Monday, April 16, 2007

Lessons From The Virginia Tech Tragedy

Truly a tragic day today for many families of the Virginia Tech students who were killed by an evil shooter.  Our prayers go out to those people who survive the victims - family, friends and colleagues.

If you regularly read this blog, you know where I’ll go with this, but it’s always the number one issue with events like this.  The behavior of the government and the media in these tragedies is completely consistent.  Guns and accessibility to guns will be the number one issue in this event.  Be prepared for the onslaught, especially in light of an election year next year.  It’s no surprise what you’ll hear from the communists and socialists who are in charge of this country right now.

And, ironically, I think there are myriad lessons to be learned from this terrible occurrance.  And the students are asking a very important question.  “How is it possible that the shooter was able to perform his second attack more than 2 hours later after Virginia police were already on campus to investigate the first shooting at the dorms?”

Excellent question.  I think there’s no chance we’ll hear the real answer.

So, here are the things I think we can all learn from this shooting:

• When people are disarmed and can’t defend themselves against an attacker, the attacker has free reign to pretty much do whatever he wants within a certain window of time.  As has been proven over and over again in myriad studies, when the populace is armed, tragedies like this can be stopped WAY before the cops could get there.  ARM THE STUDENTS.
• The cops got there as quickly as they could, but as is typically the case, no matter how quickly they move these sorts of events are over WAY before police can get on the scene to prevent continued violence.
• The second shooting occurred about two hours from the first one, and in a location completely on the other side of the campus.  Even when police and feds are on the scene, they can’t protect the citizens.  Yet, the police - whom I will even give the benefit of the doubt regarding whether or not they were doing everything they could in that situation, and didn’t necessarily fail for lack of effort - could not be where they needed to be to stop the second shooting.  These guys are the only ones who are allowed to be armed, and it doesn’t help… again.  Could it be that this is the best the authorities have to offer in these situations?  When will we learn?
• We as a society have no category for evil.  In a postmodern mindset, there isn’t room for such a thing because we have to explain everything through science and psychology.  But, interestingly, there isn’t a way to describe the behavior of evil with science or psychology.  Usually broad generalizations are made regarding people being mentally and emotionally broken (sociopathic), but the concept of evil never enters the equation.  So, we’re going to hear endless comments wondering why someone would do something like this.  How could someone do this?  What was his motivation?  Finally, it will come down to another broad psychological analysis and what external factors could have led to such a mental and emotional state.  I wonder if the scapegoat will again be violent video games.
• If you think this tragedy is horrific, wait until you see the assault by our tyrannical leaders on the law-abiding people of this country.  This is nothing compared to the absolute carnage that is about to be visited on us by the U.S. Congress.  Unless they’re willing to look at what studies teach us about armed vs. unarmed populaces and which is safer for the individual citizens, which they never are, the people of the United States are likely going to undergo a legislative siege attempting to continue to eviscerate the 2nd Amendment and trash any real solutions it can offer in situations like today’s shooting.  Unfortunately, the law-abiding citizens don’t have a way to go to local authorities and report something like “legal assault” which legislatively attempts to deny us our right to self defense against lunatics like we’re seeing today.

  If our legislators behave as they typically do in the face of such tragedy, the assault they will perform on law-abiding Americans will be MUCH more aggregious than what the shooter has done at Virginia Tech today.  And only in small part due to the fact that any anti-gun laws they pass will only make it EASIER for lunatics like this.

  Why not just make guns illegal entirely so that we can be just like England and Australia where the criminals run amok?  You want to see a really high body count?  Make guns illegal.

“Why?  Why in the world would this happen??” It will never make sense to you.  Stop trying.

The reason I say all this is certainly not to belittle what has happened to so many students and their families today, but rather to support them and to help this sort of tragedy from happening again.  If the correct steps are taken, we certainly CAN help lessen the frequency of such events, as well as decrease the body count.

To run to the government and legislators for solutions for any similar future tragedies is typically the first, and worst, mistake.  All government can offer is to further oppress the people and clean up the next mess that comes along.

Even after Columbine, this is STILL the best the police and feds have to offer.  This is it, folks.  So, are you ready to follow what studies have proven over and over again, that when the citizenry is armed, these events are much rarer and end much more quickly when they do occur?  Are you ready to create a real solution instead of willingly eat up the government pablum about how they’re going to protect you the NEXT time?

I certainly hope so.  For all our sakes.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Ron Paul On The Federal Reserve And Fiat Dollars

The (Truly) Honorable Ron Paul wrote a short blurb in his recent Texas Straight Talk weekly column (April 9) regarding the state of the American economy and what the Fed is doing that threatens our constitutionally limited representative republic.

If you don’t do much research on this, this is a very short primer on why America is screwed.  The troubles people are experiencing with the ‘housing downturn’ are only the tip of the iceberg.  And most Americans either don’t know it, or are sticking their heads in the sand, hoping that someone will make it all better - an attitude truly befitting a socialist society.

This doesn’t mean for certain the great experiment is over and that the days of freedom in America are over, but the citizenry has some dark days ahead and we’re coming to a fork in the road.  Will it be socialism, tyranny and slavery, or a return to liberty?

We shall see.  But I put this out there in order that as many people as possible can understand why it is prudent (Now!) to prepare for coming dark days.  Again, there are only maybe a couple certainties in this equation, but if you have the chance now to prepare for some pretty rough times, why not?  If, for some reason, we avoid the worst case scenario and we as a nation buffer the storm and we individuals aren’t hit as hard as we could be, any preparations you make will still hold you in good stead.  In preparing, you minimize any personal pain and loss you could feel when the dollar goes through a correction.

In short, get rid of as much of your debt as possible.  If you don’t own a house right now, rent for a while, don’t buy for probably several years.  If you’re doing well at getting out of debt, or already have no debt, buy gold and silver.  Make sure you own a good handgun or two and a rifle or two (I recommend at least a .308), a shotgun, and buy a nice couple cases of ammo for them.

Here is Ron Paul’s short piece in its entirety.  I was going to excerpt from it, but I think it’s worth grabbing the whole thing.  But, of course, feel free to check out his weekly column site and see what else he’s saying.  It still blows my mind that a guy with as much integrity and unwavering willingness to fight for liberty in this country, like Ron Paul, is actually a name on the political scene.  We Americans owe him huge thanks for holding the line, even if he can’t stem the tide of socialism with so little support.

Recently I had the opportunity to question Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke when he appeared before the congressional Joint Economic committee.  The topic that morning was the state of the American economy, and many of my colleagues raised questions about how the Fed might better “regulate” things to ease fears of an economic downturn.  The tenor of my colleagues’ questions suggested that Mr. Bernanke’s job is nothing less than to run the U.S. economy, like some kind of Soviet central planner.

Certainly it’s true that Mr. Bernanke can drastically affect the economy at the drop of a hat, simply by making decisions about the money supply and interest rates.  But why do members of Congress assume this is good?  Why do we accept without objection that a small group of people on the Federal Reserve Board wields so much power over our economic well-being?  Is centralized, monopoly control over our money even compatible with a supposedly free-market economy?

Few Americans give much thought to the Federal Reserve System or monetary policy in general.  But even as they strive to earn a living, and hopefully save or invest for the future, Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank are working insidiously against them.  Day by day, every dollar you have is being devalued.

The greatest threat facing America today is not terrorism, or foreign economic competition, or illegal immigration.  The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation.  It is this one-two punch—Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference—that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars.

The Fed’s inflationary policies hurt older people the most.  Older people generally rely on fixed incomes from pensions and Social Security, along with their savings.  Inflation destroys the buying power of their fixed incomes, while low interest rates reduce any income from savings.  So while Fed policies encourage younger people to overborrow because interest rates are so low, they also punish thrifty older people who saved for retirement.

The financial press sometimes criticizes Federal Reserve policy, but the validity of the fiat system itself is never challenged.  Both political parties want the Fed to print more money, either to support social spending or military adventurism.  Politicians want the printing presses to run faster and create more credit, so that the economy will be healed like magic—or so they believe.

Fiat dollars allow us to live beyond our means, but only for so long.  History shows that when the destruction of monetary value becomes rampant, nearly everyone suffers and the economic and political structure becomes unstable. Spendthrift politicians may love a system that generates more and more money for their special interest projects, but the rest of us have good reason to be concerned about our monetary system and the future value of our dollars.

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Church Re-Re-Re-Styled

We received a nice (expensive) invitation in the mail recently letting us know we could come and visit a new church opening up not too far away in the next few days.

In order to entice us to darken their door, the bullet points on this full-sheet, full-color, glossy advertisement highlight such benefits as:

• Real-to-Life Messages
• Exciting and Engaging Worship
• Authentic Relationships
• Dynamic Children’s Ministries
• Loving, Quality Nurseries

Wow, okay, so let’s break this down, shall we?

Real-to-Life Messages
Nice and vague.  Based on my experiences with other contemporary worship stadiums, I must assume that this means that the speaker will be telling stories to which I can relate?  Which is to say that I’ll be hearing anecdotes from the speaker’s own life to highlight some kind of generalized hope to help get me through the week and help me direct my energies and not let the world get me down?

Exciting and Engaging Worship
Again, vague.  Exciting and Engaging?  Why is that necessary?  And, again, what exactly does this mean?  I can expect a show like at Cirque de Soleil?  Why do I go to church, again?

Authentic Relationships
Um, what?  If anyone in your life used this phrase to describe their relationship with anyone they knew, would this make any sense to you or would you look at him or her like he or she was nuts?  What in the hell is an Authentic Relationship?  All I can say is that, with some notable exceptions, most of the people I’ve met in a stadium-level contemporary worship service seem to have relationships from the church that are very similar to those in multi-level-marketing schemes.  If that’s Authentic, leave me out.

Dynamic Children’s Ministries
More vague mixed with marketing-speak.  I’m assuming this is the same sort of Real-to-Life anecdotal message that the adults are receiving, except dumbed down and more entertainment added in so that the kids don’t get bored?  This simply comes across as a proverbial jungle gym that promises to make sure your kids don’t get turned off about coming to church because it’s just not so “churchy”.

Loving, Quality Nurseries
Must be for the kids that are too young to be entertained by the Dynamic Children’s Ministries.  Again, in place to entertain more than anything and prevent the tiniest children from being turned off to church?

Whew.  Okay, so, given all that, if you had no more information, what faith do you think this church is?  Hindu?  Buddhist?  Judaism?  Mormon?

Of course, most contemporary churches in America claim to be Christian, but there’s NOTHING in the above sales points that is Christian.  They could be for a Tony Robbins conference for all we know.  (My apologies to Tony Robbins for dragging him into a comparison with such a church.)

And, my bet is that the message that the speaker is giving would be just as worldly and missing most of the elements, again, that most traditional churches still have.  To highlight the point, take a look at this great devotional that our family read recently from HigherThings.org.  This is what I need to be hearing every week.  And I’ve never heard anything remotely like this in any contemporary church, which is why I’ll never regularly attend.

God’s Word has two sides, Law and Gospel. God crushes with the Law, but builds up with the Gospel. Through the lens of the Law look at yourself in Psalm 38, as the one who cries: “My iniquities have gone over my head; like a heavy burden, they are too heavy for me.” They are. Crushed, broken, alone, forsaken, apart from God. You have only the cry of the beggar: “Make haste to help me, O Lord, my salvation!”

Yet Isaiah said that the suffering servant (Jesus) was bruised for our iniquities and broken for our sins. Paul wrote that He “who knew no sin, became sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God.” Christ cried out for you from the Cross: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Psalm 22:1). He was forsaken so that you would not be.

Repent and receive Christ’s forgiveness. It’s why He died. It’s why He suffered. Jesus came precisely to take your sins upon Himself, so that He could forgive you. And now the same One, Who bore all your sin, has given you a pastor, so you can hear His words of forgiveness in your ears. That is the gift of Holy Absolution – it is all about Christ and it is all for you! Christ’s gifts don’t end at the Cross. They begin there.

The Lord has made haste to help you. When you go to your pastor and confess your sins, you will hear him say, “In the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ I forgive you all your sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the + Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” In those words, all of Christ’s work on the cross comes to bear for you. The words of absolution ring out for you with words of sweet Gospel. You give Christ your sin and He gives you the forgiveness, which He won for you by his Passion and death. What a gift! In the name of Jesus. Amen.

Sunday, March 11, 2007

A Landmark Case?

In case you missed it, an interesting decision was just made regarding gun rights in, of all places, Washington D.C.

And, actually, and something that is mentioned in the above article, this is the second such decision in recent years that addresses the issue of the Second Amendment being an individual right rather than a group right (only for militias).  It looks like we might be experiencing a trend in America back towards defending (and - gasp! - possibly retaking) a little bit of our liberty.

What a breath of fresh air!

The important point that must be fought in this debate has to do with language.  And the interesting thing is that a few language scholars and experts have clarified the fact that the language in the Second Amendment is unambiguous.  But, of course, in an age when language is experiencing serious Orwellian contortions to often mean the opposite of what it says prima facie, we need to have the meanings laid out for us so that the individual citizens of this country can count on the law of the land to be their defense in case they end up in court.

In fact, so determined are some to change the meaning of the Second Amendment, they’ve even managed to change the structure of the sentence itself in order to support their decision.  This version of the amendment language is not the original construction of the amendment:

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

Rather, the text originally added to the constitution as an amendment reads:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The actual text amended to the constitution has only one comma and the word “state” is not capitalized.  These changes may seem small, but it is easy to change the meaning of the language by altering the sentence in such a way above.

There is a great article on The Foundation for Economic Education website, as part of their regular “The Freeman” publication (which is a monthly magazine that I highly recommend, by the way) which lays out much of the discussion on the interpretation of the language of the Second Amendment.  It goes into much greater depth than I shall in this blog entry, but if you’re interested in this fight for our individual freedom, please visit there and have a read.  It’s worth it.

An interesting point from that FEE article in its conclusion:

One need not resort to historical materials to interpret the Second Amendment, because it is all there in the text. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to point out that history supports, and in no way contradicts, that reading. Gun ownership was ubiquitous in eighteenth-century America, and the Founding Fathers repeatedly acknowledged the importance of an armed citizenry. They also stated over and over that the militia is, as George Mason, the acknowledged father of the Bill of Rights, put it, “the whole people.” Madison himself, in Federalist 46, sought to assuage the fears of the American people during the ratification debate by noting that an abusive standing army “would be opposed [by] a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.” That would have comprised the entire free adult male population at the time. There’s no question that at the center of the American people’s tacit ideology was the principle that, ultimately, they could not delegate the right of self-defense to anyone else and thus they were responsible for their own safety.

One other thing that’s always fascinated me about this discussion over this particular amendment is the concept that, firstly, the portion of the sentence that refers to “the people” is somehow superceded in importance by the first portion of the sentence that refers to “a well regulated militia” (see the FEE article regarding this point of sentence construction), and secondly, that the concept of “the people” in this amendment supports a group right rather than an individual one.

If this were true, it would be the only time the identical language used by the framers to specifically delineate individual rights elsewhere in the constitution and its amendments would have been used to mean something entirely the opposite, namely recognizing rights for a group of individuals but not to the individuals themselves.

I also had to laugh about this quote in the article:

“Today’s decision flies in the face of laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia,” District Mayor Adrian Fenty said at a news conference.

Yeah, right.  This from the mayor of the one place in the country that multiple studies have shown to have the worst rate of gun violence in the country.  Of course, it’s a political answer, and one that should be expected.  But, much like the huge increase in gun violence in Australia when they nixed their citizens’ ability to own guns, these politicians hate the idea that their gun control measures correlate to such increases in crime.

Clearly, in this case, the fight isn’t over.  It will be appealed and fought again.  I’m curious about whether the U.S. Supreme Court will hear this one.  If I remember correctly, they didn’t hear the last case similar to this one several years back.

We won’t know the outcome on this for a little while, but I’m eagerly watching, and I hope you do, too.  If this decision is upheld, if I lived in Washington D.C., I’d be leaving skid marks I’d be getting my ass over to the gun store so quickly.  What great news that would be for all freedom lovers of this country!  May it come to pass.

Monday, February 12, 2007

Down The Rabbit Hole

So, there I was watching Fox News on TV this morning, and a depressing thought dawned on me.  (I really don’t watch the news channels, but my wife had it on as we’re both getting over being sick, prone to couch-lounging, and our son had us up a little earlier than we would have liked–as usual.)

It just dawned on me exactly how far down the rabbit hole this country has fallen.  As things have been getting notably worse in this country in many respects - primarily on a financial / economical level - I’ve had to distance myself from that discussion so that I may concentrate with some level of hope on the things I need to get done to care for my family.  Looking down the rabbit hole tends to suck the hope from me, and I find that’s my major fuel each day to keep the nose to the grindstone.

I try to lean on the optimistic side of things, but it’s hard to do when The People simply won’t wake up and realize that they’re being led around by the nose by the ruling party, in part by tricking them into the bi-factional argument.  The problem is that the bi-factional way of looking at things is a tar pit.  It may seem like you need to back a particular faction on a side of the political aisle to save you from the other, but it’s all a lie.

If people can’t figure out that whether they’re voting Democrat or Republican, they’re still voting for the one same ruling party, and that they’re all socialists or communists (with a very few notable exceptions) that despise the freedom of us individuals, we’re never going to see our freedom again.  Our children will be chattle.

I hate it when I’m watching the talking heads on TV feed the unwitting public their pablum and all I can do is shake my head and think, “We’re screwed.” And it’s one thing to think that, but it’s another to try to put form on that concept and think about what it means for my family in the future.

Yikes.

Oh well.  I’m not hopeless, it was just one of those mornings.  You know the kind… And I still have hope for the people of this country, that though they may wake up VERY late in the game, when they begin to realize their plight that just a portion (and all that’s needed historically is a very small portion - not even 10%) might figure out a way to do something about it and take us back to freedom.

We shall see.  My prayers on this continue for my family and friends.  All I can say is I hope you fight for freedom every chance you get, whether you vote or not.  And, damnit… do it LOUDLY!

Lost And Found

Well, good news on at least one front… I found my iPod!  I know, you probably didn’t know it was lost.  And that’s primarily due to the fact that I didn’t tell anyone.

When we moved out here, I was very careful about where I had it, knowing how easy it would be to lose something so small in a move and especially considering its value, I really didn’t want that to happen.

So there I am last night, trying to find one of the Xbox 360 game controllers that our son had hidden from us and as I’m standing there with a just-removed chair cushion in my quest for the controller when my wife says, “Hey, what’s that?  That shiny thing there… no, on the side down there on your left...”

So I reach down into the left side crack of the chair between the bottom and the arm, and what do I pull out?

My iPod!  That’s right, there it was, and we had checked the furniture several times in an attempt to find the iPod previously but obviously went right over it.  If my wife hadn’t been looking at it from such an odd angle, I believe it would have stayed there for a much longer time.

Well, I’m having some other issues with the Xbox (not a common one that you can find on the net) that are going to require that it be sent back to Microsoft.  I figured such a loss of the Xbox to the repair department was only a matter of time, from some of the things I’ve read.

So, it wasn’t a total win last night.  I’ll be without the Xbox for a while, but I’ll have it back eventually.  And now that I have my iPod which I was beginning to chalk up as a loss!

I’m going to be a happy camper once again.  Back to movies and music on the go.  Now, I just need to get a radio for our house that will allow me to hook up and play the iPod.  I miss having music around the house as much as we used to.  It’s going to be time again in not too long.

Oh, and the Xbox controller?  It was right where it was supposed to be… in a mixing bowl from the kitchen on the floor in the dining room.  I’d checked for it in that room several times, but that controller managed to elude me in the shiny metal bowl.

Soon, all will be well again.

Formal Debates On The Internet

Well, things seem to have calmed down regarding the heated debate that we were all having with Pastor McCain over at oldsolar.com and Theomony, and everyone seems to be sifting through all the information and gleaning what they can from it.

One of the important things that I think Rick addressed on his blog already is something that I think many people need to be considering in terms of working with the New Media (internet) regarding Rules of Engagement and proper forums when attempting to have a semi-formal debate about theological issues.

I and some friends have been discussing this much lately, primarily in light of the recent discussions with Pastor McCain, and, clearly, this is something that will need to be addressed somewhere in the future.

One of the things that has arisen is the fact that we’re lacking any sort of structure and properly created forum (not necessarily a forum in terms of the current type of web-interface of that name) where these things can be discussed and all the participants can understand who they’re talking to on some basic levels.

The debates with Pastor McCain were primarily between himself and some laymen.  This can create potential risks or dicey situations for pastors who might end up in the position where they may have to issue admonitions to those they’re speaking with on the net.  And in such a case (and many others) the problem lies in the fact that even if someone says who they are, they could very well be lying in most places because you can’t track them down and verify it.

The debate itself was, honestly, fairly rough-hewn in that it was never meant to be, nor could it ever become, a proper formal debate.  This is in large part due to the fact that it is occurring on blogs - an unregulated place of discussion which resides in the vastly free “wild west” sections of the internet.

I think it’s going to be time to have someone step up to the plate and actually begin to formalize new concepts in web software design that would allow a trusted formal setting for such debates, where many of the doubts and concerns of the “wild west” internet may be removed and some controls on the discussion and the individuals involved can be put in place.

More than likely, I would expect such a construct to be primarily useful in the academic realm, but it could be extended to politics and science as well.  Something to ponder.  I’m not a software engineer, but I’m probably going to be talking to a couple people about the concept overall.

In the future, I expect discussions like the ones we were having, once properly regulated by software and moderators, will allow for some real headway in terms of both the subject of the debates, but also in the documentation of such debates.  And I think it can be done without losing the passion of the debaters, necessarily.  I think one of the best parts of the discussion we just had, though a few of us were a little offsides, was we were able to be vehement and loud in how we defended our positions, but it never really degraded into something that didn’t serve the debate or either sides’ points well.

In other words, it was a great argument, and I was irritated, but I loved it nonetheless.  And I think more subjects which we hold near and dear to our hearts, especially ones that relate to the gospel and its defense, should be discussed just as passionately on a more regular basis.

I wish people were more used to such passionate displays, but as a society, we’ve gotten so that we’re so easily offended that we can’t get past bad words or loud volume to be able to stick with the argument.  And we certainly can’t see how harsh language and loud volumes may even fit more naturally in such a debate.

I long for a time when it will be commonplace again… loud and passionate.  Volume 11, baby!

Saturday, February 03, 2007

Discussions On The Cross Vs. The New Law

“But shun foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law; for they are unprofitable and worthless.  Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.”
Titus 3:9-11

There have been a lot of discussions recently, in some of which I’ve commented, appearing on some blogs which I periodically visit concerning good works (specifically, something we Lutherans refer to as “3rd use of the law") in the faith of the believer.

The core issue that arises is what do a believer’s good works matter in terms of his or her salvation.  Now, just recently, there’s been a great clarification of a portion of this over at the Daylight blog where there’s clearly been some very solid research done.  If you’re at all interested in this subject, I highly recommend you take a look.

But one of the main reasons this is so hot and heavy for some of us is that it is no small thing to say, or even to implicate, that following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is instituted a new law that believers must follow.  This new law is based on the Christian’s behavior, once coming to faith, typically being backed by the book of James, which reads, “Faith without works is dead.”

You might miss it because those espousing such a position will often openly admit that as a Christian, your works do not matter to your salvation.  But in everything else that’s preached at you, you may discern that it does in fact matter (such discernment usually takes time).  Your works are essentially being used as a measuring system by others who are trying to figure out what to feed you, gospel or law, and to inform you that you’re in danger if your works seem to be counter to Christian faith.

Without delving into many texts at the moment, suffice it to say that the core treasure that was rediscovered in the Reformation by theologians like Dr. Martin Luther is that we don’t - and can’t - offer anything towards our salvation in our works.  The best news in this rediscovery is that if you have faith in Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection for your redemption, whether you consciously try or do not try to perform good works in your life after having come to the faith, all your sins, including the sins of not even attempting to do good works when given the opportunity, are covered by the blood of Jesus.  Those sins died on the cross as well.

To even begin to imply that a believer’s works, good and bad, have anything to do to affect their salvation, is an old heresy - one that Luther himself fought against when he went up against Rome.  As a matter of fact, the concept of one’s works being attributed to one’s own salvation, even the slightest bit, is actually Roman Catholicism.

And the problem is, though they won’t admit it openly, what is being espoused by many “Lutheran” pastors, often through implication, is that your works DO somehow affect your salvation.  And on the other side of the argument, it has become clear that many “Lutheran” pastors are truly paranoid of their flocks arriving at the understanding that in the faith, they don’t need to hear the law anymore because they believe in Christ Jesus (antinomianism - that the believer has a right to sin).

These two issues go hand-in-hand because what the flock will typically end up hearing when the pastor has these things going on in his mind is the old law of the Old Testament followed by the saving grace of Christ Jesus for their sins followed by the new law about making sure we consciously strive towards good works in the faith of what was just preached to us (to make sure the flock doesn’t run off raping and pillaging in their new-found freedom of the grace of the cross).  Lutherans would call this preaching structure law-gospel-law.

The awful part about this, as is laid out well in the Daylight blog entry, is that even though it may not be very obvious to the average believer upon hearing it the first, second, third or more times, such a message will ultimately condemn the believer and risks putting him or her on the road to unbelief.  Because all the law does is condemn and point to Christ, that is its job.  It requires something of us that we can not do, shows us how far we fall short, and in so doing reveals our need for a savior.

So, we Lutherans tend to get a bit touchy when the grace of the cross is somehow implied to not be enough for some sins, such as not doing good works.  And in one particular case, some of us have been arguing against such a position on blogs recently, which is where the initial reading from Titus above comes into play.

It is tough to see erroneous positions being pushed by someone that many may heed simply because of his position and background.  And it makes it difficult for Lutherans like myself, for whom the errors against the grace of the cross are so very obvious, to not enter the fray and make such errors clear to any readers who may come along and read such arguments against the full grace of Jesus.

But, portions of scripture, such as I’ve quoted at the top, make it clear that it’s best for us not to get on a treadmill with such people who are self-condemning.  So, I write this entry in many ways for myself in order that I may remember that there is One greater than any who come on to blogs and speak erroneous doctrine with an air of authority.

Though it does sadden me to read such tripe, and I pray it doesn’t help lead anyone onto the road to unbelief who may be on a fence about such things, the hardest part is that it makes me very angry to see the gospel of the Lord turned on its head by those who are supposed to know better and whom many may trust.  And such false teachings are done so very artfully, that unless you know what’s happening, you’ll more than likely miss it.  Such teachings are very seductive that way.

So, at this point, if you’ve taken the time to read this long exposition of mine, and you’re curious, I would urge you to read Luther’s commentaries on Galatians, or at the very least Luther’s Preface to his commentaries that Kobra posted on his blog recently.  It is arguably some of Luther’s best work and it goes directly up against the arguments that I’ve been talking about.  Plus, it must have some strong and condemning things to say to some… I found out recently that, as great as they are, these commentaries are not even used in one of the major seminaries of the LCMS.  Yikes.

So to wrap this up, I will end on something that used to be taught at Springfield seminary to many pastors-to-be by the likes of Dr. Howard Tepker and Harry Huth (and woe to this synod for not continuing such teachings):

“Brethren, you will get to feeling that your congregation is not responding well to the gospel.  You will then be tempted to use the law on them.  Resist this temptation, brethren.  There is no power in the law.”

Friday, January 12, 2007

More On Music And Meaning

I commented recently on another blog about my point of view on several aspects of contemporary worship and churches, based on a recent post on Mark Galli’s blog.  Then something funny happened.  I was sitting here watching my son watch another episode of one of his favorite shows, “Blue’s Clues”, and they were doing an episode centered around rhythms.  As I was only half-paying attention most of the show, it began to dawn on me near the end that there was something going on in the episode that I think most people miss.

To backtrack a little bit, several years back a friend and I went to a church we know, visiting the evening contemporary service, and we’d recently been having a discussion about the type of music that is played in contemporary praise songs.  One of the comments my friend made in the middle of the service, writing it on the service bulletin with the pencil in the pew and handing it to me, was this, “This would presume that the music doesn’t have it’s own meaning.”

Now, off the top of my head I can’t remember what led to that first part of the sentence, but the core meaning that he was conveying to me in that one little sentence scrawled on a piece of paper has always stuck with me.  That is, music, just the sound and timing of it, carries its own meaning.

Well, this has historically been a fairly subjective discussion, but I find it very interesting that the folks putting together a simple children’s show understand this principle of music and its meaning while many that I’ve spoken to in church seem to miss it.  In the episode that my son was watching, one of the puzzles that was placed before him was to try to figure out what was supposed to happen next in a story just from the music (and rhythm) that was being played on a piano.

One of the first ones was a lullaby.  The question was placed before the viewers, “What is this rhythm telling us to do?” Remember, there were no lyrics in this piece, only music.  Eventually, you hear a child’s voice say, “Go to sleep!” So the main character of the show begins to take a nap.

The music changes to be fairly energetic, and again the question is given to the viewers, “Now what is the music telling us to do?” The answer?  “Wake up!” The main character then jumps up.  (I think at this point there were one or two other instances like this that I don’t remember.)

Soon, the main character is standing in front of an image of a little schoolhouse.  The music and tempo changes and the music is clearly marching music.  “Now what are we supposed to do?” Answer?  “March!”

The main character begins marching towards the school.  In the middle of this march, the music and tempo change again to a fast and hurried tune.  “What does this music mean?” “Run!” The main character promptly runs (due to apparent lateness) to the school.

There may have been one or two other things there at the end, but that was the core of it.  Amazing, huh?  I mean, the questions being put to the children have to do with discerning meaning from music without any lyrics.  Have you thought about this in regards to the different types of music being used in different Christian churches these days?  What is the music telling you?  (Just the music, ignore the lyrics - the lyrics are a whole other discussion.)

Let me ask this… Does the music you hear in church impart reverence? Now, don’t be too quick to answer that.  Princeton University’s WordNet defines reverence:

Noun
* S: (n) fear, reverence, awe, veneration (a profound emotion inspired by a deity) “the fear of God”
* S: (n) reverence (a reverent mental attitude)

Verb
* S: (v) reverence, fear, revere, venerate (regard with feelings of respect and reverence; consider hallowed or exalted or be in awe of) “Fear God as your father”; “We venerate genius”

At its core, reverence is in large part driven by a sense of fear.  Does the music at your church help impart reverence, or does its sound have more of a light-hearted party-attitude?

A friend of mine went and heard this particular group, Anonymous 4 (Real Audio sample), at a Greek Orthodox church (he was not a member, he only went to see the performance), and from what he described, when they were done, I don’t think there was a dry eye in the house.  See, there’s something wonderful about music and architecture that impart reverence because I think it does such a great job of giving us a sense of the majesty and awe of the Father and what He sacrificed for us on the cross.

And, conversely, I think that music and architecture that don’t do such a thing in church are doing all of us a disservice.  I think much of the music out there in Christian churches comes across as too light-hearted, at best.  I also believe the sound of it imparts a meaning that draws away from the cross and focuses on me and my love for God and my efforts and good works for God.  This is a huge issue, because that kind of self-focused theology is one that does not save.  It is very important for us sheep to always be focusing outwards to the cross because it is not our natural tendency.  In our fallen nature, we fight looking outwards, preferring rather to look inwards to see what great things we ourselves have done, such as choosing Christ.  We don’t choose Christ.  We can’t of our own volition “come to Christ”.  That’s why we need the Spirit.

Now, before I digress too far, I’m not against music that is happy and carefree that helps us understand the happiness and joy of God.  I think there’s a place for such things, but if we’re not going to experience the reverence of the theology of Jesus Christ in church, where else are we going to get it in this culture?

See, I’ve spent plenty of time in the incredible Christian cathedrals of Europe, and boy, you talk about reverence.  It doesn’t matter what you believe… when anyone walks in there, he or she knows to speak in hushed tones.  I miss that more than I can possibly say.  Imagine being able to go to a church service like the those at Kings College Cambridge.  I happened to be able to hear the Christmas Day service live on public radio this year, and it brought me to tears.  I would give anything to be able to go to a church like this, and I weep for what has been lost in this country.

Think hard on this.  I suspect much more is going on underneath the seemingly innocuous discussion of church style and music and hymnody.  I believe it’s very important to focus on the deep meanings of what we’re saying in our music and confessing (or not) with our mouths.

To wrap this all up, let me just leave you with a couple of images.  Just pause for a moment and imagine worshiping in a place like this every week.  And, believe me, these pictures do not do the place justice.  You have no idea how grand the place actually is until you’re standing there… in awe.

Thursday, January 04, 2007

No More Defender For 2000

Well, if you’re one of those people who uses (or has been using) the superior anti-spyware package Windows Defender and you also happened to be a die-hard Windows 2000 user like myself, the new year has been a big pain in the ass for you.

Come to find out that at the turn of the new year, Windows Defender no longer supports Windows 2000, only Windows XP.  Great news.  Looks like my only option is to uninstall it.

Pretty sad considering that the software was so superior to its peers even before Microsoft bought it from Giant.  Well, hey, I guess I should count myself luck.  At least Microsoft has been kind enough to let me use it for free this long.

Thank you, Microsoft!  Ohhh, thank you!