"The second is this: evil spirits have introduced the knavery of appearing as spirits of the departed and, with unspeakable lies and cunning, of demanding Masses, vigils, pilgrimages, and other alms."
Martin Luther, Smalcald Articles, Part II, Article 2: The Mass.
I came across a discussion on whether there is a Lutheran position on ghosts. I remembered this passage from Luther, as it was something I had stumbled across while researching other references in The Lutheran Confessions for this blog. I was really surprised when I saw it, because I had actually been teaching this for about 20 years, before being ordained and before finding the citation. I think this topic is more important than the attention generally granted to it. My wife, Anita, pointed out, "Isn't it the position of Martin Luther?" "Yes, in fact it's in the Confessions." "Then blog on it." Anita is in charge of common sense in our home.
If you have been following this blog then you know I believe in angels and demons, and why. If not, the post on angels and demons is below. My last post was on spiritual warfare. Luther understood spiritual warfare well, maybe as well as anyone can since the First Century. He could see that demons masquerading as the ghosts of those dead would be a logical tactical, strategic ploy to bring confusion. The experience would be very real, and thus accepted outright by the person experiencing it. But having an experience is not in itself an explanation of what it is.
We can't be sure what happens when we die. Some references in Scripture support "soul sleep" without consciousness until The Resurrection. Some references of Paul support our spirit leaving the body and going to be with God in Christ in Paradise. What is not supported is that the ruin of the human (C. S. Lewis' description in his "The Great Divorce") exists on earth in a see-able form that can interact with its surroundings. Yes, the Witch of Endor called up Samuel. But she called him from "the place of the dead." He was not just hanging around.
The story is told of a shrine built in what is now France to the Archangel Michael for his veneration. I came across it during research for a St. Michael and all Angels festival sermon. The monk built the shrine after the archangel Michael appeared to him and told him to build the shrine and to promote his veneration far and wide. This the monk did - both. That wasn't Michael! How do I know? It's not that hard. Jude wrote that when Michael confronted Satan over the body of Moses he would not even condemn in his own power or name, but rather challenged, "The Lord rebuke you!" Michael means "Who is like God?" The question is rhetorical. No one. The Revelation to St. John makes it clear that angels reject veneration outright. But there is one spiritual being we know of who does in fact seek the veneration and devotion due only to God.
I am convinced that Luther was correct. I do not doubt for a moment the experiences people have that are understandably attributed to ghosts. But having an experience is not in itself an explanation of what it is. If Luther is correct, the reason for such a deception would be to deceive on the nature of life, death and eternal life (as opposed to "afterlife"). That is why the discussion is worth having, and that is why it is important to keep God's Word in the place where it belongs; in the center. Getting this wrong can have dire consequences.
But we are never alone.
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God; every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it is coming, and now it is in the world already. Little children, you are of God, and have overcome them; for he who is in your is greater than he who is in the world." I John 4: 1-4
Saturday, August 16, 2014
Friday, July 25, 2014
Where are the Warriors for God today?
"Nothing is so effectual against the devil, the world, the flesh, and all evil thoughts as to occupy oneself with the Word of God.... This, indeed, is the true holy water, the sign which routs the devil and puts him to flight."
Luther's Large Catechism: Preface.
"Then comes the devil, who baits and badgers us on all sides, but especially exerts himself where the conscience and spiritual matters are at stake. His purpose is to make us scorn and despise both the Word and the works of God, to tear us away from faith, hope, and love, to draw us into unbelief, false security, and stubbornness, or, on the contrary, to drive us into despair, atheism, blasphemy, and countless other abominable sins. These are snares and nets; indeed, they are the real 'flaming darts' (Ephesians 6:16) which are venomously shot into our hearts, not by flesh and blood, but by the devil."
Luther's Large Catechism: Lord's Prayer
I am teaching on spiritual warfare during adult study this fall. In addition, I am knighting two of our youth in The Rite of Knighthood next month. So my thoughts drifted to spiritual warfare, and I decided to post again on spiritual warfare.
BTW. I was shocked to see over 3330 hits. Thank you all for taking the time to read my posts. As you know, I don't want this to be just my opinion, but The Confessions, The Creeds, and most of all The Word of God.
My post title comes from the monument to Jan Hus in Prague, Czech Republic. Anita and I began our Luther tour as part of my sabbatical in the summer of 2011 in Old Prague, to begin with Luther's predecessor, Jan Hus, father of the Moravian Church. We were at the monument and I was looking around the shops for a mini of it. A man asked me, "Was he a good man?" (Atheism is prevalent in former Soviet Czech Republic apprently.) I answered, "He was a great man." Back at the monument I bumped into a young tour guide and asked her to translate the inscription around the monument for me. She translated, "Where are God's Warriors today?"
The back story for this is that when the ELCA came out with a new hymnal, several hymns from the Green Hymnal were "conspicuous in their absence." Gone were "Onward Christian Soldiers" and "Stand up, Stand up for Jesus." The compilers changed a word in "Lift High the Cross" and removed an entire verse. I think they would have pulled "A Mighty Fortress" but they did not dare. The idea is/was that these are too militaristic and triumphalistic to be in the hymnal. But assuming Paul wrote Ephesians, and I do, he made it VERY clear in Ephesians 6: 10 et seq. that we are not fighting people. We are fighting demons. It is spiritual warfare against spiritual beings using spiritual weapons (II Corinthians 10).
OK now the irony. Clif Christopher, the stewardship guru, came and did a presentation in our small town thanks to the United Methodist Church in town. (UMC pulled the hymns as well.) Clif Christopher told the story of being on the ground in "Desert Storm" against Iraqi soldiers. He ended his story by asking, "Where are God's soldiers today?" I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. We have gutted virtually all references to spiritual warfare in our new hymnal. We aren't training any. Adult Study this fall will be on spiritual warfare.
None us of have time to go through the LEGION of verses in the New Testament on spiritual warfare and it's seriousness. Nor do we have time to go through all the hymn references. Suffice it so say that "A Mighty Fortress" is THE hymn on spiritual warfare; and it will never be excised because it is "A Mighty Fortress." Read the words again. Listen as you sing them on Reformation Sunday. (We are opening with it before our Rite of Knighthood, followed by: "Onward Christian Soldiers", "Stand up for Jesus" and "Lift High the Cross" - in the original un-depleated version.)
OK: just a few.
II Corinthians 6: 7
II Corinthians 10: 4-5
Ephesians 6: 10-20
II Timothy 4: 6-8
James 4: 7
I Peter 5: 5-9
"In battle we'll engage! His might is doomed to fail; God's judgment must prevail! One little word subdues him." (The little word btw is: JESUS!)
Fight on.
Luther's Large Catechism: Preface.
"Then comes the devil, who baits and badgers us on all sides, but especially exerts himself where the conscience and spiritual matters are at stake. His purpose is to make us scorn and despise both the Word and the works of God, to tear us away from faith, hope, and love, to draw us into unbelief, false security, and stubbornness, or, on the contrary, to drive us into despair, atheism, blasphemy, and countless other abominable sins. These are snares and nets; indeed, they are the real 'flaming darts' (Ephesians 6:16) which are venomously shot into our hearts, not by flesh and blood, but by the devil."
Luther's Large Catechism: Lord's Prayer
I am teaching on spiritual warfare during adult study this fall. In addition, I am knighting two of our youth in The Rite of Knighthood next month. So my thoughts drifted to spiritual warfare, and I decided to post again on spiritual warfare.
BTW. I was shocked to see over 3330 hits. Thank you all for taking the time to read my posts. As you know, I don't want this to be just my opinion, but The Confessions, The Creeds, and most of all The Word of God.
My post title comes from the monument to Jan Hus in Prague, Czech Republic. Anita and I began our Luther tour as part of my sabbatical in the summer of 2011 in Old Prague, to begin with Luther's predecessor, Jan Hus, father of the Moravian Church. We were at the monument and I was looking around the shops for a mini of it. A man asked me, "Was he a good man?" (Atheism is prevalent in former Soviet Czech Republic apprently.) I answered, "He was a great man." Back at the monument I bumped into a young tour guide and asked her to translate the inscription around the monument for me. She translated, "Where are God's Warriors today?"
The back story for this is that when the ELCA came out with a new hymnal, several hymns from the Green Hymnal were "conspicuous in their absence." Gone were "Onward Christian Soldiers" and "Stand up, Stand up for Jesus." The compilers changed a word in "Lift High the Cross" and removed an entire verse. I think they would have pulled "A Mighty Fortress" but they did not dare. The idea is/was that these are too militaristic and triumphalistic to be in the hymnal. But assuming Paul wrote Ephesians, and I do, he made it VERY clear in Ephesians 6: 10 et seq. that we are not fighting people. We are fighting demons. It is spiritual warfare against spiritual beings using spiritual weapons (II Corinthians 10).
OK now the irony. Clif Christopher, the stewardship guru, came and did a presentation in our small town thanks to the United Methodist Church in town. (UMC pulled the hymns as well.) Clif Christopher told the story of being on the ground in "Desert Storm" against Iraqi soldiers. He ended his story by asking, "Where are God's soldiers today?" I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. We have gutted virtually all references to spiritual warfare in our new hymnal. We aren't training any. Adult Study this fall will be on spiritual warfare.
None us of have time to go through the LEGION of verses in the New Testament on spiritual warfare and it's seriousness. Nor do we have time to go through all the hymn references. Suffice it so say that "A Mighty Fortress" is THE hymn on spiritual warfare; and it will never be excised because it is "A Mighty Fortress." Read the words again. Listen as you sing them on Reformation Sunday. (We are opening with it before our Rite of Knighthood, followed by: "Onward Christian Soldiers", "Stand up for Jesus" and "Lift High the Cross" - in the original un-depleated version.)
OK: just a few.
II Corinthians 6: 7
II Corinthians 10: 4-5
Ephesians 6: 10-20
II Timothy 4: 6-8
James 4: 7
I Peter 5: 5-9
"In battle we'll engage! His might is doomed to fail; God's judgment must prevail! One little word subdues him." (The little word btw is: JESUS!)
Fight on.
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Why I hated the movie "Noah."
"But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God...
"For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall die. But I will establish my covenant with you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you."
Genesis 6: 8-9, 17-18
"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ...."
I Peter 3: 18-20
OK, I saw the "Biblical Epic", "NOAH" last night. And as you saw, I hated it.
WARNING: SPOILER ALERT
I found it ironic and telling that anyone would have to give a spoiler alert for a Bible story found in Scripture. We know how it ends, right? In this case it is telling.
Making the "evil" about industrialization vs. idyllic ecology was fine. That's poetic, literary license. The Bible mini-series took literary license.
But that brings us to the "sons of God" and Nephilim. There is some uncertainty whether the Nephilim were "the sons of God" or their offspring. But what made God upset was the sons of God marrying and consumating with human women. The offspring were giant supermen. No one really knows what any of this means in Genesis 6, so there is quite a bit of freedom there. But making the "fallen" (My wife went straight to "Transformers") into angels fallen from heaven to earth encrusted with earth to become ungainly rock giants seemed just silly. They became the robot minions.
Yes, as they "gave their lives" to protect Noah and his family they were forgiven by God and their earthly shells fell away to reveal the spirit within, and they were forgiven and welcomed back to heaven. Awww. Nice.
Except for two things. First, that's Gnosticism. Second, what about humans?
And that brings us to the point at which Anita and I almost walked out - twice. But we gritted our teeth and stuck with it to the end so we would know how it ended in case we ended up talking about it (which I am now).
First of all, throughout the movie Noah never actually gets any direct instruction from God. He has a dream about the flood, and his grandfather, Methuselah, (who is presented as a mystic Shaman not unlike a witchdoctor) "assists" Noah with a drug induced vision so he can understand he is to build an ark (with the help of his pet Nephilim rock creatures). He and his wife and his three sons, along with an adopted daughter (played by Emma Watson of Harry Potter) who becomes his oldest son's wife, are to enter the ark. Originally, Noah believes that his younger sons ought to have wives. But when he enters the city to find wives for them he is so appauled at the sinfulness of the people that he not only abandons the search, but HE decides that God's plan is that all of Noah's family die as well by making sure that no one can procreate and they all die and humans become extinct. (Shem's wife is barren and Noah's wife is too old - though Jennifer Connelly never ends up looking old no matter how many hundreds of years go by.) So HE decides they will protect the animals, release them after the flood, and then cease to be.
But Grandpa Methuselah foils Noah's plan by healing Shem's wife of her barrenness and she conceives just before entering the ark.
Now they are on the ark, the rain is coming, the flood is upon them, and the people are screaming outside (which was a very powerful scene because one would think it would have been like that). Noah is not tempted to save any more because he "knows" that his family is all going to die childless as well anyway, so what's the point. The world will be free of the human infection.
But then he finds out that the baby is on the way....(They actually are on the ark for 10 months according to The Bible. Remember The Bible?)
The only direct word that Noah ever gets from God is that he is to kill the baby (both, as it ends up being twins) as soon as they are born. And he fights through his family to get to the babies so that he can kill them. But then he can't do it. He confesses to God that he is not able to obey God's command to kill the babies. And they live.
OK. If you believe that the story of Noah is historical and it happened just as The Bible says it did, bear with me. It is possible it is a story, that it never actually happened. Here's why. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 tell two different stories of creation. The intellectual gymnastics that needs to be done to read the two stories together consistently is really embarrassing. Genesis 3 is a continuation of the same story as Genesis 2. How far does that single story go? How many chapters of Genesis are included as chapters of this story? So let's, for the sake of argument at least, concede that Genesis 6 and following (Noah account) is also a story. Some might think that since it is a story, why is it a big deal if the story is changed to a different but similar story?
But, and here's the really important thing: Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are both true because they were included in the inspired "God-breathed" Word of God in order to tell us true things about God and true things about humans. The same can - and must - be said for Genesis 3.
So if Genesis 6 and following are a story, and not an historical account, then, they are in the inspired, God-breathed Word of God to tell us true things about God and true things about humans.
What does the movie Noah teach us about God? And what about humans?
God wrongly tells Noah that they are all to die, including the two babies just born. YES, I see the obvious connection to Genesis 22 and the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham. But that's part of the point. When it comes down to it, he cannot take the lives of these two "innocent" children, and Noah disobey's God. (How many babies just died outside the ark?) Later, as Noah is mourning his disobedience to God's command to kill the babies, Shem's wife (Emma Watson) "explains" to Noah that God gave Noah a choice, and by seeing that the babies were "good" and by choosing to disobey God, Noah shows that he is also "good". So disobeying God's order is a good thing. In fact, at the end, God blesses Noah's disobedience by sending a very impressive rainbow. Apparently God changed God's mind, convinced by Noah's family that God's will was wrong.
I had flashbacks again to Gnosticism (not surprisingly). In Gnosticism, the hero of the Garden of Eden is the snake, who "frees" humanity from obedience to God by exercising the choice for knowledge (of good and evil). And here's the difference. In Genesis 22 Abraham demonstrates his total faith and trust in God by showing he IS willing to go through with it and it is GOD that stops him, not his own disobedience. (God later in The Law forbids child sacrifice so that no one would be confused about God's actual will notwithstanding this test.) But in the movie Noah overrules God by his disobedience. God's command remains "evil" while Noah becomes "good" by disobeying God.
Now there is some method to the writer's madness in having it be God's plan that all the humans die after the animals are released and that humanity become extinct. Isn't it true that since sin remains in Noah and his family that humanity will continue in sin after the flood? Sure. And a God who is Omniscient would know that. So wouldn't it be God's plan to make an end to humanity completely to remove sin from the newly formed earth?
But that was not God's point at all, clearly. Yes, sin continued after God spared Noah. (The Biblical account, including Peter's interpretation of it, is clear that sparing the family was the plan from the beginning.) After the flood and a fresh start - sin remained. After the formation of a Chosen People - sin remained. After the Exodus of God's people to a Promised Land - sin remained.
God has been sending us a message across time that we must not miss.
We need a Savior. Our goodness, our innocence will never bring us through. We need a Savior. And God provided one. God's plan is redemption of those created in the image of God. It has been since the Garden.
So instead of a movie about a God who can't quite get it figured out, but it's OK because good humans are around to get it right for God when God can't get it right....
We have in the Bible a God who is in control and is moving a truly fallen humanity that really can't get "good" right toward a real redemption that is complete and eternal. True things about God and about us.
If this is the best that Hollywood can do with a "Biblical Epic", maybe it is best that they just stay out of it.
"For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall die. But I will establish my covenant with you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you."
Genesis 6: 8-9, 17-18
"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ...."
I Peter 3: 18-20
OK, I saw the "Biblical Epic", "NOAH" last night. And as you saw, I hated it.
WARNING: SPOILER ALERT
I found it ironic and telling that anyone would have to give a spoiler alert for a Bible story found in Scripture. We know how it ends, right? In this case it is telling.
Making the "evil" about industrialization vs. idyllic ecology was fine. That's poetic, literary license. The Bible mini-series took literary license.
But that brings us to the "sons of God" and Nephilim. There is some uncertainty whether the Nephilim were "the sons of God" or their offspring. But what made God upset was the sons of God marrying and consumating with human women. The offspring were giant supermen. No one really knows what any of this means in Genesis 6, so there is quite a bit of freedom there. But making the "fallen" (My wife went straight to "Transformers") into angels fallen from heaven to earth encrusted with earth to become ungainly rock giants seemed just silly. They became the robot minions.
Yes, as they "gave their lives" to protect Noah and his family they were forgiven by God and their earthly shells fell away to reveal the spirit within, and they were forgiven and welcomed back to heaven. Awww. Nice.
Except for two things. First, that's Gnosticism. Second, what about humans?
And that brings us to the point at which Anita and I almost walked out - twice. But we gritted our teeth and stuck with it to the end so we would know how it ended in case we ended up talking about it (which I am now).
First of all, throughout the movie Noah never actually gets any direct instruction from God. He has a dream about the flood, and his grandfather, Methuselah, (who is presented as a mystic Shaman not unlike a witchdoctor) "assists" Noah with a drug induced vision so he can understand he is to build an ark (with the help of his pet Nephilim rock creatures). He and his wife and his three sons, along with an adopted daughter (played by Emma Watson of Harry Potter) who becomes his oldest son's wife, are to enter the ark. Originally, Noah believes that his younger sons ought to have wives. But when he enters the city to find wives for them he is so appauled at the sinfulness of the people that he not only abandons the search, but HE decides that God's plan is that all of Noah's family die as well by making sure that no one can procreate and they all die and humans become extinct. (Shem's wife is barren and Noah's wife is too old - though Jennifer Connelly never ends up looking old no matter how many hundreds of years go by.) So HE decides they will protect the animals, release them after the flood, and then cease to be.
But Grandpa Methuselah foils Noah's plan by healing Shem's wife of her barrenness and she conceives just before entering the ark.
Now they are on the ark, the rain is coming, the flood is upon them, and the people are screaming outside (which was a very powerful scene because one would think it would have been like that). Noah is not tempted to save any more because he "knows" that his family is all going to die childless as well anyway, so what's the point. The world will be free of the human infection.
But then he finds out that the baby is on the way....(They actually are on the ark for 10 months according to The Bible. Remember The Bible?)
The only direct word that Noah ever gets from God is that he is to kill the baby (both, as it ends up being twins) as soon as they are born. And he fights through his family to get to the babies so that he can kill them. But then he can't do it. He confesses to God that he is not able to obey God's command to kill the babies. And they live.
OK. If you believe that the story of Noah is historical and it happened just as The Bible says it did, bear with me. It is possible it is a story, that it never actually happened. Here's why. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 tell two different stories of creation. The intellectual gymnastics that needs to be done to read the two stories together consistently is really embarrassing. Genesis 3 is a continuation of the same story as Genesis 2. How far does that single story go? How many chapters of Genesis are included as chapters of this story? So let's, for the sake of argument at least, concede that Genesis 6 and following (Noah account) is also a story. Some might think that since it is a story, why is it a big deal if the story is changed to a different but similar story?
But, and here's the really important thing: Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are both true because they were included in the inspired "God-breathed" Word of God in order to tell us true things about God and true things about humans. The same can - and must - be said for Genesis 3.
So if Genesis 6 and following are a story, and not an historical account, then, they are in the inspired, God-breathed Word of God to tell us true things about God and true things about humans.
What does the movie Noah teach us about God? And what about humans?
God wrongly tells Noah that they are all to die, including the two babies just born. YES, I see the obvious connection to Genesis 22 and the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham. But that's part of the point. When it comes down to it, he cannot take the lives of these two "innocent" children, and Noah disobey's God. (How many babies just died outside the ark?) Later, as Noah is mourning his disobedience to God's command to kill the babies, Shem's wife (Emma Watson) "explains" to Noah that God gave Noah a choice, and by seeing that the babies were "good" and by choosing to disobey God, Noah shows that he is also "good". So disobeying God's order is a good thing. In fact, at the end, God blesses Noah's disobedience by sending a very impressive rainbow. Apparently God changed God's mind, convinced by Noah's family that God's will was wrong.
I had flashbacks again to Gnosticism (not surprisingly). In Gnosticism, the hero of the Garden of Eden is the snake, who "frees" humanity from obedience to God by exercising the choice for knowledge (of good and evil). And here's the difference. In Genesis 22 Abraham demonstrates his total faith and trust in God by showing he IS willing to go through with it and it is GOD that stops him, not his own disobedience. (God later in The Law forbids child sacrifice so that no one would be confused about God's actual will notwithstanding this test.) But in the movie Noah overrules God by his disobedience. God's command remains "evil" while Noah becomes "good" by disobeying God.
Now there is some method to the writer's madness in having it be God's plan that all the humans die after the animals are released and that humanity become extinct. Isn't it true that since sin remains in Noah and his family that humanity will continue in sin after the flood? Sure. And a God who is Omniscient would know that. So wouldn't it be God's plan to make an end to humanity completely to remove sin from the newly formed earth?
But that was not God's point at all, clearly. Yes, sin continued after God spared Noah. (The Biblical account, including Peter's interpretation of it, is clear that sparing the family was the plan from the beginning.) After the flood and a fresh start - sin remained. After the formation of a Chosen People - sin remained. After the Exodus of God's people to a Promised Land - sin remained.
God has been sending us a message across time that we must not miss.
We need a Savior. Our goodness, our innocence will never bring us through. We need a Savior. And God provided one. God's plan is redemption of those created in the image of God. It has been since the Garden.
So instead of a movie about a God who can't quite get it figured out, but it's OK because good humans are around to get it right for God when God can't get it right....
We have in the Bible a God who is in control and is moving a truly fallen humanity that really can't get "good" right toward a real redemption that is complete and eternal. True things about God and about us.
If this is the best that Hollywood can do with a "Biblical Epic", maybe it is best that they just stay out of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)