"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.
Friday, July 25, 2014
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.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Five Reasons to Travel to Latvia
I know that this is a major deviation of the trajectory of the blog.
But I recently read a post by a Latvian friend of an article listing 5 reasons to travel to Riga. And I realized that I did not connect with more than half of them. It only took me a few moment of reflection to come up with my 5 reasons for loving Latvia and loving to be in Latvia. So I decided to share them. If I were a tech geek, I would have easily been able to find a better forum and mode of presentation. But since I'm not, as my Constitutional Law professor was fond of saying (some of my best stuff comes from him) "as a concession to the shortness of life..." I have used the forum and medium I had available. So here they are...
MY TOP FIVE REASONS FOR TRAVELING TO LATVIA:
5. The Latvian Language: The people of Latvia were pressured not to speak their native language in public for 50 years! The Caucasians of the USA have no conception what this would be like. It is a beautiful language. Early on when I began to hear it and reflect on it, I said, (I have had an original thought or two) that when someone is speaking Latvian they are speaking poetry. But, of course, you don't have to go to Latvia to hear people speak in Latvian. But... the greater joy is to speak it in Latvia. What joy to see the surprise and experience the joy when a Latvian hears himself / herself addressed in Latvian by someone from the USA who is not Latvian! (This is especially true if you are grammatically correct! Latvian grammar is as complicated as Ancient Greek.) I have stories of course, but that will get us too far off track. I can share them in person.
4. The Scenery: Latvia is about the size of West Virginia. It is a land of beautiful lakes, and rivers, and forests, and the sea. It's a lot like Wisconsin (and Minnesota). It is not an accident that so many Latvians settled in Wisconsin and Minnesota. It's like home. During the time of occupation (50 years) the leaders of Soviet Russia chose Latvia as the place for rest, relaxation and recreation. Because it's a gorgeous country. When I have Latvian guests, I will often take them around the lakes and rivers and forests of Wisconsin. Just like home.
3. The Castles: I think it is because I am a disciple of C. S. Lewis, and lover of "The Chronicles of Narnia" in addition to being so intrigued by the whole concept of Knighthood. But I love visiting the Medieval / Feudal castle ruins throughout Latvia. In my 24 trips I have had the blessing of visiting every region of Latvia. And one constant is - the castles. Latvia was a feudal system in Medieval times. The Latvian word for city is "pilseta" which pretty much translates, "the place of the castle." I have not seen them all, but I have seen very many over the years. It never gets old.
Then, there's Rundale Castle. This is a Renaissance Castle in southern Latvia designed to match the castle in France. It is amazing; a must see. It was used as a hospital (if I remember correctly) during Soviet occupation and had to be restored. But it has been - beautifully.
2. The Churches of Riga: There are many famous skylines. Even Chicago. But as the article posted by my Latvian friend pointed out, Riga is over 800 years old. The St. James Cathedral was dedicated in 1225! It continues to house weekly Mass. Atop the St. Peter's Cathedral is an observation deck that allows a bird's eye view of the city of Riga. The pipe organ in Dome Cathedral is one of the (if not the) greatest organs in all of Europe. (I have had the blessing of hearing multiple organ concerts in the cathedral.) The skyline of Riga Churches has been preserved in woodwork, photograph, painting, etc.
After landing in Riga and being picked up at the airport (I have not had to take a taxi yet from the airport. More on that below.) I have been welcomed home (my second home) by the Latvian Cathedrals rising above the river.
1. And the number one reason to travel to Latvia is... THE PEOPLE. Latvians have a reputation of being very reserved. And in general this may be so. But my great blessing has been to work "side by side" with my sisters and brothers in Christ, mostly in the Lutheran church, but not exclusively. I have not experienced this reserved-ness among my sisters and brothers in Christ. What I have experienced is warmth, welcome, sacrificial hospitality, and even fierce loyalty. Of course I am not worthy of any of this. But that's the point, isn't it. It's not about me. It cannot be about me. Should it ever become about me, I am confident, I trust, that God will stop the opportunities to serve. To some extent it is about them. It's how they are. But primarily it is about The One we love, follow, serve, obey. "We ARE One in the Spirit. We ARE One in The Lord."
I have been continually blessed by the joy of being with my young friends of Latvia. (My older friends too, of course. It's just that these days there are fewer and fewer people older than me.) They keep me young, even when I sometimes feel really old.
They think I'm important. It makes me chuckle sometimes. I get that I am not important. But, I'm important to them because I love Latvia and I love the people of Latvian. I work on perspective all the time. The motto I adopted many years ago now helps keep that perspective. "I have come to serve."
Of course the reason I began to serve in Latvia and the reason I continue to serve in Latvia 22 years and 23 trips later is that GOD called me to Latvia to serve and God arranged for my way to come and serve. But I wanted my 5 reasons to be about Latvia and Latvians, not about God's call for me to serve. I continue to serve as God calls and enables and empowers. But these reasons make it my great joy and blessing to serve.
P.S. I felt compelled to add as an "oh by the way" that in a recent European poll, Latvia was named the number one country in Europe with the most beautiful women. Just FYI. (Notice please its not on the list.)
(I have resisted the temptation to include Latvian phrases in this post because my office computer does not have Latvian letters installed, and I do know how to spell correctly in Latvian. I may amend later to add them. But maybe not. This list is for those of my friends and colleagues who are not Latvian.)
But I recently read a post by a Latvian friend of an article listing 5 reasons to travel to Riga. And I realized that I did not connect with more than half of them. It only took me a few moment of reflection to come up with my 5 reasons for loving Latvia and loving to be in Latvia. So I decided to share them. If I were a tech geek, I would have easily been able to find a better forum and mode of presentation. But since I'm not, as my Constitutional Law professor was fond of saying (some of my best stuff comes from him) "as a concession to the shortness of life..." I have used the forum and medium I had available. So here they are...
MY TOP FIVE REASONS FOR TRAVELING TO LATVIA:
5. The Latvian Language: The people of Latvia were pressured not to speak their native language in public for 50 years! The Caucasians of the USA have no conception what this would be like. It is a beautiful language. Early on when I began to hear it and reflect on it, I said, (I have had an original thought or two) that when someone is speaking Latvian they are speaking poetry. But, of course, you don't have to go to Latvia to hear people speak in Latvian. But... the greater joy is to speak it in Latvia. What joy to see the surprise and experience the joy when a Latvian hears himself / herself addressed in Latvian by someone from the USA who is not Latvian! (This is especially true if you are grammatically correct! Latvian grammar is as complicated as Ancient Greek.) I have stories of course, but that will get us too far off track. I can share them in person.
4. The Scenery: Latvia is about the size of West Virginia. It is a land of beautiful lakes, and rivers, and forests, and the sea. It's a lot like Wisconsin (and Minnesota). It is not an accident that so many Latvians settled in Wisconsin and Minnesota. It's like home. During the time of occupation (50 years) the leaders of Soviet Russia chose Latvia as the place for rest, relaxation and recreation. Because it's a gorgeous country. When I have Latvian guests, I will often take them around the lakes and rivers and forests of Wisconsin. Just like home.
3. The Castles: I think it is because I am a disciple of C. S. Lewis, and lover of "The Chronicles of Narnia" in addition to being so intrigued by the whole concept of Knighthood. But I love visiting the Medieval / Feudal castle ruins throughout Latvia. In my 24 trips I have had the blessing of visiting every region of Latvia. And one constant is - the castles. Latvia was a feudal system in Medieval times. The Latvian word for city is "pilseta" which pretty much translates, "the place of the castle." I have not seen them all, but I have seen very many over the years. It never gets old.
Then, there's Rundale Castle. This is a Renaissance Castle in southern Latvia designed to match the castle in France. It is amazing; a must see. It was used as a hospital (if I remember correctly) during Soviet occupation and had to be restored. But it has been - beautifully.
2. The Churches of Riga: There are many famous skylines. Even Chicago. But as the article posted by my Latvian friend pointed out, Riga is over 800 years old. The St. James Cathedral was dedicated in 1225! It continues to house weekly Mass. Atop the St. Peter's Cathedral is an observation deck that allows a bird's eye view of the city of Riga. The pipe organ in Dome Cathedral is one of the (if not the) greatest organs in all of Europe. (I have had the blessing of hearing multiple organ concerts in the cathedral.) The skyline of Riga Churches has been preserved in woodwork, photograph, painting, etc.
After landing in Riga and being picked up at the airport (I have not had to take a taxi yet from the airport. More on that below.) I have been welcomed home (my second home) by the Latvian Cathedrals rising above the river.
1. And the number one reason to travel to Latvia is... THE PEOPLE. Latvians have a reputation of being very reserved. And in general this may be so. But my great blessing has been to work "side by side" with my sisters and brothers in Christ, mostly in the Lutheran church, but not exclusively. I have not experienced this reserved-ness among my sisters and brothers in Christ. What I have experienced is warmth, welcome, sacrificial hospitality, and even fierce loyalty. Of course I am not worthy of any of this. But that's the point, isn't it. It's not about me. It cannot be about me. Should it ever become about me, I am confident, I trust, that God will stop the opportunities to serve. To some extent it is about them. It's how they are. But primarily it is about The One we love, follow, serve, obey. "We ARE One in the Spirit. We ARE One in The Lord."
I have been continually blessed by the joy of being with my young friends of Latvia. (My older friends too, of course. It's just that these days there are fewer and fewer people older than me.) They keep me young, even when I sometimes feel really old.
They think I'm important. It makes me chuckle sometimes. I get that I am not important. But, I'm important to them because I love Latvia and I love the people of Latvian. I work on perspective all the time. The motto I adopted many years ago now helps keep that perspective. "I have come to serve."
Of course the reason I began to serve in Latvia and the reason I continue to serve in Latvia 22 years and 23 trips later is that GOD called me to Latvia to serve and God arranged for my way to come and serve. But I wanted my 5 reasons to be about Latvia and Latvians, not about God's call for me to serve. I continue to serve as God calls and enables and empowers. But these reasons make it my great joy and blessing to serve.
P.S. I felt compelled to add as an "oh by the way" that in a recent European poll, Latvia was named the number one country in Europe with the most beautiful women. Just FYI. (Notice please its not on the list.)
(I have resisted the temptation to include Latvian phrases in this post because my office computer does not have Latvian letters installed, and I do know how to spell correctly in Latvian. I may amend later to add them. But maybe not. This list is for those of my friends and colleagues who are not Latvian.)
Monday, August 19, 2013
I believe in The Creator who created... me.
"I believe in God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth."
Apostles' Creed, Article I
"We should emphasize the words, 'maker of heaven and earth.' What is meant by these words, 'I believe in God the Father almighty, maker...etc.'? Answer: I hold and believe that I am a creature of God..."
Martin Luther, Large Catechism, Creed, Article I
Can we please stop apologizing for believing Genesis 1 and the first articles of The Creeds?
It struck me today that I have not posted on creation, and that it does not go without saying in our current culture. It should go without saying that I believe that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1. But it needs to be established among us, without apology. So this is my apology, without apology. (It's a play on words...apology also means to defend... never mind.)
So having established that I believe God created the heavens and the earth, I want to add that I am not a "Young Earth Creationist." (A young earth creationist believes that the universe was created less than 6000 years ago, because if you take everything in the Bible literally - which we should not - then counting backwards comes to less than 6000 years to Adam.) The reason I am not a Young Earth Creationist is star light, and the speed of light. (Even if our calculation of the speed of light is somehow off, we will never get to 6 thousand years from 6 billion.) I have heard the arguments. But as followers of Jesus and created creatures of God, we really don't get to take something that makes no sense and try to make sense of it by saying "God did it."
But notice that atheistic evolutionists do exactly the same thing. They take something (more than one actually) that makes no sense and try to make sense of it by saying, "Time did it."
Atheistic Evolution makes no sense. It's just impossible. Darwin recognized that a system that could not be brought about by progressive approximations could not be explained by his theory (which required successive approximations)...a system like... the eye for instance. Vision requires an eye, an optic nerve and a brain capable of interpreting the light signals. Assuming a positive mutation resulted in an eye somehow (There has never been an observed positive mutation apart from human - design - intervention.) that eye would not give any competitive advantage. It would not work. Same with an optic nerve without an eye, or brain capacity. The only way the eye works is fully formed as an entire system - designed, created, installed.
Atheistic evolutionists have been forced to concede for some years now that the DNA molecule could not have formed by random chance. Now a scientist would conclude that the hypothesis of random combinations of chance had failed and abandon it. But not our plucky evolutionists. When faced with the Cambrian Explosion, our storytellers came up with "giant leap evolution." When faced with the building block of life being unable to be formed by random chance, they came up with...wait for it...this is my favorite... alien DNA seeding! Science? Or blind faith? And faith in what?
If you do not believe me, I recommend you rent (or buy) and watch Ben Stine's documentary, "Expelled." One short clip is a part of our confirmation class each year. It is the clip of Stine interviewing Dr. Dawkins. In the clip Dawkins actually promotes the feasibility of alien DNA seeding! I show my students because if I told them he said that, they would not believe me. So I show them. I also suggest you rent the movies "Mission to Mars" starring Gary Sinise and the newer "Prometheus." They are both good movies, but warning here that Prometheus is R for a reason. (It is the prequel to "Alien".) If you want, just watch the opening scene promoting the "theory" of alien DNA seeding and making this ridiculous fairy tale viable for the public. Mission to Mars does the same thing, but in the last scene rather than the opening scene.
Now for my brothers and sisters in Christ who are "Theistic Evolutionists", I admit that Theistic Evolution is not impossible, and does not deny directly the truth of the Scriptures, Creed and Confessions. Conceded. But I hope that you will also allow that I can believe both The Faith and Science by not buying into the argument that evolution works (worked) because "God did it." (Sound familiar?) Possibly. But since this process has never been observed moving one species to another in the history of history, and in fact no positive mutation giving a competitive advantage has been observed, and, since science is based in observation and recording, I will remain a skeptic regarding evolution. So what are / were dinosaurs? Um...extinct species created by God? Humans have shown a remarkable ability to move species created by God to extinction. Natural occurrences can do the same.
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.
Apostles' Creed, Article I
"We should emphasize the words, 'maker of heaven and earth.' What is meant by these words, 'I believe in God the Father almighty, maker...etc.'? Answer: I hold and believe that I am a creature of God..."
Martin Luther, Large Catechism, Creed, Article I
Can we please stop apologizing for believing Genesis 1 and the first articles of The Creeds?
It struck me today that I have not posted on creation, and that it does not go without saying in our current culture. It should go without saying that I believe that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1. But it needs to be established among us, without apology. So this is my apology, without apology. (It's a play on words...apology also means to defend... never mind.)
So having established that I believe God created the heavens and the earth, I want to add that I am not a "Young Earth Creationist." (A young earth creationist believes that the universe was created less than 6000 years ago, because if you take everything in the Bible literally - which we should not - then counting backwards comes to less than 6000 years to Adam.) The reason I am not a Young Earth Creationist is star light, and the speed of light. (Even if our calculation of the speed of light is somehow off, we will never get to 6 thousand years from 6 billion.) I have heard the arguments. But as followers of Jesus and created creatures of God, we really don't get to take something that makes no sense and try to make sense of it by saying "God did it."
But notice that atheistic evolutionists do exactly the same thing. They take something (more than one actually) that makes no sense and try to make sense of it by saying, "Time did it."
Atheistic Evolution makes no sense. It's just impossible. Darwin recognized that a system that could not be brought about by progressive approximations could not be explained by his theory (which required successive approximations)...a system like... the eye for instance. Vision requires an eye, an optic nerve and a brain capable of interpreting the light signals. Assuming a positive mutation resulted in an eye somehow (There has never been an observed positive mutation apart from human - design - intervention.) that eye would not give any competitive advantage. It would not work. Same with an optic nerve without an eye, or brain capacity. The only way the eye works is fully formed as an entire system - designed, created, installed.
Atheistic evolutionists have been forced to concede for some years now that the DNA molecule could not have formed by random chance. Now a scientist would conclude that the hypothesis of random combinations of chance had failed and abandon it. But not our plucky evolutionists. When faced with the Cambrian Explosion, our storytellers came up with "giant leap evolution." When faced with the building block of life being unable to be formed by random chance, they came up with...wait for it...this is my favorite... alien DNA seeding! Science? Or blind faith? And faith in what?
If you do not believe me, I recommend you rent (or buy) and watch Ben Stine's documentary, "Expelled." One short clip is a part of our confirmation class each year. It is the clip of Stine interviewing Dr. Dawkins. In the clip Dawkins actually promotes the feasibility of alien DNA seeding! I show my students because if I told them he said that, they would not believe me. So I show them. I also suggest you rent the movies "Mission to Mars" starring Gary Sinise and the newer "Prometheus." They are both good movies, but warning here that Prometheus is R for a reason. (It is the prequel to "Alien".) If you want, just watch the opening scene promoting the "theory" of alien DNA seeding and making this ridiculous fairy tale viable for the public. Mission to Mars does the same thing, but in the last scene rather than the opening scene.
Now for my brothers and sisters in Christ who are "Theistic Evolutionists", I admit that Theistic Evolution is not impossible, and does not deny directly the truth of the Scriptures, Creed and Confessions. Conceded. But I hope that you will also allow that I can believe both The Faith and Science by not buying into the argument that evolution works (worked) because "God did it." (Sound familiar?) Possibly. But since this process has never been observed moving one species to another in the history of history, and in fact no positive mutation giving a competitive advantage has been observed, and, since science is based in observation and recording, I will remain a skeptic regarding evolution. So what are / were dinosaurs? Um...extinct species created by God? Humans have shown a remarkable ability to move species created by God to extinction. Natural occurrences can do the same.
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.
Friday, July 12, 2013
I believe in everlasting life.
"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Christian Church (catholic in the Latin), the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting."
The Apostles' Creed, Book of Concord
"I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins, and I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."
The Nicene Creed, Book of Concord
As I mentioned in my last post setting the stage for this post, the Gospel Lessons of Jesus raising the dead to life, and my re-reading of Ursula LeGuin's "Wizard of Earthsea" series (5 books) got me thinking about everlasting life. I am grateful to my colleague, Rev. Dr. Clint Schnekloth, who is a voracious reader, for suggesting the book, "Immortality" by Stephen Cave. I want to confess up front that I focused in reading the book on the opening, the closing, and the discussion of Christianity and The Resurrection to eternal life.
In the third book of Ursula LeGuin's series, the hero, the mage and later archmage, Sparrowhawk, descends to "the place of the dead" where he finds the "people" to be ghostlike, and without recognition or memory of their lives. In book 5, a young magician and Sparrowhawk's adopted daughter "set the dead free" from this non-life by opening the gate to oblivion, through which the dead gladly go to escape the hell of eternal non-life. But Sparrowhawk's adopted daughter is both human and dragon. And dragons have a much different destiny. Dragons have the possibility to fly beyond this world, and fly on "the other wind." I pondered this quite a bit. I came to a realization that as a self-proclaimed atheist, oblivion was the best that Ursula LeGuin could offer. And oblivion was / is far better than an eternal existence as non-life.
In his book, "Immortality", author Stephen Cave arrives at a similar place. He sets forth four immortality narratives, and then sets out to demonstrate that none of them is credible. I only read his discussion of resurrection. It was clear in the reading that Cave came from the perspective of atheistic evolution. From that perspective, that starting place, it is of course quite true that resurrection is irrational. But we come from a very different starting place. We come from The Resurrection Event, the resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Not surprisingly, he does not deal with any of the voluminous evidence of the actual, historical, resurrection of Jesus. [I do not list it all here. My DVD (or manuscript) of my closing argument in the role of attorney laying out the substantial evidence for the resurrection is available upon request.] For a God who created and can create ex nihilo (out of nothing) this is not incredible at all. In his conclusion, Cave tries to create a narrative of hope and meaning from a system without eternal life - and ending in oblivion. (He uses a Wisdom Narrative, taken partly from Ecclesiastes, while conveniently leaving out, "Vanity, vanity; all is vanity.") I submit that his conclusions are as much imaginary wishful thinking as the narratives he attacks. (This has been aptly demonstrated by philosophers for many, many years.)
And this relates back to the conclusion of LeGuin's series. Of course oblivion is far superior to a half-life, a non-life, of eternal existence without meaningful experience. But, of course, these are not the only options presented to us. In the Gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, evidenced by His resurrection, attested by God the Holy Spirit, eternal life is offered to us to receive by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and His finished work. We are offered the promise of going beyond this present world as we not know it and flying "on the other wind."
I believe in the resurrection to eternal life.
The Apostles' Creed, Book of Concord
"I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins, and I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."
The Nicene Creed, Book of Concord
As I mentioned in my last post setting the stage for this post, the Gospel Lessons of Jesus raising the dead to life, and my re-reading of Ursula LeGuin's "Wizard of Earthsea" series (5 books) got me thinking about everlasting life. I am grateful to my colleague, Rev. Dr. Clint Schnekloth, who is a voracious reader, for suggesting the book, "Immortality" by Stephen Cave. I want to confess up front that I focused in reading the book on the opening, the closing, and the discussion of Christianity and The Resurrection to eternal life.
In the third book of Ursula LeGuin's series, the hero, the mage and later archmage, Sparrowhawk, descends to "the place of the dead" where he finds the "people" to be ghostlike, and without recognition or memory of their lives. In book 5, a young magician and Sparrowhawk's adopted daughter "set the dead free" from this non-life by opening the gate to oblivion, through which the dead gladly go to escape the hell of eternal non-life. But Sparrowhawk's adopted daughter is both human and dragon. And dragons have a much different destiny. Dragons have the possibility to fly beyond this world, and fly on "the other wind." I pondered this quite a bit. I came to a realization that as a self-proclaimed atheist, oblivion was the best that Ursula LeGuin could offer. And oblivion was / is far better than an eternal existence as non-life.
In his book, "Immortality", author Stephen Cave arrives at a similar place. He sets forth four immortality narratives, and then sets out to demonstrate that none of them is credible. I only read his discussion of resurrection. It was clear in the reading that Cave came from the perspective of atheistic evolution. From that perspective, that starting place, it is of course quite true that resurrection is irrational. But we come from a very different starting place. We come from The Resurrection Event, the resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Not surprisingly, he does not deal with any of the voluminous evidence of the actual, historical, resurrection of Jesus. [I do not list it all here. My DVD (or manuscript) of my closing argument in the role of attorney laying out the substantial evidence for the resurrection is available upon request.] For a God who created and can create ex nihilo (out of nothing) this is not incredible at all. In his conclusion, Cave tries to create a narrative of hope and meaning from a system without eternal life - and ending in oblivion. (He uses a Wisdom Narrative, taken partly from Ecclesiastes, while conveniently leaving out, "Vanity, vanity; all is vanity.") I submit that his conclusions are as much imaginary wishful thinking as the narratives he attacks. (This has been aptly demonstrated by philosophers for many, many years.)
And this relates back to the conclusion of LeGuin's series. Of course oblivion is far superior to a half-life, a non-life, of eternal existence without meaningful experience. But, of course, these are not the only options presented to us. In the Gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, evidenced by His resurrection, attested by God the Holy Spirit, eternal life is offered to us to receive by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and His finished work. We are offered the promise of going beyond this present world as we not know it and flying "on the other wind."
I believe in the resurrection to eternal life.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Coming Soon: "Eternal Life."
I like that my blog is still here and I can come back to it. In Luke 7, Jesus raises a boy, only son of a widow, from the dead, just as Elijah (and Elisha) had done. These texts got me thinking about eternal life.
I am planning on doing a blog post on "eternal life." I have been reflecting on this recently as I read through the 5 book series of Ursula LeGuin "The Wizard of Earthsea" and reflecting on the Gospel Lessons for June 9th on which I will be preaching in my beloved Latvia. But I don't want to write the post until I have read the new book recommended by my colleague, "Immortality."
I will read this book while I am in my beloved Latvia in June. When I return toward the end of June I will write my post on eternal life.
Coming Soon.
I am planning on doing a blog post on "eternal life." I have been reflecting on this recently as I read through the 5 book series of Ursula LeGuin "The Wizard of Earthsea" and reflecting on the Gospel Lessons for June 9th on which I will be preaching in my beloved Latvia. But I don't want to write the post until I have read the new book recommended by my colleague, "Immortality."
I will read this book while I am in my beloved Latvia in June. When I return toward the end of June I will write my post on eternal life.
Coming Soon.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Blessed St. Valentine's Day, remembering one who put love for God and obedience to God's call at a higher price than his own life. "Your Love is better than Life."
Below on March 22nd, 2012, you will find a post on the lives of Valentine and Patrick, as we move from St. Valentine's Day to St. Patrick's Day.
Below on March 22nd, 2012, you will find a post on the lives of Valentine and Patrick, as we move from St. Valentine's Day to St. Patrick's Day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)