Please put Jesus back where He belongs.
The quotations in this post are from an essay based on the book The Basic Ideas of Calvinism, Chapter I, pp. 29-40 (Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1939).
