The Plucked Chicken

A Blessing with Twin Babies

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 06:33:08 -0800

My wife and I have now transitioned from sleeping in the living room with our newborns to sleeping in our own room (yay!) with our infants. Better rest is good, but of course any change comes with a learning and adjustment process for us all. One of the things I've learned in the last couple days is that I can either be up and dressed at 6 AM, or else I'll be preoccupied with domestic activities (happy though they be) for about the next four hours, and find myself still in my pajamas at 10.

This is a blessing especially because it requires me to exercise self-discipline at a time when my physical state makes it particularly challenging. At that time, it's hard to be content with the amount of rest I've been given through the night, but the reward is that I have a few productive pre-dawn hours when I can be ready for the day, while enjoying a sleeping baby on my arm.

It's rare to have a glimpse of how God blesses us through the little crosses we bear, but I thank Him for that glimpse. Those crosses indeed become precious companions for the Christian, as they serve to discipline the flesh and focus our attention upon the grace and mercy of God through Jesus Christ.

A Few More Pictures

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 13:20:37 -0800

It's a girl! It's a girl!

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:49:02 -0800

At 9:15, Leah Ingrid Jacobsen was born (5 lb 14.5oz & 19.75in) by a C-section, since she wouldn't move out of the way. At 9:16, Lucy Marie Jacobsen was born (6 lb 10.6 oz & longer) too. They're both doing fine, and expecting credit card offers as soon as this post hits Facebook. Erica's doing fine too, under the circumstances. Thanks for all the prayers and gifts, and praise be to God for His wondrous love!

What wondrous love is this, O my soul! O my soul!
What wondrous love is this, O my soul!
What wondrous love is this
That caused the Lord of bliss
To bear the dreadful curse for my soul, for my soul
To bear the dreadful curse for my soul.

Some Baby Pics

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:56:23 -0800

Balancing Contemporaneity

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 22:26:12 -0700

Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books.

-- C.S. Lewis, from his introduction to Athanasius' The Incarnation of the Word of God

Criteria For Determining the Usefulness of a Praise Song (or Hymn...)

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:39:47 -0700

Pastor Bryan Wolfmueller offers these criteria that sound generally useful in evaluating music that may be used in church services. I just listened to an Issues, Etc. segment from August where they applied these criteria to the three most popular praise songs on the CCLI charts at the time. These were not just Christian pop songs, but songs actually written for and used in church services. This concept is a bit foreign to us, because we use our hymnary for almost all the sung music in church, with the occasional exception of sacred choir music. But I think the criteria Pastor Wolfmueller offers may prove helpful for evaluating the text of any song.

He notes that most of these praise songs used in worship are characteristically not didactic in nature. That is, they don't teach anything. Instead, he calls them mystical in nature, meaning that it's meant to induce an internal (emotive or psychic) experience of the presence of God, rather than about any objective act of God for us. Here are the criteria:

Is Jesus mentioned? By name or concept?
Is the song clear? Does it use sentences or sentence fragments?
Is it objective or subjective? About what God has done or about what is happening inside me?
Are law and gospel present and rightly divided?
Is there any false teaching? (Or any teaching at all?)

God's Gracious Purpose in the Christian's Trials

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 07:44:25 -0700

This quote from Luther's Genesis commentary was highlighted today in the Treasury of Daily Prayer from Concordia Publishing House. (Now, if only Libronix would run on Linux! It's been months since the last time I booted up Windows, and now the only reason to do so is to get this quote from Luther's Works! What's more, the only Windows version I have is XP Professional, which Libronix is likely to forsake at any time. Thus, Logos and CPH provide another small trial to help me remain humble.)

For look at Paul, who says about himself (1 Cor. 2:3): “I was with you in weakness and in much fear and trembling.” Likewise (2 Cor. 7:5): “Fighting without and fear within.” Do you speak this way, Paul? This does not behoove that chosen instrument (cf. Acts 9:15) who has the promise that he should carry Christ’s name before the Gentiles, does it? Where are you going, Paul? Into the prison of hell, fear, and despair? Where are we going to remain if you have doubts and are almost diffident concerning your completely certain calling? But this is how it must happen even with the greatest saints. For the divine promises are not given to make us smug; but, as Paul says in another place: “A thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me” (2 Cor. 12:7). Why? “Lest the magnitude of the gifts of the grace and mercy of God elate me.” Therefore God sends wrestlings, trials, and struggles in order that from day to day we may understand and cling to the promises of God more clearly and certainly. This would not happen if the saints always practiced that heroic fortitude. Indeed, in the end they would become smug and lose the promise and every expectation. Therefore they must be disciplined, in order that they may retain faith, hope, and the expectation of the promises. And it is precisely this that edifies and consoles us, when we see that the patriarchs and the prophets were like us, that they were tried by weakness, by doubt, and almost by despair and the loss of faith.

What can be set forth to us that is more useful and more suitable for consolation than the example of Peter? He advances on the water to meet Christ. And when he stepped out of the boat, he first walked on the water to come to Jesus. As the evangelist says, he ran with great impetuosity, with heroic and special spirit, because he knew that Christ was there; and he had the Word and the promise of the Word for his petition: “If it be Thou, bid me come to Thee on the water” (Matt. 14:28). But soon, when a little wind blows, he wavers and sinks. What now? Where is that great spirit? Why did you doubt? But it pleased Christ that he should be tried in this way. For if he had not been tried, he would have been puffed up. But it is better to be tried than to be puffed up. For in this way the promises are retained, and in this way we learn to understand those sobs of the saints, as in Ps. 6:1: “O Lord, rebuke me not in Thy anger.” For David, too, was such a great man that God gave him the testimony: “I have found in David, the son of Jesse, a man after My heart, who will do all My will” (Acts 13:22; cf. 1 Sam. 13:14). Yet he prays in this way and struggles with the trials of unbelief and despair.

In this way we, too, have been called, and we have promises that are much clearer and more glorious than those the fathers had. Thus Peter praises this good fortune of ours when he says (2 Peter 1:19): “And we have the prophetic Word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place.” Grace and eternal life have been promised and offered to us in a much more glorious way than to them. For the Son has come, and all the promises have been fulfilled. We hear the Son Himself; we have the sacraments and absolution; and day and night the Gospel proclaims to us: “You are holy. You are holy. Your sins have been forgiven you. You are blessed, etc.” But what do we do? We still tremble, and we cling to our weakness throughout our life. But why are we not aroused by the example of the patriarchs, who believed to complete perfection? I reply that they, too, were weak, just as we are, although we have richer promises than they had. But it comes to pass as God’s voice says to Paul: “My power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9). For God could not retain and fulfill His promises in us if He did not kill that stupid, proud, and smug flesh in us.

Luther, M. (1999, c1968). Vol. 5: Luther's works, vol. 5 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 26-30 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (5:254). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

Beware of the Slow Leak

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:08:53 -0700

This is from an old Sunday school offering envelope:

It is a sad mistake to stay away from church even for a season. Many a Christian has lost his faith by starting to skip church services only occasionally. Loss of faith seldom comes from a blowout. It is usually from a slow leak.

"not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together [in worship], as is the manner of some..." Hebrews 10:25

When Education is Opposed to Truth

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:22:04 -0700

This case of denying a teacher's First Amendment rights is worth following for anyone who considers the Bible to be God's Word. A public school is attempting to discipline a well-liked, award-winning teacher for expressing personal views that contradict the politically-correct understanding of gay marriage. He did not express these views during school hours, nor even at school or in a school-related forum. He expressed them on Facebook, which regularly asks me the question, "What's on your mind?" Whose mind? My mind. An answer to that question, on a social forum like Facebook, without any connection to the school, seems to be just what the speech section of the First Amendment was meant to protect. Those who argue otherwise are showing totalitarian, statist tendencies as well as rank intolerance for diverse points of view.

Now, if the school were not an arm of the government, but a private school instead, then the teacher would be subject to the terms of his employment contract. The Bill of Rights, including the protection of free speech, is not meant to limit the behavior of private citizens or employers. It's meant to limit the behavior of government, in order to protect the innate rights of individuals.

It's ultimately the mother and father's responsibility to teach their children, but the civil government has undertaken this responsibility (among many others) because of its interest in future generations. Unfortunately, the civil government is in no position to teach all that children need to learn. In the United States, government is also prohibited by the First Amendment from teaching that a particular religion is truth. That's a good thing as far as law, order and justice are concerned, but it means that government education is necessarily inadequate. Most people don't understand this inadequacy, though, concluding that religious instruction is inessential to a complete education. This conclusion could not be more wrong.

This case illustrates another shortcoming of public education. Though it is supposed to reflect the mores of society in general without favoring one tradition over another, the inevitable compromise will not only impoverish the education program, but also blur the basis on which teachers may be disciplined. Opportunistic idealogues will leap into the breach in an effort to impose their own views upon society through the influence of government. That's what's being attempted in this case, leaving the destruction of this individual's First Amendment right and his teaching career as collateral damage.

The solution for Christians is to establish and support our own schools. We can use a curriculum in harmony with God's Word, and we will be free to run the schools in accord with the principles of our faith. If our statist neighbors succeed in destroying the protections of the First Amendment, our schools would have to close. In that case, Christian education would have to proceed in the home, and maybe even behind closed doors. (It's happened before, under other statist regimes.) But for now, the best solution is to support our own Christian schools.

Postings Elsewhere

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:45:42 -0700

You may have noticed the lack of postings here on The Plucked Chicken in the last several weeks. My online writing time has been dedicated to posting a series of excerpts from Telling the Next Generation, a new paperback released this year on the past and present vision for Christian education in the Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Those excerpts have been going up on the church blog instead of here, because they are of special interest to the members of the congregations I serve. However, they are also of general interest to a wider audience, so readers of The Plucked Chicken may wish to mosey over to Confession and Life and see some of these excerpts.

Otherwise, most of my spare time is spent this summer and fall in preparing our house for the arrival of twins, expected in December. Meanwhile, I'm trying to prepare as much October-through-December parish work as I can, anticipating a lack of opportunity to fulfill this aspect of my vocation as other demands take over.

There is much work yet to be done.

The Specter of Schechter

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Tue, 24 May 2011 23:16:31 -0700

Do you know about the Schechter fiasco during the Great Depression? It's a classic case of overreaching by the federal government, one of the things that the separation of powers is meant to minimize or even prevent. It also shows the kind of thing that Uncle Sam was doing at that time to "fix" the economy. Subsequent history shows how well that worked. So first, you may want to read a bit about the Schechters. I was introduced to them in Amity Schlaes' book The Forgotten Man. You can read about the Schechters online. Wikipedia has an entry, but you can also find primary source material.

Okay, now to see shades of Schechter, see the recent news about the USDA vs. evil rabbit-raising hobbyists. Makes me glad there's someone to protect us from such people. They probably have big pointy teeth.

But seriously, I'm glad that there are elected officials who care enough to keep the USDA in check. Who would have thought that the Food and Drug Administration would tyrannize American citizens that way? Defense department, maybe. DHS, CIA, FBI, or NSA, perhaps. But the USDA? Thank God for representation in Washington! May it always work so well.

Updated 5/25: s/FDA/USDA/g That's what happens when writing a post when I should already be asleep. The difference only makes the point stronger! The Department of Agriculture? Wow.

Popped Amaranth

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Mon, 23 May 2011 14:09:25 -0700

Bag of Amaranth seed

Popped amaranth.

Overly-toasted amaranth seeds. (stayed in the hot pot too long, at too low a temperature) I think the yellow background in the center of the plate is an artifact from jpeg compression.

We've been trying some new kinds of food at home. When I say "we," I mean mainly myself and my eldest daughter. She's going for Japanese foods, and I've been investigating grains and some legumes. (Sprouting is fun!) Today I picked up some amaranth seed/grain, and tried popping it. Apparently, it's used as a gluten-free grain substitute, and also has the advantage of being high in iron. As you can see from the bag photo, it's a small seed. But with a little experimentation, I was able to pop a few tablespoons of it in a pot on the stove. You can cook with the seed itself, for which most recipes I've seen so far you must grind it into flour. But you can also cook with the popped seed, or use it as a cereal. I think it's pretty neat, kind of like digital watches. It takes a pretty hot pot, and once it's hot enough, you need to throw the cover on it to keep the popping seeds from flying all over the stove. A "6" on our electric stove seemed about right. I didn't use any oil or anything in the pot, but I did pick it up occasionally while the spoonfuls of seeds were popping, just to keep them moving around in there.

Up next: chia seeds!

Opgjoer

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Mon, 16 May 2011 09:50:39 -0700

The Madison Settlement, or Opgjoer (pronounced "up-your"), was a compromise reached in 1912 between the Norwegian Synod, the United Norwegian Lutheran Church, and the Hauge Synod. (1912 was the same year that Arizona became a state and the Titanic sank.) The doctrinal issue was election, or predestination. By then, this controversy had torn apart members of the Norwegian Synod and, to a lesser extent, its sister church bodies like the Wisconsin Synod and the Missouri Synod for many years. It had been one of the points of disagreement between the Norwegian Synod and the others involved in the Opgjoer.

The controversy had been so bitter within the Norwegian Synod that it had withdrawn from the Synodical Conference to lessen its ill effects. Yet during the intervening years, the Norwegian Synod had continued to recognize doctrinal fellowship with the Synodical Conference, and had been welcome participants in its conventions. But in 1912, under the leadership of its new President Stub, the Norwegian Synod was happy to reach a settlement with the other scandinavian-based synods on this doctrine, and submitted it to the Synodical Conference for review.

In the historical volume The Synodical Conference: Ecumenical Endeavor by Armin Schuetze, the response of the Synodical Conference to the Norwegian Synod is included in summary form. I think it shows a salutary discernment on the part of the Synodical Conference theologians. It also shows a certain pattern found in compromise documents, in which a doctrine is described as existing in multiple disparate forms. In Opgjoer, election is described according to two different points of view or senses, which are supposed to be equally valid and exist simultaneously. The problem described by the Synodical Conference was that only one of those points of view or senses was in harmony with the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions. The other one used expressions from the Bible and the Confessions, but was a doctrine arising from human reason or tradition.

This is from page 124 of the above named book:

"In order that the unity of faith existing among us may be preserved," the Conference made three requests. The first was in reference to paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Madison Agreement. In these paragraphs the Union Committees of the Norwegian Synod and the United Church "accepted unanimously and without reservation" the two so-called "forms" of the doctrine of election. The First Form, set forth in Article XI of the Formula of Concord, held that election is "unto salvation," or the "cause of faith." The Second Form with reference to "Pontoppidan's Truth unto Godliness," a catechetical book widely used among the Scandinavians, spoke of election "in view of faith." The Agreement stated, "Since it is well known that in presenting the doctrine of election two forms of doctrine have been used, both of which have won acceptance and recognition within the orthodox Lutheran Church; . . . We find that this [i.e., teaching one form or the other] should not be cause for schism within the Church." The Synodical Conference asked the Synod "to eliminate from Theses 1-3 of the 'Opgjoer' the coordination of the so-called first and second form of doctrine, because only the first form represents the truth of the Scriptures and the Confessions."

It would seem that this method of settling a controversy is flawed. I might add to the criticism of Opgjoer that the second sense or form of "election," being a doctrine not really found in holy scripture, represents instead a certain human usage of the word. In this case, the human usage of the word "election" directly contradicts the divine usage of the word found in the Bible. In other cases of compromise, there may be merely human usages that do not contradict the divine usage, but are found to be compatible. While it is important (though sometimes difficult) to tell the difference, it is even more important that the Church confess only those articles of faith that are doctrines clearly taught in the Bible.

The World Behind Media

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:44:10 -0700

A while back we realized that we weren't really watching television enough to warrant paying for Cable. These days, where we live, people with an old (15 years) CRT television set like us are pretty much dependent upon cable or satellite TV if we want any kind of variety from which to choose. So we ditched cable, deciding to choose what we watch via our Netflix subscription, which costs a lot less. Then came Netflix streamed movies on demand. In some ways, our household now watches more than before, only we choose what we want to watch, and there are no commercials. Well, somebody chooses what we watch.

I've always been a bit suspicious of media like TV, though admittedly more suspicious of newsy programs than drama. But then, drama, comedy, and other content all comes from somewhere too. That somewhere involves a worldview and an agenda. Today, I'm wondering just how much the worldview and agenda in family-oriented media contradict Christianity. Surely, there are contradictions, and most Christians realize this. But are we vigilant enough? Or do we too quickly become complacent? How many Christian households are well acquainted with Barney and Teletubbies, and what's the worldview behind those innocent-looking stuffed aliens? How about Pokémon?

My suspicions here are similar to those of others, who may sound a bit shrill or even wacky. While I do appreciate concerns about moral corruption and insidious agendas to control the world, my deepest concern is about faith in Christ. Let those who want control of the world fight it out among themselves, as long as they leave me alone. Eventually, my family and I will no longer be in this world, and eventually, this world will be no more, while our true lives will be just beginning.

Through Pokémon (originally on videotape from a friend at church), my oldest daughter became interested in the Japanese comics called "Manga," even finding some books of it in our local public library. I browsed one myself, finding the word "sadist," which is not yet part of her vocabulary. They're not checking those particular books out any more. It leaves me to wonder what anti-Christian agenda may lie hidden in the worldview promoted by Pokémon. "Aw, c'mon. Pokémon?" Well? If nobody ever asks, then we may never know. Stories are powerful.

All of this means we should be actively catechizing our families in the truth, and taking advantage of every opportunity to learn from God's Word. That includes weekly church services, Sunday school, Bible studies, home devotions, and regular discussions to help us exercise good discernment. Some stories provide an excellent opportunity for these discussions. The biblical Christian worldview is certainly in the minority, and while opposing worldviews may not always be overtly hostile, they are nevertheless corrosive to faith, can destroy these short lives we have on earth, and may well lead Christians to lose our true, eternal life in Christ. With that, we should realize that there's no escape from the influence of such things. We may be able selectively to reduce the influence (like with that Manga book), but we cannot eliminate it. This is the world we are living in.

Your Thoughts, Should You Choose to Share Them

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:28:55 -0700

Here's a presentation of a certain philosophy that seems pretty compelling. I'd like to watch it again and digest it some more, but my initial thought is that it may contradict the biblical view of earthly government. I say may because, well, I'd like to watch it again to be sure I understand it. On the other hand, a philosophy like this may be in a different category than the moral strictures of holy writ. It may describe the way a government (for example) should operate, rather than the way it may operate. Is there room for such a distinction?

It would mean that this philosophy provides only part of a worldview, requiring other things, like religion, to inform morality. Of course, it would require Christianity to provide the Gospel, and that may indicate a serious weakness of this philosophy for the Christian: instead of being oriented around love for our neighbor as inspired by the Gospel, it's oriented around individual liberty. Does that echo the Fall into sin, or does it echo the dignity of every human person as God's creation? Maybe there's something here for both the Old Adam and the New Man.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, or your reaction to the presentation. Note that this philosophy is not even nominally Christian, but I think it draws much from the Christian worldview.

Christ is Risen

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 21:58:43 -0700

In celebration of the proof that God has delivered us from the guilt of our sins, and from this place of sorrow and pain, I invite you to take a look at a little experiment I've begun on Blogger. It's called Cross Ventilation. I'm not necessarily the only author there.

Psalm 16: Meditation for Holy Saturday

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 10:40:00 -0700

A Michtam of David.
Preserve me, O God, for in You I put my trust.
O my soul, you have said to the LORD,
"You are my Lord, My goodness is nothing apart from You."
As for the saints who are on the earth,
"They are the excellent ones, in whom is all my delight."

Their sorrows shall be multiplied who hasten after another god;
Their drink offerings of blood I will not offer,
Nor take up their names on my lips.

O LORD,You are the portion of my inheritance and my cup;
You maintain my lot.
The lines have fallen to me in pleasant places;
Yes, I have a good inheritance.
I will bless the LORD who has given me counsel;
My heart also instructs me in the night seasons.

I have set the LORD always before me;
Because He is at my right hand I shall not be moved.
Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices;
My flesh also will rest in hope.
For You will not leave my soul in Sheol,
Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
You will show me the path of life;
In Your presence is fullness of joy;
At Your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

(New King James Version)

Should Churchmen Be Concerned with Government?

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 15:54:28 -0700

Your answer to this question depends upon your doctrinal heritage. The Augsburg Confession actually answers this question, and sets us up well for a good understanding. But as you read the quoted article XVI (from Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions) below, notice the dramatic difference between the Lutheran position and the position labeled "Anabaptist." The latter comes from the radical reformation, which has ended up rather splintered in our time. Not all of the present-day theological descendants of the Anabaptists agree with their position, but some still do. More significant, I think, is the divergence between the political "Christian right" and those who would make a complete separation between matters of faith and government.

The "Christian right" seems to be most interested in social issues, unless you include the interest of some in the future of modern-day Israel. That interest really has no scriptural support, stemming from 19th Century dispensationalism, and perpetuated by a fascination with misusing the Bible as a code book. However, social issues generally relate to the Ten Commandments and the moral law, which is intended for all people, in all times.

Those who would like to separate matters of faith and government also have a point, in that there are two separate kingdoms of God, which we do well to distinguish. What some fail to realize, however, is that on an individual level, a Christian's activities related to government are sanctified by faith. That means a Christian citizen is never a mere citizen, and a Christian office-holder is never a mere office-holder. Faith cannot be divorced from life, even where government is concerned. Those who try make a wreck of faith, or of life, or of both.

In fact, one of the main premises of this blog is that necessary connection between faith and life. It applies to faith both in the sense of "having a belief" and in the sense of "a doctrine." I use it specifically of the Christian faith.

1 Our churches teach that lawful civil regulations are good works of God. 2 They teach that it is right for Christians to hold political office, to serve as judges, to judge matters by imperial laws and other existing laws, to impose just punishments, to engage in just wars, to serve as soldiers, to make legal contracts, to hold property, to take oaths when required by the magistrates, for a man to marry a wife, or a woman to be given in marriage [Romans 13; 1 Corinthians 7:2].

3 Our churches condemn the Anabaptists who forbid these political offices to Christians. 4 They also condemn those who do not locate evangelical perfection in the fear of God and in faith, but place it in forsaking political offices. 5 For the Gospel teaches an eternal righteousness of the heart (Romans 10:10). At the same time, it does not require the destruction of the civil state or the family. The Gospel very much requires that they be preserved as God’s ordinances and that love be practiced in such ordinances. 6 Therefore, it is necessary for Christians to be obedient to their rulers and laws. 7 The only exception is when they are commanded to sin. Then they ought to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29).

Be Careful with What You Trade

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 20:34:30 -0700

I've heard about people who printed off "money" on their inkjet printer, and then successfully passed off the counterfeit dollars at McDonalds. I've also heard about people who invest heavily in more sophisticated counterfeiting operations. The goal in both cases is for the perpetrator to enrich himself with the buying power of real money by producing it all himself. It's dishonest. It's also illegal.

But now I've heard it all. Someone making an alternative currency has been convicted of... terrorism? Sounds like a real muddle. Without knowing all the facts of the case, I leave open the possibility that the convict was doing something dishonest. It may have even been illegal. But it doesn't sound like it was the same thing as counterfeiting money, though the conviction has that ring.

It sounds as though the perp was creating a local currency that could be used as an alternative to US dollars. It's been done before, and apparently is not usually considered a form of terrorism. In fact, I'm told that the old saying about wooden nickels goes back to a local currency in southern Oregon made from myrtle wood. So what's different this time? For one thing, the charges give the impression that this particular local currency shared too many design similarities with US Treasury money.

The coins were marked with the dollar sign, the words “dollar,” “USA,” “Liberty,” “Trust in God” (instead of “In God We Trust”) and other features associated with legitimate U.S. coins.

I can understand why the US Treasury would want any local currencies to appear completely distinct, and would assume that the jury found these to be confusingly similar. On the other hand, real counterfeit money is always worth less in materials and work than obtaining the actual US money it represents. Otherwise counterfeiting would be a complete waste of time and effort. It sounds like this currency is actually worth more than American money, because it's minted with valuable metals, which are not subject to having their value erased by inflation.

The government also is seeking the forfeiture of about 16,000 pounds of Liberty Dollar coins and precious metals valued at nearly $7 million.

OK. What should we make of this? A US Attorney described the government's investigative and prosecution efforts in very strong language: "We are determined to meet these threats through infiltration, disruption and dismantling of organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government." How does a superior local currency "challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of goverment?"

Answer: it provides a means for some American citizens to safeguard the value stored in their money, in a time when the monetary strategy of the United States is to devalue all of our money in an attempt to shrink the impossibly-large debt burden our government has accumulated, and perhaps lessen the titanic trade imbalance that threatens to destabilize our economy. If certain (i.e. the "wrong") Americans find a way to preserve the value of their savings over against the rest of the country, then it will throw the whole strategy out of whack, as their economic influence increases disproportionately against the rest. That's my theory, anyway. I hope expressing it doesn't amount to terrorism.

Does the monetary policy (when to print, when to retire money, how to introduce it into the economy) of your country fall under the fourth commandment (to obey earthly authorities)? It seems there are laws about money, but there seems to be a gray area here. We must pay our taxes in US Dollars, but is it wrong to barter for everything else? Is it a form of terrorism to use a local currency? Maybe it's wrong only when your money is better than an inflationary fiat money.

Doublespeak. It's All Around Us.

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:41:46 -0800

And the doublespeak is more culturally pervasive than previously thought. Case in point. See this WSJ article: Wisconsin GOP Ends Union Stalemate. (I love good news.)

It says,

On Wednesday night, Republican senators convened on short notice and removed appropriations items from the bill to allow a vote on the remaining issues--including curbs on the collective-bargaining rights of public-employee unions. The vote to pass the amended bill was 18-1, with no Democratic senators present.

Republicans said they had waited long enough for Democrats to return to Madison. Democrats complained that their political rivals had abused their power. Spectators in the senate gallery screamed, "You are cowards," while the vote was taken.

While the insane do have a right to scream almost anything they want, this particular scream is masquerading as reasoned political speech. Nothing new here. But for entertainment, let's see how the statement fits in the context described by the WSJ. This senate was pressing ahead toward a balanced budget, through anti-democratic resistance by irresponsible colleagues, and despite the loud braying of threats by hungry union puppets. Is that really cowardice? No. It's the exact opposite. Yet I have no doubt that the screamers truly believed their own words. A stunning display of doublespeak.

Meanwhile, three paragraphs down, we hear about those irresponsible colleagues:

Senate Democrats were driving back to Wisconsin after the Republican vote when they thought better of it and decided to remain in exile in Illinois, said Democratic Sen. Jon Erpenbach. He said they feared that Republicans would reassemble the original bill and force a vote on the whole thing. "We don't trust them at all," Mr. Erpenbach said.

Well, I suppose that's supposed to be bravery. Instead of participating in the democratic legislative process for which they campaigned and were elected, these brave souls think better of returning to the state they serve. Apparently, they think that they might be victimized by the elected majority. In other words, they could lose a vote.

So the doublespeak in this case has risen to plain view. Of course, there is a plot behind the whole story too. Many of those brave senators hiding out in Illinois have most likely been in bed with public employee unions for a long time, a form of political corruption that has been allowed to fester legally for far too long. This symbiotic relationship has provided the unions with lackeys in the legislatures of the country, while keeping those politicians willing to pay the piper in secure political careers. Meanwhile, it's the taxpayers and union members who really end up paying the piper, as the unions extract dues and taxes, using them to secure their own future, while forcing state and nation in a socialistic and fiscally shaky direction.

This norm of political corruption and doublespeak shows a society badly in need of moral guidance. It's a good time for Christians to display the kind of "cowardice" recently shown in the Wisconsin senate. In other words, show up to life and defy the fuming threats of our enemy by fulfilling your God-given responsibilities in every aspect of your Christian vocation. We will be maligned. We may be harmed. We could even be put to death. It's happened before. Yet not even death can deprive a Christian of the true life we already possess in Christ.

Listen to the Mom

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:47:22 -0800

My friend The Mom has a great meditative post today on justification and sanctification. Here's a sample:

One country song in particular got my brain juices going. Writing (and reading) this is probably going to be a lengthier process than the few moments it took for my brain to get through it, but that's the way brains are. They leap to big realizations in a mere moment's time.

The song I heard was Awful Beautiful Life by Darryl Worley. The song paints the picture of a regular guy, making regular mistakes and finding joy in regular things.

If you read the rest of her post (via the link above), notice how applicable her line of thinking is to all kinds of people. Maybe even to you. Maybe even to me.

The most frequently-used lyrical songs in my experience these days are hymns. And I suppose theologically-sound, Christ-centered hymns are the best lyrical diet for anyone. Yet we should also take a little time now and then to ruminate on the other things we might hear. Sure, it may have false doctrine in it. (What on the radio, other than Bach night on MPR, doesn't?) But the exercise of distinguishing the good from the bad can draw us into an edifying train of thought, even repentance and a renewed appreciation for God's grace.

Dynamic IP Addresses; Welcome to a New Author

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:06:53 -0800

Until now, I've enjoyed having a static IP address, which was necessary for my wife's work. That's been convenient for hosting this domain at home. Now, however, we're going to be cutting costs with a VoIP telephone service, and losing the no-longer-necessary static IP address. The availability of our home-hosted web sites will fluctuate as we transition to a dynamic DNS system, but I expect that things should settle down again by Lent.

My friend, pastor Aaron Hamilton, has posted an article from his church newsletter on The Plucked Chicken. I welcome him to the "staff," and look forward to future postings. This is a good time to note that this blog is not really a "church blog." I have another place for that on our parish web site. Instead, this is a place where we apply our faith and doctrine to all manner of things that crop up in life. So there are matters of Bible interpretation, doctrinal formulation, liturgics, and the like. There are also things that verge on the political, though I avoid official endorsements or exdorsements of candidates. Many matters are vocational in nature, whether domestic or otherwise. So I appreciate Aaron's contribution, as it fits pretty well with our self-chosen mission here.

"Let's Not Mince Words... I Like to Eat."

nospam@example.com (Aaron Hamilton) — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:17:59 -0800

From the Messenger of Hope, Newsletter of Hope Lutheran Church in West Jordan, Utah:

“Let’s not mince words. I like to eat. I like it a lot. And, I’m used to it: eating what I want, when I want, and however much I want. And if I should ever regret it, it’s usually a passing wish that I looked better or had more energy. Or that I hadn’t gorged myself on some particular binge. Most of the time, I just enjoy it.”

There comes a time when a person realizes they need to change their ways if they’re going to live well. So sometimes folks—even like the guy quoted above—go on a regimen of diet and exercise. Then what everyone else is enjoying—you can’t.

You can’t eat whatever you want, whenever you want, and however much. You throw away the junk food. You quit colas. You give up the midnight snacks and sweets and breads. Even the Reese’s. You skip the drivethru. Steak and Potatoes give way to turkey and steamed vegetables. You still have all your cravings… you just don’t want to work against yourself. You get a taste of self-denial.

Of course, even this isn’t pure. We do it for our selves: to look better, or feel better, or get noticed, or to make a love interest who kicked us to the curb regret it.

But St. Paul talks about a spiritual self-denial, which grows out of faith. For God knows better than we do what’s good for us; and our sinful desires (running contrary to His word and will) are not good for us.

St. Paul writes, 1 Cor. 9:24-25: Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever.

For a braided crown of fading glory, people train hard, and consider carefully what they’ll eat, how much of it, and when… and they train, and train hard… all with a view toward the race, and all with a view toward the prize.

I must confess, I don’t often think of my faith in those terms. I don’t think of my sins in those terms. But let’s not mince words. According to sin at work in me, I like to gossip. I like to horde. I like filthy talk and lust. I’m like a morbidly obese man with a greasy drumstick just handed a number to pin to my shirt.

But even then, this race is not uncertain. The race is already won. For our sinless Lord Christ has run the straight race, the way of the cross, to the finish. He purchased us by His blood and won us by His death. His grace forgives every sin. We believe. And when we believe, sin doesn’t look so good anymore. What holds our hearts is the promise of that crown of life.

Christ grants it to all those who believe and remain in Him by faith. That crown is theirs to keep.

Apples and Orchards

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:47:45 -0800

My congressman reports today:

Speaking of items on to-do lists, first and foremost in the nation’s capital is making the difficult decisions to get the runaway spending under control. The most recent estimate now puts this year’s deficit at $1.6 trillion.

How much is 1.6 trillion? A lot more than 1.6. Here's the number written out: 1,600,000,000,000. A millimeter is really small, right? One point six trillion of them is still one point six million kilometers.

But then, a kilometer is shorter than a mile, so maybe it one point six million kilometers isn't really all that far. Go to Google and type "1.6 million kilometers in miles". It seems a BMW car racked up that much mileage on a treadmill, but don't try it at home. It's almost a million miles, 1.6 trillion millimeters. You could drive around the earth at the equator about 40 times: 1.6 trillion millimeters.

So the currently-projected federal deficit for 2011 is 1.6 trillion dollars.

My congressman also gave this example:

Here’s an example of how far things have gotten away from us. In 2007, the deficit was $160.7 billion, or 1.2 percent of GDP, and had decreased every year since 2004.

In 2006, the year before Nancy Pelosi took control of the Speaker’s gavel, CBO projected that the deficit in 2011 would be $117 billion. Because of the runaway spending since then, the 2011 deficit will be an astonishing 1,367% higher than what CBO predicted just five years ago.

OK, so how many times could you travel around the world at the equator before you've gone 160.7 billion millimeters (the 2007 actual federal deficit)? The first number (the 2007 federal deficit) in millimeters is 99,854 miles, or about four times around the earth.

For 117 billion (the 2006 projection of the 2011 federal deficit) in millimeters, it's 72,700 miles, or about three times around the earth.

Only four years ago, the congressional budget office predicted a federal deficit for this year comparable to three laps around the earth, when converted to millimeters. Since a deficit means that the federal government is spending money it doesn't have, I think that's a bad thing. I believe that government, like people, should live within its means. That is, it should seek to spend no more than it receives, but if that happens anyway, the resulting imbalance should be corrected as soon as possible. That's just the principle of the matter. But when I realize that the government's debt is really on my shoulders as a taxpayer, and on the shoulders of my children, those three laps around the earth seem almost criminally irresponsible.

So has the hope and change introduced in 2006 resulted in an improvement? Well, if our goal is to consign all of our descendants to slavery, then yes, we've seen a great advancement toward our goal! Instead of the horrible three laps around the globe, we're expecting to rack up in one year alone, the equivalent of 40 laps around the globe.

Either somebody is incompetent beyond belief, or somebody is actually trying to bring the United States to its knees. Which is more charitable? I'm not sure.

So I'm glad we've got people like my congressman in Washington, people who understand that the future of our country, and the future well-being of American children depends, at least partly, upon how responsibly we conduct ourselves in the present.

As Christian citizens, we have a responsibility to "render unto Caesar" with the wisdom we have received from God's Word. Please try to understand these mind-boggling numbers that float across the news, and their connection to the future of our civilization. Certainly, God is in control, but He has also given Christian invididuals a responsibility to exercise good judgment and act accordingly. We have the privilege of voting in the United States, but also the constitutional right of free speech. Speech can be a powerful tool for good or ill. I know, because it's most of what I do.

Illustration of the Powers of Ten, and also Two Arguments for Design

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:19:33 -0800

The Astronomy picture of the day yesterday was a YouTube video illustrating the powers of ten. It dates from the 1960s, but is still a dramatic and relevant illustration. It also has application to understanding what trillion-dollar national debt means. (A trillion has 12 zeros. Now watch the video.)

As we Lutherans like to ask, "What does this mean?"

There are astronomy videos similar to this on YouTube with belligerent arguments between Christians and atheists, though the only comments I've actually seen are the atheists'. The videos have an effect similar to this one, only present-day images from orbital telescopes are stunning. But inevitably, it seems that the conversation about these things tends toward the origin of these unimaginably large, distant, and beautiful things, and then also the origin of our own planet and ourselves.

Naturally, atheists have a bone to pick with Christians. Though many of them rail against "religion," their chief target is Christianity. The generic vocabulary allows them not only to treat Christianity as though every self-identified Christian represents the faith accurately (a ridiculous proposition), but even that every self-identified proponent of other religions represents all religion (possibly the most unscientific proposition ever imagined). I don't begrudge atheists the right to open their mouths and make fools of themselves, and neither should they deny the same right to me.

When it comes to the cosmic perspective illustrated in a video like this, there are at least two important observations to make, each of which is an independent argument in favor of Intelligent Design as a principle for identifying the origin of all things.

There is a complex ordering evident in the whole universe, across the entire scale that we can perceive, and even beyond that scale to degrees that we don't understand. The ordering of complexity is information, and that does not occur without intelligence. Hence, it is evidence for design.
The Earth environment in which we live appears (so far) to be staggeringly exceptional in the incomprehesible (though perhaps not unquantifiable) vastness of space. Even if we assumed for the sake of argument that macro-evolution took place here (an unfounded assumption), the environment would have had to be perfect for it, and continued to be perfect for an unimaginably long time. That includes variables like gravity, solar radiation, chemical composition, atmospheric composition, the magnetic core and ionosphere, radioactive decay, the frequency and type of meteors, and probably hundreds more that I don't know about. These variables are all in the "perfect" range for us to live, but this environment is infinitesimally rare. What are the chances? Some atheists like to say that the scale of the universe makes the Earth insignificant. To the contrary, the extreme rarity of the Earth makes it special, to the point of being evidence in favor of Design rather than Happenstance.

Atheists like to criticize the Bible for saying things they don't understand. Maybe if they took the time to understand its chief points, they'd begin to see how the rest of it fits together. Then, maybe they could appreciate their own existence for the miracle that it is.

Since there are so many wacky ideas about the Bible, and since it's a rather large work from multiple cultures and times, it's not easy to pick a way to approach it. For what it's worth, I recommend starting with an introductory course at a confessional Lutheran church, because one of the guiding principles of confessional Lutheranism is that the Bible interprets itself, and confessional Lutherans actually follow that principle. It will require a long reservation of judgment, but after studying the Bible, it will make a lot more sense.

MLK, Social Justice, and Saving Lives

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:54:31 -0800

In the civil realm of American society, Martin Luther King Jr. is certainly an important person to remember. He had a positive influence upon our country and the mindset of its citizens. It's good for us all to recognize this. If I have been irritated that some Lutherans know more about MLK Jr. (because of the emphasis at school) than they know about Martin Luther, his prototypical namesake, that irritation does not diminish my respect for the good that MLK Jr. accomplished for our country and this civil society, despite his theological weaknesses.

Rev. Paul McCain posted a nice little summary about the significance of MLK Jr. on his blog. I agree with what he says there, but I'd like to point out a niggling problem in the way some have described the Civil Rights Movement. It's become somewhat common to describe its cause as "social justice." I deny that emphatically, because that term is a lie. It's an attempt to dress up what we would otherwise call "injustice" as its opposite, and pollute the ideal of civil society with unjust discrimination founded upon race- or behavior-based classifications of people.

MLK Jr. was not a crusader for social justice, but simply for justice. Is it not a plain injustice to segregate a society arbitrarily based upon the pigmentation of our skin, or any arbitrary physical characteristic? Does not the evil of racism manifest itself in straight-out injustice? Is it not the human sense of justice that is violated when perpetrators of violence and murder are allowed to go unpunished on the basis of their skin-color, social standing, wealth, religion, or any other difference between human beings? Attempting to narrow our concept of justice to describe the importance the Civil Rights Movement may sound articulate, but it subverts our understanding of justice itself, and therefore actually robs men like MLK Jr. of their true importance.

If we were to admit the concept of "social justice" as a valid virtue of civil society, we would eventually find ourselves accepting arbitrary preferences in both law enforcement and in the courtroom. "The defendant has certainly robbed, raped, and killed his fellow citizens, including killing a law enforcement officer, but on account of his underprivileged upbringing, and because of his skin color, and even because some of his ancestors were deprived of their human dignity as slaves, this court finds that the circumstances mitigate his guilt in these matters. He is hereby recommended for one year of vocational counseling, and the arresting officers for one year of sensitivity training." That would be an extreme example of "social justice," showing that it's really injustice behind a mask.

The ideal of justice being blind should remain our society's ideal. She knows nothing of rich or poor, male or female, black or white, Christian or Jew, Catholic or Protestant. She knows only the law, and judges on the basis of our actions under the law. She doesn't care what we think or believe, because she is is not God. She doesn't care what we say (with certain exceptions, like "fire" in a crowded theater), because we have freedom of speech. She only cares whether we break the law. Also for this reason, the concept of "hate crimes" is unjust, wrong-headed, and tyrannical. If the deed was a crime, then justice already demands that the doer must be judged guilty. When we add or subtract to plain justice, we foster injustice.

So much for that. The other thing I've heard about recently is this justification for eliminating the law-abiding citizens' right to be armed: "If it only saves the life of one person, it would be worth the loss of freedom for the rest." This argument is also deceptive, and not limited the subject of arms control. The same argument is often applied to justify the loss of many other kinds of freedom. Allow me to point out that eventual death is certain for us all, but freedom is not. Besides that, I can easily use that argument against the gun-control advocate who makes it by pointing out that weapons carried by law-abiding citizens save lives daily. Therefore, to deprive those citizens of their freedom is to turn the tables and cause a daily loss of life. Who would want that on his conscience? If we err in the civil realm, it should be on the side of freedom and the protection of human life (and of private property, but that's another blog post).

Hamilton Visit

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 15:48:09 -0800

Here are some pictures from the last long-distance visit we enjoyed here in Oregon. I was looking for one with the Abrahamsons too, but the best one I have includes underwear. I won't say whose. I may yet find a better one from another time.

The Hamiltons visiting in 2010

Hamiltons and Jacobsens and inflatable canoe

Thanks for coming out to visit. This is a bit late, but I hope you all had a good time. We should go camping together again.

Theological Issues

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 20:58:59 -0800

What does it mean to call something "theological?" What does it mean to call it "doctrinal?" I'll give a short answer below, and in good post-modern fashion, you can feel free to give yours in a comment.

People in the church are like everyone else. We compartmentalize our lives and we make distinctions between words and ideas. Sometimes these behaviors are part of the same action. In the Church, we make a somewhat artificial distinction between clergy and laity. It's artificial because we're all just people. It's somewhat artificial because there are real differences between vocations. God brings men and women together in marriage. He makes us fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters. He sets rulers on their thrones and gives free citizens their responsibilities. Besides all of that, He chooses and sends His ministers to be His instruments for the work of the Gospel.

But which parts of all that are "theological?" Which are "doctrinal?" That depends what we mean by those words. In my book, "theological" comes from two words: "θεος" and "λογικος," the first meaning "God" and the second something like "of reason" or "of speech." It's in the same word family as "λογος," commonly translated "word," but also "thought" or even "thing." So theology is reasoning in words that involves God. You could limit that to a definitive involvement on God's part, or you could think of it more broadly. That's what I prefer, because theology is not really the domain of man, but of God Himself. We are His guests here, both physically and cognitively. We were created in His image. Questions about morals and ethics are theological, because they relate to God's will. Questions about the past can easily be theological, if we recognize that history is God's work. Questions about the future are certainly in God's domain. Some questions are merely issues of fact. "Did Neil Armstrong really step onto the moon?" That's not theological. "What does this mean?" That usually is, on some level.

Does such a broad application of theology limit the contributions of the laity? Some may think that I'm reserving too much here for the exclusive participation of clergy. That's not my intention at all. On the contrary, theology belongs to God, and is His gift to all mankind. If you are human, then you can think and speak about things relating to God. That doesn't mean all our thoughts will be right, but rather that we each have a place at the theological table.

"Doctrine" on the other hand is both easier and harder to define. Literally, it simply means "teaching." However, it implies different things to different people. To some, it means "unreasoned, inflexible, compulsory, formulaic truth claims." I wish I could psychoanalyze that, because it would probably be entertaining. While some may treat their doctrine that way, I do not. My understanding of doctrine as a concept follows from my understanding of theology. A doctrine is the way we summarize a particular theological proposition or point. So we come up with statements of doctrine, theses of doctrine and we have controversies over doctrine. Yet a singular "doctrine" can also encompass all the teaching of scripture.

It's been said that doctrine divides. I don't think that's the best way to put it. It's not doctrine in the singular that divides, but doctrines (plural) that divide when they conflict with each other. That's not a very post-modern thing to say, but it's true. (There I go again.) This is not a bad thing. If God says "up" and someone on earth says "down," isn't it best to notice the difference? Doctrine is an essential part of theology, and doctrines are inevitable, even conflicting ones, in a fallen world. That doesn't mean we should avoid doctrine altogether, but that we should do our best to pick it out from the impostors.

I'd mentioned the problem we have with compartmentalization. I think that Christians are prone to compartmentalize part of our lives as "doctrinal" or "theological," while compartmentalizing other parts as not. That's completely understandable, because we would like to justify our wrong desires and destructive habits. It doesn't help if we admit that God might have something to say about them. But that kind of mental discipline helps neither the virtue of our theology, nor the well-being of our faith. It's another reason why I consider it advantageous to keep a wide understanding of theology and a wide applicability of doctrine. That works against our pride, and helps us to remember that God is interested in every part of our lives.

God's Son was born and lived a complete human life on purpose, so that our lives could be redeemed. The exchange is His whole life for ours. He also suffered and died for every single wrong we have ever done. There's no distinction between doctrinal sins and non-doctrinal sins. They all required the blood of Jesus, and He shed that blood for them all. Every part of your life now belongs to God, and has a spiritual significance in His sight. It should have a spiritual significance in your sight too, whether you belong to the clergy or to the laity, whether you think your life relates to doctrine or not.

The Truth About Self Protection

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 16:20:13 -0800

Just finished a book from 1983 by Massad Ayoob, called The Truth about Self Protection. Mr. Ayoob, besides being a writer, is a well-respected expert in the field of combat and self protection. Already in 1983, he was a well-known instructor in several martial disciplines and weapons. He has been an expert witness in this area, which is one of the first things I heard about him in detail. Having served as a police officer for 14 years (and now part-time for 36 years), he is well respected by many in both law enforcement and the legal system. He was the director of Lethal Force Institute for 28 years, and now heads the Massad Ayoob Group. Both organizations provide expert training in the legal use of force.

Though there are several areas where the book is dated, there is a lot of good advice too. From a confessional Lutheran point of view, Mr. Ayoob (in 1983) has an unscriptural perspective on the spiritual side of the decision to defend oneself. That's not unsurprising, since only a small minority of Americans really understands what the Bible says about salvation. However, Mr. Ayoob's perspective only affects a particular course of reasoning behind a Christian's decision to use deadly force. There are better reasons to reach the conclusion that a Christian may defend himself and others from the immediate threat of death or grave injury by using deadly force. Since Mr. Ayoob does not claim to be an expert in theology (Christian or otherwise), I think we can still appreciate his expertise in the area of self-protection.

There is an essential spiritual element left out of any approach to self protection, because of its limitation to the self. Naturally, it falls outside the scope of Mr. Ayoob's book. This essential spiritual element is faith in the grace of God through Jesus Christ. Without Jesus, I could see why non-Christians might scoff at a reliance upon God's protection. But since God's only-begotten Son became a man for the express purpose of redeeming us and granting us eternal life, we can be sure that God always has our best interest at heart, and will influence the world accordingly. But notice that this does not mean we know our best interest. Sometimes it is in our best interest to suffer, at least until we reach our true home in heaven. Furthermore, our Creator and Savior has also provided us with hands, feet, and a mind capable of defending ourselves and our loved ones from unlawful violence. (Unfortunately, there is also lawful violence and injustice exercised by every earthly government, and we are only allowed to resist it when it would force us to disobey God's law.) Especially in the United States, where the law-abiding citizens' right to own and carry arms is constitutionally protected, the Christian citizen in the face of immediate threat to life and limb becomes part of God's temporal plan to curb that violence, in a way comparable to Melanchthon's case of necessity in the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, paragraph 67.

So I don't recommend that Christians rely only upon temporal resources for their self-protection, but I also don't recommend that we neglect them. Perhaps you have heard the old joke about the Christian caught in a flood who remained praying in his house despite several visits from helpful neighbors in cars, boats, and finally helicopters. After he died, he angrily asked God why He didn't answer his fervent prayer to save his life. God's reply: "I sent you cars, boats, and helicopters. What more do you want?" So God's protection may be closer than we thought, even in our own mind and limbs. But whatever may happen to us, a Christian need not be anxious, because we have a reliable promise stronger than any temporal threat or power.

I'm sure that Mr. Ayoob would add many other things to his presentation today, now that technology has given us cell phones, and the legal system has been adjusting to the age of terrorism. Judging from this book, it is probably well worth the cost to receive his classroom and range training, where the student would receive all of the latest he has to offer.

Adult Stem Cells Provide First Ever HIV Cure

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 20:58:01 -0800

As long as the cure holds, that headline is big news. Very big news for anyone who lived through the HIV fears of the 1980s, and who has seen this disease as "incurable" ever since.

That the cure seems to have happened as a side effect of a painful leukemia treatment should not make the cure for HIV any less significant. Yet it strikes me that in this article, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, seems to downplay the importance of this first-ever cure for HIV. Why could that be? Other than heading off unrealistic hopes for those currently suffering with HIV, I have no idea.

On the other hand, I think it's also significant that this treatment, which has apparently cured both the leukemia and the HIV infection, involved the use of adult stem cells. Those are the type of stem cells that do not require the death of a human being for their use. I have no moral objection to this kind of medicine, which is apparently capable of amazingly effective treatments. However, I do object on moral grounds to the use of embryonic stem cells, because in order for them to be "harvested," the living human embryo to whom they belong must be put to death.

Since the value of human life has sadly become a political issue in the United States, I would expect advocates of the so-called "culture of death" (proponents of legal abortion, embryonic stem cell research, physician-assisted suicide, etc.) to be somewhat conflicted by this news. I'm sure everyone's glad to hear about a cure for HIV, but the fact that the first cure has come through adult stem cells tends to vindicate the moral objection to embryonic stem cell research. Not only does it intentionally destroy innocent human life, treating it with far less regard than the U.S. military treats collateral damage, but embryonic stem cell medicine may be no more effective than adult stem cell medicine. Now that pluripotent adult stem cells can be produced, there is no longer even a weak justification for the destruction of innocent human life necessary to obtain embryonic stem cells.

The Politicization of Faith

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 12:19:47 -0800

In his book The Case for Civility, Os Guinness describes two ways the independence of our faith is strategically compromised when churches try to advance their interest politically. He also describes why this must fail to address the deterioration of our culture, and I think his argument is compelling. This is from p. 101.

Faith's loss of independence through politicization is more damaging than it might appear, for the cultural captivity of the Christian Right represents a double loss of independence. Rather obviously, Christians lose their independence when they engage in politics in a way that allows their faith to become subservient to politics and its priorities and procedures. But less obviously and equally important, Christians have already lost their independence when they attempt to find political solutions for problems that are essentially cultural and prepolitical -- in other words, when they ask politics to do what politics cannot do.

When there has been a profound sea change in culture, as the United States has experienced since the 1960s, it is both foolish and futile to think that it can be reversed and restored by politics alone. That approach will always fail, and can only fail. Politics is downstream from the deep and important changes in American culture, and what lies upstream is mostly beyond the reach of political action. Thus overreaching political activism is bound not only to fail, but to leave the cultural changes more deeply entrenched than ever and those fighting them weaker than ever.

So instead of using political methods, like mobilizing church members to support or oppose certain political candidates or ballot measures, churches should simply teach the Word as it applies to the moral, ethical, or social questions implicit in the political debate. Then the members can act individually, based upon their informed conciences. That action would certainly not be limited to voting. The more powerful actions would be things like speaking the truth in love to those with whom our lives intertwine, and reflecting the mercy of Christ in our deeds.

Sometimes individual Christians (even ministers) may have opportunity to speak out publicly, but we should distinguish between speaking as individuals and speaking as the Church. When conducting a service, teaching a Bible class or counseling, I speak for Christ at the behest of His Church. When writing a blog post or speaking in a hearing before the town council, I voluntarily speak only for myself, a member of a particular community. Every member of a church has a similar private voice, which can collectively have a powerful influence upon our culture. However, this voice is not a tool to be manipulated directly by churches, because that would turn a prepolitical influence into a political one, simultaneously weakening it and compromising the independence of our faith from the political winds.

The Doctrine of the Church

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:35:01 -0800

Lutherans expressed the clear biblical teaching about the Church of our Lord in a time when most people were rather unclear in that area. Our doctrine is confessed in the Augsburg Confession, articles 7 and 8, and Article 12 of part 3 in the Smalcald Articles.

The Evangelical Lutheran Synod has also produced a doctrinal statement on the Church, which tends to follow the simplicity of the Augsburg Confession in some ways, but adds a focus on church fellowship and the matter of "the local congregation." The focus on church fellowship is to be expected because of the sturm und drang following the dissolution of the synodical conference. We want to be clear about our reasons for associating publicly, or not, with other Christians. The focus on "the local congregation" seems to be a holdover from a controversy between members of the Synodical Conference. Missouri Synod theologians like Francis Pieper recognized that a local congregation possesses the essential qualities of an outward manifestation of the Church, while Wisconsin Synod theologians wanted to confess that the particular details of congregational organization manifested among us are not divine requirements. For some reason, these two emphases were considered to be in opposition to one another, and some of that controversy crept into the ELS statement on the Church.

The language used in the ELS statement to describe "the local congregation" speaks of "external forms." That sounds like jargon if I've ever heard it. As far as I can tell, an external form is a specific institutional arrangement with all of its organizational details. Apparently it was not obvious to all in 1980 that God has not commanded any particular "external form" of the Church, though I suspect that those allegedly espousing such a view were misunderstood by those who condemned it. That language was picked up again in the 2005 ELS doctrinal statement "The Public Ministry of the Word," only there referring to a specific position of responsibility with all of its organizational details, such as the office of pastor. There, the ELS wishes to confess that God has not limited the concept of "public ministry" to any particular position of responsibility. Notice how the use of "form" in 1980 and in 2005 have a similar intent: to say that the Church (on the one hand) and the Ministry (on the other hand) are not limited to the examples we see before us today. Yet they are also different, not least in the fact that contrary examples of "church" were not available in 1980, while contrary examples of "ministry" were prevalent in 2005.

I wonder, then, why there has been such a desire to insulate ourselves from "forms." Do some really believe that there has only ever been one outward arrangement for the institution of the Church, with all of its organizational details? Such a narrow view is a bit ridiculous, given the variety of arrangements that have existed through history. Or is this the product of a bogeyman? Has there been too much emphasis upon the principle of Christian liberty over against the essential marks found in a Christian congregation, so that in order to protect that liberty, we don't even wish to define an external congregation essentially according to those marks? Is it reasonable to think of an "external congregation" exactly in terms of God's Word and Sacraments, and if so, will Christian liberty allow us to consider such an external congregation as a divine model for every Christian to seek? Is there any reason to define "external congregation" in any other way, in this context?

My final observation about the ELS statement on the Church is that point number 3 stops short. It gives the impression that the definition of the "office of the keys" is exhausted in the phrase "the authority to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments," and it says nothing about the divine command to perform these tasks. It ends with the adverbs "individually and collectively," but only two references to explain them. In fact, the references are given in the order of "collectively" first, and "individually" second (a purposeful chiasm, perhaps?). What is lacking here is the connection between John 20:21-23 and the collective exercise of the Keys. Of course, this is a possible junction point with a statement on the doctrine of the Ministry. Some parts of the 2005 statement do serve to clarify this, but use different terminology.

What do Tax Cuts Cost?

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 19:46:21 -0700

I'm a bit tired of reading about the prohibitive cost of tax cuts. The "cost" of a tax cut is a backwards and wrong expression. A tax cut doesn't have an assignable cost, unless you can count your chickens before they hatch.

Taxes are by nature a forced confiscation of private property, though they are necessary to pay public bills. The nature of taxes means that their very existence is a drain upon the economy. Hence, for a better economy, and an economical benefit that could be enjoyed by all, taxes should be minimized.

When a politician speaks about the "cost" of a tax cut, he assumes the revenue of a particular tax to be already at his disposal, even before the tax has been collected. He also assumes that any negative economic influence of imposing the tax will be unworthy of consideration as a "cost." On the first assumption, he is plain wrong. On the second, he is irresponsible.

The idea that uncollected, future taxes are already at the disposal of our legislature is exactly the same as the idea that a private citizen's credit card limits are an asset just like his savings account.

Something to Chew On

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 19:46:21 -0700

It's been quite a while now since my last post. Sorry about that. Over the last three to four months, I've had a higher-than-usual online workload as I worked to upgrade a pretty serious web site. The upgrade is now officially finished, but as always, there are aftershocks of work to do. In the meantime, the vicar at my parish has received a call to his own church. I'm thankful for that, because he's been ready for a while, but had to mark time here for a few months. So my parish duties are now adjusting back to something like they were in the pre-vicar era.

By the way, the web site upgrade brought us into Plone 3, which is in many ways a great improvement over Plone 2. The experience has been pretty good overall. There are times when I'm sick of doing things on a computer. That has the benefit of driving be back to my ginormous backlog of "to-read" materials. On the other hand, the creative digital juices have also been stimulated from time to time, and I've been able to take a few minutes here and there to advance the state of some of my selfish software projects. (Selfish because I am the chief beneficiary of my efforts.)

Here's something spiritual to think about, a theological nugget to chew. Check out Deuteronomy 29:29.

The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

That's a distinction between things that God has chosen not to reveal, and those things that He has revealed in His law (aka His word). It means that it's fruitless, foolish, and probably against our best interests to pry into the things God has kept secret, but it's fruitful, wise, and very profitable to give our attention to what He has revealed.

Neat verse. It encapsulates an important theological distinction and expresses it rather clearly.

How I understand the ELS Ministry Statement

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Thu, 25 May 2006 13:42:14 -0700

For the moment, I can live with The Public Ministry of the Word, the doctrinal statement adopted by the ELS last June. It has some serious flaws, but it can be understood in a way that accords with the Bible and the Lutheran confessions. My hope is that we can continue to study the doctrine and this statement, and either improve or replace it as we are able.

In the meantime, I'll post below a summary of my understanding of this document. You can find the same summary here, and a longer supporting document here.

Summary of the Chief Points of Interpretation of the ELS Doctrinal Statement "The Public Ministry of the Word"

Rev. Jesse Jacobsen

Last Modified: (Wed May 24 11:43:06 2006)

When the statement speaks of a "narrow" and a "wider" sense of Public Ministry, it is not speaking of two things that exist concretely, but rather two ways of using the term "Public Ministry" that have been prevalent in recent years.
Neither usage is, in itself, required by holy scripture.
The narrow sense refers to the office of ministry that was established by Jesus when He called and sent His apostles by command and promise, an office characterized by the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments, and perpetuated today in those stations collectively known as the "pastoral office."
The wider sense refers to the Church's God-given freedom to establish other offices that carry some of the responsibilities which belong both to the Church as a whole and to the pastoral office. It may be considered "divinely instituted" insofar as we recognize that God wishes these duties to be performed. This is not the same kind of divine institution as we find in the narrow sense.
When the statement uses the term "keys," it means the application of God's mercy or judgment to a sinner.
When the statement speaks of an "office of the keys," it refers sometimes to the office of ministry in the narrow sense (the pastoral office), which belongs to the Church, and through which the Church exercises the keys. Other times, it refers to the authority Jesus gave both to His apostles and to His Church to bind and loose the sins of sinners.
When the statement speaks of a "limited public use of the Keys," the part that is limited is the term "public," which is meant to show the official, representative nature of the public ministry. When "public" is not limited, a public minister acts fully in the name and stead of Christ and on behalf of the Church by virtue of the specific divine institution of the office of ministry (in the narrow sense). When "public" is limited, a public minister acts directly on behalf of the Church, and indirectly on behalf of Christ, since the minister occupies an office that the Church established with the authority given by our Lord.
When the statement speaks of the "church," it means the Holy Christian Church on earth, of which visible congregations are the primary manifestation because of the believers who are part of those congregations. However, since faith is invisible, the only sure marks of the Church are God's Word and the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, each of which is a means of grace. When applied to sinners, these marks are the ministry of the Keys.
"Unofficial or private use of the keys" describes those times when individual Christians speak for Christ, giving His forgiveness to sinners without having received a regular call to do so. Though it is called "unofficial" or "private," such an act is really public in the sense that Jesus has given Christians the authority to do this in times of special need. In effect, the individual Christian is acting as the pastor of the one being forgiven.

Christians, on their own part, may also forgive others the sins committed directly against them. While this is only possible because of the keys, it is not in itself a use of the keys. This may be considered a "private" use of the keys, but it is not what is meant by the statement.
When the statement speaks of an individual retaining or binding sins privately or unofficially, it does not mean that the individual is bespeaking a sinner to be cut off from heaven in the manner of an excommunication from the Church. Rather, the statement refers to an individual's authority to repeat the judgments of God upon sin, and so admonish other sinners.
When the statement speaks of Christians using the keys to judge the teachings of their pastors and teachers, it only means those pastors and teachers still living on earth, and only those times when the Christian confronts the pastor/teacher with the sin of teaching false doctrine. The Christian's duty to test the spirits is not an exercise of the keys.
When the statement includes the titles "professor of theology" and "synod president" in a list of those which fall into the pastoral office, it assumes that such vocations are defined in accordance with AC articles V, XIV, and XXVIII, and the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope. That is, the duties of these vocations are primarily the administration of the external means of grace, and any distinction between them and other titles for the pastoral office is purely by human arrangement, not from God's Word. If such a title is found to be defined in conflict with these principles, then the doctrinal statement's categorization does not apply: it is not part of the pastoral office.
When the statement says, "Extending calls to teachers who have spiritual care of children in Christian schools is not merely a laudable custom, but is in accordance with Romans 10:14-17 and Augsburg Confession XIV," it does not mean that Romans 10:14-17 or AC XIV apply directly to the circumstance of teachers in Christian schools. Instead, it means that these citations establish the principle that anyone who teaches God's Word on behalf of the Church must be authorized by the Church to do this. That authorization is what the statement means by a "call."
When the statement uses the word "call" in connection with the wider sense of public ministry, it does not mean the outward arrangement of a formal call, which we are accustomed to use for the pastoral office. While that arrangement may be used for teachers, the statement means only that an orderly, outward authorization must be given by the Church before the minister can carry out any ministerial duties in its name. This authorization recognizes that Christ has empowered the Church to create and fill such offices.

For an elaboration of these chief points, and an explanation of other points in the doctrinal statement, including the passages cited, please read “The Public Ministry of the Word”: What Does This Mean?.

Of Winkels, Sermon Recordings and Church Polity

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:19:56 -0700

Here in northern Oregon, our few ELS churches have had the pleasure of starting a "local" winkel (small pastor's conference). So far, it has only taken a maximum of 2.5 hours to travel to the winkel, making it much easier for me to budget my time than when I was traveling to Tacoma. That was usually about 4 hours each way. We've also had the pleasure of several pastors from outside our synod attending with us. I consider this an important aspect of church activity: that we always seek others with whom we may agree in doctrine, and thus eventually might recognize the existence of outward fellowship.

Besides our ELS attendees, we have had one pastor from the Association of Confessional Lutheran Churches attending and two pastors in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Our ELS pastors have been encouraged (by the ACLC pastor) to attend the Wisconsin Synod winkels in Portland too, but as beneficial as it might be, I can't justify taking another day every month away from my parish.

We recently rejoiced to hear that the ACLC has recognized fellowship with the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America. Both of those organizations are relatively young. The ACLC was formed mainly by congregations removed from the ELS over a matter tangential to the adoption of a doctrinal statement on the Office of the Ministry. (For those who want to know, they took issue with the way another ELS pastor was deposed from his congregation, attempting to treat the matter as a case of church discipline by invoking the "lesser ban" against a synod official. This was deemed to be "selective fellowship," and thus contrary to the ELS doctrinal position on fellowship, notwithstanding that their action was not meant as a declaration of church fellowship.)

This winkel has been a blessing for those involved, though at times we have wondered how best to engage our fellow Christian brothers with whom we do not (yet) recognize outward fellowship. With the outward fellowship now recognized between ACLC and ELDoNA, the time has probably come to look more closely at ELDoNA's doctrine. While our winkel discussions seem to show that fundamental agreement still exists between our pastors and the ACLC (and at least some LCMS pastors), the ELDoNA has an origin mostly separate from the ELS. It's possible that even though the ELS has a much different background than the ELDoNA, we might be in agreement on the substance of our doctrine. Both subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions because (quia) they accurately confess the doctrine of Holy Scripture, so the possibility of finding further agreement is high. In addition, the exercise of examining the doctrine of another church body will force us to a better understanding of our own, and perhaps put a finer point on it.

Apparently, ELDoNA has existed since 2006. The most outstanding distinction between ELDoNA and the ELS is not in doctrine, but in the polity (outward organization) of the church body. There is much on their web site describing the reasons for organizing as a diocese, and explaining what that means. In our ELS seminary, I recall learning that polity is not something divisive of fellowship, and usually determined by the historical roots of the particular denomination in question.

The ELDoNA subscribes to two sets of theses, not intended wholly as doctrinal statements, but also statements of good practice and mutual understanding. They are meant to address various controverted issues among Lutherans in our day. There are many things to consider from these statements, but I'll just mention one here as an example. In the "Malone Theses," Thesis number 3, on the "Office of the Ministry," says:

Laymen ought not preach or read sermons at the divine service. Laymen are not to administer the sacraments of the Church. Emergency baptism is the only exception to this rule. (AC 14)

In ELDoNA's response to questions from the ACLC, this was expounded a bit. After citing several relevant passages from the Book of Concord, the response says:

�Necessity� must not be confused with �convenience.� In our age of technological conveniences (such as CDs and tape recorders) and relatively inexpensive, fast transportation, circumstances such as pastoral vacations and vacancies can be dealt with in a means which is consistent with our Lutheran Confessions.

A pastor being gone for a Sunday or two may be considered �inconvenient,� but it does not become a matter of �necessity.� It would certainly be the preferable practice that the pastor leave a recorded message, if no other orthodox Lutheran pastor is available on that occasion. The congregation could also consider gathering for singing hymns on such an occasion, without having a sermon on that particular Sunday.

While this seems not to be considered so much a doctrinal matter as a matter of good practice, it's still interesting, because we have had the practice of an "elder" (a lay position assisting the pastor) or designee reading the sermon when the pastor cannot be present on Sunday. My only observation is that a message from the pastor might be recorded on tape or CD, or on paper. I don't see a lot of difference between a layman pressing "play" and a layman reading the pastor's words. Neither is ideal. What did our Lutheran fathers do in remote parishes?

Important Observations in Busy Times

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:08:31 -0700

The United States is not unique among nations, insofar as it is a sovereign country on the earth. Everyone can agree about that, I think. Yet the United States is at least somewhat unique among nations, insofar as its government is based upon, as our President has described it, a "charter of negative rights." Other nations have copied the US to various degrees in that regard, but this country was really the first to go all the way with this idea.

What does our President mean by "a charter of negative rights?" He means that our constitution limits the powers of the federal government, protecting the liberties of states and citizens. It forbids any notion that the government has the right to, for example, prohibit the free exercise of religion. While this frustrates our current President and his associates, it should be a comfort for other Americans. It's what makes the United States a free country.

I've had a busy start to the school year, and the busy-ness will continue for a while. We're starting a series of classes for anyone 10 and older, called "Getting Into God's Word," as well as several confirmation classes. Together with other things, I'm left pretty wiped out at the end of many days, without much impetus for addressing other things on my list. Blogging comes about last. But today is my weekend, and I think these observations are rather important for us all to keep in mind as election day draws closer.

Notice how concerned I am about freedom, or liberty. A hundred or more years ago, that might easily earn me the label "liberal," but today it most likely earns me the label "conservative." Isn't that odd? To be "liberal" these days (or at least during this presidential administration) is to oppose the kind of protections our Constitution affords for individual liberty. To put it bluntly: a "liberal" today opposes liberty, while a "conservative" seeks to protect it. Amazingly ironic.

I realize that there are issues, and there are issues. Some "liberals" or "conservatives" may seek to protect certain liberties, while neglecting the protection of others. The free "speech" of sacrilegious art comes to mind. Examples of neglect abound. This presidential administration's approach to implementing the newly-adopted national health care regime is one of them. The President's secretary for health and human services responded to an announcement from certain health companies in which they explained to their customers that the new law would increase their costs. Here's how Michael Barone summarizes this "liberal" neglect of free speech:

"Congress shall make no law," reads the First Amendment, "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

Sebelius' approach is different: "zero tolerance" for dissent.

I don't mean this to be primarily a criticism of our current President's administration. Instead, I want anyone reading this to realize that even though we may be exceedingly busy, it behooves us as citizens to pay attention to our government and its political process. Yes, it can be very boring, repetitious, and even depressing. Yes, the signal-to-noise ratio can be extremely low. But if nobody pays attention to these things, then whatever remains unique, special, or even comforting about the way the US is governed will surely disappear. Maybe we will enjoy some of those blessings, but we'll have lost them for our children. The present administration only reminds us that this has always been true.

Labels like "conservative" and "liberal" don't really matter. They are just labels, and their meanings change over time. Party loyalties only matter as far as your conscience permits you to affiliate with the whole platform of either party. That's a personal political decision, though it should be based upon objective reality instead of hype or feelings. So if the labels and the parties don't matter much, then what does matter?

The principles matter. The Christian worldview, based upon the Bible, matters, because it's not only a matter of opinion. It's a matter of faith, and a matter of fact. Truth matters. These things matter to Christians because we are Christians.

Don't get so busy that you neglect the responsibility common to every American citizen: inform yourself, vote, and participate in the peaceful process of governing this republic. There is evil in the world. It's in our neighbors, including those in public office, and it's in us. Let's not neglect to work against it. Especially in busy times.

Indifferent Things in Worship

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 09:53:11 -0700

In the mid-16th Century, Lutheran churches were pressured by force to reincorporate certain Papistic worship practices into their services. Those pastors who refused were deposed in many places. Others accepted the changes, saying those changes were really indifferent to the doctrine we teach and believe. The problem, as the Formula of Concord describes, was that these changes were commanded as an exercise in obedience to the special, divine authority of the Pope, and an admission that the papal doctrine is true. The Lutherans who objected were right to do so.

Today, Lutheranism is again split between those who want to change worship practices and those who do not. These days, the changes are innovations determined not by papal authority, but by the trends of worldly culture. They are not intended to be a form of submission, but a means of bringing the lost into contact with their Savior at church. The changes today might be characterized as a shift in focus from sacramental events (God coming to us, bringing His spiritual gifts) to sacrificial (We bringing our spiritual offerings to God), while also utilizing the entertainment emphasis in our culture to attract those who are drawn to such things.

The typical example of this shift is the incorporation of so-called "contemporary Christian music" into the liturgy. This category of music can be hard to define. Some try to define it by the instrumentation, but I think that's really only one aspect of its character, and not essential. I would distinguish it by its entertainment-focused style, mimicking the various popular styles of music that play on the radio or that are downloaded from iTunes. This entertainment-focused style involves melody and harmonies, but especially rhythm and lyrics. It makes the musical experience into a performance for human consumption and appreciation. Spiritually, the music becomes a completely sacrificial event (see above) on the part of the performer, and very little -- if any -- sacramental value remains for the congregation. Instead, the congregants are asked to observe and enjoy the music as entertainment, the way they might enjoy a concert. Easily-felt emotional manipulation replaces sacramental significance, which can only be discerned by faith in God's Word. Contrast this with traditional Lutheran hymnody and liturgy, in which everyone is a full participant (rather than being entertained), and where sacramental and sacrificial aspects exist in more or less equal proportions.

Thankfully, the same article in the Formula of Concord has something we can apply to these changes to our worship practices.

Likewise, when there are useless, foolish displays that are not profitable for good order, Christian discipline, or evangelical practice in the Church, these also are not genuine adiaphora, or matters of indifference. (Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, FC, SD X, 7.)

If you would like to defend the present-day innovations generally called "contemporary Christian worship," then I invite you to show how they are profitable for good order, Christian discipline, or evangelical practice in the Church.