If someone bequeathed $1.5B. to your denomination, how would you like that money to be used and how would you like the denomination to handle the dangers of such sudden wealth?

New Church starts. Supporting native missionaries thoroughly. Theological education on the mission field. Substantial and ongoing social programs in acutely suffering places. Endowment of worthy minsitries to relieve them of the need to raise funds. Translation work. Communications and technology for missions. Radio Stations.

No Salaries. No buildings in America. No CCM. No missionaries on Mars.

Buy every member of the LCMS the beer of their choice, as a good will gesture.

Hey Josh—out of all the drunks in here tonight, who’s been the nicest to you? The Anglican, the Campbellite, or yours truly, The Calvinist? C’mon man. You know where all that real Reformation love is comin’ from :-)

So you have Martin and John. Where’s Abraham?

I call BS on that LCMS article on closed (or “close” which doesn’t make a nickel’s worth of sense) communion. So, let me understand this, if you take communion at a particular church (and we’ll get to what the church really is in just a moment) then you are saying you agree with every jot and tittle that church teaches? There has never been a church I’ve attended where I believed every thing that was taught there. I guess I was a liar when I partook of communion at these places.

Let me ask you (and this is addressed to no one in particular): when Jesus looks upon his church, what does he see? Does he see Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists, Campbellites, Pentecostals, Methodists? No, he sees the CHURCH which is not restricted by any label attached to it by man. Therefore, if I’m at a Catholic church, and I don’t believe in transubstantiation, am I eating and drinking condemnation onto myself? Does God think that when I take communion there? I don’t think so.

Judge yourself. That’s the rule I have. In my church, anyone who professes Christ can partake of the Lord’s supper. Whatever significance or theology behind it is their business.

So here we have these two fellows going to church tomorrow. Martin and John.

Both have a living faith in Jesus Christ as Lord as the one who died and rose for their salvation. They say the Apostle’s Creed with equal enthusiasim. They both carry their Bibles into church with equal enthusiaism because they believe that the Bible is the Word of God and that the Living God will speak to them through the Word, by the Spirit.

Both believe that Christ has commanded his church to preach the Word and observe the Sacraments. (In this case, we will be discussing the LS.) Both Martin and John believe that as Christians, they should receive the Word that is taught and partake of the sacrament when offered in worship to God through Jesus Christ.

Both believe the Gospel is offered in Word and Sacrament. Both believe that, without faith, what is offered, though truly offered, will be of no benefit.

Both believe Christ is truly, savingly present in the Word preached and in the Sacrament offered. Both believe that the Christ who is present in Word and Sacrament is there offering forgiveness of sins and eternal life, through the death and Life of Jesus “for you.”. Both believe that it is God the Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit active in both Word and Sacrament.

Both believe that Jesus is really present. However, neither one believes that the elements of the LS contain the molecules or DNA of the physical body of Jesus. Neither believe that a labratory or panel of experts would find the physical body of Jesus really present. Yet both believe Christ is really present, really offered, in all his benefits, promises and power. Both believe that the RCC’s re-enactment of the sacrifice of Jesus is in error. Neither believes the elements are to be adored or worshiped.

Both approach the sacrament with awe and wonder. They see the sacrament as an encounter with a Holy God, who offers us himself through his Son in the Gospel. Both seek to take the sacrament worthily, discerning in the sacrament the Body and Blood of Jesus offered for them. Both believe this is the New Covenant in the Blood of Jesus. Both believe this proclaims the Lord’s death. Both believe it is a participation in the life and death of Jesus.

Yet they differ.

They differ on what it means that Christ is really present. John believes the sacrament is a sign of Gospel, that Christ is present, but spiritually mediated. Martin believes His true body and blood are actually, really, truly present and distributed to those who eat. John reads Jesus’ words as true. So does Martin.

Now, what is the rest of this story? It is the story of how these two Christians view and treat one another. I believe Luther- one of my greatest heroes- failed miserably when he insisted that those who differed with him on this were heretics and fanatics, and I think it is a painful legacy. I think all the Reformers failed in failing to find a kind of unity that would allow John and Martin to worship, study and pray together as happy brothers in One body.

I honor the Reformers, but I do believe we might do better than what they left us on this one.

Josh: You seem to be assuming a lot. For example, that there is no explanation other then RP for those who eat and drink unworthily. Or that Holy Mystery = Real Presence, while anything less than .*ns-substantiation = Curious Symbol. Those aren’t answers, and they aren’t real objections, they’re exercises in circular reasoning. Your silly insults are tiring, the more so because I know you’re capable of more. And I’m tired of dancing around them, too. They’re silly insults. Saying that the theology of the Lord’s Supper that is understood and practiced by the majority of contributors to this blog amounts to treating the Lord’s Supper as a “curious symbol” is a childish insult, and it is beneath you. We could all be wrong, but we’re not all stupid.

I left this subject alone for quite a while because you refuse to engage the Scripture beyond statements that anything other than a literal reading of “this is my body” is a false gospel. Not even just a literal reading, but your definition of a literal reading, which somehow changes depending on the passage read. Your personal attacks and simple-mindedness coupled with many references to scholars of note are disingenuous at best, and might even conceal a genuine ignorance.

I’m not cowed much by quotes of scholars. I haven’t read the same scholars you have, but I’ve read enough of your own blog to know that you haven’t (or hadn’t) encountered much in the way of “real” Calvinism before converting to Lutheranism, either.

Chemnitz is fine, but we clearly haven’t all read Chemnitz. You know this, and you keep bringing it up. Umm, grow up! If you can’t appeal to first principles on the subject, the rest of it means nothing to me. Luther says the Popes and councils of the church could err. I say that Luther could err, too. Lining up who believed what throughout history is pointless, since all that really matters is what Jesus and Paul said, nothing else.

So when you want to get back to engaging the text without the name-calling, feel free. Other than that, I’m tuning out. Again.

Josh:

Just a few weeks ago, weren’t you decrying the shoehorn of “Western Logic” which has led us to these lamentable and incorrect categories we have today? It seems to me I oughta fit right into your scheme, with my failure to disbelieve either view.

A good overview of Biblical movies, Jesus movies, and The Gospel of John, which I am buying today for my study of John I’ll be starting later this year.

The way I see it, if Christ can’t be present in the Lord’s Supper, then he can’t be present anywhere. And if he can’t be present anywhere, then it’s certainly absurd to believe that he dwells in me or along with me or anything like that. Then I have no reason to believe that any of the divine grace in him is mine.

Clearly, this is the crucial part of your argument. It’s extremely helpful to me to see in plain words.

I can’t help but feel we are in a very strange quibble here, since I know that you do agree that if the elements are taken to the lab, the DNA of Jesus does not appear. You are therefore talking about “present” in a way different than I say the keyboard under my fingers is present.

While it’s characteristic of you to demean the Reformed and the Zwinglians as almost ridiculing Christ through their view of the LS, I am sure you know that none of us here partake of the LS with the mindset of negation, demeaning and ridicule that you portray. We worship Christ in grateful tears when we come to the Table. You say that we reject the LS in favor or a 45 minute lecture on theology (loving to hear the sound of our own voice), as if we did not believe Christ is present in both Word and Sacrament and that we worship him in both receiving the Sacrament and in hearing the Word. In fact, Josh, in all love, I have to say that your continued portrayal of non-Lutheran positions as an attack upon Christ is painful to me personally. (Which I know doesn’t matter all that much, and shouldn’t.) I am a sissy. I would have left Marburg in tears, I admit. I’m not the man for these battles.

I simply know that our position is not a demeaning and a ridiculing of the incarnation or a turning of “real” Christianity into some kind of conceptual gnosticism that denies, denies and denies the reality of Jesus. I have a better sense of your journey now, and all I can say it’s unlike anything I have ever heard. I now understand why you feel Reformed men are dishonest to quote Luther and represent the Lutheran reformation as somehow their own, and I feel how it disturbs you that the Lutheran position on these matters is misunderstood. I’ve certainly done more study on this than I can ever thank you for. But I can’t get this conclusion that those who embrace the presence of Christ and the Gospel in different terms than you are conducting a war against the true faith, a war focused on Christ himself. That is strange to me.

But then I haven’t read Chemnitz yet. I’m missing that information. (JN)

First I will refer everyone to Martin Chemnitz’s “The Lord’s Supper.” Most of what everyone has said requires more response time than I can afford in a simple post. Surprisingly enough, when you collectively raise 5,000 objections to the Words of Institution, that Christ could not have meant what he said, I can’t answer all of them. However, I will do what I can:

If Christ was simply using a simile, why do those who eat and drink unworthily eat and drink judgement to themselves? How is the bread the partaking of the body of Christ if we are dealing with a mere metaphor? Why does the entire ancient church confess the Sacrament of the Lord’s body & blood to be a holy mystery instead of a curious symbol? Why do people who literally knew and spoke with and were taught by the Apostles such as Irenaeus not understand those words to be metaphorical? Were the apostles and their disciples all deceived, and required Ulrich Zwingli to explain to them where they erred?

Yes, Jesus literaly gave Peter (and the apostles) the keys to the kingdom of heaven. These keys are real keys, but not of the sort made of steel or brass. They are spiritual keys—the power to forgive or retain sin.

Jesus says “I am the bread of life.” He does not represent the bread of life. The metaphor consists not in the copula is, but in “bread,” which we are to understand not as being bread made of wheat, but true spiritual sustenance. But when he says “This is my body,” he is holding forth literal bread, and his body is also a literal thing. I also believe that Jesus is the true light of the world, not that he merely represents it or is a symbol of it. Does anyone doubt that the faithful are truly Christ’s brothers? Or do we simply symbolize Christ’s brothers? Is the relationship Christ has with us through faith not one of kinship?

Besides, we don’t have Alex or Judson saying “This is my body.” We have the Son of God saying it, through whom all things were created. There is no compelling reason to believe that when he instituted his last will and testament, he was speaking in dark, unclear, metaphorical language. I don’t doubt that he is able to do this, because he is God. This is not a parable; it is the last will and testament of the Son of God on the night when he was to be betrayed. It is not simply a bizarre metaphor—it is a ritual to be enacted in the church until he returns. When he says “This cup is the new covenant in my blood,” I believe him, because when I read the Old Testament, I see that ratification of the covenant and the application of blood go hand in hand. Am I supposed to believe that God has now provided a new and strange covenant of bloodless ratification?

What’s the point of agreeing on what is “at the heart of rightly receiving the supper” if we don’t agree on what is received in the Supper? One person says we receive nothing, and another says we receive the body and blood of Christ. How can I apprehend something by faith if it isn’t there? Unlike John Calvin, I’m unable to ascend into the heavenlies with my soul. The way I see it, if Christ can’t be present in the Lord’s Supper, then he can’t be present anywhere. And if he can’t be present anywhere, then it’s certainly absurd to believe that he dwells in me or along with me or anything like that. Then I have no reason to believe that any of the divine grace in him is mine. Then the substance of Christianity must consist primarily in intellectual concepts and propositions rather than any kind of real participation in something holy and divine.

In fact, if Christ can’t be present in the Lord’s Supper, then I daresay that it makes sense to practice it quarterly and have the church service revolve around a 45-minute lecture on theology.

Michael, the Last Supper took place prior to I Corinthians. So I’m going to wager that the Words of Institution predate Paul. Chemnitz did an excellent study on them, but who’s listening?

Judson: Lutherans are fond of calling anyone who’s not Roman Catholic or Lutheran “Reformed.” So Wesleyans, Pentecostals, Baptists, and Presbyterians are all “Reformed.” Who woulda thunk?

I really don’t get how the Lutheran doctrine (the bread is the body of Christ, take and eat) and the Reformed (the bread is just bread, the body of Christ you will obtain as the Holy Spirit carries your soul up into heaven) can both be true, but then, I’m pretty closed-minded and not big on diversity.

I don’t really have a big problem with transubstantiation other than its sophistry.

Calvin’s “Heads of Agreement” on the Lord’s Supper (agreement with the minister of Zurich.) A good short view of Calvin’s theology of the Supper.

The LCMS view of the Lord’s Supper and Closed Communion.

A good LCMS statement on the Lord’s Supper.

Another post on I Cor and the Lord’s Supper. This is clearer and has more conclusions to it. I’m really saying that Calvin’s view is the strongest view, at least as I read this. More »« Less

Here’s more on I Corinthians 10 and the Lord’s Supper. More »« Less

We are having a great discussion on the Lord’s Supper over at the BHT. I could archive a lot of things over here, but I want to get three posts together that say some things I may not remember I ever said this clearly! More »« Less

I seem to be on to something here, that is at least helpful for me. The text. Without footnotes :)

It’s fairly important to me to reiterate the point that we can take I Corinthians without the Gospels on this matter because we are talking about what was quite obviously a fully formed theological matter that Paul has passed on to the Corinthians. (Not like the Trinity that needed time to hammer out, and needs the whole Bible to make the case.)

I Cor 10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

I Cor 10:21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. (Spencer: I think we can say that Paul isn’t teaching the “real presence” of demons in pagan cups, but that participation in the real worship of pagan Gods is wrong. We can argue this point, but it is an important parallel that clarifies a lot for me.)

I Cor 11:25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

(Note: Mark 14:23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.) [Spencer: a significant difference in Mark’s wording. Is Paul not aware of it? Has Mark altered the tradition in order to be stronger? Critical scholars love this stuff. I’ll be simpler. They mean the same thing. And that’s what we’re typing all this ink about :)]

I Cor 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

I Cor 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. (Spencer paraphrase of the positive: Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in a worthy manner honors/reverences/worships the body and blood of the Lord)

OK. We now come up with something like this. And I am picking the cup rather than the bread because the language is different in verse 25, and I think that is significant.

The Cup is
a) A fellowship in the blood of Christ
b) The cup that worships/honors Christ, rather than demons
c) The New Covenant
d) Remembering of Christ
e) A proclamation of Christ

Now earlier, in I Cor 10:4b For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

So Paul is using the same kind of language that he used earlier in reading the OT “lessons.”

Now I work with all this like this. Where can I stand and get it all? Not have to EXPLAIN any of these as somehow less crucial to the true nature of the Lord’s Supper? As I said, Paul is dealing with a pastoral problem and not teaching a catechism class. I won’t go any further into detail, because I think the point is made. It’s strongly made. And it is made in a way that you can’t just keep carving “hoc est corpus meum” into the table and not deal with these other dimensions of what is going on, or the prior use of language earlier in I Cor.

I tend to read scripture from the standpoint of a literary critic. In other words, I am interested in how langauge works within literary genre and literary use, and not in how (Biblical) language translates directly into philosophy or theology or- heaven help us- science. I have resisted going to my literary critical sources to look at this passage, or even doing too much exegesis. I am just asking “What does the text say “the cup IS?” and how can I listen to the text and hear all it is saying without shortchanging or muting any of it’s message.

In my measley little Protestant with a Bible opinion, the linguistic example set by Paul in the earlier part of I Cor 10 regarding the experience of the Israelites as baptism, etc. leans very, very strongly in the direction that these are events that participate completely in the thing itself, but that it is pressing the language too far to say it is the thing itself. I think the competition to see “Who can honor Christ the most by being the most literal?” was a big mistake. The language says enormously important things without this debate!

Is it possible to come down closer to Calvin’s view from I Cor, and then the Gospels move us more to an RP view?

I’m off to the literary critical shelf. Back later.

I’ve actually thought for some time that the Post-Modernists could avoid a lot of criticism if they would just start explaining that various things they believe are “mysteries.” As Judson points out, how can you possibly criticize something that, by definition, you can’t ever really understand?

The beauty of this is that it leads one to be able to say as Judson does (sorry, Judson), that while A IS NOT B, and I BELIEVE A, I DON’T DISBELIEVE B. The flattening of the double-negative means that Judson is saying A IS NOT B, A IS TRUE, B IS TRUE. Clearly there is a problem, but then again, It’s a mystery!

The funny thing is, I respect Judson’s view even though I don’t think it makes sense. I respect it a bit more, frankly, than one from someone who implies pretty strongly that I’m not a Christian, even if I don’t think that was quite his intent.

I guess I need to let go of my Rationalism, which tells me that I should be able to get to the bottom of every mystery. Really, it’s the core of Modernism, so I must embrace Post-Modernism. Or Pre-Modernism, I suppose, which seems to be the Lutheran view.

One of the requirements for becoming a member of my Lutheran church was attending a series of classes.

During one of these classes, I was instructed in the Lutheran understanding of the Lord’s Supper, and how it differs from other major views (Roman Catholic and Reformed).

My entire Christian life, I had never given deep thought to the meaning of the words “This is my body”. During every communion I had partaken, I had simply been occupied with an awareness of my sinfulness, and a trust in Christ’s forgiveness. This always seemed to do the trick. At no time during this long stage of my disciplehood did I ever walk away from a communion not believing I was forgiven.

I never rigorously studied my beliefs on the Lord’s Supper when I was “Reformed”. (It’s pretty laughable that my Southern Baptist upbringing could be described as “Reformed” by anyone, even a Lutheran. That seems to me to rely way too much on historical family tree-ism, and not much on looking out your window to see what’s really going on.)

Now, I was being told that the machinery behind all of this was that the bread and wine are REALLY Christ’s body and blood, and that’s what makes the forgiveness possible. And furthermore, I was being told that, yeah, it sounds wierd, but it’s a mystery, so accept it.

Guess what I did?

I accepted it.

If this “new” understanding is the Gospel, I have to report, with shame, that my change has been rather anticlimactic. In fact, I am positively blas้ about it. If I start walking away from Lutheran Lord’s suppers feeling more forgiven than I used to, I suppose I’ll know something is up.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m fully aware that biblical truth doesn’t require my experiential validation to remain, well, valid. But I’m repeatedly hearing from many theologically-minded people that what I believe matters, and it will inevitably make an objective difference in my life. So, if what they say is true, I ought to expect some experiential validation at some point. If there is something more experientially wonderful than feeling forgiven for my sins, as I have been all along, bring it on.

I also have to report, to my shame, that, while I can easily believe that Christ’s body and blood are REALLY present in the bread and wine in a mysterious way (well, it’s a mystery, how the hell you gonna NOT believe it?) I still cannot disbelieve in the Reformed view. (The RC view, that’s another animal altogether).

Now that I’m becoming a Lutheran, I’m getting more instruction on the matter than I ever had before. (Also thanks to Josh and the timely discussions here).

So, if I want to be a good Lutheran, I’d better not ever promulgate the “Reformed” view again. I’d better promulgate the Lutheran one.

Shouldn’t be a problem, since I believe it. Mysteries are quite easy to believe. In fact, there’s really no argument against them. That’s handy, and ought to make it easy to be a Lutheran on this.

However, if I want to be a good disciple, I think I’d better be all things to all people. That’s a mind-bending doctrine which ought to be much more difficult to unravel, and to live out, than the mere Lord’s Supper.

Other thoughts.

I hear in certain circles that you might get excommunicated from Lutheranism if you promulgate any belief other than young-earth creationism. I have little fear of this in my current fellowship, but if I ever rub up against it, I’M OUTTA THERE. I cannot communicate clearly enough just how much I detest this philosophy. My reasons are intensly personal. In fact, if you are a young-earth creationist, it will take all of my Christian charity not to use the f-word in front of you (and I don’t mean the carnal knowledge word. It’s another 4-letter f-word which would put me in danger of the fires of hell if I used it.)

Lastly-

I think it very feckless to ever use the phrase “The Real Presence is the Gospel”, or “Calvinism is the Gospel”. Now, I undersand why people do it, and I highly respect some people I’ve heard do it. But it always dies the death of a hundred qualifications, all of which can easily be lost through the ages as people focus on the core phrase.

I think it much more charitable to say “Jesus saves sinners” is the Gospel.

Now let’s play “trumping the epistles with the Gospel” with Brother Michael, a game Michael learned to play with Anabaptist friends who say the Sermon on the Mount renders Romans 13 null and void on the question of pacificism. :-)

Here’s a first rate page giving the concensus of NT scholars dating the NT books. Very useful.

Please note the dates of the following books:

Mark: Early 60’s.
I Corinthians: Early 50’s

OK. Our relevant text here, I Cor, was written at least ten years earlier than the concensus on Mark, and so we need to look at the I Cor passages as they would have been read before any Gospels were written, without trumping them with Gospel passages. (Even though they were not considered canonical, but were considered apostolic, at the time.) Fair enough?

I Cor 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

I Cor 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

I Cor 10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

I Cor 10:10:1 I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

Now, we have in these passages, language that is:

-Unambiguously literal (When you drink the cup)
-Ambiguously literal (This is my body)
-Clearly symbolic (They were baptized into Moses)
Explanatory, didactic (the cup is a participation in the blood of Christ, we are one body like the bread is one loaf, eating the supper proclaims the Lord’s death)

From this kind of language, our various Protestant traditions conclude:

1) The Bread and the Wine are the real body and blood of Jesus.
2) The Bread and the Wine are a fellowship in the death and life of Jesus
3) The Bread and the Wine are symbols of the death and life of Jesus.

I will fully agree that these three cannot all be true, and that the passage means one thing is true. I assume we differ as to which of the above options allows the passage to be interpreted consistently. I personally do not feel the passage is clear enough to rule those who choose ANY of those interpretations as rejecting the Gospel itself, the incarnation, etc. While one interpretation lies behind these words and one truth is taught, I do not find the passage resolute upon resolving these questions, and the language allows differences in interpretation within the confines of Christian charity. (But what do I know? I’m an idiot :)

BTW- I fully understood an agreed with Josh’s statements about the Small Catechism and effacacy. I simly thought the SCs emphasis on faith taking hold of what was offered in the words “for you” is what all three traditions believe is at the heart of rightly receiving the supper.

UPDATE: If I were going to exend the argument, I might talk about this:
“This cup is the new covenant in my blood” = “This is my blood.” (?) I don’t think so. If there is a key that the language is not pressing to the very literal, then this is it, but I also know how I would anser my own objection.

In contemplating all of the recent discussion, I really have been taken back to my encounters with the Campbellites in my early years. Here were folks who said they were standing on the NT alone. They were preaching the only true an simple gospel. They had the only Biblical ecclesiology. They were as adamant about baptisimal regeneration as Josh is about the RP. And they cheerfully concluded one could not be a Christian without being a member of their local fellowship, or in the more moderate variety, without being redunked by them asap.

I always had about me a very broad acceptance of other Chriistians. I grew up in a fundamentalist, anti-intellectual ghetto, and every crack of light I found was precious to me. Long before I studied doctrine, I was thrown into fellowship with other Christians. In the Christian student Union at school, we had all 57 varieties, and we managed to pull off a reasonable kind of “Mere Christianity” despite many obvious differences. Here at OBI, I work with and minister to all different kinds of Christians, and I praise God for what I see in the lives of my coworkers and students.

Along the way, I was “ruined,” and I say that only half in jest, because I attended so many different gatherings of Christians, and found so many wonderful Christians in all those fellowships. I began to read and worship more widely, and I began to see my own tradition critically. So it has never been hard for me to accept those I differ with as “Christians” as long as they definition was one of living faith in Christ, and not one that defined the whole doctrinal scheme.

So let me be very clear. I would happily have Rick Warren preach in my chapel to my students. I would not join his church, or encourage others to do so, but I want to hear his testimony of faith in Jesus. I’ve had Pentecostals, Arminians, goofy evangelicals, etc in my chapel to talk about Jesus. I have prayed with them, sang with them and embraced them in whatever kind of visible unity I could affirm. I don’t hold back in my broad acceptance of most of those I criticize as being people of a true faith in Jesus, who is our salvation.

Obviously, the BHT has been hosting a two year discussion on just where we draw lines in that acceptance. I draw it at T.D. Jakes. PW does not. I can’t offer a clear conscience acceptance to someone who overtly denies essential doctrines. (Though I freely admit there are differing views of the essentials.) I’m pretty comfortable with anyone who is either intentionally or passively banking on the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds.

But I would not have those same Arminians, Pentecostals, Warrenites, etc in my church as preachers or members. In a church that endorses a particular confession, it shouldn’t be hard to stand on that confession. Call me hypocritical. Call me overly influenced by revivalism. I am one of those heretics who believes there is a level of fellowship possible in our mutual acceptance of one another around Jesus, that may not be possible within a particular confessional fellowship.

Mark 9:38 John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. 40 For the one who is not against us is for us. 41 For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward.

So I’m not at all opposed to bluntly stating how strongly a person feels about the Gospel, and I’m not at all opposed to strong dialogue over the nature of that Gospel in its particulars. But I am very reluctanct to go to the heart of salvation- simple faith in Jesus; salvation by grace through faith by Christ- and question that salvation based on disagreement over other particular matters. Even is saying I cannot accept you into my church, I’m not rejecting your salvation or your profession of faith.

Now I know that we can start anyone in Christian doctrine and rapidly draw a line back to the heart of the matter and say everything is some aspect of an essential and therefore without total doctrinal agreement, there is no fellowship. I can’t endorse that. I’m sorry. I see far too much diversity in the NT itself to believe it.

I managed to snap this photo of Josh last night. I kept thinking I had seen him somewhere before.

Josh is a wonderful guy. Very enjoyable visit and I hope it won’t be the last. Here is a guy that God made to be a Lutheran Seminary Professor. Brilliant, but gracious and funny. We had a super time getting to know each other. I hope that his time on the BHT will not only benefit us in understanding Lutheranism, but will benefit him in using the obvious gifts he’s been given in life.

My wife wants to start cooking for him immediately.

When I first heard of Joan Kroc’s staggering gift to the Sally Ann, $1.5 Billion to build community centres, I thought this might turn out to be a curse within a blessing. I hope not, but the leaders of the Army will need unusual wisdom in the coming years if they are to avoid the pitfalls.

If someone bequeathed $1.5B. to your denomination, how would you like that money to be used and how would you like the denomination to handle the dangers of such sudden wealth?

My husband wants to know what you’re smoking and whether or not you’re sharing. Heh…me, cool?

Bah. :)

Thanks for the compliment, though. ;-)

I know I haven’t been around much lately, and everyone else has probably already observed this, but doncha think Amanda is darned cool? For a girl, I mean. She has hung in there with us guys for I-don’t-know-how-many months, and she’s still in there slinging it around. By my estimate, she’s lasted waaaay longer than any other female yet, (the incomparable Mrs. Spencer being excluded from the list given that she kinda came with the place). It makes me wonder exactly how neaderthal Kurt must be… /GDR

An illustration of what an appalling waste my government school education was: I just finished The Grapes of Wrath Wednesday night – for the first time. Noel, put it high on your list.

I don’t remember the guy’s name, but he is the bass-player for Megadeath. We played together at our church’s Christmas concert. I played keys. He’s good. And yes – a believer.

I don’t think we could accuse the iMonk of saying that Arminians, Warrenites, and invitationalists do not enjoy the benefits of the Gospel. In fact, I believe his tent is a lot “bigger” than he lets on.

That said, I wholeheartedly agree with him. There are segments of Reformed Christianity that consider themselves “truly Reformed;” anyone who does not subscribe to their doctrinal or creedal conventions is heretic. Period. End of story. Which would make me a heretic, and most other evangelicals.

On the issue of communion, Jesus also said other things about himself: “I am the bread of life; I am the light of the world, etc, etc.” Now this is understood to be metaphorical language. He isn’t essentially bread or light. It is instead some shared characteristic that He is pointing out in each metaphor.

I can easily point to a pen and say “This is my weapon.” Of course, I don’t REALLY mean “This is the implement that I will use to defend myself against those who would inflict physical injury on me.” I mean something along the lines of “The pen is mightier than the sword.” Likewise, I can say “This is crock of sh*t,” and I don’t mean literally that this situation is the same. It just sucks.

There are other ways to interpret “This is my body” in light of above examples.

Josh, then it’s logical for me to conclude that you believe that an analysis of Jesus’ DNA would show that he, his disciples and you biologically have the same parents, since Jesus said so. Or that Jesus literally gave Peter a set of keys for heaven, and promised him that his shoes would never come untied. Or that Prayer is like the lottery, except you always win.

When he said, “This is my body,” what was he doing? He was holding the unleavened bread of the Passover supper. You’ve applied a hermenutic to this staement which, if consistently applied, renders much of the Gospel meaningless and inconsistent. If we’re to understand that he was speaking literally, and not using the bread and wine as similes, then what principle of interpretation decides that?

And I know this is going to sound childish, but the text I am concerned with is “This is My body,” not I Cor 10. Paul is able to say those things, not because the Holy Spirit revealed to him something beyond and beside those words of the Supper, but because of the Words of Institution (this may make me a liberal on inspiration). “Is this bread [yes, the very bread itself] not the participation in, fellowship of, distribution of, and partaking of the body of Christ?” Yes it is, Paul, because it is of this bread that Jesus has said “This is My body.” And where Christ’s body and blood are, there is the forgiveness of sins. And where the forgiveness of sins is, there is salvation and everything pertaining to life and godliness.

And there sits the text. The body and blood of Jesus himself. The text that cannot be altered and just says what it says, no footnotes allowed.

I am captive to no man’s theology, but the words of Christ are too powerful. If he points to a piece of bread and says “This is My body,” I will believe him. I don’t ask how this is possible, anymore than I ask how it can be possible that this man says of himself, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” Calvin, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Beza, Hodge, Nevin, and Warfield can construct ten thousand reasons why this cannot, must not, and should not be possible, valuable, or true, but Christ’s word is not bound by Reformed philosophy.

And, if Christ should say then of this, “Do this in remembrance of Me,” then I have no choice but to believe that this is a non-negotiable part of his command to make disciples of all nations, “teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you.” If you could give me some bearings from Scripture as to what is not included in “everything” that we may subtract it for the sake of friendship and unity, please do oblige.

I’m sorry if what I believe about the sacraments is offending people around here. The problem is, I don’t view beliefs as something you can change to make people happy. I genuinely believe that the Lord’s Supper is the Gospel, and that a Gospel without the Baptism and the Lord’s Supper suffers from anemia.

I will now attempt to answer the following question:

You are, then, declaring that all non-Lutherans are believing a false Gospel, and I would assume, do not enjoy the saving benefits of the true Gospel?

You have on this site said many harsh words about Arminianism, revivalism, and especially the experiential pietism that drives modern Protestantism. It seems to me that you don’t consider being harrassed about losing your salvation, manipulated into walking an aisle, or cultivating an ecstatic endorphin-driven experience and calling it worship compatible with the Gospel. I daresay that you’d balk at sharing a pulpit with Rick Warren.

I would assume, then, they do not enjoy the saving benefits of the true Gospel?

Notice the answer to “what is the Sacrament of the Altar?” is not “If I believe, it is the true body and blood of Jesus Christ.” Faith does not cause Christ to be present; rather, it makes use of Christ’s presence. In a similar way, the faith of the disciples did not cause Christ to appear among them, nor did the unbelief of the Pharisees cause Christ to be invisible to them, but because of the faith of the disciples, Christ was their savior, teacher, and Lord, while to the Pharisees, he was only a judge.

From the Large Catechism:

“Now this is plain and clear from the words just mentioned: This is My body and blood, given and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Briefly that is as much as to say: For this reason we go to the Sacrament because there we receive such a treasure by and in which we obtain forgiveness of sins. Why so? Because the words stand here and give us this; for on this account He bids me eat and drink, that it may be my own and may benefit me, as a sure pledge and token, yea, the very same treasure that is appointed for me against my sins, death, and every calamity.”

Also, “As if He said: For this reason I give it, and bid you eat and drink, that you may claim it as yours and enjoy it.”

The point of the SC is not that eating and drinking are unnecessary or of no avail, but that they in and by themselves accomplish nothing without faith; i.e, simply receiving the Sacrament with no faith is of no benefit.

Another day, another heresy.

Proof that Clinton was a Southern Baptist.

“It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” – Bill Clinton

Josh,

Dave Mustaine became a Christian about 2 years or so,, that was the rumour I heard anyway, right after Megadeth broke up and he hurt his hand or arm or something. I do not listen to his music but if he did that would probably shock a few people.

I don’t subscribe to the notion that the presence of the body & blood of Christ are effected by the faith of the communicant;

From Luther’s Small Catechism

IV. Q. How can physical eating and drinking do such great things? A. Of course, eating and drinking do not do these things. These words, written here, do them: “given for you” and “shed for you to forgive sins.” These words, along with physical eating and drinking are the important part of the sacrament. Anyone who believes these words has what they say and what they record, namely, the forgiveness of sins. (Ed: Is the converse true? Anyone who does not believe does not have what these words say?)

V. Q. Who, then, receives such a sacrament in a worthy way? A. Of course, fasting and other physical preparations are excellent disciplines for the body. But anyone who believes these words, “Given for you,” and “Shed for you to forgive sins,” is really worthy and well prepared. But whoever doubts or does not believe these words is not worthy and is unprepared, because the words, “for you” demand a heart that fully believes.

I know this doesn’t really speak to the RP issue, but golly Sheriff Taylor, I know a lot of people who can AGREE with that expression of the text’s teaching.

And for the record, I think “is” always put the text into a kind of ambiguity that won’t be resolved.

Michael: With tears in my eyes, I rejoice at your passionate expression of clinging to “first principles.” This is a theme of my pastor’s at our little Sunday night dinners, as well. And with more patience and in more detail than I could manage to make myself produce, you have put body with my trite statement that Josh sure pulls a heck of a lot out of “is”.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m suffused with the warm glow of enlightenment from reading your text, so I’m going to mediate on the “Real Doorknob” doctrine as I contemplate how Jesus is behind, over, and under “the door.” Tomorrow I’ll work on the “Real On/Off Switch” as I contemplate the same about Jesus being the light of the world.

Seriously, though, Michael, thanks.

I deny that a Gospel that finds its life and fulfillment in the eating and drinking of Christ’s body and blood and a Gospel that rejects this as the most abominable sacerdotalism and works-righteousness are the same Gospel.

You are, then, declaring that all non-Lutherans are believing a false Gospel, and I would assume, do not enjoy the saving benefits of the true Gospel?

Suddenly, the iMonk experiences flashbacks to days of yore long ago, when Church of Christ friends would smile and inform him that, since there was only one church, and one Gospel, and his church was not that church, and his Gospel was not that Gospel, he was going to hell.

I appreciate your post. It has all those qualities I like about you, and all those things that make my poor, ignorant, under-educated and under-read brain reel in intimidation. But I won’t be moved. I’ve lived through this sort of thing before, and I’m still preaching.

Like so many young theologians, it is very easy for you to take my text, apply it to the history of theology, and emerge saying there is not a third way. As a math student, I know you are quite serious with your theological calculus. And I agree that it either IS or IS NOT the real body/blood of Jesus.

But when I have been hooked onto the bumper of your theological hot rod and drug through the BHT parking lot several times because you say Zwinglians don’t really fully believe we are saved by the incarnation and either you are drinking the body and blood or you are not and the silence of the creeds speaks loudly for the Lutheran position, I’m not interested in a third way, as you see it or any other version. I just want my Christianity back, in some form. With the text of I Cor 10 please.

I said that we have the text. The “koinonia” in the body, blood, life and death of Jesus. I am not suggesting a third way. I am suggesting that the text imposes limits on the theologians. But the great, great tragedy is that so many theologians won’t live with that limit. Having calculated all the logical implications and unseen connections, they announce that the simple words of the text are actually the fault line between the true and false Gospel. And of course—-OF COURSE—every text proves the Lutheran position. And every text proves the Reformed position. And every text proves the Baptist position. And every text proves the RCC position. And every other position. Why? Because we studied, and wrote and polemicized and wrote and excommunicated and smiled at ourselves.

And there sits the text. The koinonia in the life and death of Jesus himself. The text that cannot be altered and just says what it says, no footnotes allowed.

I absolutely refuse to take anyone’s theology more seriously than I take the text. Including my own. In the RCC discussion I am in on the forum, my RC friend has objected, naturally, to my citing Luther’s words that popes have erred and councils have erred. WHICH ONES? She wants to know?

I’ll tell you. All of them. Including Luther. And Calvin. And all who followed in their wake. They erred. But THE TEXT DOES NOT ERR. So may I be so bold as to suggest that clinging to the words of the text, and putting ALL theological labels and machinations UNDER THE TEXT is not an attempt at THIRD WAY. It is attempting Mere Christianity in practice. It is putting the Word of God and the Christ of the Word in the place where I can find them in my life, worship and work.

I want to know my theology. But I am going to keep all my theological conclusions- Calvinistic soteriology, Wider Hope, Sovereignty, my literary views on inspiration and my Zwinglian views of the church- I am going to keep all of it on a shelf below what the text of scripture says. I’ll be happy to argue the text, and I’ll be happy to argue theology. But when I do not know the difference, someone stop me please. I have 150 staff, and hundreds of kids that I must preach to, and they need me to love the Christ of the text more than the Christ of anyone’s theology.

Josh: I should know better than this, but that’s a heck of a lot to draw from “is”.

Josh,

I read one of the Master & Commander books 15 years ago or so, and thought the same thing. What a waste of ink and paper.

I was hoping the movie would be better but I have not seen it.

I used to be infallible. February 11th will be the 20th anniversary of my becoming fallible.

I’ve always assumed “One Baptism” meant the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

“Yes, my life has changed and what was once just saying what my religious beliefs were with my lips, I now have acknowledged in my heart. Again, this will be discussed at my personal site. My personal beliefs are not going to be pushed on anyone and if you don’t like it, go somewhere else.”
—Dave Mustaine, in a recent post at Megadeth.com

Interesting, no?

Scott: You really got my mind running wild with thoughts of throwing some elves and Hobbits and the like on the ship with Russell and the gang. Now that has potential for movie greatness. I mean, gosh, M&C already had Pippin (right? I’m bad with my Hobbits). We’ve got some real possibilites here… :)

If none of this makes sense, I’ve not gotten a really good night’s sleep in a few days; particularly last night.

Children in church:

I was never forced to go to church, but my mom didn’t attend church either. My grandmother wanted me to go and encouraged me to. I suppose one could say that I went because I was rebelling against my mother, but I never went faithfully until I actually became a Christian. Personally, I think that children should have their own time. I mean a real time where they are taught and not just having play time. I don’t think that their Christian education should be left up totally to the Sunday School teachers. Parents are called to minister to their children; they shouldn’t give up that job just because someone else is contributing.

I suppose that children will sometimes rebel against their parents, but not always. I think of two men in particular who became pastors as their fathers were. I think it’s possible to make going to church an unpleasant enough experience that would help push kids away. I don’t know. Maybe I should shut up because I don’t have any children and any real experience. I think I will. I can’t even think clearly right now.

Buster:

I’m rather upset. There’s this girl who lives in our apartment complex who ran over one of her two cats the other night. I understand that accidents happen and this is not what really angers me. What angers me is that she laughed about it and said that she realised she had hit something, saw something that looked like Buster (her cat) and then got out of there at about 55 miles per hour because she was not going to turn around and pay 1000 bucks to fix it. She didn’t even have the decency to refer to him by his name or gender. He was just an it. He didn’t mean anything to her. I got the feeling that she was as regretful about hitting Buster as she would have at stepping on an ant. She didn’t even have the heart to see if he was still alive and do something for him if he was. He could have have lain there for hours before he passed away! She could have done something!! If I had only known…

Someone suggested to me that I should go to the police and I’m so very tempted, but I also realise that it’s probably just my emotions getting in the way of reason. Should I go to her and talk to her? She has another cat and I honestly don’t think she should have cats if she’s so callous about them. I don’t know…I’m just so upset.

The difference between Christian Mackinnon and Christian Strodtbeck is that Mackinnon has not been anointed with the divine charism of infallibility. Sorry bro, those are the breaks (JN).

I don’t subscribe to the notion that the presence of the body & blood of Christ are effected by the faith of the communicant; how else could he then eat and drink judgement to himself?

The difference between Zwingli and Luther is simple: Either the Sacrament saves, or it does not. Either I go to the Lord’s Supper when I wish to find life, salvation, and the forgiveness of sins, or I go somewhere else. Either grace is found only in Christ and in incarnation, that is, in his body and blood, or it is foud somewhere else—perhaps in a divine, sovereign, umediated act of regeneration upon your heart. Either I receive Christ by eating and drinking in this Sacrament, or I do not. Either the Christ that dwells in my heart by faith dwells there with his body and blood, that is, in the fullness of his Incarnation, or he dwells there in his divine nature alone. Generally, once Lutherans make explicitly clear what we believe about this Sacrament, most Zwinglians are pretty glad that we don’t want too much to do with them.

There is not a middle road. While I most openly admit that many people who deny the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper generally do not do so from malice, stupidity, or ignorance, I deny that a Gospel that finds its life and fulfillment in the eating and drinking of Christ’s body and blood and a Gospel that rejects this as the most abominable sacerdotalism and works-righteousness are the same Gospel.

That said, every creed and confession has always been polemical to one extent or another. Starting with the Apostles’ Creed, we have the clear confession that Christ was born of a virgin, died, was buried, and rose again, in clear opposition to all gnostics. The Nicene, Chalcedonian, and Athanasian creeds were all made against heretics. The Augsburg Confession was a rejection of indulgences, merit, the lordship of the Pope, and the Anabaptists, while the Westminster Confession rejects high-church Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and Romanism, and Trent rejects the Reformation. As far as the sacraments in the Creeds go, since the heretics generally affirmed the Real Presence (Nestorius and Eutyches both did) and there was never a major dispute over it until the 11th century (Berangar basically was a Zwinglian and condemned by a local council), why should it appear as a major article of a Creed, which are generally formulated around ocntroversial articles? The only sacramental controversy was resolved with “I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins,” an article entirely rejected by immersionists and credobaptists. A particular credobaptist tried to argue that the “one baptism” (which doesn’t remit sins but is somehow “for” them) refers to believers’ baptism, but then he would have to reject the baptisms of the very people who wrote the Creed, which doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

Roger Kimball backs up my claim that the NEA debate isn’t (and shouldn’t) be about the bad artists. The NEA reforms have been effective; we’re not talking about objectionable trash anymore, we’re actually taking about Shakespear.

No, by the time you’re Willie and Hank Jrs. age you should have outgrown smoking that s***. Just like Art Garfunkel, much to his chagrin, is now finding out. People who need that sort of thing, while they may add value in other ways to society, are emotionally stunted, in my opinion.

If a government-funded production of “Swan Lake” keeps just one kid off dope, it’s worth it!! (JN)

Dang, Josh. M&C was one of my favorite movies from last year. No, it wasn’t chock-full-o-elves-surfing-off-oiliphants. It was a simple, straightforward story about the lives of sailors on a British ship of the fleet. Very human, IMO – which is one of Weir’s talents. Very realistic. Yeah – it rambled a bit. So did the lives of the men.

I gave it 3 1/2 out of four stars, in case anyone asks.

Josh: You think the movie was bad, you ought to try reading O’Brian himself sometime. It really is esoteric literature, and purposefully written to be somewhat obtuse to the modern reader. Adapting it cinematically, with any degree of faithfulness, had to be difficult. But I trust Peter Weir, he got game. I think we’ll enjoy it. Ta-ta.

I saw “Master and Commander” with Noel last night. If that’s what ROTK is up against…

Man, did that movie even have a point? I felt like I was watching two and a half hours of pure randomness. Like “Hey, this movie has no direction, so let’s head on over to the Galapogos for a while!”

WOO-HOO! Since “Master and Commander” got some Oscar nominations, it’s starting to re-open in some of the theaters around my house. I missed it the first time, but me and the missus are going today at noon!

Dopeheads are dull. However, I have every intention of trying doobidge after I am safely retired, many years from now, and its ill effects could not cause me to drive a ship into a pier somewhere. I kind of like the Willie Nelson/Hank Williams Jr. model of sitting around in one’s underwear in a shack in the woods, smoking pot and watching the three stooges.

On a completely unrelated (well, maybe) note, I think I have identified one of God’s most astounding gracious provisions to us.

Know how He uses adversity, pain and trials to build character in us? Well, it just occurred to me why that’s so bitchin’. It’s because half the time, the adversity, pain and trials are due to idiotic stuff we brought on ourselves, yet he still uses it for our benefit. In the long run.

Just speaking for myself.

Michael, I read the link you posted to RWN, but I don’t think he speaks to what I was saying at all. His post seems to boil down to, “I don’t care about fine art and culture, therefore government funding of those things is stupid.” I can’t see you agreeing with the first part of that statement (maybe I need to visit Clay County sometime), but I’ll admit that the issue of government funding is a sticky one, and a point where my view is inconsistent with the rest of my perspective on the role of the federal government.

If states had more authority, and if the federal government was limited in size and scope to what is its actual consitutional mandate (the defense of the states and their citizens, insuring free commerce and settling disputes between states, enforcing the bill of rights), there would be plenty of money left for states to tax their citizens to provide support for local fine arts programs, or even better left to citizens to allow them to patronize the arts directly. But the sad fact is, we don’t live under that system; we live under a system where the federal government has a huge taxation infrastructure in place, and then has to find ways to use that money. While I don’t like that, I can’t find the statement that funding the arts is the worst possible use of federal money to be compelling.

The federal government does some hugely evil things with tax dollars. Besides the drug war that we’ve repeatedly dead-horsed, there’s also all the welfare and “assistance” programs that are actually poorly disguised attempt to perpetuate class and racial distinctions by undermining the poor. (What’s more racist than to tell a poor minority member that they simply can’t help themselves, so we’ll give them some money?) We build highways to support business interests (because commerce and jobs promote the general welfare), we award government contracts based on lobbying and politicing by congressmen (how many missile plants can we fit into North Dakota?). We give huge grants, loans and favorable pricing and treatment to countries whose leadership is oppressive, and whose leaders are in fact our enemies in the struggle against Islamism (if you doubt this, I’ll help organize a field trip to Saudi Arabia. Please plan to leave your bibles, tracts, and crosses at home.) We ship tax dollars to places like Russia, where they end up subsidizing organized crime. We cut economic deals with China, all the while knowing that the Chinese are conducting religious persecution on a scale unknown before this in human history. Heck, we’ve had the congress arguing all year about how to find tax money to pay for grandma’s prescriptions, so she can save her pension, buy a house in Florida, and live long enough to screw up another presidential election.

As a government (and in the US, ostensibly we are the government, at least by representation) we are into some bad s**t all over the place when it comes to spending money. And since we’re spending money, we might as well spend it on some things that improve the quality of life for those of us who are forking over 33% of our income for this crap. So if “Piss Christ” seems like a big deal, we should be calling for better oversight at the NEA, not defunding it. Because Shakespear down at the community theater may not sound something the government should be funding, but if the alternative is to have our kids and ourselves parked in front of Showtime watching gay and lesbian propaganda, I’ll bend a little on my limited federalism model in the interest of preserving some of what’s good about Western culture.

Beyond that, it’s very important to realize that many of the art forms that fine art represents – music and dance come to mind – have always enjoyed the patronage of governments within western culture. So it’s valid to argue (although one’s free to dispute it) that the government of a Western nation in fact does have an obligation in those areas.

Kerry says the threat of terrorism is exaggerated.

This is what gets me about the Democrats. They have totally lost their political instincts. Whether it’s talk radio or national politics, this is what they sound like. Here is a guy who has a war record, but also a longer record as an exaggerating anti-Vietnam wacko. (Kerry in the immediate postwar era was unreal in protest mode.) Now you have this issue, and you know the GOP will be coming after you, so what do you do? You start talking like this. Karl Rove must really be running the Democratic campaign.

Meth is destroying life in Eastern Ky. It is beyond your ability to imagine. It is a plague here in the mountains, and there is nothing to be done about it.

PWinn: That NEA blurb ought also to say “Clay Co is a typical example of what the Federal Government produces when it decides to help you.” This is the Democrats idea of heaven. Instead, it’s hell for half the population, AND they all vote GOP. But thanks for the welfare state. We appreciate it.

I was thinking more about the drug stuff. There’s a lot of meth around here, and it’s pretty whacked stuff. A meth house went up in flames just a little ways away in this neighborhood two summers ago.

Tonight I was working some computer stuff for a construction company, and the guys were talking about their friends who got hooked on meth when a local hells angels group stole P2P and made a big batch. Otherwise normal people managed to get really effed up. (is there a nicer way to put that?)

Michael,

Zero is 0 is zero is -18 and it’s cold no matter where you live.

One of the things that annoys me lately is this constant preoccupation with weather from the local news.. big storm coming,, it’s the end of the world, close all the schools… it’s winter, it’s Michigan,,, HELLO get a grip, 2 feet of snow is not that much… I contend we are still in the middle of a huge drought.

Cool web cams of Michigan here..

Michael,,

Yum,, crab legs and Scallops… yum.. I love sea food.. don’t eat the fried cat fish. Instead, go for the real stuff!!

Amanda,, that makes me hope that there is water on Mars.. Yum..
All this talk of food today has made me hungry.

Here there be dragons.

I swear, I will make a meaningful post…just not today.

Something smells fishy.

One of these days I’ll make a meaninful post.

BTW Jim, I am SOOOO happy with the permalinks and new templates for the individual posts. Just like the Scriptorium. Very nice. (Keep looking at that list though!)

I want to remind everyone that February is the BHT Second Anniversary, and we have a very cool surprise for you. It will be unveiled the first Monday in February, and I gurantee both Fellows and Lurkers will be delighted.

I want to thank everyone for ignoring the bookshelf photos. They were irrelevant to what a great guy I am. My wife needs prayer for a more submissive spirit about bookshelves.

If the weather cooperates, Denise and I are going to try and have dinner with the real presence of Josh tomorrow evening. Since there are no Lutheran Church basement restaurants in Lexington, we’ve picked something else. I feel like a sissy saying it concerns me that the weather will be zero tomorrow night, since Bill and other Yankees are living in a freezer.

Just read the headline, and congratulate me.

April 1 is opening day for the OBI baseball team. I’ve promised to try and go to every game this year. They want me to work the scorebook, but I’m too numerically stupid. (No doubt another reason I am not a Lutheran! (JN) When we have our first warm day on a real ball diamond, I am liable to fall down and worship right there between 2nd and the mound. April the 8th is Legends opening day, and I sure hope to be there for that. Revival at the church of baseball is much more appealing to me than any other kind.

I preached three times this week. That will be pretty standard in the future I think. And also preaching twice Sunday. Today when I finished, the boss said “A+.” I don’t live for that, and he’s no great judge of preaching, but it sure was nice to hear. (It was easy to preach this week because I preached from Mark, where I am kindof like a preaching machine.)

John Hawkins at RWN speaks to Jim’s endorsement of the NEA. Sorry, Jim, but I basically have to agree about a lot of this. I mean, no one wants Shakespeare in schools more than me, but there is enough private money to do it. And plenty of negatives to Federal involvement.

Michael, Crossan may have spent 40 years studying the gospels, but he apparently hasn’t read them. He might as well have spent 40 years gazing at himself in the mirror, for all the insight he brings to any discussion of Jesus. Then again, perhaps that’s what he means when he says “studying the gospel”, given the Augustine quote on the masthead recently.

Bart and I talked a bit this afternoon about the RCC theology of the mass. Here’s