Cellphone Etiquette

The matter of etiquette is Biblical, of course, as we may be reminded by the Apostle Paul: "Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another" (Romans 12:10). This matter must apply also, in the 21st century, to the use of cellphones.

An interestting article in today's Wall Street Journal got me thinking about the phenomenon of everyone on his cellphone in the midst of daily commerce. It's not necessarily a bad thing; and in some ways it serves to connect people, which is a good thing. It's simply important to remember that as various societal customs and interactions evolve, the question of basic decency and courtesy should not.

People who use cellphones (that would be most of us) should remember, for instance, not to break off one conversation to engage another in midstream. This has always been true, of course; now it must be applied to cellphones. When in a crowd, if you are in the midst of conversation with one person and another approaches you, that person should wait his turn at a discreet distance, of course; but if he should forget to do so, the appropriate etiquette you is somehow politely to ignore him for the moment or, if necessary, subtly bid him to wait a moment. The same should apply to cellphones.

Thus if you are in conversation with someone and your cellphone goes off, it is appropriate to ignore it, or better, to act quickly to silence it (if it frequently goes off, perhaps it should be on vibrate at all times).

Simply put, it is rude to break off a live conversation to answer a cell call or text.

And of course, cell phone conversations, or texting, should be right out, during dinnertime.

We should be teaching this to our children, along with all the basic rules of etiquette, when we can.

Spot the Idiot

Doesn't President Carter know that he already has the Worst President Ever Award sewn up? Just what must run through this man's mind? I'm simply going to walk over and talk to these Hamas people and convince them to stop their rocket attacks into Israel. So he sits down with them, cameras flashing, blabs awhile, and goes on his way. That should do it. Yup.

Right.

Yo, Mr. President. Pope Leo the Great pulled off a miraculous conversation with Attila the Hun, and, by just walking out to where he was and talking things over, convinced him to turn around and not pillage Rome.

But, um, I knew Leo the Great. Leo the Great was a friend of mine. And Mr. President, you're no Leo the Great.

In your case, Hamas must be beside themselves with side-splitting laughter. Sure, they'll talk to you. And then they can splash the photos all over the world to make the case for how reasonable they are, all the while planning their next terror attack.

I mean, just how naive can you be? Maybe you have some memory of having pulled off a tidy compromise over commerce with neighboring peanut farmers, Hamas is not into peanut farming. Here's the difference, to put it delicately: they're murderers.

Before undertaking this mission of yours, maybe you should have practiced a bit, stateside. You know, go find some gang of thugs in downtown New York late at night and see if you can't talk them into being nice.

Well, what's the difference?

You keep on embarrassing yourself and your country, just when we thought you couldn't get any worse.

The best thing you ever did, sir, was hand the reins to Ronald Reagan.

Now here's an ironic contrast for you: President Reagan announced it to the world when he learned that he had Alzheimer's, and he rode off gracefully into the sunset. You, by contrast, announce to no one that you're diseased, and you turn and rush headstrong into the fray.

Ah, well. It's America, and, as Mother used to say, It takes all kinds . . .

Initial Thoughts on the Pope's Visit and Homily

I watched the Pope's homily this morning, and several things came to mind. There is much to be pleased about. I think that his sense of who he is, and of the gravity of all that he does as Pope, is a good thing for people to behold, even for us who are not of the Roman Catholic communion. Would that more men who preach the Gospel would have such a sense of who they are, and of the gravity of what they are doing. Did you notice? No jokes, no levity, no feeling the need to 'yuk it up'; now that was a refreshing thing indeed.

Second, he doesn't seem to be taken with the need to be 'correct' according to the sensitivities of this or that interest group. He addressed head-on the horrid matter of pedophilia in the priesthood and the need to help the children affected by it. Good for him. Brave man.

I noticed something else too, which is that this didn't really seem to be a real sermon, at least not in the sense I understand what a sermon ought to be. It was more of a speech. To be sure, I'm not meaning to criticize what he said here (see above); and in fact I believe it was better than what I hear in altogether too many churches, whether Roman Catholic, Lutheran or other. Really, it was quite good, I thought.

But I'm always looking for more of a sermon in the basic sense of what a sermon ought to be, in my opinion. What I mean is that I am accustomed to preaching on some Gospel, the Gospel just read prior to the time of preaching. I don't think he really did this. I realize that most preachers don't do it; but I think it would be better if more preachers did it. What happens when the preacher explicates the reading just heard is that he implicitly shows that he is dependent on the Scriptures in his preaching. He is not simply addressing the people with his own ideas, nor, really, is it his business to do so.

Preachers need to address their people according to what the people face, certainly, but I think they need to be careful to be addressing those things from the Gospel. Generally the sermon should contain clear and frequent references to what was heard in the Gospel reading.

Of course this was a special occasion, so there's room for a bit of an exception here. It just got me thinking more generally about the need for expository preaching.

Government 101

Upon hearing the news this morning that the Senate is passing a resolution to declare that John McCain does indeed have the legitimate prerequisite of native American citizenship to run for President, I was briefly inclined to wonder whether these Senators were sleeping during their high school government class.

The issue arose because Mr. McCain was born at an American military base in the Panama Canal, and the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution requires that American Presidents must be native born. So is Mr. McCain disqualified or not? The matter isn't really a serious one in his case, because nobody will be able to raise any serious doubts about his legitimacy as a candidate. But now, lest anyone should even try, and as if to lay the matter legally to rest once and for all, the Senate, led by the Democrats, has passed a bill declaring that the Constitution does not preclude his candidacy.

But here's what has me scratching my head. Isn't it the business of the judicial branch to interpret the Constitution? How often we hear (rightly) of the impropriety of activist judges who seek to make laws rather than interpret them. Well, isn't it equally improper of Members of Congress to interpret laws rather than make them? It may be a small point, but maybe not. To be sure, this is likely some sort of publicity stunt on their part--some ostensible demonstration to the American people of how gregarious Democrats (who sponsored this bit of "legislation") toward the presumptive Republican nominee--but possibly there's a more serious matter to be pondered here.

To put it simply, it's a bit troubling to see our nation's most prominent politicians failing to understand the most basic principles of American politics.

But I digress . . .

A Sneak Preview of the Coming Issue

One of our favorite features in Gottesdienst is the parody page. Some boardroom prompting has encouraged this posting of the one which will appear in our next issue. To subscribe, log on at www.gottesdienst.org right away, and the next issue will be in your hands before you know it.



On Holy Tuesday, 2008, the Missouri Synod’s popular and unabashedly confessional Issues, Etc. radio program was suddenly cancelled without explanation. We have no idea what might have brought that on . . .

FADE FROM BLACK: Int. of Don Kieschneone’s home office. Daytime. Pull back from Daily Bible Passages for Success or Manipulation open at Monday, March 17, 2008. The word Holy of Holy Monday has been crossed out and Roman tendency scrawled in with an explanation point.

BONHOWERASERA (seated in front of the Don’s desk, facing the camera): I believe in the Missouri Synod. The Missouri Synod has made my fortune. And I raised my little congregation in the Missouri Synod fashion. I gave her Ablaze! but –I taught her never to dishonor her Synod. She started listening to Issues, Etc., the most popular program on the Synod’s KFUO Radio Station. She listened often. I didn’t protest. But they started telling her things that were not of the same spirit as Ablaze! and they made her drink confessional Lutheranism. And then they tried to take advantage of her, told her what was wrong with Willow Creek, Lakewood Church, and Saddleback Church. They castigated the Purpose Driven Church movement. She resisted. She kept her honor. So they beat her, like an animal, with doctrine and liturgy. When I went to the hospital, her nose was a’broken. Her jaw was a’shattered, held together by wire. She couldn’t even weep because of the pain. But I wept. Why did I weep? She was the light of my life – beautiful girl. Now she will never be beautiful again. [Bonhowerasera breaks down. The Don gestures to Meierson to give Bonhowerasera a drink] Sorry... [Bonhowerasera, taking the drink, sips from the shot glass] I – I went directly to the radio station, like a good a Missouri Synod Lutheran. They told me they would handle it. Nothing was done. Nothing! Issues, Etc. continues to this very day! I look like a fool. And they smile at me. So I say to my wife, “for justice, we must go to Don Kieschnieone.”

VITO KIESCHNEONE (sitting behind his desk, petting a gerbil): Why did you go to KFUO? Why didn’t you come to me first?

BONHOWERASERA: What do you want of me? Tell me anything. But do what I beg you to do.

VITO KIESCHNEONE: What is that? [Bonhowerasera gets up to whisper his request into Don Kieschneone’s ear] That I cannot do.

BONHOWERASERA: I’ll give you anything you ask.

VITO KIESCHNEONE: We’ve known each other many years, but this is the first time you came to me for counsel, for help. I can’t remember the last time that you invited me to give a testimony at your coffee shop evangelpalooza, even though my wife preached at the youth gathering with your only child in attendance and taught her to make a decision for Jesus. But let’s be frank here: you never wanted my friendship. And uh, you were afraid to be in my debt.

BONHOWERASERA: I didn’t want to get into trouble.

VITO KIESCHNEONE: I understand. You found paradise in The Missouri Synod, had a good trade, made a good living. The Synodical structure protected you; and there are proper avenues to follow, Matthew 18, the By-Laws, and so forth. And you didn’t need a friend of me. But uh, now you come to me and you say – “Don Kieschneone give me justice.” – But you don’t ask with respect. You don’t offer friendship. You don’t even think to call me President, Ecclesiastical Supervisor. Instead, you come into my house on the day my daughter is to be married, and you uh ask me to destroy the radio station, for money.

BONHOWERASERA: I ask you for justice.

VITO KIESCHNEONE: That is not justice; your congregation is still alive. Issues, Etc. didn’t wake that many up.

BONHOWERASERA: Then they can suffer, as she suffers. (then) How much shall I pay you?

VITO KIESCHNEONE (stands, turning his back toward Bonhowerasera): Bonhowerasera... Bonhowerasera... What have I ever done to make you treat me so disrespectfully? Had you come to me in friendship, then this scum that ruined your congregation would be suffering this very day. And that by chance if an honest man such as yourself should make enemies, then they would become my enemies. And then they would fear you.

BONHOWERASERA: Be my friend – (then, after bowing and the Don shrugs) – Mr. President, Grand Poobah, Visonary Extradorinaire, Our Beloved Leader?

VITO KIESCHNEONE (after Bonhowerasera kisses his hand): Good. (then) Some day, and that day may never come, I’ll call upon you to do a service for me. But uh, until that day –accept this justice as a gift on my daughter’s wedding day.

BONHOWERASERA (as he leaves the room): Grazie, Mr. President, Chief Executive Officer, Supervisor of Supevisors, Chairman Par Excellance, the Vicar of . . .

VITO KIESCHNEONE: Enough. Prego. (then, to Bill Diekelmione, after Bonhowerasera leaves the room) Ah, give this to ah, Strandza. I want reliable people; people that aren’t gonna be carried away. I’m mean, we’re not murderers, despite of what this Church Growth fanatic says.

False Belief Corrected

Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. (St. John 20:8-9)

I had always wondered about these verses, until today, when I ran across an explanation from St. Augustine which makes a lot of sense. He says that the words "he saw, and believed" refer merely to what the women had reported, namely "They have taken away the LORD out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him" (v2). Hence, what "they believed" was not the truth, but only the report which was a deduction from reason.

They believed what was not true, until Christ Himself corrected their false belief with His word.

St. Augustine's explanation explains why it says after "they believed" that "as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead."

And this in turn leads us to pay heed to the Scriptures, lest we likewise believe falsehoods on the basis of deduction from reason.

He Is Risen Indeed - Alleluia!

The Easter season is a particularly important time to deal with the question of epistemology, a very important topic. Put simply, it is the matter of how one knows what he knows. It is on this point that I find the most profound difference between Christianity and every other religion; generally the others do not even deal with this question. They simply have teachings which claim to have antiquity.

What the Biblical writers claim, by contrast, is to have the proof of eyewitness testimony, and corroboration, to support what they assert about Jesus. It is a particular claim of Christianity to establish its merits on the basis of eyewitness testimony of historical fact, viz., the resurrection of Christ. As far as I can tell, no other religion does this, with the possible exception of religious sects which may be considered as offshoots of Christianity, such as Mormonism.

Christianity, as opposed, say, to Hinduism, makes very exclusive claims. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." In addition, it makes very clear its basis for those claims in historical, verifiable events.

Behind the question "why do you believe what you believe?" there is an implied challenge: on what basis do you claim to know what is actually true about God? While that challenge may make people uncomfortable, it is essential to historic Christianity that that this question demands an answer.

According to the testimony of St. Paul, "he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present" (I Corinthians 15:6). The significance of this assertion is partly in his saying that most of the eyewitnesses were still alive when he wrote it. This means it could easily have been refuted, were it not true. These kinds of assertions are especially noteworthy in view of their implicit challenge: if they were fabrications, they would not have survived.

The Christian faith makes its truth claims on the basis of its assertions regarding the basis of its truth in verifiable reality, as seen, for instance, in this age-old versicle and response:

V: Christ is risen!
R: He is risen indeed! Alleluia!

Hence, the Christian faith is manifestly not one which asserts that what one believes is all just a private matter of personal choice.

An Empty Tomb is Not Enough

One of the more miserable cliches which has attended the Christian faith is the one which speaks of the cross and the empty tomb.

An empty tomb is not enough.

An empty tomb could mean nothing more than that the disciples somehow did manage to steal the body of Jesus, or worse, that the real resurrection of Jesus is a spiritual resurrection and nothing more, or that he was received up into heaven, rather like Elijah or Moses or Enoch. Such tripe has become popular among the intelligentsia who like to pride themselves in their erudite ability to explain for us what the Scriptures are really talking about, the chin-rubbing, squinting 'theologians' who say that Jesus really arose when the hearts of his people came alive with faith.

Rubbish.

What the eyewitness accounts provide is an irrefutable attestation--to say nothing of their being divinely inspired--of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Yes, the very corpse, the very body that was laid in the tomb, has been renewed and reborn. It is of the personal appearance of Jesus to his disciples, and to the women, that these accounts testify. We have handled him, says the Apostle John. We examined him, and we believe, exults the Apostle Thomas.

We might even borrow a turn of phrase from Patrick Henry and say, Give me a resurrected Jesus or give me death!

Or, to put it in the preferable words of St. Paul,

If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

He Was Innocent

Pilate knew he was innocent. Pilate's wife knew he was innocent, which is why she had a nightmare. The people all knew he was innocent, which was why they delivered him to Pilate: they were envious. When the false witnesses came forth, and he made no defense, Pilate was amazed. Everybody knew he was innocent.

His blood be on us and on our children.

That's what the guilty mob cried, and, ironically, that is what has happened, but not in the way they meant it.

His blood covers us and our children, his innocent, holy blood: it covers our guilt and the guilt of our children.

We go free, because he was condemned. We gain life, because he died. We are aquitted, because he was innocent.

And his resurrection on the third day, besides bringing Life to life and bringing Immortality to light; besides bringing joy to the sorrowing, does another important thing: it verifies his innocence: even the Father knew it.

And therefore the Father knows also that we go free, gain life, and are acquitted.

He was innocent, and by the inestimable gift of His sacrifice, we reap the rewards of his innocence. This is the Gospel.

Sir, We Would See Jesus

From Every Day Will I Bless Thee, s.v. Holy Monday:

Certain Gentiles desire to see Jesus. So they ask Philip, the one who in turn will later express to Jesus his desire to see the Father, and to whom Jesus will say, He who has seen Me has seen the Father. And Philip takes it to Andrew, the one who was first of the Twelve to see Jesus, following Jesus' command, Come and see. These two disciples bring the request to Jesus. But Jesus' answer is simply, The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified. Now in this He spoke of His crucifixion. Thus to see Jesus is not simply to look with the eyes, but with faith. For all the eyes will see is a wretched worm on a cross. Yet it would be faithless and blasphemy for us to call Jesus a wretched worm! Therefore to see Jesus is really to believe, in spite of the eyes, that He is one with the Father, God Almighty. Therefore by faith we call the cross His glory, and we see Him as He is, rather than as He appears. Would you see Jesus? Then learn to believe His word, where sight is denied.

The Vindication of Mary of Bethany

A careful comparison of the accounts of Mary and Martha in St. Luke and St. John will reveal the great likelihood that the two accounts are one and the same; in addition, the textual evidence is rather overwhelming that Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha, is none other than Mary Magdalene.

What this means for the account in St. John 12 (and St. Luke 10) is that the dinner, which is taking place after Jesus has raised Lazarus, is a celebration of a restored family. The Magdalene has come home, and is no longer a "sinner" (i.e., public sinner, harlot); she has been shriven, has received absolution. She has been restored to the family. And Lazarus has been brought back from the dead, also restored to the family. This family is renewed by the mercies of Christ. It is most fitting that there be a supper, in celebration.

Meanwhile, Martha is troubled with much serving (St. Luke's account), and complains about her sister. But Jesus gently bids her to become like her sister who "has chosen that good part." Her sister is not only "hearing his word" (a la St. Luke), but anointing his feet (a la St. John). She is fully engrossed in Him who has had such abundant mercy on her. She is the preeminent example for all faith (well is she named Mary, which, I think, is no accident: she is like the Mother of God in this respect).

And this faith is vindicated by Jesus Himself: he says to Martha (a la St. Luke) that Mary has chosen the better part, "which shall not be taken from her," and he says to Judas (a la St. John), "Let her alone." Jesus is her defense and shield. So will he defend, shield, and vindicate all who, like Mary, trust in Him; and he will restore them eternally to the family of the faithful.

Striving for the Mastery

"And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible."

The Apostle's well-known comparison of Christian life to the life of an athlete suggests that there is something enduring in the legends we watch from the sidelines and living rooms. There is something very adult and abiding in our desire to have heroes about whose lives off the field we don't have to be embarrassed.

Brett Favre is one such man, and he will be sorely missed.

I've been a fan of the Green Bay Packers ever since my childhood; I still remember the boyhood thrill of watching Herb Adderley return an interception for a touchdown, or of Carroll Dale in full stride, catching a bomb from Bart Starr. And I know that my own sons will always have the same kinds of memories about Brett Favre.

But I do think there's more about Brett Favre to remember than that, something that people who are not even football fans, much less Packer fans, can appreciate. It's rather as he himself put it so well today in a tearful good-bye interview: when he cheered, we cheered; when he cried, we cried; when he mourned, we mourned; and when he played, we played with him. He's one of us.

When in celebration he would run across the field, helmet held high, and playfully tumble into his teammates, or hoist one one his shoulders, you might say he was in the backyard with us, reliving our childhood dreams for us, right before our very eyes.

When he checked into drug rehab for the overuse of pain killers, we saw him as a man who makes mistakes, just as the rest of us do. And when he overcame that and moved on, we rejoiced with him, and gained encouragement to do the same.

When his father died, we all felt the pain, even in the midst of our cheering over that unbelievable Monday night game he played the next day at Oakland. Even the Oakland fans, I recall, were cheering for him. It was the best night of his career, and it was the saddest. It was a comedy and a tragedy, all wrapped in one. And we were there with him, experiencing every moment.

Today, as he bid the game farewell, he was, as ever, dignified and humble. In explaining why he felt it was time to retire, he said that he didn't feel as though he could give it 100% any more, so therefore it was time to retire; otherwise it wouldn't be fair to the team. Every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Perhaps he felt that if he had reached the point that he couldn't do this any more, then he was unfit to remain as an icon and role model for his fans.

As he rides his John Deere lawnmower into the sunset, we can remember a lesson from St. Paul: the games at which we are spectators are microcosms of Christian life itself, with all its highs and lows, our own disappointments and challenges. Keeping the body under: maintaining self-discipline, and all the preparations and duties of faithfulness the Apostle bids us to maintain. It's like the preparations of an athlete. Maybe it's easier to grasp this when we watch an athlete like Brett Favre, since he has been so very easy to identify with; and so also, maybe it's easier to tell ourselves to live as we will remember Brett Favre to have played on the field--though not to obtain a corruptible crown, but an incorruptible.

Out of the Barn

It has been a long, cold, snowy winter. We yearn for signs of spring. Here is the first:

Gottesdienst is out of the barn.

It has the most beautiful cover we've ever had.

To subscribe, click here and follow the prompts.

SoThat's It!

I should have known that something smelled fishy in this new Illinois ban on smoking in public places. Here I was, having to admit that I was sort of enjoying the fact that since the first of the year I could go into restaurants and places that used to be filled with carbon monoxide, and now, no more. I can have a nice meal, and when I leave the restaurant, go home and not have to wash my clothes.

So I thought, well, I guess I have to admit this is one feature of the nanny state that I rather like.

I should have known better.

The coming government scam is exposed in this article in the American Spectator, which explains that what is already being considered in the state legislature is the granting of special licenses to places where smokers are really serious about wanting to congregate: bars, and perhaps restaurants.

So what's wrong with that, you ask?

Ah, the licenses must be purchased, of course. Can you see it coming now? Restaurants will soon be pressured to get the license by the sheer force of the marketplace. If other restaurants are allowing smokers, they're going to lose customers, so soon they'll have to fork over the cash. Next thing you know, it'll all be just like it was before, except for one thing: one more hidden "tax." You'll still have your smoky bowling alleys, just like before, but now, the government will have succeeded in providing themselves with a clever way of siphoning more cash from the poor merchants (read "the people") and gaining more control over us all.

Hat tip: Mom

The Our Father as Canon

Take a careful look at St. Luke chapter 11, and you'll find some pretty convincing reasons for believing that the Our Father was meant from the start to be the very prayer by which the elements on the altar are consecrated.

First, it is the only prayer Jesus specifically tells His disciples to say (hence, it is called the Lord's Prayer). Then, immediately following this prayer there comes the curious story Jesus tells of the friend at midnight:

"And he said unto them, Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight, and say unto him, Friend, lend me three loaves; for a friend of mine in his journey is come to me, and I have nothing to set before him? And he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not: the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee. I say unto you, Though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many as he needeth."

Here we have three friends. The journeying friend, the friend to whom he comes, and the friend who is at home with his children at midnight. Why, we must ask, all this detail? Surely, if there were to be nothing more than a simple point of comparison (If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?), then it could have been a much simpler story. Why three friends? Why midnight? Why three loaves? And--most significantly--why does this come immediately after the Lord's Prayer?

There is something latent here which is meant to be uncovered: it's all about Christ. It's all about the Holy Supper.

Midnight, because the midnight hour is when the voice is heard, "The Bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him." Midnight is when "I will rise to give thanks," as the Psalmist says. Midnight is when Christ comes.

Three loaves, because Jesus is the Triune God. He is Himself our daily bread. He is the Bread of Life.

Three friends: one is the journeying church, on the journey of life; she comes to the second, i.e., the pastor, who has nothing of his own to give; so he turns to the third, i.e., the Father, and says, "Our Father who art in heaven . . . give us daily bread, that is, lend me three loaves!"

And the Father gives as much as we need, as Jesus promises here: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." This is about asking that Christ will be given to us; i.e., that the Holy Spirit will do His primary work of bringing Christ to us in the Supper; which is why Jesus says here, "how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?"

In short, this entire section is about the Mass. If you don't see that, have another look.

St. Valentine, martyr

We recall today the fidelity of St. Valentine, martyr from the third century, who refused to succumb to his enemies' temptations to renounce Christ; and who remained steadfast also when they beat him; and right up until they beheaded him.

And so there arose in England, from about the time of Chaucer, the custom of announcing betrothals on St. Valentine's Day, and of calling one's betrothed "Valentine," in token of the faithfulness unto death shown by this patron of all who plight to one another their troth.

The Heavens Opened and the Angels Rejoiced

The heavens opened and the angels sang with us Sunday morning. Why this jubilation, at the onset of Lent? What caused celestial joy such as earth has scarcely known? What was the grand occasion?

The Baptism of Sarah Ann Eckardt, grandchild of your humble scribe, and now, disciple of Jesus and member of His holy flock.

In glad obedience to Jesus' command, Suffer the little ones to come unto me and forbid them not, the child was brought, and Jesus received her into his kingdom by water and the word, to a life of faith and of following Him who is our Delight and Salvation.

And so these jubilant angels of Christ shall surely follow her all the days of her life.

And so shall we rejoice and be glad, and give thanks for His unspeakable goodness.

"You have to worship right"?

So I'm over at the nursing home this morning, for a service with some people there to give them the Sacrament, and I notice a little group through the window of the room, across the hall. From past experience I know they are two Jehovah's Witnesses and one resident. They often have this little study at the same time.

When we were finished, and I was putting things away, a couple of times I met their eyes, and I got to thinking: I bet they're thinking I'm leading people astray with my ritual and my traditional Christianity; and here I am, thinking that they're leading this poor guy astray with their Jehovah's Witness junk. And I mused, that's pretty much what most religions think about most other religions: they're messed up, and we have it right.

As I was leaving, I overheard one of them say to the captive audience (of one resident), "To get to eternal paradise, you have to worship right." And I thought, as I walked out to my car, H'mmm. Who worships right?

The real answer is: nobody except for Jesus, since only He who is one with the Father was perfectly submissive to His Father's will. The rest of us are sinners. And since this is so; since nobody worships right except for Jesus Himself, therefore there is only one way of salvation: He is Himself the way, as He said.

Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved. Whoever, that is, believes in Him and is baptized into Him who alone is the way, who alone worships rightly, shall be saved.

It is sad that people think there is another way.

In Defense of Mother Teresa

I admit to not knowing much about the life of Mother Teresa; at least, not more than people generally know. But I think that people who assail her faith because of the confessions in her diary are doing her a disservice.

It's easy to do that, you know. There she says life was like a living hell, and that her smile was a mask, that she was lost: "In my own soul, I feel the terrible pain of this loss. I feel that God does not want me, that God is not God and that he does not really exist."

But let's remember where she wrote this: in her diary. It was a private communication, not meant for public consumption. Good heavens, I wonder what people would think of me if all my private communications were made public.

Her struggle reminds me, actually, of Luther's. Even quite post-Reformation he is known to have had bouts of severe depression, anguish, anfechtungen. So was he a lost soul too, then?

Or are all such struggles indications of a truly lively faith which wrestles with the devil from time to time?

I think that we will do well to look at her public words (and deeds), her confession of faith in Jesus. While I seriously doubt I'd believe everything she wrote (as I said, I'm no Mother Teresa expert), I think we can safely say call her an ardent believer in Christ.

Or do we want to second-guess her in ways none of us would want others to second-guess us?

Lent Cometh

The Gospel for Quinquagesima finds a blind man begging, crying out against the multitude that wants him silenced, Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me! This follows the account of Jesus telling his disciples he must go to Jerusalem and be crucified, and the third day rise again. But they understood none of the things which he said to them. How blind are they, and how much the blind man truly sees!

And this their blindness comes after Sexagesima Sunday, on which Jesus had said in the Gospel, "to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven."

Thus let all become circumspect, and warned: we who know the mysteries still so easily become blinded, even as the disciples did!

See how much we need Lent, then; though the flesh does not wish for Lent, the spirit welcomes its approach, for in it we are given a greater opportunity, denying ourselves, to meditate on him who is our salvation, and so, again, to receive our sight; even as the blind man received his sight and followed Jesus.