Wine or Grape Juice

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about the use of wine in the Lord's Supper:

Q:  Why do some churches use wine for Communion and others use grape juice?  What did Jesus use in the first Lord’s Supper and what are the potential consequences if we use something else?  What alternatives does a person have who has been advised not to consume alcohol because of alcoholism or for medical reasons?

When Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper on the night He was betrayed, He was eating the Passover meal with His disciples.  This fact, along with the words Jesus used, does a great deal to reveal to us what was in the cup that Jesus was using on that evening. 

First, the wine was made from grapes, because Jesus refers to it as “fruit of the vine,” which would exclude wine made from any other fruits.  We also know that grape wine was used in the Passover meal and that the wine was fermented wine. 

In addition to the traditions of the Passover meal, the Greek word used in the Bible for the drink used in the Lord’s Supper specifically means fermented wine.  If it were anything else, the authors would have used a different word or modified the word for “wine” with an additional word to describe the difference. 

Further evidence can be found in that the Passover is celebrated in the Spring.  Because Pasteurization and Refrigeration had not yet been invented, it would only be possible for a person to drink unfermented grape juice immediately during the grape harvest, because within a matter of days, the juice would begin to ferment as a result of the heat and the natural yeasts found on the skin of the grapes.

Throughout history, churches have typically attempted to use the same elements as the original institution to the closest degree possible.  This is because God’s command includes specific elements and His promises are tied to those elements.  While we cannot say whether the wine was red or white, or what grape it was made from, or the particular alcohol content, we do know that it was fermented grape wine. 

For Christians who believe that Jesus body and blood really become present in the Lord’s Supper and that the Lord’s Supper does forgive sins, the consequence of changing the elements is that it has the potential to introduce doubt concerning whether the Sacrament is valid and capable of delivering the blessing God has promised. 

Typically, when grape juice is used exclusively in congregations, it is in congregations with one or both of two teachings as a part of their theology.  The first of these is a belief that the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper represent or symbolize Jesus’ body and blood rather than being His body and blood.  As a result of this belief, using grape juice does not present concerns about the Sacrament’s validity for them. 

The second of these is that they have some level of discomfort with the use of alcohol by Christians, sometimes even to the point of considering all alcohol consumption sinful.  Since they cannot reconcile the use of fermented wine with this belief, they resolve the tension by using unfermented grape juice. 

Occasionally, even Sacramental denominations will offer unfermented grape juice as an alternative for those who struggle with alcoholism or have been medically advised not to consume alcohol.  However, in light of other alternatives many pastors are now finding even this concession unnecessary. 

For example, there are a variety of wines available on today’s market which have been fermented in the usual manner, but distilled to 0.5% alcohol content, resulting in a true wine that is virtually without alcohol.  Another option is to use the normal communion wine offered in the congregation, but dilute it with water to the point where the alcohol content is insignificant. 

Many have also found a return to using the chalice (common cup) as an excellent alternative, because the communicant can merely allow the wine to touch their lips rather than consuming the entire contents of an individual cup.  Many alcoholics also report that receiving wine during communion by the pastor’s hand from a common cup is such a different experience from receiving an alcoholic drink by their own hand that it eliminates the temptation to return to their alcoholic behaviors. 

In addition to these practical reasons, since we know that Jesus instituted Lord’s Supper for our benefit, we can have a faithful confidence that God would certainly not allow a Christian to suffer spiritual harm in a Sacrament intended to bless them. 

Does God hate religion?

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines on the term "religion":

Q:  Can a person to say they hate religion but love Jesus?  Is Christianity a “religion” or not?  Did Jesus come to abolish religion?

This is a question that has been circulating with increasing frequency since the mid-20^th century, especially during the first decade of the present century, and which was brought even further into the forefront in past weeks by a YouTube video that quickly made the rounds on the internet through social networking sites. 

The current questions regarding religion and Jesus or religion and Christianity have arisen primarily from two sources.  The first of these can be seen within Christianity as a reaction against the rigid rule-oriented portrayal of religion that had become prevalent in certain denominational circles.  In response to this portrayal, many preachers have begun to contrast this law-oriented focus, which they would characterize as “religious,” against a gospel-oriented message which focuses on grace and the freedom of the Christian.

The second source from which this question finds its origin is a movement outside of Christianity where people consider themselves “spiritual but not religious.”  Recent demographic studies of religious identity reveal that “none of the above” or “unaffiliated” has become the fastest growing religious identity in the United States.  However, these religiously unaffiliated persons are not primarily atheist or agnostic.  Instead, they have definite spiritual ideas, but do not practice them collectively in a Church or other religious organization or submit to any particular authority or doctrinal system. 

Much of the confusion regarding this question about Jesus and religion can be overcome by nailing down the definition of religion.  Prevailing dictionary definitions of religion describe it as a set of beliefs regarding spiritual things or a devotion to a deity.  When scholars speak of a religion, they use the word to refer to a particular world religion such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or Mormonism, while they use the word denomination to refer to the particular organizations that are divisions within Christianity. 

However, the popular use of the term religion by “spiritual but not religious” proponents outside of Christianity or by Christian preachers who want to distinguish faith-based Christianity from rule-oriented religion has initiated a novel view of religion that causes confusion. 

If one wants to say that Jesus is against rule-oriented religion but in favor of a faith which trusts in Him and embraces the freedom of knowing God’s forgiveness, then one could say that Jesus is against “religion”.  In fact, this is the characteristic that distinguishes Christianity from every other religious system in the world.  Every other world religion emphasizes a system of acts which must be carried out by people in order to make things right with their deity, but Christianity proposes that God Himself, in the person of Jesus, already accomplished everything necessary for our spiritual good, and we receive it through trust in Him. 

However, if one wants to say that Jesus is against any form of formal organization to religious practice, that would be a false claim.  The Bible continually emphasizes both that Christians ought to gather together, both for worship of God, through which He speaks to them by His preached Word and forgives their sins through the Sacraments, and for service to others.  We even see that the New Testament constantly urges Christians to cling to pure doctrine as taught by Jesus and the Apostles and to believe the same things rather than each having his own individual spiritual convictions.  In this sense, Jesus is very much in favor of religion—in fact, He is the true religion. 

"in vain?"

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about the use of God's name:

Q:  What does it mean to take God’s name “in vain”?  What are the proper and improper ways to use God’s name in accordance with the Second Commandment?

This is one of those phrases left to us as a legacy from the King James Bible, and which many of us remember from when we memorized the commandments in our youth.  Some translations have made this easier to understand by translating it in simpler terms such as, “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.” 

At first glance, we might think that this commandment simply means that we shouldn’t use “God” as a curse word or that we should avoid His proper name, “YHWH” or “Yahweh”.  On the other hand, there are small groups of Christians who insist that it is not appropriate to speak, or even to write the word God or other words which refer to Him, and as a result, they might render such words as “L-rd” or “G-d.”  However, this practice is more in line with the teachings of the Pharisees than of Jesus. 

While this commandment does not forbid all usage of God’s name, it does forbid misuse of God’s name.  So, for example, not only would using the word “God” as a curse word be forbidden, but also the use of other words which refer to God, like Lord, Almighty, Savior, Jesus, Christ, etc.  In fact, even if one were to make up his own name for God not found in any language, then misuse it, that would also be forbidden in this commandment, because it is not the syllables, but the intention that are addressed.

In addition to the way in which one speaks God’s name, this commandment also addresses other ways of misusing God’s name.  For example, if one were to wish evil upon their neighbor and do so in God’s name, or if one were to lie and swear it to be truth in God’s name, these would also be forms of misuse.  Any attempt to manipulate people or events for personal gain using God’s name, is more akin to witchcraft than Christianity and would be another way of misusing His name. 

One misuse of God’s name which might be less obvious, yet just as serious, is the teaching of false doctrine.  This is because to teach anything other than the truth about God is a way of misusing His name.  If a preacher says, “God says…” then follows with something untrue, he has lied about God and misused His name.  Likewise, if he says, “Jesus is this…” or “The Holy Spirit does that…” and his statement is untrue, He is telling a lie about God and therefore misleading people in God’s name.

When Martin Luther explains this commandment in this catechism, he reflects the teaching of several Biblical authors when he says that the way Christians ought to use God’s name is to “Call upon it in every trouble, pray, praise, and give thanks.”

While God takes seriously the way in which we use His name, He does not desire that Christians should avoid using His name or the many titles and descriptions of Him which we find in the Bible.  Instead, He desires that we use His name to explain the truth about Him, express our faith and trust in Him, call upon Him and His promises in times of need, and thank and praise Him for His many blessings.

God's Name

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about God's name:

Q:  What is God’s Name?  Many religions talk about “god,” but does the Christian God have a unique name?

For Americans, it used to be that the identity of “God” was very clear.  55 years ago, the nation was largely Christian, and the question, “Do you believe in God?” meant, “Are you a Christian?”  In the years since, that clarity about the identity of God, along with the answers to many other spiritual questions has been largely lost.

Today, when someone speaks of “god,” they could mean the Christian God, but it is just as likely that they mean the God of some other religion, a deity they have cobbled together from the various thoughts of many religions, or merely a generic “higher power” which may or may not have a precise name.

This lack of clarity in the language for god is not unique to our culture.  For example, in nations which speak the Arabic language, both Christians and Muslims use the term “Allah” to refer to their god.  Likewise, both Jews and Christians could recognize the many terms used by the Old Testament as references to their god, even though their definitions of that God are drastically different.

The two most common Hebrew terms that the Bible uses for God are “Elohim” and “YHWH.”  Elohim is a general term used for a deity in the Hebrew language, but since the Israelites believed that only one real God existed, and that the others were false, this term came to be used as a specific term for their God, much like Americans would have used the word “God” until the late-1950s. 

YHWH, on the other hand was the proper name for God.  This is the name revealed by God to Moses when He spoke from the Burning Bush, saying, “I am that I am.”  Sometimes this word is written in English as “Yaweh,” and it is thought to be pronounced like “Yah-way.”  However the precise vowels within the name as well as its pronunciation cannot be decisively identified by modern scholars.  This is because the Israelites took the commandment against using God’s name in vain so seriously that they refused to pronounce it at all, instead substituting the word “Adonai” (which means “Lord”) or “Ha-Shem” (which means “the name”) when they would read it out loud.  Eventually, the vowel sounds within the word were no longer known by later generations and therefore lost to history. 

These Hebrew Words were translated into Greek in the New Testament as “Theos” (the generic term for a god) and “Ho Kurios” (which is literally translated as “the Lord”).  We also have specific revelation of God in the person of Jesus, who said that the only way to know God the Father was to know Him and the only way to come to God the Father is through Him.  Therefore, it is also accurate to say that God’s name is Jesus, as reflected in the early Christian confession, “Jesus is Lord.”  (i.e. “Jesus is YHWH.”)

For Christians, it is important to choose our language carefully when speaking about spiritual things, because we must remember that when we say the word “God,” it may not be understood by our neighbors in the same way we mean it, which can be an obstacle to accurately communicating the Truth. 

For myself, I have a personal habit of avoiding the generic word “God” to a large extent, when preaching or writing, because it is too easy today for every person listening to simply fill in their own definition.  For the sake of clarity, I instead attempt to use terms like The Trinity, The Lord, Triune God, God the Father, God the Son, Jesus, God the Holy Spirit, or The One True God as much as possible so that it will be abundantly clear to anyone listening that I am not speaking about a generic deity or about the God of every person’s individual understanding, but instead about a specific God who has revealed Himself in specific ways resulting in a precisely definable identity. 

Creeds

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about the use of creeds:

Q:  Why do some churches say creeds during their worship services?  Isn’t believing in these creeds a way of adding onto the Bible?  If a church requires adherence to any document other than the Bible, isn’t that against the Reformation principle of “Scripture Alone” that protestants claim to believe?

There are many forms of creeds found throughout Christianity.  The three that are almost-universally accepted, and which many churches speak publically as a part of public worship are the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed.  The Apostles’ Creed is typically associated with Baptism and with the prayer offices of the Church.  The Nicene Creed is typically associated with the Lord’s Supper, and the Athanasian Creed, the longest and most complicated of the three, is traditionally said on occasions specifically associated with the doctrine of the Trinity, such as the first Sunday after Pentecost.

During the first 400 years after Jesus ascended into heaven, representatives from all of Christianity met seven times in response to false teachings that had arisen.  They gathered in council to evaluate these new teachings and responded by formulating statements of what was true, based on the writings of the Apostles, which we know as the New Testament.  These three creeds are the result of the councils mentioned above, and from that point until the founding of the United States over 1300 years later, they were considered the standard for Christian orthodoxy.  If anyone agreed with these creeds, even if they disputed other teachings of the Church, they were considered within the scope of Christianity, and if anyone disagreed with elements of these creeds, they were considered outside the scope of Christianity.

This is true to such an extent that my Lutheran predecessors emphasized their consistency with historical Christianity by including them as the first documents in their collection of statements about what they as a group believed in comparison to their Roman Catholic and Reformed neighbors of the time. 

To confess these creeds, whether as foundation for one’s written doctrine, or as a public act of worship, is not a way of adding onto the Bible, though.  This is because these creeds are summaries of what is contained in the Bible.  In fact, fragments of these creeds can be seen already in the letters of the Apostle Paul, as he quotes them as evidence for which doctrine is true or false in the congregations he is addressing. 

The reason these creeds are necessary is because throughout the history of Christianity, people have frequently misunderstood the message of the Bible, and as a result, strayed from the truth.  These creeds serve as a succinct and time-tested way to begin instructing new Christians in the faith, so that as they begin to read the Bible, they can “stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before them” as these foundational statements undergird their personal reading, as well as an easily-memorized way that Christians can test the statements of unknown teachers against established truth to judge whether the teacher in question ought to be believed. 

In the centuries since these creeds, the tradition of summarizing the doctrines of churches in a written statement has continued with documents such as the Book of Concord among Lutherans and the “Westminster Confession” and the “Canons of the Synod of Dort” among protestants.

However, this is not to say that these creeds or other confessions are to be considered equal to the Bible.  Instead, they are always subject to what is taught in the Bible, and derive their authority from the Bible. 

At the same time, the three major creeds listed at the beginning of this article are not merely examples of what Christians have believed in the past.  Instead, they are statements of timeless truth which reflect the essence and foundation of Christian teaching.  Since God Himself does not change, neither does His Truth, and since these creeds reflect and embody that Truth as revealed in the Bible, they themselves remain true for all time, regardless of the changes in human opinion and perspective which may have occurred in the generations since.

Divorce & Remarriage

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about divorce and remarriage:

Q:  Under what circumstances does the Bible allow for divorce?  After a divorce, are one or both of the parties allowed to remarry, and under what circumstances? 

Strictly speaking, the Bible allows only one circumstance under which a marriage ought to come to an end.  That circumstance is the death of one spouse.  A widow or widower is given no special restrictions in the Bible regarding when or whom they may marry beyond those given to other single Christians, so they may remarry as soon as their own conscience allows them. 

However, in light of human sin, Jesus is recorded in the gospels as allowing one condition under which a marriage may end by divorce, which is adultery (sexual unfaithfulness) on the part of one spouse.  In such a case, Jesus said that the spouse who was the victim of the adultery has the option (but not the requirement) to divorce the spouse who committed adultery.  As in all things, the Bible prefers reconciliation of the marriage when possible, but does allow for divorce as a result of adultery when reconciliation is not possible. 

In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul gives several pieces of instruction, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as an Apostle, regarding marriage and divorce.  In doing so, he specifically rejects the idea that spouses may divorce, even over matters as  serious as religious differences, but he does expand upon Jesus’ instruction to allow for divorce in the case of abandonment by one spouse.  Under the circumstance where one spouse unilaterally leaves the marriage against the wishes of the other, he does not fault the spouse who was abandoned for the dissolution of the marriage. 

In reading these instructions from St. Paul, Bible scholars and Christian ethicists have typically concluded that these instructions not only include the allowance for divorce as a result of literal abandonment, but also what has been termed “malicious abandonment.”  Malicious abandonment would include such circumstances as abuse by one spouse toward another, and addiction or other circumstances under which the actions of one spouse significantly compromise the safety of the other spouse or the children in the family. 

Under the circumstances listed above, one spouse in the dissolved marriage would be ethically and morally faulted with causing the divorce, while the other would be considered justified in their decision to end the marriage.  At the same time, a divorce is never solely the fault of one spouse.  Since all marriages are between two sinners, both spouses have always sinned against the other in some manner, even if not in ways that justify divorce.  Remembering this, it is important that both parties acknowledge their sins to God (and perhaps to one another or to their pastor) in the aftermath of the divorce and repent of them, knowing that Jesus’ death is sufficient to forgive all sin, and taking corrective action before considering remarriage.

After a divorce, a pastor would treat every situation individually when divorced Christians are considering remarriage.  If the divorce was not Biblically justifiable based on the criteria above (adultery, abuse, abandonment) then he will need to address this in caring for those desiring remarriage.  If the divorce was Biblically justifiable, then he will have different needs to address in his spiritual care of the person depending on whether they were the guilty party in their divorce or the victim. 

A victimized spouse is morally free to remarry, but should certainly seek guidance and pastoral care as they enter their new marriage, because of the mental and spiritual factors involved with recovering from divorce.  On the other hand, it is also necessary that a spouse guilty of causing their divorce repent of their sin and take corrective action before a responsible pastor will agree to participate in joining them in a new marriage. 

Ultimately, Christian ethics insist that marriage is intended to be a life-long commitment between a husband and wife, but human sin has interfered with this intention and continually causes broken marriages.  Acknowledging this, it is the task and desire of the Church and its pastors to care for all who are broken by the effects of sin in the world, especially making use of God’s gifts of Prayer, Blessing, Scripture, and Sacraments so bring the forgiveness of Jesus to those who have sinned, allowing them to proceed in a new life. 

Moneybags Superstition

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about superstition:

Q:  On many occasions this year, I have received emails or seen social networking posts that the way days of the week fall within a month or the way numbers align in the date have the potential to bring wealth, luck, or other benefits if I take certain action.  First, is this legitimate?  Second, is it acceptable for a Christian to trust in such things to receive the promised benefits?

I have seen these posts myself.  One of them claimed that the circumstance that there were five Fridays, five Saturdays, and five Sundays occurring during July 2011, was called “moneybags” and only happened every 823 years.  It claimed that if a person re-posted or forwarded the message, they would receive money, but if they did not, the message warned, they would be without money. 

Another message attached special significance to four particular dates:  1/1/11, 1/11/11, 11/1/11, and 11/11/11 with similar promises and warnings that the recipient’s actions, which must occur at or before 11:11 on 11/11/11, would bring them either a blessing or a curse. 

To begin with, claims such as the “moneybags” myth mentioned in the first example are factually inaccurate.  The phenomenon described actually occurs once every 5-11 years, depending on where the leap years fall.  Secondly, even if the events described were as rare as they are claimed to be, there is no observable evidence that the benefits described have occurred in the past. 

For Christians, 1 Timothy 4:7 gives perspective on practices such as those described above.  In that verse, Paul says, “Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths.  Rather train yourself for godliness. 

In the Old Testament, God had forbidden all types of divination, which was the practice of seeking guidance or knowledge of the future through manipulating or observing elements of nature unrelated to the events in question.  So, for example, kings of unbelieving nations might ask a priest of their religion to slaughter a sheep or goat and study its organs to find out how an upcoming battle would go, or they might observe the pattern in which a flock of birds fly to discern which strategy to use.  Horoscopes are an example of how this ideology continues even to this day. 

God clearly commanded His people that they were not to engage in such practices, and connected this command to the First and Second Commandments, which forbid idolatry, and the misuse of God’s name.  As such, these prohibitions continue into the New Testament era for Christians.  Because all of the above actions describe trust in some other force than the Triune God for blessing, they are a form of idolatry to be avoided by Christians. 

The Bible does at times speak positively about discerning the signs found in nature, but these are always observed natural correlations between an event and the result which follows, such as the color of the sky relating to weather which might follow, or the color of leaves indicating the change of seasons. 

Regarding the alignments of days in a month or dates in a year, we must also note that our modern calendar is not a divinely-given system, but rather a humanly-devised method or organizing time.  So, as such, it would bear no correlation to divine promises for blessing. 

Finally, assumptions such as those above are opposed to a Christian worldview.  In the religion from which these superstitions arise, it is assumed that the god/gods/universe are against us and inclined to do us harm, and it is only if we act in the specified ways that they will be forced to bless us. 

Christianity, on the other hand, proposes that God, in fact, desires to act on our behalf and takes the initiative Himself to bring us blessing.  He does this by providing for our obvious needs of food, clothing, shelter, etc. but more importantly by forgiving sins because of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus for all who trust in Him. 

Even though it might appear that we need to appease the deities and forces of the universe by our own action, the God who created them has already acted, both through creation and through His Son, to provide us with all of our needs of body and soul, not based on our own worthiness or ability, but because of His own kindness and righteousness. 

Grace vs. Works?

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about salvation by grace alone:

Q:  I know Lutherans and most Protestants teach that people are saved “by grace alone,”(based on Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3, etc.) but I see so many verses in the Bible which seem to say otherwise (James 2:24, 1 Peter 4:8, etc.).  Which is true?  Do these Bible verses contradict each other, or is there some other explanation?

Verses like those noted here can be very challenging for those who understand that humans can only be saved by grace and contribute nothing from themselves to receive it, because the verses seem to contradict that idea. However, there is a subtle distinction which helps to shed light on why James and Peter can speak in this way, which seems drastically different from what we see Paul saying in Galatians, Ephesians, and Romans.

This distinction is that there are two kinds of righteousness portrayed in the Bible, and along with them two kinds of justification. This word, justification, can be used as a technical term for the forgiveness of a sinner by God as a gift, but it also has a more general meaning of validating or confirming the truthfulness of our position or actions in the eyes of other people.

The first type of righteousness acts in a vertical direction--that is between God and man. This vertical righteousness is what we normally think of as Lutherans when we hear the word, justification.  This is the type of righteousness that comes from God as a gift to us, apart from any worthiness on our part.

The second type of righteousness occurs in a horizontal direction--that is between man and his fellow man. While the vertical sort of righteousness or justification is where our salvation occurs, we continue to live in relationship with other people in our everyday lives. It is within these relationships that the horizontal sort of righteousness or justification occurs, where the actions of the Christian are intended to validate or confirm the truthfulness of the claims of Christianity in the eyes of those who observe our lives

So, when James says, “You see that a person is justified by works, and not faith alone,” he is speaking of the way that our actions serve to validate or invalidate the Christian faith we claim to believe, when our actions are viewed by other people, particularly those outside of the Church.  If we act in a way that reflects what we believe, it confirms the Christian faith in their eyes.  If we act hypocritically or in habitual sin, it invalidates the Christian faith in their eyes.  If we read James' words in context, we can see that this is the sort of thing he is speaking of with the word "justification" and that he is not discussing how we relate to God.

Just as there are two directions in which righteousness and justification occur, there are also two directions in which sin occurs. We can sin against God alone by breaking any of the first three commandments. However, when we sin against the remaining commandments, we sin not only against God, but also against our fellow man. When Peter says, “Above all, keep loving one another, since love covers over a multitude of sins,” he is speaking to those who are already Christians.  So, when he talks about love covering a multitude of sins, this is what he speaks of--not that our love reduces the burden of our sins in God's eyes (because Jesus has already completely fulfilled that need), but that love covers over or abates the division and discord that are the result of our sins and separate or embitter the relationship between the sinner and the one against whom he has sinned.

Semper Reformanda

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about continuing reform of the Church:

Q:  Is Christian teaching something that is always developing and evolving or must it remain the same from age to age?

The most direct answer to this question is that Christian doctrine cannot and must not change.  Since God does not change (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17, etc.), the truth which He has established and His will for humanity are also without change. 

This is not to say that new generations of Christians do not face challenges unfamiliar to those who have gone before them, or that the Bible is not a valid guide in such matters.  Even though the truth can never change, it may be applied in new ways in response to new ethical questions. 

For example, topics like genetic engineering, human cloning, and embryonic stem cell research are brand new issues for Christians today that were not faced by former generations, but the Scripture still informs Christian responses and actions as they address new questions.  While Christian doctrine never changes, it is constantly applied to new circumstances and ethical questions.

Likewise, the language and illustrations which Christians use adapts over time in order to best communicate the message of Jesus in present circumstances.  For example, the Apostles make use of a wide variety of language to describe the work accomplished by Jesus.  While that truth is singular, the Church has emphasized some of these descriptions more in some periods of history, and others in another period of history because it finds a greater resonance with the people of that culture. 

So, while the truth about Jesus remains the same from generation to generation, the Church may draw more or less from the various portions of Scripture to proclaim this truth in different generations, and it may apply this same truth to new questions while remaining in harmony with what has been taught before.

At the same time, we can look back at history and see where Christian teaching has gone astray and was in need of correction.  The events of the Reformation nearly 500 years ago are an example of this.  The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church had departed from truth, and men like Martin Luther and John Calvin called church leaders to correct these abuses while teaching the public the truth which had been obscured.

An important thing to note about this Reformation, though, is that it did not seek to teach anything new, but rather to return the Church to the truth that it had left behind.  This is the case with all valid reformations in the Church. 

It has been said that “The Church is always reforming” or “The Church is always in need of reformation.”  While this is true, it has often been misunderstood.  This saying does not mean that Christian doctrine develops and evolves over time, but rather that because the people and leaders of the Church are sinners, someone is constantly trying to adapt truth to match their opinion rather than conforming their opinion to the truth. 

As a result, reformers are constantly arising to call the Church back to what is true.  Today it is often being said that “God is doing a new thing,” or “The Spirit is moving us in a new direction,” or even “God is still speaking,” but these slogans are not examples of true reform if they contradict or abandon established truth.

Even the definition of the word “reform” itself indicates going back or returning what has gone before, and not progress toward something new, and so it is that Reformation is the continual calling of the Church to repent of its doctrinal innovations and return to the truth. 

Definition of Covet

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about coveting:

Q:  What does the word “covet” mean in the Ten Commandments?  What is the difference between coveting and desiring success or a better life?

The Ninth Commandment says that we should not covet our neighbor’s house, and the Tenth Commandment forbids coveting our neighbors, wife, workers, or animals.  To covet is to have a sinful desire for something that belongs to someone else.

Most often when we think of coveting, we think of coveting the possessions of another person.  For example, one might covet their neighbor’s house or their brother’s car and seek to find a way to make it their own. 

In explaining the Ninth Commandment, Martin Luther said that we should not scheme to get our neighbor’s possessions or obtain them in a way which only has the appearance of being right, but rather that we should help and be of service to our neighbor in keeping what is his.

When explaining the Tenth Commandment, he went on to say that we should not seek to entice away another person’s wife or workers, or turn them against him, but rather that we should encourage them to stay and do what is their duty toward him. 

In the Tenth Commandment, we see that the object of the sin of coveting might also be a person.  For example, one man might desire to be with a woman who has already been married to another man, or an employer might desire the services of an employee who is already contracted to work with another company.  If they plot or attempt to lure the wife or the employee away and make them their own, they would be coveting. 

Coveting differs from greed in that greed is simply the desire to trust possessions above God and the sinful desire to obtain them, even if through means that are otherwise lawful and moral, while coveting specifically refers to the possessions of another person. 

If a person desires to improve their standing in life or to achieve greater success and compensation, this is not an act of coveting.  In fact, it is a wise an noble aspiration if it is done righteously rather than by taking what belongs to another. 

The simplest summary of the sin of coveting is as the desire to commit any of the other sins listed in the previous commandments.  If a person covets another’s possessions, they would also be breaking the seventh commandment.  If they covet another’s spouse, they would be sinning against the sixth commandment, and if they covet another person’s authority or reputation they would be sinning against the fourth or eighth commandments. 

Ultimately, all of the commandments relate back to the First Commandment.  So that when a person sins against any commandment of God, they are placing someone in a superior position to God, and therefore committing idolatry.  To steal is to make money or a possession one’s idol.  To commit adultery is to make another person or an act of intimacy your god, and likewise with the other commandments. 

Instead of covetousness, God’s desire for humanity is contentment.  This is reflected in verses like Philippians 4:11, where Paul says, “I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances,” and 1 Timothy 6:6, where he says, “Godliness with contentment is great gain.” Christians are called to recognize all things as God’s blessings and give thanks to Him for whatever He has given—whether it is great wealth, or the basic needs of life—rather than comparing their blessings to those of others or expressing discontent over the quantity of their blessings.

Luke 23:34

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Luke 23:34:

In Luke 17:3, Jesus says, "If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them." This seems to indicate that Christians only need to forgive when the person to be forgiven has repented, but at the time of his crucifixion (Luke 23:34) Jesus asks God the Father to forgive the executioners, who had not expressed sorrow over their actions.  How do these seemingly different examples inform the way Christians are to forgive?

As I look at these verses, I think the answer becomes clear when look at three details:

1. Who is Jesus speaking to?
2. Who is to He telling do the forgiving?
3. Who is He saying should be forgiven?

In Luke 23, Jesus is speaking to God the Father, asking Him to forgive the executioners. This is not to say that Jesus expects that God the Father will forgive them without repentance, because it is the clear elsewhere in Scripture that God does not forgive the unrepentant (Luke 13:1-5). Rather, the answer to Jesus' prayer would be that the Holy Spirit would lead them to repentance, resulting in their forgiveness. We even see this prayer answered in part when the Soldier in the Gospel of Mark confesses "Surely this man was the Son of God" after Jesus has died.

Now, when speaking of Christians forgiving Christians in general, it is safe to state that we ought to forgive all sins, even those which are not repented (See Colossians 3:13). This is not to say that we maintain the same relationship with those who have unrepentedly sinned against us, or that we reconcile with them prior to their repentance, but that we release the right to avenge their sin into God's hands.

But, in the case of Luke 17, Jesus is speaking to the disciples, the Church's first pastors, regarding how they are to forgive. In John 20, Jesus tells them, "If you forgive anyone his sins, they have already been forgiven. If you do not forgive anyone his sins, they have already been retained." The way that the pastor deals with the sins brought to Him is different than the way Christians handle sins against one another. Because the pastor is charged with announcing God's forgiveness rather than merely his own, he does not forgive all sins when acting in his authority as pastor.  Instead, he announces whatever God announces regarding sin. What this means is that pastors forgive sins when the one who confesses is repentant, and they refuse to announce forgiveness for as long as the one who has committed the sin refuses to repent.

Forgiveness works in different ways based on the vocation of those involved. While Christians are to forgive one another at all times, and Jesus, as God, certainly has the right to pray for the forgiveness of whomever He chooses; when pastors are acting in their office as the spiritual shepherd of the congregation, then they are called on some occasions to forgive and on others to retain sins, based on the repentance or lack thereof displayed by the sinner before them.

Church Dress Code?

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about dress codes for church:

Q:  Does the Bible give any requirements about how to dress for church?  What is the reason it has been common for people to dress up to attend services?

On a few occasions, the New Testament does address the issue of clothing, but in a general way rather than specifically in reference to attending a church service.  On those occasions, it encourages modesty in the style of dress and discourages Christians from relying on their clothing, jewelry, or other merely outward qualities as a source of pride or value.

There is one occasion in 1 Corinthians 11 on which the Apostle Paul addresses appearance and particularly mentions the way a person dresses for prayer.  At first glance, this appears to be a set of instructions on hair length and whether it is appropriate for men and women to pray with or without their heads covered. 

Many have interpreted this chapter over the years as a command that men may not have long hair and must not wear hats in church, while women must wear their hair long and must wear either a hat to church or pin a symbolic covering on some portion of their head during services.  However, such a reading is out of harmony with the character of the rest of the New Testament and ignores what is really at issue in the Church at Corinth. 

This is because beyond a few basic commands on church discipline and the institution of the Pastoral office, the New Testament does not make a practice of pronouncing commands on the appearance, diet, or other areas of Christian life, except for those which flow from the Ten Commandments. 

The issue at Corinth was that the way a woman wore her hair and whether she covered her head were an indication of her sexual availability, and it had become a trend in the city for even married women to give indication by their appearance that they were available, either for free or for pay, then to follow through on that indication when their appearance provoked interest from men. 

In this chapter, Paul is not making a divine pronouncement about the morality of hair length or the wearing of hats in church, but rather he is saying that Christians in general should be careful about the witness that their appearance gives, and in particular that women ought not attend church dressed as if they are prostitutes. 

The American tradition of dressing well for church, with men in suits and women in dresses, is a reflection of our culture’s expectation that people dress nicely for important occasions, especially when those occasions involve an encounter with someone in a superior position, such as the president, or a judge in court, or in this case, God Himself.  American Christians have typically dressed up for church as a sign of respect for God.  This is especially true in traditions, such as Lutheran and Roman Catholic, which believe that Jesus is really (not just symbolically) present in the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper.

Likewise, the American expectation that men not wear hats in church is in keeping with the etiquette that it is appropriate for men to remove their hats indoors, especially in formal situations.  As in many other instances, even when a social expectation has begun to decline in society, it often holds on longer in the church.

Ultimately, the question of how one dresses for church is not a matter of right and wrong or whether it is a sin if one fails to dress well enough.  Instead, it is a question of what is wise and what best reflects to those around us what we believe about God and about what is happening when we attend the services of the Church.