Good example of exhortation

Things are often clearer when we see examples. So here is an example of the last paragraphs of a sermon (not mine) that I think does a great job of ending a sermon with exhortation to faithful, godly living. These paragraphs come after some solid, direct, Fordesque Gospel: not talking about the Gospel but actually preaching the Gospel.

I don't think anyone could accuse this sermon of legalism, even though it would even be a great way to end a sermon if the elders are after you for "more stewardship talk"!

So have a look and comment below.

This is not the end of the restoration but the beginning. God wants more happiness for us than only that between us and Him, thought that is the number one happiness and runs through every happiness. We are happy indeed to know that God does not condemn and cast us off as we deserve. We are no longer bargaining with God, no longer scared of Him. He has given us to be His children who love now from the resources of His gifts.

When God can give, He is happy. When we are given to by God so unimaginably abundantly, we are happy. Being made happy with God's giving, we multiply our happiness when we also give. The opportunities are plentiful to spouse, family, friend, and others knocked about beside the road. Our enemies provide the opportunities of purest giving, for then it is not so easily mixed with getting. As God's happiness increases, as His giving increased, so does ours. For this purpose God gives us abundance of gifts so that we may have joy in giving them further.

God's gifts always grow; they grow by being given away. If they are not given, they wither and die. That is, above all, true of the Gospel. God, you see, is not greedy of His happiness. He did not insist on having all the joy of giving it away. God gave it into our hands. Just think of that! When you have given Christ away to somebody, then is Christ more richly and powerfully yours.

We are, perhaps, not so willing to agree when it comes to some of God's other gifts, our work and business and money, for here the emphasis is so strongly on getting. These things, however, we must see in the light of their purpose. If we work hard, strive to increase our wages or business to get for ourselves, then we are only breeding further restless wanting and getting and wanting. If we work and earn so we may have more to give for God, for friends, family, and others, then happy is our work. Our work is worship, for it is performed in God's way of doing things.

The increase of happiness' treasures is by giving, not by getting. As the loaves and fishes were multiplied by being given away, so all the gifts of God are multiplied by being given away. It is far happier to give than to receive. God knows that, and He wants us happily to know it too. Amen.

Some thoughts on Law & Gospel Preaching

Jesus said that "repentance and the forgiveness of sins will be preached in His Name" (Luke 24) among all the nations. That's our job. That's what we preach.

Now what is repentance? It is not merely contrition, though contrition is a necessary part of true repentance. Repentance is action, or if you will, counter-action: the turning away from sin toward God in faith. Not that any man will ever set aside the struggle against sin (Rom 7) - that will be with us always until this sinful flesh receives the wages of sin in death. And yet the Scriptures are clear that one cannot continue in willful, deliberate wickedness and claim faith in Christ. That is not faith, but mere knowledge, a knowledge which even the demons have...and shudder. Luther:

On the other hand, if certain sectarists would arise, some of whom are perhaps already extant, and in the time of the insurrection [of the peasants] came to my own view, holding that all those who had once received the Spirit or the forgiveness of sins, or had become believers, even though they should afterwards sin, would still remain in the faith, and such sin would not harm them, and [hence] crying thus: "Do whatever you please; if you believe, it all amounts to nothing; faith blots out all sins," etc.—they say, besides, that if any one sins after he has received faith and the Spirit, he never truly had the Spirit and faith: I have had before me [seen and heard] many such insane men, and I fear that in some such a devil is still remaining [hiding and dwelling].

43] It is, accordingly, necessary to know and to teach that when holy men, still having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving with it, happen to fall into manifest sins, as David into adultery, murder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departed from them [they cast out faith and the Holy Ghost]. For the Holy Ghost does not permit sin to have dominion, to gain the upper hand so as to be accomplished, but represses and restrains it so that it must not do what it wishes. But if it does what it wishes, the Holy Ghost and faith are [certainly] not present. For St. John says, 1 John 3:9: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, ... and he cannot sin. And yet it is also the truth when the same St. John says, 1:8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. (SA III.3.42ff. See also Walther's L&G Thesis X.)

And thus with St. John we know that "there is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. All lawlessness is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death" (I John 5:16-17). Though we still struggle against sin daily and will not be able to fully overcome in that struggle until death ("still having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving with it"), we are saved by Christ - and so this sin does not lead to death. Yet there is a sin that leads to death, that drives off faith and the Holy Spirit: sin that is clung to, willfully chosen against better knowledge, etc.

The example that Luther chooses from the Scriptures are instructive. Looking at a woman lustfully is adultery in the heart. It is a rare gift among men to be able to walk down a street full of beautiful women and avoid temptation to this form of adultery. Indeed, most men must struggle against this all their days (and even the pagan Socrates expressed gladness at the coming of old age so that this struggle was somewhat lessened.). Yet Christians struggle against it. They do not embrace the temptation, choose it, and act upon it. When David did that he "cast out faith and the Holy Spirit." He lost his faith. He reverted to pagan status.

I'd say it's likewise with Peter's apostasy. What Christian can claim such an iron clad faith that he never has thoughts of doubt? Who has never wondered in his heart of hearts, "Is all this just so much hogwash?" The temptation to unbelief, to deny Christ, will be with us always in this life in the flesh. Christians struggle against that temptation, even praying as they doubt, "Lord I believe, help Thou mine unbelief!" But when the unbelief is embraced, chosen, acted upon deliberately: "faith and the Holy Spirit have departed." Peter lost his faith. He reverted to pagan status.

As the Apology says, "But since we speak of such faith as is not an idle thought, but of that which liberates from death and produces a new life in hearts, [which is such a new light, life, and force in the heart as to renew our heart, mind, and spirit, makes new men of us and new creatures,] and is the work of the Holy Ghost; this does not coexist with mortal sin [for how can light and darkness coexist?], but as long as it is present, produces good 65] fruits."

[For a much fuller discussion see the Lutheran dogmaticians' discussion of mortal sin under the locus on faith.]

So what is the point of preaching? To change the behavior of men in will, thought, and action. The point of preaching is to turn the will from unbelief to belief, to change thoughts from what is impure to what is pure, to change actions from sins to righteousness. This change is effected only by the power of the Holy Spirit "when and where He pleases" utilizing the Word and Sacraments as means, which are distributed through the Holy Ministry (AC V).  So the point of preaching is "repentance and the forgiveness of sins." The latter is only received with the former. The former is not true repentance (but merely a "sorrow of the world that worketh death," I Cor 7:10) unless faith is added to receive the latter.

That might be called "preaching for conversion." I suppose we could also speak of "preaching to prevent reversion:" to warn against the dangers of acting as David and Peter did, to encourage a living and active faith, to strengthen the smoldering wick, etc. But I would still call this preaching "repentance and the forgiveness of sins;" the point is still to encourage faith in the will, purity in thoughts, godliness in actions. And it still all happens by the power of the Spirit operating through the Word and Sacraments. And the Sunday sermon will probably always be a mixture of this preaching for conversion and preaching to prevent reversion.

So, on this Gaudete Sunday, let us preachers of the Word rejoice, going forth in confidence, knowing that the Holy Spirit means to change men by the power of the Word which He has placed in the mouths of us jars of clay.

+HRC

Fr. Mark Surburg Has a Confession...

You can read it here.

The Problem With Pan

By Larry Beane

Pan-Lutheran organizations have always been troublesome to confessional Lutherans.  We don't want to give the impression of theological agreement when there is no agreement.  We don't want to imply fellowship when there isn't.  But in the past, it was much easier to cooperate in some matters not involving sacramental fellowship.

But that's different today.

With several "Lutheran" bodies in the United States and in the world denying the authority of Holy Scripture in matters of the created order of sex (now cleverly spiritualized by the euphemism "gender"), such cooperation has become nettlesome, to say the least.  The "gender" issue manifests itself primarily in the Christian world in two ways: women's "ordination" and homosexual "marriage."

Most who advocate one, advocate both - as indeed this is intellectually and hermeneutically consistent.  Some denounce homosexual marriage while paradoxically accepting female "ordination" - straining the gnat of a woman being a "husband," while swallowing the camel of a woman being a "reverend father."

And so this dichotomy makes for strange bedfellows.

It's a slam-dunk that we're not really going to have much overlap with the ELCA.  Aside from some awkward pre-existing conditions, such as the joint ELCA-LCMS parochial school in the next town over from where I serve, and Valpo (where an LCMS pastor who openly promotes women's "ordination" is protected by the COP bureaucracy), we're not likely to rub elbows with those who worship goddesses.

But there are worldwide and domestic bodies with whom the LCMS is in dialogue or even partnership, organizations that have women wearing clerical collars.  And what to do about these situations is more tricky.

But the real devil is in Pan-Lutheranism.

One example is Thrivent.  Many people have insurance and investment accounts with this "Pan-Lutheran" company.  They also put out a glossy magazine featuring "Lutheran pastors" of both sexes.  This serves to "normalize" something that ought to not merely be incongruous, but repugnant: women wearing clerical garb and using titles of the office of the holy ministry.

And here (click ahead to pages 12 and 13) is a recent example from another "Pan-Lutheran" organization: Lutherans For Life.

While championing sexual purity, they are promoting an unbiblical sexual situation by featuring an article by a lady "pastor."  They are nodding to the very feminism that has slaughtered sixty million unborn children.  LFL's contact info is here.

I believe we need to speak clearly and firmly on this issue.  Our brothers and sisters around the world are suffering persecution for opposing feminism's triple-horned beast of women's ordination, homosexual marriage, and infanticide.  We are desperately trying to raise our sons and daughters to respect the biblical order of creation and the complementarity between the sexes - which is anathema to modern feminism, both inside and outside the church.  To have copies of these magazines (that portray women in collars) in our homes is akin to having normalized pictures of gay couples imitating Christian marriage.  Such images - especially in a Lutheran context - teach the very opposite of how we catechize our young (and older) people in the sixth commandment and in the authority of God's Word.

The issue of women's "ordination" refuses to go away in the LCMS.  And indeed, there is more and more toleration of individual woman "preachers" whose celebrity status seems to be beguiling some in our communion.  Feminism has been insidious and seductive (to both sexes) from the beginning.

So maybe it's time to say goodbye to the chimera Pan for the sake of the Gospel and for the clarity of our confession.

In the Roll of the Book It Is Written of Him

"Behold, I have come to do Your Will, O God."  And by this Will of God, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

So, I've been trying to approach recent discussions and rethink them in terms of Christ and His fulfilling of the Law for us; and then to consider what that looks like, and what that means for us, as Christ now lives in us and we in Him.

I resonate with those who make distinctions between the "old man" and the "new man" in us; and with all those extrapolations, which apply the Law to the "old man," the Gospel to the new.  I'm simplifying here, for the sake of brevity (and so as to humor my colleagues), but I get it, I've said it and taught it myself, and I still find it an attractive way of thinking.

Yet, for all that, I've been challenged, not only by such quotes as Fr. Curtis and Fr. Braaten have recently shared, and by my own careful reading of the Apology (especially Article IV on Justification, of all things), but also by the preaching and catechesis of my Lord in the Gospels, and by His holy Apostles in their Epistles.  St. Paul, in particular, the great champion of Justification by grace, never flinches from preaching and teaching the Law, and exhorting the people to whom he writes with admonitions to live righteously.

I don't believe that the Gospel is lacking in anything.  I don't believe that the Law can enable us to become better, or to do good works.  I don't believe that our righteousness before God is found in our keeping of the Law.  And, while I am convinced by the Scriptures and the Confessions that God does promise temporal and eternal rewards to those who keep His commandments, I also believe that such rewards are in, with, and under the Cross; that the righteous suffer many things; and that, in any case, I am deserving of nothing of punishment.  Whatever hidden good there is in me, I have received by grace through Jesus Christ, my Lord; and it is only by His mercy and forgiveness that all that is lacking in me is filled up and completed by Him.

But as to this dividing of the Law and the Gospel between the "old man" and the "new man," much as I like it, I don't believe that distinction satisfies the consideration of the way in which the good and acceptable Will of God is revealed to us and worked in us by the Spirit of Christ, our Savior.  The "new man" delights in the Law of God, precisely because it is His good and holy Word, and because it faithfully reveals His Will, which has been fulfilled by Christ for us.  It conveys not only information, but establishes the good and determines what the life of righteousness is: faith toward God, and fervent love toward one another.

Returning, then, to my initial thought, and my point for consideration and discussion:

When Jesus "went down with [His earthly parents, Joseph and Mary], and came to Nazareth; and He continued in subjection to them," was that His "old man" (sic) or His "new man" that was heeding the Fourth Commandment?

When Christ Jesus relied upon the Holy Scriptures to resist and refute the devil's temptations in the wilderness, citing the commands of God, such as "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve," and "You shall not tempt the Lord your God," was that His "old man" (sic) or His "new man" that was laying hold of the Law and submitting to it?

When the Lord Jesus Christ "loved His own who were in the world, and He loved them to the end," and He knelt down to wash their feet in humble obedience to the Father who sent Him, and He commanded them to "love one another, as I have loved you," was that His "old man" (sic) or His "new man" who was living and loving in fulfillment of the Law of God?

And, in turn, as St. Peter writes that "Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously," was that His "old man" (sic) heeding the Law and subjecting Himself to the Will of God? Or, was that not the very "New Man" whose fulfilling of the Law is here set forth as "an example" for us to follow?

The necessary caveats: I'm posing these questions for the sake of my own thinking out loud about them, and because I welcome the comment, correction, and clarification of my brothers.  I have no "opponent" in mind, real or imagined.  This isn't offered as an accusation or critique.  It's probably not even provocative enough to prompt a response, but, hey, I gotta be me.  No kingdom building here; just trying to start a conversation.  (I also recognize and understand that the "old man" never keeps the Law.  I do realize that, and, if I were speaking more precisely and thoroughly, I would have noted that throughout.  My question has to do with the way in which the Law is used, and the way in which it functions, in the life of Christ; on the assumption that His use of the Law will inform an understanding of the Christian's use of the Law in Him.)