The Plucked Chicken

Juxtaposition

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — 2008-11-20T16:53:45Z

Some say that religious-minded people will believe anything. I have a hard time believing in mere coincidence, though it may be theoretically possible. Here are three things that appeared before me within half an hour of each other this morning.

This timely article.

This devotion text.

And the email tag below.

-- For it pleased the Father that in Him [Christ] all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

Hamilton and Madison: Security Against a Standing Army

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — 2008-11-20T16:53:44Z

Before the United States Constitution was ratified by the states, there was a discussion in print concerning its merits and possible effects. The State of New York was reluctant to ratify, at least partly because of concerns about the potential abuse of power by the national government. The response to this was printed as the Federalist Papers for consideration by the general populace.

The Federalist Papers were written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. It's not too much to suppose that they represent an authentic and original understanding of the Constitution.

Hamilton wrote The Federalist, Number 29, "Concerning the Militia." It addresses a general distrust in standing armies, and especially in national control of the same. A "militia" is a body of armed men who are not soldiers by profession, but have been called together for the common defense. Hamilton suggests that properly organized local militias, available for national needs, would make a standing army unnecessary.

As Hamilton points out, it would be thoroughly impractical to discipline all the militia (armed citizenry) of the United States. Therefore, it is not a suitable proposition for the general defense of the nation. However, the state ought to organize its own militia "of limited extent," which ought to render a standing national army unnecessary. He writes:

This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

Alexander Hamilton considered the local armed citizenry of each state to be security against the abuses of a national standing army. Isn't that interesting? How far we've come from that time, yet reasoning like this led to the adoption of our nation's Constitution -- the same Constitution that our (national) soldiers still swear to defend thus:

I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.

James Madison, in The Federalist, Number 46, compares his vision of state government to federal government. It's fascinating. There, he addresses the same question that Hamilton had addressed in number 29. I quote at length, as he mentions several points of interest.

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

The Hidden Cost of Embarq DSL

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — 2008-11-19T23:43:03Z

When you look for an ISP, you might some time consider Embarq. If you do, then you need to add a certain undisclosed installation fee when you compare Embarq's prices with those of other providers. This might also be true for other providers too, so caveat emptor.

The extra amount to add in the case of Embarq is about $173.99, as of this moment. If you already use Microsoft Windows, then you have already paid the extra fee, and will continue paying it. But if you use MacOS, Linux, or any number of equally capable operating systems instead of Windows, then at the moment, you'd better factor in the extra $174 when you consider Embarq.

To be fair, it seems that this fee is not tacked on by Embarq itself, but by some other entity that Embarq uses to handle new account set-up. Nevertheless, when you attempt to use http://install.embarq.com, even in Mozilla Firefox, it won't work. This is by design. The Embarq installation process requires Windows as a prerequisite. Here's a bit of Ecmascript code from a relevant install web page to demonstrate:

var is = new Is();
if(!(is.win98 || is.winme || is.win2kSP4 || is.winxp || is.winvista)) { //alert("You are using a VA UnSupported OS"); }

The good news is that Internet connectivity seems to work whether or not you have completed the Embarq DSL installation.

Wanted: Children

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — 2008-11-11T01:15:36Z

Speaking of adoptions, did you see what Gene Veith posted today? There are many more prospective parents wishing to adopt children in the United States -- including minorities, ages 6-12, and children with disabilities -- than there are children waiting to be adopted. Then why are any children waiting? Apparently, because of the bureaucratic adoption process..

Hey, I know how we should fix that. Increase government involvement!

Unwanted Children

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — 2008-11-10T23:42:57Z

The "abortion problem" is not really about choices. It's not that some person has to decide whether an unborn human is also person. It's not that s/he has to decide whether intentionally ending a pregnancy is better than subjecting the child to a particular start in life. The problem is almost as old as sin: some children are simply unwanted.

In some places, it may still be in fashion to dispose of unwanted children by exposing them to the elements, without care, until they die. When that sort of thing was done routinely in the west, Christians were well-known for objecting to it. It won them friends, and also enemies.

Abortion is pretty much the same thing: the disposal of unwanted children. There are differences, but it becomes apparent that the two practices are the same in kind, when you ask why someone would submit to an abortion. The answer is so obvious that the question doesn't even need to be asked: to escape having a child.

In the United States there is an abortion industry, which we probably ought to call "Big Abortion." It has at least as much influence upon the government as Big Tobacco and Big Oil. Ironic that Big Tobacco is accused of not caring about human lives, while Big Abortion is heralded by many of the same people as a humanitarian good.

The stem cell debate in the United States has become ridiculous. How many hundreds of treatments are there now from stem cell research? Offhand, I don't know. It's a lot. Now, how many of them are from embryonic stem cell research? Last I heard: none. All those advances were from so-called "adult" stem cell research, which can be done without any harm to a human life. As if that were not enough to show the vanity of destroying human embryos for research, medical research heroes have now actually made the equivalent of embryonic stem cells from adult stem cells -- again, without harm to a human life.

So, why do some continue to insist upon federal funding (i.e. my money) for embryonic stem cell research? It's not because of any therapeutic promise. It's not for the economics. The answer is obvious, isn't it? Because embryonic stem cell research depends upon harm done to human life. If you know of another reason that makes more sense, do tell.

If that sounds morally twisted, you're right. But then, any student of history will gladly inform you that moral twistedness is nothing new. This insistence upon federal funding is an outgrowth of Big Abortion, which is founded upon the desire for (or at least apathy toward) the harming of human life.

All this leads us to an important realization. Our society is in a moral crisis. There are these thousands of frozen embryos, and Big Abortion salivates at the possibility of destroying them. Dubious claims are made that nobody wants them anyway. In most cases, the parents probably just don't know what else to do with them, and have a praiseworthy moral reluctance to discard them. Christians like me claim it's wrong to destroy them with medical experimentation, because they are human. But what can be done about these unwanted children?

I'm happy to say that people are already working on a morally acceptable solution. It's possible for parents to adopt these embryos. See http://www.snowflakes.org . Meanwhile, maybe we should reconsider whether it's a good idea to create so many fertilized human embryos in the first place. It may be a practical way to accomplish something, but is it a morally responsible way to do it?

I'm not saying there should be a law, necessarily, but that individuals should learn to exercise their freedom with good, informed judgment and love for their neighbors -- even the ones yet unconceived. If that became the norm, Big Abortion might just go right out of business.

Some Problems With Socialism

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — 2008-11-07T17:16:22Z

I recently heard a comment along these lines: perhaps many people who recognize the ideals of socialism in our president-elect actually think it's a good thing. Can that be true? It's bugged me since election day. I had thought that Americans in general were astute and freedom-loving enough to recognize a threat to our liberal (as in freedom) republican (as in a republic) ideals and neutralize it. On the other hand, it's possible that so many Americans disregarded such an important issue altogether because of race.

Unfortunately, race has been a seriously divisive problem in the US even up to November 4. Others may disagree with me on this, but I believe that any discrimination based upon race, as such, is morally wrong -- even the kind of discrimination called "affirmative action." We are all descended from one gene pool: first Adam and Eve, and later Noah and his wife. (Well, I suppose there could be some rare instances where someone could justify racial discrimination, such as in auditions for a character in a play whose description calls for a particular race. But qualifications like that are not usually the case. In fact, notice Denzel Washington's excellent casting in Kenneth Branaugh's Much Ado about Nothing.) God created us to have many differences in appearance, and these are often manifested as family resemblances. Racial discrimination is exactly the same thing as discrimination based upon family resemblances.

Socialism is an economic philosophy meant to be a halfway point to pure communism. In reality, the ideal of communism was never realized by the communist countries, so that their economies -- until China's recent capitalistic infusion -- were more accurately described as socialist.

The economic philosophies of the most famous fascist countries in the 20th Century (Italy under Mussolini and Germany under you-know-who) were also socialist. In fact, the full name of you-know-who's infamous party even incorporated the word for socialism. During the rise of these governments, they were heralded as a wonderful thing by many Americans, particularly the Progressives. Even the German use of eugenics (the systematic elimination of "undesirable" genetic traits by forced manipulation of the reproduction of a populace) was welcomed in some American circles. By the way, that was also a form of racism as morally wrong as anti-semitism.

Speaking of Nazi anti-semitism, it wasn't all about race. It was just as much about socialism. For historical reasons, many Jews had become an economically independent, capitalist force in Europe, standing in the way of the progressive socialist spirit. Genocide became another means for the advancement of socialism. (Interesting parallel today: the sterile genocide of unwanted children before they are born. Abortion also has racial overtones, since most of its millions of American victims are minorities.)

Mussolini was a rock star in America. His form of socialism was a bit different than the one in Germany, but they were kindred spirits. It's interesting to note that one of Mussolini's inspirations was the American national efficiencies implemented during and after WWI. Those efficiencies involved the loss of certain freedoms, which has often been justified in war, including the War on Terror, with the assumption that the freedoms will return afterward. I suspect that some freedoms do not return.

Socialism is all about the sacrifice of individual freedom and responsibility in the hope that a central government will be able to bear that responsibility for us all, and do it better than we could do it individually. By contrast, the United States was founded and flourished upon the principles of individual freedom and responsibility. This entails individual risk-taking, which means that everyone has the chance to fail in what we do, and in fact we will fail sometimes. It entails the assumption that hard work, wisdom, good character, and a godly life are the best way to earthly success. It's what the founders of the United States called "the pursuit of happiness." It can't happen without "life" and "liberty." Socialism, on the other hand, promises that if you give up your liberty -- freedom to act and assume responsibility for yourself -- the government will control your life to the extent that you will not have to pursue happiness any more. Instead, the government will give you happiness.

Socialism has never kept its promise. Why not? Because we live in a sinful world, after all. Read Genesis chapter 3. That still applies in a socialist economy. Socialism appeals to most people on some level, because we covet the success of our neighbors. Greener grass, and all that. The covetous part of us wants the government to "spread the wealth around," to use recent campaign rhetoric in which Mr. Obama was defending his socialist agenda.

Capitalism, on the other hand, promises much less, and often keeps its promises. It doesn't promise success, but rather the freedom for you to pursue it. It doesn't promise wealth, but the opportunity for you to create it. Sometimes great injustices have taken place in a capitalist system, because again, we still live in a sinful world. That is exactly the reason why we have a justice system. But the existence of lawbreakers does not mean there's something wrong with the laws. It means there's something wrong with the lawbreakers.

Capitalism, not socialism, respects the Seventh Commandment: "You shall not steal." It respects the concept of private property, which we should have the freedom to use as we wish in the pursuit of success. While for many, this pursuit may be motivated by pure selfishness and greed, for Christians it is motivated by love for our neighbors. When we succeed, it's a blessing upon our neighbors in a capitalist economy. It creates and improves jobs, and provides the Christian with wealth which we can use to spread the Gospel of forgiveness in Christ and also alleviate the physical suffering that naturally occurs in an imperfect world. If we don't do this as well as we should, it is not a reflection upon capitalism, but upon the sinfulness in each of us.

Because socialism favors the collective over the individual, it doesn't recognize individual rights, such as we find in the Bill of Rights. Even freedom of religion, particularly Christianity, is inimical to socialism. Just hear what happened in East Germany first under you-know-who, and later under the communists. Socialism's advocates have trouble implementing socialism where the people cherish and make use of those rights: freedom for the free exercise of religion, of speech, of assembly, of the press, and to petition the Government for redress. That's only in the first amendment, but the second amendment gives those individual freedoms teeth.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The purpose for allowing the populace to keep and bear (carry) weapons is not only to provide a last line of defense against foreign attack, though it does have that good effect. It's also to better secure the freedom of the people from the tyranny of the federal government, which might some day try to take away that freedom. In other words, the second amendment is a defense against socialism.

The president-elect has pledged not "to take away your guns." But will he try to prevent Americans from acquiring new arms? Will he try to prevent us from buying ammunition? Will he seek to make the keeping and bearing of arms prohibitively expensive through punitive taxation? That's what's been happening to the cigarette industry: taxation as a means to shape society. I don't advocate smoking, but who can deny that what's being attempted there is the loss of freedom and individual responsibility? Some fear that the president-elect will use the same strategy against the second amendment.

Why? Why would a socialist work against the second amendment? The reason should be obvious: because a well-regulated (armed) Militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Socialism is not a good thing. Its advocates pander to the sin of coveting, and break the seventh commandment by not respecting private property. Some of its advocates go further, breaking the fifth commandment by either seeking the harm of some individuals or at least failing to protect them.

Capitalism, as an alternative, does not fix all our woes either. In fact, no economic system can do that, because this is a sinful world. However, capitalism encourages individual liberty and responsibility, which are in accord with God's will.

Wisdom

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — 2008-11-05T05:41:16Z

As I write this, I'm not fully certain of the outcome of this presidential election, but it looks as though Mr. Obama will be elected. It is a hard-fought win for him and his followers, involving every kind of tactic and strategem. If it's not too soon, I congratulate them. Raising and spending ~~nearly a billion~~ 650+ million dollars on a political campaign has got to be a record-breaker all by itself.

Assuming an Obama presidency, the bad news is that he espouses a classic socialist point of view (as in the USSR, the fascist regimes of Germany and Italy of the 1920s and 1930s, and to a lesser degree the New Deal and other American embarrassments), advocates the barbaric, morally indefensible, and swiftian practice of butchering the weakest humans in our society while victimizing their mothers for convenience and profit (as in two go into the abortion mill, but only one comes out), has a short but consistent record of eliminating freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (as in the individual right for Americans to keep and bear arms), and has no experience actually running an organization larger than either his senate office or his neighborhood in Chicago. He's reportedly on personal, friendly terms with terrorists, both foreign and domestic, so maybe his lack of foreign policy experience won't be a problem.

The good news is that regardless of who wins the election, Christians can still rely upon the providential rule of our Creator. His job experience goes back to the Beginning, whether people acknowledge it or not. More importantly, His plan continues: the salvation of sinners through the message of the gospel and the sacraments, leading to the imminent destruction of this entire world, when He will bring His people to live forever in paradise (as in a place where elections are unnecessary). The blood of Jesus Christ still cleanses those who repent from the guilt of all our sins.

What strikes me now, regardless of who wins the election in the end, is the wisdom of this nation's founding fathers. Reading the Constitution, it seems that safeguarding freedom was rather important to them. With the separation of powers, and their understanding of how long it takes for a large group of people to decide something, the founders clearly wanted us to have a rather weak federal government. It seems amazing, but somehow they answered the question, "What kind of earthly government can best protect this nation many years from now, in case a socialist, morally-twisted strong-arm somehow finds enough of the right votes to be elected president?" The answer is the balance of powers, the checks and balances between the three branches.

"Yes," you say, "but Congress may be in his back pocket."

Maybe. But at the moment, not the Supreme Court. Beside that, the members of Congress have to find enough agreement between them to jump when their Leader says "toad." If they don't jump together, they will automatically mitigate the damage done by our government in the next four years. You and I can contribute to the disagreement between them, because we are the ones who send them there. Political gridlock is nightmare for socialists, but it's usually a godsend for Americans.

The portent darkening our skies is the word "change." It's well known that Mr. Obama does not consider the Constitution to be the essence of our national government. Would he change that, too? Just how far might this "revolution" go?

I'm also sort of wondering how long it will take before the next major terrorist attack comes to the American homeland. I've got to hand it to "the failed policies of the current administration:" they've kept us safe from another 9/11 for 8 years. That can change too. We might be dealing with the fallout for quite a while. Maybe a half-life. Maybe longer.

English Walnut Harvest

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — 2008-10-31T05:12:36Z

The harvest is still coming in, but this is most of it. It's a year of plenty. I think some squirrels have been stealing nuts from the bottom shelf in back, there. I don't know why. There are still plenty in the grass.

Why Rush is Successful

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — 2008-10-30T06:25:58Z

I've already done my voting by mail, and I think every voter should make an informed, conscientious decision according to the principles of his own faith and philosophy. That said, ...

I thought I'd offer a quick comment on Rush Limbaugh. He's hated by many and yet remains number one. Why do so many listen to him? I suppose you'd have to ask each one. Myself, I don't listen much these days, because it's pretty inconvenient. However, I get these "Rush in a Hurry" emails that summarize a few of the topics he touches on in his show. Occasionally -- very occasionally, I've heard him overstate something or go too far beyond his areas of expertise. But most -- and it's almost all -- of the time, he has a way of expressing what I've been thinking myself. Of course, a good demagogue can make people think that, but I think I'm too stubborn and suspicious by nature to be so easily mesmerized. I may be idealistic in a way too, but not to the point of blindly following a smooth tongue.

Today, Rush included a link to a free audio segment of his show that does an outstanding job of speaking my mind. Maybe it's the Jonah Goldberg book I read, or the way our current executive branch has been enlarging federal power by leaps and bounds, but something about one of the presidential candidates and his followers just screams "Beware: fascism!" to me. Rush does a pretty good job of articulating that. I suppose if you want to know what I mean by "fascism," you'll have to read the book, or maybe listen to the clip.

By the way, there's another talk show host who's on at more convenient times for me. (Translation: when I drive places.) His name is Lars Larsen, and his influence seems to be expanding quickly. I enjoy his no-nonsense style, and his usually-fair and deliberate efforts to understand what his callers say.

No, I don't look for radio shows of a lefterly bent, though there's a whole liberal station in Portland I've sometimes tuned in while driving. The signal to noise ratio on that particular station usually seems lower than I can tolerate, so I vote with my radio dial. Capitalism in action, and a healthy dose of freedom.

The Right Question Answered in Plain Words

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — 2008-10-27T19:18:58Z

An email comment on More Seeds of Discord highlights two challenges we face in achieving genuine agreement on a statement of doctrine.

I agree with your point about asking the right questions. But how to find those right questions?

Also, how to define something that ought to be simple, "What are plain words of Scripture?"

Since I don't have easy answers to these questions, I'll pronounce them "good questions." That's how it's usually done, right? But they are good questions, also because they can help us to avoid discord and promote harmony.

How to find the right questions? I think we'd have to take a practical approach to this. We don't need to go looking for theological questions to answer. Instead, we can address only the questions that arise from the circumstances in which we find ourselves. One of the first things we should do is identify the question being asked, and determine if it's merely speculative, or what authority is needed to produce a real answer. A question of language usage, for example, can be authoritatively answered by the speakers and writers themselves: "What are the various senses in which we use the term 'office of the ministry'?" A question of God's will, on the other hand, can only be answered by holy scripture -- if at all: "How does God wish us to regard Baptism?" With some questions, it may be impossible to tell what authority is required. I'd suggest that it may be easier to make headway by first rephrasing or even redefining the question. Only the authority of God's Word can provide a definitive, unchanging answer, and only questions that can be answered this way require complete agreement among Christians.

The commenter elaborated on the second point:

In this case, I think there are people at both ends of the continuum that claim the higher ground of adhering to the specific words of scripture. On the one hand are those who believe that Christ in specific places instituted a specific Ministry that is entrusted with the preaching of the word and administering of the sacraments.

There are on the other end of the continuum, those who see clearly in Scripture words that seem to indicate or imply or from which can be inferred the clear institution of a wider sense of the ministry.

And so you see, we have a difference in defining something that in English sounds very clear cut, "What does plain mean?"

Here we have suffered from some overlap of meaning. "No kidding," you say. In this example, we have the term "ministry" (capitalized or not), used in two different senses. In other parts of the whole ELS ministry conversation, we've seen the same thing with the term "office" (capitalized or not). If we really want to promote harmony, we will have to agree to some arbitrary language conventions that allow us to avoid this kind of imprecision and the resulting misunderstanding. I think the PMW attempts this rather well, but more can be done. For example, what if we agreed upon the convention of using "office" or "office of the ministry" for only one thing (the current "narrow sense," for example) while using "ministry" for the other? Artificial and arbitrary? Sure. But helpful, too. We would have to notice that these words were used with less precision (or at least a greater reliance upon context) in years past, and read our fathers' writings -- including the Confessions -- with that in mind.

If we could reliably distinguish these two related things that Scripture says have been instituted by God, then we'd see that there are really two categories of questions to be answered, one about "the ministry" and one about the "office of the ministry." No wonder, then, that each party can claim the higher ground, since they are talking about subtly different questions.

As far as what "plain" means -- as in "plain words of Scripture," my guess is that asking the right kind of questions will help a whole lot. We can expect no plain answer for speculative questions, or those that require only a human authority for their answer. Yet the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture is an article of faith. If we believe that Scripture is clear, then we will either find where it addresses the question plainly, or we will conclude in the end that God has not revealed the answer.

I welcome your further comments.

Synod and Congregation

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — 2008-10-23T16:32:17Z

Ulrik Vilhelm Koren was one of the chief fathers of the Norwegian Synod, now the Evangelical Lutheran Synod. In 1899, he wrote The Right Principles of Church Government, which has been included in the book Faith of our Fathers. There, we read what Koren wrote about the relationship between synod and congregation, found on pages 134-135.

If we hold fast to what we have taught above, from the word of God, about the essence of the Church and the independence of each congregation, it will not be difficult to understand how a body of free congregations must be governed. Such a church body cannot have any government "by divine right." But that there must be some government follows from the fact that all things shall be done decently and in order, which is what God demands; but the government itself can belong only to the congregations, and it can be carried out only by the men who are sent and empowered by the different congregations for that very purpose. Some of these delegates are pastors and teachers, others not. The division that is often made of the accredited delegates of the congregations into pastors and laymen, as if they represented two different classes in the church, is not correct. A pastor is a member of the congregation just as much as anyone else who belongs to it, and there is no such thing as a special clergy class (as the Catholic Church teaches.) All Christians are priests. Those whom we in ordinary speech call priests (pastors) have only a special office, an especially important ministry to which they are called by God, but they do not constitute a special class.

Now when such an assembly gathered from all the congregations is to search out and carry out what will best serve the interest of the Church, it is clear that this can be accomplished only by conferring together; and that there first of all must be an agreement about the composition of the whole body, about its aims, and about how it will arrange its affairs and carry out its resolutions. This agreement is the constitution of the body. This agreement of constitution must not conflict with the concept of the Church developed above nor with the liberty of each congregation under Christ.

The Synod, then, dare not have any authority over the individual congregation. It cannot impose anything upon it, cannot demand anything of it which God has not demanded, cannot levy taxes upon it. Since the basis on which the union into one body has been built is unity in the faith, the first point in the agreement must be that the individual congregation will not let its confession or its rules conflict with the word of God or Christ's will. This is not a power that the Synod assumes. It is God's demand and not men's, and this demand receives no more authority by the fact that the church body, the Synod, expresses it than if an individual presented it, although the common testimony might be a source of strengthening for one in need of it.

How a Synod Functions

In order to preserve unity in faith and to make progress in Christian life, a body of orthodox congregations will, indeed, find it necessary to establish a special overseer's office for the pastors and congregations, such as has been the case from the earliest periods in the church. But at the same time the church body must take care to learn, from church history, how necessary it is that the execution of this office does not conflict with the principles given above. The bishops were not elected to rule. The Lutheran Church testifies to this in the Augsburg Confession, in the Apology, and in the Smalcald Articles. We elect these overseers or presidents, as we call them, not to rule but to remind us of our Savior's rule and His royal word, and, by supervision, admonition, encouragement, and advice to help us use and obey the word of God. They have no other power than that of the word.

[ paragraph re. common goals like schools, "educational institutions, distributions of books, missions, charitable institutions, and everything that can serve the kingdom of God." ]

Since the Church has been given no other rules with regard to all those things than that all things be done decently and in order, it becomes the task of the church body to leran how all such matters can best be arranged. And since there is no authority established by God to command in such matters, it follows that the church body cannot command or force anything upon the congregation either. Even if a congregation has through its representatives taken part in one or another resolution about such matters, it does not necessarily follow that the congregation must approve the resolution. Love will, indeed, render it necessary for the individual congregation not to reject such resolutions, if they do not conflict with the conscience, but it must be a free matter, since love is free. No compulsory commandment can be given. From the fact that God has set the pastor to be the overseer and guide in the congregation, it follows that a Christian congregation will also in such things want to hear its pastor's opinion and counsel. But the decision rests with the congregation.

Just for the reason that God has not commanded us anything with regard to the arrangement of all such matters, we must here, as it were, feel our way and try as best we can to learn what will benefit the kingdom of God most, e.g. we must not think that all the regulations in the constitution which we have prepared are so good that they dare not be changed or could not be improved upon. However, it is important here to remember that a passion for novelty must not be allowed to rule; that we do not seek our own but what is to the benefit of all; that we do not consider ourselves wiser than others, so that we will want to force our way through or gain our end by stealth. We should not be blind to the danger that political arts and tricks may be brought over into our consultations and the resolutions of the Church, and then seek comfort in the fact that our end is good, while the means we use are objectionable. The situation is the same in the Synod as in the congregation, -- everything would go well, if all weretrue believers; but as there are also nominal Christians and unconverted people in the visible church, many dangers arise. When the evil passions which are not entirely dead even in the children of God get an opportunity to come to life again and to make themselves felt; when suspicion, jealousy, backbiting, opinionatedness, vanity, ambition and lust for power rule more or less; and when restless characters who became angry because they do not get their own way work to sow discontent, suspicion and strife, then the dangers can readily result in distress and misery.

[ Short paragraphs re. the dangers of anarchy and "that worst of all tyrannies, mob rule, where individual demagogues usurp the power, drawing the crowd after them," and the way to deal with such dangers. ]

So if there is a question of evil or good, of something which God has commanded or forbidden, there we do not ask either about majority or minority, there the conscience is concerned, and there we shall not be the slaves of men whether they be many or few. But where God has not settled the matter, there we shall submit and put up with what the majority agrees on, even if we do not get things as we would wish or as we believed would be to the benefit of the Church. There is one thing in which we shall seek our comfort and strength, and that is the truth that our Lord Jesus governs His Church. He does not need us. He often directs it wonderfully. But if we believe what He Himself has said, that all power is given unto Him in heaven and in earth, and that He is with us always even unto the end of the world, and that He is the king in His kingdom, then we will become confident and hopeful, willing to obey Him and to serve Him according to His word and to "cast all our care upon Him, for He careth for us." (I Peter 5, 7.)

In light of Koren's distinction between the things that God's word demands and other matters, consider this question. It's more of a thought and discussion question than one that has an easy answer. Yet you are welcome to answer it too, if you wish.

How much of the material addressed by the ELS' parochial doctrinal statements deals with what God's word demands, and how much of it deals with human matters? To ask it another way: do all of these short summaries, in all their parts, qualify as something that congregations must accept, or do they also address things that should not be forced upon congregations, "even if a congregation has through its representatives taken part in one or another resolution about such matters?"

And since it's my blog, I'll carry it a step further. If you answer that some of these doctrinal statements are indeed fully demanded by God's Word in all of their parts, must we not also demand unqualified agreement with them as a precondition for any inter-church fellowship? Does that not equate them in status with the Lutheran Confessions, the accepted Lutheran corpus doctrinae? I should look into the way variations between parochial corpora doctrinae were handled during the run-up to the Formula of Concord.

Oak tables and chairs made from wine barrels.

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — 2008-10-21T16:13:24Z

Quartersawn white oak is heirloom-quality furniture material. We're talking many hundreds of years here, if the furniture is not broken beyond repair. But now consider this: quartersawn white oak with the unique characteristics of wine barrel staves. The staves are curved, of course, but the barrels are also charred inside and stained with years of wine. It's a look that I'd guess would be hard to duplicate by other means. Another interesting thing is that staves are a bit different from boards. Staves for making primitive-type bows are generally made by splitting the log -- at least initially -- instead of sawing it. I wonder if the same was true for the raw materials that went into Norwegian stave churches.

I'm not a wine person, though I do enjoy a glass from time to time. And I know there are wine people out there. If you like interesting furniture, and especially if you have a more-than-passing interest in wine, wouldn't a barrel-stave table and chairs be a fascinating conversation piece, as well as long-lasting furniture? I guess that depends upon the design; whether it retains some of the barrelish character and coloring. Well, if you'd like to see one implementation of this idea, see Barnhouse Products, where Mark Lutz has been making this kind of furniture for several years. I've seen some of his pieces in nicely-decorated wine tasting rooms, and they fit rather well.

We're Baaaaaak.

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — 2008-10-21T15:58:21Z

After much shuffling and learning of hardware, and much software shuffling, and much waiting, the Plucked Chicken is back. The fan I mentioned in the last post, which went up on the very day that my hard drive crashed, has been replaced. That's the third power supply fan in that box. (Don't let anyone tell you that it's not worth replacing just the fan. You just have to replace it before the old one quits entirely, leaving the power supply and other components to cook.) The stodgy old hard drives in that box have all been replaced with the somewhat newer ones that were in my desktop machine. They're so much bigger that I'll be able to use this as a file server after all.

The new hard drive is a(n) SATA drive. I was delighted that my desktop motherboard has a built-in SATA host, but it turned out to be old enough that it couldn't communicate with the drive at first. I had to configure the drive (with a jumper that didn't come with it) to limit its transfer speed. But finally, all was well and we're up and running.

I also decided that, since I'm starting with a fresh, empty drive, I'd give the AMD64 architecture a try by using that branch of Debian. I'm glad I did. It's the quickest computer I've ever had. As usual when you increase the speed of a machine, the desktop feels instantaneous. I'm even using all the glitzy bells and whistles in KDE, which I've never done before. Give it a few years, and it will feel like I'm waiting again, but for now, I like it. The disadvantage is that this install of Debian doesn't automatically include any support for "legacy" 32-bit programs, and there are a few things that are only made available that way. One appears to be Macromedia Flash. Another seems to be Opera. In time, I hope to use a 32-bit chroot environment to run those things, but for now it's a small irritation.

It's my biggest fan

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — 2008-10-06T15:33:11Z

The machine hosting this blog has an AMD K6-3D processor, running at 333 Mhz. It's in a full tower AT case. If it takes a while to load the blog in your browser, the problem isn't the slow speed of this machine, but the tiny upload speed of our Internet connection.

By the way, it's absolutely ridiculous the way Internet access providers artificially and arbitrarily limit the upload speed in relation the the download speed of the link we pay for. I think it begins further upstream than the ISPs that end-users deal with. Whether you realize it or not, the access providers we know also buy access from other companies, and I think outgoing traffic often costs more for them than incoming traffic. Unless, perhaps, your access provider is a company like Embarq. I suppose they own large chunks of the basic Internet infrastructure in the US, and will charge whatever the market will bear.

Imposing artificial limits on the upload speed betrays a certain conception that Internet users are all only consumers of content, not creators and providers of content. It may be a widespread misconception, but it is nevertheless absolutely false. The Internet is really just a huge network of computers, and as such, it should be equally possible and practical for any of the computers on it to receive or send information to any of the other computers. So as it is, the Internet "access" we pay for is a one-sided access. Yes, there is plenty of access to consume information, but only a severely hamstrung access to provide it. That's why it takes a while for the Plucked Chicken to load across the Internet. End of rant.

Anyway, the machine hosting this blog is old, and the power supply fan has begun moaning and groaning every 5 to 10 minutes or so. It's a replacement itself, which I salvaged from an old IBM XT case. I was thinking to replace it this morning, but I don't have any other fans that size. It's my biggest fan. Since I'm heading to Minneapolis today for the ELS General Pastoral Conference, it will have to wait until I return. We'll see what happens. I hope it lasts until I return, so I don't end up with a toasted power supply. There's life in these old bones yet, and I'd rather keep using them as long as possible.

If the Plucked Chicken becomes unavailable in the next few days, at least you'll know why.

More Seeds of Discord

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — 2008-09-26T17:04:00Z

Quoted from LW 27:36-37:

The entire epistle gives ample evidence of how disappointed Paul was over the fall of the Galatians and of how often he pounded at them -- now with reproof, now with appeals -- about the very great and inestimable evils that would follow their fall unless they reconsidered. This care and admonition, so fatherly and truly apostolic, had no effect at all on some of them; for very many of them no longer acknowledged Paul as their teacher but vastly preferred the false apostles, from whom they imagined that they had derived true doctrine rather than from Paul. Finally the false apostles undoubtedly slandered Paul among the Galatians in this way: Paul, they said, was a stubborn and quarrelsome man, who was shattering the harmony among the churches on account of some trifle, for no other reason than because he alone wanted to be right and to be praised. With this false accusation they made Paul detestable in the eyes of many. Others, who had not yet fallen completely away from Paul's teaching, imagined that there was no harm in disagreeing a little with him on the doctrines of justification and faith. Accordingly, when they heard Paul placing such great emphasis on what seemed to them a matter of such minor importance, they were amazed and thought: "Granted that we have diverged somewhat from Paul's teaching and that there is some fault on our side, still it is a minor matter. Therefore he should overlook it or at least not place such great emphasis on it. Otherwise he could shatter the harmony among the churches with this unimportant issue."

If Luther's description of the situation is correct, would you have allowed Paul to remain an apostle in your church? Hard to say, unless you've lived through a similar situation, in which a conscientious teacher of God's Word is slandered in such a way. It would seem that breaking fellowship with Paul would be a worse evil than enduring the strife that resulted from his "stubborn and quarrelsome" nature. Luther continues:

Paul answers them with this excellent proverbial statement: "A little yeast leavens the whole lump." This is a caution which Paul emphasizes. We, too, should emphasize it in our time. For the sectarians who deny the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper accuse us today of being quarrelsome, harsh, and intractable, because, as they say, we shatter love and harmony among the churches on account of the single doctrine about the Sacrament. They say that we should not make so much of this little doctrine, which is not a sure thing anyway and was not specified in sufficient detail by the apostles, that solely on its account we refuse to pay attention to the sum total of Christian doctrine and to general harmony among all the churches. This is especially so because they agree with us on other articles of Christian doctrine. With this very plausible argument they not only make us unpopular among their own followers; but they even subvert many good men, who suppose that we disagree with them because of sheer stubbornness or some other personal feeling. But these are tricks of the devil, by which he is trying to overthrow not only this article of faith but all Christian doctrine.

The controversy over the sacrament is appropriate to consider. It serves as a good basis for comparison and contrast with more recent controversies, in which similar complaints have been made about "insufficient detail" in holy scripture to warrant such "sheer stubbornness."

In hindsight, we know that the chief question in that controversy was "What does the pastor distribute and the communicants receive in the Sacrament of the Altar?" The sectarians denied "the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper," while the Lutherans insisted upon it. Is it true that scripture provides "insufficient detail" to settle that controversy? Not at all, for how could Jesus have answered the question more simply and plainly? "This is My body."

Granted, not every theological question will have such a simple and plain answer in holy scripture. However, that does not mean that scripture will settle every controverted point. This shows that the theological questions we ask are just as important as the answers we give. For example, there are miles of difference between asking, "What is the office of the ministry of the Gospel?" and asking, "What do we mean by the term 'office of the ministry' in relation to the Gospel?" One answer will not be found in scripture. The other might, but the question still suffers from inexactness that will inevitably show up in the answer. Hence, the PMW and its tragic controversy. Some understood the question one way, others understood it another way, while a growing number understand it both ways simultaneously.

Remember doublethink? This is similar. But instead of holding two mutually contradictory propositions to be true (something akin to the Lutheran principle of living with the tension of apparent theological contradictions in scripture), this holds two mutually contrasting senses of an expression to be valid usage, each in its proper context. Its weakness is that the "sense" of an expression is not a matter of doctrine at all, but a matter of the ephemeral usage of language. However, it may be the best hope for the ELS to arrive at some kind of unified confession with regard to the PMW.

Final word from Luther:

To this argument of theirs we reply with Paul: "A little yeast leavens the whole lump." In philosophy a tiny error in the beginning is very great at the end. This in theology a tiny error overthrows the whole teaching. Therefore doctrine and life should be distinguished as sharply as possible. Doctrine belongs to God, not to us; and we are called only as its ministers. Therefore we cannot give up or change even one dot of it (Matt. 5:18). Life belongs to us; therefore when it comes to this, there is nothing that the Sacramentarians can demand of us that we are not willing and obliged to undertake, condone, and tolerate, with the exception of doctrine and faith, about which we always say what Paul says: "A little yeast, etc." On this score we cannot yield even a hairbreadth. For doctrine is like a mathematical point. Therefore it cannot be divided; that is, it cannot stand either subtraction or addition. On the other hand, life is like a physical point. Therefore it can always be divided and can always yield something.

Is the sense we impart to the words "This is my body" a matter of doctrine, or of life?

Is the sense we impart to the words "The office of the public ministry of the word" a matter of doctrine, or of life?

In one case, they are the words of holy scripture. In the other, they are not. What difference does that make? I may answer this question in a subsequent post, if it is not answered earlier in a comment.